-------
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOHC Dual Overhead Camshaft Engines
DOT Department of Transportation
DPF Diesel Particulate Filter
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DR Discount Rate
DRIA Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
DVVL Discrete Variable Valve Lift
EC European Commission
EC Elemental Carbon
ECU Electronic Control Unit
ED Emergency Department
EERA Energy and Environmental Research Associates
EFR Engine Friction Reduction
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
EHPS Electrohydraulic Power Steering
EIA Energy Information Administration (part of the U. S. Department of Energy)
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act
EMS-HAP Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollution
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPS Electric Power Steering
ERG Eastern Research Group
ESC Electronic Stability Control
EV Electric Vehicle
F Frequency
FEL Family Emission Limit
FET Federal Excise Tax
FEV1 Functional Expiratory Volume
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FOH Fuel Operated Heater
FR Federal Register
FTP Federal Test Procedure
FVC Forced Vital Capacity
g Gram
g/s Gram-per-second
g/ton-mile Grams emitted to move one ton (2000 pounds) of freight over one mile
gal Gallon
-------
gal/1000 ton- Gallons of fuel used to move one ton of payload (2,000 pounds) over 1000
mile miles
GCAM Global Change Assessment Model
GCW Gross Combined Weight
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEM Greenhouse gas Emissions Model
GEOS Goddard Earth Observing System
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GIFT Geospatial Intermodal Freight Transportation
GREET Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation
GSF1 Generic Speed Form one
GUI Graphical User Interface
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GWP Global Warming Potential
HABs Harmful Algal Blooms
HAD Diesel Health Assessment Document
HC Hydrocarbon
HD Heavy-Duty
HDUDDS Heavy Duty Urban Dynamometer Driving Cycle
HEG High Efficiency Gearbox
HEI Health Effects Institute
HES Health Effects Subcommittee
HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
HFET Highway Fuel Economy Dynamometer Procedure
HHD Heavy Heavy-Duty
HHDDT Highway Heavy-Duty Diesel Transient
hp Horsepower
hrs Hours
HRV Heart Rate Variability
HSC High Speed Cruise Duty Cycle
HTUF Hybrid Truck User Forum
hz Hertz
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IATC Improved Automatic Transmission Control
IC Indirect Costs
ICCT International Council on Clean Transport
ICD International Classification of Diseases
ICF ICF International
ICM Indirect Cost Multiplier
ICP Intake Cam Phasing
IMAC Improved Mobile Air Conditioning
IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
-------
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRFA
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
ISA
Integrated Science Assessment
JAMA
Journal of the American Medical Association
k
Thousand
kg
Kilogram
KI
kinetic intensity
km
Kilometer
km/h
Kilometers per Hour
kW
Kilowatt
L
Liter
lb
Pound
LD
Light-Duty
LHD
Light Heavy-Duty
LLNL
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's
LRR
Lower Rolling Resistance
LSC
Low Speed Cruise Duty Cycle
LT
Light Trucks
LTCCS
Large Truck Crash Causation Study
LUB
Low Friction Lubes
LUC
Land Use Change
m2
Square Meters
m3
Cubic Meters
MAGICC
Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change
MCF
Mixed Conifer Forest
MD
Medium-Duty
MDPV
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
mg
Milligram
MHD
Medium Heavy-Duty
MHEV
Mild Hybrid
mi
mile
min
Minute
MM
Million
MMBD
Million Barrels per Day
MMT
Million Metric Tons
MOVES
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
mpg
Miles per Gallon
mph
Miles per Hour
MSAT
Mobile Source Air Toxic
MRL
Minimal Risk Level
MT
Manual Transmission
MY
Model Year
-------
N20 Nitrous Oxide
NA Not Applicable
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAFA National Association of Fleet Administrators
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxic Assessment
NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research
NCI National Cancer Institute
NCLAN National Crop Loss Assessment Network
NEC Net Energy Change Tolerance
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NEMS National Energy Modeling System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESCAUM Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management
NESCCAF Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NHS National Highway System
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NiMH Nickel Metal-Hydride
NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Nm Newton-meters
NMHC Nonmethane Hydrocarbons
NMMAPS National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
N02 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NPV Net Present Value
NRC National Research Council
NRC-CAN National Research Council of Canada
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NTP National Toxicology Program
NVH Noise Vibration and Harshness
O&M Operating and maintenance
03 Ozone
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OC Organic Carbon
OE Original Equipment
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OHV Overhead Valve
-------
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OPEC
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
ORD
EPA's Office of Research and Development
ORNL
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OTAQ
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Pa
Pascal
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PEF
Peak Expiratory Flow
PEMS
Portable Emissions Monitoring System
PGM
Platinum Group Metal
PHEV
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
PM
Particulate Matter
PMio
Coarse Particulate Matter (diameter of 10 |im or less)
pm25
Fine Particulate Matter (diameter of 2.5 (im or less)
POM
Polycyclic Organic Matter
Ppb
Parts per Billion
Ppm
Parts per Million
Psi
Pounds per Square Inch
PTO
Power Take Off
R&D
Research and Development
RBM
Resisting Bending Moment
REL
Reference Exposure Level
RESS
Rechargeable Energy Storage System
RFA
Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC
Reference Concentration
RFS2
Renewable Fuel Standard 2
RIA
Regulatory Impact Analysis
RPE
Retail Price Equivalent
Rpm
Revolutions per Minute
RSWT
Reduced-Scale Wind Tunnel
S
Second
SAB
Science Advisory Board
SAB-HES
Science Advisory Board - Health Effects Subcommittee
SAE
Society of Automotive Engineers
SAR
Second Assessment Report
SAV
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SBA
Small Business Administration
SBAR
Small Business Advocacy Review
SBREFA
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
see
Social Cost of Carbon
SCR
Selective Catalyst Reduction
SER
Small Entity Representation
SET
Supplemental Emission Test
-------
SGDI
Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection
SHEV
Strong Hybrid Vehicles
SI
Spark-Ignition
SIDI
Spark Ignition Direct Injection
S02
Sulfur Dioxide
SOx
Sulfur Oxides
SOA
Secondary Organic Aerosol
SOC
State of Charge
SOHC
Single Overhead Cam
SOx
Oxides of Sulfur
SPR
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
STB
Surface Transportation Board
Std.
Standard
STP
Scaled Tractive Power
SUV
Sport Utility Vehicle
svoc
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
SwRI
Southwest Research Institute
TAR
Technical Assessment Report
TC
Total Costs
TCp
Total Cost package
TDS
Turbocharging And Downsizing
THC
Total Hydrocarbon
TIAX
TIAX LLC
TMC
Technology & Maintenance Council
TOFC
Trailer-on-Flatcar
Ton-mile
One ton (2000 pounds) of payload over one mile
TPM
Tire Pressure Monitoring
TRBDS
Turbocharging and Downsizing
TRU
Trailer Refrigeration Unit
TSD
Technical Support Document
TSS
Thermal Storage
TTMA
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
TW
Test Weight
U/DAF
Upward and Downward Adjustment Factor
UCT
Urban Creep and Transient Duty Cycle
UFP
Ultra Fine Particles
URE
Unit Risk Estimate
USD A
United States Department of Agriculture
USGCRP
United States Global Change Research Program
uv
Ultraviolet
UV-b
Ultraviolet-b
VHHD
Vocational Heavy Heavy-Duty
YIN
Vehicle Identification Number
-------
VIUS
Vehicle Inventory Use Survey
VLHD
Vocational Light Heavy-Duty
VMHD
Vocational Medium Heavy-Duty
VMT
Vehicle Miles Traveled
voc
Volatile Organic Compound
VSL
Vehicle Speed Limiter
VTRIS
Vehicle Travel Information System
VVL
Variable Valve Lift
VVT
Variable Valve Timing
WACAP
Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project
WBS
Wide Base Singles
WHR
Waste Heat Recovery
WHTC
World Harmonized Transient Cycle
WHVC
World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle
WRF
Weather Research Forecasting
WTP
Willingness-to-Pay
WTVC
World Wide Transient Vehicle Cycle
WVU
West Virginia University
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
1 General Comments 1
1.1 General Comments on the Proposed Phase 2 Program
The following comments relate in general to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM). The comments in this chapter are not on any specific aspect of the proposed rule; rather, they
are directed to the general substance of the proposal. Responses to more detailed comments on specific
provisions of the proposal can be found in later chapters of this joint Response to Comments (RTC), as
well as the FRM Preamble, and the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). For more information on the
proposed rule, see the Federal Register at 80 FR 40138, published on July 13, 2015. The public
comments submitted on this rule can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov (the public dockets for
this rulemaking are docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827 andNHTSA-2014-0132).
We received a large number of comments on the Phase 2 NPRM, and even in their general
comments many stakeholders expressed concerns with very specific aspects of the program. In
responding comments about the general substance of the program below, we have categorized these
comments into four broad categories: comments that generally support the Phase 2 program, comments
that support the goals of the Phase 2 program but with concerns about specific aspects of the proposal,
comments that generally call for stronger standards, and comments that generally call for no regulation
or that question the need for Phase 2 GHG/fuel efficiency standards. While some comments are
applicable to more than one category, we considered each comment's overall message in associating
one commenter per category. Comments made on specific aspects of the Phase 2 program are responded
to according to topic in the later chapters of this document.
Comments that Generally Support the Phase 2 Program
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Barcode Technology Solutions
Burger, Mark
City of Bloomington
City of Lawrence, Indiana
City of Carmel, IN
City of South Bend, Indiana
Clean Energy
Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO)
Cleantech San Diego
Diaz, Miguel
Earth Day Coalition (EDC)
Edison Solar Inc.
Energy Ohio Network
Enevo Inc.
Hoosier Environmental Council
League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County
Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator (LACI)
Mazza & Sons, Inc.
Midwest Truckers Association
Momentum Wireless Power
MPI Solar
National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)
-------
Ohio Environmental Council (OEC)
Ohio Sustainable Business Council (SBC)
PepsiCo
Pew Charitable Trusts
Quasar Energy Group
Refrigerated Food Express Inc. et al.
Sanborn Head
Solar Provider Group
Steady State Supply
Walmart Transportation
Zero Truck
Comments that Generally Support the Goals of the Phase 2 Program but with Detailed Concerns
about Specific Aspects of the Proposal
Alcoa
Allison Transmissions, Inc.
American Automotive Policy Council (AAPA)
Autocar, LLC
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
BYD Motors
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Convoy Solutions LLC (related to Idle Air)
CALSTART
Center for Biological Diversity
Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
Cummins, Inc.
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Mercedes Benz USA
Dana Holding Corporation
Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA)
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
FCA US, LLC
Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association (FAMA)
Ford Motor Company
GILLIG LLC
Honeywell Transportation System (HTS)
Hino Motors, Ltd.
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Idle Smart
IdleAIR
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW)
Isuzu Motors Limited
Meritor, Inc
Oshkosh Corporation
Lubrizol Corporation
NAFA Fleet Management Association
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Navistar, Inc.
-------
New Flyer of America Inc.
NGV America
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Odyne Systems LLC
Optimus Technologies
PACCAR, Inc.
Parker Hannifin
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
ROUSCH CleanTech
Securing America's Future Energy
Sierra Club
SmartTruck
Thermo King
Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
United Parcel Service (UPS)
Volvo Group
Wabash National Corporation
Waste Management (WM)
Werner Enterprises
XL Hybrids
Comments that Generally Call for More Stringent Standards
Achates Power, et al.
Advanced Engine System Institute (AESI)
American Lung Association
Amy's Kitchen et al.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy
California State Senator Ricardo Lara
California Interfaith Power and Light
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life
Ceres
City of West Hollywood
Clean Air Task Force et al.
Climate 911
Climate Resolve
Coalition for Clean Air/California Cleaner Freight Coalition
Dignity Health
Environmental Law and Policy Center
Fuller, Tony
Investor Network on Climate Risk
Environment California Research and Policy Center, Environment America Research and Policy Center
Fort, Karen
Gilroy, JD
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Environment America
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by KnowWho Auto Mailer
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Sierra Club
-------
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists
McNicols
Moms Clean Air Force
Nelson, Dennis
Orange EV
Quealy, Kevin
Respiratory Health Association
Siemens
Stuckey, Richard
Transportation Power
US Hybrid Corporation
Comments that Generally Call for No Regulation or Question the Need for Phase 2 GHG/Fuel
Efficiency Standards 4
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Schneider National Inc.
Response:
The Phase 2 program builds on our commitment to robust collaboration with stakeholders and the
public, following an expansive and thorough outreach effort in which the agencies gathered input, data
and views from heavy-duty vehicle and engine manufacturers, technology suppliers, trucking fleets,
truck drivers, dealerships, environmental organizations, and state agencies. We appreciate the time and
effort taken by the commenters in developing these comments.
Many commenters generally supported the Phase 2 program or the goals of the proposal. The detailed
comments on specific aspects of the proposal submitted by many commenters that supported overall
program goals covered a range of positions - from support for standards that are less stringent than the
proposed alternative (Alternative 3) to support for standards that are stronger than the more stringent
alternative considered (Alternative 4). Similarly, we received general comments that call for a stronger
program and those that call for no regulation or questions the need for further GHG/fuel efficiency
reductions from the heavy-duty vehicle sector.
The agencies have revised the proposed standards and related requirements to address issues raised in
these comments, resulting in an improved final program. While fundamentally similar to the proposed
rules, the final program will achieve greater GHG and fuel consumption savings. Responding to the
President's Climate Action Plan and his February 18, 2014 directive, as well as our statutory
obligations, the final Phase 2 program includes technology-advancing standards that will phase in over
the long-term (through model year 2027) to result in an ambitious, yet achievable program that will
significantly reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption from new on-road medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles. Phase 2 will maintain the underlying regulatory structure developed in the Phase 1 program,
such as the general categorization of Heavy-Duty Vehicles HDVs (including vehicles considered
Medium-Duty Vehicles or MDVs under NHTSA regulations) and the separate standards for vehicles
and engines. The final standards are almost entirely performance based, allowing manufacturers to meet
standards through a mix of different technologies at reasonable cost. As described in the Preamble,
EPA and NHTSA believe the final standards best fulfill our respective statutory authorities when
-------
considered in the context of available technology, feasible reductions of emissions and fuel
consumption, costs, lead time, safety, and other relevant factors.
For responses to specific issues raised these comments, please see the separate chapters of this joint
Response to Comment document.
1.2 Support for a National Program
Many commenters expressed support for a single, national set of standards, i.e., a program harmonized
between the two agencies and across all 50 states. These commenters include:
American Automotive Policy Council
American Trucking Associations (ATA)
California Trucking Association
Caterpillar, Daimler, Navistar, PACCAR, and the Volvo Group
Chemours Company FC, LLC
Cummins, Inc
Diesel Technology Forum
Eaton Vehicle Group
Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA)
FCA US, LLC
FedEx Corporation
Ford Motor Company
General Motors
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW)
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Navistar, Inc.
Nissan
Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Volvo Group
Isuzu Motors Limited
United Parcel Service (UPS)
Walmart Transportation
Response:
Finalizing federal standards that would help manufacturers continue to build a single fleet of vehicles
and engines is an important goal of the Phase 2 program. The agencies have made significant efforts to
coordinate the Phase 2 standards between EPA and NHTSA and with the California Air Resources
Board (CARB). The agencies have consulted frequently with CARB staff during the development of
this rule, given California's unique ability among the states to adopt their own GHG standards for on-
highway engines and vehicles (assuming criteria of CAA section 209 (b) are satisfied). As discussed in
the NPRM, the agencies' technical staffs have shared information on technology cost, technology
effectiveness, and feasibility with the CARB staff prior to the proposal. See 80 FR 40150. We also
received information from CARB on these same topics. EPA and NHTSA have also shared preliminary
results from several of our modeling exercises with CARB as we examined different potential levels of
-------
stringency for the Phase 2 program. In addition, CARB staff and managers have also participated with
EPA and NHTSA in meetings with many external stakeholders, in particular with vehicle OEMs and
technology suppliers. We have also had additional discussions with CARB, as documented in the
agencies' dockets. Through this close coordination, the agencies are finalizing a Phase 2 program that
will be fully aligned between EPA and NHTSA, while providing CARB with the opportunity to adopt a
Phase 2 program that will allow manufacturers to continue to build a single fleet of vehicles and
engines.
1.3 EPA and NHTSA Statutory Authorities 6
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Legal Authority
Alternative 4 is consistent with U.S. EPA's authority to promulgate GHG emission standards under the
federal CAA, and with NHTSA's authority to promulgate fuel efficiency standards under the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.24]
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
THE PROPOSED STANDARDS DO NOT MEET THE TECHNOLOGY-FORCING
REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNING STATUTES
The applicable statutes require that the Proposed Rule implement fuel efficiency standards that achieve
the maximum feasible improvement in HD Vehicle fuel efficiency and are technology-forcing. The
Proposed Rule fails to fulfill this mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p.4]
Statutory Overview
The purposes of the Energy Policy Conversation Act ("EPCA") are to decrease the nation's dependence
on foreign imports, to enhance national security and to achieve the efficient utilization of scarce
resources.13 To achieve these goals, EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 ("EISA"), expressly demands that NHTSA set maximum feasible fuel economy standards.14 In
the case of HD Vehicles, Section 32902(k) of EPCA requires NHTSA to set standards and implement a
HD Vehicle "fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement."15 The requisite standards shall be "appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically
feasible for commercial medium-and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks."16 In fulfilling
its duties under Section 32902(a), NHTSA "cannot set fuel economy standards that are contrary to
Congress's purpose in enacting the EPCA - energy conservation," it cannot act arbitrarily and
capriciously; it cannot advance conclusions unsupported by the evidence; if it conducts cost-benefit
analyses, it may not assign values of zero to benefits that can be ascertained within a range; and it
cannot bias its cost-benefit analysis.17 Section 32902(k) imposes the same requirements. In addition,
fuel efficiency standards under EPCA and EISA must be technology-forcing.18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1460-A1 p.4]
While the Agencies may have discretion, as noted in the Proposed Rule, to balance the factors related to
maximum feasible improvements and technology-forcing, this discretion is not unlimited. The Agencies
may not make arbitrary and capricious determinations that ignore the statutory limits upon that
-------
discretion. As discussed below, the Proposed Rule fails to achieve the statutory mandates of setting
maximum feasible fuel efficiency improvements and of forcing technological innovation by
purposefully limiting itself to the application of technology that is either commercially available today
or mere steps from market-ready, by permitting manufacturers to exclude even some of this technology,
and by failing to present an alternative that truly presents the "maximum feasible" emission reductions.
The Agencies should revise the Proposed Rule and adopt standards that meet their respective statutory
obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p.5]
An Additional 30 Percent Fuel Savings and Greenhouse Gas Reduction is Possible Through
Reasonable Technology Forcing and an Accelerated Implementation Schedule
The technologies upon which the Agencies based the proposed standards are largely already in use or
else very close to market ready. Yet, as discussed above, by statute the Agencies must consider all
innovative technologies as well. Doing so to the maximum reasonable level would bring additional
significant benefits and remain feasible in both cost and manufacturing logistics. Furthermore, as the
Agencies repeatedly acknowledge, there are substantial benefits to a faster implementation schedule:
this is both feasible and necessary to comply with the statutory requirement for maximally feasible
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.6]
1. Additional Technology Options
In several instances, the Agencies present a "suite" of presently available and feasible technologies, but
expressly do not require that each technology within the "suite" be applied.21 In other words, the
Agencies make adoption of some proven, available, feasible and efficient technologies optional.
However, in every instance where such "optional" technologies would add to a vehicle's fuel efficiency,
the failure to require their implementation constitutes a violation of the mandates of EISA to produce
the "maximum feasible" fuel efficiency improvements. We urge the Agencies instead to adopt
efficiency standards that include every one of the technologies now allocated to an optional technology
"suite", excepting only those that provide no additional benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1
p. 6]
The Proposed Rule represents an unreasonable balancing of factors related to technology-forcing. As
noted above, the NHTSA may balance cost, appropriateness and technological feasibility when
determining maximal feasible reductions under the EISA. Similarly, the EPA may balance a number of
factors, also including cost and technological effectiveness. But here, the Phase 2 standards as proposed
would result in not only zero net operating costs (in contrast to the Phase 1 rules), but would even result
in net benefit to operators in the form of fuel savings. Though this seems laudable, these savings have
come at a health and environmental cost that cannot be borne by U.S. citizens. Here, the benefit to truck
operators is far greater than the technologically feasible reductions that would benefit public health and
the environment, and consequently violate the statutory requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1460-A1 p. 6]
The Proposed Rule neglects a wide range of technologies that could significantly reduce fuel use and
emissions. For instance, one analysis indicates that up to 30 percent greater reductions in emissions are
technologically feasible in the timeframe of the Proposed Rule.23 The areas of the Proposed Rule that
should be strengthened are briefly reviewed below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.6]
CONCLUSION
-------
The Proposed Rule must be strengthened to fulfill the technology forcing nature of the Clean Air Act
and to meet the requirement of maximal feasible reductions required by EPCA/EISA. Specifically, the
Phase 2 standards should: (1) reflect all potential technologies; (2) assume more aggressive penetration
rates and reduction potential; and (3) occur over a shorter implementation period. Furthermore, we urge
the EPA to revisit the treatment of methane emissions from natural gas engines and vehicles to ensure
that the climate benefits of the Phase 2 standards are not compromised. Finally, the Center requests that
EPA require adequate after-treatment of APU exhaust to ensure that nationwide particulate matter
emissions do not increase as a result of the Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1
P-21]
13 Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007).
14 49 U.S.C. § 32902(a).
15 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k)(2) (emphasis added).
16 Id.
17 Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, supra note 13, 538 F.3d at 1197, 1200, and passim.
18 EPCA and EISA are meant to encourage technological innovation in the field, not simply promote
the wider adoption of existing technologies. See, e.g., Center for Auto Safety v. Thomas, 847 F.2d 843,
870 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (overruled on other grounds) ("[t]he experience of a decade leaves little doubt that
the congressional scheme in fact induced manufacturers to achieve major technological breakthroughs
as they advanced towards the mandated goal"); Green Mt. Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie,
508 F. Supp. 2d 295, 358-359 (D. Vt. 2007) (discussing technology-forcing character of EPCA and the
use of increased fuel efficiency to augment performance rather than mileage); Kennecott Greens Creek
Min. Co. v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., 476 F.3d 946, 957 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("when a statute is
technology forcing, the agency can impose a standard which only the most technologically advanced
plants in an industry have been able to achieve - even if only in some of their operations some of the
time"). The Clean Air Act is similarly technology-forcing. Legislative history indicates that the primary
purpose of the Act was not "to be limited by what is or appears to be technologically or economically
feasible," which may mean that "industries will be asked to do what seems impossible at the present
time." 116 Cong. Rec. 32901-32902 (1970), Legislative History of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970
(Committee Print compiled for the Senate Committee on Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser.
No. 93-18, p. 227 (1974); see also Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 531 U.S. 457, 491
(2001).
21 See, e.g., infra comment letter subsection a. Engine Standards, regarding spark-ignition engine
standards and subsection d. Tractor-Trailers, regarding tractor aerodynamics.
23 Sharpe, What is at stake, supra note 1.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
NON-REGULATORY STRATEGIES
-------
In its 2014 report, the NAS discussed numerous non-regulatory approaches to increasing FE, including
comprehensive driver training, the use of higher productivity vehicles (e.g., longer combinations),
congestion mitigation, more efficient vehicle deployment and routing, and rigorous maintenance
practices. NADA/ATD recognizes the limited authority EPA and NHTSA have to regulate vehicles in-
use. Nonetheless, EPA and NHTSA are uniquely situated to partner with key government, industry and
other interested stakeholders to promote non-regulatory but effective FE improvement strategies. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 12]
Organization: North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
Nationwide Standard as a Ceiling, not Floor
Regardless of whether regulators move forward with Phase II, manufacturers and consumers need a
single nationwide standard. This applies not only to overall efficiency reduction targets but also to types
of permissible vehicles and weight loads transported across state lines. Manufacturers and shippers face
major hurdles meeting the regulations of various states, often causing transportation delays, rerouting,
and confusion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1283-A1 p.2]
In this instance, we strongly encourage regulators to establish these rules as a ceiling rather than a floor
for states to follow. Manufacturers are concerned certain states may take steps to go beyond the federal
rule and create more stringent regulations. This not only creates significant confusion throughout the
industry, it effectively forces manufacturers to go beyond federal guidelines, particularly in the case of a
state as large and economically significant as California. It is simply not feasible to expect
manufacturers to invest heavily to meet the federal standard only the have the bar moved again by each
state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1283-A1 p.2]
However, should the Administration move forward with the Phase II standards, we encourage regulators
to adopt a nationwide ceiling with achievable standards rejecting Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1283-A1 p.3]
Organization: Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems
The Truck Rule 2 is inconsistent with law: both the Congressional intent underlying the truck fuel
efficiency statute, 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k) ('Truck Rule statute'), and the mandate of the Supreme Court to
'take steps to slow or reduce [global warming].' Massachusetts v. EPA. 549 U.S. 497, 525 (2007)
(emphasis supplied) (interpreting Clean Air Act sections 202(a)(1) and (a)(2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7521(a)(1)
and (a)(2)). A way to make them consistent with law, and, if the two agencies so desired, although they
are not required to, to harmonize them, would be to define 'fuel' as 'fossil fuel.' The two agencies have
not considered this solution, even though it would simply and elegantly address the putative statutory
purposes in far more effective manner than does the proposed Truck Rule 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1125-A1 p.3]
If the two agencies do not adopt this definitional change, but adhere, instead, to the proposed Truck
Rule 2, then this Rule will automatically disqualify a new engine fueled by 100 percent ordinary plant
oil from ever winning the two agencies' certification for sale in the United States.' This anomaly is due
to the Truck Rule 2's calculation of both GHG emissions and fuel consumption as an incorrect surrogate
for 'fuel efficiency' based solely on tailpipe emissions. For the reason stated below, having to do with
the composition of plant oil, the proposed Truck Rule 2's utilizing tailpipe emissions as the sole
determinant of 'fuel efficiency' and GHG emissions unduly penalizes a plant oil-enabled engine; it
-------
would pass either if the two agencies defined 'fuel' to be 'fossil fuel' or if this Rule were changed to
adhere, as POP Diesel points out below, to the lawfully mandated measurement of 'fuel efficiency' as
energy input to the engine (instead of fuel consumed) per unit of work performed and greenhouse gas
emissions as net life cycle emissions (instead of exclusively tailpipe emissions). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1125-A1 p.3]
Since the two agencies have approved of the Clean Air Act criteria emissions from select, retrofitted
plant oil-enabled engines' and EPA has approved of beneficial 100 percent plant oil from the inedible
fruit seeds of the jatropha tree's supplying these engines, this prejudice that the Truck Rule 2 wreaks on
a new POP Diesel-equipped engine prevents 100 percent plant oil fuel from ever coming on to the
market in new engines, without the two agencies' adopting either a waiver or variance from the
proposed Standards for such engines. Since the economics of generating a supply of jatropha plant oil
do not lend themselves to the high cost of POP Diesel's retrofitting older engines that are not subject to
the Truck Rule 2 or its predecessor Truck Rule 1, which took effect in 2011, the viability of this
economically and environmentally-beneficial fuel's coming on to the market in more than just esoteric
applications depends on introduction, following the two agencies' certification, of new engines equipped
from the factory to run on this fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.4]
A. The Fuel Efficiency Standards are inconsistent with law because they measure fuel consumption,
rather than fuel efficiency, and thereby are inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutory law
codified at 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k) and Congressional intent evident therein. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1125-A1 p. 4]
B. The GHG Standards are inconsistent with the law laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Massachusetts v. EPA that following an endangerment finding, which the courts have upheld, EPA must
'take steps to slow or reduce [global warming].' 549 U.S. at 525 (Emphasis supplied). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1125-Alp.4]
1. They measure emissions only coming from the tailpipe, rather than net, life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions, which is the only way to calibrate penalties and rewards so as to bring about
effective change in product offerings and consumer choice in the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1125-Alp.4]
C. Although the two agencies are not under any obligation to harmonize the GHG Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards, the two agencies have not considered crafting a viable, unified regulation that
would be consistent with the Congressional intent underlying both the GHG Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards: to define 'fuel' as the quantity of fossil fuel supplying an engine, according to its
carbon content, for the purposes of calculating both fuel efficiency and GHG emissions. Since the
statutes involved do not define 'fuel,' the two agencies have the discretion to utilize any definition that is
'reasonable.' Chevron. USA. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Defining
'fuel' as 'fossil fuel' would satisfy Congressional intent by proportionally penalizing those engines that
consume more fossil fuel than others, and within the realm of fossil fuels, penalizing a fossil fuel such
as petroleum that has a higher mole weight of carbon than does another fossil fuel, such as natural gas.
Thus, NHTSA is in error in believing that converting tailpipe carbon emissions into fuel consumption is
'necessarily' the only way to gauge 'fuel efficiency' and equating tailpipe emissions with the sum total of
GHG emissions the only way to harmonize the two sets of Standards. Proposed Truck Rule 2, 80 Fed.
Reg. 40137, 40159. EPA's taking the additional step of basing the merit determination for an engine
under the GHG Emissions Standards fully according to the net life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
the fuel powering the engine would bring these Standards into full compliance with the Supreme Court's
mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.4-5]
-------
A. The Fuel Efficiency Standards Are Inconsistent with Law
1. Fuel Efficiency Standards' Fail to Abide by the Plain Meaning of Fuel 'Efficiency'
The Tailpipe Rule is the Truck Rule 2's moniker for measuring tailpipe carbon emissions as the sum
total of engine and vehicle 'greenhouse gas emissions' and converting these carbon emissions into fuel
consumed in erroneous satisfaction of Congress's 'fuel efficiency' mandate. The Tailpipe Rule is
contrary to the plain meaning of the term 'fuel efficiency' used in statute codified in 42 U.S.C. §
32902(k)(2).3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1125-A1 p.6]
Dictionaries customarily define 'efficiency' to mean a measurement of the energy input to, rather than
the fuel consumed by, a machine or engine to perform a unit of work or travel a certain distance. For
example, efficiency is: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1125-A1 p.6]
3. Efficient operation as measured by a comparison of actual results with those that could be achieved
with the same expenditure of energy: as [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.6]
a. the ratio of the useful energy delivered by a dynamic system (as a machine, engine, or motor) to the
energy supplied to it over the same period or cycle of operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1
p.6]
Webster's Third New International Dictionary 725 (Merriam-Webster, 2002). Or: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1125-A1 p.6]
the ratio of the useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended or heat
taken in.
New Oxford American Dictionary 554 (Oxford U. Press, 3ded. 2010). Or: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1125-A1 p.6]
3. the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it,
usually expressed as a percentage.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 455 (1983). Or: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1125-A1 p.6]
2b. The ratio of the energy delivered by a machine to the energy supplied for its operation.
The American Heritage College Dictionary 446 (Houghton Mifflin Co., 4th ed. 2002). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1125-Alp.7]
In sum, all dictionaries define the word 'efficiency' to be energy input to an engine per unit of work
performed, not fuel consumed. That the Fuel Efficiency Standards fail to define 'fuel efficiency' by its
only common definition defies the plain meaning of the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1
p.7]
2. The Fuel Efficiency Standards Fail to Give Meaning to the Statutory Term 'Fuel Economy'; As
a Matter of Truck Statutory Construction, the Only Feasible Meaning with Respect to Trucks Is
'Fuel Efficiency' (i.e., Energy Input to the Engine)
-------
To consider the two agencies' statutory basis for anchoring the two sets of Standards on tailpipe
emissions, because the preamble to the proposed Truck Rule 2 does not go into as much detail, POP
Diesel refers to excerpts from the preamble to the Final Rule for these Standards that took effect in 2011
('Final Truck Rule 1'), on which the proposed Truck Rule 2 is based. These excerpts appear as Exhibit 4
[exhibit 4 can be found on p.25 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1].[EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.7]
As a matter of statutory construction, POP Diesel agrees with NHTSA that Congress has expressly
defined 'fuel economy' with regards to light duty vehicles to mean 'miles per gallon,' but that this metric
is unsuitable for the commercial trucking sector because of the substantial and variable weight that
trucks haul over distance. Final Truck Rule 1, 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106, 57,133 / 1-2 (Sept. 15, 2011). See,
e.g.. 49 U.S.C. § 32912(b) (authorizing penalties on car manufacturers per 0.1 mile-per-gallon excess).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.7]
However, NHTSA's selection of 'fuel consumption' to govern the Truck Rule 2, instead of the measure
of 'fuel efficiency' that accords with its plain, dictionary meaning,' fails to give any meaning in the
Truck Rule 2 to the term 'fuel economy' that Congress included in a subsidiary clause in 49 U.S.C. §
32902(k)(2). 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k)(2) ('and [DOT and EPA] shall adopt and implement... [truck] fuel
economy standards'). Since Congress is presumed to have intended to give meaning to every word and
phrase it includes in statute, the failure by NHTSA's adoption of a 'fuel consumption' metric to give any
meaning to the term 'fuel economy,' as that term is stated in Congress's directive for NHTSA's
development of truck 'fuel efficiency' standards,' raises a further question about the validity of the 'fuel
consumption'metric itself. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.7]
POP Diesel agrees with NHTSA's position that there is and must be a difference between 'fuel economy'
and 'fuel consumption' with regards to trucks and the Truck Rule 2. As NHTSA stated, 'the [heavy duty]
program is built around a fuel consumption metric,' versus a 'fuel economy' metric. 76 Fed. Reg. at
57,133 / 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.8]
Since, as NHTSA stated, 'fuel economy' does not mean 'fuel consumption' with regards to the Truck
Rule statute, one must give a different meaning to 'fuel economy' in this context. In conclusion, the
plain, dictionary meaning of 'fuel efficiency' set forth above means that Congress must have intended
both 'fuel efficiency' and the subsidiary term 'fuel economy' stated in 42 U.S.C. § 32909(k)(2) to mean,
with respect to trucks (and not light duty vehicles subject to 42 U.S.C. § 32912(b)), the exact same
thing: fuel energy supplied to the engine per unit of work performed by the engine, and not fuel
consumed by the engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.8]
3. The Legislative History Supports the View That the Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards Need Not Both Turn on the Same Measure of Tailpipe Emissions
Recapping, the Tailpipe Rule's measure of 'fuel efficiency' by the rate of carbon coming out the tailpipe
is contrary to the plain meaning of the term 'fuel efficiency' used in Congress's mandate to NHTSA,
codified in 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k)(2), to adopt a 'commercial [] truck fuel efficiency program' that
'achieve[s] the maximum feasible improvement.' POP Diesel submits that the term 'fuel efficiency'
means the amount of fuel energy going into a truck engine per unit of work performed, not the amount
of carbon emissions coming out the tailpipe, which the Fuel Efficiency Standards convert to a measure
of fuel consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.8]
The legislative commentary, from the Senate debate, on adoption of the provision now codified as 49
U.S.C. § 32902(k)(2) is included in the Senate Congressional Record for December 13, 2007, at pages
-------
S15385-S15389 and S15421-S15432, attached hereto as Exhibit 5 [exhibit 5 can be found on p.34 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1].6 Senator Diane Feinstein's unopposed comments
therein support POP Diesel's position that Congress did not intend that the Fuel Efficiency and the
Greenhouse Gas Standards rely on the same measure of tailpipe emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1125-A1 p. 8]
While agreeing with Senators Carl Levin and Daniel Inouye that there was no reason why the two sets
of standards could not, generally speaking, be 'consistent' with each other, Senator Feinstein stated, at
page S15386, 'Congress resisted all efforts to add legislative language requiring 'harmonization' of the[]
EPA and NHTSA standards.' Exhibit 5. On information and belief, Sen. Feinstein made this statement to
preserve California's life cycle greenhouse gas emissions standards ('the California standards') that were
then under development or in effect. These were different from fuel efficiency standards and were more
stringent than the tailpipe measurement of GHG emissions included in the subsequent federal Truck
Rule 1 adopted in 2011. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 8-9]
A federal court in California later struck down the California standards as being violative of the
Constitution's Commerce Clause because, measuring and comparing the entire life cycle emissions of
different fuels, they penalized, for instance, biodiesel made from soy that came all the way from the
Midwest, as compared to biodiesel that came from soy grown locally in California. As a result of this
decision, California later abandoned its net life cycle greenhouse gas emissions standards and for the
sake of nationwide conformity, made them identical to the federal Truck Rule's Tailpipe Rule that forms
the heart of the Truck Rule 1 and proposed Truck Rule 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.9]
The point that Sen. Feinstein was making in the Senate floor debate was that federal greenhouse
emissions standards need not be identical to federal fuel efficiency standards because Congress resisted
including language that would have made them so. Even so, EPA and NHTSA went ahead made them
identical by using the measure of tailpipe carbon emissions as an (incorrect) surrogate for 'fuel
efficiency' and (incomplete) surrogate for 'greenhouse gas emissions.' POP Diesel suggests in part C
below a simple way that the two sets of standards could be harmonized in keeping with the statutory
purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.9]
B. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Are Inconsistent with Law
1. The GHG Standards Are Legally Inadequate for Measuring Only Tailpipe Emissions, and Not
Net Life Cycle Emissions
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, a
2013 decision, that EPA was not exempt from basing its penalty and merits assessments with respect to
stationary source GHG emissions on an assessment of full life cycle emissions. Although the Court has
not had occasion to extend this holding to 42 U.S.C. §§ 7521(a)(1) and (a)(2)) requiring Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Standards for trucks, logically, the Clean Air Act should compel assessment of net life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions in every instance, since that is the only way to penalize and reward
engine technologies and the fuels they enable so as to cause market players to make effective decisions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.9]
For instance, a study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and a literature review
commissioned by EPA both concluded that 100% plant oil embodies approximately half the energy in
its manufacture, including planting the oil-bearing plants, harvesting, extracting the oil, and in transport,
as does its biodiesel-processed derivative. Exhibits 6 and 7 [exhibit 6 can be found on p.41 and exhibit 7
can be found on p.44 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1], The process to make
-------
HEFA's out of plant oil is similarly energy intensive: hydro-processing plant oil and then running this
through a petroleum refinery. Therefore, per unit of fuel used, plant oil has far superior greenhouse gas-
mitigating potential than do biodiesel or HEFA's. Yet the Renewable Fuel Standard ('RFS'), as EPA has
implemented it, is only concerned with life cycle greenhouse gas emissions insofar as a fuel crosses
either the 20% threshold in GHG reduction, compared to the petroleum base, to qualify as a 'renewable
fuel' or the 50% threshold GHG reduction to qualify as an 'advanced biofuel.' EPA has not yet factored
into the Renewable Fuel Standard any life cycle analysis that would differentiate in the award of
tradable credits as between fuels passing either of these thresholds that have markedly different global
warming-mitigation value. Since EPA has already determined that biodiesel and HEFA's qualify as
'advanced biofuels,' the RFS, as presently constructed, would not award the use of ordinary plant oil any
more tradable credits per gallon than EPA has already awarded biodiesel or HEFA's, were EPA to
approve POP Diesel's pending petitions for a pathway for tradable RFS credits for ordinary jatropha
plant oil used as fuel. POP Diesel's petitions to EPA to award ordinary plant oil higher or double the
tradeable credits of biodiesel have been pending since February 2012, July 2012 and May 2014. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1125-A1 p.9-10]
A POP Diesel-equipped new engine running on 100% plant oil except for the brief startup and shut-
down periods on petroleum diesel magnifies the superior global warming-mitigation value of ordinary
plant oil fuel because, in comparison, biodiesel and HEFA's ordinarily blend in subordination to
petroleum diesel. Nationwide standards adopted by the Petroleum Products Committee of ASTM
International and incorporated by law in most states limit biodiesel for most applications, including on-
highway use, to at most a 5% to 20% blend, with the remainder being 80% to 95% petroleum diesel.
While ASTM Standard Specification D-975 no longer distinguishes between the source of the fuel,
whether petroleum hydrocarbons or plant oil hydrocarbons turned into HEFA's, as a practical matter, the
80% to 95% balance of 5% to 20% biodiesel or HEFA's will be petroleum, and not a processed
derivative of plant oil.' Therefore, these other diesel engine biofuels, while having inferior greenhouse
gas-mitigating value, do not run at close to the 100% concentration that POP Diesel Fuel comprised of
100% jatropha plant oil operates at in a POP Diesel-equipped engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-
Alp.10]
Once EPA acts on POP Diesel's petitions for a pathway to receive tradable credits under the Renewable
Fuel Standard for jatropha plant oil, POP Diesel will be disadvantaged in comparison to these other
derivative fuels from plant oil, unless EPA concurrently proposes a level of credits commensurate with
plant oil's superior net life cycle emissions value, in comparison to biodiesel's and HEFA's'. Given the
need for modest expenditure of an additional $1,500 to $3,000 per new semi truck engine specially
equipped to run from the factory on this fuel with modified fuel tank, heaters and valve set comprising
the patented and EPA- and NHTSA-approved POP Diesel Fuel System, there would not be any
governmental incentive for private investment to finance POP Diesel's business, and the broader
distribution and sale of its global warming-preferred fuel, unless EPA simultaneously awards tradable
credits per gallon of 100% jatropha plant oil worth well more than those for the more highly processed
and energy intensive fuels deriving from this oil. Without these correspondingly more valuable tradable
credits per volume equivalent of POP Diesel Fuel, private financiers may conclude to eschew POP
Diesel's products in favor of the alternatives which are not as beneficial to the cause of fighting global
warming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1125-A1 p. 10-11]
While the proposed Truck Rule 2 relies without change on the Truck Rule l's assessment of different
alternative fuels and their corresponding engine technologies, this assessment, on which basis EPA
decides to focus on solely tailpipe emissions in measuring GHG emissions, is more deeply flawed,
given the passage of time, than it was at the time of the 2011 publication of the Truck Rule 1.
Regardless of the fact that the majority of the electricity generated in the United States continues to
-------
derive from the combustion of fossil fuels, battery-powered electric engines are unsuitable for the
trucking market because they cannot produce the torque necessary. There are no hydrogen-powered
trucks on the market, and none planned, as far as POP Diesel is aware. As set forth in the news release
that is Exhibit 8 [exhibit 8 can be found on p.49 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-
Al], the two semi truck engine manufacturers which had started to develop such new engines to run on
natural gas halted this development in 2014. Since the proposed Truck Rule 2 disqualifies an engine
from certification running on 100% plant oil, the only kind of engine left for the trucking market is a
petroleum diesel engine certified to run on 5% to 20% biodiesel, which will not suffice to satisfy EPA's
mandate to 'slow or reduce' global warming from trucks, since these trucks will continue to combust
80% to 95% fossil fuel petroleum. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 11]
As is set forth in comments submitted to the proposed Truck Rule 1 docket, Exhibit 9 (page 16-155
therein) [exhibit 9 can be found on p.52 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1], the
California Air Resources Board has already done significant work to determine and compare life cycle
GI-IG emissions from different engine-enabled fuels. This approach is very feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 11]
C. Nonetheless, the Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Can Be
'Harmonized' by Defining 'Fuel' as 'Fossil Fuel' and Measuring Net, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Versus Exclusively Tailpipe Emissions
If they want to, the two agencies can achieve 'harmonization' of the Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards in the following way, fully in keeping with the two sets of statutory mandates, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 12]
1. Define 'fuel' as 'fossil fuel.' ('Fuel' is not defined in the statute; therefore, the agencies can use
any 'reasonable' definition, according the Supreme Court case Chevron v. Natural Resources
Defense Council.. 467 U.S. 837). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 13]
2. Measure 'greenhouse gas emissions' as net, life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel that
runs in the engine, not simply and exclusively as tailpipe emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1125-A1 p. 13]
Therefore, by definition, those engines that have less fossil fuel going into them will have better 'fuel
efficiency' and also lower net, life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-
A1 p. 13]
Since POP Diesel expects that by the time of publication of the final Truck Rule 2, it will have an
agreement with an original diesel engine manufacturer to manufacture POP Diesel-equipped engines for
the medium- and heavy-duty market for sale ready from the factory to run on 100% jatropha plant oil,
POP Diesel would like to be able to introduce these engines to the diesel engine U.S. market. However,
since the existing Truck Rule 1 and Truck Rule 2, as presently written, would not permit such a new
engine to win certification for the reasons stated above, there is no point in POP Diesel's even
submitting such an engine for certification testing. POP Diesel prays that if the two agencies do not
agree in full with POP Diesel's comments and amend the proposed Truck Rule 2 accordingly, they will
grant it such relief as will allow its engines fairly to become certification on the merits of their true fuel
efficiency and net life cycle GHG emissions performance, so that it will be able to sell its engines in the
United States market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 14]
[The following comments are from a supplemental comment with a correction to the original comments
in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1467-A2]
-------
I write on behalf of the above-named corporation, which goes by the short name POP Diesel, to make
one correction and amplify one point for your consideration in addition to the comments submitted on
September 11, 2015 ("Comments"). These supplemental and amended comments give details on and
concern matters that your two agencies have not heretofore considered. Because of the novelty and
profundity of its Comments, POP Diesel had been unable to formulate these details by the deadline of
its September 11 submission. Therefore, I respectfully request that the agencies give this statement full
consideration at this time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1467-A2 p. 1]
The amplification is to Part IV, Section (C), Point (1) of the Comments, as to the details of how POP
Diesel proposes that the agencies measure fossil fuel going into a truck engine. The Comments and
Exhibit 3 thereto explained that a medium- or heavy-duty compression ignition engine demands a
quantity of energy input to it from the fuel according to the throttle position commanded by the
operator. The quantity of fuel that the engine consumes at any particular throttle position will vary
according to the fuel's energy or heat content. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1467-A2 p.2-3]
The measurement of "fuel efficiency" by fossil fuel going into an engine for the purpose of final
Standards should be determined by the carbon content, or carbon as a fraction of the molecular weight,
per unit of energy of the fossil fuel. Fuels such as jatropha plant oil which do not derive from fossilized
matter should count as contributing zero energy in the "fuel efficiency" calculation of total energy
consumed per unit of work performed under the final Standards for the portion of an emissions test
cycle in which the engine runs on the non-fossil fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1467-A2 p. 3]
In this way, engines that consume a fossil fuel that has a higher carbon content per unit of the fuel's
energy, such as petroleum, will have worse "fuel efficiency" than fossil fuels with lower carbon content,
such as natural gas. In addition, non-fossil fuel jatropha plant oil, run in a POP Diesel-equipped engine,
would not contribute any fossil fuel energy consumed towards the calculation of the engine's "fuel
efficiency." The agencies would have to establish milestone measurements of an engine's energy
efficiency, its efficiency in consuming energy, corresponding to the brake power of the engine, to be
able to ratchet down over a period of years the amount of energy consumed per unit of power generated,
thereby improving "fuel efficiency" of any particular power-output engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1467-A2 p.3]
In the alternative, the agencies may choose to not ratchet down "fuel efficiency" of particular power-
output engines, but instead, to calculate and ratchet down the manufacturer's fleet average of "fuel
efficiency" and pursuant to Point (2) of Part IV, Section C of the Comments, net life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions, thereby encouraging engine manufacturers to include engines that run on non-fossil fuels
within their portfolio of engines certified and sold to the market. The price of the non-fossil fuel may
then play a part in determining market adoption of the engine powered in part or all by non-fossil fuel. If
EPA changes the proposed Standards to not automatically disqualify a POP Diesel-equipped engine
from ever winning certification running on 100 percent jatropha plant oil, POP Diesel will be able to sell
100 percent jatropha plant oil in the United States at a fifty (50) cent per gallon discount below
petroleum diesel, even at today's low petroleum prices and taking into account the engine's
consumption of 10 percent more plant oil to perform the same amount of work as it would running on
petroleum diesel fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1467-A2 p.3-4]
1 Although EPA grants formal certification that emissions are compliant with the Clean Air Act,
NHTSA must give its approval as part of the certification process.
-------
2 A POP Diesel-equipped engine's first such approval, which took place in July 2013, is listed in the
EPA spreadsheet excerpted as Exhibit 1, which is available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/altfuels.htm (scroll down the page to find the link
titled 'Outside Useful Life Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion Systems ') (last checked Sept. 8, 2015);
Exhibit 1 can be found on p. 15 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1
3 This mandate is to adopt a 'commercial [] truck fuel efficiency program' that 'achieve [s] the maximum
feasible improvement.' 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k)(2).
4 Energy input to an engine, rather than fuel consumed by the engine, per unit of work performed.
5 42 U.S.C. § 32902(k)(2).
6 As there are not any Committee reports on this legislative provision in either Chamber, this Senate
legislative commentary from the Congressional Record constitutes the complete legislative history of
the truck fuel efficiency mandate, 42 U.S.C. § 32902(k)(2). Apparently, this provision was never subject
to any hearings, but found its way into the final floor version that the Senate, and then passed the House
without comment from the House floor.
7 POP Diesel expects to equip, initially, a new semi-truck engine from the factory to run on 100%
ordinary plant oil. Such engines will run for almost their entire daily drive cycle on 100% plant oil fuel,
with only the first 15 minutes and the last 5 minutes on petroleum diesel.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
Freight is the one section of the transportation sector in which fuel use is projected to rise over the next
20 years, with increases in truck fuel consumption being the primary cause. EIA projects that fuel use
will increase 37 percent, from 2.4 million barrels of oil a day (mbd) to 3.3 mbd from 2010 to 2035. The
Phase 1 heavy-duty standards mitigated the growth in fuel use to some extent but do not change the
overall trajectory. The long lead-time and duration of the Phase 2 standards offer both the opportunity
and responsibility to make real reductions in fuel consumption. We believe that the proposed rule is an
important step forward; however, the proposal does not go far enough. It is insufficient to bring oil use
down to 2010 levels, let alone put us on a trajectory towards the emissions reductions needed to reach
an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by mid-century, a level necessary to prevent the worst
consequences of climate change. The agencies should strengthen the rule to ensure that they are
reducing truck fuel consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions to the maximum extent that is
technically achievable and cost-effective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.4]
UCS, in collaboration with researchers, has shown that reducing fuel consumption 40 percent over 2010
levels by 2025 is both technically achievable and cost effective (Khan et al. 2015). We strongly urge the
agencies to adopt a level of stringency that is in line with this analysis to maximize the potential
reductions in fuel use. The attached analysis shows that this is an achievable goal while relying
predominantly on incremental increases in conventional technologies, with advanced technologies only
entering the market slowly in the later years of the proposed regulatory period. With the long lead time
proposed by the agencies (more than a decade after the rule is slated to be finalized), it is important to
take a complete view of the technologies that will be available to reduce fuel use that far into the future.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has the authority to set "technology-forcing" standards to achieve
emissions reductions. NHTSA, under the Energy Independence and Security Act, has an obligation to
set "maximum feasible" standards. Thus, it is appropriate for the standard to include promising
-------
technologies that are not yet market-ready but are expected to be available in a decade in setting the
stringency of the standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.4]
Our comments touch on many aspects of the proposed rule, but are nearly all directed at ways in which
the stringency of the standard can and should be increased. Compared to our target of 40 percent fuel
use reduction from new trucks by 2025 compared to 2010, we calculate that this standard achieves a
36% decrease in fuel use and emissions by 2027. Although the benefits cited by the agencies are
significant—saving 550,000 barrels of oil a day and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 120 million
metric tons in 2035—they would be significantly higher if the agencies proposal mirrored our analysis.
Achieving a 40-percent reduction from new trucks would save an additional 200,000 barrels of oil a day
and avoid 40 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2035. From our perspective, this
proposal leaves too much on the table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.4]
There are numerous analyses from independent institutions such as the National Academies of Science
and Southwest Research Institute as well as data from industry and the Department of Energy's
SuperTruck program that show that the 40-percent target by 2025 is feasible and cost-effective,
indicating that waiting until 2027 to implement the stringency in the preferred alternative (Alternative 3)
is unnecessary. Thus, we believe that the timing and stringency of Alternative 4 is more appropriate, as
it pulls the 36-percent reduction of Alternative 3 forward to 2024. However, many of the concerns we
articulate in these comments also apply to Alternative 4 and is therefore not an approach that we would
fully endorse. If the final rule extends to 2027, we urge the agencies to increase the stringency beyond a
40-percent reduction, recognizing the broader array of technologies available with longer lead-time.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.4]
We appreciate the work that the agencies have done to work with stakeholders and integrate data into
their analysis of the issues involved in this rule. We have included detailed analysis on many parts of the
rule in these comments and look forward to continued engagement with the agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2 p.5]
Khan, S., D.W. Cooke, and L. Tonachel. 2015. Fuel savings in new heavy-duty trucks in 2025.
Transportation Research Board Paper 15-4977. Presented at the 94th annual meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, January 11-15, 2015, Washington, DC. Online at
httv://docs. trb. ors/prp/15-4977. pdf.
Response:
CARB stated that Alternative 4 is consistent with each agencies' respective statutory authorities to
promulgate GHG and fuel efficiency standards. The agencies would not disagree with that assertion if
we had determined Alternative 4 to be feasible. However, due to concerns over the risks associated with
the rapid pace of technology implementation required under the proposal's Alternative 4 (in particular,
risk of unreliability due to the shorter lead time to bring technologies to market or to apply existing
technologies to unfamiliar market segments), and the unquantified costs associated with those risks, we
have determined that it is likely that Alternative 4, as set out in the NPRM, is infeasible.
The Center for Biological Diversity argues that the proposed standards are insufficiently stringent and
are inconsistent with the "technology-forcing" mandate of the Clean Air Act. CBD is correct that
certain CAA provisions are technology forcing (any provision, for example, requiring standards to be
based on some type of best performing technology, e.g. CAA section 112 (d)(2) and (3), or 213(a)(3)
and (4), but neither section 202 (a) (1) nor (2) is one of those provisions. See 77 FR 62673/1
-------
(explaining why section 202 (a) (1) and (2) allow but do not compel technology forcing standards; see
also id. column 2 correcting this same commenter's erroneous characterization). However, the final
Phase 2 standards are technology-forcing, in that they are premised in part on performance of
technologies not presently commercialized, but which the agencies show can be brought reliably to
market in the lead time afforded by the rule. A notable example is waste heat recovery as part of the
basis for the tractor engine standards. Certain aerodynamic technologies projected to be available for
trailers are another example.
NADA encouraged the agencies to pursue non-regulatory strategies to improve fuel efficiency.
However, such non-regulatory strategies would not necessarily fulfill the agencies' respective statutory
obligations.
NADCA encouraged the agencies "to establish these rules as a ceiling rather than a floor for states to
follow." However, it is not within the scope of this rulemaking to establish limits on state actions. In
addition, EPA notes that the CAA provisions preempting state actions, explicitly allow more stringent
requirements under certain circumstances.
POP Diesel submitted comments which largely reiterate its comments in the Phase 1 rulemaking. With
respect to the greenhouse gas standards, POP Diesel maintains that the standards should not be
established on a fuel neutral/tailpipe emission basis, but rather should be established on a lifecycle basis.
POP Diesel takes this position because the fuel additive it produces actually results in increased C02
emissions at the tailpipe, so if there is any C02 benefit, it could only come from some earlier point in
the fuel's lifecycle. EPA has already rejected these comments, and we incorporate that entire response
here. See 77 FR 51704-705 (Aug. 27, 2012). In sum, EPA is well within its discretion not to turn a
vehicular emission standard into a motor fuel program, particularly when there is an entire separate
statutory program (the section 211 renewable fuels program) respecting life-cycle implications of
vehicular fuel use.1 EPA is also well within its discretion in adopting a fuel neutral, tailpipe - based
program in order to harmonize the program with fuel consumption rules of NHTSA. POP Diesel cites
Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F. 3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013) for the proposition that "EPA
was not exempt from basing its penalty and merits assessments with respect to stationary source GHG
emissions on an assessment of full life cycle emissions." The commenter is mistaken. The court quite
pointedly did not address the merits of EPA's action, but found that the agency had failed to provide a
reasoned justification, and hence had acted arbitrarily. 722 F. 3d at 412.
POP Diesel's comments related to EISA are addressed in section I.E. 1 of the Preamble to the final rule.
1 See in particular: "Even if EPA were to assume that POP Diesel's claim of lifecycle emissions reductions ar
valid, and considered setting a vehicle emissions standard that assumed or required use of the POP Diesel
technology and fuel, POP Diesel admits this would in fact lead to an increase in the actual GHG emissions from
the vehicle. The only decrease in emissions would come from the claimed reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions
that POP Diesel says would occur with use of their fuel. That would amount to adopting a vehicle emissions
standard to promote a vehicle technology that does not reduce but instead increases the GHG emissions of the
vehicle. The vehicle emissions standard would take that approach solely as a mechanism to mandate the use of a
certain diesel fuel -based on emissions impacts associated with the fuel, not the vehicle. This would dramatically
distort the purpose and structure of the vehicle emissions standard program, largely turning it into a de facto fuel
program. There is no good reason to consider such a result here, especially where there already is a separate fuel
based program, the RFS program, that is directly aimed at achieving the result POP Diesel seeks—a fuel program
that achieves a reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the diesel fuel used by motor vehicles,
through a mandate to use certain renewable diesel fuels"
-------
1.3.1 EPA Authority 20
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Alternative 4 is Consistent with U.S. EPA's Statutory Authority
U.S. EPA is promulgating the proposed Phase 2 greenhouse gas emission standards pursuant to the
statutory authority of Title II of the federal CAA, and specifically sections 202(a)(1) and (2), sections
202(d), 203-209, 216, and 301 (42 U.S.C. 7521 (a)(1) and (2), 7521(d), 7522-7543, 7550, and 7601).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.24]
Alternative 4 is consistent with the statutory provisions applicable to U.S. EPA's determination of the
requisite lead time requirements associated with the proposed greenhouse gas emission standards. CAA
section 202(a)(2) [42 U.S.C.§ 7521(a)(2)] provides that "[a]ny regulation prescribed under paragraph
(1) of this subsection (and any revision thereof) shall take effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.24]
Courts interpreting section 202(a) of the CAA have recognized that Congress intended U.S. EPA to rely
upon projected future developments and advances in pollution control technology in establishing
emission standards, and expected U.S. EPA to "press for the development and application of improved
technology rather than be limited by that which exists today." Natural Resources Defense Council v.
U.S. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (NRDC). The NRDC court noted that a longer lead time
"gives the U.S. EPA greater scope for confidence that theoretical solutions will be translated
successfully into mechanical realizations",11 and further stated that "the presence of substantial lead
time for development before manufacturers will have to commit themselves to mass production of a
chosen prototype gives the agency greater leeway to modify its standards if the actual future course of
technology diverges from expectation." (Id.). The court concluded: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p.24]
"We think that the U.S. EPA will have demonstrated the reasonableness of its basis for prediction if it
answers any theoretical objections to the [projected control technology], identifies the major steps
necessary in refinement of the [projected control technology], and offers plausible reasons for believing
that each of those steps can be completed in the time available."12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1
p.25]
11 Id. at 329.
12 Id. at 331-32. Accord, Husqvarna AB v. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (D.C.
Cir. 2001) and National Petrochemical & Refiners Association v. Environmental Protection Agency,
287 F.3d 1130, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from Heavy Duty ("HD") Vehicles is codified in
section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act ("CAA").19 The Act's pollution emission reduction goals are
technology-forcing: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p.5]
-------
Case and statutory law support the broad authority of EPA to force substantial change on the status quo
on an industry-wide basis. The 'technology-forcing goals' of Subchapter 11, the portion of the Clean Air
Act that establishes emissions standards for moving vehicles, are well recognized. See Whitman v.
American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 491-492, 121 S. Ct. 903, 149 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2001) (Breyer, J.
dissenting). The technology-forcing authority of the Clean Air Act is embodied in the language of the
Act that directs EPA to promulgate standards 'that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available
for the model year to which the standards apply,....' 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). EPA is thus
empowered to set standards for future model years based on reasonable projections of technology that
may not be available currently. NRDC v. Thomas, 256 U.S. App. D.C. 310, 805 F.2d 410, 429 (D.C. Cir.
1986). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p.5]
Cent. Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstene, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2007); see also
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. New York State DEC, 17 F.3d 521, 536 (2nd Cir. 1994) (noting that the
Clean Air Act is 'technology forcing' in the context of California's LEV program). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1460-A1 p.5]
Most importantly, when directly comparing the Proposed Rule 2027 standards and what SuperTruck
partners have already achieved, the proposed standards for tractors-trailers would achieve only about
three-quarters of the fuel savings that have been demonstrated by SuperTruck partners.50 The Proposed
Rule takes SuperTruck research and development into account when calculating the dynamic baseline,
or reference truck, but fails to properly employ the demonstrated improvements from the SuperTruck
program when determining what technology is maximally feasible. In fact, the Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis ("RIA") explicitly acknowledges that there are likely to be more advanced aerodynamics
options by 2027.52 Since the Agencies already predict such advances, the technology-forcing nature of
the governing statutes requires that they be included in the standards, especially when the proposed time
horizon is within the range of tractor redesign cycles.53 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 11
Although the Proposed Rule assumes a wide range of technologies, the penetration rates assumed by the
Agencies and potential improvements appear to be underestimated.54 The technology forcing nature of
Clean Air Act § 202 and EPCA/EISA requires more aggressive assumptions regarding technology
adoption. The Agencies are proposing standards that are either already attained or easily attainable, and
then hoping that manufacturers will explore and continue to improve technologies of their free
will.55This is contrary to the specific language, structure, and intent of the statutes: a clear regulatory
signal is necessary and intended to drive innovation, ensuring that technology improvements occur as
rapidly as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 11
In sum, the total reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and fuel usage could be significantly greater if
the Agencies adopt standards that represent true maximum efficiency improvements, even while
remaining economically feasible and safe. The NHTSA may not adopt standards that undermine the
purpose of the EPCA/EISA - energy conservation. Yet, the proposed fuel use reductions for tractor-
trailers would provide only about one-third of the maximal feasible benefits. This constitutes an
arbitrary and capricious balancing of factors that significantly impedes the congressional mandate to
promote energy conservation. Likewise, these minimal reductions fail the Clean Air Act's technology-
forcing requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 11-12]
19 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
-------
50ICCT SuperTruck blog, supra note 46.
52 Draft RIA at 2-18.
53 Id. at 2-16 ("tractor model lifecycle of up to 10 years").
54 For example, dual clutch systems are assumed to provide only up to 2% improvement (Proposed Rule
at Table III-7), but the stakeholder workshop assigned this technology approximately 5.5 (+ 2) %
improvement (ICCT Tractor-Trailer report, supranote 44); the Proposed Rule omits weight reduction in
setting stringency assigning an improvement of 0.3 % (Proposed Rule at 40223), while the stakeholder
workshop found over 3 (+ 1) % improvements from weight reduction (ICCT Tractor-Trailer
report,supra note 44).
55 See, e.g., Draft RIA, supra note 43 at 2-16 ("we anticipate manufacturers would continue to apply
these techniques [sealing gaps] across their models and continue to explore refinements and re-designs
in other areas of the tractor"). But note that the Agencies are also fully aware that a regulatory signal is
necessary to correct private market failures and "provide regulatory certainty and thus generate
important economic benefits in addition to reducing externalities." Id. at 8-5.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Legal Issues with Glider Provisions
As DTNA expressed in its comments to the Phase 2 Proposed Rule, DTNA has concerns with EPA's
proposed regulation of'glider kits' and 'glider vehicles,' including EPA's legal authority for regulating
them. EPA's Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being carried out under the authority of the Clean Air Act
('CAA'), which does not provide EPA authority to regulate the sale of motor vehicle components. The
CAA only provides EPA with authority to regulate 'new motor vehicles' and their engines, defined as
'self-propelled' vehicles 'the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate
purchaser'—not non-motorized frames, cabs, and axles. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7522(a), 7550(3). In turn, any
regulation of glider kits is beyond the agency's authority. Further, glider vehicles when constructed
retain the identity of the donor vehicle, such that the title has already been exchanged, making the
vehicles not 'new' under the CAA. Thus, EPA lacks authority to regulate glider vehicles. And even if the
EPA had authority to regulate, the CAA requires 4-years' lead-time for new or revised NOx and PM
requirements and for regulations governing engine rebuilding practices, which has not been met under
the proposed regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.2]
B. EPA Lacks Authority to Regulate 'Glider Kits' and 'Glider Vehicles'
The distinction between 'glider kits' and 'glider vehicles' is important because EPA lacks authority to
regulate vehicle parts, including assemblages of parts (without an engine) such as glider kits. EPA's
Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being carried out under the authority of the CAA, and the CAA does not
provide EPA authority to regulate the sale of motor vehicle components, which is all that glider kits are.
The CAA only authorizes EPA to set emission standards for 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor
vehicle engines,' 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), and to prohibit the sale of uncertified 'new motor vehicles' and
'new motor vehicle engines,' see 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). "New motor vehicles' are defined under the
CAA as 'self-propelled' vehicles 'the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an
ultimate purchaser'—not non-motorized frames, cabs, and axles. 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2), (3). Because
glider kits do not contain engines, transmissions, and drive axles, and have no motive power, the CAA
does not authorize EPA to regulate the sale of glider kits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.2-3]
-------
EPA's examples of CAA provisions that address certain vehicle components are inapplicable. EPA cites
to three CAA provisions granting it authority to regulate evaporative emissions, including from certain
components, and concludes from those specific provisions that it has authority to regulate all vehicle
components, whether or not they produce emissions in any form. Specifically, EPA cites to 'CAA
section 202(a)(6) (standards for onboard vapor recovery systems on 'new light-duty vehicles,' and
requiring installation of such systems); section 202(a)(5)(A) (standards to control emissions from
refueling motor vehicles, and requiring consideration of, and possible design standards for, fueling
system components), 202(k) (standards to control evaporative emissions from gasoline-fueled motor
vehicles).' EPA Legal Memo, at 3. From these examples, EPA concludes that it has authority to regulate
all vehicle components, a conclusion that is not justified under the language, of the Act. First, the fact
that the CAA lists specific components that EPA may regulate suggests that EPA lacks authority to
regulate other components that are not specifically listed, particularly given the broader dictate that EPA
may set emission standards only for 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor vehicle engines,' 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(1), and may prohibit only the sale of uncertified 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor vehicle
engines,' 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). Second, all of the examples cited by EPA relate to evaporative
emissions. Although EPA might be able to argue that it has authority to regulate evaporative emissions
from those specific components, and exhaust emissions from 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor
vehicle engines,' it is a stretch to say that EPA has authority to regulate all motor vehicle components.
This is particularly true where, as with glider kits, the components do not produce emissions on their
own. EPA itself recognizes that it cannot extend its argument to the smallest vehicle component—'This
is not to say that the Act authorizes emission standards for any part of a motor vehicle, however small,'
EPA Legal Memo, at 3—but nonetheless believes it has the authority to draw the line to include glider
kits and trailers. In fact, Congress drew the line in the CAA at 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor
vehicle engines,' and EPA may not extend its authority further than Congress allowed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1926-A1 p.3]
EPA also lacks authority to regulate glider vehicles. When constructed, glider vehicles retain the
identity of the donor vehicle, such that the title has already been exchanged, making the vehicles not
'new' under the CAA and not subject to EPA's regulatory authority. EPA's argument that glider
assemblers market their finished products as 'new trucks' is unavailing. A company's marketing
materials have no bearing on the statutory definition that governs EPA's authority. Although the CAA
may not reference Vehicle Identification Numbers as determinative of new motor vehicle status, the Act
does contain an express definition of 'new motor vehicles'—'self-propelled' vehicles 'the equitable or
legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser,' 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2), (3)—
which EPA is not free to disregard. Glider vehicles incorporate not just a used engine, as EPA suggests,
but the engine, transmission, and rear axle—the entire powertrain that comprises a significant portion of
a vehicle's cost and identity—from a previously owned vehicle. The glider kit, which may be considered
to be 'new' vehicle parts, is not self-propelled. The glider becomes self-propelled only when the
powertrain components are added, but cannot be a 'new motor vehicle' because the equitable or legal
title of those powertrain components has previously been transferred to an ultimate purchaser. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p. 3-4]
• EPA Lacks Authority to Regulate 'Glider Kits' - The distinction between "glider kits" and "glider
vehicles" is important because EPA lacks authority to regulate vehicle parts, including assemblages of
parts (without an engine) such as glider kits. EPA's Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being carried out under
the authority of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), and the CAA does not provide EPA authority to regulate
the sale of motor vehicle components, which is all that glider kits are. The CAA only authorizes EPA to
prohibit the sale of uncertified "new motor vehicles" and "new motor vehicle engines." See 42 U.S.C. §
7522(a)(1). "New motor vehicles" are defined under the CAA as "self-propelled" vehicles "the
equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser"—not non-
motorized frames, cabs, and axles. 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2), (3). Because glider kits do not contain engines,
-------
and have no motive power, the CAA does not authorize EPA to regulate the sale of glider kits. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 122-123]
• Regulation of 'Glider Vehicles' Targets NOx / PM Emissions and Must Meet Statutory Lead
Time Requirement - In addition, the proposed regulation of "glider vehicles" actually targets NOx/PM
emissions rather than GHG emissions, as EPA concedes, and is therefore inappropriate for inclusion in a
GHG rule. Glider sales actually create the potential to reduce GHG emissions by incorporating used and
rebuilt engines in newer, more aerodynamic vehicles. Rebuilt engines used in glider vehicles emit fewer
GHGs, and new cabs and low rolling resistance tires are more efficient than what they replace. Because
regulation of glider vehicles targets NOx/PM emissions, it should be done only in a separate
rulemaking, if at all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 123] [This comment can also be found in
section 14.2 of this comment document]
In addition, this separate rulemaking should be carefully drafted to meet statutory lead-time
requirements for NOx and PM regulations as required by statute. NOx and PM emissions standards are
subject to an express CAA lead-time requirement under which new or revised NOx and PM
requirements cannot take effect sooner than the model year commencing 4 years after new or revised
standard is promulgated. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(C). As currently proposed, with an effective date of
January 1, 2018, the proposed glider regulations violate the 4- year lead-time requirement under the
CAA. Assuming the Phase 2 rule is finalized in early 2016, the earliest that the regulations governing
glider vehicles could take effect would be 2020, in compliance with the CAA lead-time requirement.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 123]
For its proposed glider provisions, EPA purports to rely on its authority to regulate the "practice of
rebuilding heavy-duty engines." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(D). However, EPA is not regulating engine
rebuilding practices, as evidenced by the lack of relevant proposed amendments to its engine rebuilding
regulations (40 C.F.R. §§ 86.004-40, 1068.120). Instead, EPA is attempting to regulate vehicle
rebuilding, which it clearly does not have the authority to do under the CAA. Congress granted EPA
authority to regulate "new motor vehicles" and "new motor vehicle engines" only, and while Congress
granted EPA authority to regulate engine rebuilding, it did not grant EPA similar authority to regulate
vehicle rebuilding. EPA's reliance on (3)(D) is misplaced with respect to its proposed regulation of
glider vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.123]
Even if EPA were properly regulating heavy-duty engine rebuilding practices with its proposed glider
provisions, it would be subject to the same four-year statutory lead-time requirement. The four-year
lead-time and three-year stability requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(C) are applicable to all of
paragraph 3, which includes the engine rebuilding provision contained in (3)(D). It is not enough for
EPA to opine that the January 1, 2018 implementation date for the glider provisions allows "sufficient
time to 'permit the development and application of the requisite control measures'" under 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(3)(D). The four-year lead-time and three-year stability requirements of (3)(C) provide an
absolute minimum, even for engine rebuilding regulations, and then EPA must determine whether
additional time is required above and beyond that based on its determination under the standard
contained in (3)(D). [EPA- HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 123]
As currently proposed, EPA is attempting to regulate NOx and PM in the GHG rule in a way it could
not undertake in a proper NOx and PM rulemaking. Under the CAA, EPA must allow four years of lead
time, at a minimum, before its proposed glider provisions would take effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. 124]
-------
• Delegated Assembly, EPA's lack of authority - DTNA has a concern about the EPA creating a large
paperwork burden, requiring contracts with and instructions to body builders, that creates no benefit to
the environment beyond our current business practice of supplying an Incomplete Vehicle Document
(IVD) to final stage manufacturers. This concern drives us to comment that the EPA lacks the authority
for delegated assembly regulations any more expansive than those in 40 C.F.R. § 1037.620 today. EPA
bases its delegated assembly regulations on the authority to regulate the "introduction into commerce"
and a claim that the sale of a partially complete vehicle or engine from the primary manufacturer to the
secondary manufacturer is within the scope of this "commerce." 42 U.S.C. §7522(a)(l) (authorizing
regulation at the introduction into commerce) and 75 Fed. Reg. 74152 at 74362 (Nov. 30, 2010) (citing
EPA authority for Part 1037 delegated assembly regulations). But the EPA incorrectly interprets what
"commerce" is. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.105-106]
Unlike Congress's authority over commerce, which extends down to matters within a manufacturing
plant located entirely within one state (see, e.g., National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin
Steel, 301 U.S. 1 (1937)), Congress defined the scope of the EPA's "commerce" more narrowly than its
own. If Congress intended for the EPA to regulate manufacturing processes or to consider "introduction
into commerce" to include the manufacturing process, Congress knew how to specify so. Within the
CAA itself, Congress commanded the EPA to regulate the manufacture of consumer or commercial
products (prohibiting "the manufacture or introduction into commerce..."), the manufacture of
aftermarket motor vehicle components (prohibiting any person to "manufacture or sell..."), and the
manufacture of fuel (prohibiting "the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or
sale..."). 42 U.S.C. §§ 7511b (e)(3)(A), 7522(a)(3)(B), and 7545(c)(1) (emphases added). Moreover, the
text of the Air Quality Act of 1967, the predecessor to the CAA, contained a prohibition against the
"manufacture for sale" of noncompliant vehicles and engines, but Congress explicitly struck
"manufacture for sale" from the law relating to vehicles during the 1970 amendment process. Air
Quality Act, P.L. 90-148 (Nov. 21, 1967), §203(a)(l), formerly 42 U.S.C. §1857f-2(a)(l); CAA, P.L.
91-604, §203(a)(l) (Dec. 31, 1970) (enacting H.R. 17255). Following the canons of statutory
interpretation, one might logically presume that Congress intended for manufacture of vehicles and
engines not to be regulated from the fact that (1) Congress omitted manufacturing from the regulated
activities while including it elsewhere and (2) it actively struck manufacturing from the list of such
activities. Stated another way, if Congress considered "introduction into commerce" to include
manufacturing, then the "manufacture for sale" is surplusage in the sections of the CAA where it sits
alongside mention of sale or introduction into commerce. In summary, Congress's vehicle and engine
regulations provide for regulation at the "introduction into commerce" but not for regulation of
manufacture, as do (e.g.) the fuel regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 106]
So what is "introduction into commerce"? Congress gives an indication through its regulation of
vehicles and engines over their "useful life." 42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(l). Useful life is defined in the CAA
and in the EPA's regulations to be "a period of use" of some number of years or thousands of miles,
depending on the type of vehicle. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §7521(d)(l) (defining useful life for light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks as "a period of use of five years or of fifty thousand miles ..., whichever
first occurs") and 40 C.F.R. §86.004-2 (defining the useful life for Class 8 heavy-duty vehicles as "a
period of use" of 10 years or 435,000 miles). It strains credulity to argue that the useful life, defined as
"a period of use," also includes periods prior to the engines or vehicles first use. In other words, the
most logical inference to draw from both Congress's and the EPA's own definition of the useful lives is
that the period over which an engine or vehicle can be regulated is only a period beginning with initial
use. By contrast, regulation of an engine or vehicle's emissions prior the first use or prior to completion
of manufacturing is beyond the EPA's authority. In turn, because regulation of an engine or vehicle's
emissions prior to its being used is beyond the EPA's authority, the most reasonable interpretation of
"introduction into commerce," the point at which the EPA can begin to regulate, is not a sale part way
through the manufacturing process (as in a sale from an original-stage manufacturer to a later-stage
-------
manufacturer) but the sale to the ultimate purchaser (at which point the vehicle begins its period of use).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 106-107]
Even if the EPA could regulate prior to the first use of an engine or vehicle, Congress authorized only
test-based standards, not regulations over how vehicles or engines are manufactured. In particular,
Congress (first) mandated the EPA to create "standards [that] shall be applicable to such vehicles and
engines for their useful life." 42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(l). Second, "to determine whether [a] vehicle or
engine conforms with regulations prescribed under section 202 [§7521] of [the CAA]," the EPA "shall
test, or require to be tested in such manner as [the EPA Administrator] deems appropriate," such
vehicles or engines. 42 U.S.C. §7525(a)(l) (emphases added). That is, "testing" of vehicles or engines is
the means by which the EPA determines the compliance that is necessary for a vehicle or engine's
introduction into commerce. Prescribing procedures relating to contracts between manufacturers is not
"testing." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 107]
The CAA's legislative history bears out the above interpretation of the EPA's authority. A Senate report
shows Congressional intent that "[e]very manufacturer must provide, at the time of delivery, dealers and
the ultimate purchaser a certificate that the vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or engine conforms to the
regulations." Sen. Rpt. 91-1196, at 62 (1970) (emphasis added). Similarly, a House report authorized
"test[ing] ... any new motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine as it comes off the assembly line in order to
determine whether the vehicle or engine conforms with the applicable emission standards" but not a
requirement for contracts between manufacturers. H.R. Rpt. 91-1146, at 53585359 (1970) (emphasis
added). Further during a discussion between then-Vice President of Ford Motor Company Herbert
Misch and Senator Robert Dole, Mr. Misch stated that one act proposed to be prohibited in Section 203
of the CAA goes too far: "the requirement that 'manufacture for sale' cease upon revocation of
certification. We do not feel that production should cease in order to remedy whatever defects may be
found through sampling." 2 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 1015 (U.S. Government Printing
Office 1970) (quoting Joint Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the
Committee on Public Works and the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, March 24 and 25,
1970). Senator Dole responded "[A]s long as we prohibit the sale of the defective vehicle it should not
be necessary to stop production." That is, Mr. Misch and Senator Dole spoke in favor of allowing the
manufacturing of vehicles and engines whose compliance certificate has been revoked, as long as the
manufacturer did not sell them. And, as discussed above, in the final CAA text Congress struck
"manufacture for sale" from the list of acts prohibited "unless [a] vehicle or engine is covered by a
certificate of conformity." 42 U.S.C. §7522(a)(l). In short, the legislative history is replete with
statements like those above voicing a desire for test-based standards and for end of assembly line testing
that will reflect in-use emissions, but not for compliance prior to completion of the vehicle nor formal
written requests or other such mandatory documents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 107]
In summary, the text and history of the CAA show that regulation of assembly processes and the
requirement for delegated assembly contracts are beyond the EPA's authority under the CAA. DTNA
respectfully suggests that the EPA work with us to develop text that we could add to the industry's
current IVD to instruct second stage manufacturers what remains to be completed in order to bring the
vehicle into compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 108]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Legal Authority
EPA has manifest legal authority to adopt greenhouse gas emission standards for new medium-and
heavy-duty vehicles.85 Below, we discuss two particular features of this authority: the technology-
-------
forcing nature of section 202 of the Clean Air Act ("CAA") and EPA's authority to address trailers.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 19]
A. EPA has clear authority to establish technology—forcing standards
EPA has clear authority to establish technology-forcing emission standards under section 202(a) of the
CAA, which provides that standards established under section 202(a)(1) "shall take effect after such
period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology."86 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 19]
Related provisions of section 202— including those governing heavy-duty vehicle criteria pollutant
emissions—are expressly technology forcing, providing that regulations "shall contain standards which
reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which
the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply . . ,"87
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 19]
As the nation's highest court has recognized, the legislative history of the CAA underscores that
Congress did not intend for EPA to be '"limited by what is or appears to be technologically or
economically feasible,' but 'to establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of
persons,' even if that means that 'industries will be asked to do what seems to be impossible at the
present time.'"88 With respect to section 202(a)(1) and (a)(2), Congress intended that EPA "press for the
development and application of improved technology rather than be limited by that which exists
today.'"89 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 19-20]
EPA has a long history of establishing technology-forcing emission standards that have driven
innovation and secured pollution reductions. For instance, EPA standards under section 202 resulted in
the development and proliferation of the catalytic converter in 1975 and the three-way catalyst in
1981.90 Particulate standards for heavy-duty vehicles also resulted in the development of the diesel
particulate filter.91 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.20]
Courts have consistently affirmed EPA's authority to establish technology-forcing standards under
section 202, in some cases holding that only a technology-forcing standard would be compliant with the
statute.92 In adopting such standards, EPA is empowered to make projections about future technology
"subject" only "to the restraints of reasonableness."93 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A 1 p.20]
In 1980, for example, EPA promulgated PM emission standards for light-duty diesel vehicles and
trucks, requiring that emissions decrease to 0.20 grams per mile in the 1985 model year. EPA
determined that the standard would be achievable in 1985 with the perfection of a particle trapping
device, which at the time, had achieved only partial success in a prototype stage.94 The D.C. Circuit
affirmed these standards, holding that EPA "will have demonstrated the reasonableness of its basis for
prediction if it answers any theoretical objections to the . . .method, identifies the major steps necessary
in refinement of the device, and offers plausible reasons for believing that each of those steps can be
completed in the time available."95 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.20-21]
Likewise, in 2001, EPA established diesel PM and NOx emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks and
buses that required substantial reductions and relied on studies suggesting that technologies currently
being tested could collectively overcome then-existing obstacles.96 The D.C. Circuit upheld these
standards, affirming EPA's technological predictions and noting that "the rule c[ould] stand so long as
there was one solution as to which EPA's prediction was not arbitrary."97 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.21]
-------
EPA describes its Phase 2 proposal as technology forcing, in line with this long and successful
history. As we set forth more fully below, however, certain key aspects of the agency's proposal—
including the engine standards—are based almost entirely on today's technologies and conservative
assumptions about the development of those technologies. EPA must strengthen these provisions to be
consistent with the technology-forcing history of section 202 and the agency's own stated intention in
the Phase 2 proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.21]
B. EPA has clear authority to regulate trailers
EPA and NHTSA have proposed standards for trailers that are used in combination with two different
classes of tractors. EPA's authority to adopt these proposed standards rests on firm legal footing,
reflects a reasonable interpretation of the relevant Clean Air Act provisions, and is consistent with the
agency's past regulatory practice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.21]
Section 202(a)(1) of the Act authorizes EPA to regulate "the emission of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines . . ."10° 'Motor vehicle,' as it is used
in Section 202(a)(1), is defined under Section 216 as "any self-propelled vehicle designed for
transporting persons or property on a street or highway."101 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.21]
EPA has interpreted this statutory definition to enable the agency to adopt standards addressing
emissions from the Class 7 and 8 combination tractor-trailers, which "consist of a cab and engine
(tractor or combination tractor) and a detachable trailer." The statutory definition of 'motor vehicle' in
section 216 expressly defines that term in light of the vehicle's intended use: "transporting persons or
property on a road or highway." EPA has reasonably interpreted 'motor vehicle' to encompass all of the
components of Class 7 and 8 tractor-trailers (including the trailer), which are needed to accomplish that
objective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.21-22]
In particular, Class 7 and 8 tractor-trailers are designed and used to transport large quantities of goods.
To perform this task, the vehicle must have three components: an engine, a tractor, and a trailer. These
three components are inextricably linked; no one part can successfully transport goods without the other
two. And the trailers addressed in the proposal are designed and engineered to operate in tandem with
tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.22]
As their design features would suggest, these tractors and trailers are operated together almost
exclusively.104 The height of the tractor is designed to correspond to the height of the trailer, achieving
optimal aerodynamic performance and minimal air-resistance only when the two are coordinated.105
Moreover, as the primary load-carrying device, trailers account for a substantial percentage of the
engine load and therefore contribute significantly to the vehicle's emissions. Accordingly, the use of
improved aerodynamic and tire technologies on the trailer will reduce the vehicle's emissions.106'107
EPA's interpretation of 'motor vehicle' as consisting of the engine, tractor, and trailer in the heavy-duty
context is therefore a reasonable interpretation of the statute.108 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1
p.22]
EPA's interpretation is likewise consistent with other provisions of the CAA and EPA implementing
regulations addressing heavy-duty vehicles. Section 202(b), which authorizes EPA to adopt criteria
pollutant standards for heavy-duty vehicles, defines a 'heavy duty vehicle' as, among other things,
having "a gross vehicle weight (as determined under regulations promulgated by the Administrator) in
excess of six thousand pounds."109 EPA regulations confirm that a vehicle's 'gross vehicle weight' can
be measured by "the maximum weight of a loaded vehicle and trailer," or by "the maximum design
loaded weight of a single vehicle."110 These provisions are both tied to the way in which the vehicles are
-------
operated and contemplate the load carried by the trailer. As EPA notes in the proposal, its determination
of its authority as to trailers is also consistent with a prior interpretation of the heavy-duty vehicle as
being incomplete unless a trailer is attached.111 EPA must strengthen these provisions to be consistent
with its delegated responsibility to establish technology-forcing standards under section 202 and the
Agency's own stated intention in the Phase 2 proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.23]
85 See, e.g., Mass. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007); see also Coal, for Responsible
Regulation, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
86 42 U.S.C. § 7521 (emphasis added).
87 Id.
88 Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 490-91 (2001)(quoting 116 Cong. Rec. 32901-
32902 (1970), 1 Legislative History of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (Committee Report
compiled for the Senate Committee on Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 93-18, p.
227 (1974)(emphasis in original).
89 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981)(citing S.
Rep. No. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (1970), reprinted in 1 Legislative History 424; H.R. Rep.
No.294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 273 (1977), reprinted in (1977) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1077,
1352, 4 Legislative History 2740).
90 See, e.g., David Gerard and Lester B. Lave, Implementing technology-forcing policies: The 1970
Clean Air Act Amendments and the introduction of advanced automotive emissions controls in the
United States, 72 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 761 (2005), available at
http: //repository, emu. edu/tepper/1356/.
91 See, e.g., Chris Wold, Climate Change, Presidential Power, and Leadership: We Can't Wait, 45 Case
Western Reserve J. of Int'l Law 303, 346, available
at http://law.case.edu/journals/jil/Documents/45CaseWResJIntlLl&2.15.Article.Wold.pdf.
92 See Natural Res. Def. Council v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 655 F.2d at 328 (upholding EPA's technology-
forcing standards under Section 202(a)(2)); Natural Res. Def. Council v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410 (D.C.
Cir. 1986))(affirming authority under Section 202(a)(3)(A)(iii), which authorized regulations for PM
emissions now authorized under (a)(3)(A)(i)); Natural Res. Def. Council v. Reilly, 983 F.2d 259 (D.C.
Cir. 1993)(holding that Section 202(a)(3)(A)(6) is a technology-forcing provision and mandating
issuance of a regulation after consideration of developing technologies); Nat'l Petrochemicals &
Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 287 F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2002)(affirming authority under Section
202(a)(3)(A)(i)); Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374 (D.C. Cir. 2003)(affirming authority under Section
202(1)(2)); Crete Carrier Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 363 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2004)(holding that
Section 202(a)(3)(A)(i) is a technology-forcing provision).
93 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 655 F.2d at 328 (citing International
Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 629 (D.C.Cir. 1973)).
94 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 655 F.2d at 331.
-------
95 Id. at 331-32.
96 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, 66 Fed. Reg. 5002 (2001).
97 Nat'l Petrochemicals & Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 287 F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2002) at 1140.
100 Id.
101 42 U.S.C. § 7550 (emphasis added).
104 Trucking companies do not provide insurance protection for truckers when operating a truck-tractor
without an attached trailer; it is considered a non-business activity. Truckers must separately purchase
'bobtail insurance' to be covered between dropping off one trailer load and picking up the next one. See,
e.g. Insure My Rig, http://www.insuremyrig.com/what-is-bobtail-insurance.html (last visited Sept. 29,
2015); Understanding the Difference Between Bobtail and Non-Trucking Liability Insurance,
105 76 Fed. Reg. 57138-39 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 1).
106 EPA notes in the proposed rule that the trailers that are pulled by Class 7 and 8 tractors account for
two-thirds of the heavy-duty sector's total C02 emissions and fuel consumption. 80 Fed. Reg. 40253.
107 As a result of studies undertaken as part of initiatives such as the Department of Energy's
SuperTruck program and EPA's SmartWay program, design and operational practices have already
been developed to cost-effectively reduce those emissions.
108 The fact that the trailer does not itself 'emit,' does not exclude it from EPA's regulatory authority.
Section 202(a)(1) authorizes EPA to adopt standards "applicable to the emission of any air pollutant"
from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. This statutory grant of authority clearly
encompasses standards like those EPA has previously adopted for vehicle attributes that effect
emissions, including low-rolling-resistance tires, low-drag brakes, and more aerodynamic vehicle
shapes. 75 Fed. Reg. 25374 (2010 Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards). EPA has
likewise interpreted this authority to allow the agency to adopt compliance approaches that reflect
upstream emissions. See id. See also Response to Comments ("[Section 202(a)] does not directly
address what the "standards applicable to" the emissions must be, or how those standards are to be
measured. It does not specify how or what mechanisms EPA may reasonably use in applying a standard
to vehicle emissions. This leaves EPA with discretion to develop both elements of the standards and the
means of measuring compliance with them.").
109 42 U.S.C. § 7521.
110 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
111 40 CFR 86.1803-01 defines a 'complete heavy-duty vehicle' as a heavy-duty vehicle "that has the
primary load carrying device or container attached," while a heavy-duty truck without a load-carrying
device is considered an 'incomplete vehicle.' Because trailers are 'load carrying devices,' they are
implicitly part of the vehicle.
-------
Organization: Fitzgerald Truck Sales
EPA Lacks Authority to Regulate "Glider Kits"
The distinction between "glider kits" and "glider vehicles" is important because EPA lacks authority to
regulate vehicle parts, including assemblages of parts (without an engine) such as glider kits. EPA's
Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being carried out under the authority of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), and the
CAA does not provide EPA authority to regulate the sale of motor vehicle components, which is all that
glider kits are. The CAA only authorizes EPA to prohibit the sale of uncertified "new motor vehicles"
and "new motor vehicle engines." See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). Because glider kits do not contain
engines, and have no motive power, regulation of the sale of glider kits is not authorized by the
CAA. EPA has been aware of the use of glider kits for over 35 years, and has not attempted to regulate
them because they are not "new motor vehicles" or "new motor vehicle engines" under the CAA. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.4]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Title II of the Clean Air Act ("CAA") governs regulation of on-highway medium- and heavy-duty
engines and vehicles. According to EPA, the Proposed GHG Rule implements Section 202(a) of Title II
of the CAA. That section requires the EPA Administrator to "prescribe (and from time to time revise). .
. standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class of classes of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipate to endanger public health and welfare." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.3-4]
The agencies acknowledge in the NPRM that the Proposed Rule is technology-forcing.2 That is,
manufacturers must develop new technologies or significantly improve existing technologies to meet the
standards. In that case, the agencies must demonstrate that their predictions are reasonable, that they
have answered any theoretical objection to the identified technologies, identified the steps needed for
the technology to be completed in the available time and offer reasons that those steps can be
completed.3 Thus EPA bears the burden of laying out the pathway to the predicted technology in order
to make its demonstration that a Proposed Rule is feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.4]
2 NPRM at 80 Fed. Reg. 40154.
3 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. US EPA, 655 F.2d 317 (DC Cir 1981).
Organization: Neapco
EPA Lacks Authority to Regulate "Glider Kits"
The distinction between "glider kits" and "glider vehicles" is important because EPA lacks authority to
regulate vehicle parts, including assemblages of parts (without an engine) such as glider kits. EPA's
Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being carried out under the authority of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), and the
CAA does not provide EPA authority to regulate the sale of motor vehicle components, which is all that
glider kits are. The CAA only authorizes EPA to prohibit the sale of uncertified "new motor vehicles"
and "new motor vehicle engines." See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). Because glider kits do not contain
-------
engines, and have no motive power, regulation of the sale of glider kits is not authorized by the
CAA. EPA has been aware of the use of glider kits for over 35 years, and has not attempted to regulate
them because they are not "new motor vehicles" or "new motor vehicle engines" under the CAA. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.4]
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
b. Consistency can be achieved by exempting motorhomes from the Phase 2 Regulation
Under Phase 1, NHTSA and EPA plainly differed on their regulation of motorhomes. While NHTSA
exempted such vehicles from fuel efficiency standards for the reasons discussed above, EPA exercised
regulatory authority over these vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Such divergent treatment may not be
ideal from the regulator's perspective, but harmonization can be worse for the regulated entity where
fuel efficiency standards may impose undue costs or require impractical reduction with little fuel
savings as they would here. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 12]
We recognize the importance of regulatory consistency. Executive Order (EO) 13563 requires agencies
to 'tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations.' The EO seeks to 'promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization'
as will reduce redundancy, inconsistency, and costs of multiple regulatory requirements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 12]
The only fair and lawful way to ensure consistency, harmony and cost-effective regulation is for EPA to
exclude motorhomes from its regulations as NHTSA is required to do by EISA. The goal of
harmonization cannot be used to create legal authority where there is none. NHTSA's authority under
EISA is limited to commercial vehicles. EPA should exercise its discretion to follow NHTSA's
congressionally mandated course and exclude motorhomes from its Phase 2 regulations. This approach
takes into account both legal authority and disproportionate costs on the motorhome sector. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 12-13]
In order to maintain regulatory consistency, harmony and cost-effectiveness, EPA should also exempt
motorhomes entirely from its Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.27]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
The context for these comments is President Obama's January 18, 2011 executive order on regulatory
review, which states that "[w]here relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to
the extent permitted by law, each agency ... shall consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens
and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public" (Executive Order, "Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review," § 4 (White House, Jan. 18, 2011)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.2]
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
EPA lacks statutory authority.
In our "Authority Objections" section (3), we will discuss the legal rationale the agencies are putting
forward for regulating trailers, why that rationale is flawed, and that the agencies should focus their
-------
efforts on end users, which they actually do have authority to regulate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1172-A1 p. 2]
EPA and NHTSA do not have statutory authority to adopt GHG emission and fuel efficiency standards
applicable to trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.3]
Trailers themselves fail to meet the definition of a "motor vehicle" which states: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1172-A1 p.3]
(2) The term "motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or
property on a street or highway. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.3]
Trailers are not self-propelled, do not burn fuel or exhaust "Greenhouse Gasses." A vehicle is defined as
something used for conveyance having a frame, a suspension, and a braking system. A motorized
vehicle is a vehicle (such as a car, truck, or motorcycle) that is powered by a motor. A trailer is a vehicle
that is not motorized and therefore does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.3]
EPA acknowledges this in its claim to authority and then attempts to dismiss it by claiming that the
tractor, when combined with the trailer, together creates the motor vehicle that they are allowed to
regulate under the CAA. "Connected together, a tractor and trailer constitute "a self-propelled vehicle
designed for transporting . . . property on a street or highway," and thus meets the definition of "motor
vehicle" under Section 216(2) of the CAA." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.3]
Trucks and trailers are legally recognized by the U.S. federal and state governments as two different
vehicles, each possessing its own DOT vehicle identification number (VIN), state license plate,
registration, regulations, and ownership. The EPA cannot legally declare one vehicle part of the other or
the two vehicles to be the same or treated as the same vehicle to enable a new regulation. If they do,
then it is not the trailer manufacturer who is creating a new motor vehicle. The CAA directs the EPA
Administrator to regulate "new motor vehicles." The trailer is not a motor vehicle under CAA statute
until it is "connected" making it possibly subject to EPA authority not at the time the trailer was
constructed, but at the time an operator connects it to a tractor and completes the "Self-propelled motor
vehicle" that EPA is claiming meets the definition provided under 216(2) of the CAA. At connection,
the combination could then be said to meet the definition for "new motor vehicle" in 216(3) since the
combination has not yet had its title transferred to the ultimate purchaser, defined in 216(5) as "the first
person who in good faith purchases such new motor vehicle." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.3-
4]
Any given trailer is not intended to be permanently connected to any truck by the trailer OEM for the
useful life of the trailer. This is the distinction that makes the trailer different from any other part or
component of the truck. The truck has a device that engages the trailer's king pin and traps it within the
truck's fifth wheel. It is a third party that engages and disengages this truck device, not the trailer, and
not the trailer OEM. Specifically, trailer manufacturers do not sell new "tractor-trailers." As such, the
tractor and trailer cannot be considered a single motor vehicle (indeed, a single trailer is likely to be
hauled by multiple tractors during its lifetime, and, conversely, a single tractor is likely to haul multiple
trailers). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.4]
Therefore, if the Agency wants to claim, for practical reasons, that the trailer and tractor are a regulated
motor vehicle, it can only regulate the party that joined the trailer to the tractor. EPA has been claiming
that they cannot regulate end users of trailers, and so must aim their regulations at trailer manufactures,
-------
but this exposes EPA's lack of authority to regulate, for these trailer manufacturers do not create the
vehicles that EPA claims authority to regulate. Under the laws given in the CAA and the usual industry
practice of creating new combinations of tractors and trailers to be used briefly and then separating the
tractor from the trailer to create a new combination, all without transferring the titles of the combination
or even of any of the individual components of the combination, it is those end users who are routinely
manufacturing motor vehicles and are thus possibly subject to regulation under the laws of the CAA. It
is these very end users who could and possibly should be directed to select certain trailer-based GHG-
Reduction/Fuel-Economy devices based on how they ultimately use the vehicle they alone assemble.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.4]
Since a trailer is built for customer specifications and not an intended truck, trailer OEMs cannot be
regulated by the EPA GHG-2 regulations. At the time of trailer manufacture, there is no defined or
intended truck and the trailer is still a non-motor vehicle. Upon completion and the trailer title is passed
from the trailer OEM to the trailer dealer, or end user, there is still no motorized truck that can be
associated with the trailer. The trailer can be pulled by a gas, diesel, natural gas, or electric truck in the
future with unknown, varying aerodynamic characteristics. When title of the trailer passes, the trailer
OEM has no legal ownership of the trailer vehicle and the trailer is not a part of any truck or other
motorized vehicle. The trailer at this point is a separate product yet to be put into commerce. The EPA's
definition of a trailer being a part of a motorized vehicle has not been met and the OEM no longer has a
legal basis to alter the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.4]
The language and structure of the Clean Air Act requirements and prohibitions for new motor vehicles
and engines also contradict EPA's interpretation. Those provisions contemplate a single manufacturer of
each new motor vehicle or each new motor vehicle engine. For example, Section 206(a)(1) requires
EPA to require testing of "any new motor vehicle . . . submitted by a manufacturer" to determine
whether the vehicle may be certified as conforming to emissions regulations. Section 206(b) authorizes
EPA to conduct emissions testing to determine whether new motor vehicles "manufactured by a
manufacturer do in fact conform" after being certified. Section 207 requires "the manufacturer of each
new motor vehicle" to provide an emissions warranty to the ultimate purchaser to certify that the vehicle
conforms to the emissions regulations and is free of defects for its useful life. And Section 203(a)
prohibits "a manufacturer of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines" from selling or
importing such vehicles or engines unless covered by a certificate of conformity. The language of these
provisions plainly contemplates a single manufacturer that is responsible for each motor vehicle, not
multiple manufacturers of "two detachable parts" that together constitute the single motor vehicle, and
are mixed and matched in different pairs throughout their lifetime. Moreover, these provisions on their
face do not work as applied to "two detachable parts" of a single motor vehicle that are mixed and
matched. In the case of separate manufacturers of the tractor and various trailers that might be hauled by
that tractor, the requirements to test, certify, and warrant "the motor vehicle" cannot on their face apply
as written, since there is no single manufacturer of "the motor vehicle." And responsibility for
violations, such as by selling an uncertified new motor vehicle, is unspecified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1172-A1 p.4-5]
EPA also contends that the tractor minus the engine constitutes a "motor vehicle," even though such a
chassis cannot move without the engine. We are skeptical of this assertion. We are aware of no instance
in which EPA has sought to regulate a "motor vehicle" that does not contain an engine, for the obvious
reason that such a "vehicle" is not self-propelled and thus does not fall within EPA's jurisdiction. In
short, Congress authorized EPA to regulate both engines and complete motor vehicles (containing
engines), but did not authorize EPA to regulate a trailer, which is not self-propelled, even if that trailer
might be regarded as essential to the purpose of a tractor to transport property. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1172-A1 p.5]
-------
Therefore, as the legal basis of the proposal from the EPA perspective is flawed, all parts of the proposal
suggesting expansion of regulation of EPA to trailers should be struck. NHTSA regulation should
remove requirements that, by extension, require trailer manufacturers to be regulated by EPA by
directing compliance with regulations in 40CFR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.5]
The legal basis for including trailers in this rulemaking is flawed and as such it should remove trailers
from consideration. If the agencies are set on working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption as a result of trailer use, they would be better served by regulating that use directly.
Drivers and fleets are the ones in control of trailer use, from specification thru disposal; they create new
tractor-trailer combinations every day and are the ones who purchase fuel and emit greenhouse gas as a
result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 18]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
EPA's Clean Air Act Authority
Reducing Emissions through Trailer Improvements
We support EPA's interpretation of its authority to regulate trailer manufacturers, namely, that the
trailer manufacturer is a motor vehicle manufacturer subject to compliance with emission standards
under section 202 of the Clean Air Act. EPA's prior regulations affecting the manufacturers of major
components of the motor vehicle demonstrate the agency's tradition of addressing mobile sources as
systems of components that contribute to vehicle emissions. The trailer manufacturer is the entity with
control over the design of the trailer -the load-carrying component of the heavy-duty vehicle, and thus a
major contributor to that vehicle's emissions. As such, it is eminently reasonable for EPA to devise
standards that harness the emissions-reducing opportunities inherent in trailer design. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1896-A1 p.7]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Along with the NODA, EPA has provided a legal memorandum responding to certain claims made by
TTMA that further explicates its legal authority to establish standards for trailers.16 We support EPA's
reasonable interpretation that a combined tractor-trailer is a motor vehicle within the meaning of section
202(a) and agree that EPA has permissibly required trailer manufactures to demonstrate compliance
with these requirements. We also support NHTSA's separate statutory authority to adopt standards for
trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.6-7]
a. EPA reasonably determined the combined tractor-trailer constitutes a "new motor vehicle" within the
meaning of section 202(a) and has permissibly established standards for trailers on that basis.
Section 202(a)(1) of the Act directs the Administrator to:
by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or
classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute
to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.17 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 7]
The Act further defines "motor vehicle" to mean "any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting
persons or property on a street or highway."18 EPA reasonably explained that a combined tractor-trailer
-------
meets the statutory definition for motor vehicle, noting "Class 7/8 heavy-duty vehicles are composed of
three major components:—The engine, the cab-chassis (i.e. the tractor), and the trailer," and
"[c]onnected together, a tractor and trailer constitute 'a self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting .
. . property on a street or highway,' and thus meet the definition of 'motor vehicle' under Section 216(2)
of the CAA."19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1886-A1 p. 7]
TTMA argues that, for purposes of regulating trailer manufacturers, the agency must separately consider
the tractor and trailer, but later, once physically connected, TTMA seems to concede that the combined
tractor-trailer would meet the statutory definition of "motor vehicle."20 That conclusion certainly does
not flow inextricably from the statute; nor is it reasonable. Indeed, TTMA's preferred interpretation—
which creates artificial limitations on the agency's ability to establish standards for a "new motor
vehicle"— ignores the realities of how these vehicles are designed and used, and would frustrate EPA's
statutory mandate to regulate "the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles."21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.7-8]
In any event, EPA is tasked with interpreting ambiguous statutory provisions and has done so
reasonably here, concluding that a trailer is a vehicle "when it has a frame with axles attached."22 That
interpretation is reasonable, it enables the agency to address a significant source of emissions from new
motor vehicles consistent with section 202's mandate and the underlying purposes of the Act, and
should be accorded deference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.8]
EPA's regulation of trailers is likewise consistent with and supported by the agency's long-standing,
holistic approach to addressing pollution from mobile sources. EPA identifies numerous examples, both
of section 202 provisions that authorize regulation of specific components, as well as past agency
regulations that address specific vehicle components, including by requiring testing of components and
incomplete vehicles to certify compliance with emission standards.23 In addition to these provisions,
EPA has, in other instances, reasonably established and assessed compliance with emissions standards
based on the ability of the integrated vehicle system to secure reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1886-A1 p.8]
Engine and Vehicle Standards. EPA and NHTSA's joint Heavy Duty and Light Duty National Programs
recognize the reality that reducing emissions from a class of vehicle requires a holistic approach. In the
Phase 1 heavy-duty rule, for instance, EPA and NHTSA affirmed "the importance of addressing the
entire vehicle in reducing fuel consumption and GHG emissions,"24 setting separate standards for the
tractor cab and the engine installed in the tractor,25 including "improvements in the tractor (such as
aerodynamics), tires, and other vehicle systems."26 Similarly, in setting the Phase 1 standards for light-
duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA considered reductions that could be achieved by deploying advanced
technologies and optimizing vehicle systems.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.8]
Compliance Assessment. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) for medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles, supporting Phase 1 and 2, likewise reflects an integrated, holistic approach. GEM allows
various vehicle characteristics to be evaluated for compliance with standards, including for Class 7 and
8 tractor manufacturers, inputs like aerodynamic drag, tire rolling resistance, vehicle speed limiter,
vehicle weight reduction, and extended idle reduction.28 These inputs implicate numerous components
of the vehicle including the tires, wheels, body, and transmission.29 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-
A1 p. 9]
Similarly, the OMEGA model for light-duty vehicles allows manufacturers to "choose from a myriad of
C02 reducing technologies," so that "for a variety of levels of C02 emission control, there are an
-------
almost infinite number of technology combinations which produce the desired C02 reduction."30 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 9]
EPA's past practice reflects a holistic approach to both establishing and assessing compliance with
vehicle emission standards, which allows emission standards to be met through improvements to many
portions of the integrated vehicle. In keeping with this longstanding approach, EPA has reasonably
interpreted its authority to include establishing emission standards for trailers, a major source of
emissions from the integrated heavy-duty vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.9]
b. EPA has Reasonably Required Trailer Manufacturers to Demonstrate Compliance with Trailer
Standards.
TTMA likewise objects that each motor vehicle can have only one manufacturer, that the trailer
manufacturer is not 'the' manufacturer for the combined tractor-trailer, and thus, that trailer
manufacturers cannot be regulated.31 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.9]
As a threshold matter, section 202(a)(1)—the provision under which EPA has adopted these standards—
requires that the agency adopt standards "applicable to . . . new motor vehicles" but does not describe
whether one or more entities may be responsible for meeting these standards. In the absence of such a
limitation, EPA reasonably determined that standards could apply to trailer manufacturers as well as
tractor manufacturers, given that "[t]he trailer manufacturer sets the design specifications that affect the
GHG emissions attributable to pulling the trailer."32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.9-10]
Even so, EPA reasonably determined that trailer manufacturers fall within statutory definition of
manufacturer in section 216, which is defined as: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 10]
any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle
engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines, or importing such vehicles or engines for resale,
or who acts for and is under the control of any such person in connection with the distribution of new
motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines.33 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 10]
This definition is capacious and in no way suggests a new motor vehicle must have a single
manufacturer. EPA has determined that "[i]t is reasonable to view the trailer manufacturer as 'engaged
in' (section 216 (1)) the manufacturing or assembling of the tractor-trailer,"34 and that its responsibility
under section 202 of the CAA to "prescribe (and from time to time revise). . . standards applicable to
the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles . . . which in his
judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare" includes the authority to regulate the manufacturer of the trailer component of the
combined tractor-trailer.35 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 10]
TTMA points to several provisions in Title II to support its alternative construction, but these provisions
do not compel its single-manufacturer interpretation. Moreover, as EPA notes, the single-manufacturer
interpretation would result in an unworkable system where entities without design or manufacturing
authority would face compliance obligations.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 10]
Accordingly, the agency's determination to set standards applicable to trailer manufacturers—given that
the trailer is a major contributor to the emissions of the heavy duty vehicle—is a reasonable
interpretation of the statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer. As such, the decision warrants
deference.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 10]
-------
c. NHTSA has Clear Authority to Regulate Trailers
TTMA likewise challenges NHTSA's authority to adopt trailer standards, but those challenges are
equally without merit. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) requires NHTSA to create a
medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency program "designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement" in fuel efficiency.38 Inclusion of trailers inNHTSA's program is reasonable, consistent
with the statute, and crucial to satisfying NHTSA's mandate to improve fuel efficiency. Moreover,
inclusion of trailers in the program reasonably harmonizes EISA with NHSTA's authority under the
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA) and with EPA authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 11]
EISA's fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks
amends 49 U.S.C. 32902, by adding a subsection (k). EISA also amends the defined terms contained in
section 32901 by adding the terms, 'automobile,' 'commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicle,' 'non-passenger automobile,' and 'work truck,' each of which is defined as a 'vehicle' of a
particular type.39 For example, a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle is "an on-
highway vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more."40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1886-A1 p. 11]
As NHTSA notes in the rule proposal,41 EISA does not define 'vehicle,' a term that appears repeatedly
in the provisions creating the fuel efficiency program for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicles and work trucks, as well as in the definitions of the added terms. Nor is 'vehicle' an
otherwise defined term under section 32901. In light of this silence, NHTSA reasonably looked to its
organic statute, the MVSA, contained at the same subtitle, which defines motor vehicle as "a vehicle
driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and
highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."42 Relying both on the terms of the
MVSA and EISA, NHTSA reasonably determined that trailers be included within the fuel efficiency
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 11]
TTMA asserts that the statutory reference to "gross vehicle weight rating" (GVWR) combined with the
distinction that EPA drew in a previous rulemaking between GVWR and 'gross combined weight
rating' (GCWR) somehow expressly forecloses NHTSA's regulation of trailers.43 However, at most this
reference helps to elucidate the types of tractors contemplated by the regulation and does not expressly
(or otherwise) foreclose regulation of trailers. Moreover, contrary to TTMA's assertion, EPA's
definition of GVWR considers the "loaded weight" of the vehicle, "in operational status with all
standard equipment."44 Indeed, the term, 'gross combined weight rating,' does not appear in any
provision under Title 42 or Title 49. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 11-12]
Accordingly, NHTSA reasonably concluded that trailers fall within the definition of commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on highway vehicle. Doing so is consistent with the statutory text; and
reasonably furthers NHTSA's mandate to secure "maximum feasible" improvements in fuel efficiency
from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p. 12]
16 EPA, Legal Memorandum Discussing Issues Pertaining to Trailers, Glider Vehicles, and Glider Kits
under the Clean Air Act, Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1627.
17 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
18 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2).
-------
19 80 Fed. Reg. 40170.
20 Comment submitted by John Freiler, Engineering Manager, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
(TTMA) to EPA Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Phase 2, at 3, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172
(September 30, 2015).
21 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
22 80 Fed. Reg. 40170.
23 EPA, Legal Memorandum Discussing Issues Pertaining to Trailers, Glider Vehicles, and Glider Kits
under the Clean Air Act, at 3 (citing examples including section 202 (a)(6) (standards for onboard vapor
recovery systems on light-duty vehicles, requiring installation of such systems); section 202 (a)(5)(A)
(standards to control emissions from refueling motor vehicles, requiring consideration of, and possible
design standards for, fueling system components); 202 (k) (standards to control evaporative emissions
from gasoline-fueled motor vehicles); and 40 C.F.R. 86.146-96 and 86.150-98 (refueling spitback and
refueling test procedures)).
24 76 Fed. Reg. 57115.
25 76 Fed. Reg. 57134.
26 76 Fed. Reg. 57135.
27 EPA and NHTSA reviewed a wide range of technologies available to manufacturers, including
gasoline direct injection, downsized engines that use turbochargers, advanced transmissions, start-stop
technology, improved tire rolling resistance, reductions in vehicle weight, and improvements in vehicle
air conditioners, including low leak systems. 75 Fed. Reg. 25332.
28 76 Fed. Reg. 57147.
29 In fact, a number of commenters on the proposal requested "that cab doors, cab sides and backs, cab
underbodies, frame rails, cross members, clutch housings, transmission cases, axle differential carrier
cases, brake drums, and other components be allowed to be replaced with light-weight versions" to meet
the tractor fuel consumption and C02 emissions standards." 76 Fed. Reg. 57151.
30 75 Fed. Reg. 25452. Inputs to the OMEGA model include low rolling resistance tires, low friction
lubricants, engine friction reduction, aggressive shift logic, early torque converter lock-up, improved
electrical accessories, low drag brakes, and advanced gasoline engine and transmission technologies
such as turbo/downsizing, gasoline direct injection, and dual-clutch transmission. 75 Fed. Reg. 25449-
50.
31 Comment submitted by John Freiler, Engineering Manager, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
(TTMA), at 5.
32 EPA, Legal Memorandum, at 5.
33 42 U.S.C. § 7550(1) (CAA § 216(1)).
-------
34 EPA, Legal Memorandum at 5.
35 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
36 EPA, Legal Memorandum, at 6.
37 See Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984) (Courts
"have long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department's
construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer." When an agency's authority "on a
particular question is implicit rather than explicit... a court may not substitute its own construction of a
statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.").
38 49 U.S.C. 32902(k).
39 The EISA defines both the 'commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle' and the 'work
truck' under section 32901 as a 'vehicle' of a particular gross vehicle weight rating. 49 U.S.C. §
32901(a)(7), (19).
40 49 U.S.C. § 32901(a)(7).
41 80 Fed. Reg. 40171.
42 49 U.S.C. § 30102(a)(7).
43 Comment submitted by John Freiler, Engineering Manager, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
(TTMA), at 6 ("EISA's definition of "commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle"
excludes trailers. GVWR is distinct from the gross combined weight rating ("GCWR"), which includes
both the weight of a loaded trailer and the weight of the tractor.").
44 40 CFR 86.1803-01. GVWR is defined as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the maximum
design loaded weight of a single vehicle, consistent with good engineering judgment." 'Loaded weight'
is defined as "the vehicle's curb weight plus 300 pounds." 'Curb weight' is defined as "the actual or the
manufacturer's estimated weight of the vehicle in operational status with all standard equipment, and
weight of fuel at nominal tank capacity, and the weight of optional equipment computed in accordance
with § 86.1832-01."
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
2. February 2016 draft EPA Legal Memorandum Discussing Issues Pertaining to Trailers, Glider
Vehicles, and Glider Kits under the Clean Air Act
NACAA is a strong proponent of regulating greenhouse gas emissions associated with trailers. In our
September 29, 2015 comments, we commended the agency for proposing such regulations for the first
time at the national level. In fact, we noted our belief that EPA's proposed trailer provisions missed
several opportunities to maximize fuel efficiency technologies in the heavy-duty trailer sector and urged
the agency to consider our recommendations for additional provisions in the final rule. NACAA has also
expressed support for the agency's proposal to close the existing loophole for glider kits and glider
vehicles, under which pre-2013 engines - with no limit on age - may be installed into new glider kits
without meeting applicable standards. We believe EPA has the environmental obligation to regulate
-------
trailers, glider vehicles and glider kits, as well as the legal authority to do so in the way it proposes and,
in fact, could go further. NACAA, therefore, welcomes the agency's draft legal memorandum on this
issue that provides clarification of the firm legal basis for its proposed actions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1890-A1 p.2]
Organization: Stoughton Trailers
Non-Vehicle
A trailer is not powered for self-transportation and does not directly produce C02; therefore, is not
under the authority of EPA with regard to the area of focus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.2]
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
Regarding Section (g) of the Memo: Alternative Provisions for Trailer Manufacturers.
We would first like to comment on Section (g) of the Memo, which states that EPA is considering an
alternative rule that would simply require trailer manufacturers to label and/or provide some test data to
show that the trailer is capable of being assembled into a compliant tractor-trailer, and then impose the
responsibility of combining compliant trailers with compliant tractors on the motor carriers. While we
would want to see the specifics of such a regulation and carefully consider the statutory authority and
practical implications, in general we find this approach be superior to the approach taken in the original
proposal, for again, as we understand this proposal, the agency would be placing the compliance
obligation on the motor carrier in matching tractors to trailers in daily use so as to achieve the regulatory
goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1873-A2 p.2]
Presuming that the Agencies can regulate the combination of tractors to trailers under the CAA, we
could, in principal, agree with the idea that marketing a trailer constructed in such a way that it could
not be used to meet those requirements or willfully mislabeled so as to nullify the regulations on the
combination of tractors and trailers could be viewed as a defeat-device under the regulation. We would
caution that there would undoubtedly be designs of trailers that could be legitimately used in accordance
with these regulations the Agency is considering, or be misused by an end user, and the possibility of
such misuse must not constitute "causing" the use of a defeat device. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-
A2 p.2]
Regarding the remainder of Memo as it pertains to Trailer Manufacturers:
Section 3 of our previous comment on the proposed rulemaking, submitted on September 30, 2015,
contained, set forth our objections to the Agencies' assertion of legal authority to regulate manufacturers
of non-motorized trailers, and we again incorporate that discussion here and add the following summary
comments: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.2]
EPA Authority: Congress, in enacting the Clean Air Act, did not authorize EPA to regulate trailers:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.2
A trailer is not a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the Clean Air Act (i.e. it is not "self-
propelled"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.2]
-------
Tractors and trailers are manufactured and sold separately by different sets of manufacturers to customer
populations that are not the same. As such, the tractor and the trailer cannot be considered a single
motor vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.2]
The language and structure of the Clean Air Act requirements and prohibitions contemplate a single
manufacturer of each new motor vehicle or each new motor vehicle engine. In the case of separate
manufacturers of the tractor and various trailers that might be hauled by that tractor, the requirements to
test, certify, and warrant "the motor vehicle" cannot on their face apply as written, since there is no
single manufacturer of "the motor vehicle." It also is unclear which of the manufacturers would be
responsible for selling an uncertified motor vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.2-3
That the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish standards for certain types of emission-related
vehicle components (e.g., onboard vapor recovery systems) does not grant EPA an open-ended license
to regulate any vehicle component. To the contrary, that Congress authorized EPA to regulate certain
types of components establishes that EPA is not authorized to regulate those components not
specifically enumerated in the Act. EPA's position is limitless and suggests that EPA has authority to
regulate the design characteristics of any component or portion of the vehicle, which thereby renders
more specific provisions in the Act superfluous, contrary to well-established rules of statutory
interpretation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.3]
In short, Congress authorized EPA to regulate both engines and complete motor vehicles (containing
engines), but Congress did not authorize EPA to regulate a trailer, which is not self-propelled, even if
that trailer might be regarded as essential to the purpose of a tractor to transport property. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.3]
NHTSA Authority: Congress, in enacting the Energy Independence and Security Act ("EISA"), did not
authorize NHTSA to regulate trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.3]
The EISA defines "commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle" to mean "an on-highway
vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] of 10,000 pounds or more." This definition excludes
trailers. In particular, GVWR is widely understood, including by EPA and NHTSA in prior
rulemakings, to include only the loaded weight of the tractor, and specifically to exclude the weight of
the trailer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.3
GVWR is distinct from the gross combined weight rating ("GCWR"), which includes both the weight of
a loaded trailer and the weight of the tractor itself. And indeed, EPA and NHTSA recognized this
important distinction in promulgating GHG emission standards and fuel efficiency standards for
medium and heavy-duty engines and vehicles in 2011, stating: "GVWR describes the maximum load
that can be carried by a vehicle, including the weight of the vehicle itself. Heavy-duty vehicles also have
a gross combined weight rating (GCWR), which describes the maximum load that the vehicle can haul,
including the weight of a loaded trailer and the vehicle itself." See 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106, 57,114 (Sept.
15, 2011). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.3]
In other words, the EISA definition is tethered to GVWR. If Congress intended the definition of
"commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle" to include trailers, it could have done so
either explicitly or by defining the category of vehicles by reference to GCWR instead of GVWR.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873 -A2 p. 3]
The statutory directive for the agency to regulate the fuel economy of commercial medium- and heavy
duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks indicates that Congress did not intend to encompass trailers.
-------
Specifically, Section 32902(k) directs the Secretary of Transportation to examine "the fuel efficiency of
commercial and medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles," to determine procedures and methods
"for measuring the fuel efficiency of such vehicles," to take into consideration the "work performed by
such on-highway vehicles" and to implement "fuel economy standards." But trailers do not actually
have any source of power, do not consume fuel, and do not do any work by themselves. As discussed
above in relation to EPA authority, trailers may be hauled by multiple different tractors, resulting in
different fuel economy for the various tractor-trailer combinations. Even if trailers might have
aerodynamic characteristics that affect the fuel economy of the tractor that actually uses fuel, the trailer
does not itself have "fuel efficiency," and Congress did not authorize the Secretary to establish
aerodynamic requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.3-4]
Conclusion
While direct regulation of trailer manufacturers remains outside the statutory authority granted under the
Clean Air Act or the Energy Independence and Security Act, there is a method suggested in Section (g)
of the Memo and laid out in our comments to the proposed rulemaking to accomplish the Agencies'
goals that may be fall within the bounds of statutory authority. While we stand by our contention that
EPA's SmartWay program provides the optimal solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption in the heavy duty freight sector, we hope that if the Agencies feel that additional regulation
is needed, they will pursue the "Alternative Provisions" approach and work with the trucking industry to
create a set of reasonable and effective regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1873-A2 p.4]
Once again, we appreciate the Agencies' outreach to the trailer manufacturers and pledge to continue
our cooperation in efforts to develop the most effective regulations possible within the existing legal
framework. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A2 p.4]
22 E.g. 80FR40612 Table 1 of §1037.107 - Phase 2 C02 Standards for Trailers.
23 For Long Dry Vans, the proposal goes from a baseline of 87.6 to 77 g/ton-mile of C02 or a 12%
reduction. Fuel required roughly scales with the cube of speed, so a reduction of 4% to speed limits, or
reducing 65 to 62 would do that.
29 As pointed out in the text, member companies cannot share specifics through the Truck Trailer
Manufacturers Association. We will be encouraging individual members to cite this footnote and supply
supporting materials as confidential business information.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
Along with its persistent commitment to building the industry's strongest, lightest, and safest trailers,
Utility is an excellent steward of the environment. Utility Trailer therefore appreciates the Agencies'
overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 1]
Unfortunately, by extending its Proposed Rule to semi-trailers, the EPA has adopted an unprecedented
interpretation of its authority that exceeds its Congressional authorization. Additionally, the Agencies
have based its analysis on assumptions that are completely untethered from the real world, resulting in
proposed regulations that will yield minimal, if any, net greenhouse-gas reduction while imposing
crippling administrative burdens on the semi-trailer industry. Utility Trailer respectfully requests that
the Agencies reconsider the wisdom of pursuing its foray into regulating the aerodynamic performance
-------
of trailers, and - if they nonetheless are committed to this path - to reform their rules to minimize
unnecessary burdens on the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Volvo Group
Also included in the NoDA were arguments related to the Agencies' authority to regulate glider vehicles
and trailers. The Volvo Group fully supports EPA's and NHTSA's efforts to achieve efficiency gains
and criteria emissions reductions as related to gliders and trailers, and offer our comments that follow
accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p.3]
Comments on Legal Memorandum Pertaining to Trailers, Glider Vehicles, and Glider Kits under
the CAA - EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1627
Volvo further supports EPA's proposal to regulate trailers, although we have no comment with respect
to the Agency's position on its legal authority to do so. The regulation of trailers is integral to the
success of EPA's Phase II GHG regulation. As EPA's Proposed Rule notes, the Agency predicts that
between 3 percent and 8 percent of anticipated fuel consumption and C02 improvements from the
Phase II regulations are expected to come from proposed trailer requirements.8 While it may be possible,
with significant investment, research and development, to design tractors to meet these limits using
advanced aerodynamic trailers, and while it may be possible to certify tractors using such trailers, these
efforts will be significantly undermined in the absence of regulations requiring the development of
aerodynamic trailers. The imposition of stringent new GHG standards on tractors is unreasonable in the
absence of similar standards for trailers given the relatively low benefits derived from what will require
a very substantial investment for vehicle manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.25]
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
B. Granting "Small" Manufacturers Exemptions Appears Legally Problematic
EPA's legal basis for temporarily exempting small trailer manufacturers is questionable. While EPA
relied on the Regulatory Flexibility Act to create special provisions for small trailer manufacturers,
"[t]he Regulatory Flexibility Act's requirements are purely procedural and only require the agency to
describe the required topics."54 The Regulatory Flexibility Act therefore '"does not alter the substantive
mission of the agencies under their own statutes; rather, the Act creates procedural obligations to assure
that the special concerns of small entities are given attention in the comment and analysis process. . .
,'"55 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.22]
Here, Section 202 of the CAA sets "the substantive mission" of EPA, authorizing the agency to set
emissions standards for on-road vehicles and engines.56 But the text of Section 202 says nothing about
authorizing EPA to grant special exemptions for small manufacturers. In contrast, several other sections
of the CAA contain small business exemptions.57 Reading a similar small business exception into
Section 202 is dubious because "[w]here Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general
prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary
legislative intent."58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.22]
The legislative history of Section 202 suggests that Congress did not intend to grant EPA authority for a
small manufacturer exemption. In the 1977 CAA amendments, Congress amended Section 202 to create
a small manufacturer exemption for certain model years of motor vehicles. That exemption, however,
-------
expired in the 1982 model year and was then repealed as part of the 1990 amendments of the CAA.59
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 22]
Section 317 of the CAA bolsters the view that Congress never intended EPA to alter or adjust Section
202 emissions standards for small manufacturers. Consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Section 317 of the CAA requires EPA to prepare a procedural analysis of the "effects" of CAA
rulemakings "with respect to small business."60 However, Section 317 further provides that "[n]othing"
in Section 317 "shall be construed" to "alter the basis on which a standard or regulation is promulgated
under this chapter," including Section 202.61 Congress, moreover, stripped courts of jurisdiction to
consider any claims arising from EPA's procedural analysis of small business impacts under Section
317.62 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.23]
None of these elaborate references to small businesses in the CAA would make much sense if EPA
could rely on implied authority to craft small business exemptions.63 Wabash respectfully submits that
all trailer manufacturers, including the remaining 80% of the industry that EPA deems small businesses,
comply with the proposed Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.23]
50 See id. at 40,285, 40.544-46. In addition to proposing that small manufacturers receive a one-year
delay in complying with the 2018 deadline, EPA requested comment on whether a similar one-year
delay maybe warranted when the trailer standards become more stringent in 2021 and 2024. Id. at
40,285. EPA also requested comment on whether compliance might be delayed in the future where LRR
tires and ATIS might be unavailable for small manufacturers. Id. Wabash opposes these vague proposals
for future delays because they are speculative, unjustified, and unlawful. Generalized fears about the
ability to comply years down the road are no basis to grant additional delays now. If concrete problems
arise during the implementation of the rule, small manufacturers may petition EPA for relief, which
could then be handled pursuant to the agency's ordinary procedures.
51 See id. at 40,616 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 1037.150) ("Standards apply on a delayed schedule for
manufacturers meeting the small business criteria specified in 13 CFR 121.201.").
52 See, e.g., EPA & NHTSA, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—
Phase 2, at 1-4 (June 2015) [hereinafter "Draft RIA"] ("Trailers are far less mechanically complex than
the tractors that haul them, and much of trailer manufacturing is done by hand.").
53 Draft RIA at 1-5. See also ICR Supporting Statement, at 25 ("Of the 114 trailer manufacturers, 95 are
considered small businesses.").
54 Associated Dog Clubs ofNew York State, Inc. v. Vilsack, 75 F. Supp.3d 83, 95 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing
Nat'I Tel. Coop. Ass >? v. FCC, 563 F.3d 536, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2009) and U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC, 254
F.3d 78, 88 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
55 N.C. Fisheries Ass 'n, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 518 F.Supp.2d 62, 72 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Little Bay
Lobster Co., Inc. v. Evans, 352 F.3d 462, 470 (1st Cir. 2003)).
56 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a).
-------
57 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 751 la(b)(3)(A) (exempting certain small gas stations from gasoline vapor
recovery); id. § 7545(e)(3) (authorizing EPA to exempt, defer, or modify fuel and additive testing for
small businesses); id. § 7545(o) (granting small refineries certain exemptions from the Renewable Fuels
Standard); id. § 7625 (vapor recovery for small business marketers of petroleum products); id. § 7651(h)
(allowance provisions for small diesel refineries); id. § 766 If (small business stationary source technical
and environmental compliance assistance program).
58 TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28 (2001); see alsoNRDCv. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1259 (D.C. Cir.
2007) ("When the Congress wanted to exempt a particular kind of solid waste combustor from [CAA]
section 129's coverage—based on the desirability of resource recovery or any other interest—it knew
how to accomplish this through an express statutory exception and in fact did so for four specific classes
of combustion units.... Had the Congress intended to exempt all units that combust waste for the purpose
of recovering thermal energy, it could likewise have expressly provided for their exemption in the
statute.").
59 See CAA Amendments of 1977, PL 95-95, 91 Stat. 685, § 201 (formerly codified at CAA §
202(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(1)); Am. Motors Corp. v. Blum, 603 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
(vacating EPA action because it violated the small manufacturer exemption formerly found in CAA
Section 202(b)(1)(B)).
60 42 U.S.C. § 7617(a)(5) (providing that Section 317 applies to rulemakings under Section 202), § 7617
(c)(3) (requiring an analysis of small business impacts for rulemakings covered under Section 317).
61 42 U.S.C. § 7617(e)(1); see also id. § 7617(c) ("Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide
that the analysis of the factors specified in this subsection affects or alters the factors which the
Administrator is required to consider in taking any action referred to in subsection (a) of this section.").
62 42 U.S.C. § 7617(e)(3) ("Nothing in this section shall be construed. . . to authorize or require any
judicial review of any such standard or regulation, or any stay or injunction of the proposal,
promulgation, or effectiveness of such standard or regulation on the basis of failure to comply with this
section."); see also Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass 'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 467 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (holding
that Section 317(e)(3) deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction to review auto suppliers claims
that EPA failed to analyze the small business impacts of a Section 202 rule).
63 See Michigan v. EPA, 268 F.3d 1075, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("EPA cannot rely on its general
authority [under the CAA] to make rules necessary to carry out its functions when a specific statutory
directive defines the relevant functions of EPA in a particular area.").
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
IV. EPA Should Not Add Regulatory Text Giving the Agency Authority to Recall Trailer Tires
In its October 1, 2015 comments, RMA provided several legal and policy reasons why EPA should not
give itself recall authority over tires. RMA's comments seem to be in line with an EPA legal
memorandum4 recently added to the docket and mentioned in the NODA. Specifically, RMA supports
EPA's acknowledgement in the legal memorandum that tire manufacturers are not vehicle
manufacturers under the Clean Air Act, meaning that the agency would not have recall authority over
tire manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.5]
-------
In the legal memorandum, EPA distinguished tire manufacturers from trailer manufacturers in such a
way to make clear that tire manufacturers should not be considered vehicle manufacturers.5 First, EPA
pointed out that GHG emissions attributable to the trailer are a substantial portion of the total GHG
emissions from the tractor trailer. Next, the agency noted that the trailer is a significant, integral part of
the finished motor vehicle. Then, because of those reasons, EPA asserted that a trailer manufacturer is
not analogous to a part or component manufacturer such as a tire manufacturer or a manufacturer of a
side skirt. By making these arguments, EPA acknowledged that a tire's impact on a trailer's overall
GHG emissions is more attenuated, recognized that tires alone are not a significant portion of a finished
motor vehicle, and correctly identified tire manufacturers as part manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1933-A1 p.5]
Therefore, by EPA characterizing tire manufacturers as part manufacturers, not vehicle manufacturers,
the agency is essentially acknowledging that it would not have recall authority over tire manufacturers.
RMA supports this determination for several legal and policy reasons discussed below and in prior
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.6]
In the Preamble to the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether it should add regulatory text
that would essentially give the agency authority to recall trailer tires that do not conform to the
regulations.6 As support for this idea, EPA pointed to section 207(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act, the Act's
recall provision.7Section 207(c)(1) notes that: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.6]
If the Administrator determines that a substantial number of any class or category of vehicles or
engines, although properly maintained and used, do not conform to the regulations ... of this title, when
in actual use throughout their useful life ... [the Administrator] shall require the manufacturer to submit
a plan for remedying the nonconformity of the vehicles or engines...8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-
A1 p.6]
Section 216 of the Clean Air Act defines manufacturer as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or
assembling of new motor vehicles ... or [any person] who acts for and is under control of any such
person."9 As noted in past comments, the plain language of these provisions seems to provide EPA with
recall authority over manufacturers of vehicles and engines only, not over other part manufacturers.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-193 3 -A 1 p. 6]
The legislative history provides additional evidence that Congress did not intend to give EPA recall
authority over other part manufacturers. The portions of the U.S. House Committee Report and the
Conference Report that covered section 207 only mention vehicles and engines as the products that
could be recalled under that section of the Clean Air Act.10 The House Committee also envisioned
testing of vehicles and engines to be quick, easy, and uniform, which seems incongruous to the testing
process for tires.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.6]
Additionally, tires are a consumable item, not a durable component of the trailer and EPA has
historically focused on durable components of vehicles for recall purposes. In addition, unlike many
other emissions-related vehicle components, a tire's efficiency improves (tire rolling resistance
decreases) as a tire wears, thus improving the tire's contribution to fuel economy. In the most recent and
publicly available guidance document on recalls, EPA tracked vehicle and engine recalls by problem
category and none of the categories seem comparable to tires. For example, EPA recalls have primarily
been related to the catalytic system, the fuel delivery system, or the computer system based on their
direct impact on emissions.12 A tire's impact on emissions is more attenuated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1933-A1 p.7]
-------
If EPA's recall regulations were applied to tires, it is unclear how they would be enforced. The agency
has acknowledged that insignificant defects do not warrant recalls.13 But in the proposal EPA does not
discuss tolerances or other policies to account for manufacturing or testing variability. Similar issues
have been addressed in Europe, where regulations setting rolling resistance performance thresholds set a
regulatory allowance of 0.3 kg/tto accommodate sources of variability.14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1933-A1 p. 7]
Other global regions that have adopted the allowance of +0.3 kg/t allowance for conformity of
production testing include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.7]
• The Brazilian Regulation # R544 "Conformity Assessment Requirements For New Tires"
• South Korea "Regulations for Measurement of Energy Efficiency of Tires for Motor Vehicles, and Its
Rating and Identification"
Without an alignment procedure that addresses sources of testing variability (machine alignment,
machine drift, production variation, etc.), demonstrating non-compliance would be very difficult. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.7]
Response: General EPA Authority Issues
Levels of the Standards and Alternative 4
As described in the FRM preamble and in Chapter 2 of the RIA, the agencies have adopted technology-
forcing standards that are fully consistent with the agencies' respective statutory authorities. However,
the agencies have determined that the so-called Alternative 4 pull ahead vehicle standards would not
provide sufficient lead time (raising, among other things, issues of technical reliability, as noted by a
number of commenters), and thus would not be appropriate under either agency's authority.
Authority to Exempt Small Businesses
Wabash Corp. argues that section 202 (a)(1) and (2) do not provide authority for EPA to create
exemptions for small businesses. (The comment does not address NHTSA's parallel authority under
EISA). The gist of the argument is that section 202 (a)(1) and (2) do not explicitly mention exemption
authority or small business impacts, that section 202 previously contained such a provision which was
removed in the 1990 amendments, and that other provisions of the Act (notably section 317) do address
small business impacts showing that Congress was explicit when desiring EPA to consider such
impacts, at least in an exemption context. The comment is perplexing. EPA is required to consider
"cost of compliance" in establishing standards under section 202 (a)(2). An aspect of considering costs
is (or, at the very least, can be) to consider impacts on small entities. Regulatory costs can impact small
businesses disproportionately, and also result in standards which are less cost effective due to the
smaller volumes of pollutant emitted. These are all factors EPA at the very least may consider in
determining an appropriate regulatory regime. Any exemptions EPA chooses to create as part of this
consideration must have a reasoned factual basis, but are certainly not outside EPA's delegated
authority. The commenter's reference to the former section 202 (b) (1), which was removed by the
1990 amendments, is misplaced. That provision required EPA to consider a different NOx standard and
lead time for vehicles manufactured in the 1981 and 1982 model years by smaller volume producers
who did not produce their own catalytic converters and lacked the resources to do so. See American
Motors Corp. v. Boyd, 603 F. 2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1979/ The provision was undoubtedly removed in the
1990 amendments because it was moot. Certainly, there is nothing about that former provision
-------
suggesting that EPA cannot consider whether regulation is warranted under section 202 (a)(2) as part of
consideration of costs. Cf. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, No. 11-1108 (D.C. Cir. July 29, 2016) slip op. at
52 ("Under the CAA, the EPA may sometimes act with a soft touch, rather than a firm hand").
Authority to Establish Delegated Assembly Provisions
Daimler Truck maintains that EPA lacks authority to establish delegated assembly provisions, largely
based on a convoluted argument that Congress intended a more restrictive definition of "commerce" in
the Clean Air Act (or perhaps in Title II), and that pre-sale vehicles aren't introduced into commerce
under that restricted definition. At the beginning of this argument, Daimler states that EPA bases its
delegated assembly regulations on the authority to regulate the "introduction into commerce".
However, this is incomplete and misleading. The relevant statutory prohibition in section 203(a)(1)
prohibits not only the "introduction into commerce" of uncertified vehicles, but also the "distribution in
commerce" or "sale" of uncertified vehicles (among others). Daimler does not dispute that, without the
exemption provided by the delegated assembly regulations, selling and/or distributing vehicles that are
not in a certified configuration is prohibited because such vehicles are not actually covered by a valid
certificate of conformity. However, because Daimler's comment focuses on "introduction into
commerce", the remainder of this response addresses that aspect of their comment.
Delegated assembly provisions are, of course, not unique to this rule and have been in place for many
years. See, e.g. 73 FR 59034, 59137-38 (Oct. 8, 2008). Daimler has operated under these provisions (as
it acknowledges), and so may be raising its comment far out of time. In this regard, EPA has already
addressed the issue of the relationship between the "introduced into commerce" provision of section 203
(a)(1) and the need for delegated assembly allowances in light of that provision, and so has already
addressed the scope of the delegated assembly allowance. See 70 FR 40424-25 (July 13, 2005). EPA
did not reopen, reconsider, or otherwise seek comment on this longstanding interpretation. However, in
the event this seemingly untimely comment requires response, EPA believes that Daimler is mistaken
for the reasons set out below.
Daimler's comment presents the following questions:
1. Does EPA have authority to promulgate pre-sale regulations? More specifically, are pre-sale
regulations authorized as regulation of vehicles' "introduction to commerce" under Sec.
202(a)(1))?
2. Assuming EPA's ability to regulate pre-sale matters, is EPA authorized to regulate contracts
between the primary manufacturer and any secondary manufacturers for the installation of
emissions-related components?
These questions can be answered simply:
1. Yes. Pre-sale regulations fall within the scope of EPA's general Title II authority. In addition,
"introduction into commerce" includes pre-sale activities, as "commerce" is not narrowly
defined in the Clean Air Act.
2. Yes. EPA may condition the granting of certificates of conformity on a wide range of factors,
especially when the primary manufacturer is relying on a secondary manufacturer for partial
assembly of the vehicle.
We explain these answers below.
-------
I. Pre-sale regulation clearly falls within the scope of EPA's general Title II authority.
For most of Title II, no line is drawn for the point at which EPA may begin to regulate. In fact, much of
Title II specifically contemplates pre-sale regulation. For example, Sec. 203(a)(3)(A) forbids removal or
tampering with devices installed "in compliance with regulations under this subchapter prior to its
sale..." and Sec. 203 (a)(3)(B) expressly prohibits "any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or
install, any part or component.. .where a principle effect of the part is to" render such devices
inoperative. Certification under section 206 necessarily addresses pre-sale vehicles.
II. The Clean Air Act does not create a narrow definition of "commerce."
The commenter relies on context clues to argue that the definition of "commerce" under the Clean Air
Act (or at least Title II) is narrower than Congress's authority over commerce. There is no direct
evidence of Congressional intent to shrink the definition of commerce in the Clean Air Act, however. In
fact, Sec. 216(6) defines "commerce" as "(A) commerce between any place in any State and any place
outside thereof; and (B) commerce wholly within the District of Columbia." (The commenter,
surprisingly, does not even cite this provision). If Congress had meant to define commerce differently
from its well-accepted and heavily litigated legal definition, which, as the commenter point out, extends
to manufacturing activities, it would have done so expressly in Sec. 216.
III. "Introduction into commerce" includes pre-sale activities.
Congress also meant "introduction into commerce" to include manufacturing and other pre-sale
activities. The commenter argues that "if Congress considered 'introduction into commerce' to include
manufacturing, then the 'manufacture for sale' is surplusage in the sections of the CAA where it sits
alongside mention of sale or introduction into commerce." However, it is clear that the lists of activities
outlined in various parts of the Clean Air Act and quoted in part by the commenter are repetitive by
design—otherwise, the same surplusage logic applies with equal force to the term "introduction to
commerce" itself. The use of "introduction to commerce" in these lists across the Clean Air Act is
instructive:
• Sec. 183(e)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 751 lb(e)(3)(A)): "In order to carry out this section, the
Administrator may, by regulation, control or prohibit any activity, including the manufacture or
introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any consumer or commercial
product..."
• Sec. 187(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7512a(b)(3)): "The State shall submit a revision to require that
gasoline sold, supplied, offered for sale or supply, dispensed, transported or introduced into
commerce... be blended..."
• Sec. 203(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7522(a)(1)) (the provision at issue here): "In the case of a
manufacturer... the sale, or the offering for sale, or the introduction, or delivery for introduction,
into commerce [is prohibited]..."
• Sec. 211(a) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7545(a)): "No manufacturer or processor of any such fuel or
additive may sell, offer for sale, or introduce into commerce such fuel or additive..."
• Sec. 211(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7545(c)(1)): "The Administrator may.. .by regulation, control or
prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or
fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle..."
-------
• Sec. 211(f)(2) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7545(f)(2)): "It shall be unlawful for any manufacturer of any
fuel to introduce into commerce any gasoline which contains a concentration of manganese in
excess of .0625..."
• Sec. 211(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7545(h)(1)): "The Administrator shall promulgate regulations
making it unlawful for any person during the high ozone season.. .to sell, offer for sale,
dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline..."
It is unclear from many of these lists what independent work "introduce into commerce" is doing. What
does it mean, if not "sale, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, [or] transport"? It seems to
have been designed by Congress as a catch-all term that allows EPA to regulate commerce-related
activities, manufacturing included.
Furthermore, those sections of the Clean Air Act either specifically apply to manufacturers (Sees.
203(a)(1), 211(a), and 211(f)(2)), specifically include manufacturing (Sees. 183(e)(3)(A) and 211(c)(1)),
or regulate a product in which manufacturing restrictions would be absurd (Sec. 187(b)(3)), which
requires gasoline to be blended with oxygen-rich fuels in certain areas and during certain times of the
year to provide for attainment of carbon monoxide NAAQS, and Sec. 211(h)(1), which has a similar
time- and place-specific requirement to provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS).
If a manufacturer is being regulated for what it can "introduce into commerce," that regulation naturally
extends to the manufacturing itself. Congress only needed to include "manufacture" in the list of
activities that could be regulated for provisions that applied to a broader set of actors than manufacturers
themselves.
The commenter also attempts to draw a parallel between "introduction into commerce" and the "useful
life" provisions of Title II. That parallel does not seem to exist in any statutory language or legislative
history of which EPA is aware. "Useful life" and "introduction into commerce" are used in very
different ways in distinct sections of the Clean Air Act, and thus do not inform each other's definitions.
IV. Legislative history supports the view that Sec. 203 allows for regulation of pre-sale
activities.
The commenter draws attention to changes in the language of Sec. 203 during the passage of the 1970
Clean Air Act Amendments, but brings up no evidence that these changes actually restrict EPA
authority to regulate pre-sale activities. Throughout the debates and eventual passage of the 1970
amendments, Congress made sure to characterize all of the changes made to Sec. 203 as either the status
quo ("Sections 203, 204, and 205 would be, for practicable purposes, repetition of existing law." S. Rep.
No. 91-1196, at 28) or as expansions of EPA's authority ("This revised section [203] extends the
prohibitions now in the Act" in numerous areas. S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 61).
Statements made during the House debate of the bill support this interpretation. In regards to Sections
203 and 206, "the bill provides for tighter automotive emission control standards and for new testing
and certification procedures to insure that new motor vehicle engines comply with the regulations." 116
Cong. Rec. 19,220 (1970) (statement of Rep. Monagan). The same is true for hearings in the Senate.
"We wrote the law with the intention of giving the Secretary every authority he could conceivably need"
in regards to certificates of conformity. Air Pollution - 1970: Hearing on S. 2466 Before the Subcomm.
on Air and Water Pollution of the S. Comm. on Public Works, 91st Cong. (1970) (Statement of Sen.
Muskie).
-------
V. EPA's testing and inspection authority extends to creation of the "delegated assembly"
regulatory provisions.
Under Sec. 206(a)(1), EPA is authorized to issue certificates of conformity to manufacturers whose
products pass testing requirements laid down by EPA ("tested in such a manner as [the Administrator]
deems appropriate"). Part of that testing regime is being able to understand how individual components
of the vehicle contribute to emissions or emissions reductions. Sec. 206(a)(3) explains that such a
certificate may only be issued if "any emissions control device, system, or element of design" abides by
applicable regulations in Sec. 202(a)(4), which allows for the Administrator to consider a number of
factors.
As noted above, delegated assembly provisions were created by EPA years ago to handle the realities of
the manufacturing process, especially for heavy duty vehicles, in accord with the structure of the Clean
Air Act. If most of a vehicle is built by a primary manufacturer, and then emissions control devices or
any other part are installed by a secondary manufacturer, EPA must inquire into the communications
and contracts between those manufacturers to verify that the correct parts are going on the correct
vehicles consistently, and the installation process is occurring according to the regulations. Certificates
of conformity are how Congress empowered EPA to verify the consistency of the manufacturing and
recordkeeping processes taken by manufacturers so that the agency didn't have to require extensive
testing of every vehicle that came off the line. Delegated assembly provisions, including certain
requirements for contracts between primary and secondary manufacturers, allow EPA to continue to
issue certificates of conformity for manufacturers who do not assemble the entire vehicle on their own.
Without those provisions, EPA would be unable to verify that Sec. 206(a)(3)'s statutory mandate was
fulfilled.
The commenter argues that even if EPA can regulate prior to first sale of a vehicle, it still can only
adopt "test-based" provisions, and concludes that "prescribing procedures relating to contracts between
manufacturers is not 'testing'". This argument fails for the reasons just given. The delegated assembly
provisions are a necessary adjunct to the certification (i.e. testing) requirements which are the heart of
Title II's compliance regime. This is not regulating the means of manufacture, as the commenter would
have it, but rather part of the process of assuring that the vehicle will be assembled in its certified
condition.
Finally, Daimler omits mention of several additional relevant points. First, delegated assembly is an
option provided as a flexibility in multi-manufacturer situations, but Daimler is free to be the sole
manufacturer of the motor vehicle. Second, even if (against our view) one were to accept the
commenter's argument of a restrictive definition of commerce, "the offering for sale" and the "delivery
for introduction, into commerce" of vehicles without a certificate would still be prohibited. See section
203 (a)(1) of the Act. (As noted above, these additional prohibitions also indicate on their face that pre-
sale activities are within EPA's authority under Title II.) Thus, a vehicle must evidently be in certified
condition pre-sale by some means. The delegated assembly provisions provide flexibility in multi-
manufacturer situations but they are voluntary. Daimler remains free to act as a sole manufacturer
should it not wish to utilize the delegated assembly flexibility.
Recall Authority over Tires
The Rubber Manufacturers Association maintain that recall authority exists only with respect to vehicles
and engines, and because tires are a part, and not a vehicle or an engine, tire manufacturers cannot be
compelled to recall tires. The commenter also points to EPA's discussion in the context of trailers and
glider kits which it believes illustrates that, unlike trailers and glider kits, tires are parts, not vehicles.
-------
CAA section 207(c)(1) requires "the manufacturer" to remedy certain in-use problems. The remedy
process is generally called recall, and the regulations for this process are in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart
F. EPA requested comment on whether to apply these requirements to tire manufacturers in the case of
in-use problems with trailer tires. EPA is not adopting this suggestion in the Phase 2 rules, and so we
are not requiring that component manufacturers conduct recalls independent of the certificate holder.
The Rubber Manufacturers Association indicates correctly that tires are not incomplete vehicles and
hence that the recall authority does not apply. However, EPA remains of the view that in the event that
trailers do not conform to the standards in-use due to nonconforming tires, tire manufacturers would
have a role to play in remedying the problem. In this (hypothetical) situation, a tire manufacturer would
not only have produced the part in question, but would have significantly more resources and
knowledge regarding how to address (and redress) the problem. Accordingly, EPA would likely
require that a component manufacturer responsible for the nonconformity assist in the recall to an extent
and in a manner consistent with the provisions of CAA 208 (a). This section specifies that component
and part manufacturers "shall establish and maintain records, perform tests where such testing is not
otherwise reasonably available under this part and part C of this subchapter (including fees for testing),
make reports and provide information the Administrator may reasonably require to determine whether
the manufacturer or other person has acted or is acting in compliance with this part and part C of this
subchapter and regulations thereunder, or to otherwise carry out the provision of this part and part C of
this subchapter...". Any such action would be considered on a case-by-case basis, adapted to the
particular circumstances at the time.
Response: EPA Authority for Gliders and Trailers
In this final rule, EPA is establishing first-time C02 emission standards for trailers hauled by tractors.
80 FR 40170. Certain commenters, notably the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA),
maintained that EPA lacks authority to adopt requirements for trailer manufacturers, and that emission
standards for trailers could be implemented, if at all, by requirements applicable to the entity
assembling a tractor-trailer combination. The argument is that trailers by themselves are not "motor
vehicles" as defined in section 216 (2) of the Act, that trailer manufacturers therefore do not
manufacture motor vehicles, and that standards for trailers can be imposed, if at all, only on "the party
that joined the trailer to the tractor." Comments of TTMA, p. 4; Comments of TTMA (March 31, 2016)
p. 2.
EPA also proposed a number of changes and clarifications for rules respecting glider kits and glider
vehicles. 80 FR 40527-40530. As shown in Error! Reference source not found., a glider kit is a
tractor chassis with frame, front axle, interior and exterior cab, and brakes. It is intended for self-
propelled highway use, and becomes a glider vehicle when an engine, transmission, and rear axle are
added. Engines are often salvaged from earlier model year vehicles, remanufactured, and installed in
the glider kit. The final manufacturer of the glider vehicle, i.e. the entity that installs an engine, is
typically a different manufacturer than the original manufacturer of the glider kit. The final rule
contains emission standards for engines used in glider vehicles and for greenhouse gas emissions from
glider vehicles, but does not contain separate standards for glider kits.2
2 As discussed below, however, manufacturers of glider kits can, and typically are, responsible for obtaining a
certificate of conformity before shipping a glider kit. This is because they are manufacturers of motor vehicles, in
this case, an incomplete vehicle. Note that Daimler, in its comments, essentially indicates (in the context of
comments related to delegated assembly provisions) that EPA may adopt "test-based" provisions for
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles ("even if the EPA could regulate prior to the first use of an engine or
-------
Figure 1 - Typical Glider Kit Configuration
Many commenters to both the proposed rule and the NODA supported EPA's interpretation. However,
a number of commenters, including Daimler, argued that glider kits are not motor vehicles and so EPA
lacks the authority to impose any rules respecting their sale or configuration. Comments of Daimler, pp
vehicle, Congress authorized only test-based standards ... testing of vehicles Or engines is the means by which the
EPA determines the compliance that is necessary for a vehicle or engine's introduction into commerce") The
provisions applicable to glider kits are just this type of testing provision, examples being testing of tires and
aerodynamic components to generate inputs used in the certification process, (The commenters arguments that
other aspects of the delegated assembly provisions are impermissible are addressed earlier in this same Response).
-------
122-23; Comments of Daimler Trucks (April 1, 2016) pp. 2-3. We respond to these comments below,
with additional discussion in RTC Section 14.2.
Under the Act, "motor vehicle" is defined as "any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting
persons or property on a street or highway." CAA section 216 (2). At proposal, EPA maintained that
tractor-trailers are motor vehicles and that EPA therefore has the authority to promulgate emission
standards for complete and incomplete vehicles - both the tractor and the trailer. 80 FR 40170. The
same proposition holds for glider kits and glider vehicles. Id. at 80 FR 40528. The argument that a
trailer, or a glider kit, standing alone, is not self-propelled, and therefore is not a motor vehicle, misses
the key issues of authority under the Clean Air Act to promulgate emission standards for motor vehicles
produced in discrete segments, and the further issue of the entities - namely "manufacturers" - to which
standards and certification requirements apply. Simply put, EPA is authorized to set emission standards
for complete and incomplete motor vehicles, manufacturers of complete and incomplete motor vehicles
can be required to certify to those emission standards, and there can be multiple manufacturers of a
motor vehicle, each of which can be required to certify.
Standards for Complete Vehicles - Tractor-Trailers and Glider Vehicles
Section 202 (a)(1) authorizes EPA to set standards "applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from
any ... new motor vehicles." There is no question that EPA is authorized to establish emission
standards under this provision for complete new motor vehicles, and thus can promulgate emission
standards for air pollutants emitted by tractor-trailers and by glider vehicles.
Daimler maintained in its comments that although a glider vehicle is a motor vehicle, it is not a "new"
motor vehicle because "glider vehicles, when constructed retain the identity of the donor vehicle, such
that the title has already been exchanged, making the vehicles not 'new' under the CAA." Daimler
Comments p. 121; see also the similar argument in Daimler Truck Comments (April 1, 2016), p. 4.
Daimler maintains that because title to the powertrain from the donor vehicle has already been
transferred, the glider vehicle to which the powertrain is added cannot be "new." Comments of April 1,
2016 p. 4. Daimler also notes that NHTSA considers a truck to be "newly manufactured" and subject to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards when a new cab is used in its assembly, "unless the engine,
transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of
these components were taken from the same vehicle." 49 CFR 571.7(e). Daimler urges EPA to adopt a
parallel provision here.
First, this argument appears to be untimely. In Phase 1, EPA already indicated that glider vehicles are
new motor vehicles, at least implicitly, by adopting an interim exemption for them. See 76 FR 57407
(adopting 40 CFR 1037.150(j) indicating that the general prohibition against introducing a vehicle not
subject to current model year standards does not apply to MY 2013 or earlier engines). Assuming the
argument that glider vehicles are not new can be raised in this rulemaking, EPA notes that the Clean Air
Act defines "new motor vehicle" as "a motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been
transferred to an ultimate purchaser" (section 216(3)). Glider vehicles are typically marketed and sold
as "brand new" trucks. Indeed, one prominent assembler of glider kits and glider vehicles advertises
that "Fitzgerald Glider Kits offers customers the option to purchase a brand new 2016 tractor, in any
configuration offered by the manufacturer... Fitzgerald Glider Kits has mastered the process of taking
the 'Glider Kit' and installing the components to work seamlessly with the new truck." 3 The purchaser
3 Advertisement for Fitzgerald Glider kits in Overdrive magazine (December 2015)(emphasis added).
-------
of a "new truck" necessarily takes initial title to that truck.4 Daimler would have it that this 'new truck'
terminology is a mere marketing ploy, but it obviously reflects reality. As shown in Error! Reference
source not found, above, the glider kit constitutes the major parts of the vehicle, lacking only the
engine, transmission, and rear axle. The EPA sees nothing in the Act that compels the result that adding
a used component to an otherwise new motor vehicle necessarily vitiates classification of the motor
vehicle as "new." See 80 FR 40528. Certainly, there is no language in the definition of "new motor
vehicle" which directly addresses this issue. Indeed, as noted in Preamble section I.E. 1, the definition
of "new motor vehicle engine" encompasses engines of any vintage. At the least, this shows that the
model year of the engine is not determinative of whether the motor vehicle is "new". Put another way, a
"new motor vehicle" can contain an earlier model year engine. See CAA section 216 (3).5 Many
commenters agreed. See, e.g. Comments of MECA ("Glider vehicles are classified as "new motor
vehicles" because they use a new chassis, although they can continue to use engines that are 10-15 years
old and emit 20-40 times more pollution than vehicles equipped with a new engine"). Thus, EPA is
reasonably interpreting the Act to indicate that adding the engine and transmission to the otherwise-
complete vehicle does not prevent the glider vehicle from being "new" - as marketed. As to the
suggestion to adopt a provision parallel to the NHTSA definition, EPA notes that the NHTSA definition
was developed for different purposes using statutory authority which differs from the Clean Air Act in
language and intent. There consequently is no basis for requiring EPA to adopt such a definition, and
doing so would impede meaningful control of both GHG emissions and criteria pollutant emissions
from glider vehicles, the latter being an imperative, immediate public health concern (see RTC 14.2).
Standards for Incomplete Vehicles
Section 202 (a)(1) not only authorizes EPA to set standards "applicable to the emission of any air
pollutant from any ... new motor vehicles," but states further that these standards are applicable
"whether such vehicles ... are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control
such pollution." The Act in fact thus not only contemplates, but in some instances, directly commands
that EPA establish standards for incomplete vehicles and vehicle components. See CAA section 202
(a)(6) (standards for onboard vapor recovery systems on "new light-duty vehicles," and requiring
installation of such systems); section 202 (a)(5)(A) (standards to control emissions from refueling
motor vehicles, and requiring consideration of, and possible design standards for, fueling system
components); 202 (k) (standards to control evaporative emissions from gasoline-fueled motor vehicles).
Both TTMA and Daimler argued, in effect, that these provisions are the exceptions that prove the rule
and that without this type of enumerated exception, only entire, complete vehicles can be considered to
be "motor vehicles." This argument is not persuasive. Congress did not indicate that these incomplete
vehicle provisions were exceptions to the definition of motor vehicle. Just the opposite. Without
amending the new motor vehicle definition, or otherwise indicating that these provisions were not
already encompassed within Title II authority over "new motor vehicles", Congress required EPA to set
standards for evaporative emissions from a portion of a motor vehicle. Congress thus indicated in these
provisions: 1) that standards should apply to "vehicles" whether or not the "vehicles" were designed as
complete systems; 2) that some standards should explicitly apply only to certain components of a
4 Fitzgerald states "All Fitzgerald glider kits will be titled in the state of Tennessee and you will receive a title to
transfer to your state." https://www.fitzgeraldgliderkits.com/frequently-asked-questions. Last accessed July 9,
2016.
5 EPA has also previously addressed the issue of used components in new engines and vehicles explicitly in
regulations in the context of locomotives and locomotive engines in 40 CFR part 1033. There we defined
remanufactured locomotives and locomotive engines to be "new" locomotives and locomotive engines. See 63 FR
18980; see also Summary and Analysis of Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Emission Standards
for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines (EPA-420-R-97-101 (December 1997)) at pp. 10-14.
-------
vehicle that are plainly not self-propelled. Congress thus necessarily was of the view that incomplete
vehicles can be motor vehicles.
Emission standards EPA sets pursuant to this authority thus can be, and often are focused on emissions
from the new motor vehicle, and from portions, systems, parts, or components of the vehicle. Standards
thus apply not just to exhaust emissions, but to emissions from non-exhaust portions of a vehicle, or
from specific vehicle components or parts. See the various evaporative emission standards for light
duty vehicles in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B (e.g., 40 CFR 86.146-96 and 86.150-98 (refueling spitback
and refueling test procedures); 40 CFR 1060.101-103 and 73 FR 59114-59115 (various evaporative
emission standards for small spark ignition equipment); 40 CFR 86.1813-17(a)(2)(iii) (canister bleed
evaporative emission test procedure, where testing is solely of fuel tank and evaporative canister); see
also 79 FR 23507 (April 28, 2014) (incomplete heavy duty gasoline vehicles could be subject to, and
required to certify compliance with, evaporative emission standards)). These standards are implemented
by testing the particular vehicle component, not by whole vehicle testing, notwithstanding that the
component may not be self-propelled until it is installed in the vehicle or (in the case of non-road
equipment), propelled by an engine.6
EPA thus can set standards for all or just a portion of the motor vehicle notwithstanding that an
incomplete motor vehicle may not yet be self-propelled. This is not to say that the Act authorizes
emission standards for any part of a motor vehicle, however insignificant. Under the Act it is
reasonable to consider both the significance of the components in comparison to the entire vehicle and
the significance of the components for achieving emissions reductions. A vehicle that is complete
except for an ignition switch can be subject to standards even though it is not self-propelled. Likewise,
as just noted, vehicle components that are significant for controlling evaporative emissions can be
subject to standards even though in isolation the components are not self-propelled. However, not every
individual component of a complete vehicle can be subjected to standards as an incomplete vehicle. To
reflect these considerations, EPA is adopting provisions stating that a trailer is a vehicle "when it has a
frame with one or more axles attached," and a glider kit becomes a vehicle when "it includes a
passenger compartment attached to a frame with one or more axles." Section 1037.801 definition of
"vehicle," paragraphs (l)(ii) and (iii); see also Section XIII.B of the FRM Preamble.
TTMA and Daimler each maintained that this claim of authority is open-ended, and can be extended to
the least significant vehicle part. As noted above, EPA acknowledges that lines need to be drawn, but
whether looking at the relation between the incomplete vehicle and the complete vehicle, or looking at
the relation between the incomplete vehicle and the emissions control requirements, it is evident that
trailers and glider kits should properly be treated as vehicles, albeit incomplete ones.7 They properly
fall on the vehicle side of the line. When one finishes assembling a whole aggregation of parts to make
a finished section of the vehicle (e.g. the trailer), that is sufficient. You have an entire, complete section
made up of assembled parts. Everything needed to be a trailer is complete. This is not an engine block,
a wheel, or a headlight. Similarly, glider kits comprise the largely assembled tractor chassis with front
axles, frame, interior and exterior cab, and brakes. This is not a few assembled components; rather, it is
an assembled truck with a few components missing. See CAA section 216 (9) of the Act, which defines
6 "Non-road vehicles" are defined differently than "motor vehicles" under the Act, but the difference does not
appear relevant here. Non-road vehicles, like motor vehicles, must be propelled by an engine. See CAA section
216 (11) ("'nonroad vehicle' means a vehicle that is powered by a nonroad engine"). Pursuant to this authority,
EPA has promulgated many emission standards applicable to components of engineless non-road equipment, for
which the equipment manufacturer must certify.
7 Cf. Marine Shale Processors v. EPA, 81 F. 3d 1371, 1383 (5th Cir. 1996) ("[w]e make no comment on this
argument: this is simply not a thimbleful case").
-------
"motor vehicle or engine part manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing, assembling
or rebuilding of any device, system, part, component or element of design which is installed in or on
motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines." Trailers and glider kits are not "installed in or on" a motor
vehicle. A trailer is half of the tractor-trailer, not some component installed on the tractor. And one
would more naturally refer to the donor drivetrain being installed on the glider kit than vice versa. See
Figure 1 above. Furthermore, as discussed below, the trailer and the glider kit are significant for
purposes of controlling emissions from the completed vehicle.
Incomplete vehicle standards must, of course, be reasonably designed to control emissions caused by
that particular vehicle segment. The standards for trailers would do so and account for the tractor-trailer
combination by using a reference tractor in the trailer test procedure (and, conversely, by use of a
reference trailer in the tractor test procedure). The Phase 2 rule contains no emission standards for
glider kits in isolation, but the standards for engines installed in glider vehicles, and the greenhouse gas
standards for the glider vehicles, necessarily reflect the contribution of the glider kit.
Application of Emission Standards to Manufacturers
In some ways, the critical issue is to whom do these emission standards apply.8 As explained in this
section, the emission standards apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles, and manufacturers thus are
required to certify compliance to test and to certify compliance to those standards. Moreover, the Act
contemplates that a motor vehicle can have multiple manufacturers. With respect to the further question
of which manufacturer certifies and tests in multiple manufacturer situations, EPA rules have long
contained provisions establishing responsibilities where a vehicle has multiple manufacturers. We are
again applying the principles already established in these rules in the Phase 2 provisions. The
overarching and common sense principle is that the entity with most control over the particular vehicle
segment due to producing it is usually the most appropriate entity to test and certify.9 EPA is
implementing the trailer and glider vehicle emission standards in accord with this principle, so that the
entities required to test and certify are the trailer manufacturer and, for glider kits and glider vehicles,
either the manufacturer of the glider kit or glider vehicle, depending on which is more appropriate in
individual circumstances.
Definition of Manufacturer
Emission standards are implemented through regulation of the manufacturer of the new motor vehicle.
See, e.g. section 206 (a)(1) (certification testing of motor vehicle submitted by "a manufacturer"); 203
(a)(1) (manufacturer of new motor vehicle prohibited from introducing uncertified motor vehicles into
commerce); 207 (a)(1) (manufacturer of motor vehicle to provide warranty to ultimate purchaser of
8 This issue is independent of the discussion above, and thus is not dependent on whether trailers are motor
vehicles. Under any theory, EPA may issue emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines.
Manufacturers of these vehicles and engines can be required to comply with these standards by testing and
certification, and the Act contemplates multiple manufacturers to whom these obligations can attach.
9 See discussion of standards applicable to small SI equipment fuel systems, implemented by standards for the
manufacturers of that equipment at 73 FR 59115 ("In most cases, nonroad standards apply to the manufacturer of
the engine or the manufacturer of the nonroad equipment. Here, the products subject to the standards (fuel lines
and fuel tanks) are typically manufactured by a different manufacturer. In most cases the engine manufacturers do
not produce complete fuel systems and therefore are not in a position to do all the testing and certification work
necessary to cover the whole range of products that will be used. We are therefore providing an arrangement in
which manufacturers of fuel-system components are in most cases subject to the standards and are subject to
certification and other compliance requirements associated with the applicable standards.").
-------
compliance with applicable emission standards); 207 (c) (recall authority); 208 (a) (recordkeeping and
testing can be required of every manufacturer of new motor vehicle).
The Act further distinguishes between manufacturers of motor vehicles and manufacturers of motor
vehicle parts. See, e.g. section 206 (a)(2) (voluntary emission control system verification testing); 203
(a)(3)(B) (prohibition on parts manufacturers and other persons relating to defeat devices); 207 (a)(2)
(parts manufacturer may provide warranty certification regarding use of parts); 208 (a) (recordkeeping
and testing requirements for manufacturers of vehicle and engine "parts or components").
Thus, the question here is whether a trailer manufacturer or glider kit manufacturer can be a
manufacturer of a new motor vehicle and thereby become subject to the certification and related
requirements for manufacturers, or must necessarily be classified as a manufacturer of a motor vehicle
part or component. EPA may reasonably classify trailer manufacturers and glider kit manufacturers as
motor vehicle manufacturers.
Section 216 (1) defines a "manufacturer" as:
"any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new motor vehicles, new motor
vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines, or importing such vehicles or
engines for resale, or who acts for and is under the control of any such person in connection
with the distribution of new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles
or new nonroad engines, but shall not include any dealer with respect to new motor vehicles,
new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines received by him in
commerce"
It appears plain that this definition was not intended to restrict the definition of "manufacturer" to a
single person per vehicle. The use of the conjunctive, specifying that a manufacturer is "any person
engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new motor vehicles ... or who acts for and is under the
control of any such person..." (emphasis added) indicates that Congress anticipated that motor vehicles
could have more than one manufacturer, since in at least some cases those will plainly be different
people. The capacious reference to "any person engaged in the manufacturing of motor vehicles"
likewise allows the natural inference that it could apply to multiple entities engaged in manufacturing.10
The provision also applies both to entities that manufacture and entities that assemble, and does so in
such a way as to encompass multiple parties: manufacturers "or" (rather than 'and') assemblers are
included. Nor is there any obvious reason that only one person can be engaged in vehicle manufacture
or vehicle assembling.
Reading the Act to provide for multiple motor vehicle manufacturers reasonably reflects industry
realities, and achieves important goals of the CAA. Since title II requirements are generally imposed on
"manufacturers" it is important that the appropriate parties be included within the definition of
manufacturer --"any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new motor vehicles."
Indeed, as set out in Chapter 1 of the RIA, most heavy-duty vehicles are manufactured or assembled by
multiple entities; see also Comments of Daimler (October 1, 2015) p. 103.11 One entity produces a
10 See United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1. 5. (1997) ("Read naturally the word " any' has an expansive meaning,
that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind'); New Yorkv. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, 884-87 (DC Cir. 2006).
11 "The EPA should understand that vehicle manufacturing is a multi-stage process (regardless of the technologies
on the vehicles) and that each stage of manufacturer has the incentive to properly complete manufacturing ... [T]he
-------
chassis; a different entity manufactures the engine; specialized components (e.g. garbage compactors,
cement mixers) are produced by still different entities. For tractor-trailers, one person manufactures the
tractor, another the trailer, a third the engine, and another typically assembles the trailer to the tractor.
Installation of various vehicle components occurs at different and varied points and by different entities,
depending on ultimate desired configurations. See, e.g. Comments of Navistar (October 1, 2015), pp.
12-13. The heavy-duty sector thus differs markedly from the light-duty sector (and from manufacturing
of light duty pickups and vans), where a single company designs the vehicle and engine (and many of
the parts), and does all assembling of components into the finished motor vehicle.
Controls on Manufacturers of Trailers
It is reasonable to view the trailer manufacturer as "engaged in" (section 216 (1)) the manufacturing or
assembling of the tractor-trailer. The trailer manufacturer designs, builds, and assembles a complete
and finished portion of the tractor-trailer. All components of the trailer - the tires, axles, flat bed,
outsider cover, aerodynamics - are within its control and are part of its assembling process. The trailer
manufacturer sets the design specifications that affect the GHG emissions attributable to pulling the
trailer. It commences all work on the trailer, and when that work is complete, nothing more is to be
done. The trailer is a finished product. With respect to the trailer, the trailer manufacturer is analogous
to the manufacturer of the light duty vehicle, specifying, controlling, and assembling all aspects of the
product from inception to completion. GHG emissions attributable to the trailer are a substantial portion
of the total GHG emissions from the tractor-trailer.12 Moreover, the trailer manufacturer is not
analogous to the manufacturer of a vehicle part or component, like a tire manufacturer, or to the
manufacturer of a side skirt. The trailer is a significant, integral part of the finished motor vehicle, and
is essential for the tractor-trailer to carry out its commercial purpose. See 80 FR 40170; see also the
comment of EDF at n. 104, explaining that trucking companies do not provide insurance protection for
truckers when operating a truck-tractor without an attached trailer; it is considered to be a non-business
activity).13 Although it is true that another person may ultimately hitch the trailer to a tractor (which
might be viewed as completing assembly of the tractor-trailer), as noted above, EPA does not believe
that the fact that one person might qualify as a manufacturer, due to "assembling" the motor vehicle,
precludes another person from qualifying as a manufacturer, due to "manufacturing" the motor vehicle.
Given that section 216(1) does not restrict motor vehicle manufacturers to a single entity, it appears to
be consistent with the facts and the Act to consider trailer manufacturers as persons engaged in the
manufacture of a motor vehicle.
This interpretation of section 216(1) is also reasonable in light of the various provisions noted above
relating to implementation of the emissions standards - certification under section 206, prohibitions on
entry into commerce under section 203, warranty and recall under section 207, and recall under section
208. All of these provisions are naturally applied to the entity responsible for manufacturing the trailer,
which manufacturer is likewise responsible for its GHG emissions.
EPA should continue the longstanding industry practice of allowing primary manufacturers to pass incomplete
vehicles with incomplete vehicle documents to secondary manufacturers who complete the installation."
12 The relative contribution of trailer controls depends on the types of tractors and trailers, as well as the tier of
standards applicable; however, it can be approximately one-third of the total reduction achievable for the
tractor-trailer.
13Truckers must separately purchase 'bobtail insurance' to be covered between dropping off one trailer load and
picking up the next one. See, e.g. Insure My Rig, http://www.insuremyrig.com/what-is-bobtail-insurance.html (last
visited Sept. 29, 2015); Understanding the Difference Between Bobtail and Non-Trucking Liability Insurance.
-------
TTMA maintains that if a tractor-trailer is a motor vehicle, then only the entity connecting the trailer to
the tractor could be subject to regulation.14 This is not a necessary interpretation of section 216 (1), as
explained above. TTMA does not discuss that provision, but notes that other provisions refer to "a"
manufacturer (or, in one instance, "the" manufacturer), and maintains that this shows that only a single
entity can be a manufacturer. See TTMA Comment pp. 4-5, citing to sections 206 (a)(1), 206 (b), 207,
and 203 (a). This reading is not compelled by the statutory text. First, the term "manufacturer" in all of
these provisions necessarily reflects the underlying definition in section 216(1), and therefore is not
limited to a single entity, as just discussed. Second, the interpretation makes no practical sense. An end
assembler of a tractor-trailer is not in a position to certify and warrant performance of the trailer, given
that the end-assembler has no control over how trailers are designed, constructed, or even which trailers
are attached to the tractor. It makes little sense for the entity least able to control the outcome to be
responsible for that outcome. The EPA doubts that Congress compelled such an ungainly
implementation mechanism, especially given that it is well known that vehicle manufacture
responsibility in the heavy-duty vehicle sector is divided. Moreover, the reference to "a" rather than
"the" manufacturer in the provisions of section 206(a)(1) and 203(a)(1) - the provisions on vehicle
certification and prohibited acts which are the most critical to Title II's implementation ~ is ambiguous
as to whether there can be multiple manufacturers. See Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1979)
(definition of "a" includes "any", the same capacious term used in the section 216 definition of
"manufacturer").
TTMA further maintains that the various requirements and prohibitions in Title "on their face do not
work as applied to 'two detachable parts' of a single motor vehicle that are mixed and matched. In the
case of separate manufacturers of the tractor and various trailers that might be hauled by that tractor, the
requirements to test, certify, and warrant 'the motor vehicle' cannot on their face apply as written, since
there is no single manufacturer of 'the motor vehicle.' And responsibility for violations, such as by
selling an uncertified new motor vehicle, is unspecified."
EPA disagrees. As just explained, the definition of "manufacturer" plainly contemplates that more than
one entity can be the manufacturer of a motor vehicle (as do the references to "a manufacturer"). The
fact that portions of the CAA refer to "a manufacturer" does not amend the explicit definition of
"manufacturer" to limit it to a single entity per motor vehicle —it merely indicates the responsibilities
that can attach to any entity that manufactures motor vehicles. EPA has long interpreted and applied
these provisions in a manner that comports with Congressional intent and industry practice to place the
responsibilities for certification with the most appropriate of those entities. This can be done by
explicitly assigning certification responsibility, or by having multiple manufacturers determine among
themselves which are the most appropriate to certify given their particular division of responsibilities.
Thus, in the case of tractor-trailers, the entity that has control over design and emissions performance of
the tractor is responsible for testing and certifying that the tractor will comply with applicable standards,
while the entity that has control over design and emissions performance of the trailer is responsible for
testing and certifying that the trailer will comply with applicable standards. The long-standing
provisions on delegated assembly and secondary manufacturing are examples of the second situation
where manufacturers determine among themselves testing, documentation, and certification
responsibilities. See 40 CFR 1037.620, 1037.621, 1037.622, and Preamble Section I.F.2.e.
EPA is therefore reasonably interpreting the definition of "manufacturer" and the various
implementation provisions using that term to reflect the realities of the heavy duty vehicle industry
whereby multiple manufacturers are responsible for assembling the motor vehicle.
14 Consequently, the essential issue here is not whether EPA can issue and implement emission standards for
trailers, but at what point in the implementation process those standards apply.
-------
Controls on Manufacturers of Glider Kits
Application of these same principles indicate that a glider kit manufacturer is a manufacturer of a motor
vehicle and, as an entity responsible for assuring that glider vehicles meet the Phase 2 vehicle emission
standards, can be a party in the certification process as either the certificate holder or the entity which
provides essential test information to the glider vehicle manufacturer. As noted above, glider kits
include the entire tractor chassis, cab, tires, body, and brakes. Glider kit manufacturers thus control
critical elements of the ultimate vehicle's greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, all aerodynamic
features and all emissions related to steer tire type. Glider kit manufacturers would therefore be the
entity generating critical GEM inputs - at the least, those for aerodynamics and tires. Glider kit
manufacturers also often know the final configuration of the glider vehicle, i.e. the type of engine and
transmission which the final assembler will add to the glider kit.15 This is because the typical glider kit
contains all necessary wiring, and it is necessary, in turn, for the glider kit manufacturer to know the end
configuration in order to wire the kit properly. Thus, a manufacturer of a glider kit can reasonably be
viewed as a manufacturer of a motor vehicle under the same logic as above: there can be multiple
manufacturers of a motor vehicle; the glider kit manufacturer designs, builds, and assembles a
substantial, complete and finished portion of the motor vehicle; and that portion contributes
substantially to the GHG emissions from the ultimate glider vehicle. A glider kit is not a vehicle part;
rather, it is an assembled truck with a few components missing. The ultimate point here is that both of
these entities are manufacturers of the glider motor vehicle and therefore both are within the Act's
requirements for certification and testing
EPA rules have long provided provisions establishing responsibilities where there are multiple
manufacturers of motor vehicles. See 40 CFR 1037.620 (responsibilities for multiple manufacturers),
40 CFR 1037.621 (delegated assembly), and 40 CFR 1037.622 (shipment of incomplete vehicles to
secondary vehicle manufacturers). These provisions, in essence, allow manufacturers to determine
among themselves as to which should be the certificate holder, and then assign respective
responsibilities depending on that decision. The end result is that incomplete vehicles cannot be
introduced into commerce without one of the manufacturers being the certificate holder.
Under the Phase 1 rules, glider kits are considered to be incomplete vehicles which may be introduced
into commerce to a secondary manufacturer for final assembly. See 40 CFR 1037.622(b)(l)(i) and
1037.801 (definition of "vehicle" and "incomplete vehicle") of the Phase 1 regulations (76 FR 57421).
Note that 40 CFR 1037.622(b)( 1 )(i) was originally codified as 40 CFR 1037.620(b)(l)(i). EPA is
expanding somewhat on these provisions, but in essence, as under Phase 1, glider kit and glider vehicle
manufacturers could operate under delegated assembly provisions whereby the glider kit manufacturer
would be the certificate holder. See 40 CFR 1037.621 of the final regulations. Glider kit manufacturers
would also continue to be able to ship uncertified kits to secondary manufacturers, and the secondary
manufacturer must assemble the vehicle into certifiable condition. 40 CFR 1037.622.16
Additional Authorities Supporting EPA 's Actions
15 PACCAR indicated in its comments that manufacturers of glider kits may not know all details of final assembly.
Provisions on delegated assembly, shipment of incomplete vehicles to secondary manufacturers, and assembly
instructions for secondary vehicle manufacturers allow manufacturers of glider kits and glider vehicles to
apportion responsibilities, as appropriate, including responsibility as to which entity shall be the certificate holder.
See 40 CFR 1037.130, 1037.621, and 1037.622.
16 Under this provision in the Phase 2 regulations, the glider kit manufacturer would still have some responsibility
to ensure that products they introduce into U.S. commerce will conform with the regulations when delivered to the
ultimate purchasers.
-------
Even if, against our view, trailers and glider kits are not considered to be "motor vehicles," and the
entities engaged in assembling trailers and glider kits are not considered to be manufacturers of motor
vehicles, the Clean Air Act still provides authority for the testing requirements adopted here. Section
208 (a) of the Act authorizes EPA to require "every manufacturer of new motor vehicle or engine parts
or components" to "perform tests where such testing is not otherwise reasonably available." This
testing can be required to "provide information the Administrator may reasonably require to determine
whether the manufacturer ... has acted or is acting in compliance with this part," which includes
showing whether or not the parts manufacturer is engaged in conduct which can cause a prohibited act.
Testing would be required to show that the trailer will conform to the vehicle emission standards. In
addition, testing for trailer manufacturers would be necessary here to show that the trailer manufacturer
is not causing a violation of the combined tractor-trailer GHG emission standard either by
manufacturing a trailer which fails to comply with the trailer emission standards, or by furnishing a
trailer to the entity assembling tractor-trailers inconsistent with tractor-trailer certified condition.
Testing for glider kit manufacturers is necessary to prevent a glider kit manufacturer furnishing a glider
kit inconsistent with the tractor's certified condition. In this regard, we note that section 203 (a)(1) of
the Act not only prohibits certain acts, but also prohibits "the causing" of those acts. Furnishing a trailer
not meeting the trailer standard would cause a violation of that standard, and the trailer manufacturer
would be liable under section 203 (a)(1) for causing the prohibited act to occur. Similarly, a glider kit
supplied in a condition inconsistent with the tractor standard would cause the manufacturer of the glider
vehicle to violate the GHG emission standard, so the glider kit manufacturer would be similarly liable
under section 203 (a)(1) for causing that prohibited act to occur.
In addition, section 203 (a)(3)(B) prohibits use of 'defeat devices' - which include "any part or
component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle ... where a principal effect of the part
or component is to ... defeat... any ... element of design installed ... in a motor vehicle" otherwise in
compliance with emission standards. Manufacturing or installing a trailer not meeting the trailer
emission standard could thus be a defeat device causing a violation of the emission standard. Similarly,
a glider kit manufacturer furnishing a glider kit in a configuration that would not meet the tractor
standard when the specified engine, transmission, and axle are installed would likewise cause a violation
of the tractor emission standard. For example, providing a tractor with a coefficient of drag or tire
rolling resistance level inconsistent with tractor certified condition would be a violation of the Act
because it would cause the glider vehicle assembler to introduce into commerce a new tractor that is not
covered by a valid certificate of conformity. Daimler argued in its comments that a glider kit would not
be a defeat device because glider vehicles use older engines which are more fuel efficient since they are
not meeting the more rigorous standards for criteria pollutant emissions. (Daimler Truck Comment,
April 1, 2016, p. 5). However, the glider kit would be a defeat device with respect to the tractor vehicle
standard, not the separate engine standard. A non-conforming glider kit would adversely affect
compliance with the vehicle standard, as just explained. Furthermore, as explained in RTC 14.2,
Daimler is incorrect that glider vehicles are more fuel efficient than Phase 1 2017 and later vehicles,
much less Phase 2 vehicles.
In the memorandum accompanying the Notice of Data Availability, EPA solicited comment on adopting
additional regulations based on these principles. EPA has decided not to adopt those provisions, but
again notes that the authorities in CAA sections 208 and 203 support the actions EPA is taking here with
respect to trailer and glider kit testing.
Standards for Glider Vehicles and Lead Time for Those Standards
At proposal, EPA indicated that engines used in glider vehicles are to be certified to standards for the
model year in which these vehicles are assembled. 80 FR 40528. This action is well within the
-------
agency's legal authority. As noted above, the Act's definition of "new motor vehicle engine," includes
any "engine in a new motor vehicle" without regard to whether or not the engine was previously used.
Given the Act's purpose of controlling emissions of air pollutants from motor vehicle engines, with
special concern for pollutant emissions from heavy-duty engines, it is reasonable to require engines
placed in newly-assembled vehicles to meet the same standards as all other engines in new motor
vehicles. Put another way, it is both consistent with the plain language of the Act and reasonable and
equitable for the engines in "new trucks" (see Section I.E.(l)(a) of the FRM Preamble) to meet the
emission standards for all other engines installed in new trucks.
Daimler challenged this aspect of EPA's proposal, maintaining that it amounted to regulation of vehicle
rebuilding, which (according to the commenter) is beyond EPA's authority. Comments of Daimler, p.
123; Comments of Daimler Trucks (April 1, 2016) p. 3. This comment is misplaced. The EPA has
authority to regulate emissions of pollutants from engines installed in new motor vehicles. As explained
above, glider vehicles are new motor vehicles. As also explained above, the Act's definition of "new
motor vehicle engine" includes any "engine in a new motor vehicle" without regard to whether or not
the engine was previously used. CAA section 216(3). Consequently, a previously used engine installed
in a glider vehicle is within EPA's multiple authorities. See CAA sections 202 (a) (1) (GHGs), and 202
(a)(3)(D) (pollutants from rebuilt heavy duty engines).17
As explained in more detail in Section XIII.B of the FRM Preamble, the final rule requires that as of
January 1, 2017, glider kit and glider vehicle production involving engines not meeting criteria pollutant
standards corresponding to the year of glider vehicle assembly be allowed at the highest annual
production for any year from 2010 to 2014. See section 1037.150 (t)(3). (Certain exceptions to this are
explained in Section XIII.B. of the FRM Preamble). The rule further requires that as of January 1,
2018, engines in glider vehicles meet criteria pollutant standards and GHG standards corresponding to
the year of the glider vehicle assembly, but allowing introduction into commerce of engines meeting
criteria pollutant standards corresponding to the year of the engine for up to 300 vehicles per year, or up
to the highest annual production volume for calendar years 2010 to 2014, whichever is less. Section
1037.150 (t)(l)(ii) (again subject to various exceptions explained in Section XIII.B. of the FRM
Preamble). Glider vehicles using these exempted engines will not be subject to the Phase 1 GHG
vehicle standards, but will be subject to the Phase 2 vehicle standards beginning with MY 2021.
17 Comments from, e.g. Mondial and MEMA made clear that all of the donor engines installed in glider vehicles
are rebuilt. See also http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/storv/2013/04/the-return-of-the-glider.aspx ("1999 to
2002-model diesels were known for reliability, longevity and good fuel mileage. Fitzgerald favors Detroit's 12.7-
liter Series 60 from that era, but also installs pre-EGR 14-liter Cummins and 15-liter Caterpillar diesels. All are
rebuilt ").
-------
There are compelling environmental reasons for taking these actions in this time frame. As shown in a
separate Sensitivity Analysis of Glider Impacts (Appendix A to Section 14 of this RTC), the restriction
on 2017 production is projected to prevent the use of high polluting pre 2002-engines in 5,000 to 10,000
glider vehicles, and would prevent the emission of 207,500-415,000 tons of NOx and 3,400-6,800 tons
of PM over the lifetime of those vehicles and engines. This is estimated to prevent 350 to 1,600
premature mortalities. If these restrictions were delayed until MY 2021, as commenters argued, this
could mean the production of 30,000 to 40,000 additional glider vehicles using the older high polluting
engines. Using the same assumptions as above, these three additional model years of production are
estimated to result in an additional 2,100 to 6,400 premature mortalities.
These estimates are conservative. They do not account for diesel exhaust PM being a likely human
carcinogen (see Preamble section VIII. A.6), and so do not assess potential additional cancers caused by
exposure to diesel PM exhaust from these glider vehicles. Nor do these estimates evaluate premature
mortality attributable to increased generation of, and exposure to ozone resulting from the increased
NOx emissions.
With regard to the issue of lead time, EPA indicated at proposal that the agency has long since justified
the criteria pollutant standards for engines installed in glider kits. 80 FR 40528. EPA further proposed
that engines installed in glider vehicles meet the emission standard for the year of glider vehicle
assembly, as of January 1, 2018 and solicited comment on an earlier effective date. Id. at 40529. The
agency noted that CAA section 202 (a)(3)(D)18 requires that standards for rebuilt heavy-duty engines
take effect "after a period ... necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
control measures." Here, no time is needed to develop and apply requisite control measures for criteria
pollutants because compliant engines are immediately available.19 In fact, manufacturers of compliant
engines, and dealers of trucks containing those compliant engines, commented that they are
disadvantaged by manufacturing more costly compliant engines while glider vehicles avoid using those
engines. Not only are compliant engines immediately available, but, as commenters warned, there can
be risk of massive pre-buys. Moreover, EPA does not envision that glider manufacturers will actually
modify the older engines to meet the applicable standards. Rather, they will either choose from the
many compliant engines available today, or they will seek to qualify under other flexibilities provided in
the final rule. See Section XIII.B of the FRM Preamble. Given that compliant engines are immediately
available, the flexibilities provided in the final rule for continued use of donor engines for traditional
glider vehicle functions and by small businesses, and the need to expeditiously prevent further
perpetuation of use of heavily polluting engines, EPA sees a need to begin constraining this practice on
January 1, 2017 However, the final rule is merely capping glider production using higher-polluting
engines in 2017 at 2010-2014 production levels, which would allow for the production of thousands of
glider vehicles using these higher polluting engines in 2017, and unlimited production of glider vehicles
using less polluting engines.
Various commenters, however, argued that the EPA must provide four years lead-time and three-year
stability pursuant to section 202 (a) (3)(C) of the Act, which applies to regulations for criteria pollutant
emissions from heavy duty vehicles or engines. For criteria pollutant standards, CAA section
18 The engine rebuilding authority of section 202 (a)(3)(D) includes removal of an engine from the donor vehicle.
See 40 CFR section 86.004-40 and 62 FR 54702 (Oct. 21, 1997). EPA interprets this language as including
installation of the removed engine into a glider kit, thereby assembling a glider vehicle. Daimler, in its comments,
questioned whether engine rebuilding authorities were at issue here when EPA did not propose to amend the
specific regulations relating to engine rebuilding. EPA has added a conforming cross-reference to the final rule.
See section 1068.120 (f).
19 Memo to Docket, "Availability of Rebuilt Engines that Comply with 2010 Emission Standards", August 2016.
-------
202(a)(3)(C) establishes lead time and stability requirements for "[a]ny standard promulgated or revised
under this paragraph and applicable to classes or categories of heavy duty vehicles or engines." In this
rule, EPA is generally requiring large manufacturers of glider vehicles to use engines that meet the
standards for the model year in which a vehicle is manufactured. EPA is not promulgating new criteria
pollutant standards. The NOx and PM standards that apply to heavy duty engines were promulgated in
2001.
We are not amending these provisions or promulgating new criteria pollutant standards for heavy duty
engines here. EPA interprets the phrase "classes or categories of heavy duty vehicles or engines" in
CAA 202(a)(3)(C) to refer to categories of vehicles established according to features such as their
weight, functional type, (e.g. tractor, vocational vehicle, or pickup truck) or engine cycle (spark-ignition
or compression-ignition), or weight class of the vehicle into which an engine is installed (LHD, MHD,
or HHD). EPA has established several different categories of heavy duty vehicles (distinguished by
gross vehicle weight, engine-cycle, and other criteria related to the vehicles' intended purpose) and is
establishing in this rule GHG standards applicable to each category.20 By contrast, a "glider vehicle" is
defined not by its weight or function but by its method of manufacture. A Class 8 tractor glider vehicle
serves exactly the same function and market as a Class 8 tractor manufactured by another manufacturer.
Similarly, rebuilt engines installed in glider vehicles (i.e. donor engines) are not distinguished by engine
cycle, but rather serve the same function and market as any other HHD or MHD engine. Thus, EPA
considers "glider vehicles" and engines installed in glider vehicles to be a description of a method of
manufacturing new motor vehicles, not a description of a separate "class or category" of heavy duty
vehicles or engines. Consequently, EPA is not adopting new standards for a class or category of heavy
duty engines within the meaning of section 202 (a)(3)(C) of the Act.
EPA believes this approach is most consistent with the statutory language and the goals of the Clean Air
Act. The date of promulgation of the criteria pollutant standards was 2001. There has been plenty of
lead time for the criteria pollutant standards and as a result, manufacturers of glider vehicles have many
options for compliant engines that are available on the market today—just as manufacturers of other
new heavy-duty vehicles do. We are even providing additional compliance flexibilities to glider
manufacturers in recognition of the historic practice of salvaging a small number of engines from
vehicles involved in crashes. See Section XIII.B of the FRM Preamble. We do not believe that
Congress intended to allow changes in how motor vehicles are manufactured to be a means of avoiding
existing, applicable engine standards. Obviously, any industry attempts to avoid or circumvent
standards will not become apparent until the standards begin to apply. The unreasonableness of the
commenters' interpretation becomes apparent when one realizes that it would effectively preclude EPA
from curbing many types of avoidance, however dangerous, until at least four years from detection. As
noted above, EPA estimates conservatively that thousands of premature mortalities are at issue here,
emphasizing the need to take expeditious action.
As to Daimler's further argument that the lead time provisions in section 202 (3)(C) not only apply but
also must trump those specifically applicable to heavy duty engine rebuilding, the usual rule of
construction is that the more specific provision controls. See, e.g. HCSC-Laundry v. U.S., 450 U.S. 1, 6
(1981). EPA also does not accept Daimler's further argument that section 202 (a)(3)(C) lead time
provisions also apply to engine rebuilding because those provisions fall within the same paragraph.
First, as explained above, section 202 (a)(3)(C) applies to categories of vehicles and engines established
according to features such as their weight, functional type, or engine cycle, or weight class of the
vehicle into which an engine is installed. Rebuilt engines are not distinguished by engine cycle, but
20 Note, however, the Phase 2 GHG standards for tractors and vocational vehicles do not apply until MY 2021.
-------
rather serve the same function and market as any other engine. Consequently, EPA does not believe
that section 202 (a)(3)(C) is applicable here. Moreover, the interpretation advocated by the commenters
would render the separate lead time provisions for engine rebuilding a virtual nullity.21 The sense of the
provision is that Congress intended there to be independent lead time consideration for the distinct
practice of engine rebuilding. For example, section 202 (a)(3)(C) specifies three "model years" of
needed lead time. The concept of model years is a virtual non-sequitur as applied to engine rebuilding,
when there is no specific model year (or year-by-year) production involved. Rather, individual engines
from any year are being rebuilt. More generally, the purpose of long lead time, to accommodate
manufacturers' necessarily long design and redesign cycles and to allow time for research and
development plus field testing, again do not apply to engine rebuilding. Engines can be rebuilt at any
time, and rebuilding is not tied to design cycles or R&D decisions. It involves an engine-by-engine, ad
hoc decision. Under these circumstances, it is at least ambiguous as to whether the reference to
"paragraph" in section 202 (a)(3)(C) (assuming, against our view that the provision applies at all)
encompasses the separate lead time provision for rebuilt engines in section 202 (a)(3)(D). Cf. Desert
Citizens Against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F. 3d 524, 527-28 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (reference to "section" held
to be ambiguous where applying provisions of that section leads to results at odds with the overall
statutory scheme).
1.3.2 NHTSA Authoritv67
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA Face Statutory Constraints in Requiring New Technology; Alternative 4 is Not
Supported in The Record
The Proposed Rule states that several steps have been taken in the rulemaking to address concerns about
disrupting the market, including providing considerable lead time, phasing-in of the standards,
preserving technology choices, allowing emission averaging, banking and trading and economic savings
over time through reduced fuel costs.12 But these steps only can go so far in a market which is driven by
customer demands for vehicles that accomplish specific tasks. EPA and NHTSA cannot conflate
necessary flexibility in implementation of new standards with a statutory ability to increase the
stringency of emission and fuel efficiency standards beyond a reasonable projection of future
technology specific to MD/HD vehicles and the lead time necessary for market adoption. Both Clean
Air Act ("CAA") section 202 and NHTSA's statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. §32902(k) are not
unbounded, but must be read in context of the MD/HD market, including such periods as are necessary
to "permit the development and application of requisite technology."13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p. 11-12]
In this regard, EPA indicates that it has "significant discretion in assessing, weighing, and balancing the
relevant statutory criteria." As discussed above, this discretion to the extent it exists must be based on
solid record evidence regarding the ability of the MD/HD market to develop and deploy additional
technologies that will, in fact, be purchased by end users. This record is lacking in this rulemaking and
EPA is thereby constrained in its legal ability to adopt Alternative 4. Indeed, unlike the most recent
21 The argument that the lead time provision for rebuilt engines means that standards for rebuilt engines can take
effect only after three model years but can be even longer makes no practical sense. As discussed in the text
above, the concept of model year has no basis for rebuilt engines. Even more basically, it does not make sense for
Congress to have allowed more lead time for rebuilt engines when less time is needed due to engine rebuilding
being an engine-by-engine decision which can be made at any time unconstrained by engine design cycles.
-------
LDV rule, EPA and NHTSA have not proposed to include a regulatory "mid-term evaluation" period
that would allow for future adjustment of standards if projections contained in this Proposed Rule prove
to be erroneous during the early and mid-2020s. Given this lack of a correcting mechanism, EPA (and
by implication NHTSA) must be correspondingly cautious to provide such necessary period of time for
the development and application of new technology to this sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1
p. 12]
NHTSA indicates that it has "broad discretion to weigh and balance" various statutory factors contained
in the Energy Independence and Security Act ("EISA"). The Proposed Rule, however, does not discuss
in detail possible constraints on this authority. First, NHTSA authority under EISA references a
National Academy of Sciences study as a predicate for a rulemaking to establish a fuel efficiency
program. That study has been completed and the statute does not reference any additional studies.
Second, NHTSA's authority is described with regard to "a rulemaking proceeding" to occur "[n]ot later
than 24 months after completion of the [NAS] study." This statutory structure indicates that a singular
rulemaking was directed and, indeed, subsection (k)(2) references only "a rulemaking proceeding . . ."
(Emphasis added). Third, provisions mandating that adequate lead time be allowed for new fuel
efficiency regulations again reference only a "commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle
and work truck fuel economy standard . . ." (Emphasis added). Thus, under the plain terms of the
statute, only a singular NAS study was required and a singular rulemaking proceeding was to occur,
both of which have now happened. This raises the issue of NHTSA's authority to adopt standards that
incorporate increasingly stringent requirements departing from those employed in Phase 1. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 12]
12 Id. at 40,155
13 CAA section 202(a)(2). (Emphasis added). In addition, while in its discussion of legal authority for
this rulemaking EPA cites the endangerment finding for the Phase 1 LDV rule, that finding is related to
the ability to regulate GHGs as air pollutants under the CAA; it does not directly determine the
stringency of standards in this rulemaking. Further, EPA also relies on Utility Air Regulatory Group v.
EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2104) as authority, yet that case cautioned the Agency that it also may not adopt
"unreasonable interpretations of statutory provisions and then edit other statutory provisions to mitigate
the unreasonableness." Id. at 2446. While the decision related specifically to stationary source
permitting, the court expressed an unwillingness to allow the Agency to engage in a "multiyear voyage
of discovery" when interpreting CAA permitting provisions and their application to small sources. In
the context of this rulemaking, EPA must interpret CAA section 202 rationally in relation to the current
MD/HD market and the unique factors which dominate this market versus the LDV market. NHTSA is
also constrained with respect to limits contained in 49 U.S.C. 32902(k) discussed in more detail in
Section II.
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
B. NHTSA Has Comparable Authority to Use Life Cycle Analysis
NHTSA derives its authority to address GHG emissions from motor vehicles from the Energy Policy
Conservation Act ('EPCA'), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act ('EISA').8
NHTSA cites as statutory authority for this rulemaking EISA Section 103, 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k). As
described in the Proposed Rule, this section 'authorizes a fuel efficiency improvement program,
designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement to be created for commercial medium- and
-------
heavy-duty vehicles and work trucks, to include appropriate test methods, measurement metrics,
standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective and
technologically feasible.' Thus, under the plain language of this section, NHTSA may promulgate
'appropriate' methods, metrics and standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that may reasonably
include life cycle analysis.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.5]
NHTSA has also indicated that it interprets its EPCA authority to include evaluation of energy use and
energy conservation. Specifically, after citing authority in 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k) and CAA Section
202(a)(l)-(2), the Proposed Rule indicates that 'Congress enacted EPCA and EISA to, among other
things, address the need to conserve energy . . . .' While, in the Proposed Rule, the general focus of
energy use is with respect to the amount of fuel consumed, NHTSA may fairly interpret its EPCA
authority in the context of the nation's overall energy policy. In other words, NHTSA's statutory
mandate to consider energy conservation in setting fuel efficiency improvements for medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles provides an ability for the agency to address broader concerns regarding the
vehicle's life cycle impact on the use of energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1275-A1 p.5-6]
Indeed, EISA specifies that standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are to center on 'a
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement
program ... ,'12 In contrast to 'fuel economy' standards that have been imposed in the light-duty sector,
'a fuel efficiency improvement program' is a new statutory term that provides broader authority in the
area of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. This can also be seen given the statutory structure of Section
32902(f) where, as a precondition to rulemaking, the National Academy of Sciences is directed to
examine several factors, including consideration of the 'work' performed by vehicles and 'such other
factors and conditions that could have an impact on a program to improve commercial medium-and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck efficiency.'13 This serves as further confirmation that
NHTSA may take into account a wide variety of factors that impact Class 2 to Class 8 vehicles. Also, as
will be shown below, within the Proposed Rule, EPA and NHTSA have already interpreted their
statutory authority to consider life cycle emissions with respect to at least a portion of the medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle fleet.14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.6]
8 See 49 U.S.C. §32902(a)-(k).
11 It should be noted that with reference to light duty standards, NHTSA has asserted that it maintains
significant discretion pursuant to 40 U.S.C. §32902(f) to weigh EPCA statutory factors which, in the
case of such vehicles are technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other
governmental standards and energy conservation. While the Proposed Rule utilizes authority in 40
U.S.C. §32902(k) versus (f), arguably NHTSA would possible similar ability to weigh the statutory
factors specified for 'commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck[s].'
Indeed, NHTSA asserts that it has 'broad discretion to balance the statutory factors in Section 103 [of
EISA] in developing fuel consumption standards to achieve the maximum feasible improvement.' 80
Fed. Reg. at 40,170. Further, NHTSA references authority within the Motor Vehicle Safety Act with
reference to the regulation of trailers as 'vehicles.' Id. at 40,171.
12 49 U.S.C. §32902(k)(2). (Emphasis added).
13 49 U.S.C. §32902(k)(2).
14 It may additionally be noted that that even if NHTSA lacked statutory authority to consider lifecycle
emissions, it could otherwise conform its regulations to those promulgated by EPA so as to avoid
-------
inconsistency. Several differences in statutory authority, including the ability to impose regulations on
the same timeframe, were accommodated by EPA and NHTSA in the Phase I medium- and heavy-duty
truck rulemaking. NHTSA and EPA have also cited Massachusetts v. EPA. 549 U.S. 497 (2007) as
support for their ability to proceed cooperatively on engine and vehicle standards despite issuing
separate and distinct standards. In the MY 2012-2016 LDV rule, EPA cited the Supreme Court's
conclusion in Massachusetts that '[t]he two obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think that
the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency' as support for
their different, but aligned regulatory approaches. 75 Fed. Reg. at 25,327. It should be noted that this
perspective should apply equally to both EPA and NHTSA should the former agency believe it is
constrained from incorporating lifecycle analysis within a final rule.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Alternative 4 is Consistent with NHTSA's Statutory Authority
NHTSA is promulgating the proposed fuel efficiency standards pursuant to the statutory authority of the
EISA, which amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975. Specifically, section
102 of EISA (49 USC section 32902(k)(2)) authorizes NHTSA to implement "a commercial medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to
achieve the maximum feasible improvement, and [to] adopt and implement appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicles and work trucks." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.27]
The fuel efficiency standards that correspond to the GHG emission standards associated with
Alternative 4 are consistent with section 32902(k)(2) of EISA. In the Phase 1 rulemaking, NHTSA
stated that it has the discretion to balance the factors specified in section 32902(k)(2) of EISA "in a way
that is technology-forcing ... but not in a way that requires the application of technology which will not
be available in the lead time provided by the rule, or which is not cost-effective, or is cost-prohibitive
,.."13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.27]
As demonstrated above, Alternative 4 is consistent with the statutory provisions of section 202(a)(2) of
the CAA regarding adequate lead times and costs of compliance associated with the proposed
greenhouse gas emission standards. To the extent that NHTSA's considerations of lead times and
compliance costs for the technologies needed to comply with fuel efficiency standards are consistent
with the lead time and cost of compliance factors that U.S. EPA considered in developing the GHG
emission standards associated with Alternative 4, the corresponding fuel efficiency standards are
arguably consistent with the factors specified in section 32902(k)(2), and are consistent with NHTSA's
statutory directive to achieve the maximum feasible improvement in fuel efficiency standards from
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.27]
Support Comment
Comment - Interpretation that 49 U.S.C. 32919(a) does not extend to commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks
NHTSA states that in the Phase 1 rulemaking it concluded that EPCA's express preemption provision of
49 U.S.C. 32919(a) (which expressly preempts any State or local government from adopting or
enforcing a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for
-------
automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329) does not
extend to the fuel efficiency standards established in the Phase 1 rulemaking because commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks are not "automobiles," as defined in 49
U.S.C. 32901(a)(3). NHTSA states that it is reiterating that conclusion for the proposed Phase 2
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.28]
CARB staff concurs with NHTSA's reasoning and conclusion that 49 U.S.C. 32919(a) does not extend
to the fuel efficiency standards established under the Phase 1 rulemaking or to the proposed fuel
efficiency standards established under the Phase 2 rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.28]
13 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles, U.S. EPA Response to Comments, Document for Joint Rulemaking, p. 5-17,
EPA-420-R-11 -004, August 2011.
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
The NHTSA is also expressly required to consider "the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the
Government on fuel economy."20 This factor is implicated in two sets of regulations: (1) regulations
developed by the State of California under its Clean Air Act § 202 waiver and (2) light-duty truck
Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") standards promulgated by the Agencies. Both sets of
regulations are "motor vehicle standards of the Government" that create important context for
determining "maximum feasible improvement" for the purposes of the instant rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.5]
20 49 U.S.C. § 32902(f).
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
In-Use Standards - NHTSA and the EPA propose to add an in-use requirement to NHTSA's
regulations, applicable through the regulatory useful life, appropriateness of seeking civil penalties for
failure to comply with its fuel efficiency standards in these instances. 80 FR 40342. NHTSA also
proposes to add civil penalties for failure to conform to such standards. While it is appropriate for
NHTSA's standards to mirror the EPA's, we think that it would be inappropriate for NHTSA to assess
civil penalties in addition to those that the EPA assesses. The two agencies have essentially identical
regulations and should not assess duplicative penalties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 131]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Specifically for NHTSA, some of these concerns have added force. In particular, this includes the
effective requirement to have a compliant engine over a year prior to the nominal start year of 2021. As
we discussed extensively in our Comments in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, the need for an engine
fuel map to use with the GEM tool prior to 2021 effectively pulls the requirement for a compliant
engine over a year ahead of the 2021 nominal start year, as early as 15 months, which would be in 2019.
By the time the Proposed Rule is adopted, it appears that this will not comport with the requirement for
four years of lead time in the Energy Independence and Security Act. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1
p.3]
-------
Organization: Newell Coach Corporation
We would like to note that while EPA has clear authority to regulate vocational vehicles like
motorhomes, we disagree with NHTSA's view that the Energy, Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA) gives them the authority to regulate motorhomes. Motorhome are not commercial vehicles and
they should not be subject to NHTSA's proposed standards. Fundamentally, we believe that the EPA
and NHTSA have an obligation to establish regulations that are consistent with each other. If NHTSA
cannot legally regulate non-commercial vehicles, rather than establish conflicting requirements, EPA
should exclude motorhomes from its rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1319-A1 p.2]
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
RVIA sets forth the following points in its comments. As an initial matter, NHTSA lacks legal authority
over non-commercial vehicles, such as motorhomes, and so cannot set fuel consumption standards for
such vehicles. Thus, motorhomes should continue to be exempt from NHTSA fuel consumption
standards as they were in the Phase 1 rule. Further, for the very purposes of consistency and uniformity
the agencies espouse, EPA should recognize this limitation and exclude motorhomes from its standards
as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A 1 p.4]
Motorhomes Should Be Exempt from the Proposed Rules
NHTSA lacks authority to regulate motorhomes since they are not commercial vehicles.
NHTSA cannot establish Phase 2 regulations for motorhomes because it lacks the authority to set fuel
efficiency standards for non-commercial medium and heavy-duty vehicles under the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA). Section 102(b) of EISA, 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k), expressly
authorizes NHTSA to set fuel efficiency standards for 'commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicles.' (emphasis added). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 10]
When NHTSA first proposed its Phase 1 fuel efficiency standards for commercial medium and heavy-
duty vehicles, it properly recognized its authority under EISA was limited to commercial vehicles; thus,
it excepted from its regulation 'recreational vehicles, such as motor homes, since recreational vehicles
are not commercial.' However, NHTSA announced in the final rule that it might revisit this
interpretation of its EISA authority in light of a comment filed by Oshkosh Corporation. NHTSA added
that, upon reconsideration, its phase 1 interpretation might 'effectively read words into the statutory
definition' and create 'illogical results, i.e., treating similar vehicles differently.' For purposes of Phase 1,
NHTSA decided to continue to exclude motorhomes because they were not included in the proposed
rule but would 'address this issue in the next rulemaking.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A 1 p. 10]
In the Proposed Phase 2 Rule, NHTSA did indeed reconsider its position; it completely retreated from
its initial Phase 1 proposed interpretation, raising essentially the same arguments it set forth in the final
Phase 1 rule. NHTSA asserted that the definition of 'commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-road
highway vehicles' was based on weight alone: "on-highway vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings
of 10,000 pounds or more." NHTSA also repeated the same argument that excluding motorhomes
would be illogical. It further added that including the category would be consistent with the goal of
creating one national program since EPA already covers such vehicles. NHTSA offered no other
evidence supporting its position. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 10]
-------
While the goal of uniformity may be desirable, it cannot create legal authority where there is none.
Rather than avoiding reading words into a definition, NHTSA is effectively eliminating key statutory
language from the definition. Congress plainly limited NHTSA's authority under EISA to 'commercial'
medium and heavy-duty vehicles. There is no similar limitation for work trucks, a category which is
defined separately, nor on NHTSA authority for regulating automobiles. Hence, the term 'commercial'
cannot be mere surplusage; Congress must have intended a meaning if it used the term only in
connection with medium and heavy-duty vehicles. Moreover, the term 'commercial' doesn't simply
appear once in the relevant portions of EISA. Rather, Congress used the term repeatedly in section
32902(k). Indeed, the very title of that statutory section uses the term, and it is used before 'medium-and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicles' every time those vehicles are mentioned in that section. Had Congress
intended to include all medium and heavy-duty vehicles in its grant of authority to NHTSA, it surely
would have done so and eliminated the 'commercial' modifier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1
p.10-11]
When Congress defined the term 'commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles' in section
103 of EISA it didn't include the term 'commercial' in the definition but neither did it repeat any of the
other words in that same term: 'medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.' It simply defined the full
term, focusing on the weight of the vehicles. The most rational and reasonable reading of this definition
would be that only 'commercial' vehicles of that weight would constitute 'commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.' Yet NHTSA's reading unjustifiably expands its purported authority
over any vehicle, commercial or not, based solely on weight. Rather than reading in a term to a
definition, NHTSA proposes to entirely eliminate the key modifier established by Congress. Notably, in
its own regulations implementing EISA, NHTSA doesn't go this far. It defines 'heavy-duty vehicles' as
'any commercial medium- and heavy-duty on highway vehicle or work truck,' as defined in section
32901(a)(7). Even NHTSA doesn't purport in its existing regulations to define 'heavy-duty vehicles' as
any vehicles above a certain weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 11]
Moreover, there is an important and rational reason for distinguishing between commercial heavy-duty
vehicles and non-commercial vehicles like motorhomes. EISA authorizes NHTSA to set fuel
consumption standards for heavy-duty vehicles used in commercial activities. As NHTSA recognized
properly back in 2010, non-commercial recreational vehicles such as motorhomes are used by families
and individuals for recreational purposes. Motorhomes are very different from commercial vehicles. For
example, they are generally very low-mileage and their costs generally cannot be recovered through
commercial use.19 Indeed, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) expressly recognized this
distinction in its proposed regulations for In-Use On-Road Diesel Vehicles, where it excluded personal
use motorhomes from regulation. CARB explained: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 11]
Staff has proposed to exempt non-commercial motor homes from the scope of the proposed regulation
for a number of reasons. First, owners of these vehicles do not have the ability to offset the compliance
costs since personal use motor homes do not generate income nor appreciate in value. In addition, these
vehicles typically operate very few miles in California, and as such, do not contribute significantly
towards emissions relative to other vehicles covered by the proposed regulation.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1261-A1 p.11-12]
Thus, motorhomes are not similar to commercial vehicles in the aspects that are most relevant in the
Phase 2 proposal. They are not the same in terms of vehicles miles travelled so gas savings are less and
payback time for fuel savings is longer. They are not the same in terms of cost offsets since typical
motorhome owners cannot recoup cost outlays through income generation or appreciation in value. And
they are not the same in terms of emissions because of the lower number of vehicle miles travelled.
Thus, contrary to NHTSA's conclusions, Congress' decision to treat commercial vehicles and
-------
motorhomes separately, as CARB and even NHTSA at one point have done, is a correct and entirely
practical approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 12]
NHTSA should exempt motorhomes entirely from its Phase 2 fuel consumption standards because it
lacks statutory authority over non-commercial medium and heavy-duty vehicles in this regard. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.27]
19 Some motorhomes are rented for commercial purposes, but this number is a statistically insignificant
percentage of all motorhomes currently in use. In Phase 1, NHTSA did not attempt to distinguish
between personal use and rental motorhomes, nor does RVIA believe such a distinction is even possible.
20 CARB, Technical Support Document: Proposed Regulation for In-use On-road Diesel Vehicles, at
256 (Oct. 2008), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/truckbus08/tsd.pdf. While the CARB
regulation directly affected owners through a retrofit requirement, rather than chassis manufacturers as
in the Proposed EPA Phase 2 Rules, the commercial/non-commercial distinction is still valid since the
nature of motorhomes is the same. The cost is just imposed, in the first instance, on the chassis
manufacturer and reaches the customer eventually through higher prices.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
In our "Authority Objections" section (3), we will discuss the legal rationale the agencies are putting
forward for regulating trailers, why that rationale is flawed, and that the agencies should focus their
efforts on end users, which they actually do have authority to regulate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1172-A1 p. 2]
EPA and NHTSA do not have statutory authority to adopt GHG emission and fuel efficiency standards
applicable to trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.3]
NHTSA lacks statutory authority.
NHTSA's claim to authority relies on the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which does
not itself define the term "vehicle" to include trailers. To do this, NHTSA relies on the language under
its organic statute, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.5 It is important to note that the Safety Act's definition
is put forward "to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents." As
we will describe below, many parts of the proposal are at odds with this mission and we urge NHTSA to
carefully consider their mandate as they propose trading safety for assumed fuel savings. Here, the point
is simply that NHTSA is grasping for statutory authority for the proposed rule by citing an enabling
statute that has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, NHTSA cites the EISA direction to create standards for commercial medium- and heavy-
duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks in 49 USC 32902(k). That section includes a 24 month
window for rulemaking to take place: "(2) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 24 months after completion
of the study required under paragraph (1), the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, by regulation, shall determine in a
rulemaking proceeding how to implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle
and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement,..." The study referred to in paragraph (1) was to be completed within one year of the
-------
publication of a National Academy of Sciences study that was published in 20107. That brings the
maximum window for NHTSA to bring regulations under this law to 2013. The proposal being put
forward, coming after the window set forth under law, lacks congressional authorization.
Further, NHTSA contends that the Energy Independence and Security Act ("EISA") gives it statutory
authority to regulate trailers. Specifically, NHTSA points to a provision in the EISA that directs
NHTSA to "determine in a rulemaking proceeding how to implement a commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to
achieve the maximum feasible improvement. . . ." The EISA defines "commercial medium- and heavy-
duty on-highway vehicle" to mean "an on-highway vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR]
of 10,000 pounds or more." NHTSA contends that, "[b]ecause Congress did not act to exclude trailers
when defining GVWRs ... it is reasonable to interpret the provision to include them."
However, this definition shows just the opposite - that EISA's definition of "commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicle" excludes trailers. GVWR is distinct from the gross combined weight
rating ("GCWR"), which includes both the weight of a loaded trailer and the weight of the tractor. EPA
and NHTSA recognized this important distinction in promulgating GHG Phase One emission standards
and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles in 2011, stating:
"GVWR describes the maximum load that can be carried by a vehicle, including the weight of the
vehicle itself. Heavy-duty vehicles also have a gross combined weight rating (GCWR), which describes
the maximum load that the vehicle can haul, including the weight of a loaded trailer and the vehicle
itself." (emphasis added). In other words, the trailer is not included in the definition of "commercial
medium-and-heavy-duty on highway vehicle" as previously interpreted by NHTSA, since that definition
refers only to a tractor's GVWR and does not refer to a combination tractor and trailer GCWR. It is
therefore reasonable (and it is consistent with the agencies' previous interpretation) to exclude trailers
when interpreting 40 U.S.C. § 32902(k)(2).
We understand that the agencies may take issue with our claims as to the way the law interacts with the
truck trailer industry and the agencies' proposal, so we will address further comments at both EPA and
NHTSA parts of the proposal. This is intended to instruct both agencies as to ways that the proposal
could be improved with regard to the truck trailer industry without condoning the agencies' proposed
expansion without legal authority.
5 80FR4071: "Although EISA does not define the term "vehicle," NHTSA's authority to regulate motor
vehicles under its organic statute, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), does."
7 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12845/technologies-and-approaches-to-reducing-the-fuel-consumption-
of-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicles
Response:
Generally, with respect to issues regarding NHTSA's legal authority, please see Section I. E. of the final
rule notice. Topics in this section not discussed in this document or in Section I. E. of the Preamble are
discussed in the relevant sections of the associated rulemaking documents.
With respect to Daimler's comment regarding duplicative civil penalties, NHTSA addressed a similar
comment from EMA, Volvo, and the Truck Renting and Leasing Association in the Phase 1 rule.
NHTSA maintains what it stated in those notices—that neither agency intended to impose duplicative
civil penalties, and that both agencies would give consideration to civil penalties imposed by the other
-------
in the case of non-compliance with its own regulations. See 75 FR 74280. The possibility of more than
one prosecution or enforcement action arising from the same overall body of facts does not present a
novel issue. It commonly arises where there is overlapping jurisdiction, such as where the federal
government and a state government have jurisdiction. The issue of multiple or sequential prosecutions
may be addressed as a matter of administrative policy and discretion. Both NHTSA and EPA are
charged with regulating medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles; NHTSA regulates them under EISA and
EPA regulates them under EISA and EPA regulates them under the CAA. Both agencies also have
compliance review and enforcement responsibilities for their respective regulatory requirements. The
same set of underlying facts may result in a violation of EISA and a violation of the CAA.
1.4 General Compliance Provisions 76
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Useful life and in-use standards for hybrids
The NPRM "requests comment on the possibility of mismatched engine and vehicle useful-life values
and on any possible implications this may have for manufacturers' ability to design, certify, produce and
sell their engines and vehicles." (page 40326 of the NPRM). The NPRM notes that "This could lead to a
situation where the engine and the vehicle are subject to emission standards over different useful-life
periods." However, the NPRM suggests that "While such a mismatch in useful life values could be
confusing, we don't believe it poses any particular policy problem that we need to address." CARB staff
believes that the mismatching in engine and vehicle classes is a significant issue that needs to be fully
addressed. All heavy-duty engines that are certified for sale have to comply with warranty requirements,
which apply to the proper functioning and performance of emission-related components over the
warranty period. The useful life requirements for heavy-duty vehicles of different classes are shown in
the table below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.90]
[Table 15 can be found on p. 90 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
As can be seen from the table above, the useful period for a lighter vehicle class is much less than the
emission warranty period for a heavier vehicle (i.e., 435,000 vs. 110,000 miles). If a light heavy-duty
engine is used in a heavy heavy-duty vehicle, as in using a downsized engine in a hybrid vehicle, there
is a disconnect between the two different sets of useful life requirements, a difference of 325,000 miles.
The purchaser of a heavy heavy-duty vehicle is protected by regulations that provide 435,000 miles of
emissions warranty if the vehicle has a heavy heavy-duty engine installed. However, if a light heavy-
duty engine was installed in the same vehicle, the manufacturer of that engine is only liable for 110,000
miles of emissions warranty. Since the light heavy-duty engine and its emission-related components
were designed to achieve the required target of 110,000 miles, it is highly uncertain whether it could
continue to meet the certified emission standards if it is operated well beyond its useful life. As such, the
purchaser of the vehicle would not be protected to the extent provided by the regulations. In addition,
since the emissions performance of the light heavy-duty engine are only warranted for up to 110,000
miles, its installation in a heavy heavy-duty vehicle when being operated beyond that mileage is subject
to potential emissions increases without recourse for corrective action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.90-91]
-------
Another significant issue is engine durability. Heavy-duty engines are designed and manufactured for an
acceptable period of use, separate from the emissions warranty useful life. A heavy-duty engine in an
over-the-road tractor application is expected by fleet operators to have an operating life of one million
miles. A light or medium heavy-duty engine, if installed in that vocational application, is not expected
to be able to last that long and may need to be replaced with a new engine some number of times over
the life of the vehicle. This would result in an additional cost that may not be anticipated by the
purchaser, and may not have been accounted for in the cost analysis of the NPRM, if the NPRM is
assuming a certain level of engine downsizing penetration into the heavy heavy-duty vehicle
application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.91]
CARB staff believes that these are significant issues that need to be addressed in the Phase 2
rulemaking. One possible approach that was used by CARB in the Interim Certification Procedures for
Heavy-Duty Hybrid Vehicles was the requirement that the hybrid vehicles, with or without engine
downsizing, have to comply with the same useful life requirements as for the conventional diesel engine
that would have been normally used in the same intended vehicle class. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.91]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
DF process: Continue the Phase 1 approach on DFs - EPA requests comments regarding the
appropriateness of continuing the practice of engine manufacturers adopting assigned DFs for C02
emissions. 80 FR 40206. During Phase 1 discussions, DTNA shared data from laboratory and field tests
with EPA to demonstrate the in-use fuel efficiency performance of its products, showing that the DF
should be zero. In particular, these data illustrated that fuel efficiency remains stable over the course of
high mileage testing and thereby support EPA's rationale of allowing manufacturers to adopt a 0.0
g/bhp-h additive deterioration factor for C02 emissions. DDC's experience with engine emissions
supports that these past trends continue to today's products and can be expected to continue with its new
products. DTNA similarly agrees with the agencies' proposal that it is prudent for EPA to consider,
subject to good engineering judgment, allowing the same assigned DF for advanced or off-cycle
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 119]
Useful Life and Maintenance - The agencies discuss the concern that the EPA regulations apply for
the useful life of a vehicle and therefore involve vehicle owners to perform maintenance, which bears
associated costs. 80 FR 40325. We think that there is little need for additional regulation to enforce
maintenance requirements, especially when it comes to fuel efficiency. The way that the EPA
regulations for criteria pollutants have worked until now is that manufacturers pass maintenance
instructions to the vehicle owners and then do useful life testing based on those maintenance intervals.
With criteria pollutant emission-control systems, an emission failure would not necessarily bother a
vehicle owner. For example, if the EGR system stopped pumping EGR or the DPF broke, the engine
could still operate and perhaps even have better fuel efficiency than with the emission-control systems
intact. (In fact, however, we design our engines and aftertreatment to be very robust and do not expect
such failures, plus we use OBD systems to catch them and warn drivers). By contrast, with systems
designed to optimize fuel efficiency and minimize GHG emissions, system failure would degrade fuel
efficiency, thus providing vehicle owners more monetary incentive to maintain their vehicles and
engines. Therefore, we believe that the agencies should expect an even higher likelihood of vehicles and
engines being properly maintained under the proposed regulations than under past criteria pollutant
regulations, and those regulations have worked. In short, the agencies should be adequately assured that
FE-related maintenance is being performed in the field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 118-
119]
-------
We agree with the use of a zero DF for vehicles' and engines' C02, based on the same data that we
showed the agencies in Phase 1. Second, the agencies premise that the Phase 2 standards will use very
costly technologies, like hybridization for which battery replacement can be cost-prohibitive, but the
agencies explicitly state that they have not quantified maintenance costs for any technology other than
hybrids. 80 FR 40325. Although we do not expect maintenance within the period of a DF test, there
should be some maintenance requiring battery replacement during the vehicles' actual life. Accurately
capturing both the up-front and in-use costs of technologies is extremely important in determining when
the fuel saving technologies are cost-effective, and we believe that the agencies dramatically
underestimated the costs of (for example) hybrids. In turn, we think it likely that customers will do as
New York's hybrid bus operators did and not maintain the hybrid systems, converting back to
conventional powertrains. So correcting underestimated costs for fuel saving technologies is an
important part of the agencies' post NPRM work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 119]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc
Comments on Hybrid Battery Replacement/Useful Life
EPA is proposing to continue its Phase 1 approach to deterioration factors and anticipates that hybrid
systems will experience "some deterioration of effectiveness with age of the storage device." In EPA's
opinion, the regulations at 40 C.F.R. 1037.241 provide adequate information to manufacturers in order
to develop deterioration factors, but requests comment on whether any changes to this process are
required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.61]
The criteria referenced in 40 C.F.R. 1037.241 are contingent upon an EPA finding that emissions
controls are likely to deteriorate during useful life. We would note that although EPA anticipates that
some hybrid powertrain systems may experience deterioration of effectiveness that the Agency is not
acting specifically within this rulemaking to make such a determination with regard to any specific
system. In general, Allison believes that each hybrid manufacturer can develop a method of determining
a battery performance design limit. (Indeed, in the context of certification of hybrid systems, Allison
would expect that the amount of credits generated for a hybrid system will be dependent, in part, to
battery performance at that design limit). With respect to determining hybrid deterioration factors, we
would therefore expect that such design limits should be a sufficient basis for any deterioration factors
that are required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.61]
Otherwise, Allison would note that 40 C.F.R. 1037.125 provides for the provision of maintenance
instructions for properly maintaining a vehicle, including its emission control systems. Allison
recommends that a prognostic feature be included in vehicles to warn an operator when measured Amp-
Hour throughput surpasses the battery design limit and maintenance must be performed. Such systems
would ensure that maintenance was reasonably likely to be done at recommended intervals in
accordance with this provision. This is also a good way to take into account each specific vehicle's duty
cycle's effect on lifespan. In addition, under this recommendation, the costly battery would not need to
be replaced until it had deteriorated to the set design limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.61]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
The agencies point out that there is the possibility of a mismatched engine useful life and vehicle useful
life for components in the same vehicle, and the agencies correctly note that this does not pose any
particular policy problem that needs to be addressed. 80 FR 40326. The engine UL is based on the
engine's service class, which is the primary intended application of an engine. (See, e.g., 40 CFR §
86.085-2). It is not the sole application of an engine. So there might be, for example, a relatively small
-------
number of medium heavy-duty engines that go into heavy heavy-duty vehicles. And the agencies should
not seek to end this practice, as a 'downsized' engine that can meet a vehicle's driving needs can be
lighter and more fuel efficient than the larger engine. In other words, if the agencies required that
manufacturers certify each engine to the heaviest service class in which the engine will ever be used,
then manufacturers would have to limit certain engines' usage, thus depriving fleets of potential fuel
savings in those limited cases when a downsized engine will suffice for a vehicle. The agencies took the
correct approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 119]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc., et al.
Regulation must appropriately reflect real-world reductions
Reduced petroleum consumption and GHG mitigation depend on real-world reductions, not regulatory
measurements and calculations. Fuel cost, typically one of the top two operating expenses for owners of
heavy-duty vehicles, must be managed to survive in a transportation market with slim margins and
many competitors. Vehicle owners are able to pay for efficiency technology only to the extent that it
provides adequate return on investment in their operation. As manufacturers, we must design and
specify our vehicles to comply with the Phase 2 regulation, while at the same time optimizing to the
specific operation of each customer. This situation is only manageable if the regulation results
accurately mirror real world results for the majority of applications, while also providing the flexibility
to meet unique requirements of applications that do not match regulatory duty cycles. Of course, it is
impossible, in any regulatory construct, to match the specific freight efficiency performance in many
diverse operations. But it is both possible and our expectation that the regulation accurately compares
the relative performance between any two vehicle specifications in the majority of applications. Unless
this is achieved, the regulation will not accomplish its goals - goals fully shared by regulators,
manufacturers, and vehicle owners. Regulatory outcomes that do not match real-world results will result
in failure to meet environmental objectives, combined with economic disruption to our entire industry,
because owners will not purchase expensive vehicles, particularly if burdened with complex new
technologies that do not deliver adequate results by their measurement - the cost of fuel and other
operational costs for these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.3-4]
Organization: Enovation Controls (ENC)
Combustion Type Classification - ENC agrees with classification of vehicle technologies based on end
user expectations for useful life and emissions system upkeep. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1
p.l]
2.2 Emissions Warranty and Durability - ENC submits that EPA Phase 2 rules should be purely C02-
regulating. Emissions warranty language should addressed in CARB and EPA standards (CCR Title 13,
Section 1971.1 and 40CFR 86.010-18, respectively) to maintain consistency with the separation of
emissions functionality guarantees enabled by extensive and sophisticated on-board diagnostics from
regulation of OEM as-delivered products. Furthermore, all references to criteria pollutants should reflect
the critical pollutants emitted from a specific combustion type. Specifically, critical emissions for
Compression Ignition engines are NOx and PM, and critical emissions for Spark-Ignition engines are
NOx and NMHC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1 p.2]
Organization: FCA US, LLC
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 62.]
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 135.]
We support the flexibility mechanisms that are included in the rule, averaging, banking and trading, and
the recognition of the benefits of technologies that are not fully captured on the laboratory drive cycles.
We will work with the agencies to make these processes more efficient in the second phase of this
program.
Organization: General Motors
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 102-103.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 121.]
Third, we have been gaining valuable experience concerning the importance of flexibility mechanisms,
contained in the light duty vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency regulations, and these lessons can
be applied to the medium and heavy duty fleet.
All of these flexibility mechanisms that have been successful for light duty trucks can be applied equally
to the Class 2B and Class 3 pickups and vans covered by this proposed regulation.
Organization: McNicols
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 274.]
Modifications to measurements and certification methods may be required, and flexibility to adapt these
processes to accommodate promising and impactful technologies will be crucial. Some of these
challenges include organizational empowerment, policy overhaul, working level encouragement and
grace for risk taking, and flexible compliance throughout your organizations.
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Finally, NACAA urges that EPA do everything feasible to implement in-use compliance verification.
We support EPA's testing regime for engines and the requirement for manufacturers to submit data
from chassis testing - these are good first steps. However, we believe the current whole-vehicle
provisions should be complemented with some type of whole-vehicle validation to ensure long-term
compliance by vehicles in-use. For example, tracking vehicle weight and speed with engine carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions could be used as a tool to determine overall vehicle performance for
corrections/correlations to EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model moving forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1157-Alp.5]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar feels the following are key areas the agencies must address: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
-------
• The burdens of testing must be rational and related to ensuring compliance. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0094-A1 p. 2]
• Customers should be allowed to make acceptable modifications to engines and vehicles in accordance
with past standard practice. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
• Model years must be aligned so that the emission standards for engine and vehicle start at the same
time and so that certain vehicle segments, such as school bus, are not overly impacted because of their
unique sales seasons. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.3]
For example, engine re-rating is a routine practice when a different engine horsepower is required by a
second or third owner of a vehicle or the first owner if working conditions change or the initial
specifications were not adequate to the task. Because of legitimate differences in use, an engine
sometimes will be altered to a different horsepower rating. Transmission calibration may also be
changed based on particular applications. Finally, rear axle ratios may be modified based on a particular
use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p. 15-16]
By potentially incorporating these elements into certification, there is a significant danger that the
opposite will occur to what is intended, that is, these elements will be discouraged. This may negatively
impact stock trucks ordered by dealers and second and subsequent owners. Each of these potential
modifications reflects a legitimate use. However, in the Proposed Rule, because these elements may
have been part of the initial certification, these elements may be "frozen" in a way that has not been the
case previously. Navistar is concerned that this could cause serious market disruption. It may cause a
manufacturer to certify in a way that shows that vehicle as a "worst case" scenario to guard against the
worst possible GHG emissions configuration. The other possibility is that dealers would halt buying
stock trucks and wait for a particular customer to order their particular vehicle, which would
significantly change that part of the market effectively eliminating stock trucks. A third possibility is
that the secondary market for vehicles that have unusual but fixed configurations will be seriously
restricted, impacting their value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 16]
We agree with EMA's recommendations in this regard. The agencies should seek to avoid negative
impacts to the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 16]
We also have concerns regarding the anticipated technology penetration rates. For the majority of the
technologies the agencies project 50% penetration in the vocational sector, with parasitic/friction
reduction being the highest at 60% in the first year of this Proposed Rule. This creates two issues: 1)
insufficient time, particularly with the vehicle and engine model year mismatch, to develop and
implement the new standard, and 2) it would require that each manufacturer establish two parallel,
complete engine development programs, given the basic engine architectural changes assumed by the
Proposed Rule in the 2021 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.21]
Navistar feels that the provisions with regard to warranty have stricken the correct balance. Navistar
does not feel it necessary to change the language as proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1
P-41]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Impacts on niche segments of the industry
-------
Niche segments such as oversized and heavy haul are recognized as being unique. The agencies have
acknowledged that niche industries present unique concerns not shared with the most prevalent truck
operations. However, one area that the agencies have not adequately addressed is post-purchase
modification, which is a specialty for small business owner-operators. In particular, owner-operators
are able to change their schedule in order to meet a customer's demands with relative ease. This can
mean that a truck which was spec'd for one particular niche might need to be modified for use in
another niche at a customer's request, or as the markets change. This could require different types, or
even sizes, of tires and a completely different type of trailer. These small-business owner-operators
should not be penalized or prevented from making changes to their equipment in order to stay in
business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.46]
The proposed rules would prohibit the future post-purchase modification of the new proposed
technologies in a truck unless it can be shown that the modifications improve fuel economy. While
OOIDA appreciates this flexibility, it is concerned that this important issue is not explained in adequate
detail. For example, as stated above, a standard truck built for pulling a dry van trailer might be used to
pull a flatbed, or the original purchaser of the truck might decide to change from a dry van operation to
flatbed operation by removing the dry van-focused roof fairing. According to the current proposal,
such modifications could be a violation of the Clean Air Act, unless it would improve the vehicle's fuel
efficiency. OOIDA members would appreciate more specific information on how they would be able to
prove the merits of their modifications, well short of being a defendant accused of violating the Clean
Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.46-47]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Model Year Mismatch
The agencies have proposed to require the use of engines and vehicles designated with the same model
year. However, engine model years are generally aligned with the calendar year, while vehicle model
years often extend up to one calendar year plus 364 days. The proposed Phase 2 requirement will disrupt
the vehicle manufacturing process without achieving any true environmental benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827- 1269-Alp.27]
Based on the current market dynamics for vehicle model implementation, model year 2021 vehicles will
have either a model year ("MY") 2019, 2020, or 2021 engine installed in them. This is problematic for
engine manufacturers as they may not have a certified Phase 2 engine map for pre-2021 engines for use
in the 2021 vehicle. It is also an issue for vehicle manufacturers since the MY2019 and MY2020 engine
will likely not be designed to comply with the Phase 2 stringencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.27]
EMA is proposing an alternative to address the mismatch between the start of the vehicle and engine
model years. Under this alternative, the model year of the installed engine would define the "greenhouse
gas" year (GY) for the vehicle. The GY would define the stringency level for each vehicle. This would
allow the engine and vehicle to be matched in model year for the purposes of the Phase 2 GHG/FE
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.27]
The diagram below shows the relationship between the vehicle marketing model year, which is used in
the VIN as the vehicle model year, the vehicle GHG/FE year, and the engine model year. With this
recommended implementation alternative, as is shown below, the engine MY2020 aligns with vehicle
GY2020 and VIN for 2021. Engine MY2021 creates vehicle GY2021 and 2022 VIN. Thus, under this
alternative, the issues stemming from the misalignment between available engine and vehicle
-------
technologies - including an unwarranted one-year pull-ahead of the Phase 2 engine standards - are
eliminated for all three steps in the Phase 2 regulation. The additional compliance burden of MY2019
and MY2020 engine fuel maps is also eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.27]
[Graphic, 'Implementation Alternative - Engine MY = Vehicle GY', can be found on p. 28 of EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1]
The proposal's definition of Model Year (see p 40663) differs from NHTSA's24 and penalizes
manufacturers who are making trailers with forward reaching model years for sales purposes. EPA
staffers have verbally assured us that the model year as required under this rule does not need to be the
same model year used for sales purposes. We will be in position of potentially selling trailers marketed
and marked on the VIN plate as Model Year 2019, while marking on the EPA plate "THIS VEHICLE
COMPLIES WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR 2018 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES." Any
proposed definition of Model Year should explicitly state this. For example, §1037.801 could be
expanded to include a new paragraph: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 15]
* * *
(3) The model year as used in this part need not correspond with the model year used for VIN and
marketing purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 15]
while the same paragraph should be added to §535.4's definition of MODEL YEAR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 15]
Additionally, modify the labeling requirements in 1037.135(8) to read: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1172-A1 p. 16]
(8) State: "THIS VEHICLE COMPLIES WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR [MODEL YEAR]
HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES." Optionally, the word "MANUFACTURED" may be added after the
model year. [EPA-HQ- OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 16]
This will make it clear that if a trailer manufacturer adopts a calendar year model year for this rule, it
can continue its practice of using an advance model year for VIN and marketing purposes and to avoid
confusion, the Emission Control Label on a vehicle with a 2019 Model Year on the VIN plate
manufactured in 2018 could read "THIS VEHICLE COMPLIES WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS
FOR 2018 MANUFACTURED HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES". If authority comes through NHTSA, a
similar label requirement could be used in §535. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 16]
24 49CFR565.12(m) - "Model year means the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model,
irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, provided that the
production period does not exceed 24 months."
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Implementation and Definitional Issues
-------
Engine and Vehicle Model Year Designations
The Agencies have proposed to require the use of engines and vehicles designated with the same model
year. However, engine model years are generally aligned with the calendar year, while vehicle model
years often extend up to one calendar year plus 364 days. The proposed requirement will disrupt the
manufacturing process without achieving any true environmental benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1204-A1 p.28]
Based on the current market dynamics for implementation, the model year 2021 vehicles will have
either a model year 2019, 2020, or 2021 engine installed in them. This is problematic for the engine
manufacturer as they may not have a certified engine map for pre-2021 engines for use in the 2021
vehicle. It is also an issue for the vehicle manufacturers since the MY2019 and MY2020 engine will
likely not be designed to comply with the Phase 2 stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1
p.28]
EMA has proposed an alternative to address the mismatch between the start of the vehicle and engine
model years. In this alternative the model year of the installed engine would define the "greenhouse
gas" year (GY) for the vehicle. This would allow the engine and vehicle to match in model year for
purposes of the Phase 2 GHG regulation. This proposal is also included in EMA's comments. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.28]
EPA has suggested in a meeting with EMA and the other Agencies that this alternative would, in their
view, delay the implementation of Phase 2 and somehow reduce the GHG emissions reductions. In fact,
since the calculations for GHG reductions are by model year of the regulation, all emissions will be
counted and no net shortfall would be realized in GHG reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1
p.28]
PACCAR supports the EMA proposal and is committed to engaging with the Agencies either through
EMA or alone to identify and mitigate issues with the above proposal so that a mutually acceptable
alternative can be finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.28]
Powertrain Modifications
The ability to modify powertrain components, such as engine ratings, transmission calibrations, and rear
axle ratios in the field to optimize the performance of the vehicle for the vehicle's actual job
requirements and duty cycle is imperative for owners of commercial vehicles. A sub-optimized vehicle
will burn more fuel and perform poorly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.28]
In Phase 2, with the powertrain components for the vehicle being added as input into GEM's GHG
vehicle assessment, these components become regulated by the GHG rule. As written, the draft
regulation would make any modifications to these components illegal under the tampering provisions of
the Clean Air Act. EMA's comments provide extensive details supporting the need for the ability to
modify powertrain components in the field without this modification being deemed "tampering." [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.29]
It is typical of fleets to buy numerous vehicles with the same spec and then modify the powertrain
calibrations based on where the vehicle will operate, such as on flatter terrains versus more mountainous
regions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.29]
-------
To mitigate the concern regarding extensive use of powertrain changes shortly after vehicle build to
improve GHG scores of vehicles, PACCAR would be willing to update the GHG end of year reporting
data for a chassis to reflect any field modifications that are made known to us. If changes are made to
the powertrain configurations post manufacturing, then the modifying party is responsible for
communicating these to the vehicle manufacturer for inclusion in their 270 day report. If
communication of the change is not provided to the vehicle manufacturer, then the party responsible for
modifying the configuration will be held responsible for reporting the change to the Agencies. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.29]
PACCAR strongly supports the EMA recommendation to add language to the regulation that spells out
that these modifications are not tampering actions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.29]
Organization: Volvo Group
Tampering Prohibitions
As with the Phase 1 regulation, the Phase 2 regulation restricts the ability of an OEM, dealer, or vehicle
owner to modify an engine or vehicle's operating parameters anytime within the vehicle's life. The
agencies do allow for post-useful life vehicle modifications to reduce emissions of GHGs under 40 CFR
1037.655 where there is a "reasonable technical basis for knowing that such modification will not
increase emissions of any other pollutant" and where you "have information that would lead an engineer
or other person familiar with engine and vehicle design and function to reasonably believe that the
modifications will not increase emissions of any regulated pollutant". The post-useful life flexibility
does not apply to engine modifications or recalibrations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.57-58]
Under the Phase 1 GHG and current criteria emissions regulations, there is limited concern that
prohibited modifications may occur due to the fewer regulated components and the engine family
construct, under which all engines within the family are certified to the parent engine level. Under Phase
1 and criteria emissions regulations, the engine calibration, transmission gear ratios and calibration, and
drive axle ratios can be modified at any time without impacting a vehicles certified emissions. Dealers
use this flexibility in the case of stock trucks that are ordered in the absence of a specific customer
order; and owners use it to meet the changing demands of a vehicle's application or to improve resale
value. In Phase 2, this is no longer the case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.58]
In the proposed Phase 2 regulation, engines may be optionally certified as part of a powertrain and, in
any case, the torque rating will have some impact on the vehicle's GHG emissions. As well, since the
transmission efficiency, gear ratios and calibration, along with drive axle ratios would all become part
of the vehicle's certified configuration, they would also become subject to tampering restrictions, and
could not be modified unless it could be demonstrated that the changes did not increase GHG emissions
(a task that few dealers or owners could accomplish). The result of this would be a disruption of the
new, used, and in-use vehicle markets. Dealers would no longer be able to stock new trucks to meet the
needs of customers who require a truck immediately. Buyers on the secondary market would not be able
to either purchase a used truck that met their requirements, or modify a truck to do so. The primary
purchaser's overall cost of ownership would necessarily increase due to this lack of flexibility to make a
used truck more suitable for the secondary market, the result of which would be longer trade cycles and
increased operation of older vehicles, along with the resultant decrease in new truck sales and loss of
emissions benefits from those new trucks. Lastly, those customers who must modify a vehicle's
configuration to meet changing operational demands (e.g. moving a vehicle from a mostly flat to hilly
region) will no longer be able to modify that vehicle, since the resultant emissions would likely be
greater (and even if not, could not be easily demonstrated). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.58]
-------
Truck owners will not have the capability or knowledge to determine whether any modification may
result in increased emissions to the extent required by the agencies in Section 1037.655. Most
modifications of this type would require a new GEM analysis which would require OEM support. Given
the number of trucks in the fleet it would not be possible for OEMs to support this activity without
excessive burden, even if the OEM knew of the modification. In many cases, and particularly for vendor
supplied components, the OEM has no means to know that a modification has occurred. From this
perspective, it would unfairly burden OEMs to quantify and report the impact of changes to OEM
supplied components while vendor components could be modified without consequence. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.58]
Volvo Group requests that the agencies allow for vehicle modifications such that disruption to the
market is limited. In this regard, Volvo Group supports the EMA comments in this area and the proposal
wherein OEMs would only be required to track new vehicle modifications that occur prior to delivery to
the ultimate purchaser and to include such modifications in year-end reports when those modifications
occur at least 60 days ahead of submission of the final report to the agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.58-59]
Response:
Useful Life and DFs - Including for Engines in Hybrid Vehicles
We are adopting as proposed our approach regarding deterioration factors. Vehicle manufacturers may
certify that installed technology will remain effective throughout the vehicle useful life by either
demonstrating that critical emission-related maintenance will occur or by applying deterioration factors,
or both. However, in light of comments expressing concerns with mismatched engine and vehicle
useful life, we have reconsidered those provisions. As provided in 40 CFR 1037.140 of the final
regulations, we have structured the vehicle regulations to generally apply the same useful life for the
vehicle that applies for the engines. However, these regulations also allow vehicle manufacturers to
certify their vehicles to longer useful lives. The agencies see no problem with allowing vehicles to have
longer useful lives than the engines.
For hybrid vehicles, Allison is correct that we are not making a determination with regard to the need
for a non-zero DF for any specific hybrid systems. Rather, we are highlighting that manufacturers must
use good engineering judgment to account for any deterioration of emission controls.
Representativeness of Test Methods
While no test methods can perfectly replicate in-use performance for each operator and each
application, the methods developed by the agencies should accurately reflect in-use improvements in a
relative sense. Thus, we expect operators to be generally satisfied with the performance they observe.
Eaton commented in support of powertrain testing. In some respects, powertrain testing can be
considered to be a reference method for this rulemaking. Because manufacturers have the option to
perform powertrain testing instead of engine-only fuel mapping, the stringency of the final standards
can be traced to powertrain testing. In other words, methods that can be shown to be equivalent to
powertrain testing, can be considered to be consistent with the testing that was used as the basis of the
final Phase 2 standards.
In a related context, it may be useful in the future to consider equivalency to powertrain testing as an
appropriate criterion for evaluating changes to GEM to address new technologies. Consider, for
example, a new technology that is not represented in GEM, but that is reflected in powertrain testing.
-------
The agencies could determine that it would be appropriate to modify GEM to reflect the technology
rather than to require manufacturers to perform powertrain testing. In such a case, the agencies would
not consider the modification to GEM to impact the effective stringency of the Phase 2 standards
because the new version of GEM would be equivalent to performing powertrain testing.
Finally, we agree with Navistar that testing should be rational and related to ensuring compliance.
Flexibility Provisions
Several commenters expressed support for the numerous flexibility provisions proposed. General
Motors also commented in support of applying light-duty vehicle flexibility provisions to heavy-duty
vehicles. As discussed in Chapter 7, we do not believe it is invariably appropriate to apply light-duty
provisions directly to heavy-duty vehicles because of differences in test procedures and in-use duty
cycles.
McNicols stated that "[modifications to measurements and certification methods may be required, and
flexibility to adapt these processes to accommodate promising and impactful technologies will be
crucial." We believe the final regulations will provide the agencies significant ability to adapt methods
to address unforeseen circumstances.
In-use Compliance Assurance
NACAA urged EPA to "do everything feasible to implement in-use compliance verification." As
described later, EPA has adopted substantial program to evaluate both certification and production
engines and vehicles. In addition, EPA will collect in-use C02 data as part of our existing in-use testing
program. The agencies are also requiring all technologies to be durable.
Post-Production Modifications
Navistar commented that "[c]ustomers should be allowed to make acceptable modifications to engines
and vehicles in accordance with past standard practice." Under 40 CFR part 1037, it is generally
prohibited for any person to remove or render inoperative any emission control device installed to
comply with the requirements of part 1037. However, in 40 CFR 1037.655 EPA clarifies that owners
may modify a vehicle for the purpose of reducing emissions, provided they have a reasonable technical
basis for knowing that such modification will not increase emissions of any other pollutant. This
essentially requires the owner to have information that will lead an engineer or other person familiar
with engine and vehicle design and function to reasonably believe that the modifications will not
increase emissions of any regulated pollutant.
Other manufacturers also commented that manufacturers (and their authorized agents) should be
allowed to modify powertrain components, such as engine ratings, transmission calibrations, and rear
axle ratios after production to optimize the performance of the vehicle for the vehicle's actual job
requirements. The agencies agree that manufacturers should be allowed to make such modifications,
provided the final configurations are accurate in the end of year reports. For example, this could allow
reconfiguration of stock vehicles at dealerships. However, any modifications made prior to the delivery
to the ultimate purchaser that are not reflected in the end of year reports will be considered violations,
whether more or less than 60 days before the end of year reports.
OOIDA expressed similar concerns for trucks owned by independent operators. However, the CAA
generally prohibits removal of emission controls. While EPA has in the past interpreted this to not
restrict modifications that maintain or improve emissions performance, the CAA clearly does not allow
modifications that increase emissions. Thus, an independent operator wishing to maintain operational
-------
flexibility should purchase a lower technology vehicle, which is permissible if the vehicle is certified to
a higher FEL under the emissions averaging program for manufacturers. For example, an operator
concerned about aerodynamic fairings on the tractor could purchase a Bin I tractor (which includes no
upper limit on aerodynamic drag), which would allow the operator to make any aerodynamic
modifications without risking the modification taking the vehicle out of its certified configuration.
Volvo suggested that operator will often lack the expertise necessary to provide the reasonable technical
basis for the modifications. However, they overstate the level of knowledge EPA assumes when
referring to a "reasonable technical basis". Nevertheless, operators should be aware that some
knowledge is required before modifying the vehicle. While this may disrupt prior practices, the Clean
Air Act creates a fairly clear presumption that vehicles should remain in their certified configurations
in-use.
Model Year Mismatch
Under the normal engine and vehicle manufacturing processes, many vehicles may be produced with
engines having an earlier model year than the commercial model year of the vehicle. For example, we
expect that most Class 6 and heavier vehicles commercially sold as model year 2021 vehicles will be
produced in calendar year 2020 with MY 2020 engines. Some manufacturers commented that MY 2020
engines should not be subject to Phase 2 requirements, based on NHTSA's statutory 4-year lead-time
requirement and because the potential higher fuel consumption of MY 2020 (i.e., Phase 1) engine maps
could force vehicle manufacturers to install additional technologies that were not projected by the
agencies for compliance. The agencies considered these comments along with the potential cost savings
for manufacturers to align the timing of both their engines' and vehicle's Phase 2 product plans and
certification paths. The agencies also considered how this situation would repeat in MY 2024 and MY
2027 and possibly with future standards as well. Based on these considerations, we have decided that it
would be more appropriate to harmonize the engine and vehicle standards, starting in MY 2021.
Other General Comments
Enovation supported narrowing the scope of the EPA Phase 2 standards with respect to issues such as
warranty and "critical emissions". However, such changes would be inconsistent with the general
regulatory construct provided by the Clean Air Act. Navistar commented that it does not support the
proposed changes to the warranty language, but these changes are primarily clarifications, rather than
fundamental changes.
With respect the McNicols' general comment in support of compliance flexibility, we note that the
agencies are committed to maintaining the proper balance of compliance assurance, flexibility, and
conformance with statutory requirements.
1.4.1 Advanced Technology Credits and Multipliers
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA Should Not Continue Phase 1 Programs to Incentivize Hybrids, Fuel Cell and
EVs
Allison supports provisions of the Proposed Rule that would end specific Phase 1 incentives for hybrids,
fuel cell and electric vehicles ("EVs"). We concur with the agencies that the potentially large credits
that may be available for such vehicles through certification of very low emission rates should provide
-------
sufficient incentive for improved introduction of such vehicles into the commercial MD/HD fleet. As
the agencies indicate at the beginning of the Proposed Rule, the Phase 2 standards are intended to be
technology-forcing. While the agencies' ability to require technology-forcing standards is not
unbounded,82 manufacturers should not receive what could amount to a "double credit" of meeting their
compliance obligations through hybrids, fuel cell and electric vehicles are receiving additional credits
on account of this action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.51]
As the agencies indicate at the beginning of the Proposed Rule, the Phase 2 standards are intended to be
technology-forcing. While the agencies' ability to require technology-forcing standards is not
unbounded,82 manufacturers should not receive what could amount to a "double credit" of meeting their
compliance obligations through hybrids, fuel cell and electric vehicles are receiving additional credits
on account of this action. In addition, we would note that expanded delegated assembly for vehicles is
an additional avenue whereby new technologies can be introduced into the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.51] 89
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
We Recommend that the Agencies Incorporate an Advanced Technology Credit that Incentivizes
Engines that Emit No More than 0.02 g/bhp-hr of NOx Emissions
The HD Phase 1 Rule provided Advanced Technology Credits ("ATC") for hybrid powertrain designs
that included energy storage systems, Rankine cycle waste heat recovery systems attached to an engine,
all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles.42 The agencies justified the use of this credit for these
specific technologies on the notion that the Phase 1 standards could be met without the use of advanced
technologies, and that, therefore, the standards were not premised on their use. Thus, the agencies felt
that there needed to be additional incentives to stimulate those particular technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1223-A1 p.10-11]
In the Phase 2 Proposal, the agencies have opted not to include the ATC because the proposed rules "are
premised on the use of some advanced technologies, making them equivalent to other fuel-saving
technologies in this context."43 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 11]
However, given the low market penetration of the technologies afforded the ATC and the expectation of
further air quality and GHG imperatives over the course of the timeline of the proposed rule (i.e.,
20212027), we strongly urge the agencies to include an expanded ATC in the final Phase 2 rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 11]
More specifically, we strongly urge the agencies to reinstitute the ATC and expand it to provide credit
for engines that are certified at NOx levels at or below 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-
hr) (ultra-low NOx engines). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 11]
We see multiple benefits from an expanded ATC that includes ultra-low NOx engines :[EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 11]
• It will align with California's efforts to incentivize the commercialization of these engines through
their Optional Low NOx Standard for on-road heavy-duty engines.44 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-
Alp.ll]
-------
• If successful, it will help spur the commercial development of engines that will be necessary to help
states meet their obligations under any future ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS).[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 11]
• It will lay the groundwork for the next generation of heavy-duty engine technology. Given that EPA
has not adopted criteria pollutant standards since 2001, it is timely to consider—and to signal to
industry—the next level of potential emissions performance.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-Al p. 11]
• It will help incentivize engines that will reduce ground-level ozone, a short-lived climate pollutant that
should be reduced for both climate and health reasons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 11]
• It is worth noting that an expanded ATC that includes ultra-low NOx engines would be available to all
engines regardless of fuel type. This would maintain the fuel-neutrality of the overall program, and
incentivize cleaner diesel engines, as well as cleaner natural gas engines.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1223-A1 p. 11]
42 HD Phase 1 Rule, page 57245.
43 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40158.
44 "Optional Reduced NOx Emission Standards for On-Road Heavy-duty Engines". California
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/optionnox/optionnox.htm, December 9, 2014.
Organization: American Lung Association
The American Lung Association offers the following recommendations to strengthen the stringency and
timing of the proposal and address several key elements of California's commitment to protecting public
health and air quality. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 143-144.]]
Advanced technology credits, or a similar mechanism, should be maintained in Phase 2, rather than
phased out. Given the severe air quality conditions in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley,
California needs truly zero emission technologies to be moving our freight. Without a strong
commitment to advanced technologies and electrification in this sector, the overall proposal is missing a
critical tool that California needs. In particular, battery electric, fuel cell, hybrid and other advanced
technologies are vital to achieving the major reductions needed here. Retaining the focus on advanced
technologies will also allow for a stronger overall standard and greater health and fuel saving benefits to
be achieved. Zero emission technologies must be moved forward to protect public health from
pollutants today and an unsustainable dependence on fossil fuels that threatens health for generations.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 145-146.]]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Use of Advanced Technology Credits Should Continue
-------
Hybrid and electric technology applications continue to be of interest to the trucking industry, especially
in the vocational segment. While these technologies provide fuel savings and reduced tailpipe
emissions, the cost of these technologies can be substantial. EPA estimates the added cost of hybrid
technologies are in the range of $20,000 to $40,000 for larger vocational vehicles and tractors while full
electric technologies are in the $50,000 to $150,000 range. These costs are the highest of all the fuel
efficient technologies identified and, as previously discussed, are likely to result in lower adoption rates
than estimated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1243-A1 p.23]
In order to continue to advance these technologies and their adoption, the incentive-based approach used
in Phase 1 should be retained. Specifically, the agencies should preserve the advanced technology
credits which provide a credit of 1.5 in order to promote the use of hybrid and electric vehicles in larger
vocational vehicles and tractors. A continuation of these credits will provide an incentive for OEM's to
pursue the development and sale of hybrid and electric vehicles. These credits will likely help drive
down costs while more effectively promoting the advantages of this green-technology path as a path
towards achieving the goals of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.23]
Organization: BYD Motors
My concern is that I do not believe that the rules alone will drive the adoption of advanced technologies
like fuel cell, hybrid, and electric vehicles. These technologies are available today and should see
continued growth in market share as component prices fall and fuel price volatility remains a fleet
concern. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p. 1] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.227.]]
To achieve this outcome BYD must make sizable research and development investments and must
generate a significant number of orders to support the large scale manufacturing build out and
associated scale economies. At BYD we believe that the best approach to accelerate the necessary
growth of the electric truck market is consistent and aggressive regulations in combination with
incentives for advanced technology adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p.2] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.227.]]
The agencies noted appropriately that advanced technology credits should be eliminated for hybrid
electric vehicles because while they are an important strategy for reducing fuel use from heavy-duty
trucks in the vocational vehicle sector, the stringency of the regulation is based on significant adoption
of the technology. Technologies such as plug-in electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles are at the
nascent levels of adoption, however, and could play a significant role in reducing fuel from the heavy-
duty truck sector beyond 2029. A revised advanced technology program combined with a stronger rule
could help drive the innovation necessary to achieve future reductions from the work truck fleet. The
agencies should retain an advanced technology credit program that incentivizes manufacturers to
innovate beyond the technologies considered broadly applicable in the timeframe of this rule, including
battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Such a program would not significantly
undermine the environmental and oil reduction benefits of the rule due to relatively low sales volumes,
but they could provide manufacturers sufficient incentive to begin ramping up production of these
advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p.3]
Also, BYD supports programs like the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) and the funding
opportunities that it provides. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p.3]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
-------
3. Include a greater reliance on advanced technologies
The Phase 2 proposal lacks sufficient stringency to drive market development of battery electric or fuel
cell electric technologies. The proposal assumes only a modest level of hybrid technology and no use of
battery electric or fuel cell electric technology, is generally pessimistic on the future of battery electric
and fuel cell electric vehicles, and, in fact, eliminates the advanced technology credits included in the
Phase 1 program that were intended to encourage development of these technologies. This is
contradictory to CARB's position that the early deployment of advanced technologies is the foundation
of California's pathway to achieving both its climate and air quality targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420,
pp.24-25.]]
Furthermore, without any significant reliance on advanced technologies built into the proposed
standards, CARB estimates that projected increases in truck activity will completely overtake projected
greenhouse gas reductions by 2043 (with respect to the 2010 baseline), resulting in greenhouse gas
levels from medium- and heavy-duty trucks in 2050 that are about six percent higher than 2010 levels.
To actually offset the expected activity growth, advanced, near-zero emission technologies must be a
significant part of the long-term solution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.3] [[These comments
can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.26.]]
Support Comment
Comment - Termination of the advanced technology multiplier for Rankine engines and class 2b-
6 hybrids
The NPRM requests comment on the proposed termination of the advanced technology multiplier.
CARB staff agrees that it is appropriate to terminate the advanced technology multiplier for Rankine
cycle WHR at this point, since the standards proposed for Phase 2 presume some use of this technology.
In addition, hybrids for class 2b through 6 trucks are also reasonably developed at this point, and the
vocational vehicle standards were set assuming some penetration of hybrids. Thus, it would be
appropriate to terminate the multiplier for these classes of hybrids as well. However, CARB staff
believes that the advanced technology multiplier should be continued for class 7/8 hybrids as well as
BEVs and FCEVs, as discussed in the following comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.81]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Advanced technology credits
Effective with the 2021 MY, U.S. EPA and NHTSA propose eliminating all Advanced Technology
Credits (1.5 multiplier) that were included in the Phase 1 GHG regulations to promote early
implementation of advanced technologies. The Phase 2 standards anticipate the use of hybrids and
Rankine cycle technology, for which advanced technology credits were previously allowed, as part of
the technology path used by manufacturers to meet the proposed Phase 2 standards. U.S. EPA and
NHTSA believe that the Phase 2 standards alone should provide sufficient incentive to continue to
develop these and other advanced technologies. U.S. EPA and NHTSA welcome comments on the need
for advanced technology credits for BEVs and FCEVs in Phase 2, including information on why an
incentive in this time frame may be warranted, recognizing that the incentive would result in reduced
benefits in terms of C02 emissions and fuel use due to the Phase 2 program. CARB staff agrees that
there is no further need for advanced technology credits for class 2b through 6 hybrids and Rankine
cycle technology, but believes that these credits provide a further impetus to manufacturers to
-------
manufacture other technologies such as BEVs and FCEVs, and that the furtherance of this technology
development will, over time, offset the temporary reduction in benefits attendant with the use of a
multiplier credit. To minimize the potential emissions impact, the incentive could be phased out at a
certain manufacturer volume or with a certain MY. Advanced technology credits, as they relate to class
7 and 8 vehicles, are discussed in the following comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.81-
82]
Oppose (Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment)
Comment - Reinstate advanced technology multiplier for class 7/8 hybrids, BEVs, and FCEVs
The Phase 1 GHG regulation included an advanced technology multiplier to create an incentive for the
adoption and early introduction of advanced technologies, namely, Rankine cycle technology, hybrids,
BEVs, and FCEVs. According to U.S. EPA and NHTSA, the advanced technology incentives were
"intended to promote the commercialization of technologies that have the potential to provide
substantially better GHG emissions and fuel consumption if they were able to overcome major near-
term market barriers" (page 40389 of the NPRM). CARB staff believes such incentives are needed,
especially given the magnitude of California's GHG emission reduction goals. Accelerated deployment
of hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses is critical for California to meet its air quality, climate and
petroleum reduction goals. We anticipate these technologies will be increasingly critical nationally in
the years ahead as federal ozone standards become more stringent and the impacts of climate change
continue to manifest themselves. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 82-83]
Thus, CARB staff believes that the advanced technology multiplier should be continued for BEVs and
FCEVs in all classes and for full hybrids in class 7 and 8 tractor and regional vocational applications,
for the reasons discussed below. In addition to maintaining the advanced technology multiplier, CARB
staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to look for other creative ways in the context of the Phase 2
standards to encourage the development of these critical advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.83]
• Proposed standards are not based on these technologies. 40 CFR 1036.615 (k)(7) of the Phase 2
proposal limits the advanced technology multiplier to Phase 1 vehicles, based on the premise
that the Phase 2 standards presume the use of Rankine engines, as well as some hybrids.
However, hybrid technologies for class 7 and 8 long haul tractor applications, as well as heavy
heavy-duty hybrid technologies for regional vocational applications, were not assumed to have
any penetration when setting the proposed Phase 2 standards. Hybrid technologies for such
applications are still not fully developed and the costs of available hybrid technologies for these
applications are still high. In addition, because U.S. EPA and NHTSA anticipate very limited
use of BEVs and FCEVs and did not include any anticipated use of these advanced technologies
when setting the emission standards proposed in the NPRM, it is appropriate to continue to offer
the advanced technology multiplier to accelerate their development and adoption. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.83]
• These technologies are potential game-changers and are worth the potential small emission
disbenefit. These multipliers would reduce some of the benefits from the rule because
manufacturers could use the advanced technology credits in lieu of reducing emissions. For
example, a 1 ton emission reduction from using advanced technologies would allow a
manufacturer to avoid 1.5 tons in emission reductions they would otherwise need to achieve
from traditional vehicles. However, CARB staff expects this reduction in benefits to be
insignificant, even under an extremely optimistic penetration scenario for advanced
technologies in the Phase 2 timeframe.37 Also, in the long term, the reduction in benefits would
-------
be worthwhile due to the anticipated support for development of advanced technologies. A
footnote in the NRPM (page 40389 of the NPRM) expresses U.S. EPA and NHTSA's opinion
when applying multipliers for advanced technology in the light-duty vehicle fleet for MYs 2017
to 2021: It is "worthwhile to forego modest additional emissions reductions and fuel
consumption improvements in the near-term in order to lay the foundation for the potential for
much larger 'game changing' GHG and oil consumption reductions in the longer term." U.S.
EPA and NHTSA believe it was appropriate to provide multipliers in the light-duty vehicle
fleet; BEV development and penetration for the light-duty vehicle fleet is at a much more
advanced commercial level than BEVs for the medium- and heavy-duty fleet, with many light-
duty vehicle models available in a variety of configurations with ever-increasing consumer
acceptance. It is therefore even more appropriate to allow these credits to continue for the
medium- and heavy-duty fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.83-84]
• These technologies currently have substantial incremental costs, which advanced technology
credits could help bring down. These advanced technologies currently have higher initial costs
compared to diesel or gasoline approaches due to low production volumes and higher
manufacturer costs. For instance, incremental costs for vehicles using battery electric
approaches is estimated at up to about $90,000 for a medium-duty vehicle (8,501 to 14,000 lbs
GVWR), and substantially more for a vehicle in the heavier classes. Maintaining the 1.5
multiplier would help these technologies transition from prototype and small scale production to
assembly line production, thereby reducing vehicle costs. By further encouraging early sales of
these technologies, the multiplier would help drive down production cost and help zero-
emission technologies become more cost-competitive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 84]
• Advanced technology credits would promote research, development and production of
advanced technologies and eventual transfer of these technologies to other applications: These
multipliers promote the investment by manufacturers in advanced technologies. Further
encouraging development and deployment of plug-in hybrid and zero-emission truck and bus
technology would help accelerate the rate of these technologies transfer to other applications,
such as off-road equipment and marine vessels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.84]
• Advanced technology credits would accelerate consumer acceptance: One of the barriers to
commercialization of plug-in hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses is consumer reluctance
to purchase unfamiliar technologies. The "energy paradox" identified in the NPRM (page 40435
of the NPRM) - whereby many readily available technologies that appear to offer cost-effective
fuel efficiency benefits have not been widely adopted - is particularly difficult to overcome for
the most advanced technologies such as hybrids and zero-emission vehicles. As the NPRM
notes, there are numerous potential causes for the energy paradox, including behavioral rigidity
among vehicle operators, imperfect information in the new and resale vehicle markets, and
inherent distrust of new technologies. California has experienced these consumer acceptance
challenges as we begin our transition to zero- and near-zero-emission technologies. These
challenges, where the market does not act rationally to enable cost-effective technologies,
underscore the need not only for robust federal standards to help bring these technologies to
market, but potentially also for additional strategies to overcome initial consumer resistance to
the most advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.84-85]
The advanced technology multiplier provides an incentive for manufacturers to continue to develop
BEVs and FCEVs in all class 2b through 8 categories, as well as hybrid technologies for the class 7 and
8 long haul tractor and regional vocational applications. CARB staff believes that continuing the
advanced technology multiplier is an important part of promoting these technologies that, in the long
term, offer a key approach to significant reduction of GHG emissions. In addition to the supply-level
incentive that these credits support, CARB staff has and will continue to incentivize these technologies
as well at the consumer level (demand incentive) through the use of its voucher programs, incentive
-------
funds, and other types of consumer based credits to promote demand. These programs provide funds to
partially offset the incremental costs of advanced technology heavy-duty vehicles compared to
equivalent conventional vehicles. CARB has planned rulemakings that will promote substantial
requirements for zero-emission transit buses as well as promote advanced technologies for last mile
delivery applications and airport shuttles. These planned rulemakings are part of CARB's Sustainable
Freight Transport Initiative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.85]
By continuing to allow advanced technology credits for these technologies in the Phase 2 rule, the
synergy between the Phase 2 rule and California's incentive and regulatory programs for heavy-duty
technologies could push further acceleration of advanced technologies development. To minimize the
potential emissions impact, the incentive could be phased out at a certain manufacturer volume such as
two percent of vehicles produced in that class or application. We encourage U.S. EPA and NHTSA to
maintain the 1.5 multiplier for these critical technologies. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0093 p. 85]
The status of hybrid, battery electric, and fuel cell electric technologies is presented through technology
assessment reports, which will be posted at http://www.arb.ca. gov/msprog/tech/report.htm when
available. These technology assessments support our belief that these technologies are on the cusp of
major potential deployment, which the continued use of the advanced technology multiplier will
support. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.85-86]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment -Excess weight associated with fuel cell
CARB staff has significant concerns regarding the following assertion: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 101]
Hybrid powertrains, fuel cells and auxiliary power would not only present complex packaging and
weight issues, they would further increase the need for reductions in the weight of the body, chassis, and
powertrain components in order to maintain vehicle functionality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
P-101]
CARB staff disagrees with the statement made in the RIA that fuel cells present complex packaging and
weight issues. With regard to packaging, the stack power density for a heavy-duty proton exchange
membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) system (commonly used in on-road vehicles) ranges between 1,500 and
1,800 watts per liter (W/L) and the system power density is 200 to 300 W/L. The system specific power
for heavy-duty PEMFCs is similar to conventional engines. For instance, a Cummins ISB 6.7 diesel
engine that is used in hybrid transit buses is rated at 209 kW and with a system weight of 616 kg has a
system specific power of 339 watts per kilogram (W/kg), falling in the range of a heavy-duty fuel cell
system. The stack and system specific power and density are equivalent to commercial conventional
engine products. Therefore, the volume and weight of a fuel cell system does not pose a "complex
packaging and weight issue" for heavy-duty vehicles, nor does it compromise the vehicle's
functionality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 101-102]
The additional weight of FCEVs is not actually associated with the fuel cell engine. It is the electrified
components that are used in hybrid electric vehicles, BEVs, and FCEVs that have some additional
weight. Also, similar to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, on-board hydrogen storage tanks weigh
more than diesel tanks. CARB staff anticipates that weight reductions in both electrical components and
hydrogen storage tanks are feasible within the Phase 2 timeframe and that heavy-duty FCEVs should
-------
not be discounted merely on a near-term assessment of weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 102]
37 CARB staff estimates if 3 percent of all vehicles covered by the Phase 2 standards received advanced
technology credits for model year 2027 and later (for example if 3 percent were battery or fuel cell
electric), emissions will be increased by about 0.5 MMT in California as a result of the multiplier. This
would reduce projected Phase 2 benefits by about 3% in 2050.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB) - Supplemental Comments
In general, ARB tended to propose multipliers somewhat higher than the calculated cost ratios because
manufacturers will need a push to take risks and try new technologies. A multiplier that exactly
balanced the additional cost would be less likely to incentivize technological development. However,
ARB's proposed multipliers are not simply the calculated cost ratios "plus some" for several reasons.
First, since these technologies are at different stages of development for different applications, the
development risk to manufacturers varies. Second, for simplicity in the regulation, staff is
recommending minimizing the number of different multipliers being used. For example, for simplicity,
the proposed BEV multipliers for vocational vehicle and Class 2B/3 pickups and vans were all set to
4.5, despite the cost ratios ranging from 2.4 to 5.6 for these categories (see Table 1 and Table 2). Third,
as previously mentioned, each of the categories contains a wide variety of vehicles, some of which are
more suited to these technologies than others. In supplemental comments, CARB proposed the
following values:
Table 2: CARB Staffs Proposed Phase 2 Multipliers
Proposed Multipliers
PHEV
BEV
FCEV
Class 7/8
3.5
4.5
5.5
Vocational
3.5
4.5
5.5
Class 2B/3
3.5
4.5
5.5
Transit Buses
3.5
4.5
5.5
Organization: CALSTART
- Restore Advanced Tech credits - provide more flexibility for suppliers to generate for OEs (delegated
assembly expansion) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2]
Advanced Technology Credit Inclusion. If combined with higher stringency, we believe greater
flexibility to achieve the greater stringency levels is appropriate. We therefore believe mechanisms such
-------
as the advanced technology credit should be restored to provide an early incentive to OEMs to start to
integrate advanced technologies into their portfolio. We have heard some OEM objection to this on the
grounds that it gives preference to certain technologies when the rule should remain neutral and
performance-based to meet the stringency required. Generally, we are very sensitive to this concept.
However, we believe it misses a critical point, and that is the need to be meeting current goals while
also laying the framework for the next set of technologies needed, at higher volume, beyond Phase 2.
Given the need for steep and continuing reductions in GHG emissions for the next 30 to 40 years, to
meet climate stability while coping with transportation growth, the Phase 2 rules would be wise to
include a mechanism for supporting development and early implementation of technologies that must be
counted on next. This becomes doubly important, and achieves a co-benefit, when these same
technologies are vital components of several regions' criteria reduction plans, notably California, which
relies on more advanced technologies to be moving into the market during the Phase 2 timeline for NOx
reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.5-6]
An additional consideration involves market barriers to change. Even technologies showing strong
results and solid payback face resistance in a marketplace where risk avoidance remains high. As an
example, there is now strong data showing that technologies such as post-transmission hybrids can
achieve 15-35 percent fuel economy gains in the right vocational applications, and their costs are
dropping below $20,000 and approaching in some cases $10,000. Yet overcoming market inertia likely
requires early and innovative measures to encourage OEMs and fleets to take this step. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1190-Alp.6]
The credit could be available for technologies that are not included in the baseline assumptions of the
rule but support regional goals (such as California and the Northeast states) for additional NOx
reductions, are not currently expected to be widely utilized by the end of the rule, but will result in
significant fuel and emission reductions. By way of example, advanced technology credits for plug-in
electric and electric drive vehicles could incentivize earlier integration and production of these
technologies. The exact structure of such a credit requires more time to develop than provided in the
short timeline for rule comments. It is critical that the credits not be allowed to undermine the benefits
from the rule, so a cap or declining credit multiplier might be reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1190-A1 p. 6]
We can envision that a sliding scale of credit value, tied both to the performance benefit of the
technology, and also starting higher in the early years of Phase 2 and ramping down over its life, might
be an appropriate framework for encouraging early integration of the technology that will likely start in
vocational niche markets. Some technology providers, which are currently often not OEMs and
therefore not the point of regulation, have wondered about structures that could enable them to offer
credits to OEMs to help reduce OEM risk and support innovation. We are discussing these ideas with
industry and would welcome the opportunity to further flesh out these framework ideas as the rule is
finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.6]
Equally important is that the process to apply for the credits be streamlined and clarified. In Phase 1,
while the primary reason that advanced technology credits weren't used was that the stringency was not
high enough to drive their need, another barrier was the long process involved. Companies reported
what they called an "open loop" approach whereby the exact level of testing or specific test results
needed to qualify was not always clear. We would strongly urge establishment of a streamlined, clear
set of data requirements and rules for qualifying for such credits so that companies could assess the
costs and time required to fulfill the requirements in advance of starting the process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1190-A1 p.6]
-------
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
The Center also requests that the Agencies restore advanced technology credits to incentivize the most
advanced technologies, particularly those related to plug-in hybrid and battery electric trucks. These
technologies have the potential to provide significant fuel savings but are still at a stage in development
that necessitates continued incentives to promote early adoption and increased market penetration.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 10]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports the elimination of advanced technology credits in Phase 2 rEPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298-A1 p.31]
The Agencies are requesting comment on discontinuing extra credit for Phase 1 advanced technologies
after MY 2020. Cummins agrees with the elimination of advanced technology credits and 1.5x
multiplier since GHG/FE improvements achieved with eligible technologies (e.g., hybrids, waste heat
recovery (WHR)) will provide sufficient C02 benefits to encourage implementation of such
technologies. Furthermore, advanced technology credits can be exchanged between engines and
vehicles which undermines the proposed separation of engine and vehicle standards. Eliminating
advanced technology credit generation in Phase 2 mitigates this concern. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p.31-32]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
5. Advanced Technology Credits
Ending the Advanced Technology Credit - The agencies propose to stop providing extra credit
for advanced technologies and request comment, including comment on whether there is sufficient
incentive to develop fuel-savings technologies such as electric vehicle, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell
technologies. 80 FR 40331. Consistent with DTNA's core philosophy that FE technologies should
compete in the market—and in the regulations—based on their real-world total cost of ownership, we
think it is appropriate to end credits for certain technologies and not for others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. 120]
The agencies request comment on the need for incentives for advanced technologies in Phase 2,
including information on why an incentive for specific technologies in this time frame may be
warranted, recognizing that the incentive would result in reduced benefits in terms of C02 emissions
and fuel use due to the Phase 2 program. We think that the agencies' proposed approach of crediting
technologies proportionally to their FCRs, rather than distorting the scale with extra credits for some, is
the right way to make the market decide on the best approach for meeting FCR targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p.81-82]
Organization: Edison Electric Institute
EEI is the association that represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members provide
electricity for 220 million Americans, operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and directly
employ more than 500,000 workers. With more than $108 billion in annual capital expenditures, the
electric power industry is responsible for millions of additional jobs. Reliable, affordable, and
sustainable electricity powers the economy and enhances the lives of all Americans. EEI has previously
-------
engaged in the joint EPA and NHTSA rulemakings to address GHG emissions from both light-duty and
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, focusing on EVs and their potential to reduce significantly both
GHG and criteria pollutant emissions from the transportation sector. In these rulemakings, EEI has
focused on appropriate recognition for the environmental benefits of transportation electrification and
the creation of the incentives needed to drive the commercial success of EVs to capture these benefits.
EEI's comments on the needed to drive the commercial success of EVs to capture these benefits. EEI's
comments on the proposed Phase 2 Program continue these themes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-
A2 p.2-3]
Electricity as a transportation fuel is a critical pathway to reducing GHG emissions and petroleum
consumption in the transportation sector and the Phase 2 Program can be better designed to further the
electrification transition. Furthermore, deployment of plug-in vehicles into the transportation sector
represents an opportunity for our industry to offer new value-added services to our customers while
ensuring that the integration of these vehicles into the grid provides benefits for all customers. In
addition, EEI member companies operate a fleet of approximately 160,000 vehicles, the majority of
which fall into the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle categories.2 Member company fleets, particularly
vocational vehicle fleets, can incorporate electrification to further reduce US reliance on petroleum and
reduce emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p.3]
Finally, transportation electrification is beneficial to electric customers. First, as utilities are the primary
"fuel" provider for plug-in vehicles, transportation electrification opens up new opportunities to serve
customers and provide solutions, particularly as it relates to charging infrastructure. Second, as
determined by ICF and E3 in the recent Transportation Electrification Assessment Phase 2 study,
"additional revenue from [plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs)]/charging exceeds the marginal costs to
deliver electricity to the customer, providing positive net revenues that put downward pressure on
rates."3 Accordingly, transportation electrification can benefit all of our customers, not just those who
drive PEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p.3]
While adoption of PEVs in the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle market has not yet reached the
mainstream success of the light-duty vehicle sector, significant growth opportunities do exist. In fact,
signs of progress and momentum are already emerging and should be fostered wherever possible and
across all of the various technologies. PEV technologies occur along a wide spectrum, from plug-in
battery powered electric vehicles to e-PTO systems that eliminate work site idling. This spectrum of
PEV technologies are sufficiently distinct and impactful enough, in terms of fuel efficiency and
emissions reductions that each should be supported, such as through the continuation of the advanced
technology credits for heavy-duty pickups and vans, as well as through off-cycle technology credits for
e-PTO systems, transport refrigeration units, and truck stop electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1327-A2 p.4]
EPA and NHTSA should also recognize that one of the historic limitations to the growth of PEVs in
these sectors has been the energy storage system, and more specifically, the energy density and cost of
batteries. The continued advancements in battery technology, which are projected to be significant in as
little as five years, stand to bring an even broader and more affordable set of vehicle applications to
PEVs in this class. Given the potential fuel efficiency and emissions reduction potential of such
advances, this is an important trend to note when considering proposed rules for the 2019-2027
timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p.4-5]
II. Significant Growth Opportunities Exist and Should be Fostered in the Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Electric Vehicle Market
-------
Technology and policy drivers have succeeded in growing the electric transportation market
substantially in the last few years. In the light-duty vehicle sector, plug-in electric vehicle sales have
surpassed 350,000 units since the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan LEAF first went on sale in December
2010, more than twice the adoption rate of hybrid electric vehicles in their first entry into the market.4
Today, more than 22 plug-in vehicle models are available from 15 mainstream automotive brands.5
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 5]
In the medium- and heavy-duty sectors that are the focus of this proposed rule, adoption of plug-in
vehicles have not yet reached a similar mainstream success, but signs of progress and momentum are
emerging. A primary example is EEI's efforts to lead by example through its Fleet Electrification
Initiative, in which member companies commit at least five percent of their annual fleet procurement
budget to plug-in vehicles and technologies. Over 70 EEI member operating companies have committed
to this initiative.6 As announced in June, this commitment represents a $90 million investment by EEI
members for the 2015 fleet budget cycle.7 Most of the PEVs procured as part of this initiative fall into
the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1327-A2 p.5]
Outside of the utility industry, there are many other examples of plug-in vehicles proliferating in the
specific medium- and heavy-duty sectors. A few recent examples are: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1327-A2 p.6]
• United Parcel Service (UPS) procuring 125 plug-in hybrid delivery trucks from Workhorse;8
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p.6]
• The port of Shanghai and PG&E demonstrating vehicles built by EDI; and, [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 6]
• Growing deployment of electric transit buses from BYD, Proterra and New Flyer. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p.6]
While these procurements are relatively small, they are demonstrating the capabilities and benefits of
electric drive in the medium- and heavy-duty sectors. Clearly, plug-in vehicles are not right for every
application. For example, the energy density limitations of battery storage alone are not feasible for long
haul trucks traveling hundreds of miles per day. However, these examples and many others show that
PEVs can deliver operational and environmental benefits for a growing number of uses. These include
certain applications for long haul trucks, such as in-cab driver comfort while the truck is stationary, and
reducing engine idling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p.6]
One of the major limitations to the feasibility of PEVs in the medium- and heavy-duty sectors is the
energy storage system, specifically the current energy density and cost of batteries. However,
improvements in battery technology are occurring rapidly. With respect to energy density, the recently
released Quadrennial Technology Review notes that "in the next roughly five years, advances in
lithium-ion technology could more than double the battery pack energy density from 120 Wh per
kilogram to 250 Wh per kilogram."9 With respect to cost, the report notes that "R&D has made
significant progress, reducing the cost of lithium-ion batteries by nearly 70% and improved their energy
density by 60% during the last five years."10 These advances are happening quickly, in a timescale of
approximately five years. As energy density and cost improve, a broader set of vehicle applications will
be economically and operationally feasible for PEVs—an important trend to note when considering
proposed rules for the 2019-2027 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p.6]
III. The Proposed Phase 2 Program Must Recognize the Environmental Benefits of Electricity as a
Transportation Fuel
-------
Electricity as a transportation fuel offers significant long-term environmental benefits. This point was
reinforced most recently by a report jointly released by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that found that broad electrification of the
transportation sector would reduce GHG emissions by 52 percent compared to current levels.11
Specifically within the commercial vehicle sector, which the report describes as including many of the
medium-duty vehicle categories subject to this proposed rule, electrification would decrease net
emissions by 39 percent in 2050.12 Similarly, the Transportation Electrification Assessment Phase 1
study forecasts material adoption of electrification technologies in the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
segments within the timeframe of the proposed rules, even in its most conservative adoption scenario.13
Third, as also noted by this report, PEVs have the long-term potential to help integrate more intermittent
renewable energy resources into the electric system.14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1327-A2 p.7]
IV. Incentives Should Recognize the Environmental Benefits of EVs and Support Their
Deployment into All Appropriate Vehicle Classes
In general, NHTSA and EPA are proposing to offer fewer incentives and credit programs for advanced
technologies, including EVs in the Phase 2 Program than are available under the Phase 1 Program. In
particular, the agencies propose to end advanced technology credit incentive multipliers for HD pickups
and vans beginning in MY 202128 and to merge the innovative technology and off-cycle credit programs
for vocational vehicles.29 The agencies specifically seek comment on whether the advanced technology
credits for HD pickups and vans should be extended for advanced technologies, like EVs, and generally
seek comment on the role of electrified accessories in the off-cycle technology credit program for
vocational vehicles.30 Terminating any incentive credits and the incentive multipliers for HD pickups is
premature, at least with respect to EVs, and EPA and NHTSA should create a pathway to recognize and
incentivize the emission reductions benefits of electrification of accessories used in vocational vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 12-13]
PEV technologies occur along a spectrum, from e-PTO systems that eliminate worksite idling, to plug-
in electric hybrid vehicles (PHEV) that offer some all-electric range (AER) in addition to conventional
petroleum-powered propulsion, to battery electric vehicles (BEVs) that operate on electricity only.
PEVs are distinct from hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) technologies, which offer some ability to store
energy, but do not source electricity from the grid. The spectrum of PEV technologies are sufficiently
distinct and impactful that they should be given due credit within the proposed rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1327-A2 p. 13]
As discussed below in greater detail, e-PTO systems are sufficiently "mainstream" (and will likely
continue to be more so in the model years subject to the proposed rules), that EEI believes these systems
are best treated by considering the technology in the standard setting. If they are not considered when
determining the stringency of the standards, their benefits should be captured through the test
procedures and off-cycle technology credit procedures. In contrast, PHEV and BEV technology in the
medium- and heavy-duty classes is more appropriately characterized today as being in the "pilot and
demonstration" phase of the technology cycle. To incentivize the mainstream deployment of these
technologies within the model years of the proposed rules, it is appropriate to continue advanced
technology credits to vehicles equipped with these technologies. The vehicle classes most likely to
adopt PEV technologies in the model years in the proposed rule are vocational vehicles and HD pickup
trucks and vans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2p.l3]
A. EPA and NHTSA Should Continue the Advanced Technology Credits for HD Pickups and
Vans to Drive Increased EV Deployment in this Vehicle Class
-------
With respect to HD pickups and vans, the agencies state that "[t]he advanced technology incentives are
intended to promote the commercialization of technologies that have the potential to provide
substantially better GHG emissions and fuel consumption if they were to overcome major near-term
market barriers."31 EPA and NHTSA also state that these incentives are not intended to become
permanent parts of the programs to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector and that it
would be inappropriate to include credits for technologies upon which the standards are based.32 The
continued availability of advanced technology credits for EVs is appropriate as EVs are not yet
commercialized in the HD pickup and van category and the stringency of proposed Phase 2 Program
standards for these vehicles is not predicated on the use of EVs in this category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1327-A2 p. 14]
As the agencies note, EVs (and fuel cell vehicles) "are not projected to be part of the path used by
manufacturer[s] to meet the proposed Phase 2 standards for HD pickups and vans..." but "have the
potential to provide the highest level of benefit."33 By definition, then, EVs are exactly the type of
advanced technology that should qualify for credits. The agencies, however, appear to predicate the
denial of credits for EVs on concerns about "reduced C02 emissions" if such credits were provided.34
As discussed in detail in Section III, above, contrary to the agencies' unsupported assertions, upstream
emissions related to electricity production will not erode the benefits of vehicle standards, which both
agencies appropriately propose to be measured at the tailpipe. As NHTSA has noted, lifecycle emissions
from EVs are less than those from conventional fueled vehicles. Accordingly, the final Phase 2 Program
should retain the advanced technology credits for EVs in the HD pickup and truck category. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 14]
2 Edison Electric Institute, member company survey results.
3 ICF International and Energy and Environmental Economics, California Transportation Electrification
Assessment, Phase 2: Grid Impacts, p. 17 (Oct. 2014) (California Transportation Electrification
Assessment, Phase 2: Grid Impacts).
28 See id. at 40,388.
29 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,330.
30 See id. at 40,389 and 40,330.
31 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,389.
32 See id.
33 Id.
34 See id.
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
From a regulatory perspective, we agree with the EPA approach to Hybrids, namely that these should be
powertrain tested for actual fuel consumption. We believe that while the EPA is looking at not
-------
continuing the Advanced Technology Credits program for Hybrids after 2021, the Hybrid market is still
very fragile and driven by the cost of fuel. As we look toward a long period of lower cost fuel as
predicted by the EIA, we do not see market conditions improving for Hybrid commercial vehicles
except for a few mild Hybrid applications in the Class 3-4 segment. We are not optimistic that Hybrid
technology will evolve significantly before the rule comes into effect, a situation similar to 2012-13
when the slump in Hybrid sales occurred. We believe contributing factors included hybrid OBD
requirements during the low-volume phase of commercialization and unclear battery warrantee
associated with useful life requirements that shifted development resources away from Hybrid cost
reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 18-19]
Recommendation: Maintain the Phase 1 ATC program, at least until a certain threshold of hybrid
market penetration is reached. ATC credits can use either powertrain test results or GEM simulations for
the baseline vehicle in an A-to-B approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 19]
Organization: Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA)
Recognizing the Benefits of Electrification
As an important suite of technologies for reducing emissions and increasing efficiency of medium and
heavy duty vehicles, EDTA recommends that the proposed rule appropriately recognizes and
incentivizes battery electric, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid and fuel cell technologies and ensure that testing
protocols accurately measure their emissions and efficiency benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-
Alp.l]
In the medium-and heavy-duty segments, electric drive technologies offer flexible and diverse
configurations for electrification in hybrid, plug-in hybrid, electric and fuel cell systems. These diverse
systems offer substantial current and future benefits in reducing fuel consumption and emissions. The
most recent documentation of the emissions benefits of electric drive released in 2015 by the Electric
Power Research Institute and the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Assessment
of a Full Electric Transportation Portfolio, found that use of grid electricity in fleets would result in
substantial net emissions reductions on a life cycle basis. Specifically, ".. .widespread electrification of
light-duty vehicles, medium-duty vehicles and non-road equipment could reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 540 million metric tons annually in 2050; equivalent to removing 100 million passenger
cars from the road"2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-A1 p. 1-2]
2 New EPRI-NRDC Report Finds Widespread Adoption of Electric Transportation Could Curb
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Air Quality http://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150917.asp. For
full report: http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=3002006881
Advanced Technology Credits
In the light-duty segment, electric drive is growing, with a 3 percent market share that includes hybrid
and plug-in electric vehicles; fuel cell vehicles are moving into the consumer market this year. In the
medium- and heavy-duty segment, fleets are utilizing electric drive systems on the road today. Notably,
the utility industry has made a substantial commitment to procuring plug-in electric vehicles in utility
fleets in its 2015 Fleet Electrification Initiative, with medium- and heavy-duty vehicles comprising a
majority of the vehicles to be procured by the participating utilities. Nevertheless, electric drive systems
are still an emerging suite of technologies in the medium- and heavy-duty segment. Adoption is being
-------
aided by aggressive public and private sector efforts to reduce costs and further enhance performance
throughout the value chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-A1 p.2]
The proposed rule requests comment on the issue of discontinuing advanced technology credits
provided in Phase I of the medium-and heavy-duty program for technologies, such as hybrid
powertrains, all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-A1 p.2]
Electric drive technologies, the proposed rule acknowledges, have unique potential to reduce emissions;
are in an early market stage, and are not the basis for the standards being proposed. Based on the
agencies' enumerated criteria, electric drive is appropriately incentivized in both Phase I and Phase II of
the program. We recommend maintaining the advanced technology credits for electric drive in Phase II.
Further, noting that Phase 1 credits at a value of 1.5 were not heavily utilized, we suggest that the value
of the credits should be increased above 1.5 to effectively drive adoption of the most advanced
technologies. Concerns regarding over-reliance on credits could be addressed by instituting a cap on
their availability. By facilitating adoption of advanced technologies, credits will also help to drive the
advances in technology performance and cost reduction that will enable faster commercialization on a
wider scale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-A1 p.2]
5 Op cit.
Organization: FedEx Corporation
Maintain Incentives and Flexibilities: Credits intended to incentivize early market adoption of advanced
GHG/Fuel Efficiency technology should be retained. The ATC and ITC programs from Phase 2 should
be improved to increase the attractiveness of early adoption of advanced and emerging technologies
(Hybrids; EVs; Route Automation, etc.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1302-A1 p.3]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Advanced technology
We recommend that the agencies acknowledge the importance of advanced electric-drive technologies
in order to achieve societal goals for long-term climate change mitigation in the transportation sector
that are consistent with climate stabilization. Especially noting, based on the agencies' analysis, that the
Phase 2 regulation does not even guarantee absolute reduction in carbon emissions over the long-term, it
is evident that the Phase 2 standards are not nearly sufficient to meet societies long-term climate goals.
We suggest the EPA acknowledge the body of evidence that suggests that the heavy-duty sector will
have to, like the automobiles, shift to electric-drive technology (including battery electric and hydrogen
fuel cells), over the long-term. Such a shift would mean electric-drive vehicles start entering the market
around 2020-2030 to pave the way for 2040-2050 ultra low carbon freight trucks. Along with the
California Air Resources Board's 2012 "Vision" analysis (CARB, 2012), there is Sharpe (2013), Silver
and Brotherton (2013), Boer et al (2013), and Fulton and Miller (2015) that highlight many aspects of
this long-term question that EPA and NHTSA will likely have address in the near future. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 17]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
-------
Furthermore, without incentives or credits, manufacturers will be forced to halt further development and
optimization of emerging technologies to achieve the type of return on investment the trucking industry
demands. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.2]
In the absence of sufficiently stringent standards innovative technologies depend on incentives to
achieve initial market penetration. Some of these technologies are not yet optimized to deliver the return
on investment that truck owners require in today's low cost fuel environment. We urge EPA to include
the advanced technology credits, which were part of the first phase of these regulations, in the final
Phase 2 regulation. These credits would help to support continued development, optimization and
testing of efficiency technologies to deliver cost-effective C02 reductions in the out years of the Phase 2
regulation and to meet future heavy-duty GHG requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.3]
Similarly experimental or developmental engine efficiency technologies rely on a stringent set of C02
standards and incentives or advanced technology credits to penetrate the market. Credit opportunities
offered under the Phase 1 program should be extended in the final Phase 2 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1210-A3 p. 14]
Organization: McNicols
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 272-274.]
As far as the ABT Program, it appears that the credits for applying advanced technology for the
manufacturers has disappeared. The way the current proposal seems to be written still stops with the
chassis OEMs, and does not allow for rollup of credits for applying energy saving technologies by
delegated final stage manufacturers, such as vocational vehicle manufacturers.
We encourage you to take a broader view of how final stage or delegated assembly manufacturers might
add additional carbon reduction value that could flow back to the OEM. Without a return for the tedious
work of bringing a new innovative product or technology to market, vehicle developers and
manufacturers are not incentivized to take such risks. The cost of bringing a game changing technology
or product to market faces many obstacles in breaking out of the status quo and the established market
inertia. The lack of adequate incentives and credits for this taking this path makes it less desirable,
potentially keeping new technologies from impacting our environment due to the lack of sufficient
inducement or flexibility in accounting for these general credits.
We are concerned that stringency levels alone may not drive the advanced technology, but there are also
no credits to encourage them. Perhaps you will reconsider adding back in the credits for implementing
advanced technology and find an equitable means of delegated final assembly OEMs to receive or roll
up these credits. Your challenge will be to objectively new and innovative technologies and method
applying these advanced approaches that do not fit the status quo.
Organization: Moving Forward Network
Add Provisions to Promote for Advanced Technologies - For many of our communities zero emission
technologies are the solution to address toxic pollution from the freight industry. The current regulation
does not advance many zero emission technologies beyond traditional fossil fuel hybrid technologies in
a meaningful way. We are seeing first hand that technology developers from around the country have
solutions to the pollution crisis from the freight industry, but we must align our regulations and
-------
incentives to provide the impetus to make these technologies a reality. The pessimism in the final rule
about advanced technologies is unwarranted. In fact, the nation's two largest seaports, the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach, are advancing programs to increase the use of battery and/or fuel cell
technologies. This regulation can go a long way in sending a market signal to large entities like ports
and railroads, in addition to private industry that EPA and NHSTA are serious about advanced
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1130-A2 p. 1-2]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Additionally, EPA assumes in the proposal only a modest level of hybrid technology and no use of other
advanced technologies, such as electric or fuel cell. Further, the proposal lacks sufficient stringency to
drive market development of these technologies and eliminates the Advanced Technology Credits
included in the Phase 1 program intended to encourage development of these technologies. Therefore,
we also recommend that EPA reinstate Advanced Technology Credits to help advance zero- and near-
zero emission technologies and to make Alternative 4 more attractive and attainable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1157-Alp.3-4]
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Consider regulatory incentives that promote the deployment of electric-drive technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.2]
Incentivize Electric-Drive Technologies
The agencies recognize that the stringency of the proposed rule is insufficient to drive the deployment of
electric-drive technologies, include plug-in battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel cell
vehicles. Numerous analyses point to the need for and benefits of widespread transportation
electrification, including in feasible medium- and heavy-duty applications as necessary to meet 2050
climate and air quality targets.20 Recognizing the slow turnover of the on-road vehicle fleet, extensive
electrification of new vehicles needs to start now to ensure high-levels of all-electric drive by 2050. For
the Phase 2 rule, NRDC recommends that the agencies consider a regulatory incentive for electric-drive
technologies to encourage industry investment in them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1220-A1 p. 8-9]
20 See Williams et al., "The Technology Path to Deep Greenhouse Gas Emission Cuts by 2050: The
Pivotal Role of Electricity," Science, January 2012; Yang, C., McCollum D., McCarthy, R., and
Leighty, W., "Meeting an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2050: a
case study in California," Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 14, 2009;
International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2012, OECD/IEA, 2012; Melaina, M., and
Webster, K., "Role of fuel carbon intensity in achieving 2050 greenhouse gas reductions within the
light-duty vehicle sector, "Environmental Science and Technology 45 (9), 2011; "Pathways to Deep
Decarbonization, Interim 2014 Report," Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Institute for
Sustainable Development and International Relations, July 2014; Electric Power Research Institute and
Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Assessment of a Full Electric Transportation
Portfolio, September 2015. Available
athttp://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=3002006881.
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
-------
Advanced Technology Credits
Critical to achieving the highest level of fuel efficiency increases in medium and heavy-duty trucks is
the ability to develop regulations that encourage the deployment of both incremental efficiency
improvement technology and more advanced technologies. While Odyne Systems and others in the
stakeholder community understand the rationale for the EPA to assume that these advanced
technologies will be deployed within standard compliance without additional credits, we believe that
including advanced technology credits in the Phase Two final rules will be critical for the development
and near term deployment of these sorts of technologies that may not be considered by technology
developers and manufacturers without these credits - even if they are deployed in small volumes. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1239-A1 p.27]
The current efficiency improvement assumptions of 16% across the nine categories of vocational
vehicles proposed in Scenario Three would not likely drive incremental deployment of advanced
technologies, like advanced hybrid systems, based on efficiency increases from current weight
reduction, LRR tires, engine improvements, start/stop and idle improvement technologies. More
stringent standards ~ like those proposed in Scenarios Four and Five ~ would need to be instituted for
advanced technology like Odyne's to be deployed through standard compliance. But even at that point,
we believe OEMs should be given an incentive to drive accelerated adoption of more advanced
technologies to drive further private sector R&D in these technologies, provide realistic pathways for
proving and commercializing these technologies, and lowering their costs -all resulting in accelerated
fleet wide increases in fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.27-28]
While hybrid technology can be extremely effective in lowering GHG emissions in appropriate
vocational applications, the cost of hybrid systems are still relatively high (mostly due to battery cost)
and may require higher engineering and development costs initially. The higher upfront costs of new
technology can deter the availability of investment. In addition, the relatively low initial adoption rates
of new technology in the commercial trucks sector can drive hybrid system designs that may be largely
composed of components that are not physically located within existing powertrain components and are
not always integrated with the powertrain at the time of chassis manufacturing (incomplete vehicle
manufacturing stage). While those innovative systems can minimize initial integration cost, they may
not be as cost effective in comparison to much more integrated systems that reach very high
manufacturing volumes. There are also many other costs associated to introducing innovative or
advanced technologies, other than higher component costs, that need to be accounted for such as non-
recoverable engineering costs, the ability and need to prove the technology in the field, and educating
the market and consumer on the technologies benefits and functionality. As this market is low volume
and very fragmented with higher incremental costs, the current advanced credit multiplier of 1.5 is not
currently a sufficient incentive for industry adoption and use in Phase One. Odyne recommends, in
addition to adopting Scenario 4 or above (or a more stringent rule with Scenario 3 timelines), inclusion
of a limited volume of credits per class of advanced technology credits at a multiplier/additionally factor
higher than Phase One to help offset the high cost of new, more effective, advanced technology. We
believe that a limited volume credit of at least 3x, or preferably higher dependent on volume limitations,
could decrease overall fuel consumption and emissions based on the ability to bring more aggressive
emission saving technology to market faster in higher volumes outside of demonstration volumes.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.28-29]
Should EPA choose to retain advanced technology credits and include a volume, we would urge care
taken to ensure equal opportunity for a diversity of advanced technologies to be deployed with credits.
If the credits were to be designed to encourage deployment of advanced fuel and emission saving
technology, it would not be in the interest of the program to allow a single technology, or worse, a
-------
single OEM developed technology to crowd out available credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1
p.29]
Organization: Optimus Technologies
Concerning 80 FR 40596 (Columns 2-3), more clarification is needed as to how the EPA determines
which technologies meet the requirements for these credits. Optimus' current understanding is that
alternative fuel engine conversions that reduce GHG emissions are not eligible for this credit. The
purpose of these credits, as stated by the EPA, is to recognize technologies that "achieve C02
reductions in the real world but where those reductions are not adequately captured on the test procedure
used to determine compliance with the C02 standards.8" This seems to be a way to incentivize
technologies that reduce lifecycle emissions (and cannot therefore be measured at the tailpipe). As such,
Optimus Technologies believes the EPA should consider adding alternative fuel conversion
technologies to the credit program to incentivize their use by engine/vehicle OEMs; this could be
similar to the Advanced Technology Credits allowed in the Light-Duty Program for alternative-fueled
vehicles (until MY 2015). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1276-A1 p.4]
An example of how Optimus' system reduces lifecycle GHG emissions: Using the baseline MPG for
flat terrain at 80 FR 40247 of 7.33 MPG in 2015 and the Alternative 3 fuel economy improvement goal
of 16.2% by 2027 (see 80 FR 40356), we can assume that a truck (with a useful life of ten years)
purchased in 2027 that meets the fuel economy improvement goals reduces lifecycle C02 emissions
over ten years by 585,095 pounds (using assumptions in footnote).9 In comparison, the same truck
purchased in 2015 and outfitted with Optimus' biofuel conversion system reduces lifecycle C02
emissions over ten years by 2,725,398 pounds. Today in 2015, Optimus' biofuel conversion system can
achieve almost 5 times that of the lifecycle C02 emissions reductions achieved by 2037, 22 years from
now. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1276-A1 p.4]
8 http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/documents/420rl5014.pdf
9 http://biodiesel.org/using-biodiesel/handling-use/emissions-calculator
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
The Agencies Should Provide Credits for Advanced/Innovative Technologies
Credits for innovative technologies and off-cycle improvements have been an integral part of EPA and
NHTSA's fuel economy/GHG programs for both light-duty and heavy-duty on-road vehicles. PACCAR
believes the concept of credits helps promote innovation by incentivizing manufacturers to go beyond
traditional research, development, and marketing programs. With this in mind PACCAR offers the
following concepts and suggestions. However, none of these technologies should be taken into
consideration when establishing baselines or setting stringency improvements in the final rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p. 23-24]
B-20 Capability
The use of non-petroleum based bio-fuels or fuels derived from other non-petroleum sources not only
reduces petroleum demand, but can lead to lower fuel cycle GHG emissions. In order to accommodate
higher bio-fuel blends, manufacturers need to modify engine designs and fuel system materials on the
-------
vehicles to accommodate the use of such fuels. PACCAR believes credits should be provided for
engines/vehicles that are capable of operating on levels at 20% biofuels. PACCAR will work with the
Agencies to develop the proper credit value taking into account projected usage of such fuel blends.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.24]
Hybrid Technology Multipliers
As noted earlier, concepts that are theoretically promising such as hybridization have experienced
market resistance. For those manufacturers who continue to pursue this technology, the Agencies should
provide a multiplier over and above the values derived from test cycles. PACCAR suggests 50% credit
increase to encourage the development and use of this technology. Additionally, in no case should the
Agencies consider hybridization as a baseline or stringency technology for the achievement of proposed
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.24-25]
Other Advanced Technology Multipliers
The Agencies should encourage the development of ultra-low emission technologies such as fuel cells
or other advanced technologies. The Agencies should provide significant, not incremental, credits for
these technologies, as they can provide both fuel savings and emission reductions in certain priority
applications - e.g., at ports or other distribution centers. The 50% credit bonus suggested above for
hybridization is a concept for other advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.25]
Organization: Proterra
Proterra supports the intended purpose of advanced technology credits, namely, 'to promote the
commercialization of technologies that have the potential to provide substantially better GHG emissions
and fuel consumption if they were able to overcome major near-term barriers.' That purpose is as true
today as it was in 2011, when the agencies adopted the Phase I standards. And while market acceptance
for zero-emission technology in the heavy-duty space is growing, incentive programs and rebates
continue to play a major role in driving early adoption of electric transit vehicles, including the growth
of programs such as the FTA's Lo or No Emission Vehicle Deployment Program, Chicago's Drive Clean
Truck Voucher Program and New York's Truck Voucher Incentive Program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1160-A1 p.2]
Notwithstanding the above, Proterra strongly disagrees with the proposal to eliminate advanced
technology credits in Phase 2 for any technology. The Phase 2 standards are critical to the U.S.'
continued development of world-leading advanced fuel-efficient technologies and to 'spurring]
innovation, encouraging the development and deployment of existing and advanced cost-effective
technologies for a new generation of cleaner, more fuel efficient' vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1160-A1 p. 3]
During Phase I, the agencies had adopted a 1.5 credit value for advanced technologies with the purpose
of promoting the early implementation of such technologies that were not expected to be widely adopted
in the market in the 2014-2018 timeframe. (40 CFR 1037.150(i)) A 1.5 credit multiplier properly
rewards innovation and the commitment of resources needed to develop and deploy advanced
technologies that further reduce GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1160-A1 p.3]
The proposal to eliminate advanced technology credits in Phase 2 will slow the deployment of
innovative, clean, and fuel efficient transit solutions. And the failure to provide advanced technology
-------
credits for such innovations would surely bias the industry toward deploying only those technologies
that meet - but not exceed - current regulatory standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1160-A1 p.3]
The agencies justify the revised approach in the Phase 2 NPRM based principally on two assumptions,
which, with clarification, do not support the elimination of advanced technology credits. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1160-A1 p.3]
The initial rationale to propose eliminating the Phase 2 credits is that 'any vehicle certified with this
technology would provide such a large credit to a manufacturer that an additional incentive credit would
not be necessary.' But the focus should not be on what is 'necessary' for a manufacturer, but rather on
how to effectively accomplish the primary purpose of the Phase 2 standards—to reduce carbon
pollution, improve fuel efficiency, save money on fuel and other costs (e.g., healthcare) and support
innovation. Manufacturers such as Proterra are contributing to these critical societal goals. Credits
encourage manufacturers and suppliers to invest in developing more advanced and costly technology
earlier, thereby obtaining significant emissions benefits, rather than simply meeting compliance
standards today and developing new technology at a later date to meet a new regulatory standard. The
additional incentive credits are necessary to accelerate the adoption of zero-emission advanced vehicle
technology to meet the stated goals of the Phase 2 standards. Specifically, maintaining the Phase 2
credits are essential to sustaining a strong spark to accelerate deployment of state-of-the-art, ultra-low
carbon vocational vehicles, such as fully-electric public transit buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1160-
Alp.3]
Second, the assumption that the 'incentive would result in reduced benefits in terms of C02 emissions
and fuel use due to the Phase 2 program' needs to be revisited. Any such reduction in benefits is only
potentially true in the short-term because the deployment of zero-emission battery-electric buses will
accelerate lower GHG emissions and fuel use in the long run. The Phase 2 incentives are key to driving
manufacturers to innovate and develop the most fuel-efficient and lowest emitting vehicles and to
contribute to the EPA's stated goal of building on the United States' position as a world leader in fuel-
efficient trucking technologies. The earlier that advanced technology vehicles are brought to market, the
sooner they can move along the adoption curve and become deployed on a widespread basis. The direct
result of industry innovation will be less carbon pollution and more fuel saved. To date Proterra vehicles
have saved nearly 300,000 gallons of fuel and prevented > 5 million pounds of C02 emissions.
Incentives will ensure that Proterra and other manufacturers continue to improve upon their clean
mobility solutions that will help accelerate the deployment of more efficient vehicles to help local
communities improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions and save fuel. Therefore, we recommend that
the EPA continue advanced technology credits for zero-emission vehicles throughout the entire time
frame of Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1160-A1 p.3-4]
Proterra agrees with the agencies' proposal to extend the Heavy-Duty National Program beyond model
year 2018. The Phase 2 Program will significantly reduce carbon emissions and improve fuel efficiency
for heavy-duty vehicles, while at the same time address the challenges of global climate change and
energy security. But these objectives should not come at the expense of those manufacturers pioneering
the effort to produce the very advanced technology necessary to create a sustainable transportation
system for generations to come. Rather than spur more innovation and improve upon today's clean and
fuel efficient transit solutions, the proposed elimination of advanced technology credits has the potential
to achieve the opposite result. We respectfully request that the agencies retain advanced technology
credits for all-electric vehicles and extend the credits to later model years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1160-A1 p.4-5]
Organization: Securing America's Future Energy
-------
While we believe additional reductions are possible, the enabling (advanced engine and road load)
technologies are less certain and more costly than those expected under Phase 2. Nevertheless, we
believe that the Phase 2 rule could facilitate the early introduction of such technologies, providing
valuable production and operating experiences prior to the adoption of Phase 3 standards, by
incorporating provisions for advanced technology credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1282-A1 p. 1]
Advanced Technology Credits for C02
The EPA and NHTSA have proposed to eliminate the advanced technology credits that were available
under the heavy-duty vehicle Phase 1 rule. Under that rule, credits (expressed in terms of a 1.5 times
production multiplier, with specified class transfer caps) were available to promote the introduction of
hybrid, Rankine cycle waste heat recovery, all-electric, and fuel cell technology. Under the proposed
Phase 2 rule, these credits would be discontinued under the premise that the applicable standards
presume the use of advanced technology and will, therefore, sufficiently incentivize market
introduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.7]
Here again, there is a stark contrast with regard to the treatment of advanced heavy-duty vehicle
technology as compared to similar technology under the 2017-2025 light-duty rule. Under the light-duty
rule, manufacturers can generate C02 credits (expressed in terms of a production multiplier) through
model year 2021 by introducing all-electric, plugin hybrid electric, fuel cell, and dedicated and dual fuel
natural gas vehicles.23 These credits are intended to incentivize the early introduction of advanced
technology to overcome market barriers and facilitate compliance with subsequent, more stringent
standards. Natural gas is recognized for both its ability to serve as a bridge technology toward the
introduction of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the fact that it faces similar market barriers to those of
other advanced technologies (77 FR 62816). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.7]
While the most stringent proposed Phase 2 standards for heavy-duty trucks may indeed presume some
degree of advanced technology, with regard to waste heat recovery in particular, little if any hybrid, all-
electric, fuel cell, or natural gas vehicle technology will be required to achieve the proposed standards.
Thus, there is little difference in the role of these technologies in achieving the standards as currently
proposed or adopted (as applicable) in the light- and heavy-duty sectors. The rationale offered by EPA
and NHTSA for adopting advanced technology credits in the light-duty sector applies at least equally
and without exception to the heavy-duty sector. In fact, the rationale is more pronounced in the heavy-
duty sector given that the magnitude of advanced technology market barriers is higher due to
substantially greater cost and engineering issues associated with heavy-duty vehicle development,
production, and use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1282-A1 p.7-8]
This differential treatment across sectors is amplified when one considers that under the light-duty rule,
EPA and NHTSA adopted credits even for non-plug-in hybrid (and effectively equivalent) technology
when installed on a full sized pickup truck.24'25 Supporting justification included: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1282-A1 p.8]
'The agencies believe that offering incentives in the earlier years of this program that encourage the
deployment of technologies that can significantly improve the efficiency of these vehicles and that also
will foster production of those technologies at levels that will help achieve economies of scale, will
promote greater fuel savings overall and make these technologies more cost effective and available in
the later model years of this rulemaking to assist in compliance with the standards.' (77 FR 62738)
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1282-A1 p. 8]
-------
'Although there may not be inherent reasons for a lack of hybrid technology migration to large trucks, it
is clear that this migration has nevertheless been slow to materialize for practical/economic reasons,
including in-use duty cycles and customer expectations. These issues still need to be addressed by the
designers of large pickups to successfully introduce these technologies in these trucks, and we believe
that assistance in the form of a focused, well-defined incentive program is warranted.' (77 FR 62739)
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1282-A1 p. 8]
For so-called strong hybrids, these credits can be earned through the duration of the currently adopted
light-duty standards (i.e., through model year 2025).26 As was the case for the general advanced
technology credits, these same justifications not only hold true, but are magnified when expressed in
terms of the 'in-use duty cycles and customer expectations' of the heavy-duty sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1282-A1 p.8]
While the introduction of advanced technology in the heavy-duty sector is worthy of a credit program
based solely on cost and engineering issues that are compounded with size, the disparate treatment of
such technology under the adopted light-duty and proposed heavy-duty programs is itself sufficient
evidence of such need. There is simply no rational reason that heavy-duty manufacturers should be held
to less flexible requirements than their light-duty counterparts. EPA and NHTSA should reconsider their
proposal in this regard and implement a 'focused, well-defined' advanced technology incentive program
for heavy-duty vehicles. Ideally, this program would mimic that of the light-duty sector, covering the
same technology that is common to both and including any additional advanced technology specific to
the heavy-duty sector. Thus, credits should, at a minimum, be established for hybrid, all-electric, fuel
cell and natural gas technology. The earning period for the heavy-duty program should be adjusted from
that of the light-duty rule to reflect the differential time periods of standards implemented under the
applicable rules, allowing credits to be earned at least through model year 2026 (the last model year
prior to the implementation of the most stringent proposed heavy-duty standards). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1282-A1 p.8-9]
[Figure 1, 'Comparison of Non-Petroleum Vehicle Allowance', can be found on p.9 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1]
23 Note: Specific production multipliers are: (1) for all-electric and fuel cell vehicles, 2.0 in model years
2017 through 2019, 1.75 in model year 2020, and 1.5 in model year 2021, (2) for plugin hybrid electric
and natural gas vehicles, 1.6 in model years 2017 through 2019, 1.45 in model year 2020, and 1.3 in
model year 2021.
24 Note: Full sized pickup means a pickup with bed length and width of at least 60 and 48 inches
respectively and payload and towing capacities of at least 1700 and 5000 pounds respectively.
25 Note: The specific credits are 10 grams C02 per mile (equivalent to 0.00113 gallons per mile) for
mild hybrids, 20 grams C02 per mile (equivalent to 0.00225 gallons per mile) for strong hybrids, 10
grams C02 per mile (equivalent to 0.00113 gallons per mile) for vehicles demonstrating C02
performance 15 percent better than their footprint-based target, and 20 grams C02 per mile (equivalent
to 0.00225 gallons per mile) for vehicles demonstrating C02 performance 20 percent better than their
footprint based target. The 10 gram credits can be earned in model years 201 7 through 2021, while the
20 gram credits can be earned in model years 2017 through 2025. To earn mild hybrid credits, the
technology must be installed on 20, 30, 55, 70, and 80 percent of full sized pickup trucks in model years
2017 through 2021 respectively. To earn the 10 gram performance credits, the enabling technology must
-------
be installed on 15, 20, 28, 35, and 40 percent of full sized pickup trucks in model years 2017 through
2021 respectively. Strong hybrid and 20 percent performance credits require installation on 10 percent
of full sized pickup trucks in each model year 2017 through 2025. A vehicle cannot earn both a hybrid
and performance credit.
26 A strong hybrid is a hybrid electric vehicle that recovers at least 65 percent of the braking energy used
over the fuel economy test cycle.
Organization: Sierra Club
Incentivize advanced technology
Our organizations applaud the agencies for considering hybrid technology when setting the overall
stringency. However, it is critical that the agencies account for the full effectiveness of hybrid
technology and further incentivize advanced technologies such as battery electric and plug-in hybrid
electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1 p.2]
To fully account for the benefits of hybrid technology, the agencies should use real-world duty cycle
data in addition to the GEM. This will help account for the benefits of electric power takeoff, now used
in some utility bucket trucks. By accounting for the full benefits of hybrid technology, the agencies
should increase the stringency of vocational vehicle standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1
p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 189.]]
Additionally, the agencies should restore advanced technology credits to incentivize the most advanced
technologies, particularly plug-in hybrid and battery electric trucks. Early adoption and increased
penetration of these technologies can help provide the needed cuts in carbon pollution and fuel
consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1 p.2-3] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 190.]]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
U.S. EPA is proposing to eliminate the Advanced Technology Credits included in the Phase 1
regulation. The SCAQMD staff is strongly opposed to the proposed elimination of the credits given the
work that is currently underway in California and by the U.S. Department of Energy to develop
advanced zero-emission technologies for heavy-duty vehicles. These efforts include development and
demonstration of traditional hybrid systems, plug-in hybrid electric trucks with all electric range, and
dedicated battery-electric and fuel cell trucks that are appropriately designed for niche applications
including package delivery and over the road Class 8 trucks. Elimination of the Advanced Technology
Credits will impede the early market development of these technologies. Attachment 1 provides a
summary of the zero-emission heavy-duty truck projects that are currently underway in the South Coast
Air Basin that the SCAQMD staff strongly believes will be commercialized within the next five years if
strong signals are provided to the technology providers and engine and truck manufacturers that zero-
emission technologies are needed as early as possible to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions not
only in the near-term, but also well beyond the timeframe of the proposed regulation. As such, we
recommend that U.S. EPA reinstate the Advanced Technology Credits to help advance zero- and
near-zero-emission technologies and to make Alternative 4 more attractive and attainable. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1181-A1 p.2-3]
[Attachment 1 can be found on p. 10 of this docket]
-------
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE CREDITS
The agencies noted appropriately that advanced technology credits should be eliminated for hybrid
electric vehicles—while hybrids are an important strategy for reducing fuel use from heavy-duty trucks
in the vocational vehicle sector, the stringency of the regulation is based on significant adoption of the
technology, so therefore they cannot be considered "advanced". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
p.24]
However, technologies such as plug-in electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles are at the nascent levels of
adoption and could play a significant role in reducing fuel from the heavy-duty truck sector beyond
2029. A revised advanced technology program could help drive the investment in innovative
technologies necessary to achieve future reductions from the work truck fleet. The agencies should
therefore retain an advanced technology credit program, applicable only for advanced technologies
which are expected to have little penetration in the near-term: plug-in electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles, and line-haul hybrid vehicles. Such a program would not significantly undermine the
environmental and oil reduction benefits of the rule due to relatively low sales volumes, but they could
provide manufacturers sufficient incentive to "pull forward" these advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.24]
The value of any such credit is dependent entirely upon the stringency of the regulation—the use of
these credits for compliance must partially offset more expensive research and development programs
for technologies that will sell only in low volumes in the near-term. Therefore, it is critical that the
agencies strengthen the stringency of the proposed regulations, to drive investments in innovative
technologies in the timeframe of this rule and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.24-25]
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
Rule Must Encourage the Further Advancement of Hybrid Vehicles
Hybrid and electric technology applications continue to progress into the trucking sector, especially in
the vocational segment. While these technologies provide fuel savings and reduced tailpipe emissions,
the cost of these technologies can be substantial. EPA estimates the added cost of hybrid technologies
are in the range of $20,000 to $40,000 for larger vocational vehicles and tractors while full electric
technologies are in the $50,000 to $150,000 range. These costs are the highest of all the fuel efficient
technologies identified, and as previously discussed, likely to result in lower adoption rates than
estimated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 13]
In order to continue to advance these technologies and their adoption, the incentive-based approach used
in Phase 1 should be retained. Specifically, the agencies should preserve the advanced technology
credits which provide a credit of 1.5 in order to promote the use of hybrid and electric vehicles in larger
vocational vehicles and tractors. A continuation of these credits will provide an incentive for OEM's to
pursue the development and sale of hybrid and electric vehicles. These credits will likely help drive
down costs while more effectively promoting the advantages of this green-technology path as a path
towards achieving the goals of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 13]
Organization: US Hybrid Corporation
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 306.]
While regulation is the main driver for technology and clean transportation, incentives are also needed
to ensure that transition to a sustainable commercial deployment. Thus, we urge you to establish more
incentive or zero and near-zero emission technologies. And this way, you can provide a path for
companies that work hard to develop a product that enables us to reach our goal of 90 percent NOx
reduction.
Organization: US Hybrid Corporation
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 305-306.]
We urge you to further support zero-emission technologies, especially fuel cell. The impact of fuel cell
and hydrogen is often overlooked. Recently our fuel cell power plant running, driving an a/c transit fleet
up in Oakland exceeded 20,000 hours with zero stack failure, which putting the fuel cell on par with
diesel and CNG engine.
Combustion engine technologies have improved a lot and can make a major contribution to vehicle fuel
economy and emission for long-haul applications. However, they do little for operation in congested
traffic. And traffic is not getting any better. For decades, the industries has tried various controller
strategies, such as EGO and other methods. And now it is all of the last couple of decades we have been
working on after treatments. After all of this effort and time and time again shows that combustion
engine has reached a level of technology limit that is financially prohibitive to improve.
In contrast, fuel cell not only provides better fuel economy and the zero tailpipe emission, but also they
are not sensitive or as sensitive to drive cycles, traffic congestions, and emission test method, steady-
state versus cycle average, et cetera.
Therefore, on behalf of U.S. Hybrid, I urge you to further support zero-emission fuel cell medium-
duty/heavy-duty vehicle, especially in urban settings. We really need this technology to achieve the
California target of 90 percent NOx reduction, and your recommendations cannot get us there.
Organization: VNG
The Need for Incentives
While NGVs are a relatively established technology compared to EVs and FCVs, they are still a very
small part of the market and face significant near-term barriers to adoption with many fleets due to less
infrastructure availability and higher up-front costs than petroleum-fueled vehicles. The fall in
petroleum-based fuel prices has also reduced the economic case for NGVs, which was expected to drive
market development after the shale gas boom. And, from a regulatory perspective, the growing
likelihood that NGVs will be fueled by RNG creates positive externalities that are not captured by a
focus on tailpipe emissions alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.3-4]
While a lifecycle emissions focus could be a possible solution in theory, VNG agrees with Natural Gas
Vehicles for America's (NGVA) position that the incorporation of full lifecycle emissions in the GHG
rule would create enormous complications and uncertainty in the accounting for every fuel, including
-------
gasoline and diesel as well as alternatives like electricity, hydrogen, and natural gas. Keeping the
regulation's primary focus on tailpipe emissions will greatly simplify compliance planning for OEMs
and ensure that emissions are reduced across vehicles of all fuel types. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1208-A1 p. 4]
At the same time, the continued use of advanced technology incentives could play a distinct but
important role in encouraging the development of technologies and fuels that will be able to provide
more game-changing emissions benefits in the future. Moreover, because the majority of NGV fueling
going forward can be expected to be RNG, the overall emission benefits of the rule are likely
to increase instead of being reduced. Thus, it would be most effective - as well as most consistent with
the precedent established by the Phase 1 regulation as well as the 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle
regulations - to use a simple multiplier of at least 1.5 for NGVs, EVs, and FCVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1208-A1 p.4]
Regulatory incentives to encourage manufacturers to continue pursuing this vital near-term, near-zero
alternative could be critical to sustaining this market during this challenging economic time for non-
petroleum fuels, allowing for the long-term investments needed to reduce vehicle costs through higher
production volumes. And, beyond the benefits for EPA's GHG agenda, the promotion of RNG
development through greater NGV demand will help EPA achieve its goals for the increase of cellulosic
biofuel use under the RFS and the reduction of methane emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-
A1 p.4]
Response:
At the time of the proposal, the agencies believed it was no longer appropriate to provide extra credit for
any of the technologies identified as advanced technologies for Phase 1, although we requested
comment on this issue. The Phase 1 advanced technology credits were adopted to promote the
implementation of advanced technologies that were not included in our basis of the feasibility of the
Phase 1 standards. Such technologies included hybrid powertrains, Rankine cycle waste heat recovery
systems on engines, all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles (see 40 CFR 1037.150(i)). The Phase 2
heavy-duty engine and vehicles standards are premised on the use of some of these technologies,
making them equivalent to other fuel-saving technologies in this context. We stated that we believed the
Phase 2 standards themselves will provide sufficient incentive to develop those specific technologies.
The Need for Advanced Technology Credit Multipliers
Several commenters expressed the view that advanced technology multipliers are needed to drive the
development of "zero-emission" and other very advance technologies. CARB agreed with the agencies'
previously stated principle that multipliers lay the foundation for game-changing GHG and oil
consumption reductions in the long term. It also argued that increased incentives are needed to
overcome "consumer reluctance to purchase unfamiliar technologies." MECA commented that
"without incentives or credits, manufacturers will be forced to halt further development and
optimization of emerging technologies to achieve the type of return on investment the trucking industry
demands." DTNA commented that technologies should compete in the market without extra credit
incentives. While we agree to some extent with the DTNA comment as a general principle, we also
agree with the other commenters that sometimes additional incentives are appropriate for very advanced
technologies.
As already noted, a key principle behind the agencies' decisions for advance technologies is that these
multipliers should not apply for technologies that we project would be adopted in significant volumes
-------
without additional incentives. This is consistent with Allison's comment that "manufacturers should not
receive what could amount to a "double credit" of meeting their compliance obligations through
hybrids, fuel cell and electric vehicles are receiving additional credits on account of this action."
However, Allison's comment goes further than this principle to support not providing these incentives
for any advanced technologies, even if the agencies project neither the standards nor market forces
would lead to their adoption by a significant portion of the fleet. Thus, the agencies do not agree
completely with Allison. We believe it is appropriate to provide such large multipliers for these very
advanced technologies at least in the short term, because they have the potential to provide very large
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption and advance technology development substantially
in the long term. The potential to advance technology development ('game changing') is not fully
encompassed in a tailpipe measurement, so that an additional credit can be appropriate. Nevertheless,
because the advanced technology credits are so large, we also believe that we should not necessarily
allow them to continue indefinitely. Therefore, the agencies are adopting them as an interim program
that will continue through MY 2027. If the agencies determine that these credit multipliers should be
continued beyond MY 2027, we could do so in a future rulemaking.
Qualifying Technologies
We specifically requested comment on this issue with respect to electric vehicle, plug-in hybrid, and
fuel cell technologies. Although the Phase 2 standards are premised on some use of Rankine cycle waste
heat recovery systems on engines and hybrid powertrains (which are considered to be advanced
technologies for Phase 1), none of the Phase 2 standards are based on projected utilization of certain
other even more-advanced technologies (e.g., all-electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles). 80 FR 40158.
Commenters generally supported providing credit multipliers for these advanced technologies, while
ending the multipliers for waste heat recovery and conventional hybrids. Many agreed with the
agencies' general principle of basing this on whether or not such technologies were included in the
feasibility analysis. However, Allison also supported ending the incentives for hybrids, fuel cells, and
electric vehicles in Phase 2. Nevertheless, given the overall support for such incentives among
operators, suppliers, and states, the agencies are adopting advanced technology credits for these three
types of advanced technologies.
Multiplier Values
CARB provided suggestions for values larger than 1.5 that could be used to incentivize plug-in hybrids,
electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. CARB proposed specific larger values in supplemental
comments. CALSTART commented in support of a sliding scale of credit value, tied both to the
performance benefit of the technology, and also starting higher in the early years of Phase 2 and
ramping down over its life. Other commenters supported adopting multipliers of 1.5 or larger.
The agencies are adopting advanced technology multipliers for these three types of advanced
technologies equal to the estimates provided by CARB. Specifically, we are adopting the following
multipliers:
• 3.5 for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
• 4.5 for all-electric vehicles
• 5.5 for fuel cell vehicles
Our intention in adopting these multipliers is to create a meaningful incentive to those considering
adopting these qualifying advanced technologies into their vehicles. CARB's values were based on a
cost analysis that compared the costs of these technologies to costs of other conventional technologies.
Their costs analysis showed that adopting multipliers in this range would make these technologies much
-------
more competitive with the conventional technologies and could allow manufacturers to more easily
generate a viable business case to develop these technologies for heavy-duty and bring them to market
at a competitive price.
Another important consideration in the adoption of these larger multipliers is the tendency of the heavy-
duty sector to significantly lag the light-duty sector in the adoption of advanced technologies. There are
many possible reason for this, such as:
• Heavy-duty vehicles are more expensive than light-duty vehicles, which makes it a greater
monetary risk for purchasers to invest in unproven technologies.
• These vehicles are work vehicles, which makes predictable reliability even more important than
for light-duty vehicles.
• Sales volumes are much lower for heavy-duty vehicles, especially for specialized vehicles.
As a result of factors such as these, adoption rates for these advanced technologies in heavy-duty are
essentially non-existent today and seem unlikely to grow significantly within the next decade without
additional incentives. The agencies believe it is appropriate to provide such large multipliers for these
very advanced technologies because they have the potential to provide very large reductions in GHG
emissions and fuel consumption and advance technology development substantially.
Other Technologies
Some commenters suggested that the agencies provide advanced technology credits for alternative fuels
or engines with very low NOx emissions. SAFE pointed to the light-duty rules in support of providing
credit for natural gas vehicles. PACCAR believes credits should be provided for engines/vehicles that
are capable of operating on levels at 20% biofuels. However, the advanced technology multipliers
being finalized are intended to address technologies for which industry is unlikely to develop and adopt
without these incentives. This does not apply for these other alternative fuel technologies. We also note
that EPA regulates NOx emissions separately and may mandate lower NOx emissions in the future.
CARB initially commented that the agencies should provide multipliers for conventional hybrids in
long-haul tractor application because we did not consider such technologies in the feasibility analysis.
Eaton and PACCAR supported credits for conventional hybrids more generally. However, other
commenters supported the elimination of credit multipliers for conventional hybrids. Given our position
that these multipliers should not apply for technologies that we project would be adopted in significant
volumes without additional incentives, we are not finalizing Phase 2 multipliers for conventional
hybrids.
Other Advanced Technology Issues
CARB staff also disagreed with the statement made in the Draft RIA that fuel cells present complex
packaging and weight issues. Although we continue to believe this, we note that this position did not
affect our decisions in this rule.
CALSTART commented that approval process needs to be streamlined and clarified. We remain open
to improving the process.
EDTA commented that the agencies must ensure that testing protocols accurately measure emissions
and efficiency benefits for advanced technologies. Sierra Club commented that the agencies should use
real-world duty cycle data in addition to the GEM to fully account for the benefits of hybrid technology.
We believe the final test procedures will appropriately recognize the advanced technologies.
-------
McNicols commented that the rule should allow for credits for delegated final stage manufacturers, such
as vocational vehicle manufacturers. However, as discussed in Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.4, there are
important policy reasons why credits are limited to certifying manufacturers.
1.4.2 Innovative and Off-Cycle Technologies 119
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA should also expand off-cycle programs to credit other technologies. Proposed
regulations do not appear to allow a manufacturer to submit an A to B test plan for technologies that do
not fit within the prescribed powertrain test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.3]
EPA and NHTSA Should Adopt Powertrain Testing With Several Revisions
EPA and NHTSA Should Expand Off-Cycle Program Or Create Other Methodology To Credit
Technologies Not Included in GEM or Measured By Powertrain Testing
The agencies are proposing to continue the innovative technology program from Phase 1 but to
redesignate this program as an "off-cycle program." Allison supports continuation of this program, but
recommends that the program be expanded to consider technologies that are not recognized in
powertrain testing generally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.34]
In this regard, Section 1037.610 as proposed is designed to address vehicles with off cycle technologies.
Section 1037.610(d) recommends that a manufacturer submit a test plan for approval prior to running an
A to B test through either chassis or on-road testing. Section 1037.550 separately contains the required
procedures for powertrain testing. But within Section 1037.550, there appears to be no accommodation
for a manufacturer to submit an A to B test plan for technologies that do not fit within the prescribed
powertrain test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.34-35]
Allison has fuel-saving technologies that are available today, but would not be recognized via the
powertrain test process. Allison recommends that the off-cycle program be expanded to include the
ability for manufacturers to propose an A to B powertrain test to recognize off-cycle powertrain
technologies. This could be accomplished either through clarification of Section 1037.610 or 1037.550.
Specifically, there are technologies associated with ATs that are not accounted for via powertrain testing
and are not proposed for crediting within GEM. EPA and NHTSA should therefore create a mechanism
by which such real world technology and resulting benefits can be recognized and credited. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.35]
The benefits of this approach are substantial. In this regard, Allison would highlight these specific
technologies: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.35]
(1) Dynamic Shift Sensing ("DSS"); this technology is used to select the optimal shift strategy based on
mass and grade. DSS is becoming more common in the marketplace. In 2015 (to date), 63% of North
American sales incorporated DSS. But DSS is not included within GEM and will not be measured
through powertrain testing. Where DSS has been applied, it has resulted between 3 and 6%
improvement in fuel economy, with some customers reporting as much as 13% improvement. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.35]
-------
(2) Acceleration Rate Management ("ARM") is a feature which controls the acceleration of a vehicle
from a stop. ARM is standard on the TC10 and in transmissions for transit buses; it also is growing in
penetration in other vocational vehicles. ARM can result in 2 to 8% improvement in fuel economy.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p. 35]
(3) Super Econ Shift Schedule is a feature which activates while the vehicle is cruising in traffic and
will operate the engine at the lowest speed possible while still maintaining vehicle speed. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A 1 p.35]
(4) Short shifting strategies: reducing engine speeds within reason leads to better fuel economy. Testing
and analysis has shown reducing transmission shift speeds can improve fuel economy while only
negligibly impacting vehicle performance. For example, reducing the shift speed 200 rpm from
governed speed can result in a 2% improvement in fuel economy yet results in nearly identical 0-30
mph times (10.2 seconds vs 10.35 seconds).56 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A 1 p.35]
(5) Automatic preselects for engine braking has logic to avoid decelerating the vehicle below desired
speed. If a vehicle slows down too much, then fuel is required to regain speed. Automatic preselect logic
will learn a desired speed and select the proper transmission range for a given engine brake torque to
obtain this speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.35]
56 The configurations were 3000 Series (CR), Cummins ISB, P&D single axle truck, 5.04 rear axle
ratio, 28,000 lb. Shift speed changed from 2600 (gov speed) to 2400.
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
EPA and NHTSA must also abandon or substantially revise weight reduction values that have been
proposed for various vehicle components. There is a complete absence of technical support for these
values in the administrative record for this rulemaking. If EPA and NHTSA decide to incorporate such
weight reduction values into the final rule, the agencies must consider additional information concerning
the weight reduction and performance benefits of steel, including the life cycle GHG benefits of steel. In
the alternative, EPA should remove all weight reduction values for components included within the
Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.3]
If GEM cannot reasonably be altered for this purpose, EPA and NHTSA could consider providing 'off-
cycle' credits for emission reductions associated with life cycle emissions similar to the existing process
for such credits that the agencies established in the Phase 1 rulemaking. To reduce administrative
burdens, the agencies could specify such credits in advance of this rulemaking. For example, in the MY
2017-2025 LDV Rule, a 'pre-approved' list of off-cycle technologies was utilized to provide emission
credit for the efficiency gains associated with such items as high efficiency exterior lighting and solar
roof panels that would not be measured during normal certification of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1275-A1 p.11-12]
As explained in Part IV of this document, poor data quality can seriously undermine realization of
regulatory objectives. Whatever life cycle analysis tool may be adopted for future Class 2 through 8
truck regulations, it must use data for materials manufacturing that is current, credible and verifiable.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 12]
-------
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment -Tractor- off-cycle technology credits, penetration rate
The NPRM requests comment on providing credit for off-cycle innovative technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 77]
We agree with the concept of providing such credits, as credits can be an incentive for innovation. For
example, such credits could support continued innovation in connected vehicle technologies such as
platooning. The proposed Phase 2 standards were developed including benefits for predictive cruise
control, a type of connected vehicle technology, and CARB staff supports allowing off-cycle credits for
other connected vehicle technologies such as platooning. As discussed further in CARB's Draft
Technology Assessment: Engine/Powerplant and Drivetrain Optimization and Vehicle
Efficiency,36 platooning is being tested in Southern California and can yield fuel consumption
reductions of 10 to 21 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.77]
We also agree with the proposed removal of some types of off-cycle credits allowed in Phase 1 in light
of Phase 2 GEM accounting directly for some of the Phase 1 innovative off-cycle strategies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.77]
The NPRM proposes requiring A to B testing on a chassis dynamometer to demonstrate the
effectiveness of off-cycle technologies. CARB staff suggests caution in using A to B testing on a chassis
dynamometer or by using portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS) to quantify sub percentage
point efficiency gains. Care must be taken when the expected change is on the same order of magnitude
as the test-to-test repeatability of the test method used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.77]
Support Comment/Request Clarification
Comment - Off-cycle credits and adjustments
CARB staff supports the requirements in 40 CFR 1036.610 (c), (e), and (f) that sufficient technological
descriptions and data be required to allow adjustment of emission results for off-cycle credits, as well as
the demonstration of the durability of the off-cycle technology. This section allows the use of the
approved adjustments to be retained through the 2020 MY but that new approval will be required for
MY 2021. CARB staff recommends clarification of whether approval for MY 2021 and beyond must be
renewed annually or whether that approval will continue for similar off-cycle approaches as had been
previously allowed under Phase 1 of the GHG regulations. CARB staff believes the latter approach
would be appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.78]
36 (CARB, 2015c) California Air Resources Board, "Draft Technology Assessment: Engine/Powerplant
and Drivetrain Optimization and Vehicle Efficiency," June 2015, .
Organization: CALSTART
Work site vehicles have huge opportunities to use "off cycle" idle reduction tech that is not easily
included in current rule design because most of it gets integrated in later production stages [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2]
-------
We offer some possible approaches to consider: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1190-A1 p.2]
- Streamline Off Cycle and AT credit testing processes with clear up front data needs and limits -
eliminate open loop process [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1190-A1 p.2]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
And there are several costs that we could not find in the agencies' cost-benefit analysis but that should
have been included. One is the costs avoided when drivers do not have accidents and do not have to sit
in traffic resulting from accidents. Such traffic has associated costs in unnecessary fuel consumption
from idling engines, in wear on engines and brakes, in lost time (which is of particular importance to
heavy-duty vehicle operators, for whom lost time is lost money). And avoiding such traffic decreases
fuel consumption and GHG emissions. So the agencies should have considered as cost-beneficial
technologies that reduce accidents, like Electronic Stability Control and Forward Collision Avoidance
and Mitigation technologies. Considering those as beneficial FE technologies, and crediting them
accordingly, would result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 129]
Organization: Dana Holding Corporation
Innovative Technology and Off-Cycle Credits
Dana is currently working on various innovations that will further improve the efficiencies of tractors
and vocational vehicles by utilizing waste heat in other areas of the vehicle to quickly bring
transmission oil and axle oil up to operating temperatures and to hold these oils at their operating
temperature throughout the vehicle's drive cycle. To achieve this, Dana is working on three
technologies that have provided the light vehicle segment a 3% - 5% efficiency boost. The three
technologies include: Exhaust Gas Heat Recovery heat exchanger (EGHR); Active Warm-up(AWU) for
transmission oil; Axle Warmer heat exchanger. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.4]
As noted in the proposed rule, these technologies are not currently commercially available for diesel
engines (Section II.D.2.(a)(vii), pg. 40196). However, variations of these technologies have recently
been launched within the light vehicle sector and range from full production components to prototype
systems depending on the vehicle manufacturer considered. In fact, in 2012 Dana received a PACE
"Innovation Partnership Award" for collaboration with Ford on our active warm-up technology.
However, these technologies are not currently available for the heavy-duty and medium-duty segments.
Dana continues to work on expanding the reach of these technologies for the commercial vehicle
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.4-5]
As Dana continues to develop these technologies, it is imperative that the rule provide a way to receive
direct credit for the efficiency they provide. For this reason, Dana supports the redesignation of the
Innovative Technology Credits as Off-Cycle Credits as proposed in Section I.C.I.(c), pg- 40158 of the
proposed rule. We understand that this will be the mechanism to obtain efficiency credit for
technologies that are not currently available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.5]
Organization: Edison Electric Institute
C. The Agencies Should Consider Transport Refrigeration Units and Truck Stop Electrification
to be Eligible for Off-Cycle Technology Credits
-------
In addition to the off-cycle technology credits for e-PTO systems, EEI suggests the agencies consider
two additional technologies to be eligible for off-cycle technology credits: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1327-A2 p. 16]
• Transport refrigeration units: petroleum is displaced by grid-sourced electricity when cooling
units on vehicles and trailers are plugged in while parked, rather than idling. Electrified
Transport Refrigeration Units (eTRU), also known as "electric standby," are available from a
number of manufacturers. Carrier Transicold includes electric standby as standard on all of its
Vector products, for example.39 While allowing vehicles to plug-in requires capital outlay at
facilities, incentivizing the technology on the vehicle side through this rule would encourage
more facilities to offer the capability. The Transportation Electrification Assessment Phase 1
study found favorable cost-benefit ratios and greenhouse gas savings for this technology.40
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 16-17]
• Truck stop electrification: petroleum is displaced by grid-sourced electricity when long- haul
trucks are plugged in at rest stops, rather than idling or relying on petroleum-powered auxiliary
power units (APUs). ShorePower is an example of a company offering plug-in capability for
truck stop locations across the country.41 Like transport refrigeration units, incentivizing the
technology on the vehicle side through this rule would encourage more facilities to offer the
capability. The Transportation Electrification Assessment Phase 1 study also found favorable
cost-benefit ratios and greenhouse gas savings for this technology.42 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1327-A2 p. 17]
39 For more information, see http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/us/news/news-
article/flex power option makes carrier transicold s vector units more versatile than eve r.aspx.
40 California Transportation Electrification Assessment, Phase 1: Final Report at 35.
41 For more information, see http://www.shorepower.com/locations/.
42 California Transportation Electrification Assessment, Phase 1: Final Report at 33.
Organization: Enhanced Protective Glass Automotive Association (EPGAA)
EPGAA strongly recommends the NHSTA and the EPA to adopt a final rule providing off-cycle credits
and incentives for the use and installation of advanced glazing window technology as a means to reduce
vehicle emissions, increase fuel efficiency and lower fuel costs for owners and operators of vehicles
with medium and heavy duty engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1024-A1 p.2]
Advanced glazing is increasingly being applied to multiple window openings in vehicles in order to
provide a variety of benefits. In terms of fuel economy and emissions, advanced glazing with optional
solar control features offers significant reduction of air conditioning loads as recognized within the off
cycle credits within the latest light duty vehicle GHG and fuel economy standards. In addition,
advanced glazing can weigh less than the tempered glass windows used widely today, and by its nature,
filters over 98% of ultra violet rays, thus reducing associated occupant health risks. It also provides
enhanced occupant retention as recognized in FMVSS 226, improves vehicle security and reduces
transmitted noise. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1024-A1 p.2]
In response to the Agencies' request for comments regarding high efficiency glass, the EPGAA submits
that recognition of the benefits offered by this technology should be part of any comprehensive package
-------
to assist Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in meeting emissions requirements as effectively as
possible. OEM's, based on their own manufacturing circumstances, should be provided with, and
incentivized to use, as many options or tools as possible to improve overall engine performance,
enhance vehicle efficiency and lower emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1024-A1 p.2]
There should be no doubt that solar control cooling load reduction offers real and measurable
benefits. Moreover, it as has been proven and recognized by the previous work of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 2017 light
duty vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
Standards. By providing credit for as many viable technologies as possible, the Agencies would enable
OEM's to optimize cost-effective approaches and thereby better manage the total cost of achieving the
fleet emission requirements. In addition, this approach further encourages development of non-
traditional technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1024-A1 p.2]
In the 2017 light duty rule, the Agencies appropriately recognized the contribution of solar control
advanced glazing by providing a calculation of an off-cycle credit based upon the enhanced glazing
solar performance level versus the typical glass. The calculation is based upon the metrics of ISO 13837
Tts (Total Solar Transmission and the area of glazing affected. This calculation afforded advanced
glazing the highest possible credit amongst off-cycle thermal control technologies. It should be noted
that the credit within the light-duty rule is based upon benefits derived from reduced temperature of the
parked vehicle only and its effects on initial cool down. It does not account for any driving
benefit. Some may argue that this benefit is partially diminished while a vehicle is operating at speed
due to an increase in convective cooling,-. Nevertheless, overall, the solar control technology will
achieve beneficial results when a vehicle is stopped in traffic or idling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1024-A1 p.2]
Although the cooling load for a light duty passenger vehicle represents a larger portion of the
vehicle's total load than is experienced in most heavy duty vehicles, many heavy duty vehicles spend
far more time idling as a percentage of their operating time than do passenger cars; travel many more
miles per year; thereby operating for much longer periods. Based on NREL study data1 the Agencies
provided a light-duty passenger truck credit for solar control glazing of up to 3.9 g/mile (0.0004
gal/mile). The glazing area and configuration of heavy duty truck cabs in general is similar to that of
light duty trucks. In further testing on Class 8 truck cabs, NREL studied reductions in idle cooling
loads2. In those tests a continuous cooling load reduction of 13% was achieved by covering the forward
glazing with a white film. The white film solar transmission was measured and compared with advanced
solar glazing options which could provide appropriate visibility levels and meet safety standards. The
advanced solar glazing options were found, based on this testing result, to be capable of reducing the
cooling load by 6.5% or provide about 50% of the white opaque film benefit3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1024-A1 p.3]
Given the aforementioned emissions reduction benefits, the EPGAA urges that the Agencies provide an
appropriate off-cycle credit for solar control advanced glazing. The credit should be based on
performance criteria of the glazing (Tts) which takes into account both the idling and initial cool down
benefits. As the data above indicates, the idling benefit is likely more significant in heavy duty
vehicles. And, as is the case in the light duty rule, we also urge that the credit be based on functions of
Tts as well as glazing area affected in order to provide the best estimates of real world benefits as well
as drive incentives to continually improve technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1024-A1 p.3]
-------
1 NREL 2007-01-1194 John P Rugh, Reduction in Vehicle Temperatures and Fuel use from Cabin
Ventilation, Solar-Reflective Paint, and anew Solar-Reflective Glazing.
2 NREL Project VSS075, Jason Lustbader, June 19, 2014 Report, Coolcab Test and Evaluation
3 Measurement of the white film on glass in a spectrophotometer and integration per ISO 13837 resulted
in a Tts of 19.5% for the test configuration. Base tinted glass commonly used in HD vehicle glazing has
a typical Tts of 57-60%. Commercially available solar control advanced glazing can demonstrate Tts
values as low as approximately 40% while meeting the 70% visible transmission regulations for
highway operation. Hence, solar control advanced glazing would represent approximately 50% of the
benefit experienced in testing or approximately 6.5% cooling load reduction during idling since Tts is
linearly related to the actual solar energy passing through the glazing into the cab.
Organization: FedEx Corporation
Drive GHG/Fuel Efficiency Improvement Technologies in Commercial Vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1302-A1 p.3]
Organization: General Motors
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 102-103.]
For example, the pre-defined and pre-approved list of mobile air conditioner greenhouse gas credits has
incentivized a rapid improvement in the efficiency and leak integrity of light duty vehicle air
conditioners. These incentives are now paving the way for an early transition to lower global warming
air conditioner refrigerants as millions of new vehicles are being produced with the new refrigerants,
many years in advance of any mandate to make the switch.
The success of these air conditioner provisions led to the expansion of this approach in 2014 for the
light duty fleet with the introduction of an expanded off cycle list of pre-assigned and pre-approved
credits for other technologies that reduce fuel usage and conditions not comprehended in the standard
fuel economy test, such as colder weather, higher speeds, or extended idle times.
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation
Higher-performing lubricants will play an important role in helping the OEMs comply with the Phase 2
Rule. Indeed, as shown in Figure 1 below, many of the technologies and strategies that will be used by
the OEMs will require HPLs to operate cleanly, efficiently, and without compromising equipment
performance and durability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.2]
[Figure 1 can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1]
Organization: Meritor, Inc
Allow a Supplier Driven Off-Cvcle Technology Path
-------
Meritor is a strong supporter of building flexibility into the regulation by providing a mechanism to
validate Off-Cycle Technologies. This is especially important since the regulatory timeframe is lengthy
and thus cannot foresee new, currently-unaccounted-for technologies. Meritor is concerned, however,
that the proposed regulation, by restricting Off-Cycle Technology applications solely to OEMs, will
underutilize this important option. OEMs have limited resources which artificially restricts the number
of technologies that they can pursue at any one time through the current Off-Cycle Technology path
while the technology supplier has the resources and financial incentive to pursue the Off-Cycle credit.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.2-3]
Meritor advocates developing a detailed process by which Off-Cycle Technologies can be proposed,
tested and certified in coordination with the government by the either the OEM or the technology
supplier. We believe this approach will leverage the capabilities and investment of the supplier
community, encourage smart technology development and, ultimately, offer the OEMs greater options
to comply with this regulation. Greater choice is in the best interest of the consumer, the OEM and the
government. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.3]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Allow Suppliers to Apply for Pre-Approval of Innovative Off-Cycle Technologies [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 10]
In the proposed rule, the agencies offer to account for future emerging innovative off-cycle
technologies, by retaining the existing Phase 1 paths. However, this process is only open to the vehicle
manufacturers. Suppliers must also be allowed to participate in this process independently. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 10] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 196.]]
Under Phase 1, the application/petition path was not well utilized by vehicle manufacturers likely due to
the lengthy and arduous process. Even though the agency is proposing to retain the same path options as
Phase 1 in Phase 2, we are concerned that it may continue to be significantly under-utilized. Suppliers
would seek a component-level pre-approval, similar to the light vehicle program off-cycle structure such
that it can be broadly applied to any vehicle that utilizes that pre-approved technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 10]
Only allowing vehicle manufacturers to petition for pre-approval limits the scope of potential for other
improved, innovative off-cycle technologies offered by suppliers. Moreover, not including suppliers
may impact commercially-viable technologies; if there is not a way to account for these technologies,
then there is little incentive for the vehicle manufacturer to utilize the technologies. The resulting
disbeneflt could inadvertently stifle development and innovation of more effective and efficient
technologies. This would be an unfortunate consequence and would be contrary to the overarching goals
of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1274-A1 p. 10]
Permitting only vehicle manufacturers to apply and petition for approval perhaps comes from the notion
that only the OEMs are able to provide the data and substantive information needed to demonstrate the
potential fuel efficiencies/emission reductions of commercialized, in-production systems or
components. However, suppliers have a wide range of models and design tools available to them (such
as high-performance computer simulation and functional 3D prototyping) to provide detailed
information and supporting data necessary for evaluation of applications. Suppliers simply want the
equal opportunity to apply and present the potential benefits of innovative off-cycle technologies
provided they meet the criteria laid out in 40 CFR 86.1869-12, 1036.610, and 1037.610. Suppliers are
-------
highly incentivized to dedicate resources, data collection and documentation to support the performance
and efficiency benefits of their materials, components and systems. They have always worked closely
with their customers, but even more so over the years as the technologies transition from "bolted on" to
more fully integrated. Further, suppliers can adequately quantify the contributions of the technology for
agency review. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1274-A1 p. 10-11]
The ability for suppliers to be part of the innovative off-cycle pre-approval process is particularly
critical if the agencies do not find a way to make the GEM more adaptable, as MEMA suggested above.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 11]
Suppliers are well positioned to provide the resources, test protocols, data and documentation required
to present viable petitions that can demonstrate "known quantifiable benefits." Allowing suppliers to
participate in this approval path enhances the viability of the program because it could potentially
include a larger cross-section of innovative off-cycle technologies. Therefore, MEMA urges the
agencies to allow suppliers direct access to the pre-approval process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-
Alp.ll]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The NPRM requests comment on whether the requirement to demonstrate that a technology was not in
use prior to 2010 as part of an off-cycle demonstration should carry forward in this rule. Navistar
opposes carrying forward that requirement. First, as the NPRM acknowledges, by the time this rule is
fully mature 2010 will be 17 years in the past. That requirement will turn both the agencies and
manufacturers into historians for no purpose. Second is that the requirement itself serves no purpose. As
it relates to fuel economy technologies, 2010 was a somewhat arbitrary date to begin with and its
relevance will continue to diminish. The main point should be whether a technology shows a benefit
that cannot be captured on the test, whether GEM or the engine tests. Navistar expects that many
technologies may not be captured by the tests and thus might be considered off-cycle technologies,
including many of those under development as part of the SuperTruck program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p. 14]
In addition, the agencies should continue to explore areas of improvement as to the review of off-cycle
technologies. During the implementation of the Phase 1, discussions regarding appropriate test methods
for these technologies have been challenging. Standardized test methods for similar technologies should
be developed. We recommend that EPA issue guidance for manufacturers setting out lessons learned
from off-cycle application reviews. These could be anonymous as to the particulars of the technology,
but give general guidance on comparison methods that have been acceptable to the agency. The
guidance should also include templates and guidelines for meeting with agencies to reduce the burden of
gaining approval for these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 15]
We note that the NPRM states a general intention to develop an approach like the one suggested, with
pre-approved testing methods as one route and a public approval route as a second option. However, this
approach is not set forth clearly in the rule language itself. In fact, the contrast between this provision
and the provision for light duty off-cycle technologies is stark. Whereas the light duty rule sets out
detailed criteria for various potential technologies in the rule itself, that level of detail, or even mention
of particular technologies, is entirely absent from the heavy duty equivalent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p. 15]
There should also be a high degree of flexibility as to what may be considered as an off-cycle
technology. For instance, if a technology is difficult to model because it is highly dependent on user
-------
activity (for example, an in-use based technology such as platooning), the agencies should consider real
time data collection methods showing actual field usage as a way to establish some credits for those
technologies. Real time connected vehicles may afford opportunities that did not exist in the past to
incentivize technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p. 15]
Given the key role that off-cycle technologies are to play in the Phase 2 standards, we urge the agencies
to make it as easy as possible to achieve recognition of the benefits of these technologies. As such, we
request that the rule better set out methodologies to the extent possible or set out a method of developing
pre-approved methods, such as the guidance method we suggested. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-
A1 p. 15]
The EMA comments discuss the potential for disruption carried in the Proposed Rule by limitations
imposed on changes that were heretofore routinely made on certain vehicle elements that may be
prohibited by the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 15]
The dropdown tables in GEM will force manufacturers to create separate families for each off-cycle
technology. As these technologies grow, we anticipate that being required to track each of these families
individually will become unwieldly and create an unnecessary burden. There is no reason to establish
separate vehicle families for off-cycle technologies. Just like all other vehicle attributes the off-cycle
technologies can be accounted for individually for each vehicle. The unique configurations are already
accounted for in the GEM runs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.41]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Off-Cycle Credits
EPA's draft proposal moves innovative technology credits from Phase One to an Off-cycle program in
Phase Two. In 2021, technologies that are not fully accounted for in the GEM or other testing would be
considered Off-cycle, including technologies that may not be considered innovative. The concern that
Odyne has relative to Off-cycle credits is how our system fits into this category. Since the EPA
considers the hybrid system a part of the transmission and not a separate system, hybrids would then be
fully accounted for in the GEM. Odyne does not believe that efficiency benefits are fully accounted for
when considered as a part of the transmission. As there is not a well-defined path for hybrids in the
GEM, we believe that the Off-cycle credit process would need to be used, and it needs more
clarification on how that would be handled.
In Phase One, the process was unclear for technologies to become eligible for these credits, which we
believe was a major hindrance for industry to drive these types of innovations. Odyne and other aligned
stakeholders like the EDTA and CalStart would also welcome the opportunity to work with the EPA on
developing these conditions and clear timelines for earning Off-cycle credits for the deployment of
hybrid or hybrid PTO technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.26] [This comment can also
be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-08267-1372, pp.232-233.]
Should the EPA in its final rule decide not to base its standards for vocational trucks on the use of
hybrid or e-PTO, Odyne strongly encourages the EPA to develop and establish clear and bounding
conditions for technologies to become eligible for Off-cycle credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-
A1 p.26] [This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-08267-1372, p.232.]
Regulatory Coherence
-------
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has put a strong focus on hybrid technology in its efforts
to achieve its zero emission goals, as improvements in electrification technologies are necessary to
going beyond incremental fuel efficiency increases. Odyne would recommend any methods to
streamline Phase Two regulations with CARB Innovative Technology Regulation (ITR) efforts to ease
regulatory burden on Innovative Technology in this space, and set common goals for the heavy-duty
industry to meet. More detailed comments on commonalities sought between EPA and other regulatory
bodies like CARB are included in other sections of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-
A1 p.32]
Organization: Plastics Industry Trade Association (SPI)
Revising the Lightweight Credit Menu
SPI recommends that the agencies include a supplier-driven process for adding to the lightweight credit
menu. This will encourage the development of new technologies over the course of Phase 2. Further,
there should be an opportunity to adjust existing credits if such changes are required. These potential
adjustments are necessary because many of the parts currently being translated from the light duty
market will be commercialized for the medium and heavy duty markets by the time Phase 2 takes effect.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225 -A 1 p. 2]
Few credit petitions were received during Phase l2, which is likely the result of requiring vehicle
manufacturers to sponsor the credit petitions. The resources and incentive to document credits is with
suppliers and they should be permitted to sponsor credit petitions. The agencies can ensure only
legitimate applications are filed by placing testing and evidentiary requirements on suppliers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.3]
2 U.S. EPA, Peer Review of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) and EPA's Response to
Comments, EPA-420-R-15-009, June 2015, p. 30.
Organization: SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC
We also encourage the agencies to consider supplementing the existing petition process with a supplier-
driven process for adding additional technologies to the off-cycle credit menu during Phase 2. Advances
in tools to validate new parts, including computer-aided design and modeling, predictive engineering,
and rapid prototyping, have equipped suppliers to substantiate the benefits of such components
independent of OEM commercialization and validation. Allowing suppliers to lead credit petitions will
accelerate the pace at which innovative products enter the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1207-A1 p. 2]
IV. Allow Suppliers to Lead Off-Cycle Petitions
Since the inception of the Phase 1 program for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, the agencies have
required that petitions for off-cycle credit be brought forward by OEMs. The process of OEM validation
was relied upon as substantive support for the commercial viability and real world fuel and emission
benefits of new technologies. However, that requirement has likely hampered innovation, as few credit
petitions were received during Phase l.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-Al p.5]
-------
Recent years have seen rapid advances in tools to validate new parts, including computer-aided design
and modeling, predictive engineering, and processes like 3D printing that allow for rapid prototyping.
These tools place suppliers in a position to submit very substantive credit petitions that can demonstrate
the real world fuel and emission benefits of for new technologies. These advanced modeling and
prototyping techniques can also would support petitions to modify existing credits in light of new
information. The same tools will prove useful to the agency in evaluating such petitions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1207-A1 p.5-6]
Allowing suppliers to lead credit petitions will accelerate the pace at which innovative products enter
the marketplace. SABIC recommends that the agencies supplement the existing OEM-led petition
process for off-cycle credits with a supplier-led petition process during Phase 2. The Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association (MEMA), of which SABIC is an active member, will address in its
comments how a program could be structured to incentivize supplier-led innovation, while ensuring the
merit of credit petitions. SABIC supports that proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1207-A1 p.6]
SABIC encourages the agencies to provide a supplier-driven process for adding to the credit menu,
which will accelerate the pace at which innovative products enter the marketplace. Advances in tools to
validate new parts, including computer-aided design and modeling, predictive engineering, and rapid
prototyping, have equipped suppliers to substantiate the benefits of such components independent of
OEM commercialization and validation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.6]
Organization: Safety-Kleen Systems
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 257-260.]
We recommend allowing the manufacturers of relevant vehicles to obtain credit for significant
greenhouse gas reduction benefits associated with re-refining lubricating oil when this oil is supplied as
an original factory fill. And further, we would like to explore with the agencies how ABT mechanisms
can be used to allow credit for re-refined oil supplied during subsequent routine maintenance. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372 p.257]
Re-refining used lubricating oil generates significant environmental and energy benefits, and has been
deemed by Federal agencies and national labs as an appropriate use for ~ I'm sorry ~ for conserving
crude oil that is a non-renewable resource. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372 p.257]
Our independent life cycle analysis published in the American Chemistry Society Journal after peer
review describes how the use of re-refined oil reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to the use of
engine oil made from virgin crude. This analysis, conducted by Envira, a leading environmental
consulting firm, estimates that production of re-re fined engine oil generates 70 percent fewer
greenhouse gas emissions than production of oil from virgin crude. For example, the total greenhouse
gas savings from use of 50 million of refined oil is approximately 159,000 metric tons of C02Eq. That's
equal to avoiding emissions from the combustion of 15 million gallons of number two fuel oil. Simply
put, every three gallons of re-refined engine oil used avoid emissions equivalent to burning a gallon of
diesel fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372 p.257-258]
Our published analysis shows that even if we conservatively include other factors, such as emissions
from collection of used oil, the use of re-refined oil represents 56 percent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions when compared to emissions from the production of lubricants made from the virgin crude.
-------
This is because refining engine oil from previously refined used oil is a more efficient process than
refining comparable engine oil from virgin crude. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372 p.258]
Significant carbon reductions are achievable through use of re-refined oil to lubricate engines as original
equipment and as part of maintenance of the vehicles. Allowing OEMs to receive credit for these
greenhouse gas savings will provide them with additional flexibility to achieve the targets being set by
the EPA and DOT. Further, allowing credits for initial fill and future maintenance will encourage more
companies to use re-refined oil when studies show ~ which studies show is preferable in terms of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372 p.258-259]
When the total life cycle benefits are factored in, the use of re-refined oil has benefits comparable to the
use of low rolling resistance tires. With this type of tire, the standards are drafted to provide
environmental benefits throughout the prescribed lifetime of the vehicle. The same standard could be
adapted to avoid greenhouse gas emissions with re-refined oil in original factor fill and service fill.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372 p.259]
Credit for future maintenance could be provided on a tradable basis allowing the manufacturer to buy
GHG reduction benefits each time the oil is changed using re-refined oil in the future and maintenance
cycles. By allowing future tradable credit, the manufacturer would be given an incentive to promote the
use of re-refined oil in future oil changes through sales of re-refined oil to their own network of
maintenance facilities and dealers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372 p.259-260]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Vehicle Families for "Off-Cycle" Technologies
The Agencies are proposing that vehicle manufacturers certify as a separate family any vehicle
configuration that utilizes a unique innovative or "off-cycle" technology. As an initial matter, it is
unclear whether this requirement necessarily applies to "off-cycle" technologies. If not, then the
requirement to treat any innovative technology as a distinct family for certification should be removed,
since it will only add to the burden and costs of the Phase 2 program with no real corresponding
benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.43]
Organization: XL Hybrids
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 242.]
we recommend expanding the trading compliance paths for additional flexibility to allow major OEMs
to take advantage of the fuel and emissions savings technologies deployed by third party up-fitters, like
ourselves.
Response:
The agencies are continuing the Phase 1 innovative technology program, but re-designating it as an off-
cycle program for Phase 2. In other words, beginning in MY 2021 technologies that are not fully
accounted for in the GEM simulation tool, or by compliance dynamometer testing (for engines or
chassis certified vehicles) will be considered "off-cycle", including those technologies that may no
longer be considered innovative technologies. Commenters generally supported this flexibility.
-------
Eligible Technologies
The final rules provide that in order for a manufacturer to receive these credits for Phase 2, the off-cycle
technology will need to meet the following requirements:
• The technology is not represented by the applicable test procedures and simulations.
• The technology was not in common use prior to MY 2010.
Navistar commented that the 2010 restriction will become harder to implement in the future. However,
we believe it is prudent to continue this requirement to avoid the potential for manufacturers to receive
windfall credits for technologies that they were already using before MY 2010. We recognize that
because the Phase 2 program will be implemented in MY 2021 and extend at least through MY 2027,
the agencies and manufacturers may have difficulty in the future determining whether an off-cycle
technology was in common use prior to MY 2010. In order to avoid this approach becoming an
unnecessary hindrance to the off-cycle program, the agencies will presume that off-cycle technologies
were not in common use in 2010 unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. Neither the agencies nor
manufacturers will be required to demonstrate that the technology meets this 2010 criteria. Rather, the
agencies will simply retain the authority to deny a request for off-cycle credits if it is clear that the
technology was in common use in 2010 and thus part of the baseline.
Several commenters identified specific technologies as potential off-cycle credit technologies. It would
not be appropriate for the agencies to make determinations about these technologies based on the
limited information provided in the comments. Nevertheless, we recognize that many of these
technologies could qualify under the program being adopted. However, Odyne is correct that hybrids
would generally not qualify where they are represented by the powertrain test.
Test Procedures
We do not disagree with the concern expressed by CARB about test-to-test variability confounding
measurements. However, we believe that this can be addressed by proper experimental design.
Allison commented on the use of powertrain testing to demonstrate off-cycle improvements. Since
improvements over the prescribed powertrain test would not be eligible for off-cycle credits (these
improvements are obviously adequately measured by the applicable test procedure; this is the whole
purpose of the powertrain test), we believe Allison is requesting that they be allowed to use modified
versions of the powertrain procedure. We have revised the regulations to clarify that this is permissible.
Carryover
Manufacturers will be able to carry over innovative technology credits from Phase 1 into Phase 2,
subject to the same restrictions as other credits. Manufacturers will also be able to carry over the
improvement factor (not the credit value) of a technology, if certain criteria are met. We will require
preapproval prior to the first use under Phase 2, but will not require additional subsequent approval
beyond the normal certification process.
Streamlining the Off-Cycle Approval Process
The agencies will require documentation for all off-cycle requests similar to those required by EPA for
its light-duty GHG program. Some commenters requested that the agencies develop a streamlined path
for off-cycle technology approval. While we are not making fundamental changes from the proposal at
this time, we remain open to working with stakeholders to look for ways to simplify the process.
-------
Just as some technologies that were considered off-cycle for Phase 1 are being adopted as primary
technologies in Phase 2, the agencies may revise the regulation in a future rulemaking to create a more
direct path to recognize technologies currently considered off-cycle. For example, although we are
including specific provisions to recognize certain electrified accessories, recognizing others would
require the manufacturer to go through the off-cycle process. However, it is quite possible that the
agencies could gather sufficient data to allow us to adopt specific provisions in a future rulemaking to
recognize other accessories in a simpler manner. Because such a change would merely represent a
simpler way to receive the same credit as could be obtained under the regulations being adopted today
(rather than a change in stringency), it would not require us to reconsider the standards.
Some suppliers commented that the agencies should allow them to apply for off-cycle credit
independent of any certifying OEMs. However, we believe it is important to include the certificate
holder that would be responsible for the in-use performance of the technology.
Separate Families
EMA commented that the agencies should not require vehicles with off-cycle technologies to be
certified in separate vehicle families. That was the approach adopted in the Phase 1 program, but the
agencies proposed to eliminate this restriction. For the FRM, the agencies have made it clearer that we
are ending this restriction.
Credit for Life Cycle Reductions
AISI commented that the agencies should provide off-cycle credits for life cycle reductions. See
Section 1.8 of this chapter for a discussion of life cycle issues
1.4.3 Selective enforcement audits and confirmatory testing 133
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
In-Use Compliance and Useful Life - AAPC agrees with continuing the 3 percent adjustment factor
applied to the full useful-life certification standards for the purpose of determining in-use emissions and
fuel consumption standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.3]
In-Use Compliance and Useful Life
The agencies requested comment (80 Federal Register 40206) on the appropriateness of continuing the 3
percent adjustment factor applied to the full useful-life certification standards for the purpose of
determining in-use emissions and fuel consumption standards. This adjustment factor was applied in
Phase 1 based on the agencies' assessment of testing variability inherent in comparing results among
different laboratories and different engines. AAPC supports the continuance of this allowance for in-use
testing. No material advances have occurred that would result in the variability factors relevant in Phase
2 being significantly different than they were in Phase 1. Furthermore, the appropriateness of the 3%
allowance has not yet been assessed against actual in-use data on 2014 MY or later vehicles and engines
near their full useful lives. Absent such data, a thorough assessment of the appropriateness of this
allowance cannot be made. AAPC further notes that in-use verification program limits in Light-Duty are
10% to account for in-use variations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 16]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc, et al.
-------
There are a number of new or updated test procedures in the Phase 2 proposal including aerodynamic
coast-down, fuel mapping procedure, powertrain test procedure, rear axle efficiency, Selective
Enforcement Audits (SEA), and in-use chassis dyno testing. The current proposal does not include
compliance margins for modified or new procedures, such as aerodynamic and engine fuel map audits.
To reduce some of the variability that is inherent in the proposed test procedures, we recommend that
the Agencies perform confirmatory and SEA tests using the same method and location that the
manufacturer used to certify the vehicle or component. Furthermore, we have worked with the Agencies
to improve the accuracy of the procedures, for example we have recommended the inclusion of the yaw
angle in the coast-down procedure to reduce the impact of wind conditions. To account for the
remaining variability, compliance margins must be included in the Phase 2 regulation. If not corrected,
these issues will subject manufacturers to risks simply as a result of expected test variation that can only
be mitigated by downgrading our declared certifications to levels significantly worse than the actual test
results, so as to cover the range of production and test variability. We estimate these issues have the
impact of raising the de facto targets by approximately 12.5%; that is, we need to achieve 36.5%
efficiency improvement to meet the stated 24% target for high-rise sleeper tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1215-A1 p.8] 134
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins opposes using any possible vehicle configuration for an engine fuel map SEA [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.26]
In 1036.301(b)(1), the agencies broadly define that "any applicable vehicle configuration" could be used
during an engine fuel map SEA. With any vehicle configuration available for an SEA, there is no clear
audit cycle on which to evaluate and optimize C02 performance. Cummins recommends the fuel map
SEA uses a predefined vehicle configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.26]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
The agencies must resolve problems with audit procedures and compliance margins for those audits.
Although we strongly support the agencies' use of audits to find noncompliance, the problematic
procedures and margins make the rest of the agencies' proposed standards impracticable. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 6]
Audits/In-Use Testing
Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) starts our comments with some serious concerns about audits,
before even getting to engine testing or GEM-based certification, as the manner of auditing and the
compliance margins assumed for each audit have such profound impact on all other aspects of
certification and compliance. There are problems with the agencies' audit proposals, but these can easily
be rectified in order to make the program workable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.6]
1. SEAs, generally
SEAs in § 1037.301 - The EPA should clarify that a vehicle fails an SEA only if it fails by a
margin larger than the uncertainty involved in testing the component(s) that the agency audited. If an
SEA shows a 1% higher emission than the manufacturer submitted to the EPA, but the uncertainty in
testing components is 3%, then the 1% exceedance may be due to test variability. If, on the other hand,
the agency expects that manufacturers will build into each vehicle's FEL the (say) 3% necessary to pass
-------
SEAs, then the EPA must also include this 3% buffer in its standards (i.e., the g C02/ton-mile numbers)
given that the standards the EPA assigned lacked this buffer and therefore will not be achievable with
the EPA's assumed technology mixes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.7]
Suspending or revoking certificates based on SEAs, § 1037.301(f): The agencies propose to
give themselves the authority to suspend or revoke certificates based on the results of an SEA. §
1037.301(f), 80 FR 40622. If a vehicle family fails an SEA, for example for aerodynamics, then the
family's aerodynamic drag values for use in GEM should be revised. But as long as the family can still
meet limit values, perhaps with AB&T credits, there is no reason that the EPA should be able to suspend
or revoke the family's certificate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.7]
2. GEM and Fuel Map Audits
GEM SEA: With the introductory text of § 1037.551 (particularly that "engine-based
measurements may be used for confirmatory testing ... or for selective enforcement audits"), the
agencies appear—and the text is not clear on this topic—to give themselves great flexibility in auditing,
up to allowing them to audit vehicles in a manner unlike the lawful manner that the manufacturer used
to certify. If that is the agencies' intention, then we disagree with this approach. The reason is that it
fails to find when a manufacturer submitted bad data and instead confounds test-to-test variability into
the audit process. Rather, the manner in which the EPA should audit manufacturers, whether for
compliance using GEM or for anything else, is to first start with a process audit. The EPA should
evaluate whether the manufacturer is following allowable procedures at each step within the
certification or compliance procedure-given that there are a number of different options at many steps
within the procedure and each one could cause slightly different GEM results. So for example, rather
than auditing a fuel-map based GEM result using a powertrain test, the EPA should audit the fuel map,
as auditing an engine fuel map result through powertrain testing confounds the differences between the
tests with the test results themselves. Similarly, regarding aero SEAs, the agency should not audit a
manufacturer's CFD-based aero value through coast-down and ARC; the EPA should audit the CFD
result. In short, if the manufacturer chose a lawful procedure for generating GEM inputs, then the
agencies would focus their analysis on the results of that lawful process and would omit any audit of
what the results would be if the manufacturer had used some other (equally lawful) process. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 8-9]
Fuel Map SEA and Confirmatory Testing - The EPA proposes to audit fuel maps as part of
confirmatory testing (1036.235). EPA proposes to audit fuel maps on a point by point basis, including
points rarely encountered in drive cycles but captured in the 143 point fuel map. Some of these points
have relatively high variability of C02 emissions on a percentage basis, because of the low fuel
consumption rates. Because these points are rarely encountered in drive cycles, they should not receive
the same scrutiny as points that factor highly into driving operation. In turn, point by point fuel map
auditing will force manufacturers to build sometimes large compliance margins (or buffers) into points
within the fuel map. While this does solve the variability problem and protect against audits, it leads to
the EPA receiving potentially misrepresentative fuel map information. Better would be for the EPA to
remove point by point auditing so that the agency gets accurate—rather than misrepresentative—
information from manufacturers. An alternative method is provided. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p. 9]
Second, the EPA's proposal would confound normal engine to engine variability with GEM
noncompliance, which is a vehicle-side issue. If in an SEA the EPA selects an engine with fuel
consumption toward the high end of the engine family's distribution, then any GEM run using that
engine's measured fuel map will indicate high fuel consumption, incorrectly indicating that the vehicle
-------
manufacturer may have misstated GEM-based emissions. Because neither the EPA nor the vehicle
manufacturer will know a priori whether the engine is at the high end of the fuel consumption
distribution, any failure of a GEM audit is immediately suspect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.9]
Third, the EPA's proposal confounds errors of the output of GEM, which is the agency's responsibility,
with errors of the input of GEM, which is the vehicle manufacturer's responsibility. In an SEA, the EPA
should be concerned that a vehicle manufacturer 1) uses correct inputs to GEM and 2) uses the agency's
supplied GEM. Where an input comes from a supplier other than the vehicle manufacturer, the EPA
should require only that the vehicle manufacturer used that supplier's input in good faith, as the EPA
currently does with tire inputs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.9]
The result is that the proper way to audit GEM and its inputs is: 1) require that engine manufacturers
submit fuel maps and that they be held accountable for the maps' accuracy, as they currently are through
SEAs that are RMC-based (an integrated, rather than point by point compliance measure) and FTP
based (integrated over a test cycle); 2) do not conduct confirmatory testing of fuel maps on a point by
point basis, as doing so highlights areas of variability that are unimportant yet downplays areas that are
important; 3) audit vehicle manufacturers' inputs to GEM; and 4) audit that the vehicle manufacturer
properly used the agency's GEM. In other words, the proper way to audit is a step by step auditing
process, checking inputs individually, rather than confounding potential sources of error or, worse,
highlighting errors that are unimportant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.9-10]
As an alternative for SEA testing, the agencies should establish regulations that recognize engine to
engine variability and the need for an AQL in audits. The agencies would start by clarifying what
vehicle configurations will be used for GEM inputs in fuel map audits, then test an engine or engines to
generate fuel maps, use those fuel maps in GEM, and compare the results to those that the manufacturer
would have gotten with its original fuel map. If the difference is above the test-to-test variability—and
here we would suggest 3%, like the variability that created the FCL to FEL ratio—in a large enough
number that the manufacturer did not meet an established AQL level (e.g., 40%), then and only then
does the manufacturer fail the audit. This procedure is justifiable, given statistical variation, whereas the
agencies' current proposal is not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 10]
Similarly for confirmatory testing EPA should consider evaluating a manufacturer's fuel map via GEM
simulation wherein GEM results using the EPA generated fuel map are compared to results using the
manufacturers certified fuel map. Pass criteria should be established based on the certified fuel map
GEM result plus the aforementioned 3% compliance margin. Should the GEM result using the EPA
generated fuel map be above the pass criteria, the manufacturer should be required to accept the EPA
fuel map for certification purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 10]
Fuel map compliance (SEA and Confirmatory Testing) - The agencies originally proposed to
conduct SEA of fuel map compliance through GEM to rectify the problem that points of low fuel
consumption (and hence poor signal to noise) or of infrequent applicability during driving (and hence
little importance) be audited as fully as the main driving points. The agencies recognized that point-by-
point compliance is even more stringent than current compliance requirements on the SET-RMC test,
which is audited based on the weighted result of the thirteen points. Consequently, the agencies
proposed to incorporate GEM into audits and not to overwrite individual points but to have a more
statistically-based audit procedure. We applaud use of GEM for SEA audit of engine fuel map results.
Further, for confirmatory testing we agree with the agencies' revised view that audit engine map
differences (high only points) should be not used to modify cert fuel map. We suggest that, for both
confirmatory testing and SEA, the agencies use 3% compliance margin applied to GEM output using the
-------
certified fuel map as both a pass criteria for SEA and as the criteria for determining in confirmatory
testing whether the manufacturer fuel map should be replaced by the EPA measured map (but that if the
map is replaced, it be replaced in its entirety). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.48-49]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Confirmatory testing. The U.S. EPA memo on Selective Enforcement Audit and Confirmatory Testing
provides a welcome addition to the regulatory development of protocols to monitory compliance with
the regulation. Previously, there were limited such details on questions about aerodynamic testing
protocols, allowable measurements, thresholds, and margins, so the memo provides helpful guidance
and also helps narrow the testing and compliance margins. This opens up a broader set of questions
regarding how the agencies will confirm the regulatory compliance data, such as the GEM inputs for
various technology-specific drop-down menus, tire low rolling resistance, etc. We would ask that the
agencies consider sharing similar details in the Final Rule and/or in guidance memos on how all
regulatory input data will be confirmed as valid for vehicles in real-world settings. Confirmatory testing
of aerodynamics and GEM inputs, and production vehicle chassis testing, is key to ensuring C02 and
fuel use reductions over the certification tests correlate with reductions in the real world (Sharpe et al,
2014; ICCT, 2015). In order for the real-world testing program to be successful, it will be critical that
the emission results from the testing program are shared publicly and that the testing program starts as
soon as possible (i.e., in2016 ideally) to discern ongoing and future trends from the earliest possible
time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1876-A1 p.2]
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT, 2015). International Council on Clean
Transportation comments on United States' proposed Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180
Sharpe, B., Delgado, O., Muncrief, R. (2014). Comparative assessment of heavy-duty vehicle regulatory
design options for U.S. greenhouse gas and efficiency regulation, http://www.theicct.org/us-phase2-hdv-
regulation-design-options
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
Therefore OEMs would have to report worse aero performance to ensure passing an audit, with as much
as 5% impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.9]
No compliance margin is provided for engine fuel map audits, compared to the 3% margin allowed in
Phase 1 for engine efficiency. Consequently OEMs will likely declare lower engine efficiency than their
certification measurement to ensure meeting stringency. In sum, faulty assumptions driven by
technology penetration rates, the absence of audit compliance margins could add as much as 17%
greater reduction in fuel consumption than the proposed rule estimates. If not addressed, this could
prove to be an untenable threshold and market disruptions could very possibly follow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1248-A2 p.9]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
-------
1. February 19, 2016 EPA memorandum, Additional Discussion of Selective Enforcement Audit and
Confirmatory Testing for Aerodynamic Parameters for Combination Tractors and for Trailers
On February 19, 2016, EPA issued a memorandum, Additional Discussion of Selective Enforcement
Audit and Confirmatory Testing for Aerodynamic Parameters for Combination Tractors and for
Trailers, discussing potential approaches to applying the longstanding principles behind selective
enforcement audits and confirmatory testing for aerodynamic measurements. In our September 29, 2015
comments on the Phase 2 proposal, NACAA urged EPA "to do everything feasible to implement in-use
compliance." We believe firmly that the integrity of the Phase 2 program and achieving the associated
emissions reductions rely upon strong enforcement and compliance tools and that it is imperative for
EPA to finalize a program that is enforceable and auditable and includes confirmatory testing. We are,
therefore, pleased that the agency has issued this memorandum to provide further insight into
enforcement of and compliance with the Phase 2 program (and, potentially, the Phase 1 tractor
program). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1890-A1 p.2]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The NPRM proposes changes in Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) provisions in both engine and
vehicle. The engine compliance margins were carried over in the engine regulation, but not included in
the vehicle regulation. For instance, for the fuel map SEA the pass criteria are set at the GEM input
value. The engine SEA includes a 3% margin due to variability of engines and test facilities. The SEA
of the engine fuel map used in the GEM for the vehicle regulation should also include that same 3%
margin. The number of runs does not effectively make up for the lack of a vehicle compliance margin
because test variability arising from variations like location conditions may not change run to run. Of
particular concern are the provisions that allow SEAs for each component included as a GEM input.
This vastly expands the number of subsystems potentially exposed to SEA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1199-A1 p. 10]
The function of an SEA should be to confirm that the vehicle, as certified, achieves in-use emissions
levels consistent with its certification. Necessarily, however, this must recognize the inherent variability
of vehicle to vehicle performance, particularly when one is looking at one subsystem within the vehicle.
Not only may there be variability vehicle to vehicle, but specific test methods with respect to particular
systems may be variable as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 10]
It is improper to attempt to create subcategories of features or systems subject to an audit. These
functions are not subject to emissions limits in and of themselves. The vehicle or engine as a whole is
subject to the emission standard, and that is what should be subject to an SEA. It is arbitrary and
capricious to subject a manufacturer to liability for a system that might not meet the defined input when
the vehicle as a whole may meet the emissions. This appears to be an inherent flaw in the use of the
GEM model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.10]
Even if one were to accept that SEAs could apply to individual systems within the vehicle, we have
concerns as to the proposal. The primary concern stems around whether the SEA appropriately
replicates the conditions under which the certification tests were conducted. Variations between
appropriately conducted certification tests and SEA methodology can create significant risks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 11]
In the ongoing EPA-sponsored laboratory "Round Robin" test exercise it has been demonstrated that it
is unrealistic to expect repeatable C02 emissions within 3% of the average from one test facility to
another. This is the case despite the application of the same cycle validation criteria noted in Table 4 of
-------
1037.550 for each of the participating engine test facilities. This variability is also minimized through
the use of the same engine and charge air coolers at each facility. The variability validates the premise
that individual engine dynamometers configured with equivalent coolant and charge air cooler
components can still yield statistically significant differences. The engine/dynamometer normalized test
schedule accommodates the inherent variability in rotating inertia, load response and speed control to
satisfy the cycle validation criteria. However, these inter-cell or intra-facility differences in
dynamometer configuration and control are sufficient to yield differing results as witnessed in the
Round Robin exercise. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 11]
This is of considerable concern, since EPA has taken the position that if the agency test arrives at a
different number during a confirmatory test than the number resulting from the manufacturer's test, the
EPA number is substituted in the certificate of conformity. That number then becomes the official test
value for that vehicle, even if all of the procedures were properly followed by the manufacturer during
the initial certification test. That introduces an unacceptable amount of uncertainty into the certification
process. Confirmatory tests should not be used to change a manufacturer's tested number based solely
on testing variability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 12]
We therefore request that the Proposed Rule be modified to specifically allow a test margin for all
confirmatory tests, or, at the very least, a provision that states that EPA will substitute its confirmatory
number for a manufacturer's only if it identifies an error in the manufacturer's certification test
procedures and identifies a different test number as a result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 12]
Organization: SmartTruck
In addition to commenting on aerodynamic testing methodology, we direct the following comments to
the Additional Discussion of Selective Enforcement Audit and Confirmatory Testing for Aerodynamic
Parameters, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1625. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.3]
SmartTruck supports the EPA in its effort to provide dependable validation for aerodynamic devices and
believes that a reliable testing protocol is necessary for the success of GHG Phase 2. The NPRM
outlines a basic guideline for SEA and confirmatory testing structure that closely aligns with the scale
and scope of tractor and trailer vehicle OEMs and provides a verification structure to ensure production
vehicles conform to their certifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.3-4]
In the case of trailer aerodynamics, the agencies have proposed the Aerodynamic Device Testing
Alternative to allow device manufacturers to seek preliminary approval of aero-devices and supply
GEM inputs to trailer OEMs. Recognizing that trailer manufacturing OEMs may have little experience
with aerodynamic testing, it is likely that the majority of trailer aerodynamic testing will be performed
by aerodynamic device manufacturers and provided to trailer OEMs in the form of GEM model inputs
and will be subsequently used in the certification of their trailer families. We therefore seek an SEA and
confirmatory testing structure that will align with the scope and size of device manufacturers in order to
strengthen the GHG Phase 2 program and to utilize our experience with aerodynamic testing to expedite
the certification process for both trailer OEMs and EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.4]
Although the EPA has provided SEA guidelines for trailer OEMs, the business of manufacturing a
complete vehicle and manufacturing a vehicle component are fundamentally different and should be
reflected in testing protocol. In aerodynamic testing, tractor and trailer OEMs use a vehicle completely
manufactured or assembled by themselves whereas device manufacturers are testing a component
designed to be used on a variety of vehicles, such as dry vans, refrigerated units, and partial-aero
trailers, manufactured by a variety of different OEM manufacturers and a variety of different
-------
configurations. While it makes sense to require a vehicle manufacturer to use the current model year for
validation testing, it is unreasonable to require a device manufacturer to do so. For example, a device
manufacturer should be able to test its model-year components on a tractor from a prior year. Especially
considering that a trailer equipped with an aerodynamic device could be pulled by a tractor from any
previous year. Allowing component manufacturers to test with glider kits will further ease the burden. A
testing protocol specifically structured for device manufacturers would still give the EPA the right to
choose the aero component to be tested but would also allow the device manufacturer greater flexibility
in choosing the vehicle to be used for component testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1923-A1 p.4]
These fundamental differences are also present in relation to the size of device manufacturers compared
to tractor and trailer OEMs, which greatly increase the burden on device manufacturers to comply with
the proposed validation testing protocols. While vehicle OEMs have been around for several decades,
the majority of aero-device manufacturers have emerged within the last ten years and are represented on
just a portion of the market offered by trailer OEMs. Device manufacturers are less likely to have in-
house testing facilities such as wind tunnels or test tracks and are less likely to have multiple vehicles of
the current model year that can be utilized for testing. The majority of component manufacturers
complete testing at third party locations which must be secured several months in advance. These
factors further increase the difficulties and burden faced by device manufacturers in complying to a
testing structure that is based on large vehicle manufacturers. A unique structure designated for device
manufactures should account for this by allowing device manufacturers greater flexibility in choosing
testing facilities pre-approved by the EPA to ensure a greater confidence in SEA and confirmatory
testing results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.4]
Lastly, in supporting the effort of creating a national greenhouse gas emissions program, aero-device
manufacturers are in a position to work closely with the EPA to mitigate the cost and burden of
compliance testing for the EPA and to provide trailer manufacturers with a confident process of
compliance. By providing full disclosure of all confirmatory documentation to the component
manufacturer, the EPA eases the burden by allowing component manufacturers the ability to identify
possible concerns in testing results. The full disclosure of SEA and confirmatory testing criteria would
also give device manufacturers the ability to mitigate validation proceedings by ensuring a greater
confidence in initial certification validation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.5]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
A fourth core issue relates to the proposed requirement that engine manufacturers certify fuel maps as a
part of their overall certification to the Phase 2 engine standards for reduced C02 emissions, and that
they be required to provide those "certified" fuel maps to vehicle manufacturers (for their input into the
updated GEM model) beginning with the 2020 model year (or even as early as 2019). Engine
manufacturers would be required to use a new steady-state engine dynamometer test procedure to
generate detailed fuel maps for each of their various engine families, which unique fuel maps could be
input into GEM during vehicle manufacturers' certification of their various vehicle configurations. (See
Proposed § 1036.535). As a corollary enforcement mechanism, the agencies also are proposing unique
selective enforcement audit ("SEA") provisions for the manufacturer-developed fuel maps. (See
Proposed § 1036.301(b)). Such SEA testing would test production engines to determine the fuel-
consumption rates at each of the specified points under the engine fuel map, and then would use those
SEA-measured values as inputs in GEM to generate comparisons against the manufacturer's declared
GEM results at certification. EPA would be allowed to audit and test through GEM simulations up to
ten (10) unique vehicle certifications using the SEA-derived fuel map. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.5]
-------
There are a number of very serious issues relating to the agencies' proposed fuel-mapping and related
SEA requirements. As an initial matter, the proposed engine fuel map would include 143 operating test
points (13 speed points with 11 torque values at each speed point) and 4 idle test points, a very large
number, which represents a dramatic increase over the Phase 1 engine testing requirements. Moreover,
that testing burden would have very significant consequences, since the test results from the 143-point
fuel mapping process would become the declared values that vehicle manufacturers would use for
certification purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.5]
That leads to another fundamental concern. The agencies' proposed SEA testing procedure includes no
margin whatsoever for the modeled GEM emission results. Under the agencies' proposal, if there is any
shortfall between the GEM results using the SEA-derived fuel map (in up to 10 vehicle configurations)
as compared against the GEM results reported using the engine manufacturer's original fuel map
(which, in effect, creates 10 chances to "fail"), the engine manufacturer's certification could be
suspended or revoked. (See Proposed § 1036.301(d)). Such a high-risk testing regime, with attendant
liability, including the possible revocation of a manufacturer's engine certification, is unreasonable and
would impose inherently infeasible requirements on engine manufacturers. Lab-to-lab variability, test-
to-test variability, and engine-to-engine variability all need to be accounted for through the allowance of
sufficient data-driven testing margins. As it stands, the agencies' proposed SEA process for the 143-
point engine fuel maps is not reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.5]
Unless EPA and NHTSA address the testing burdens and inherently infeasible SEA requirements
associated with the proposed requirement for certified engine fuel maps, the Proposed Phase 2 vehicle
standards could prove to be unworkable. As stated above, EMA stands ready to work with the agencies
to implement the necessary revisions to the various engine-mapping issues. EMA's recommendations in
that regard are set forth below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.5-6]
As noted above, a compliance margin is needed for the proposed "certified" fuel maps. However,
proposed section 1036.301 does not include any compliance margin whatsoever for an SEA of the fuel
map input into GEM, despite the inherent inaccuracies in the fuel map development procedure (see
Proposed § 1036.535). Without an audit compliance margin in the rule, manufacturers would have to
build a margin into their fuel maps (resulting in higher GEM inputs) to ensure passing an SEA, which
would make achieving the GEM output targets significantly more challenging. The Phase 1 rule
provides a 3% compliance margin for the engine certification program. For the same reasons that the
margin is used in engine certification, the 3% compliance margin (at a minimum) should be
implemented for the fuel-map based GEM results as well. Stated differently, a 3% compliance margin
should be applied to the GEM result obtained using a certified fuel map when assessing whether an
engine/vehicle passes a confirmatory or SEA test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.23]
Recent collaborative emissions-measurement research has demonstrated the continuing need for and
suitability of a 3% compliance testing margin for GHG emissions. More specifically, EPA and EMA are
currently involved in a collaborative "round-robin" engine testing program (managed by Southwest
Research Institute ("SwRI")) to assess the extent of emissions-testing variability when the same test
article (a heavy-duty motor vehicle engine) is tested at eight different Part-1065-compliant emissions-
testing laboratories, including EPA's facilities in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The round-robin testing
program has assessed the lab-to-lab variability for a number of regulated emissions, including C02. The
round-robin results for C02, which are presented below, show that there is a 2.0% variability (as a
percentage of the relevant standard) for C02 emissions assessed over the FTP test cycle. (Additional
production variability, which ranges from +/- 2%, also needs to be accounted for). In light of those
results, there is no basis for EPA to eliminate the 3% compliance margin that was included in the Phase
1 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.23]
-------
[Graphics, 'Round-Robin Engine Testing Results for C02 Emissions', can be found on p.24-25]
In addition, EMA is in the process of commissioning follow-up research at SwRI to derive data to better
quantify and account for the specific test-to-test and production variability relating to any subsequent
audits of fuel maps. A copy of the SwRI proposal for that follow-up research is attached as Appendix
"1." EPA and NHTSA should commit to co-funding and incorporating the results of that research into
any final audit regulations and procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.26]
Finally, the fuel-map audit process should be more clearly defined and more predictable through the
incorporation of pre-defined standard vehicle configurations for use in audit testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-Alp.26]
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) is an international trade association representing
approximately 90% of the truck-pulled trailers manufactured in the United States. TTMA has a history
of working closely with regulators to help them understand the unique nature of the heavy-duty trailer
industry and to act as a conduit between the member companies and regulators. TTMA is offering this
comment in response to the Notice of Data Availability published in the Federal Register March 2,
2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A1 p.l]
Specifically, we will be commenting on the Environmental Protection Agency's Memorandum titled
Additional Discussion of Selective Enforcement Audit and Confirmatory Testing for Aerodynamic
Parameters for Combination Tractors and for Trailers (the Memo hereafter). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1873-A1 p.l]
As noted in the proposed rule's Preamble, there are "a large number of small businesses in this
industry". The agencies recognized that performance testing requirements "would be the more
challenging obstacles for this newly regulated industry." As such the agencies designed the proposed
rules in such a way as to allow most trailer manufacturers to build without full testing of trailers, by
passing-through tested components and using a change in CDA value, along with a discounting formula
when multiple devices are used. We anticipate that if the rule advances as written, most trailer
manufacturers will make use of this pass through system, with the larger manufacturers performing
some of their own testing, often relying on CFD and Wind Tunnel data to contain costs in an industry
the agencies admit "is very competitive". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A1 p.2]
As such, the sort of repetitive coast-down tests (twenty to a hundred coast-down runs per device tested)
will be rarely employed by trailer manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A 1 p.2]
If EPA singles out a certain manufacturer for Selective Enforcement Action (SEA) and requires the
manufacturer to pay for these expensive tests, we would view the SEA itself as punitive. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1873-A 1 p.2]
For manufacturers who are only using pass-through data, they should be immune to SEA's requiring
coast-down tests in favor of investigations focusing on the supplier of the component. For those
suppliers, the use of coast-down data related to the bin the eventual trailer it goes on are not properly
applicable. An entirely different approach to audit a component manufacturers is called for: one that
should focus on the integrity of the tests used to obtain a delta CDA or CRR (or even to verify the
performance of an Automatic Tire Inflation System). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A 1 p.2]
-------
In the proposed rule, § 1037.301(d) requires that with respect to drag area, manufactures are directed to
"use the same method you used for certification" which better reflects the realities of the trailer world.
The Memo's methodology of generally allowing extra tests to be performed if early tests show
unexpected results can and should be applied to all approved certification methods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1873-A1 p.2]
We thank you for this opportunity to comment on new data and remain available to answer any
questions you may have. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1873-A1 p.2]
The assumption that there is no need to provide any compliance testing margin, SEA testing margin,
engine fuel map margin, or coastdown testing margin is manifestly unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827- 1269-Alp.72
Organization: Volvo Group
[T]he lack of margins for aerodynamic and engine map audits would force us to understate our certified
efficiency inputs to ensure passing a subsequent audit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 10]
Excessive stringency results in uncertainty that the proposal can be implemented, excessive cost,
unreliable products, delays in new vehicle purchases, production disruption, lay-offs, and delays in
achieving benefits. Volvo supports comments by EMA relative to stringencies and we elaborate on our
concerns below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 18]
Engine Fuel Mapping and Audit
As noted in EMA's comments, at least 3% margin needs to be provided for a Selective Enforcement
Audit (SEA) of the fuel map to account for production and measurement variability. Otherwise, even
with 60% accepted quality level (AQL), we will be forced to downgrade our mapped efficiency due to
production and test variability that is equal to, or greater than, the feasible engine improvement steps.
Alternatively, the Agencies need to reduce the assumed baseline engine efficiencies and the vehicle
standards that rely on engine map inputs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.37]
Furthermore, we cannot agree that the Agencies should be able to test the engine map over as many as
10 vehicle configurations, determined only at the time of an SEA, failure on any of which constitutes an
audit failure. A single, predetermined vehicle configuration that exercises the typical range of engine
operation is more than adequate. This vehicle configuration could be standardized for Class 8 tractor
and vocational vehicles or could be agreed upon as part of each engine certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.37]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins opposes engine-only testing for powertrain SEA [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.39]
As part of powertrain testing, 40 CFR 1037.550(q) requires manufacturers to record engine speed and
torque over the powertrain cycles. The recorded engine speed and torque would then be used to test only
the engine as part of an SEA instead of testing a complete powertrain. Cummins has concerns with this
approach as a powertrain SEA surrogate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.39-40]
-------
An SEA is the method EPA uses to assess a manufacturer's certified configuration against submitted
test results; however, if a powertrain SEA is completed using an engine-only test, the SEA would only
verify the compliance of production engines over powertrain cycles. Absent are GHG/FE impacts
associated with variation in powertrain characteristics such as transmission efficiency and, most
importantly, the interaction of the engine and transmission controllers. The highly complex controls of
the engine and transmission actively manage, together, how the vehicle required torque is met, which is
a critical part of the integration of an optimized powertrain. Not capturing these control interactions may
result in elevated emissions for an engine-only test and a failed SEA. Furthermore, it is not clear how
efficiency losses from the transmission would be accounted for when running an engine-only powertrain
SEA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.40]
For the above reasons, Cummins does not support the engine-only test as a means of a powertrain SEA.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A 1 p.40]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Conformity testing issues
A simple conformity testing procedure has been suggested as follows: at the time of powertrain
certification, a time trace of the transmission gear and load should be recorded and then used in
subsequent conformity testing actions on an engine dynamometer. Thus, conformity testing can be done
in engine-only mode. However, this approach is close to the "simulated transmission" substitute for the
powertrain test and we believe it cannot be applied to the highly integrated engine and transmissions.
The two controllers exchange information in real time and make decisions based on each other's inputs.
Thus, when the engine is exposed to a time-trace of a previous run, A) it has no transmission ECU to
communicate with, and B) the any results that differ from the initial run would be inconclusive. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 10-11]
Recommendation: The conformity tests for powertrains should be clarified with discussions with
engine, transmission and vehicle manufactures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 11]
Response:
EPA requested comment on our provisions related to confirming a manufacturer's test data during
certification (i.e., confirmatory testing) and verifying a manufacturer's vehicles are being produced to
perform as described in the application for certification (i.e., selective enforcement audits or SEAs).
The EPA confirmatory testing provisions for engines and vehicles are in 40 CFR 1036.235 and
1037.235. The SEA provisions are in 40 CFR 1036.301 and 1037.301-1037.30. The NHTSA
provisions are in 49 CFR 535.9(a).
Commenters generally supported the inclusion of confirmatory and SEA testing provisions. However, as
discussed below, several industry stakeholders requested changes to the proposed provisions.
ICCT requested that we include additional details in the FRM, which we have done.
-------
Compliance Margins
Some commenters suggested that the agencies should apply a compliance margin to confirmatory and
SEA test results to account for test variability. However, other commenters supported following EPA's
past practice, which has been to base the standards on technology projections that assume manufacturers
will apply compliance margins to their test results for certification. In other words, we effectively
require manufacturers to design their products to have emissions below the standards by some small
margin so that test-to-test or lab-to-lab variability would not cause them to exceed any applicable
standards. Consistent with this policy, EPA has typically not set standards precisely at the lowest levels
achievable, but rather at slightly higher levels - expecting manufacturers to target the lower levels to
provide compliance margins for themselves. As is discussed in Sections II through VI of the FRM, the
agencies have applied this approach to the Phase 2 standards.
It is also important to consider the specific consequences that occur if emissions (or other measured
GEM inputs) measured during confirmatory or SEA testing are worse than the declared values. If this
occurs during confirmatory testing, the manufacturer simply continues on with the certification process
using the new EPA values. It is not considered a violation. For SEAs, the test engine would be
considered a failure, but no action would be required unless a large number of engines failed. In neither
case would small variations in measured results lead to financial penalties for the manufacturer.
As discussed in Section I.C.(l)(a) of the FRM Preamble, we assume manufacturers will incorporate
appropriate compliance margins for all measured GEM inputs. In other words, they will declare values
slightly higher than their measured values. As discussed in Section II.D. (5) of the Preamble,
compliance margins associated with fuel maps are likely to be approximately one percent. For
aerodynamic inputs, we believe the bin structure will eliminate the need for CdA compliance margins
for most vehicles. However, for vehicles with measured CdA values very near the upper bin boundary,
manufacturers will likely choose to certify some of them to the next higher bin values (as a number of
commenters noted). For tire rolling resistance, our feasibility rests on the Phase 1 standards, consistent
with our expectation that manufacturers will to continue to incorporate the compliance margins they
considered necessary for Phase 1. With respect to optional axle and/or transmission power loss maps,
we believe manufacturers will need very small compliance margins. These power loss procedures
require high precision so measurement uncertainty will likely be on the order of 0.1 percent of the
transmitted power. All of these margins are reflected in our projections of the emission levels that will
be technologically feasible.
Fuel Map Confirmatory Testing
We are making several changes to the proposed EPA confirmatory testing provisions in response to
comments. First, the regulations being adopted specify that EPA will conduct triplicate tests for engine
fuel maps to minimize the impact of test-to-test variability. The final regulations also state that we will
consider entire fuel maps rather than individual points. Engine manufacturers objected to EPA's
proposal that individual points could be replaced based on a single test, arguing that it effectively made
the vehicle standards more stringent due to point-to-point and test-to-test variability. We believe that
the changes being adopted largely address the concerns raised in the comments. We are also applying
this approach for axle and transmission maps for similar reasons.
Manufacturers pointed to a round-robin test program showing significant variability between test sites.
However, those results were not corrected for fuel properties, as is required for both Phase 1 and Phase
2 testing. Thus, they do not represent variability that would be expected to occur with EPA compliance
testing. Nevertheless, the agencies do see value in working with manufacturers on the type of research
project suggested by EMA.
-------
It is worth noting that round-robin data did show that test-to-test variability within a given laboratory
(where fuel properties would be constant) is on the order of one-half percent with existing equipment. It
is likely that, as long as differences in fuel properties are corrected, lab-to-lab variability should be
similar. Thus, we believe that overall test variability for engine testing will be about one percent in the
Phase 2 time frame.
Daimler commented that EPA should evaluate the manufacturer's fuel maps using GEM for
confirmatory testing. However, it is not necessary to constrain EPA testing in this manner. EPA has
long treated its confirmatory results as official emission results that are fully valid.
SEAs for Fuel Maps
We have revised the SEA procedures for fuel maps in response to comments. The final provisions will
evaluate fuel maps using four pre-defined GEM vehicle configurations. Volvo recommended that EPA
use a single GEM configuration, but we believe this would not cover a broad enough range of the fuel
map.
Aerodynamic Testing
As described in Section 4, EPA has modified the SEA regulations for verifying aerodynamic
performance. These revised regulations differ somewhat from the standard SEA regulations to address
the unique challenges of measuring aerodynamic drag. In particular, EPA recognizes that for coastdown
testing, test-to-test variability is expected to be large relative to production variability. This differs
fundamentally from traditional compliance testing, in which test-to-test variability is expected to be
small relative to production variability. To address this difference, the modified regulations call for
more repeat testing of the same vehicle, but fewer test samples.
Comments from the trailer industry supported less burdensome confirmatory and SEA procedures, even
to the point of excusing manufacturers relying on supplier data from any test requirements or liability.
Although, the statutes do not allow us to completely excuse certifying manufacturers in this way, we
understand these concerns. Therefore, the agencies plan to work with industry to minimize compliance
burdens. In particular, we plan to limit SEAs to those cases in which we have a reason to believe the
products are not fully compliant with the regulations.
Test Procedures
Daimler objected to text in the proposed § 1037.551 that states:
These engine-based measurements may be used for confirmatory testing as described in
§1037.235, or for selective enforcement audits as described in §1037.301, as long as the test
engine's operation represents the engine operation observed in the powertrain test.
However, Daimler does not appear to understand how this provision would be used. First, they ignore
the end of the text which clearly makes it apply only where "the test engine's operation represents the
engine operation observed in the powertrain test." Under this provision, manufacturers certifying using
powertrain testing are required to measure speed and load values to allow for engine testing. Thus,
testing would only occur over the manufacturer's specified cycle. Moreover, since the manufacturers
perform all SEA testing, this would be an option for the manufacturer rather than something imposed by
EPA. So perhaps Daimler objects to the narrow circumstance in which EPA performs confirmatory
engine testing of an engine that was certified using powertrain testing, follows the manufacturer's
-------
specified engine test cycle, and ensures that the test accurately represents the engine's performance
during the powertrain test. However, it is not clear why this would be problematic. It is reasonable to
assume that testing the engine in this way would result in equivalent emission results. Moreover, a strict
requirement to require powertrain testing by EPA in such cases could lead to other problems for
manufacturers. In particular, we note that in the case of an EPA confirmatory engine test indicating the
manufacturer's powertrain fuel map is not accurate, the alternative would be to delay certification until
EPA can perform a confirmatory test of the powertrain.
Cummins and Eaton also raised concerns about this approach. In particular, Cummins stated that not
capturing control interactions could result in elevated emissions for an engine-only test. But again, a
condition of this provision is that the test engine's operation must represent the engine operation
observed in the powertrain test. Cummins' question about how efficiency losses from the transmission
would be accounted for when running an engine-only test ignores the specification that the cycle be
specified based on engine torque rather than transmission torque. To the extent Cummins concerns
remain, they would be free to certify their engines based on engine-only fuel maps rather than
powertrain testing.
SmartTruck commented that a device manufacturer should be able to test its model-year components on
a tractor from a prior year. This is allowed. SmartTruck also commented that the agencies should allow
device manufacturers greater flexibility in choosing testing facilities pre-approved by the EPA to ensure
a greater confidence in SEA and confirmatory testing results. However, the program is already
structured to allow manufacturers to choose any facilities for their SEAs. With respect to confirmatory
testing, we note that the agencies (not the manufacturers) perform that testing.
Supplier Data
Daimler commented that for inputs from a component supplier (such as an axle manufacturer) the
agencies "should require only that the vehicle manufacturer used that supplier's input in good faith" and
suggested that this is the current policy for tire inputs. However, Daimler is not correct in claiming that
this is the Phase 1 policy for tires. They appear to be misinterpreting text that attaches some liability for
tire manufacturers to mean that there is no liability for vehicle manufacturers. In general, the certificate
holder is responsible for compliance for all aspects of the vehicle covered by their certificate, even if the
agencies find another manufacturer to also be responsible.
1.4.4 Delegated assembly (dividing responsibility among manufacturers) 147
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Vocational A/C Delegated Assembly Concerns
EPA is proposing to add vocational vehicles to the heavy-duty air conditioning leakage requirement
beginning with MY2021 using the same SAE J2727 design approach used in Phase 1. While AAPC
agrees that the design approach for calculating leakage is correct, we are concerned regarding
responsibilities for compliance and certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.20]
Currently, for non-air conditioning related system compliance, a secondary manufacturer can use the
first manufacturer's Certificate of Conformity (COC) if the system is not modified and the vehicle does
not exceed certain criteria such as GVWR and Frontal Area. However, for heavy-duty applications,
there will be numerous cases where the second manufacturer will modify or add to the air conditioning
system. In these cases it should be clear that it is the second manufacturer's responsibility for
-------
compliance and certification of the completed air conditioning system for leakage. In such cases, the
secondary manufacturer should also be responsible to attest to the durability of the complete A/C
system. Once an A/C system has been modified, the integrity of the resulting system depends as
much on the workmanship of the modifier as it does on the workmanship of the original manufacturer.
Only the entity making the modifications can attest to durability of the final, as-modified system.
Original manufacturers should not be held responsible for any alterations to the A/C system outside of
their control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.20-21]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
[T]he proposed changes to the Phase 1 requirements for delegated assembly should not be finalized, as
those changes also would amount to retroactive amendments to the overall stringency and cost of the
Phase 1 program in violation of administrative due process and the CAA's leadtime and stability
provisions. In sum, there is no reason to pull those proposed provisions forward, especially when to do
so would disrupt the implementation and feasibility of Phase 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.22]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Changes to Phase 1: There should be no changes to Phase 1. 80 FR 40519. It is too late for us to revise
aero numbers or our delegated assembly procedures, given the agencies' lead time requirements, which
require four years' lead time for NHTSA and require a joint program for the EPA (see Massachusetts v.
EPA 549 U.S. 497, 532, 2007, where the Supreme Court stated that "there is no reason to think the two
agencies [EPA and NHTSA] cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency"). We
are busy working on Phase 2, to go back and adjust computer systems or delegated assembly at this
point in time is too much for our limited groups. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 111]
Organization: Aperia Technologies
As a prospective certifying manufacturer of automatic tire inflation systems and for the reasons below,
Aperia Technologies (Burlingame, CA) supports the delegated assembly provision proposed for
inclusion in 40 CFR 1037.621 providing for an 'allowance for vehicle manufacturers to sell or ship
vehicles that are missing certain emission-related components if those components will be installed by a
secondary vehicle manufacturer': [NHTSA-2014-0132-0104 p. 1]
- Impacts on real-world operational efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of vehicle configurations
are path-independent; it doesn't matter who installs the device, just that it works. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0104 p.l]
- Such flexibility will enable faster adoption of good technology, no matter who builds it or when it gets
installed. OEMs will be incented to find good technology partners, just as the market for development
and commercialization of differentiated technologies by after-market manufacturers will be catalyzed
toward higher competition and faster innovation. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0104 p. 1]
- Certain technologies, like Aperia's Halo Tire Inflator, enable fast installation on both new and existing
fleet vehicles. For such technologies, the delegated assembly provision applicable to new vehicles is
likely to induce accelerated adoption among existing fleet vehicles. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0104 p. 1]
We advocate the following specifically: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0104 p. 1]
-------
- We recommend that automatic tire inflation systems be added to aerodynamic devices and air
conditioning systems as key aftermarket technologies. Currently, draft Phase 2 regulation does not
propose to limit the use of delegated assembly to aerodynamic devices and air conditioning systems, but
nonetheless focuses only on those two. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0104 p.l]
Organization: Association for the Work Truck Industry (NTEA)
Delegated Assembly
Vehicles produced by NTEA member companies for commercial or vocational use include, but are not
limited to, dump trucks, utility company vehicles, aerial bucket trucks, tow trucks, beverage delivery
trucks, digger derricks, snow removal vehicles, agricultural platform and stake body trucks, fire trucks,
ambulances and a host of other specialized configurations.
The typical NTEA distributor member (a FSM by NHTSA definition) is capable of producing an almost
endless variety of vehicle configurations. They can mount any one of numerous body types and work
equipment on a chassis of any size from any of the manufacturers. For instance, the same company may
mount a utility body on a Dodge chassis one day, an aerial bucket on a Ford chassis the next day, a
dump body on a Freightliner, a stake body on a GM or a telescoping crane on a Peterbilt, etc... Items
such as toolboxes, winches, lift gates and ladders might also be added before the vehicle is completed.
The NTEA's Membership Roster and Product Directory lists over 129 separate body types. Each of
these body types could be mounted to multiple truck chassis from multiple chassis manufacturers. In
addition, multiple combinations of equipment (ladder racks, winches, snow plows, salt spreaders, light
bars, towing hardware, lift gates and hundreds of other mountable components) can be added to any of
the aforementioned chassis/body combinations.
In EPA's existing regulations (40 CFR 1068.261), engine manufacturers may sell or ship engines that
are missing certain emission-related components if those components will be installed by the vehicle
manufacturer. According to this proposal EPA would provide a similar allowance for vehicle
manufacturers to sell or ship vehicles that are missing certain emission-related components if those
components will be installed by a secondary vehicle manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-
Alp.5]
The NTEA supports the EPA concept of delegated assembly. This concept could allow for greater
adoption of advanced fuel savings and emission reducing technologies. Due to the nature of the
manufacturing process for vocational trucks, there is little or no recognition currently for work done on
a vehicle after it leaves the chassis manufacturer and before it is sold to the customer. Intermediate and
final stage manufacturers can, and do, perform manufacturing operations that positively affect fuel
efficiency and emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.5]
We would like to suggest that the requirement for written instructions for completion/alteration of the
vehicle and/or its emissions-related components be made more flexible such that those instructions
come from the most appropriate entity. For instance, if a chassis manufacturer has contracted with a
hybrid drive manufacturer for installation of a hybrid drive system on the chassis manufacturer's
otherwise completed chassis, the instructions for installation may best be provided by the hybrid drive
manufacturer rather than the chassis manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.5]
The NTEA supports the concept of delegated assembly in which manufacturers involved in the
production of trucks after the emissions certification process by the engine and chassis manufacturers
-------
can contribute and be recognized for the emissions reduction their work and products creates. These
intermediate and final stage manufacturers or alterers would be bound contractually, rather than by
regulation to install specified products that result in specified regulatory benefits that can be used by the
certifying manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.6]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The CARB staff supports the approach delineated in 40 CFR 1037.620-622 which defines the
responsibility for each entity involved in an engine/vehicle with multiple manufacturers. This clearly
defined approach will make it evident which party is responsible for every facet of the engine/vehicle.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 190]
CARB staff further believes that 40 CFR1037.622 (page 40654 of the NPRM, paragraph (5)) should use
"site" instead of "cite" ("[T]he secondary manufacturer must identify the regulatory cite site identifying
the applicable exemption instead of a valid family name when ordering engines from the original
vehicle manufacturer.").[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 190]
Organization: CALSTART
Delegated Assembly Modification. This is salient to flexibility for the following reasons. For example,
while the draft fuel economy rule does call out work site idle as part of potential "off cycle" credits,
because this equipment is often added in the final stage of assembly, or even the aftermarket, it is not
normally added with the involvement of or at the designation of the chassis OEM. Therefore, we are
concerned that without a mechanism that matches this market structure dynamic the rule will not
adequately recognize such systems that can reduce or eliminate a significant component of idling, and
there will be less regulatory compliance value in supporting the development and addition of these
systems. The result will be leaving significant fuel savings and emission reductions off the table. As one
industry supplier noted in private comments to us, "By nature, there is usually a lot of reluctance from
[an] OEM to adopt and incorporate advanced technologies, especially when it comes from second or
third tier suppliers. Credits, with potential multipliers, would give OEMs incentives to adopt these
technologies." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.6-7]
One approach we think useful to explore could be an expansion or modification of the delegated
assembly provision to allow final stage or aftermarket suppliers to generate credits beyond those
"delegated" by an OEM, and to be able to offer those credits back to an OEM. Ideally, the long term
goal is to drive greater integration of such functions, but realistically, the innovation and installation of
such systems currently takes place outside the OEM and often without the direct control or knowledge
of the OEM, and the rules as drafted do not recognize this. An approach such as this could be a highly
valuable design that would capture these savings and make them available to the OEM for compliance
flexibility. However, as noted, such as expansion is not useful if stringency levels remain at proposed
levels, as the OEM would have no need to use them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.7]
The introduction of the "delegated assembly" provision for vehicle manufacturers increases the
flexibility for both primary and secondary manufacturers but needs further refinement, as noted earlier
in our comments. While the delegated assembly provisions better reflect the work truck market, they
still require that the certifying manufacturers be aware of the final state of the vehicle. This does not
reflect current business practices, where chassis are up fitted before final delivery to the customer but
well after point of sale from a chassis manufacturer's perspective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1
p. 8-9]
-------
In the proposal, this provision was identified as a strategy for secondary manufacturers responsible for
modest alterations to the vehicle (e.g., attaching aerodynamic devices); however, it is applicable to
secondary manufacturers more broadly, including manufacturers whose systems alter the powertrain on
the vehicle, and we request that the agencies explicitly identify this as a pathway for advanced
technologies. These mechanisms could also be used for technologies that reduce fuel use in idling.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p. 9]
We also request that the agencies expand the use of the "delegated assembly" provision to Class 2b/3
complete vehicles. These changes will help increase flexibility for manufacturers and provide additional
certainty around how fuel reduction solutions from secondary manufacturers can be captured by the
regulatory process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.9]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
10. Delegated Assembly and Body Builder Instructions
Delegated assembly, general comment: We believe that the EPA should not expand its current
delegated assembly procedures either in Phase 1 or in Phase 2. The current procedures require that a
manufacturer ensure a vehicle is in its certified configuration by the time it reaches the ultimate
purchaser. But the current regulations allow manufacturers significant leeway in doing so. For example,
the current § 1037.620 allows manufacturers to ship vehicles to secondary manufacturers as long as the
vehicles "will be in their certified tractor [or vocational] configuration before they reach ultimate
purchasers." This allows manufacturers to, for example, send vehicles with natural gas engines to
natural gas tank installers without any unnecessary paperwork burden. The EPA does provide that
"delegated assembly provisions may apply" (emphasis added), but the agency does not provide that they
do. Moreover, the existing delegated assembly provisions in Part 1068 do not apply in such
circumstances. We recommend that the EPA continue this approach as 1) there is no evidence that
manufacturers are somehow sending to ultimate purchasers uncertified vehicles and 2) the paperwork
burden presented by delegated assembly is impossibly large. Regarding the paperwork burden, unlike
with delegated assembly of engines for which there are a small number of vehicle manufacturers all of
which are known to the engine manufacturers, there are a large number of secondary vehicle
manufacturers and primary vehicle manufacturers might not even know them or what they do—thus
making it extremely difficult to require the primary manufacturers contract with them. For example,
there are secondary manufacturers that add aerodynamic components, modify sleepers, add auxiliary
AC components, etc. But a primary manufacturer often has no awareness that this will happen. These
secondary manufacturers are required to comply with the Part 1037 regulations and ensure that the
resulting vehicle complies with the regulations prior to releasing the vehicle to the ultimate purchaser;
that should be enough. Requiring the primary manufacturer to police all the people who might modify
the vehicles is unnecessary. So as a general comment, we recommend that the EPA stick with the
minimal delegated assembly rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 103]
The agencies specifically ask for comments on how the procedures should be applied more broadly or
more narrowly for specific technologies. 80 FR 40328. The above statements apply to all types of
technologies: as happens with incomplete vehicles under NTHSA regulations, the EPA should
understand that vehicle manufacturing is a multi-stage process (regardless of the technologies on the
vehicles) and that each stage of manufacturer has the incentive to properly complete manufacturing—
without burdensome contracts and audits. Rather, the EPA should continue the longstanding industry
practice of allowing primary manufacturers to pass incomplete vehicles with incomplete vehicle
documents to secondary manufacturers who complete the installation according to 1) their normal
practices (with which the primary manufacturer is often not familiar) and 2) the IVDs. No more is
-------
necessary, nor is more necessary for certain types of technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p. 103]
Complete vehicles: We wish to clarify the agencies' general approach, as discussed in meetings
on August 25 and 26. The agencies stated that their intent with the proposed delegated assembly
regulations is unclear. The agencies stated that they intend for tractors and chassis cabs to be considered
complete vehicles under these regulations, so that the vehicles can be labeled as compliant and so that
manufacturers need not follow any delegated assembly procedures with such vehicles. For example, the
agencies stated that they do not intend to require primary vehicle manufacturers to provide components'
installation instructions to body builders unless the components are emission related components
described in a certificate of conformity. We agree with this approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p. 103-104]
Secondary manufacturers and delegated assembly: it seems that the EPA has the right
approach with 1037.620 and .801, where the EPA says that manufacturers only become secondary
manufacturers if they put a vehicle into its final certified configuration or modify it from a certified
configuration. Those are the only instances when the EPA should regulate the secondary manufacturer
or the interaction between the primary and secondary manufacturers. Moreover, only when the primary
manufacturer arranges for the secondary manufacturer to complete the process of getting a vehicle into
its certified configuration should there be any reason to involve the primary manufacturer in delegated
assembly requirements. Rather, if a primary manufacturer introduces into commerce a chassis-cab that
meets the GHG regulations, that should be the end of the primary manufacturer's responsibilities; it
should be between the EPA and the secondary manufacturer to ensure that the secondary manufacturer
does not remove or render inoperative elements of emission control. On more minor notes: First, the
EPA has a typo in 1037.621, in that the regulation references 'paragraph (f) of this section' yet the
section only has paragraphs (a) and (b). Second, the EPA's addition of the provision in
1068.26 l(c)(7)(ii), that manufacturers add 'Del Assy' to the cert labels of incomplete vehicles, is
unnecessary in many cases. Moreover it is burdensome. Labeling of vehicles is a lot more complex than
labeling of engines, involving more calculations and varieties of information. In turn, it is more difficult
to add text, especially if it is unnecessary. For many vehicles, like those sold without natural gas fuel
systems (which the secondary manufacturers install), the vehicles cannot be driven until the secondary
manufacturer completes its processes. So there is no concern about the vehicle being driven on road in a
noncompliant state (except perhaps for driving as a part of manufacturing or testing). The EPA should
not require additional burdensome labeling for such vehicles. 1037.650 / .621 / .801 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 104]
Changes to secondary manufacturing and delegated assembly should be delayed until
Phase 2, not implemented in the middle of Phase 1: the EPA proposes to make changes to multi-stage
manufacturing processes by adding the requirements of 1068.261, through 1037.621. This is a major
change to the process necessary to manufacture vehicles and should not be implemented in a short time
frame; manufacturers need a long time to work with their various secondary manufacturers and
implement the procedures that the EPA demands (such as annual affidavits of part numbers, contractual
obligations, and record keeping). While these are not huge burdens, they are new and they may involve
many secondary manufacturers, including small businesses, such that implementation will take
significant time and effort. Better yet, the EPA should simply regulate at the vehicles' sale to an ultimate
manufacturer, not partway through the manufacturing process. Also the provisions of 1037.622(b)(5),
the new (5), are unclear. Why would there be 'no valid family name' for a vehicle? When does this
provision apply? 1037.621 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 104]
-------
Cert labels for delegated assembly vehicles: We agree that the EPA takes the right approach by
omitting HDVs from provision § 1068.261(c)(7)(h), which requires that manufacturers add 'Del Assy' to
the cert labels of incomplete vehicles. This is burdensome and, in the case of HDVs, is unnecessary.
Labeling of vehicles is a lot more complex than labeling of engines, involving more calculations and
varieties of information. This complexity more difficult to add text, especially if it is unnecessary. For
many vehicles, like those sold without natural gas fuel systems (which the secondary manufacturers
install), the vehicles cannot be driven until the secondary manufacturer completes its processes. So there
is no concern about the vehicle being driven on road in a noncompliant state (except perhaps for driving
as a part of manufacturing or testing, which the agency explicitly allows). The EPA should not require
additional burdensome labeling for such vehicles when there will be no benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. 105]
Delegated Assembly - Concerns with the text as written: As the text that follows will show, we need
some clarification that we have correctly understood the EPA's intent. Assembly instructions for
secondary vehicle manufacturers: it seems that the EPA wants truck manufacturers to include assembly
instructions with each truck sold without the body (like the box van), which is nearly all trucks. In
1037.130, the EPA proposes to require that the truck manufacturers tell those body installers how to
install bodies in a manner compliant with the GHG standards. But it is not clear how things like a box
van are subject to the GHG regulations or how a truck manufacturer would have any expertise in
installing box vans or the variety of bodies that might get put onto a truck. We request that the EPA
clarify what the agency expects truck manufacturers to tell these body installers, and we suggest that the
EPA limit any such instructions to areas of truck manufacturers' expertise. In other words,
manufacturers should not have to tell body installers how to mount equipment or van boxes-especially
when such matters do not relate to the GHG regulations. Given all of this confusion, we wish for the
EPA to clarify what the agency proposes. On a more minor note: the EPA has a typo in 1037.621, in
that the regulation references 'paragraph (f) of this section' yet the section only has paragraphs (a) and
(b). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 105]
1037.622 is improperly named: it refers to shipping incomplete vehicles, when it should refer to
partially complete vehicles, as the text is primarily focused on partially complete vehicles. The
misnomer makes it unclear what we believe the EPA means: that the agency intends 1) to allow a
primary vehicle manufacturer to certify an incomplete vehicle, such that the secondary manufacturer
would have no need to certify the vehicle, but 2) to regulate the sale of partially complete vehicles
(those not yet in their certified configuration at the time of sale to a secondary manufacturer). As
written, the proposed text refers to secondary manufacturers getting certification in the case of partially
complete vehicles in a section whose title refers to another type of vehicle. The EPA should clarify.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 105]
Organization: Edison Electric Institute
D. Delegated assembly procedures may not provide sufficient incentive for PEVs, including e-PTO
systems, as well as PHEVs and BEVs
In section V.E.2.C of the Preamble of the proposed Phase 2 Program, EPA andNHTSA also seek
comment "on how the procedures should be applied more broadly or more narrowly for specific
technologies."43 In response, EEI offers the following comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2
p. 17]
Delegated assembly procedures may not provide sufficient incentive for PEVs, including e-PTO
systems, as well as PHEVs and BEVs. The proposed rule indicates that the delegated assembly
-------
provisions "are focused on add-on features to reduce aerodynamic drag, and on air conditioning
systems." As proposed, the rule falls short in limiting the scope of the delegated assembly provisions to
these technologies alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 17]
End use customers, including EEI members, who wish to procure PEV technologies often turn to
"upfitters" or secondary vehicle manufacturers when the product is not offered from the typical chassis
manufacturers. In many cases, the chassis manufacturers or "upstream" manufacturers may not be aware
of the technology being applied to their vehicles by secondary vehicle manufacturers before entering
into service. Under the current structure of the proposed rule, the compliance depends entirely on the
chassis manufacturers to certify the greenhouse gas performance of their vehicles. Such a focused
application potentially risks ignoring major greenhouse gas reduction initiatives occurring in the
regulated sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1327-A2 p. 17-18]
"Upfitters," or secondary vehicle manufacturers, should also be incentivized to deploy greenhouse gas
reduction technologies as part of any final rule. One solution may be to allow secondary vehicle
manufacturers to "opt-in" to the regulation. Such an option would require the secondary vehicle
manufacturers to create an agreement with the otherwise regulated entity (i.e. the chassis manufacturer)
to ensure the appropriate credit is apportioned between the two entities in a manner reflective of the
total overall reductions. Another solution may be to create a "users' council" that could propose to the
agencies the full suite of downstream technologies being applied to upstream chassis. This users'
council could also serve to facilitate the establishment of agreements between chassis manufacturers and
downstream manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1327-A2 p. 18]
43 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,328.
Organization: Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA)
Delegated Assembly
The proposed rule's delegated assembly procedures should provide increased clarity and certainty
regarding electric and plugin hybrid systems, including electric PTO systems, as all of these systems are
currently developed and deployed by third-party providers to Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs). The emphasis of the rule should be expanded beyond aero-dynamic and air conditioning to
include the spectrum of electric drive systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-A1 p.3]
Delegated assembly procedures should also recognize the role of up-fitters and after-market
manufacturers in compliance strategies. Several options for so doing are being offered by the industry,
including allowing tradeable credits between manufacturers in the chain and allowing secondary
manufacturers to "opt- in" to the regulation. We support providing the pathways to incentivize the
increased recognition of this segment of the manufacturing chain and would like to work with the
agencies' to identify effective and feasible mechanisms to do so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-A1
p.3]
Organization: Green Truck Association (GTA)
Delegated Assembly
-------
Many of the member companies in the GTA produce products that are specifically designed to reduce
fuel usage by vocational trucks. This reduction in fuel use and GHG emissions may be accomplished by
advanced technologies (such as hybrid drive systems), alternative fuel conversions, reduced
aerodynamic drag or use of lightweight materials. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.2]
In the past, many of the above mentioned products or technologies were not necessarily recognized by
the regulations as they were installed after the engine and chassis had been certified. Applying the
delegated assembly concept, perhaps with minor adjustments, could bring regulatory recognition of a
sort to these significant fuel saving and emission reducing actions. This recognition could increase the
adoption of these technologies and equipment, furthering the goals of these proposed rules. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.2]
In EPA's existing regulations (40 CFR 1068.261), engine manufacturers may sell or ship engines that
are missing certain emission-related components if those components will be installed by the vehicle
manufacturer. According to this proposal EPA would provide a similar allowance for vehicle
manufacturers to sell or ship vehicles that are missing certain emission-related components if those
components will be installed by a secondary vehicle manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-
A1 p.2]
The GTA supports the EPA concept of delegated assembly.
While we enthusiastically support the concept of delegated assembly, we also appreciate the Agencies'
willingness to consider minor modifications to the process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.2]
The proposal notes, "We also request comment on any further modifications that should be made to the
delegated assembly provisions to reflect the nature of manufacturing relationships or technologies that
are specific to greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty highway vehicles." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1188-A1 p.2]
We would like to suggest that the requirement for written instructions for completion/alteration of the
vehicle and/or its emissions-related components be made more flexible such that those instructions
come from the most appropriate entity. It certainly would be appropriate for the chassis manufacturer to
contractually require proper installation. However, for instance, if a chassis manufacturer has contracted
with a hybrid drive manufacturer for installation of a hybrid drive system on the chassis manufacturer's
otherwise completed chassis, the instructions for installation may best be provided by the hybrid drive
manufacturer rather than the chassis manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.2]
As such, the arrangement should allow the OEM to require proper installation of the equipment by the
secondary manufacturer. The actual installation instructions should be written by the entity most
qualified to do so. That may be the final stage manufacturer whose responsibility it is to mount pieces of
equipment or the manufacturer of the equipment (for instance a fuel conversion kit manufacturer).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.2]
Delegated Assembly Questions
The proposed rules state that in order to utilize the proposed delegated assembly provisions, the
certifying manufacturer would have "... a contractual obligation with the secondary manufacturer to
complete the assembly properly and provide instructions about how to do so. Keep records to
demonstrate compliance. Apply a temporary label to the incomplete vehicles. Take other reasonable
-------
steps to ensure the assembly is completed properly. Describe in its application for certification how it
will use this allowance." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.2]
The GTA would be interested in clarifying the scope of the delegated assembly provisions being
proposed. Assuming that the procedural steps above have been taken, could the Agency provide
clarification with regard to the following situations and whether or not the delegated assembly
provisions could be applicable: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.3]
Scenario 1. Aerodynamic Devices
The coefficient of drag is one factor that determines the necessary horsepower, and subsequently fuel, to
propel a vehicle forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.3]
A chassis manufacturer contracts with a final stage manufacturer who will be installing bodies and
adding ladder racks to a significant number of identically prepared chassis to also install an
aerodynamic shroud over the ladder rack. The vehicle would fall in the vocational category to be
operated in the "regional" mode. The chassis manufacturer can quantify the aerodynamic improvement
of the shroud. With the proper contractual arrangement, could the chassis manufacturer include the
resultant reduction in emissions to their certification? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.3]
Similarly, on a regional mode vocational truck could the installation of aerodynamic mud flaps with a
specified aerodynamic profile improvement over conventional mud flaps be the subject of such a
contractual arrangement between chassis manufacturer and later stage manufacturer? [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1188-A1 p.3]
Could the chassis manufacturer and the later stage manufacturer negotiate between themselves the value
attached to the later stage manufacturer's efforts? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.3]
Scenario 2. Hybrid
A chassis manufacturer delivers a completed chassis (with drivetrain) to an intermediate stage
manufacturer who installs a plug-in hybrid system on the chassis and then ships the chassis to a final
stage manufacturer. The chassis will be operated in the urban mode and will likely be doing a lot of
start/stop and operating a power take off unit to drive equipment at a jobsite. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1188-A1 p.3]
First, can the chassis manufacturer enter into a contract with the installer of the hybrid drive system for
"delegated assembly" purposes? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.3]
What information would the chassis manufacturer need in order to take advantage of the emissions
improvements provided by the hybrid system over the standard (non-hybrid) chassis configuration for
the certification process? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.3]
Scenario 3. Alternative Fuel Conversion
Similar to Scenario 2, a chassis manufacturer sends a completed diesel powered chassis to an
intermediate stage manufacturer who installs an alternative fuel conversion (liquid propane autogas,
CNG). First, can the chassis manufacturer enter into a contract with the converter for "delegated
assembly" purposes? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.3]
-------
What information would the chassis manufacturer need in order to take advantage of any emissions
improvements provided by the conversion of the chassis from diesel to the alternative fuel? [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.3]
Scenario 4. Lightweighting
A completed chassis is delivered to a final stage manufacturer for installation of the body in order to
complete the vehicle. A lightweight body (fiberglass/composite material) is specified instead of a
standard body resulting in a specified reduction in vehicle weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1
p.4]
First, can the chassis manufacturer enter into a contract with the final stage manufacturer for "delegated
assembly" purposes? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.4]
What information would the chassis manufacturer need in order to take advantage of any emissions
improvements provided by the lightweighting of the completed vehicle? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1188-A1 p.4]
Could the contract be between the chassis manufacturer and the body manufacturer (whose multiple
distributors could install the body in locations nationwide)? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.4]
Other
If a delegated assembly provision were to be promulgated through this rulemaking, could it be used
during the Phase 1 time period? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.4]
Conclusion
The GTA supports the overall structure of the proposal as it relates to delegated assembly. This concept
would allow the efforts of body and equipment, intermediate and final stage manufacturers to be
recognized with regard to the fuel and emission reducing technologies they add to otherwise certified
truck chassis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1188-A1 p.4]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
Under Phase 2, vocational vehicles will continue to include what the other two motorized vehicle
groupings do not. The range of Class 2b through Class 8 trucks, tractors, and buses is very wide, as is
the scope of work functions and duty-cycles they engage in. Vocational vehicles often involve multi-
stage manufacturing where one manufacturer builds the chassis or cab chassis and (at least) one other
adds a body or other equipment to it. Often, vocational truck and tractor customers do not spec and
purchase complete vehicles directly from a single manufacturer, but rather from a tractor and truck
chassis dealership and a body and equipment manufacturer. The contractual arrangements involved are
many. Vocational vehicle purchasers typically specify engines and other major components from a
variety of suppliers with no single manufacturer having complete dominion over the finished product.
Moreover, dealerships often alter or up-fit vocational vehicles prior to delivery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1309-A1 p.9]
Vocational vehicle production can be both commercial (read "for stock"), or "custom" in nature.
Regarding the latter, it is not at all unusual for "production" runs to involve just one vehicle. So, unlike
-------
for most on-highway combination tractors, there are literally thousands of unique and distinct potential
vehicle combinations being produced by thousands of different manufacturers and alterers, which are
sold by thousands of dealerships. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1309-A1 p.9]
NADA/ATD does not object to making OEMs primarily responsible for any and all components,
including tires, which they install in their vehicles. Dealerships selling and purchasers buying
commercial vehicles should not be burdened by having to look to several different potential OEMs
when an issue arises. Instead, if and when an issue arises, the truck or tractor manufacturer should be
required to work things out with the suppliers whose parts or components they install. On the other
hand, OEMs should not be primarily responsible for the performance of parts and components installed
by a downstream manufacturer or installer where they have no control over the manufacture or
installation of such those parts or components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 11-12]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
In general, Navistar agrees with EMA's position on delegated assembly and secondary manufacturers
but would like to emphasize certain points. The delegated assembly and secondary manufacturer are
another area where it is useful to keep in mind the vast difference between the heavy duty commercial
and light duty industries. Heavy duty vehicles, particularly vocationals, are routinely customized to an
extent not seen in the light duty world. Very often this customization takes place after control of the
vehicle has passed to a dealer or customer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 12]
The number of delegated assembly agreements required by the NPRM would be nearly unmanageable
and far beyond any benefit. In the past, delegated assembly agreements typically were between an
engine manufacturer and a vehicle OEM. Now, in addition to those, a vehicle manufacturer may be
required to maintain agreements with air conditioner installers, idle reduction technology installers,
hybrid PTO installers and aerodynamic device installers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 12]
The RIA states that this requirement is justified because this has worked well with engine
manufacturers. We would note, however, that the number of engine manufacturers and installing vehicle
manufacturers is relatively small, and that most of these entities themselves tend to be larger, more
accustomed to regulatory requirements and have adequate personnel to manage complicated regulatory
requirements. By contrast, installers are far more numerous, often regional and generally smaller
companies.18 These companies may not have the resources or infrastructure to enter into and manage
numerous delegated assembly agreements. As a result, they may not be willing to enter into the
agreements or may not have the resources to maintain compliance if they do enter into the agreements.
This may lead to a reduced usage of the technologies or to their invisibility to the manufacturer or EPA.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 13]
As to the latter point, we would like to highlight the possibility that this requirement could lead to the
rule not capturing the benefit of many effective technologies. If the requirement of a delegated assembly
agreement comes to be seen as a burden, we predict many secondary manufacturers will simply install
these elements without an agreement. This means that, although the technology may be present, it would
not be captured in the emission level for that vehicle. This will be an issue for both the manufacturer and
the agencies. For the manufacturer, it means that a particular vehicle may be rated as having higher
emission levels than is actually the case. For the agencies, they may not see all of the emission
reductions that exist in the field. There should be some streamlined method of capturing the downstream
installation of beneficial technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 13]
-------
In addition, this proposal misunderstands the nature of the existing arrangements for the completion of
primarily vocational, vehicles. Often items such as those described are ordered and installed either by
dealers or directly by customers. Unlike with engines, vehicle manufacturers sometimes play little or no
role in the installation of many of these technologies and are in no position to control their installation.
There is almost always an existing contract between an engine manufacturer and a vehicle
manufacturer. That contractual agreement typically does not extend between a vehicle manufacturer and
an installer of, for example, a hybrid PTO. In that case, the contract is generally either between the
installer and a dealer or a customer and the installer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 13]
Requiring a delegated assembly agreement is no way to encourage greater awareness of these
technologies. The agencies should consider less intrusive and burdensome, methods of confirming the
presence of these technologies. We also agree with EMA's proposed resolutions to this issue. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 13]
18 The NTEA, representing work truck body and trailer manufacturers, has over 1,700 member
companies, https://www.ntea.com/content.aspx?id=24280
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Delegated Assembly and Regulatory Compliance
Additionally, Odyne believes there could be a potential "chicken and egg" problem with how credits are
held, if OEMs are the likely credit holder and the third party's system - potentially Odyne - needing to
be certified in advance. Separately, should EPA consider expanding the delegated assembly process to
include hybrid up-fitting, this could offer a potential solution to reduce regulatory burden and drive
easier adoption of hybrid technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.25-26]
Odyne has been working with CARB as they developed their proposed Innovative Technology
Regulation (ITR) process. Since we are not an OEM and are installed on already certified vehicles we
have focused on the Aftermarket process versus the New Certification process. We believe this process
has appropriately accounted for nuances in the truck manufacturing process that can cloud the point at
which a truck reaches certification as a new vehicle versus an aftermarket vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1239-A1 p.29-30]
Our understanding of current regulatory compliance and accounting proposed in Phase Two for fuel
efficiency and emission benefits added through technology like Odyne's is as follows. OEMs would be
required to work with third-party manufacturers, or at times called 'up-fitters', like Odyne to obtain
credit for efficiencies made after a truck chassis is delivered, and typically already in a "certified" state.
While it is theoretically possible for OEMs to delay certification, the combination of lower stringency
requirements proposed in Scenario Three and extremely complex and diverse post-OEM applications
for vocational trucks in particular make it difficult - and we believe too high a bar - for OEMs to seek
credit for up-fitter improvements after the OEMs work is complete. In this case, should an OEM decide
not to obtain credit for improvements made by up-fitters/intermediate stage manufacturers like Odyne,
Oydne would not be able to become a credit holder, as the vehicle would technically be considered an
aftermarket vehicle by the EPA. Even should up-fitters like Odyne be able to become a certification
holder, we believe this would cause undue and unnecessary burden on small manufacturers. This would
not be a preferred approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.30]
-------
We believe this lack of clarity could be a major roadblock for achieving the highest market penetrations
of advanced emission and fuel saving technologies like Odyne's and others in the hybrid space. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1239-A1 p. 30]
One potential remedy for this issue could be including a similar process to the Delegated Assembly
provisions that the EPA is considering for Phase Two for hybrid systems. We understand that a number
of stakeholders may be suggesting a similar approach, but remain open to EPA thinking to address this
issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.31]
We highly recommend EPA convene stakeholders, including Odyne, to address what could be a
major regulatory barrier for Phase Two rules in the development of final rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1239-A1 p.31]
The CARB ITR was developed to achieve a similar purpose, with the assumption that given the highly
regulated nature of the heavy duty industry, new technologies need incentive - even in small volumes -
to be tested and proven, and advanced credits can serve as the catalysts to drive the development of
these technologies, while also enabling the potential for earlier widespread adoption of technologies that
could move the industry even beyond the emission requirements set out in this rulemaking. As noted
above, any methods to streamline EPA and NHTSA rulemaking with CARB regulatory efforts would be
extremely helpful to the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.31]
Odyne also believes that other aspects of certification such as warranty could be handled separately.
Since the OEM is typically responsible for the main emissions related systems (engine, exhaust, etc.)
and they are certifying that base configuration, they should carry the warranty for those systems. The
OEM would hold the warranty, with a sub-warranty being held by Odyne for its own systems, as it is
also important to point out that hybrid systems have a different life cycle than traditional powertrains.
For example the battery system can vary depending on the application (load, duty cycle). Odyne
currently offers a 1 year / 12,000 mile warranty and the option to purchase extended warranty up to 3
years / 36,000 miles. In our applications it is more important to focus on time/duration than mileage
since the stationary/jobsite operation out weights the driving operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1239-A1 p.31-32]
Odyne understands that this is a complex issue and we applaud the EPA in its understanding that
regulatory burden on small and innovative manufacturers can be detrimental to the deployment of
advanced technologies, like hybrid systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.32]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
As described previously, it will also be important to properly account for the benefits of various
technologies in GEM model and testing. Odyne specifically supports and encourages the inclusion of
PHEV systems interfaced with automatic transmissions, idle reduction systems and ePTO systems in
GEM model and testing. In addition, once the technology is properly accounted for and given the credits
it has earned it will be very important to provide a method like Delegated Assembly to "sell" those
credits to OEM's to lower the burden on Small Companies and to recognize intermediate and final stage
manufacturers that can integrate efficiency technology during the new vehicle build process to
significantly reduce GHG emissions from medium and heavy duty vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1920-A2 p. 12-13]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
-------
Secondary Manufacturers and Delegated Assembly Provisions
The Agencies' proposal would impose complicated, burdensome delegated assembly requirements for
secondary manufacturers. The proposed requirements are disproportional to the number of vehicles that
undergo secondary manufacture and the types of alterations that are made, which have minimal effects
on fuel consumption and GHG emissions. PACCAR also believes that the Agencies have significantly
underestimated the number of secondary manufacturers currently operating in the heavy-duty and
vocational vehicle areas, most that would be classified as small business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1204-A1 p.27]
PACCAR requests that the small business exemption be carried over from Phase 1 and finalize it as a
permanent flexibility, to again alleviate the potentially onerous certification and compliance
requirements for these companies. This exemption would also eliminate the need for the burdensome
delegated assembly requirements for OEMs and any company that cannot certify the modified vehicles
with the Agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.27]
PACCAR also recommends that the Agencies clarify that any delegated assembly provisions, if
finalized, do not apply to manufacturers of glider kits, nor to the dealers or others to whom the glider
kits are sold. Applying delegated assembly requirements to glider assemblers could require OEMs to
administer more than 200 individual contracts per year and would shift a significant portion of the
compliance burden onto the OEM where the OEM has little true ability to oversee or control the process
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.27]
PACCAR requests that the Agencies consider modifying the statement regarding frontal area in
§1037.622(a)(2). The intent of the provision is beneficial but sleepers added in the aftermarket and cab
modifications such as those to create a crew cab generally increase the frontal area of the vehicle in
either height and/or width as compared to the frontal area of the vehicle as it leaves the vehicle factory.
PACCAR will work with the Agencies to modify the proposed regulatory text to accomplish the intent
of this subsection. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.27-28]
LNG Tank Issues
PACCAR recognizes the importance of being able to offer our customers a natural gas powered option.
In order to encourage further growth in this segment, the proposed regulation needs to be modified with
regard to tank installations. PACCAR does not believe it should be responsible for LNG 5-day boil-off
limits. PACCAR does not install these tanks. This is performed by secondary manufacturers who add
these tanks to customer specifications. PACCAR supports the EMA comments that the proposed LNG
tank requirements should apply to the tank itself and not the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-
A1 p.29]
PACCAR should not be responsible via delegated assembly for the installation of LNG tanks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 30]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Delegated Assembly and Secondary Manufacturers
Under the Phase 1 program, manufacturers of "incomplete vehicles" can enter into delegated assembly
agreements with secondary manufacturers (such as cab-builders, sleeper-installers, A/C installers, LNG
tank installers, etc.), pursuant to which the vehicle manufacturers provide instructions regarding the
installation of GHG-related components to ensure that the vehicle is "completed" in an appropriate
-------
GHG-certified condition. This arrangement is then confirmed through an incomplete vehicle document
("IVD") that the vehicle manufacturer submits to EPA, which satisfies the vehicle manufacturer's
responsibility for that vehicle. Consequently, in any subsequent Phase 1 audit testing, the secondary
manufacturer, not the original manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle, is responsible for any emissions
exceedances caused by its improper completion of a vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.32-
33]
The Agencies should not adopt any new regulations that would undercut the viability of delegated
assembly, especially since the Agencies have not assessed the economic impact of a potential shutdown
of that segment of the vehicle manufacturing industry. Instead, the Phase 1 provisions relating to
delegated assembly should be retained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.33]
In that regard, EMA agrees with the provisions of proposed section 1037.801, which provides generally
that manufacturers can only be deemed as secondary manufacturers if they modify a vehicle from its
original certified configuration. EMA further agrees that those are the only instances when the Agencies
should regulate the secondary manufacturer or the interaction between the primary and secondary
manufacturers, particularly given the very large number of entities that complete but do not "modify"
heavy-duty vehicles. Moreover, only when the primary manufacturer arranges for the secondary
manufacturer to complete the process of putting a vehicle into its certified configuration, and only when
that modification is from a previously certified configuration, should there be any reason to involve the
primary manufacturer in any delegated assembly requirements. Otherwise, if a primary manufacturer
introduces into commerce a chassis-cab or tractor that meets the GHG regulations, that should be the
end of the primary manufacturer's responsibilities. After that point, it should be the secondary
manufacturer's duty under the federal Clean Air Act ("CAA") to ensure that the secondary manufacturer
does not remove or render inoperative any elements of emission control, including those relating to
GHG emissions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, EMA requests clarification from the Agencies
regarding these issues, as the current language of the proposed regulations is not sufficiently clear on
these important points. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.33]
EMA also supports the Agencies' proposal to exclude heavy-duty vehicles from the provisions of
section 1068.261 (c)(7)(ii), which require that manufacturers add 'Del Assy' to the certification labels of
incomplete vehicles. Including that language would be burdensome and, in the case of heavy-duty
vehicles, is unnecessary. The labeling of vehicles is much more complex than the labeling of engines,
involving many more calculations and varieties of information. That complexity makes it far more
difficult to add text, especially if it is unnecessary. For many heavy-duty vehicles, like those sold
without natural gas fuel systems (which the secondary manufacturers install), the vehicles cannot be
driven until the secondary manufacturer completes its processes. Accordingly, there is no concern about
the vehicle being driven on-road in a noncompliant condition (except perhaps for some very limited
driving as a part of manufacturing or testing, which the Agencies explicitly allow). Consequently, EPA
should not require additional burdensome labeling for heavy-duty vehicles when there will be no
benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.33]
Turning to other specifics, it appears that proposed section 1037.622 is improperly captioned: it refers to
shipping incomplete vehicles, when it should refer to partially complete vehicles, as the text is primarily
focused on partially complete vehicles. Moreover, the Agencies never actually define the "partially
complete" vehicles that are the subject of that section. The lack of definition of this key term makes
EPA's intent unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether the Agencies intend: (i) to allow a primary
vehicle manufacturer to certify an incomplete vehicle and certain partially complete vehicles as
described in 1037.622(a)(l-3), such that the secondary manufacturer would have no need to certify the
vehicle; or (ii) to regulate the sale of partially complete vehicles that (a) will be certified by the
-------
secondary manufacturer, or (b) will involve the secondary manufacturer having a significant role in the
vehicle design. As written, the proposed text refers to secondary manufacturers obtaining certification in
the case of partially complete vehicles, an undefined type of vehicle, in a section whose title refers to
another type of vehicle. The Agencies need to clarify this regulatory provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.33-34]
Further, any changes to the Agencies' secondary manufacturing and delegated assembly requirements
should be delayed until Phase 2, not implemented in the middle of Phase 1. This includes the proposed
changes to the multi-stage manufacturing processes that would be implemented through proposed
sections 1037.620 through 1037.622. Those proposed requirements amount to a major change to the
process for manufacturing vehicles, and should not be implemented in a shortened time frame.
Manufacturers need sufficient time to work with their various secondary manufacturers to implement
the procedures that EPA seeks to impose (such as annual affidavits of part numbers, contractual
obligations, and record-keeping). While those are not unmanageable burdens, they are new and may
involve many secondary manufacturers, including small businesses, such that implementation will take
significant time and effort. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.34]
With respect to assembly instructions for secondary vehicle manufacturers, it seems that the Agencies
are seeking to compel truck manufacturers to include assembly instructions with each truck sold without
a body (like a box van), which is nearly all trucks. In proposed section 1037.130, the Agencies propose
to require that the truck manufacturers instruct body-installers how to install bodies in a manner
compliant with the GHG/FE standards. But it is not clear how trucks such as box vans are subject to the
GHG/FE regulations, nor how a truck manufacturer would have any expertise with respect to the
installation of box vans or the variety of other bodies that might get put onto a truck. Accordingly, EMA
requests that the Agencies clarify what instructions they expect truck manufacturers to provide to body-
installers. In that regard, EMA suggests that the Agencies limit any such instructions to topics within
truck manufacturers' expertise. In other words, manufacturers should not have to instruct body-installers
how to mount equipment or van boxes - especially when such matters do not relate to the GHG/FE
regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.34]
In today's market, it is not uncommon for an end-user to bring a vehicle to a secondary manufacturer for
post-factory modifications that can impact GHG/FE parameters, without the knowledge of the original
vehicle manufacturer. Under Phase 1 of the GHG/FE regulations, any modifications made by the
secondary manufacturer that could affect the GHG/FE configuration of the vehicle must be covered by a
certificate of conformity ("CoC"), whether that be held by the secondary manufacturer or the original
OEM. However, there are provisions that would allow for the secondary manufacturer to qualify for a
small business exemption, thereby exempting the modified vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.34]
Under the Phase 2 proposal, that small business exemption would be eliminated starting in MY2022,
which would add burden, or potentially restrict the ability for secondary manufacturers to maintain their
business viability because they are not equipped to handle the certification, labeling, on-going
compliance, and reporting for heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.34-35]
Phase 1 was only concerned with those modifications that could affect the vehicle's GHG/FE
parameters. For vocational vehicles, where bodies and/or crew cabs are commonly added, this meant
that the only variable of concern was a modification in tires. The Phase 2 regulations would expand this
to include modification of the air conditioning system and other vehicle systems, regardless of vehicle
configuration. This would add significant burden to the certification and management of vehicles in the
Vocational regulatory subcategories. The original manufacturer could now become responsible for the
-------
A/C leakage rate resulting from the secondary manufacturer's modification(s) if the secondary
manufacturer did not hold a CoC for that make/model/regulatory subcategory. That is not a reasonable
result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.35]
Additionally, for vehicles in the Tractor subcategory, modifications that affect vehicle aerodynamics are
expected to continue as a major GHG/FE impact, especially in calculating roof heights for determining
the appropriate regulatory subcategory and aerodynamic Bin as an input to GEM. Consequently, the
original manufacturer would also have to know explicit details surrounding any down-stream
modification if it affects roof height and/or aerodynamics to mitigate the risk of mislabeling or
mischaracterizing the aerodynamic assessment of the vehicle. That is also problematic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.35]
Because it is unlikely for a secondary manufacturer to have the data or sophistication to support the
many certification and compliance requirements for Phase 2, EMA recommends that the following
options be added to the proposed language in the NPRM. One option for Phase 2 would be to allow
specified exemptions for small businesses. In the NPRM, proposed section 1037.635(c) allows a limited
exemption for small businesses that produce glider kits. EMA recommends that the Agencies provide a
similar exemption for secondary manufacturers that are small businesses, subject to an annual
production cap of 300 units, as specified under proposed section 1037.635(c), for both Tractor and
Vocational vehicles. The exemption would apply to the vehicle-related GHG/FE requirements, other
than the instruction and labeling requirements outlined in the Phase 1 regulations; the exemption would
not apply to the engine-related GHG/FE requirements, or to the current criteria emission requirements.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p. 35]
Another option would be to allow the vehicle to be built and labeled under the original manufacturer's
CoC. The original manufacturer ("OEM") would be required to provide the maximum allowable air
conditioning leakage requirements, the regulatory references, and an explanation of the potential
ramifications if those requirements were not met. The same would be true for all other GHG/FE
certification parts and systems. No OEM monitoring, reporting, or compliance audits would be required.
For aerodynamics, due to the vast array of modifications that could affect the frontal area of the vehicle,
the vehicles would have to be conservatively scored in lower aerodynamic Bins. In some cases,
however, the modifications could improve the aerodynamics, so this approach may not be prudent.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A 1 p. 35]
To remedy that issue, the OEM could either obtain sufficient details from the secondary manufacturer
regarding the modifications impacting aerodynamics to be able to use an EPA-approved alternative
aerodynamic assessment methodology, or the OEM could use an equivalent cab or sleeper profile from
its product line that is certified with the Agency and then use one aerodynamic Bin lower as the GEM
input (i.e., the Bin with the next higher CdA GEM input value) for determining the GHG score through
GEM for the modified vehicle. No additional assessment of aerodynamics and no compliance testing
would be required of the OEM. Determination of the regulatory subcategory and associated labeling
would be the responsibility of the OEM. The vehicle request process from Phase 1 would still continue.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.35-36]
In addition to implementing the other necessary revisions discussed above relating to delegated
assembly and secondary manufacturers, the Agencies should implement the foregoing options to
address the aerodynamic performance of vehicles completed by secondary manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p.36]
LNG Tank Requirements
-------
Currently, and out to the foreseeable future, LNG fuel tanks are installed outside the OEM's vehicle-
manufacturing process and control. Dealers and/or customers work directly with the LNG tank
manufacturer's certified installers to complete the fuel system. Under the Phase 2 proposal, the fuel
system would have to meet the requirements in Section 4.2 of SAE J2343, which specify that vehicles
should meet a five-day hold time after a refueling event before the fuel reaches the point of venting to
relieve pressure. However, since the tanks are designed, selected, and installed outside of the OEM's
manufacturing process, EMA believes that additional provisions under delegated assembly should be
included that limit the OEM's role simply to informing the tank supplier of the relevant requirements,
while the tank supplier is held responsible for the design and installation of the LNG tank. An
alternative is to require OEM communication of the tank leakage requirement to the dealer and tank
suppliers/installers. Using precedence in other regulatory areas, such as the regulations relating to fuel
hoses for small SI engines, the tank manufacturer could be required to certify their tanks with EPA to a
modified leakage requirement, thereby fulfilling the intent of the current language. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-Alp.44]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
DELEGATED ASSEMBLY
The delegated assembly provision for vehicles is a significant improvement because it better reflects the
way in which the work truck market functions. The agencies should also expand the use of this
provision to Class 2b/3 complete vehicles—cargo vans in particular may benefit from the application of
technologies from secondary manufacturers, particularly for strong hybridization, which is already
being applied to aftermarket vehicles. But despite the promise of the delegated assembly provision to
drive innovation, it needs further refinement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.24]
The delegated assembly provisions still require that the certifying manufacturers be aware of the final
state of the vehicle. This does not reflect current business practices, where chassis are upfit before final
delivery to the customer but well after point of sale from a chassis manufacturer's perspective. The
agencies should work with secondary manufacturers to determine a way for the secondary or final stage
manufacturer to "close the loop" on a vehicle's certification, provided that the vehicle is still in its
certified configuration and has not been delivered to the end user. While this may add complexity to the
certification process for these vehicles, this will help capture all of the technologies most applicable to
the sector. This is a preferable alternative to the inclusion of aftermarket technology credits, which
could undermine the efficacy of the regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.24]
Organization: Volvo Group
Volvo Group supports the EMA comments concerning delegated assembly provisions in their entirety
except as noted in the discussion regarding Glider Kits and Small Volume Manufacturers put forth later
in this document. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.49]
Volvo Group supports the EMA comments on vehicle and engine warranty provisions of the proposed
Phase 2 Rule, but requests the Agencies add manufacturers of newly regulated components to 40 CFR
1037.650 and any additionally referenced or supporting sections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.57]
40 CFR 1037.650 provides that tire manufacturers choosing to provide test data and warranties to
vehicle manufacturers in support of the certification and warranty requirements of the regulation are
-------
responsible to the Agencies for meeting the requirements of the rule as they pertain to those
components. Specifically, the tire manufacturer is responsible to the Agencies for the emission test data
they provide and can be contractually obligated to the vehicle manufacturer to provide tire warranty and
related defect tracking and reporting under the obligations of the regulation and associated parts. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p. 57]
As with tires, vehicle manufacturers typically do not see warranty claims related to many vendor
supplied components such as engines, transmissions and axles since many suppliers deem this as
sensitive and confidential information, especially when dealing with vertically integrated OEMs who
manufacture many of the same components. Many of these components, or systems made up of these
components, will now be part of the OEMs' certified vehicle configuration and some failures of these
components may still allow for the vehicle's continued operation at increased emissions levels, making
them warrantable emissions systems under this part. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.57]
Given this, Volvo Group requests that the Agencies amend 1037.650 to cover these newly regulated
components and their manufacturers. Below is a list of components that Volvo Group believes should be
covered under this provision; however, this list is not all inclusive, partly due to unforeseen technologies
not considered in the rulemaking and unknown, future, off-cycle technology certification by Volvo
Group or the suppliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.57]
Components and manufacturers proposed to be covered under 1037.650 where they are part of the
certified vehicle configuration: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.57]
• Vendor engines
• Vendor hybrid systems
• Vendor certified powertrain systems (e.g. Cummins/Eaton alliance)
• Transmission systems (e.g. neutral at idle, shift calibration software, etc.)
• Axle systems intended to reduce emissions (e.g. part-time 6x2, low friction))
• LNG evaporative emission systems
• Auxiliary Power Units (pending inclusion as a creditable technology) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.57]
Organization: XL Hybrids
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 243-244.]
While the EPA and NHTSA are regulating these primary manufacturers, we don't believe the agencies
are prevented from measuring and assigning credits to third party products that produce measurable,
robust, documentable savings that could then participate in a compliance credit marketplace. In XL
Hybrids' current business model, our savings right now would primarily benefit just the end fleets when
they could also be contributing in the phase 2 regulation goals. The benefits to the public would be a
more market-driven process resulting in a faster introduction of these advanced savings technologies
and the potential for achieving greater reductions and stringency. We recognize structuring such a
program would be challenging, but we ask that the rules be modified to specifically allow for such a
possibility so that such a program could be developed.
-------
Response:
In EPA's existing regulations (40 CFR 1068.261), we allow engine manufacturers to sell or ship engines
that are missing certain emission-related components if those components will be installed by the
vehicle manufacturer. The Phase 1 regulations likewise state that this provision may apply to heavy duty
vehicles as appropriate, and so likewise provide a similar allowance for vehicle manufacturers to sell or
ship vehicles that are missing certain emission-related components if those components will be installed
by a secondary vehicle manufacturer. 40 CFR 1037.621.
EPA has found this provision to work well for engine manufacturers and is finalizing a new section 40
CFR 1037.621 that formalizes this process. As conditions of this allowance, manufacturers will be
required to:
• Have a contractual obligation with the secondary manufacturer to complete the assembly
properly and provide instructions about how to do so
• Keep records to demonstrate compliance
• Apply a temporary label to the partially complete vehicles
• Take other reasonable steps to ensure the assembly is completed properly
• Describe in its application for certification how it will use this allowance
Under delegated assembly, it is the upstream manufacturer that holds the certificate and assumes
primary responsibility for all compliance requirements. Our experience applying this approach with
engines has shown that holding the upstream manufacturer responsible ensures that they will exercise
due diligence throughout the process. Commenters generally supported these provisions, but as
described below, several requested changes to the proposed program.
See also the initial response in Section 1.4 for a discussion of permissible modifications to certified
configurations, such as potential modifications to stock vehicles at dealerships.
Applicability
EPA proposed to apply this new section broadly. However, commenters raised valid questions about
whether it is necessary to apply this formal process as broadly as proposed. In response, we have
reconsidered this proposed approach and have determined that it would be appropriate to allow a less
formal process with components for which market forces will make it unlikely that a secondary
manufacturer would not complete assembly properly. In those cases, the certifying manufacturers will
be required to provide sufficiently detailed installation instructions to the secondary manufacturers, who
would then be obligated to complete assembly properly before the vehicles are delivered to the ultimate
purchasers.
One example of a case for which market forces could ensure that assembly is completed properly would
be air conditioning leakage requirements. Purchasers will have the expectation that the systems will not
leak, and a secondary manufacturer should have no incentive to not follow the certifying manufacturer's
instructions.
-------
As revised, §1037.621 will require the formal delegated assembly process for the following
technologies if they are part of the OEM's certified configuration but are not shipped with the vehicle:
• Auxiliary power units
• Aerodynamic devices
• Hybrid components
• Natural gas fuel tanks
Certificate holders will remain responsible for other certified components, but will not automatically be
required to comply with the formal delegated assembly requirements. As is currently specified in
§1037.621 and §1068.261, EPA will retain the authority to apply additional necessary conditions (at the
time of certification) to the allowance to delegated assembly of certified emission components to
secondary manufacturers. In particular, we would likely apply such additional conditions for secondary
manufacturers that we determine to have previously not completed assembly properly.
Commenters supporting the formal delegated assembly provisions urged the agencies to further specify
by regulation those technologies to be included within the process. The agencies are not limiting by
regulation technologies for which the certificate holders may delegate final assembly in addition to the
four technologies noted above (when the components are not shipped with the vehicle to the secondary
manufacturer). Manufacturers may delegate final assembly for any components for which they can
demonstrate during the certification process that the vehicles will be properly assembled before reaching
the ultimate purchaser. For example, we generally agree with the Aperia Technologies comment that
we should allow installation of automatic tire inflation systems to be delegated to secondary
manufacturers.
In response to comments, we are also extending these delegated assembly allowances for complete HD
pickups and vans regulated under 40 CFR part 86.
In response to the comments requesting clarity on applicability, we note that delegated assembly would
only apply where components identified as part of the certified configuration are to be installed or
modified by a secondary manufacturer. Manufacturers are also correct that delegated assembly does not
include unauthorized modifications to a vehicle already in its certified configuration.
PACCAR commented that the proposed requirements would impose a disproportional burden relative to
the actual impacts. EMA expressed similar concerns. While we believe the changes already discussed
will ameliorate some of the manufacturers' concerns, the changes do not go as far as they requested.
We are not providing a blanket exclusion for small businesses, dealers, or glider vehicle assemblers that
install engines into glider kits. As finalized, the regulations will allow manufacturers to work with the
agencies to develop appropriate procedures to ensure that vehicles completed by such entities are in the
certified configuration before reaching the ultimate purchasers.
Process Issues
NTEA commented that the requirement to provide instructions for completion of the vehicle be made
more flexible such that those instructions come from someone other than the certificate holder. Such
arrangements will generally be allowed under §1037.620, which provides that EPA's focus will
generally be on ensuring that a requirement is met rather than on who meets it. However, that process
will work slightly differently than NTEA envisioned in their comments. NTEA stated that
"intermediate and final stage manufacturers or alterers would be bound contractually, rather than by
regulation to install specified products that result in specified regulatory benefits that can be used by the
-------
certifying manufacturer." While it is true that secondary manufacturers will likely be contractually
bound to complete assembly properly, they will also be required to do so by the regulations or be
subject to penalties for tampering. See § 1037.621(e).
It is also important to note that the regulations do not require a specific format for assembly instructions,
provided the information is properly conveyed. The agencies would judge the sufficiency of the
instructions by how well they ensure proper assembly. For example, detailed instructions on a website
could be sufficient, as long as its location was well known to each secondary manufacturer.
EMA incorrectly stated that when final assembly is delegated, "the secondary manufacturer, not the
original manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle, is responsible for any emissions exceedances caused by
its improper completion of a vehicle." Under both the existing and revised regulations, both
manufacturers would be liable. Regarding downstream modifications more generally, EMA commented
that the regulations would require the OEM "to know explicit details surrounding any down-stream
modification if it affects roof height and/or aerodynamics to mitigate the risk of mislabeling or
mischaracterizing the aerodynamic assessment of the vehicle." However, we view the requirements as
requiring the OEM to explain in the assembly instructions what modifications are not permissible.
Regarding Odyne's comment on up-fitting a complete vehicle, the recommended paths under the
regulations would be for Odyne to do one of the following:
1. Obtain its own certificate so that it would be allowed to purchase uncertified vehicles from the
OEM. As the certificate holder, ODYNE would be eligible for emission credits
2. Work with the OEM to add the Odyne system to the OEM certificate.
3. Modify certified vehicles in a permissible manner that does not increase emissions. However
no credits could be generated for the vehicle.
For each path, the certificate holder would be fully responsible for the warranty requirements, but could
make contractual arrangements with the other manufacturer.
Daimler's comment regarding labeling was unclear. They acknowledged that the labeling requirements
in 40 CFR 1068.261(c)(7) do not apply for vehicles using delegated assembly under part 1037, and yet
objected to them in a previous paragraph.
Section 1037.621(a) has been revised to eliminate the incorrect reference to paragraph (f). Section
1037.622(b)(5) has been revised to require the manufacturer to "identify the regulatory citation" for the
applicable exemption. The title of 1037.622 has also been revised.
Volvo commented that the agencies should specify the obligations for manufacturers of the following
components, similar to the existing requirements for tire manufacturers:
• Vendor engines
• Vendor hybrid systems
• Vendor certified powertrain systems (e.g. Cummins/Eaton alliance)
• Transmission systems (e.g. neutral at idle, shift calibration software, etc.)
• Axle systems intended to reduce emissions (e.g. part-time 6x2, low friction))
• LNG evaporative emission systems
• Auxiliary Power Units (pending inclusion as a creditable technology)
-------
We have modified the regulations to reflect additional components.
Custom Sleepers and Natural Gas Vehicles
In 40 CFR 1037.622 we are allowing small businesses to modify certified tractors as long as they do not
modify the front of the vehicle and so long as the sleeper compartment or natural gas tank does not
exceed more than 102 inches wide or 162 inches in height. EPA is also finalizing an optional
compliance path in 40 CFR 1037.150(x). This option allows small manufacturers to convert a low or
mid roof tractor to a high roof configuration without recertification, provided it is for the purpose of
building a custom sleeper tractor or conversion to a natural gas tractor. The allowance to convert low
and mid roof tractors to high roof tractors is being adopted as an interim provision, although we have
not established an end date at this time. We expect to reevaluate as manufacturers begin to make use of
the provision and may decide to revise it in the future, potentially deciding to make it a permanent
allowance. To be eligible for this option, the secondary manufacturer must be a small business
manufacturer, and the original low or mid roof tractor must be covered by a valid certificate of
conformity. The modifications may not increase the frontal area of the tractor beyond the frontal area of
the equivalent high roof tractor paired with a standard box van.
Regarding evaporative emission standards for natural gas fuel tanks, we note that the regulations allow
different manufacturers to hold the GHG and evaporative certificates (once again illustrating how the
statute and regulations contemplate multiple manufacturers of a motor vehicle; see response in 1.3.1
above). In the circumstances identified by PACCAR, they would be allowed under § 1037.622 to ship
vehicles without the natural gas fuel tanks to secondary manufacturers, as long as the secondary
manufacturer had a valid evaporative emission certificate for the vehicle.
The agencies received supplemental comments from American Reliance Industries recommending
expansion of the allowances to also allow conversion of low-roof tractors to mid-roof configurations.
We have modified the interim allowance in §1037.150 to allow this.
Other Small Secondary Manufacturers
EMA recommends the agencies provide an exemption for secondary manufacturers that are small
businesses, subject to an annual production cap of 300 units. We generally do not permanently exempt
small business from our regulations. We included a small business exemption in Phase 1 so that small
businesses would have time to adjust to the new GHG requirements. However, Phase 2 does not start
for these manufacturers until 2021. This provides more than enough time for them to become familiar
with the applicable requirements.
Credits for Non-Certifying Manufacturers
Some commenters recommended that the agencies allow non-certifying secondary manufacturers to
generate emission credits. However, EPA limits emission credits to certificate holders to ensure full
compliance. The formal certification path includes many safeguards and procedures to ensure the
vehicles are fully compliant. Without these provisions, it would be much more difficult for us to
provide proper oversight. We believe the delegated assembly provisions will provide a sufficient
pathway to incentivize these advanced technologies.
-------
Changes to Phase 1
Manufacturers argued that applying the proposed changes to Phase 1 vehicles would amount to a
retroactive change in stringency. However, this ignores the existing text in § 1037.620(a) (a Phase I
provision) noting that delegated assembly may apply with regard to vehicles shipped prior to completion
of assembly into their final certified configuration. Daimler acknowledged this provision but incorrectly
interpreted it, reading "may" to make the provision purely advisory. This is not a correct interpretation.
The provision's plain meaning is that delegated assembly provisions may sometimes apply when
partially complete vehicles are introduced into commerce but are placed in their final certified
configuration by a secondary manufacturer. Thus, we do not see the proposed changes as adding
fundamentally new requirements to the Phase 1 provisions. Also, as described below, the changes
being made to the delegated assembly process lessen the likelihood that there would be any significant
changes for manufacturers who were already complying with the Phase 1 requirements.
While we do not agree with the comments arguing the proposed requirements are fundamentally new,
we have made two changes that avoid the problems feared by the manufacturers. First, as already noted,
we are reducing the number of components that will require the formal delegated assembly process.
This will limit the formal process to a small number of vehicles. Furthermore, two of these components
(i.e. hybrids and natural gas fuel tanks) are not part of the primary technology basis for Phase 1
standards and so delegated assembly for these components would not arise with any frequency with
respect to Phase 1 vehicles. APUs and aerodynamic technologies are part of the basis for the Phase 1
tractor standard (although not the vocational vehicle standard), and so could potentially trigger this
provision in the limited instance when the APU or aerodynamic components are not attached to or
otherwise shipped with the vehicle to the secondary manufacturer by the primary manufacturer. This
would be an unusual circumstance, especially for aerodynamic components. In addition, for these Phase
1 components, it is unclear how the certifying manufacturer would currently be ensuring that the
vehicles they certify are in the proper certified configuration without having some process substantially
similar to formal delegated assembly process being finalized.
Notwithstanding, we are delaying implementation of the changes until January 1, 2018 to provide
manufacturers over a year of additional lead time. EMA raised concerns about the time needed "to
work with their various secondary manufacturers to implement the procedures that EPA seeks to impose
(such as annual affidavits of part numbers, contractual obligations, and record-keeping)." We believe in
nearly all cases, the formal delegated assembly provisions will not apply and the additional lead time
will be more than enough to put appropriate processes in place. To the extent that any manufacturer is
currently relying on a secondary manufacturer to complete final assembly of any of the covered
components, they should already have a substantial process in place under the Phase 1 regulations. So
compliance with the formal process should also be achievable by January 1, 2018.
-------
Specific Scenarios
In response to specific scenarios identified by GTA:
Scenario 1. Aerodynamic Devices
A certifying chassis manufacturer may contract with a final stage manufacturer who will be
making aerodynamic improvements, and may input the improvement into GEM for certification
if the certifying manufacturer (and the secondary manufacturer) comply with the delegated
assembly provisions.
Scenario 2. Hybrids
A chassis manufacturer may contract with a hybrid installer for "delegated assembly" purposes,
but the chassis manufacturer would need to test the hybrid system in order to take advantage of
the emissions improvements in the certification process.
Scenario 3. Alternative Fuel Conversion
A chassis manufacturer may also contract with an alternative fuel converter for "delegated
assembly" purposes, but the chassis manufacturer would need to have a certified fuel map for
the converted engine.
Scenario 4. Light-weighting
We do not envision it to be possible for a certifying manufacturer to generate credit for
lightweight body components because we cannot define the baseline configuration.
1.4.5 Labelinq172
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA Should Explore Emission Control Labels In Separate Rulemaking
Within the agencies discussion of emission control labels, EPA and NHTSA have requested comment
on methods to provide for an electronic means to identify vehicles and access to databases that would
include vehicle-specific information on the emission control system utilized in the vehicle. Currently,
OEMs are required to report vehicle GHG certification level by VIN. If a vehicle had the VIN as a
machine-readable code, this seems like reasonably simple technology that could be implemented
without great cost to those responsible. As a component supplier, Allison believes that OEMs have the
capability to configure a machine-readable code similar to the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). It
should be noted, however, that suppliers of electronic components do not always have the ability to
label components prior to delivery to the vehicle OEM because vehicle OEMs program specific
configurations on their assembly line. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.48]
EPA has indicated that such electronic systems if they are considered would be subject to a separate
rulemaking proceeding. Allison agrees that this would be the proper process in order to review options
and receive informed comment on the benefits and costs of such systems. More broadly, in the context
-------
of this rulemaking, if further reporting or management of GHG certification levels were to involve or
otherwise obligate component suppliers, then Allison believes that a separate rulemaking is required.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.49]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Labeling
The absence of a consumer fuel efficiency label for heavy-duty pickups and vans is a serious
shortcoming of the program that should be remedied as soon as possible. In response to Phase 1
comments to this effect, EPA and DOT committed to "consider this issue as we begin work on the next
phase of regulations, as we recognize that a consumer label can play an important role in reducing fuel
consumption and GHG emissions" (76 Fed. Reg. (Sept. 15, 2011) at 57119). A subsequent letter from
NHTSA Administrator David Strickland to Senator Dianne Feinstein stated: "We are currently working
to include the consideration of fuel economy labels for large pickup trucks and commercial vans as part
of the second phase of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty vehicles." Despite
this, the agencies have not addressed this issue at all in the Phase 2 proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.25]
Any consumer product regulated for fuel efficiency should be labeled for fuel efficiency. In the case of
HD pickups and vans, the success of the standards depends on manufacturers' addition of incremental
technologies to save fuel. These technologies will typically increase the cost of the vehicle, and
manufacturers will need to figure out how to recover that cost. The absence of a label or any other
publicly available information stating the fuel efficiency of the vehicle at the time of sale means the
consumer is in effect cut out of the market for efficiency. While this might not create a problem where
the standard is applied as an efficiency threshold, standards that manufacturers meet on an average basis
will only work properly when coupled with a market that values efficiency and allocates efficiency
based on its comparative importance relative to other vehicle requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p.26]
While establishing a vehicle label is not a simple process, we believe it would be well worth the
resources required. The general approach should be similar to light-duty vehicle labeling and could
perhaps be carried out as a revision to that rule. While there are issues of duty cycle, test protocols, and
comparability to be addressed, these are largely issues that would need to have been addressed in any
case to establish a sound fuel efficiency program for these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-
A1 p.26]
Absent a consumer label, the agencies should make certification data readily available to the public.
This data should be available at a single location on the internet and should be available for all vehicles
prior to their availability for sale. While we understand the limitations of the certified fuel efficiency
vis-a-vis performance in the real world, the certification data would at least permit comparisons of these
vehicles within their regulatory class. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.26]
Recommendations: Labeling and data availability to the public [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
p.26]
- The final Phase 2 rule should commit the agencies to conducting a subsequent rulemaking for the
labeling of heavy-duty pickups and vans and set out a timetable for the label rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.26]
-------
- Prior to the implementation of a labeling requirement for HD pickups and vans, certification values
should be made publicly available for any vehicle model before it can be sold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.26]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Requirements for emission control labels for tractors and vocational vehicles
CARB staff has significant concerns regarding the proposed removal of the requirements directing
manufacturers to list the emission control system identifiers on the emission control labels for tractors
and vocational vehicles certified to the Phase 2 standards. Specifically, CARB staff recommends
leaving 40 CFR 1037.135(c)(6) as it currently reads, and not including the additional statement that
"Phase 2 tractors and Phase 2 vocational vehicles (other than those certified to standards for emergency
vehicles) may omit this information." Having the emission control system identifiers on the emission
control label is a simple and effective way of verifying that a vehicle is in a certified configuration, and
is the most commonly used method of making a compliance determination during a vehicle inspection.
Relying solely on an electronic method of identifying vehicles would limit vehicle inspections to areas
where a sufficient internet connection could be obtained in order to access an online database, and is
therefore not the most practical and efficient way of determining a vehicle's compliance in all situations.
For these reasons, CARB staff recommends that emission control identifiers continue to be listed on the
emission control labels along with an electronic method of identifying vehicles similar to the label
shown in Figure 5 below. If it is not practical to require that all emission control identifiers be listed,
then CARB staff recommends at a minimum requiring that all visible components be listed. CARB staff
also recommends that an additional requirement be included to make labels readily visible to the
average person (for example, amend 40 CFR 1037.135(b) to include: "Attached in a location where the
label will be readily visible to the average person after the vehicle manufacture is complete.") [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 110-111]
[Figure 5 can be found on p. 111 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1]
Comment - Consumer label requirements for pickups and vans
In 2011, U.S. EPA and NHTSA signed a final rule on requirements for window labels for new MY 2013
and later light-duty vehicles sold in the U.S. Such window labels provide fuel efficiency and
environmental impact information to vehicle buyers, enabling them to make more informed choices and
potentially buy more fuel efficient, lower GHG emitting vehicles. On page 57119 of the Phase 1 rule,45
U.S. EPA and NHTSA committed to consider requiring similar window labels for heavy-duty pickups
and vans (Class 2b and 3 vehicles) as part of the Phase 2 proposal. However, the NPRM does not
include such window label requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 112]
CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to develop consumer label requirements for pickup and
vans in Phase 2. Having window labels for heavy pickup and vans would give buyers of such vehicles
better, more complete information to consider when purchasing new vehicles. It would also increase the
likelihood that the more efficient, lower GHG emitting vehicles required by the proposed Phase 2
standards are embraced by consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 112]
-------
45 Page 57119 of the Phase 1 Rule "As we did not propose a consumer label for heavy-duty pickups and
vans in this action and have not appropriately engaged the public in developing such a label, we are not
prepared to finalize a consumer-based label in this action. However, we do intend to consider this issue
as we begin work on the next phase of regulations, as we recognize that a consumer label can play an
important role in reducing fuel consumption and GHG emissions." (Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179,
Sept. 15,2011).
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
12. Labels
i. Emission Control Identifiers
Label changes: We agree with the EPA's approach of removing from labels the emission control
identifiers, given that 1) those identifiers do not help demonstrate compliance and 2) there are far too
many elements involved in compliance to track on a label, especially starting in Phase 2 when so many
factors become relevant for GEM. A better approach, as the agency seems to recognize, for ensuring a
vehicle is compliant is for manufacturers to store the vehicle's GEM inputs by VIN and to have the VIN
on the certification label, such that a vehicle inspector could ask the manufacturer what items are on the
vehicle. The EPA's Phase 2 approach does just this. So we agree with the changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 108]
Vehicle build information versus electronic labels and database access - The agencies
comment on their need to get "detailed build information for a specific vehicle upon [an agency's]
request." The agencies cite a need for same day response or within 24 hours at most. 80 FR 40251. We
agree with the agencies' concern and can generally provide that a response within one working day
(obviously not one day response on weekends or holidays, because our Compliance staff is not a
24/7/365 operation, as the agencies understand). We think that such a turn-around is sufficient and that
such rapid turn-around means it is not necessary to go through the cost and effort of developing and
maintaining an electronic database with readable barcodes that could provide immediate access to such
information, as the agencies suggest on the same page. That is, we agree with the agencies' concern that
there would be a tremendous level of effort required. Moreover, we have a concern about privacy and
data security, for example if would-be thieves could learn that a vehicle had a particular vehicle speed
limiter or idle shutdown feature. (Cargo theft is a very significant concern, so we do not want to create
any avenues to increase such theft). In short, we think that our one-by-one responses to agencies'
requests should be the best balance of speed and safety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 108-
109]
Emission Control Labels - The agencies, recognizing the large number of inputs that go into
certification and compliance compared to the small number of items that can reasonably be represented
on an emission control label, propose to eliminate emission control identifiers from labels. We agree
that this is the correct approach. It has never been appropriate, for example, to list certain components
like 'ATS' (aerodynamic fuel tank side skirt) as a proxy for the coefficient of aerodynamic drag; the
former is not regulated and the latter is. Plus so many vehicle components and their shapes and
placements affect Cd that no small listing of parts will satisfactorily describe the regulated coefficient of
drag. So we agree with the agency's approach of not requiring that we list items on the label that are not
directly regulated. Moreover, as we discuss elsewhere, the agencies should follow this approach for all
vehicles, not making specific exceptions for emergency vehicles. The emission control identifiers are
irrelevant for all vehicles. Although the agencies state a desire to have available information with which
to do inspections, in order to check that vehicle owners have not tampered with or rendered inoperative
-------
emission controls, we think that if the emission controls offer the fuel savings that the agencies say they
do, then there will be no reason for customers to tamper with them, thus making the tampering issue
moot. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p. 109]
ii. Emergency Vehicles
Emergency Vehicle Labels - The agencies propose to require unique vehicle labels for emergency
vehicles. Such labels would contain emission control identifiers when no other vehicles' labels do. We
think this is 1) unnecessary for the reasons described above and 2) extremely problematic as we cannot
create separate labeling computer systems within the one computer system that we have for all labels.
Rather, we recommend that the agencies use the same approach for labeling of emergency vehicles as
for all other vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 109]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Transparency of emissions and fuel economy for consumers through labeling and online resources
is critical
When faced with the decision of which new light-duty vehicle to buy, consumers are provided with
valuable information including city and highway fuel economy, GHG rating, average annual cost and
estimated cost savings over an average vehicle. This information is posted on the window of all new
light-duty vehicles sold, and additional information is readily available from EPA's Fuel Economy
Guide and other online tools. In contrast, consumers of medium-duty pickup trucks and utility vans are
not offered any information on fuel economy, emissions or relative costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.46]
As discussed above, one of the many market barriers to the purchase of more efficient trucks is the lack
of access to complete and reliable information. The agencies state in the Preamble that, "One common
theme that emerges from these [barrier] studies is the inability of HDV buyers to obtain reliable
information about the fuel savings, reliability, and maintenance costs of technologies that improve fuel
efficiency."204 Yet the Agencies have yet to provide this information to consumers, despite repeated
commitments to do so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.46]
Indeed, in the Phase 1 rulemaking, the Agencies committed to consider window labels for pickups and
vans in Phase 2 - "we do intend to consider this issue as we begin work on the next phase of
regulations, as we recognize that a consumer label can play an important role in reducing fuel
consumption and GHG emissions." And this commitment was reiterated and reinforced by NHTSA in a
letter to Senator Diane Feinstein last year, stating, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.46]
"NHTSA supports the concept that providing information to consumers on energy use and emissions
can play an important role in raising awareness, improving transparency, and ultimately, reducing fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions through informed decision-making...NHTSA recognizes the
importance of this issue and we currently believe that we could best and most thoroughly address all of
these issues by conducting rulemaking for fuel economy labels, in collaboration with EPA, as part of the
second phase of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty vehicles."206 (Attachment
3) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.46-47]
Despite these commitments, there is no mention of window labels in the proposed rulemaking. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.47]
-------
Improving the fuel consumption information on 2b and 3 vehicles would significantly foster the
deployment of cost-effective efficiency technologies, leveraging the standards being finalized in this
rulemaking. EDF urges the Agencies to conduct label design and education outreach for Class 2b and 3
vehicles, similar to that conducted as part of the light-duty labeling rule. We also request that EPA and
DOT finalize comparable window label requirements for all new 2b and 3 vehicles and provide online
information for buyers of all classes of heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.47]
A. Large population, annual sales and miles travelled of Class 2b and 3 vehicles call for informing
consumer choice
While their C02 emissions are lower per vehicle than vocational trucks and tractor trailers, Class 2b and
3 pickup trucks and vans have the highest sales volumes in the heavy duty market and account for about
15-20 percent of all fuel use and GHG emissions in the truck market. In the Phase 1 RIA, EPA
estimated 2b and 3 sales were 580,000 per year in 2010 and projected they would increase to between
700,000 and 800,000 per year for 2014-2021.207 However, a recent report by ICCT found the number of
new registered 2b and 3 vehicles was about 450,000 in 2010, and increased to 1 million in 2012 and 1.2
million vehicles per year in 2013, concluding that, "the sales are increasing at a significantly greater rate
than the agencies had projected."208 DOT estimates that 2b and 3 vehicles travel about 35 percent of
total medium- and heavy-duty vehicle annual miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.47]
Because of their large population and large annual sales volume, providing window labels on 2b and 3
vehicles provides an important opportunity to reach a large portion of heavy-duty consumers. Providing
these consumers with transparent information about efficiency, fuel savings and air pollution will help
them make informed decisions. And because of the high number of miles traveled annually by 2b and 3
vehicles, when informed consumers buy more efficient vehicles, additional emissions reductions can be
achieved, leveraging the standards being finalized under the fuel economy and GHG rulemaking. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 47-48]
B. Similar use and configuration to their light—duty counterparts make labels feasible
Despite the definition and regulatory split between light-duty trucks and 2b and 3 trucks, they are very
similar in use patterns as well as engine and transmission configurations and emissions control
technology. EPA regulates criteria emissions from 2b and 3 vehicles under the light-duty Tier 3
rulemakings because, "Most are built by companies with even larger light-duty truck markets, and as
such they frequently share major design characteristics and potential emissions control technologies
with their LDT counterparts."209 In fact, many 2b trucks are simply larger versions of a manufacturer's
2a model with engines and transmissions that can be nearly identical in configuration. Like light-duty
trucks, more than 90 percent of 2b and 3 vehicles are sold as 'complete' vehicles, as defined by EPA.210
EPA also confirms that the "Often, the technologies available to reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions from this segment are similar to the technologies used for the same purpose on light-duty
pickup trucks and vans, including both engine efficiency improvements (for gasoline and diesel engines)
and vehicle efficiency improvements."211 These technologies include, but are not limited to, engine
improvements such as friction reduction, cylinder deactivation, cam phasing, and gasoline direct
injection; aerodynamic improvements; low rolling resistance tires; and transmission improvements. In
addition to the same efficiency technologies, Class 2a and 2b trucks are both certified with chassis
dynamometer testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A 1 p.48]
The use of class 2b and 3 vehicles can vary widely but many of the uses are the same as light-duty
trucks: they can be strictly personal-use vehicles, vehicles that double for both work and personal use, or
vehicles that are used solely for commercial purposes (cargo vans). Many are purchased to perform a
-------
certain work function, necessitating a specific workload and towing capacity. However, despite varying
workloads and towing capacities of 2b trucks, their similarities outweigh their differences. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.48]
Based on these similarities, EPA and NHTSA should develop window labels for 2b and 3 vehicles that
provide comparable information afforded to consumers of light-duty cars and trucks. Given that these
vehicles are often purchased to perform a certain work function, it may also be appropriate to provide
payload and towing capacity on the label to allow for easy cross-vehicle comparisons in combination
with fuel efficiency information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.48-49]
C. Agencies should immediately begin rulemaking process for labels
The updated light-duty labeling rule was finalized with updated fuel economy and GHG standards for
light-duty vehicles. That provided EPA and DOT the opportunity to develop labels that would reflect
the increased fuel economy and cost savings from advanced technologies like plug-in hybrids and
electric vehicles. It also allowed manufacturers to harmonize the development and roll out of new
vehicles and new labels at the same time. EPA should similarly develop window labels for 2b and 3
vehicles with the finalization of the Phase 2 fuel economy and GHG rule. This would provide
manufacturers of 2b and 3 vehicles with integrated planning, similar to the issuance of light-duty labels
and emissions standards, and provide important transparency for consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.49]
D. Consider carrying out an expert assessment to inform 2b/3 label design and rely on pertinent
findings from the development of light-duty labels
EISA 2007 required DOT and EPA to update light-duty label designs and include GHG information. It
also required the Agencies conduct consumer education outreach. The label redesign process included
the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.49]
- Literature review -examining vehicle buying process, information sources used by consumers as they
shop for vehicles, the factors that influence consumer vehicle purchasing decisions, and the impact of
the increasing availability of more efficient and lower emitting vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.49]
- Focus groups (in 3 phases) - 4 cities over 4 months, 32 focus groups including 257 people. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.49]
- Expert panel - included executives from Zappos, Unilever, Pandora, Craigslist, and Gates Foundation.
It was an intensive one-day workshop to elicit ideas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.49]
- National level online survey of new vehicle buyers - an Internet survey designed to elicit responses
about new label ideas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.49]
- The innovative ideas and information collected from the redesign process resulted in consumer-
friendly window labels that reduce the market barrier to purchasing cleaner, more efficient light-duty
vehicles. We recommend the agencies consider the pertinent findings from the light-duty process and
engage in consumer and expert outreach to inform label design for 2b and 3 vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.49]
E. Develop an online tool for all medium and heavy-duty vehicles
-------
In addition to the label redesign, the Agencies launched an online education campaign for light-duty
vehicles. Window labels direct buyers to the EPA website www.fueleconomy.gov to see the full Fuel
Economy Guide. The website also allows a user to personalize their fuel economy information by
inputting their specific driving habits and fuel prices and tells the buyer the cost to fill the tank, or the
volume of the fuel tank, or how many miles could be driven on a tank. The information such as the
miles per tank can be personalized to reflect a person's relative amount of city and highway driving.
This information is helpful to a potential consumer, as more consumers are starting their buying
research online. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.49-50]
Similar information could be provided to consumers of all types of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. In
addition to the labels, the Agencies could provide the same personalized online information for 2b and 3
consumers as the light-duty online tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.50]
For vehicle classes 4-8, EDF encourages EPA to use the data and information collected during the
development of the Phase 2 rule to develop a user-friendly online calculator or tool that would allow
consumers to conduct personalized research of various vehicle configurations. The tool would produce
average fuel economy over select duty cycles. This tool would provide rigorous, reliable information on
vehicle efficiency and emissions performance to inform consumer choices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.50]
204 Preamble at 40436.
206 Letter from NHTSA Administrator David Strickland to Senator Diane Feinstein (date unknown).
See Attachment 3.
207 EPA, Process for Determining the Standards for Class 2b and 3 Trucks, 2008 model year pickup
data submitted to 2010 HD rule docket, (2008), available at
http://www.regulations. gov/#! documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-03 3.
208 ICCT, Regulatory Considerations for Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van Efficiency
Technology in the United States, (April 2015).
209 79 Fed. Reg. 23414, Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission
and Fuel Standards (April 28, 2014).
210 A 'complete vehicle' can be a chassis-cab (engine, chassis, wheels, and cab) or a rolling-chassis
(engine, chassis and wheels), while an 'incomplete-chassis' could be sold as an engine and chassis only,
without wheels. Final RIA, Page 1-9. Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor
Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards; Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 29,816 (May 21, 2013) at 29874.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law
Consumer Labels: In our comments on the Phase 1 standards for heavy-duty vehicles, Policy Integrity
explained why informational failures justify some additional labeling requirements for heavy-duty
vehicles. EPA and NHTSA have developed sophisticated labels for light-duty vehicles to help
consumers directly and easily compare vehicle options by their fuel efficiency, estimated fuel costs, and
estimated emissions. No such labels exist for heavy-duty vehicles. While many consumers of heavy-
-------
duty vehicles are commercial actors that, compared to average individuals, might have better access to
information and more time and resources to make informed choices on their own, at least some heavy-
duty vehicles are purchased by individuals (certain pickups, vans, mobile homes, and recreational
vehicles). Moreover, there is no reason to assume that many government entities, non-profit entities,
small businesses, and other commercial actors that purchase heavy-duty vehicles would not also benefit
from easier access to clearer information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1195-A1 p. 1]
Policy Integrity was not alone in suggesting improved consumer labels during the Phase 1 rulemaking.
A group of 18 U.S. Senators, New York State, and NACAA, as well as ACEEE, the American Lung
Association, the Clean Air Task Force, EDF, the International Council on Clean Transportation, Sierra
Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, all supported consumer labels. In response, they agencies
noted that they "agreed" with the recommendation, but insisted that a label would be "too complicated"
to finish during the Phase 1 rulemaking. They promised to "consider a consumer label in the context of
our efforts with stakeholders to begin work on a second phase of this regulation."2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1195-A1 p. 1-2]
Contrary to this promise, there is no discussion of a consumer label in the Phase 2 proposed rulemaking.
Instead, EPA proposes scaling back the emission-control labels (which contain some limited
information helpful for monitoring and enforcement, but are not designed to inform consumer
comparisons of vehicle efficiency or emissions). Instead, the agencies should follow through on their
promise to consider more informative consumer labels. If labels cannot be designed without delaying
the final Phase 2 rule, the agencies should initiate a separate rulemaking specifically on labels. For more
on the agencies' statutory authority to create such labels and suggestions on the design of such labels,
see our 2011 comments.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1195-A1 p.2]
2 Accord. 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106, 57,119 (Sept. 15, 2011); see EPA Response to Comments Document for
Joint Rulemaking http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420rll004.pdf, at 3-13 to 3-15 (2011)
(exact quote above).
3 http ://policyintegrity. org/files/public ations/2211 _Regulatory_Report_2011 _Heavy_Trucks_Rule. pdf
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The NPRM proposes to maintain the requirement for emergency vehicles. Navistar opposes maintaining
the emission control label requirement for emergency vehicles. The vehicle labels are all printed from
the same system so maintaining the requirement for emergency vehicles eliminates much of the benefit
from the proposed change. As the NPRM states, the list of control technologies for Phase 2 is much
larger that in Phase 1 so determining compliance by merely looking at the label is not practical, limiting
the utility of the label as a source of information for purchasers. Therefore, removing the emission
control information requirement on the label for all vehicles is the best solution. EPA also asks for
comment on maintaining some label content for selected technologies. Navistar opposes any
requirement for even limited emission control information content on the vehicle label. Again, even
limited content requires more complex labeling systems with no actual benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p. 19]
As an additional improvement and as part of the proposed model year mismatch solution, Navistar
agrees with EMA that the Agencies should eliminate the requirement for model year information on the
vehicle label. In addition, Navistar does not support the proposal for electronic, scanable labels to the
-------
extent such a program would require manufacturers to develop and build new websites dedicated solely
to the Phase 2 GHG/FE program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p. 19]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The proposed Phase 2 regulations also include an unnecessary labeling requirement in section
1037.103(f). Since the venting controls are completely contained on LNG tanks, it makes no sense for
the vehicle manufacturer to specify the maximum fuel tank capacity for the vehicle. If the tank is
certified to the evaporative emission requirements itself, its venting controls will be adequate and
nothing on the vehicle will affect that performance. Accordingly, the vehicle labeling requirement set
out in proposed section 1037.103(f) should be deleted since it serves no reasonable purpose. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.45]
Electronic Vehicle Labeling
EMA supports the Agencies' intent to minimize and simplify the information required on engine and
vehicle labels. The amount of required information is already at the limit of what can fit and be
accounted for on a label. Accordingly, and among other things, EMA believes that only one engine label
and one vehicle label should be required and that, to facilitate such a uniform label, the Agencies should
eliminate the requirement for model year information. That said, EMA does not support a requirement
for electronic, scanable labels at this time to the extent such a program would require manufacturers to
develop and build new websites dedicated solely to the Phase 2 GHG/FE program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.45]
General Comments Regarding Emission Labels
As mentioned above, the specific information that should be on the emission control information label is
a long-standing concern. EMA, along with other engine manufacturers associations from around the
world, have been working on a project to develop a new approach to providing emission control
information. This industry effort appears to be quite similar to that discussed by the Agency in
Paragraph III.E.(2)(f) of the Preamble entitled "Emission Control Labels," which reads: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p. 81]
We also request comment on approaches that would minimize burden for manufacturers to respond to
requests for vehicle build information and would expedite an authorized compliance inspector's visual
inspection. For example, the agencies have started to explore ideas that would provide inspectors with
an electronic method to identify vehicles and access on-line databases that would list all of the engine-
specific and vehicle-specific emissions control system information. We believe that electronic and
Internet technology exists today for using scan tools to read a bar code or radio frequency identification
tag affixed to a vehicle that would then lead to secure on-line access to a database of manufacturers'
detailed vehicle and engine build information. Our exploratory work on these ideas has raised questions
about the level of effort that would be required to develop, implement and maintain an information
technology system to provide inspectors real-time access to this information. We have also considered
questions about privacy and data security. We request comment on the concept of electronic labels and
database access, including any available information on similar systems that exist today and on burden
estimates and approaches that could address concerns about privacy and data security. Based on new
information that we receive, we may consider initiating a separate rulemaking effort to propose and
request comment on implementing such an approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.82]
-------
Over the ensuing years, EMA would like to see such a system developed. In that regard, EMA would
support using such a system on a global basis for all regulatory categories. That would alleviate the
types of issues being addressed through the proposed change to Part 1039.135(d). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.82]
Organization: Volvo Group
Electronic Database
The Agencies have requested comment on the implementation of instantly accessible electronic
databases for in-use audits, possibly in conjunction with scan-able bar code or RFID vehicle and engine
labels. Currently, the Agencies must request certified configuration information for a specific vehicle or
engine from the vehicle manufacturer, who then has 24 hours to respond. Volvo Group is not aware of
any issues that have arisen from this method. Volvo Group's concerns regarding this type of instantly
accessible database lie in the development and maintenance burden, as well as information security.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.42]
Given no notice from the Agencies regarding problematic issues with the current system, it is unclear
what challenges they are attempting to resolve, but it is clear that the costs associated with development
and maintenance of such a system would be substantial. First, a system to print a unique bar code would
need to be developed and validated, or a commercially available system would need to be integrated
into Volvo Group's IT systems. Second, the bar code would then need to be linked to a secure web-
based database, which itself would require substantial development and integration. This database
would need to contain eight years of production information due to the Agencies' requirements on the
retention period of engine and vehicle GHG records. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.42]
For other Volvo Group business units with regulated sales in the U.S. and Canada (specifically Volvo
Powertrain, Volvo Bus, Nova Bus, and Prevost Motorcoach) these systems would need to be developed
from the ground up to be incorporated into the overall database, as these systems are not on the same
platform as Volvo Group Trucks and were excluded from the automated systems developed for Phase 1.
This decision was taken in Phase 1 due to the bus and coach divisions' limited volumes and/or limited
certification data and configurations and resultant low benefit of an automated system versus the cost of
development of such a system that could then be integrated across platforms to the Truck Group's
system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.42]
The Volvo Group spent nearly $2 million (2012$) dollars on the automated integration of the Phase 1
GEM and storage of the calculated vehicle data. Given that all of the previously mentioned additional
systems will still be on multiple platforms when the Phase 2 regulation is implemented, it is likely that
the development of an integrated and fully automated instantly accessible database and labeling system
would require on the magnitude of $10 million dollars for Phase 2. This estimate does not account for
any maintenance or additional security required, nor does it include any costs associated with an RFID
chip in each engine and vehicle emissions label, nor the costs associated with end of line programming
and validation of the data on the chip. Given that there is no vehicle customer benefit from this system,
it would not be possible to increase pricing to cover the investment and cost of capital, especially given
the cost increases already associated with the engine and vehicle technologies necessary to meet the
GHG stringencies as set by the regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.42-43]
Given the latitude that the Agencies have in the data they can request and the fact that this data is
considered commercially sensitive and proprietary in nature Volvo Group has serious concerns about
security of a web based database for any purpose. This concern would be greatly increased by the
-------
significant increase in certification data for both engines and vehicles, such as engine fuel maps,
powertrain maps, axle efficiency maps, etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.43]
Concerning RFID chips embedded in engine and vehicle labels, Volvo Group is concerned that this
would enable tampering in that a chip could be potentially reprogrammed, erased, or intentionally
damaged. Volvo Group is also concerned with the long-term survivability of an RFID chip in a HHD
engine compartment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.43]
As a result of these concerns, Volvo Group does not support the implementation of such a strategy and
further believes that the development of any such system that may be requested by the Agencies should
be voluntary and open to further discussion on structural design. In addition, given the probable low
number of in-use audits the Agency has the capacity to perform compared to the annual HHD
production volumes for the N.A. market, it is not expected that these additional costs and security
concerns are justified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.43]
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
Labeling
EPA has historically required that certified vehicles have a permanent emission control label affixed to
the vehicle. For the Phase 2 trailer program, EPA is proposing that the label include the manufacturer, a
trailer identifier such as the Vehicle Identification Number, the trailer family and regulatory
subcategory, the date of manufacture, and compliance statements. EPA is also proposing that the label
include emission control system identifiers, and that manufacturers would be required to maintain
records that would allow EPA to verify that an individual trailer is in its certified configuration. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1242-A2 p. 17]
As described above, trailers are highly customized and built to customers' specifications, resulting in an
endless array of potential configurations. Requiring the creation of custom labels to identify the exact
devices on each trailer would be extremely burdensome. Instead, EPA should incorporate labeling
requirements similar to those promulgated by the DOT on tank trailers, which require the manufacturer
simply to certify that the trailer complies with applicable regulations at the time of manufacture. This
approach would be much less burdensome and yet would accomplish the same goal of alerting an
inspector whether a trailer should or should not include an aerodynamic device at the time of inspection.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 17]
Response:
EPA proposed to largely continue the Phase 1 engine and vehicle labeling requirements, but to eliminate
the requirement for tractor and vocational vehicle manufacturers to list emission control on the label.
The agencies consider it crucial that authorized compliance inspectors are able to identify whether a
vehicle is certified, and if so whether it is in its certified condition. To facilitate this identification in
Phase 1, EPA adopted labeling provisions for tractors that included several items. The Phase 1 tractor
label must include the manufacturer, vehicle identifier such as the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN),
vehicle family, regulatory subcategory, date of manufacture, compliance statements, and emission
control system identifiers (see 40 CFR 1037.135). EPA proposed to apply parallel requirements for
trailers.
In Phase 1, the emission control system identifiers are limited to vehicle speed limiters, idle reduction
technology, tire rolling resistance, some aerodynamic components, and other innovative and advanced
-------
technologies. However, the number of emission control systems for greenhouse gas emissions in Phase
2 has increased significantly for tractors and vocational vehicles. For example, all aspects of the engine
transmission and drive axle; accessories; tire radius and rolling resistance; wind averaged drag;
predictive cruise control; idle reduction technologies; and automatic tire inflation systems are controls
which can be evaluated on-cycle in Phase 2 (i.e. these technologies' performance can now be input to
GEM), but could not be in Phase 1. Due to the complexity in determining greenhouse gas emissions in
Phase 2, the agencies do not believe that we can unambiguously determine whether or not a vehicle is in
a certified condition through simply comparing information that could be made available on an emission
control label with the components installed on a vehicle. Therefore, EPA proposed to remove the
requirement to include the emission control system identifiers required in 40 CFR 1037.135(c)(6) and in
Appendix III to 40 CFR part 1037 from the emission control labels for vehicles certified to the Phase 2
standards. Manufacturers generally supported the elimination of the emission control information from
the vehicle GHG label, while CARB opposed it. We continue to believe these details are unnecessary.
Some commenters opposed the separate labeling requirements for custom chassis vehicles, but we
believe it important for the labels to identify the standards to which each vehicle is certified.
Electronic Labeling
Although we are largely finalizing the proposed labeling requirements, we remain interested in finding a
better approach for labeling. Under the agencies' existing authorities, manufacturers must provide
detailed build information for a specific vehicle upon our request. Our expectation is that this
information should be available to us via e-mail or other similar electronic communication on a same-
day basis, or within 24 hours of a request at the latest. The agencies have started to explore ideas that
would provide inspectors with an electronic method to identify vehicles and access on-line databases
that would list all of the engine-specific and vehicle-specific emissions control system information. We
believe that electronic and Internet technology exists today for using scan tools to read a bar code or
radio frequency identification tag affixed to a vehicle that could then lead to secure on-line access to a
database of manufacturers' detailed vehicle and engine build information. Our exploratory work on
these ideas has raised questions about the level of effort that would be required to develop, implement
and maintain an information technology system to provide inspectors real-time access to this
information. We have also considered questions about privacy and data security. We requested
comment on the concept of electronic labels and database access, including any available information
on similar systems that exist today and on burden estimates and approaches that could address concerns
about privacy and data security.
Manufacturers expressed some support for the goal of electronic labeling, they also agreed that any such
changes should be considered in a separate rulemaking. Although we are not finalizing such a program
in this rulemaking, we remain very interested in the use of electronic labels that could be used by the
agencies to access vehicle information and may pursue these in a future rulemaking. Such a rulemaking
would likely consider the feasibility of accessing dynamic link libraries in real-time to view each
manufacturer's build records (and perhaps pending orders). The agencies envision that this could be
very useful for our inspectors by providing them access to the build information by VIN to confirm that
each vehicle has the proper emission control features.
Consumer Labels
Several commenters expressed support for consumer fuel economy labels for heavy-duty vehicles.
However, we did not propose such provisions, and consider the issue to be outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
-------
1.4.6 CBI and Compliance Data
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Absent a consumer label, the agencies should make certification data readily available to the public.
This data should be available at a single location on the internet and should be available for all vehicles
prior to their availability for sale. While we understand the limitations of the certified fuel efficiency
vis-a-vis performance in the real world, the certification data would at least permit comparisons of these
vehicles within their regulatory class. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.26]
Sound practices for the collection and dissemination of data are essential to the effective evaluation of
the heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions program. Data from the program
should also greatly enhance understanding of heavy-duty vehicles and vehicle markets in the U.S. The
lack of specifications of engine and transmission associated with a given vehicle, which is major gap in
data collection in Phase 1, will be filled in Phase 2, now that vehicle certification uses actual power train
specifications rather than default values as inputs to GEM. It is important that this information, along
with all other GEM inputs and outputs, be made available to the public.
The agencies should make available in a timely fashion other data and information arising from the
program as well, relating to individual vehicle and engine model certification, manufacturer compliance,
and performance of the industry as a whole. Key information would include the contents of certification
applications for engines and vehicles, and annual compliance reports showing each manufacturer's
status and usage of special credit provisions and credit balances. In the final rule, the agencies should
commit to regular publications summarizing trends in the heavy-duty vehicle market, as EPA stated it
would "make every effort to do" in its response to comments on the Phase 1 rule.27A 2013 ACEEE
working paper on heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency data28 set out in detail our concerns and
recommendations in this area. Many remain relevant to the current proposal and are reiterated in the
recommendations that follow.
CAFE data collection
NHTSA proposes (p.40540) changes to the way that manufacturers report CAFE data to the agency.
NHTSA should take this opportunity to add the footprint of each vehicle to the model-by-model
information required of the manufacturers. Moreover, footprint data together with fuel economy data for
each model should be publically available. Given that footprint is the attribute on which the light-duty
CAFE standards are based, analysts and others seeking to understand how the standards are working
need this detailed information. Moreover, it is hard understand how the agencies could directly verify
the accuracy of manufacturers' calculations of their fleets' compliance without having footprint data for
individual models.
Recommendations: Data collection and dissemination
• Post all data collected in rule implementation that is not Confidential Business Information on the web
in a timely fashion and in a form conducive to analysis. Posted data should include the information in
certification applications for engines and vehicles and include all GEM inputs and outputs. The data
should be made available in a database that is updated frequently so that key properties of engines and
vehicles can be referenced as these products enter the market. Sales volumes at the most disaggregate
level available should be added to the database as early as possible.
-------
• In annual compliance reports for the heavy-duty rule, report on each manufacturer's use of special
provisions (e.g., early credits, alternative engine certification, advanced and innovative technology
credits), application of credit carry-forward/carry-back, and credit balance. Understanding the details of
how manufacturers are complying with the standards, including their use of rule flexibilities, will
provide insight into how the rule may be influencing the vehicle market and how rule design might be
improved.
• Produce an annual report on trends in heavy-duty vehicle technology, carbon dioxide emissions, and
fuel economy. An annual heavy-duty vehicle trends report is necessary to track the directions of a
rapidly evolving market for fuel efficiency technology. The report should present the agencies' findings
regarding the key fuel efficiency trends in the heavy-duty vehicle market with respect to vehicle and
engine types, technologies, and manufacturers. Where relevant data on individual models or
manufacturers is unavailable in the public online database, present that information in the least
aggregated form compatible with CBI policy.
• Consolidate analysis and reporting of data on heavy-duty pickups and vans with light-duty reporting.
Include these vehicles in the agencies' light-duty databases and in EPA's annual Light-Duty
Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends report.
• (CAFE) Require manufacturers to include model-by-model footprint data when submitting fuel
economy information for CAFE compliance. This model-level data should be made available to the
public along with fuel economy and vehicle specifications, as well as sales volumes.
27 Environmental Protection Agency. 201 la. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles: EPA Response to Comments Document
for Joint Rulemaking. EPA-420-R-11-004. August.
28 Langer, T. 2013. "Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Data in the United States." ACEEE.
http: //aceee. or g/white-paper/heavv-dutv-data.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Additionally, the NPRM requests comment on whether the Phase 2 full vehicle simulation proposal,
which potentially requires engine manufacturers to disclose proprietary engine performance information
to vehicle manufacturers long before production, would enable the "reverse engineering" of engine
manufacturers' intellectual property, and if so, what steps U.S. EPA and NHTSA could take to address
this issue. While CARB staff recognizes that this proposed approach will likely require engine
manufacturers to disclose more detailed engine design and performance information early in production
cycles, certainly earlier than currently occurs, CARB staff believes this will be a positive development
that will facilitate better engine, component, and vehicle integration necessary for achieving maximum,
cost-effective fuel efficiency improvements and GHG benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 103] 186
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Refuting the idea that a fuel map can be used to 'reverse engineer' engine manufacturers' IP - The
agencies question whether fuel maps that engine manufacturers pass to vehicle manufacturers could be
-------
used to 'reverse engineer' intellectual property related to the proprietary design of engines, and the
agencies request comment on what steps the agencies could take to address this. 80 FR 40181. We
request comment on whether or not such information could be used to "reverse engineer" intellectual
property related to the proprietary design of engines, and what steps the agencies could take to address
this. Based on experience in benchmarking and investigation of competitive products over many
generations of technologies, DTNA believes such concerns to be unfounded. The fuel map of an engine
is an end result of the performance and integration of multiple design features that can be combined in
different ways to arrive at the same result. To illustrate, the fuel efficiency at a given operating point is a
function of turbocharger performance, injection control, timing of valve events, EGR flow, air system
pumping losses, application of intake throttling, thermal losses from the combustion chamber, energy
losses to bearings and ancillaries, and characteristics of lubricants. To reverse engineer an engine's
system by only evaluating the end result is essentially impossible. To effectively reverse engineer an
engine's systems requires actual operation of an engine in an appropriate test environment where
multiple temperatures, pressures, flows, electronic control inputs and outputs, and emissions outputs
from both the engine and the aftertreatment can be measured and recorded. Such detail measurements
are required, for example, to determine if the fuel efficiency at a given condition is the result of
combustion system optimization at high NOx levels in combination with highly efficient NOx
aftertreatment, or by less optimized combustion and aftertreatment combined with efficiencies gained
by other means such as lower pumping and friction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 13-14]
After the engine testing, one would need to test and examine multiple engine components to understand
component contributions. For example, to determine actual power losses to an engine pump that may
contribute or degrade performance would require measurements on a bench test. Detail examination,
performance testing, and metallurgical analysis of multiple components is often necessary for complete
understanding. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 14]
Once a product is understood to the extent possible from these examinations, the processes to duplicate
and produce the actual critical designs, if not patent protected, requires additional resources and time.
One can easily conclude that a view of an engine fuel map reveals is essentially an insignificant first
step that in itself reveals little or nothing of the design content necessary to get to the end result. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 14]
Moreover, vehicle manufacturers could theoretically derive a competitor's engine fuel map soon after an
engine begins production. That said, it would require each vehicle manufacturer to put each engine on a
test stand and run a battery of tests, just to replicate information that the engine manufacturer already
has—a great waste of time and resources. In short, vehicle manufacturers could generate fuel maps if
there were IP in those maps, but we agree with the agencies' proposal to require engine manufacturers
to create the maps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 14]
That said, if the engine manufacturer has concerns about IP before their engine is launched into
production, there are steps the engine manufacturer could take. The fuel map provided to the
manufacturer does not need to be the exact fuel map measured in the test cell. The fuel map provided to
the manufacturer needs only to not be lower than the actual measured fuel map. As is the case with other
emissions levels submitted to the agencies and which could be tested in a compliance audit, the levels
established by the engine manufacture in the fuel map would presumably be raised slightly for
compliance margin. Additionally the compliance margin may vary across the fuel map, for example, be
set higher in regions of the map that are seldom or not at all encountered in the vehicle simulation. To a
certain extent, the contours and levels of the actual fuel map can be masked by these and other even
more sophisticated approaches. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 14]
-------
Even if it were the case that a certification fuel map contained IP (which it does not), DTNA has
proposed solutions to avoid passing IP. For example, data encryption techniques can be used, as these
are readily available in the Matlab Simulink environment. Or the engine manufacturer could keep its
fuel map and run GEM for vehicle manufacturers. Or the EPA could store the fuel map on a server,
from which GEM would grab it during execution. Finally, in early stages of development with a vehicle
manufacturer, an engine manufacturer can provide a fuel map that is an approximation of the actual fuel
map which provides a similar GEM cycle result as the map that is ultimately provided which may be
long after vehicle production begins, since actual credit calculations using final maps are not required
until months after start of production. Any of these techniques would provide protection of the fuel map
and any associated IP (if there were any) to the same level, if not better than, the idea of the cycle
averaged mapping approach that the agencies propose in the NPRM. In conclusion, the agencies'
proposal for manufacturers to provide fuel map information to vehicle manufacturers need not be a
concern and is in fact a necessary ingredient for a successful Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. 14-15]
CBI of the GEM inputs: The EPA proposes to open GEM inputs up to FOIA inquiries rather than
protect the inputs as CBI. While we appreciate the responsibility the agency has for disclosure of
relevant emissions data to the public, we disagree with the agency on the idea of making public GEM
inputs which are not emission results and should not be treated as such. Fuel economy is and has been
one of the key concerns for our customers and one on which we compete with other manufacturers in
the market. The advances made in technology over the past decades and those future advances on which
the agencies are basing this rule on are a result of this competitive market. By declaring that information
on the inputs that go into the GEM model are no longer confidential, the agencies will damage the
market by sharing trade secrets and eliminating competitive advantages companies develop as soon as
this technology is produced in a vehicle. Companies cannot invest millions of dollars to develop an
advantage that the agencies will hand over to their competitors as soon as it is produced and sold. Much
as the agencies have estimated "payback" time for customers purchasing technologies, companies must
also be able to recuperate the costs of research and development of new technologies in order to justify
the expenditures. By limiting this payback time to one year or less, the agencies are essentially limiting
the ability of companies to invest and innovate. In Section IX-I of the Preamble, the agencies point out
that: "Executive Order 13563 (January 18, 2011) directs federal agencies to consider regulatory impacts
on, among other criteria, job creation. According to the Executive Order 'Our regulatory system must
protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth,
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.The agencies should be mindful of the risk to job
creation they may cause. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.43-44]
Unlike with criteria pollutant certification data, which will generally not affect the market, the EPA's
proposal to open manufacturers' highly competitive greenhouse gas and fuel economy data to FOIA
disclosures could also distort the market in unexpected, unintended ways. For example, when fleets see
that one manufacturer has better aerodynamics than a second one, the fleets could demand that the first
make aero improvements; this could be problematic if the second manufacturer optimizes its vehicles
not using aerodynamics but using hybrids or waste heat recovery—both of which compromise
aerodynamics (as demonstrated by our Super Truck vehicle). In other words, individual GEM inputs can
be meaningless or indeed misleading. The agency's proposal is also problematic for those cases where
the GEM model is misaligned with real-world FE reductions, for example where the generic regulatory
drive cycles differ from actual ones; we would not want HDV purchasers misled by GEM information.
In addition, the multiple methods the agencies have proposed to calculate inputs (e.g. powertrain testing
and alternative testing) work against this data being of actual use to the public, as the confusion these
inputs would generate far outweighs the data's ability to be useful and meaningful to the public as
opposed to just making the GEM output available. Even if the test procedures were all the same, the
GEM inputs can be misleading, given that manufacturers often put in different safety margins against
-------
selective enforcement audits, such that inputs such as aerodynamics may not be comparable, or may be
misleading, from manufacturer to manufacturer. In summary, we think that if the agencies reverse
course by removing CBI protection for GEM inputs, they risk skewing our market for the worse,
improperly sharing the IP that companies develop and rely on, confusing rather clarifying fuel
efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.44]
Difficulty of reverse engineering - EPA requests comment an engine manufacturer concern that
providing an engines fuel map to other manufacturers introduces a risk of lost intellectual property. 80
FR 40181. Based on experience in benchmarking and investigation of competitive products over many
generations of technologies, DTNA believes such concerns to be unfounded. The fuel map of an engine
is an end result of the performance and integration of multiple design features that can be combined in
different ways to arrive at the same result. To illustrate, the fuel efficiency at a given operating point is a
function of turbocharger performance, injection control, timing of valve events, EGR flow, air system
pumping losses, application of intake throttling, thermal losses from the combustion chamber, energy
losses to bearings and ancillaries, and characteristics of lubricants. To reverse engineer an engines
system by only evaluating the end result is essentially impossible. Rather, reverse engineering an
engine's systems requires actual operation of an engine in an appropriate test environment where
multiple temperatures, pressures, flows, electronic control inputs and outputs, and emissions outputs
from both the engine and the aftertreatment can be measured and recorded. Such detailed measurements
are required, for example, to determine if the fuel efficiency at a given condition is the result of
combustion system optimization at high NOx levels in combination with highly efficient NOx
aftertreatment, or by less optimized combustion and aftertreatment combined with efficiencies gained
by other means such as lower pumping and friction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.46-47]
Beyond engine testing, one must examine and test multiple engine components to understand
component contributions. For example, to determine actual power losses to an engine pump that may
contribute or degrade performance would require measurements on a bench test. Detailed examination,
performance testing, and metallurgical analysis of multiple components is often necessary for complete
understanding. Once a product is understood to the extent possible from these examinations, the
processes to duplicate and produce the actual critical designs (if they are not patent protected), requires
additional resources and time. One can easily conclude that a view of an engine fuel map reveals is
essentially an minor first step that in itself reveals little or nothing of the design content necessary to get
to the end result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.47]
Moreover, the fuel map provided to the manufacturer may not even be the fuel map measured in the test
cell. The fuel map provided to the manufacturer needs only to not be lower than the actual measured
fuel map. As is the case with other emissions levels submitted to the agencies and which could be tested
in a compliance audit, the levels established by the engine manufacture in the fuel map would
presumably be raised slightly for compliance margin. Additionally the compliance margin may vary
across the fuel map, for example, be set higher in regions of the map that are seldom or not at all
encountered in the vehicle simulation. The contours and levels of the actual fuel map can be masked by
these and other even more sophisticated approaches. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.47]
Further, if IP were actually a concern, passing the fuel map could involve data encryption techniques
like those internal to Matlab Simulink. Moreover, if IP were a concern, then in early stages of
development with a vehicle manufacturer, an engine manufacturer can provide a fuel map that is an
approximation of the actual fuel map which provides a similar GEM cycle result as the map that is
ultimately provided which may be long after vehicle production begins, since actual credit calculations
using final maps are not required until months after start of production. In short, manufacturers learn
little about a competitor's engine from the fuel map. The fuel map does not contain IP. And it can be
-------
measured, once an engine is available, although doing such measurement would be a large expense for
little value. For these reasons, DTNA agrees with agencies' proposal that the Phase 2 program require
engine manufacturers communicate fuel maps to vehicle manufacturers for use in GEM, either
unprotected or encrypted. We agree with the agencies that the regulations should not require vehicle
manufacturers to measure their own fuel maps (to be used for GEM input) for engines they do not
manufacturer. Definition of the engine fuel map should be the sole responsibility of the engine
manufacturer. DTNA concludes that EPA's proposal for engine manufacturers to provide fuel map
information to vehicle manufacturers need not be a concern and is in fact a necessary ingredient for a
successful Phase 2 program.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-Al p.47]
CBI of tire data: we request that the agencies develop a SmartWay-like page with or information
about tires' relative performances, perhaps on a green yellow red basis (unlike today, which is
essentially a green or nothing basis). This would help HDV owners and buyers determine what the
appropriate tires are. We as vehicle manufacturers cannot develop such a page because of limitations on
our use of tire manufacturers' data. 80 FR 40216. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.79]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Compliance data sharing. We would also like to take this opportunity to express how the data sharing
about compliance of regulated vehicles does not appear to be nearly as detailed or as regular as that of
the regulatory development data availability as indicated in this NODA. As stated in our previous
comments, we recommend that the agencies make all GEM inputs and outputs fully available to the
public. Just as actual emission certification results are made public, these GEM data are the certification
compliance data and therefore should be made publicly available. Making the full certification database
publicly available is critical to let truck fleets who purchase the technologies, fleet consultants who
advise on the technology purchases, researchers, and citizen groups transparently see what otherwise
only is available to a select few government officials. In addition, we ask that the agencies include data
on the sales (or production volume) by model year of each certified engine and vehicle, as regulatory
compliance is based on a sales-weighted average of the results, and sales is a critical compliance
determinant and a missing link to see industry and within-segment average C02 and efficiency
performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1876-A1 p.2-3
We especially point out this compliance data question because the EPA began a process to be more
forthcoming about the compliance data (US EPA, 2014). The ICCT and other stakeholders provided
detailed comments (e.g., see ICCT, 2014). This process has apparently been halted. To date, compliance
data for model year 2014 (i.e., "Phase 1") heavy-duty vehicles' GEM inputs, C02 outputs, and critically
the production volume of all the vehicles and engines, has not been made available, when it would be
key in allowing stakeholders to understand the ongoing Phase 2 analysis. Similarly, in other compliance
areas, full data availability has been lacking. For example, light-duty vehicle C02 emissions are based
on vehicle model-specific C02 emissions, footprint, off-cycle credits, and production volume of
vehicles; however, EPA only shares parts of this data without allowing stakeholders to see or understand
all the compliance calculations. In addition, to our knowledge EPA has not shared the data to
demonstrate heavy-duty diesel in-use compliance (e.g., Portable Emissions Measurement System data)
for model year 2010- through 2014-compliant vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1876-A1 p.3
We understand that this NODA is about Phase 2 regulatory development data. Nonetheless, we think
data availability on compliance is at least as important as regulatory development data to ensure there is
follow-through on the commitments and expectations put forth within each rulemaking. As a result, a
full reporting of all model year 2014 vehicle and engine simulation input, testing, and output data
needed to determine companies' compliance standing, within the 2016 heavy-duty vehicle Phase 2 final
rulemaking release, would clearly seem warranted. Clear statements in the 2016 Final Rule about the
timeline and details for future year (i.e., model year 2015-2027) public compliance data availability
would also seem appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1876-A1 p.3
-------
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Implement requirements to collect and disseminate data to the public on real-world technology adoption
and performance to ensure that standards are leading to needed reductions in fuel use and carbon
pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1220-A1 p.2]
C. Collect and Disseminate Performance Data
NRDC believes that the agencies should design and implement programs to verify that improvements
required under the standards are resulting in the expected fuel consumption and emissions reductions in
real-world driving. Improvements included in Phase 2 GEM and the addition of new drive cycles with
vocational vehicles signal a significant transition toward compliance that accounts for more fuel
efficient technology across the vehicle. To ensure that new technologies are being applied in the market
and delivering real-world savings, the agencies should develop a program to collect and publicly
disseminate existing vehicle performance data and data generated in future model years. The agencies
should also establish procedures to demonstrate progress and to enhance the program transparency.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 7]
The agencies should collect and publicly disseminate vehicle configuration and performance data from
new vehicle sales and, to the degree possible, for the existing on-road fleet. Requirements for public
data are intended to accomplish three goals: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.7]
(a) Establish a broad technical database to support transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 GEM simulation
that is validated by on-road measurements,
(b) Enhance public understanding of actual technology adoption, and
(c) Track actual on-road emissions and fuel consumption performance of new vehicles and the full on-
road fleet.
The following recommendations are intended to address these goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-
A1 p.7]
i. Collect In-use Testing and Full Vehicle Testing Data and Make Data Publically Available
EPA and NHTSA should build a public database of chassis and full-vehicle testing performed by
manufacturers and the federal agencies. The agencies should expand its on-road testing to validate
current compliance models and encourage manufacturers to provide more data. The agencies should
make data available to the public to improve understanding of technology performance; where
necessary, data can be aggregated to protect confidential business information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1220-A1 p.8]
ii. Build a Truck Market Database for Public Use and Evaluation
Tracking fleetwide emissions is critical to understanding if improvements in per-truck emissions
required under the standards are actually resulting in reductions of emissions from the entire on-road
fleet. A future fleet of cleaner trucks could emit more carbon pollution than today's fleet if the future
fleet has a larger population or travels more miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.8]
-------
EPA and NHTSA should aggressively support federal efforts to reinstate surveys to collect truck market
data. Such surveys should provide a description of the truck fleet population and its operating
characteristics. A description of the existing fleet has been provided publically in the past through the
discontinued U.S. Census Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS). The VIUS classified truck data by
various characteristics including physical configuration (age, size, weight, body type, engine size, and
mechanical equipment), operational uses (business purpose, range, efficiency, and geography) and fuel
type. EPA and NHTSA should create a public database that includes current data from at least the same
fields of the VIUS but also allows organization of data consistent with the subcategories used in the
truck emissions and fuel economy compliance regime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 8]
iii. Publish an Annual Report Describing New and On-Road Fleet Performance EPA and NHTSA
should annually release a report that describes the emissions and fuel consumption performance of the
current and past model year fleets and the overall on-road fleet. For new vehicles, the report should
contain data similar to EPA's annual publication of "Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon
Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends". The report should be expanded to cover performance
and summary characteristics of the existing fleet (from the market database described above) so an
overall picture of medium- and heavy-duty truck emissions and fuel consumption progress is clear.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1220-A1 p. 8]
iv. Publish an Annual Report Describing Manufacturer Credit Balances and the Use of Any
Credit Flexibility Mechanisms
EPA and NHTSA should annually release a report that describes the manufacturer credit balances
within each compliance category. The report should also include the generation of credits under all
allowed flexibility provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.8]
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
EPA Should Not Make Rolling Resistance Data Public, but Should Develop a Rating System for
Medium and Heavy Truck Tires, to Include Replacement Tires. Without an accurate and up to date
rating system, publishing rolling resistance measurements could be counterproductive for operators.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.2]
The Agencies Should Not Publish Tire Rolling Resistance Measurements
The NPRM correctly states that tire manufacturers consider rolling resistance test data to be proprietary.
The NPRM continues to state that per EPA policy, "tire rolling resistance measurements are not
considered to be CBI and can be released to the public after the introduction into commerce date
identified by the manufacturer." The NPRM continues by requesting comment on whether "EPA should
release such data on a regular basis to make it easier for operators to find proper replacement tires for
their vehicles." While RMA appreciates the interest EPA expresses in educating vehicle operators about
tire rolling resistance in order to provide information about appropriate replacement tires, releasing
rolling resistance measurements would not contribute to this goal. RMA therefore recommends that the
Agencies not publish tire rolling resistance measurements and instead consider a more thoughtful
approach to providing tire rolling resistance ratings to replacement tire purchasers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1304-A1 p.12-13]
More importantly, publishing test data would only serve to confuse the constituency the Agencies intend
to assist. Rolling resistance test data submitted to an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) per this
regulation would reflect test data from three tires, tested pursuant to the conditions specified in this
-------
regulation. The test data would not provide any guidance about how to understand whether differences
among these test data represent meaningful distinctions, from a fuel economy or greenhouse gas
emissions standpoint, nor would it provide any information about test variability. Further, the test data
would not provide any information about how the difference in rolling resistance between two tire
models would translate to fuel savings on their specific type of vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p. 13]
The challenges associated with publishing rolling resistance test data submitted pursuant to compliance
with this regulation are heightened by the lack of a reference machine or alignment procedure. The
alignment procedure developed in ISO 28580 was designed specifically for the purpose of facilitating
meaningful comparisons among test data generated on different rolling resistance test machines.
Without an alignment procedure, as RMA cited in its comments on the Phase 1 NPRM, differences in
rolling resistance measurements of up to 20 percent can be seen in data generated on different well-
controlled machines. Without limiting this source of variation and without explaining this statistical
uncertainty, tire purchasers may make inaccurate assumptions about the granularity of the data
published that could lead to inappropriate tire purchases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1304-A1 p. 13]
Even more compelling, if rolling resistance data were made available, it would not be actionable on the
part of a truck or fleet operator, since similar information is not widely available for replacement tires.
Providing rolling resistance data to the public only for tires sold as original equipment would
disadvantage tires sold only as replacement tires, because information for those tires would not be
similarly available on a government website. RMA does not oppose the concept of providing
meaningful tire rolling resistance performance information to tire purchasers, if provided in an
actionable, easy to understand format. In fact, today many RMA members provide fuel economy
calculators for their truck tire customers freely on their websites. In addition, RMA has long supported
providing tire rolling resistance consumer information ("tire efficiency" information) to consumers at
point of sale for consumer vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 13-14]
If the Agencies are serious about educating the replacement tire marketplace about rolling resistance
performance of medium- and heavy-duty truck tires, RMA recommends that the Agencies develop a
mandatory rating system for these products, applicable to tires used in original equipment fitments and
those available in the replacement market. NHTSA is in the final stages of developing such a rating
system for passenger car tires. In addition, the European Union has developed and implemented a
similar rating system for tires sold in the EU. Information about the EU rating program is available at
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficient-products-and-labels/tyres. If the Agencies were to
develop such a rating system in the United States, it should include other important tire performance
information, such as traction performance, to assure that tire purchasers make selections truly
appropriate for their vehicle and driving needs. In addition, a tire should always match the vehicle and
tire information placards' specifications for tire and vehicle load ranges and speed ratings. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 14]
In addition to providing tire replacement rolling resistance ratings for new tires, the Agencies should
consider providing information to replacement tire purchasers about the benefits of retreaded tires, in
terms of resource conservation as well as tire rolling resistance. Today, about 40 to 50 percent of the
truck tires in service on America's roads and highways are retreaded tires. EPA has recognized the
significant role retreaded tires play in the truck tire market by including retreaded tires in the
SmartWayTM Partnership technologies program. As EPA states on its SmartWayTM verified
technologies website, "the EPA demonstrated that certain low rolling resistance retread products can
reduce NOx emissions and fuel use of long haul class 8 tractor-trailers by 3 percent or more, relative to
other popular high rolling resistance retread products." The SmartWayTM verified technologies list
-------
includes low rolling resistance treads (procure and mold cure) for retreaded tires that are at or below the
target thresholds established for the treads of retreaded tires for drive and trailer use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 14]
Rolling Resistance Machine Alignment. RMA renews its call for the Agencies to establish a reference
laboratory for use in correlating rolling resistance data generated in support of this rule and to provide a
clear and unambiguous guide to the compliance tests that the Agencies may conduct to enforce this
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.35]
EPA Should Not Make Rolling Resistance Data Public, but Should Develop a Rating System for
Medium and Heavy Truck Tires, Including Replacement Tires. Without an accurate and up to date
rating system, publishing rolling resistance measurements could be counterproductive for operators.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 35]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
GEM Inputs and Fuel Map CBI Issues
The proposed fuel-map requirements raise significant issues for some manufacturers relating to the
disclosure of confidential business information ("CBI"). Compelling engine manufacturers to provide
143-point fuel maps to third-party vehicle manufacturers (including in-advance of the production
availability of the engines at issue) and to the public could result in the disclosure of engine
manufacturers' highly proprietary engine designs and fuel efficiency strategies, resulting in potentially
significant adverse competitive effects. While encryption programs may be available to alleviate those
concerns, those programs, as well as their potential integration into GEM, have not been assessed or
finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.26]
Moreover, the Agencies are proposing to make GEM inputs subject to FOIA inquiries rather than to
protect those inputs as CBI. That is not appropriate, and EMA objects to this aspect of the Proposed
Phase 2 Standards. GEM inputs are not emission results and should be treated as CBI. It is not sufficient
for the Agencies to safeguard this information only until the vehicle/engine is introduced into
commerce. The GEM-input information goes to the core of market competition, and the Agencies must
recognize that. Unlike the case with respect to criteria pollutant certification data, which will generally
not affect the market, the Agencies' proposal to open manufacturers' highly competitive GHG/FE data
to FOIA disclosures could distort the market in unexpected ways. For example, if fleets perceive that
one manufacturer has better aerodynamics than another, the fleets could demand that the second
manufacturer make aerodynamic improvements. This could be problematic if the first manufacturer
optimizes its vehicles using technologies that actually compromise aerodynamics. The bottom line from
this example is that the only thing that matters is on-road fuel efficiency or, as a surrogate, GEM results
- the outputs, not the inputs. Moreover, the GEM inputs can be misleading, given that manufacturers
often put in different compliance margins to better insure against SEAs, with the result that inputs such
as aerodynamics may not be comparable, or may be misleading, from manufacturer-to-manufacturer.
The concerns relating to engine fuel map data are just as significant, as noted above. In summary, the
Agencies risk skewing the market for the worse if they reverse course by removing CBI protection for
GEM inputs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.26-27]
EPA is also seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider notch-specific engine/alternator
efficiencies to be confidential business information. Under the current"Class Determination 1-13,
Confidentiality of Business Information Submitted in Certification Applications for 2013 and subsequent
model year Vehicles, Engines and Equipment," there are three possible ways such information could be
-------
treated: 1) as information not entitled to confidential treatment; 2) as information entitled to confidential
treatment until introduction into commerce; or 3) information entitled to confidential treatment. The
"Class Determination" document, authored by EPA's Office of General, provides guidance as to how to
determine which of these three treatment options is appropriate for various types of information. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.75][This section can also be found in section 14.4.12 of this comment
summary]
The following table, taken from the Class Determination document, lists the information that can be
entitled to confidential treatment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.75][This section can also be
found in section 14.4.12 of this comment summary]
[Table 3, 'Manufacturer Information Entitled to Confidential Treatment', can be found on p. 76 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1]
In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. sections 2.204 and 2.205, information will be entitled
to confidential treatment if the manufacturer (1) asserts that the information is entitled to confidential
treatment, and (2) has not waived or withdrawn that assertion. Inherent in assertion (1) are the following
representations by the manufacturer: (a) they have maintained the information in confidence, (b) the
information cannot be readily obtained by other legitimate means, and (c) disclosure of the information
to the public both before and after model introduction would be likely to cause substantial harm to the
manufacturer's competitive position. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.76][This section can also
be found in section 14.4.12 of this comment summary]
EPA provides two alternative methods to certify engines used in locomotive applications. Such engines
can be certified on an engine dynamometer or alternatively in the locomotive. In the latter case, it is
necessary to know the notch-specific engine/alternator efficiencies to ensure that the engine is tested at
the appropriate speed and load conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.76][This section can
also be found in section 14.4.12 of this comment summary]
EMA believes that notch-specific engine/alternator efficiency clearly fits within the category "Technical
Description Information" on Table 3 above. Accordingly, EMA believes that notch-specific
engine/alternator efficiencies readily meets the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 2.204 and 2.205 and should
be treated as confidential business information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.77][This section
can also be found in section 14.4.12 of this comment summary]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
We also are concerned that the Proposed Standards do not go far enough in protecting company
proprietary information which could discourage innovation. Fuels maps and related data-rich
information are closely held within our industry, yet the Proposed Standards seem to envision that such
information will be made available to parties outside of the requisite company. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1140-A1 p.4-5]
Organization: Volvo Group
GEM Inputs Should be maintained as Confidential Business Information
As noted in the EMA comments, Volvo Group is concerned with proprietary data considered
Confidential Business Information (CBI) becoming public domain if used in the certification of engines
-------
and vehicles. Fuel mapping strategies, transmission shift strategies, and other features that Volvo Group
views as proprietary and confidential, and as providing a competitive edge in the constant race to lead
the HHD market in fuel economy, would become available to competitors not only once that technology
is released into production, but in the case of a competitor to whom we are also a supplier that
information would need to be made available prior to their vehicle model year certification.
Furthermore, since GEM inputs are not "emissions data", they are not automatically subject to
disclosure under CAA § 208(c), 42 U.S.C. § 7524(c). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.32]
We do, however, recognize that it will be necessary for vehicle manufacturers to have access to required
GEM inputs from suppliers, including engines, transmissions, axles, and tires. We believe such data, if
considered proprietary, could be encrypted so that it could be read into the GEM tool without direct
access to vehicle manufacturers who may also be competitors to these suppliers. Such encrypted data
could be restricted only to OEM certification personnel via a confidentiality agreement. Another
alternative is to use a third party contractor to run GEM simulations for vendor supplied engines so that
fuel maps could be maintained as confidential. We also believe that data for tire rolling resistance
should be publicly available so that vehicle owners can know which replacement tires will maintain the
vehicle in its certified configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.32]
In addition, given the complexity of the Phase 2 rule making there is concern over this information
being provided openly to a public that is not familiar with the technologies and derivation of the GEM
inputs employed to certify to the Phase 2 regulation, as well as the data being misrepresented to
competitively target customers with the same limited knowledge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.32]
For these reasons Volvo Group is requesting the Agencies consider this data as confidential business
information, and treat it accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.32]
Response:
The agencies received mixed comments regarding the question of whether GEM inputs should be made
available to public. Some commenters supported making this information available, while others
thought it should be protected as confidential business information (CBI). In accordance with Federal
statutes, EPA does not release information from certification applications (or other compliance reports)
that we determine to be CBI under 40 CFR part 2. Consistent with section 114 (c) of the CAA, EPA
does not consider emission test results to be CBI after introduction into commerce of the certified
engine or vehicle. (However, we have generally treated test results as protected before the introduction
into commerce date). EPA has not yet made a final determination for Phase 1 or Phase 2 certification
test results or other GEM inputs. Nevertheless, at this time we expect to continue this policy and
consider it likely that we would not treat any test results or other GEM inputs as CBI after the
introduction into commerce date as identified by the manufacturer.
In a broader context, the agencies agree with the principle that it would be helpful to make available to
the public data and information that would enable the public to track trends in technology sales over
time, as well as track company-specific compliance data. As described in the FRM Preamble, one
approach would be to publish an annual compliance report for the Heavy-duty Phase 2 program. In the
context of the light-duty vehicle GHG standards, EPA has already published four annual compliance
reports which has made available to the public detailed information regarding both how individual light-
-------
duty vehicle companies have been meeting their compliance obligations, as well as summary
information at the light-duty fleet level. NHTSA makes information on the light-duty fuel economy
program available through its CAFE Public Information Center
(http://www.nhtsa.gov/CAFE_PIC/CAFE_PIC_Home.htm). Information includes manufacturer and
overall fleet standards and CAFE performance, credit status, and civil penalty status. This information
has been helpful to increase transparency to all stakeholders and to allow the public to see how
companies are progressing from one year to the next with respect to their compliance requirements.
Prior to issuing such compliance reports, EPA and NHTSA will work with regulated manufacturers to
reconcile concerns over the release of claimed confidential business information, consistent with 40
CFR Part 2 and 49 CFR512.
1.4.7 General ABT issues 197
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Credit Transfers
In the Preamble of the Phase 1 Heavy-Duty rule (76 Federal Register 57106, 57127-28) NHTSA stated
that it was implementing "Program Flexibilities" in the form of different kinds of CAFE credits, and
averaging, banking and trading (ABT) provisions. NHTSA also said that it's important for
manufacturers to plan for compliance using a multi-year time frame, consistent with normal business
practice. NHTSA decided that it was prudent to start with a five-year carry-forward and three-year
carry-back approach to credit usage, but in doing so NHTSA would have time thereafter "to learn about
technical and other issues that can inform future rulemakings[, and that i]n the future, [NHTSA]
intend[s] to consider whether additional cost savings could be realized through broader trading
provisions and whether such provisions could be designed so as to address any other relevant concerns."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p. 15]
As raised during the interagency EO12866 review, AAPC agrees that the ability to transfer credits
between fleets can offer a cost effective way to meet multiple regulatory compliance challenges. With
limited product offerings and smaller fleet volumes, manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and engines
have unique limitations compared to manufacturers of light-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1 p. 15]
AAPC requests that the Agencies provide heavy-duty manufacturers with all reasonable mechanisms to
manage their fleet compliance. Current allowances for averaging, banking and trading that allow trading
only between narrowly defined averaging sets are overly restrictive, providing very limited flexibility to
large manufacturers and no flexibility to manufacturers who may only have a single product in a given
averaging set. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 15]
AAPC strongly encourages the Agencies to remove the restrictions for credit trading between engine
and vehicle averaging sets as well as to allow for trading of credits between Class 2b/3 trucks and vans
with vocational vehicles and engines on a "Megagrams of C02" and "gallons" basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 16]
Specifically, AAPC proposes trading across all medium- and heavy-duty compliance categories and
light duty fleets and would work with the Agencies to define necessary adjustment factors to get all
units into equivalent megagrams*. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 16]
-------
[Figure of vehicle adjustment factors can be found on p. 16 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Use of banked Phase 1 credits in Phase 2 program / Credit adjustment factors
The NPRM indicates that "positive market reception to Phase 1 technologies could lead to
manufacturers accumulating credit surpluses that could be quite large at the beginning of the Phase 2
program" (pages 40157 and 40251 of the NPRM). The NPRM does not attempt to quantify the level of
projected banked credits that could be available at the end of Phase 1. However, U.S. EPA and NHTSA
believe, even at this early stage of Phase 1 implementation, that substantial credits will be available that
will impact Phase 2 cost, technology readiness, and other key variables. The NPRM provides almost no
analysis of, nor accounting for, the potential implications of a large number of banked Phase 1 credits. A
large number of Phase 1 credits means that manufacturers have adopted C02 reducing technologies
much faster than originally anticipated. However, the NPRM baseline scenarios do not recognize that a
large number of banked credits reflect technology advancement beyond Phase 1 standards: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.78-79]
"In each of these proposed baseline configurations, the agencies have not applied any vehicle-level fuel
saving or emission reduction technology beyond what is required to meet the Phase 1 standards.
NHTSA and EPA reviewed available information regarding the likelihood that manufacturers of
vocational vehicles would apply technology beyond what is required for Phase 1, and we concluded that
the best approach was to analyze a reference case that maintains technology performance at the Phase 1
level." (page 2-113 of the RIA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p. 79]
U.S. EPA and NHTSA propose that these credits be fully carried over into the Phase 2 regulations,
without discounting. CARB staff has several concerns with this approach: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 79]
1) Allowing banked Phase 1 credits in the Phase 2 program reduces the efficacy of the Phase 2 program
and delays technology development progress. Generation of large volumes of credits in the Phase 1
program indicates that technology has progressed faster than anticipated during the Phase 1 rulemaking.
This faster Phase 1 progress should not justify reduced progress during Phase 2. CARB staff believes
sunsetting these credits with the Phase 1 program would still provide manufacturers the opportunity to
utilize these credits during Phase 1 (although some manufacturers may not), while maintaining the
technological momentum needed to cost-effectively meet more aggressive Phase 2 standards. CARB
staff believes that, at most, the life of remaining Phase 1 credits should be limited to no more than three
years or with MY 2020, whichever is sooner, such that they would be sunsetted after MY 2020. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 79]
2) The cost and benefit assessments in the NPRM did not account for the potential of large quantities of
banked Phase 1 credits in either of the "baseline" scenarios. If manufacturers have banked large
numbers of credits at the beginning of the Phase 2 program, this suggests that the baseline for purposes
of cost-benefit and feasibility analysis at the beginning of Phase 2 should reflect Phase 1 plus the
technology advancement associated with the large numbers of banked credits. A large number of credits
at the end of Phase 1 suggests the trajectory of technology advancement may be more rapid than utilized
-------
for baseline scenario modeling, and a more dynamic baseline may be appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.79]
3) Not only does the NPRM not discount the Phase 1 credits when carrying them over into Phase 2, it
actually adjusts these credits upwards, reflecting an increase in the proposed useful life definition.
CARB staff recommends against use of these proposed adjustment factors. U.S. EPA and NHTSA base
the calculation of credits on factors such as the emission level compared to the standard and the useful
life. Some of the useful life values in Phase 1 were substantially shorter than the actual typical useful
life; U.S. EPA and NHTSA have proposed to increase the useful life period for these classes of vehicles.
As a consequence of this increase, U.S. EPA and NHTSA propose to apply an adjustment factor relating
the old useful life to the new useful life. U.S. EPA and NHTSA assert that C02 deterioration is
relatively flat and thus, one can presume that the certified C02 levels will indeed continue to be met
over the longer useful life. While CARB staff agrees that it is appropriate to adjust the useful life
upwards to more closely represent the actual useful life, if the credit is multiplied by the ratio of new
"actual" useful life to Phase 1 (shorter) useful life, an additional fractional credit will be generated for a
benefit that already exists. Because this change in the useful life reflects a recognition of the actual
useful life, rather than an increase in the anticipated useful life, CARB staff believes that it is not
appropriate to apply a credit adjustment factor to these credits. Allowing the Phase 1 credits to be
adjusted upward based on a new extended useful life, as proposed, would take benefits achieved by the
Phase 1 program and ~ instead of allowing them to benefit the environment ~ would allow them to be
used to reduce the potential benefits of the proposed Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 80]
CARB supports the use of ABT to enable manufacturers to meet Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards in the
most efficient and cost-effective way. However, allowing excess Phase 1 credits into the Phase 2
program could result in slower technology advances than anticipated in the NPRM. CARB encourages
U.S. EPA and NHTSA to consider sunsetting banked Phase 1 credits in the Phase 2 program to lock in
the faster than anticipated technology adoption anticipated from Phase 1. CARB staff specifically
suggests that the Phase 1 credits, which currently expire after 5 years, be set to expire in three years or
with MY 2020, whichever is sooner. CARB staff further recommends that Phase 1 credits not be
adjusted upwards to reflect the change in the useful life to more properly approximate actual useful life.
Finally, CARB staff suggests a more dynamic baseline than U.S. EPA and NHTSA are proposing may
be appropriate if U.S. EPA and NHTSA are correct in presuming the accumulation of large numbers of
Phase 1 credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.80]
Manufacturers are demonstrating their ability to utilize ABT to cost-effectively meet and exceed
existing GHG standards. If U.S. EPA disagrees with CARB's recommendation and maintains its
proposal to allow Phase 1 credits in Phase 2, a significant number of Phase 1 credits in the early years of
Phase 2 provides greater justification for adopting Alternative 4 over Alternative 3 (as is CARB staff s
recommendation discussed elsewhere in this comment package). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
P-81]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Retirement of emission reduction credits
CARB staff recommends U.S. EPA and NHTSA consider the inclusion of a mechanism within the
proposed Phase 2 rulemaking for manufacturers to quantify and then voluntarily forego/retire emission
reduction credits (particularly for hybrid heavy-duty engines) in a way that is simple, real, transparent,
and enforceable. CARB staff is currently developing innovative technology regulatory requirements that
-------
could allow hybrid engine, vehicle and/or driveline manufacturers to meet more flexible CARB OBD
and other certification requirements to facilitate market launch of key hybrid truck and bus technologies.
The innovative technology regulations could also provide more limited certification flexibility for other
innovative engine technologies, such as WHR, that have the ability to achieve even greater C02
emission reductions. CARB staff anticipates that the innovative technology regulations could require
manufacturers opting to receive this flexibility to demonstrate that the applicable hybrid or other
innovative technology be surplus to all applicable rules, regulations, or other requirements. Further
detailed discussion on these issues follows. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.86]
CARB staff is exploring how a potential innovative technology surplus emission reduction compliance
demonstration might be conducted in a transparent and efficient way. One potential approach might be
to allow manufacturers to generate emission reduction credits from the hybrid or other innovative
technology as part of their federal Phase 2 compliance demonstration, and then require the manufacturer
to forego/retire these credits as part of their possible Phase 2 ABT reporting. This report would then be
shared with CARB as part of the demonstration that the hybrid technology receiving certification
flexibility via the innovative technology regulation is surplus to any Phase 2 requirement. The
accounting involved with generation, quantification, and retirement of the applicable emission reduction
credits would be critical for CARB to determine that the hybrid engines opting to participate in the
innovative technology regulation are surplus to Phase 2. Such a mechanism could mirror the approach
taken in the NPRM, 40 CFR 1039.710(h), which allows for quantification and retirement of emission
reduction credits generated by off-road engines. We believe credit for hybrid engines not participating
in the Innovative Technology Regulation should continue to be allowed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 86-87]
Another potential approach might be to allow manufacturers to voluntarily designate their credits to a
third party, such as CARB (or other public agencies). Such an approach would provide CARB staff with
assurance that a banked credit is permanently retired. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.87]
Without a reporting mechanism to ensure a technology is (and remains) surplus to the proposed Phase 2
requirements in each compliance MY, a potential Innovative Technology Regulation may need to
require manufacturers to supplement any adopted federal Phase 2 compliance demonstrations with a
California-specific Phase 2 compliance demonstration (with and without the hybrid or other technology,
weighted as appropriate by its anticipated California sales volume). Even in such circumstances,
however, it may be challenging for CARB staff to track whether a manufacturer utilizes the "surplus"
reduction associated with the hybrid or other technology in future year federal compliance
demonstrations. A formal mechanism for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with any adopted
federal Phase 2 standard, generate the appropriate emission reduction credits associated with a specific
technology, and then permanently forego/retire those credits could help align a potential CARB
Innovative Technology Regulation with any adopted federal Phase 2 program, and provide a simple,
real, transparent and enforceable mechanism to encourage key technologies in California that go beyond
proposed Phase 2 standards. CARB staff looks forward to discussing such a potential approach with
U.S. EPA and NHTSA over the coming months as CARB, U.S. EPA and NHTSA consider the adoption
of these potential rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 87]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Foregoing emission credits; Expiration of credits
CARB staff fully supports the provisions in 40 CFR 1039.701(h) that allow manufacturers to voluntarily
waive their rights to use banked emission credits. CARB staff s only recommendation for amending this
-------
proposal is that U.S. EPA and NHTSA should clarify that manufacturers choosing not to generate
credits for an engine family certified to a FEL more stringent than the applicable standard, as described
in 40 CFR 1039.701(h)(2), are permanently bound by that choice and cannot later decide to claim
credits for that engine family retroactively in a subsequent MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 128]
On a separate but related topic, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA adopt provisions
to set a reasonable timeframe for the compulsory expiration of Tier 4 non-road compression ignition
emission credits, and codify the terms for expiration in 40 CFR 1039.740. California is a participant in
the federal ABT program and is therefore dependent on U.S. EPA and NHTSA for action regarding this
request. Our concern is the delay in the full implementation of engines in California equipped with
advanced exhaust aftertreatment controls for both PM and NOx. More manufacturers than anticipated
are certifying off-road compression ignition engine families in California to Tier 4 final standards
without simultaneously employing both PM and NOx aftertreatment devices, and this is due in part, we
believe, to manufacturers' use of banked emission credits. We recognize that other factors may
contribute to this situation as well, but addressing the expiration of emission credits would help
California to more quickly achieve its much needed PM and NOx emission reduction goals. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 128]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports inclusion of ABT provisions in the Phase 2 GHG/FE regulation [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p.30]
Cummins considers ABT to be an important and necessary part of any regulatory program. ABT
encourages earlier implementation of new technologies, allows manufacturers flexibility in planning
their investments and managing product costs and provides relief for technical and lead-time issues. All
contribute to the development of reliable products that meet the needs of customers. We support the
inclusion of ABT provisions in this rulemaking. As described below, Cummins agrees with many
aspects of the proposed Phase 2 ABT program for GHG/FE that assist in a successful implementation of
the program without sacrificing the sought after environmental and fuel-saving benefits. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.30]
Cummins supports maintaining the Phase 1 ABT averaging set restrictions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p.30]
In the Preamble (80 FR 40157), the Agencies are proposing to continue the Phase 1 averaging sets and
restrictions in Phase 2. Cummins agrees with maintaining the Phase 1 averaging set and restrictions such
as: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.30]
• No credit exchange between gasoline, light heavy-duty (LHD), medium heavy-duty (MHD) and
heavy heavy-duty (HHD) engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.30]
• Credit exchange allowed between vocational and tractor engines within a service class. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.30]
• No credit exchange between engines and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.30]
Cummins supports continuing the use of C02-equivalent credits to comply with nitrous oxide (N20) and
methane (CH4) standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.31]
-------
The Agencies are proposing the continued use of C02-equivalent credits to comply with N20 and CH4
standards. Continuing this provision is appropriate in Phase 2, and Cummins supports it. The specified
Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of N20 and CH4 are used to account for the equivalent C02 credits
needed to offset any standards exceedance. This flexibility has been applied by various manufacturers in
Phase 1 and is necessary for Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.31]
Cummins opposes a 90-day final reporting deadline for ABT [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.31]
Cummins urges the Agencies to maintain Phase 1 ABT reporting deadlines where the final ABT report
is due at 270 days after the end of the model year. Many engine/vehicle first point of sale information is
not known for well over 90 days after the model year is over. Thus, without that location information
the credits from those engines would not be allowed if the first point of sale was in the US and occurred
on day 91. This is an unreasonable and punitive proposal due to the fact that the markets and customer
demand fluctuates and not all first point of sales will occur within 90 days at the end of the model year.
The current final reporting using first point of sale information up to 270 days needs to be maintained.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.31]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Averaging, Banking & Trading (80 FR 40387 et seq.) - The agencies propose to retain the 5-
year carry-forward rule for all heavy-duty sectors. The agencies should instead allow a credit carry-
forward period of more than 5 years, allowing Phase 1 credits generated in the model years 2014 to
2019 to be used in later model years up to 2027. EPA included a similar provision in the light-duty
vehicle regulations. This provision would assist manufacturers in retaining their usual heavy-duty
vehicle lifecycles (much longer than 10 years) and gaining additional compliance flexibility. By
including such a provision, the agencies would allow an appropriate lead time that will enable the
industry to comply with the Phase 2 regulations. As the costs for fuel-saving technologies are likely to
decrease over time, future vehicle generations can be equipped with future technologies at lower costs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 113-114]
Credit Transfer Between Class 2b-3 Medium-Duty and Light-Duty Programs Daimler
encourages EPA and NHTSA to allow the transfer of credits between the medium-duty truck and van
(Class 2b-3) program and the light-duty vehicle program. As EPA recognized in responding to similar
comments made by Daimler on the light-duty Phase 2 proposed rule, EPA is authorized under the Clean
Air Act to allow such transfer. See EPA Response to Comments, 2017 and Later Model Year Light-
Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, at 10-13
(Aug. 2012). Previously, EPA indicated that such a step would require careful analysis and notice and
comment, see 77 FR 62789 (Oct. 15, 2012), and committed to making such a proposal for broader credit
transfers, including transfers between light- and heavy-duty vehicles, in the second phase of its heavy-
duty GHG rulemaking. See 76 FR 57128 (Sept. 15, 2011) ("Through this public process, emphasizing
the Administration's strong preference for flexible approaches and maximizing the use of market tools,
the agencies intend to fully consider whether broader credit trading is more appropriate in developing
the next phase of heavy-duty regulations."). Although the heavy-duty Phase 2 proposed rule has not
specifically proposed allowing such a credit transfer, as the agencies committed, the agencies have
requested comment on all aspects of their proposed medium-duty truck and van standards and on all
aspects of their proposed Averaging, Banking, and Trading program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p. 114]
The agencies purposely structured the medium-duty truck and van program to be akin to the light-duty
program. The program is attribute-based with the standards set pursuant to a mathematical function.
-------
While the agencies added elements to the footprint-based attribute to account for the functionality of
these vehicles, the agencies also made clear that the measured performance values for C02 are generally
equivalent to fuel consumption. Compliance with the light-duty and medium-duty standards is measured
through similar dynamometer light-duty program. The agencies recognize all of these commonalities in
the heavy-duty Phase 2 proposed rule. See 80 FR 40148 (recognizing similarities between medium-duty
trucks and vans and light-duty vehicles), 40175 (same chassis dynamometer test procedure), 40331-32
(comparable weight range, manufacturing, and GHG/foel economy technologies), 40365 (recognizing
technology sharing and requesting comment on agency plans to analyze light-duty and medium-duty
trucks and vans jointly). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 114]
Daimler considers the standards established for medium-duty trucks and vans to be challenging and
aggressive. For example, compliance with the Phase 1 standards required that many 6- cylinder diesel
engines be downsized to 4-cylinder diesel engines. Far from creating "windfall" credits to apply to the
light-duty program, any credits earned with regard to Class 2b-3 vehicle represent substantial emissions
improvements, as well as real and measurable reductions in C02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p. 114-115]
In the medium- and heavy-duty Phase 1 rule, the agencies effectively created three separate programs:
one for tractor/trailers, one for vocational vehicles, and one for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and
vans. While the first two programs involve vehicles where emissions regulation has in the past been
focused exclusively on engines, the third program is vehicle- based—just as with the light duty GHG
program—and in fact involves vehicles in the same weight ranges but subject to different use. Vehicles
that meet certain criteria designed to identify "work trucks" are placed with the medium-duty truck and
van program, while vehicles meeting certain criteria designed to identify "medium duty passenger
vehicles" are placed within the light-duty program. Allowing credit transfers in this class between the
light-duty and light heavy-duty vehicle fleets is consistent with the agency's general structure to treat
like vehicles alike. The basic programs categorize vehicles by general type, construction, and use. The
ABT program recognizes that similarly weighted vehicles are likely to utilize the same engine,
transmission, and after-treatment technologies to reach and exceed compliance. EPA established a
system whereby similar vehicles using similar technologies could share credits across the various
programs. Nothing in the Clean Air Act prohibits the agency from using its discretion to harmonize and
promote its greenhouse gas program across similar vehicles and to promote more broadly the
application of emissions reducing technology. EPA should exercise this discretion in a limited fashion
to allow credits earned on Class 2b-3 vehicles in the medium-duty truck and van program to be applied
in the light-duty program as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 115]
NHTSA also has the legal authority to apply credits developed in its medium- and heavy-duty fuel
consumption program. Although the legislation mandating NHTSA's program did not expressly
authorize a credit program, NHTSA nonetheless exercised its discretion in the heavy-duty Phase 1
rulemaking to adopt one and to harmonize its program with the EPA program. NHTSA also noted in the
program that it has considerably more leeway within the medium- and heavy-duty program to establish
flexibilities and to include consideration of credits within its standard setting than it does under the
light-duty program. Allowing the transfer of Class 2b-3 vehicle credits between the medium-duty
program and the light-duty program is an extension of the same discretion that led and authorized
NHTSA to develop the medium-duty credit program initially. Daimler urges NHTSA to use the same
authority to extend the credits in a limited fashion, and along the same lines as EPA, to allow credits
generated on Class 2b-3 medium-duty trucks and vans to be applied in the light-duty CAFE program.
[EPA-HQ-OAR- 2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 115]
-------
Technology neutral standards: The EPA proposes technology neutral standards. We agree that this is
the right approach. Prescribing technology to vehicle manufacturers is not the right role for the EPA.
That said, the agencies should recognize that—although they purport to create technology neutral
standards—in creating a separate engine standard alongside a vehicle standard, the agencies depart from
technology neutrality, forcing technology onto the engine even if the same net emissions impact on-road
could be achieved through vehicle-side technologies. We recommend that, upon a showing from a
manufacturer that a vehicle-side technology creates extra emission reductions beyond those necessary
for vehicle-side compliance, that the manufacturer be able to convert those extra emission reductions
into an engine-side credit (and vice versa). Only with such an allowance will the agencies truly achieve
the technology neutrality that they claim their regulations have. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p. 116]
Erroneous reference: in ABT provisions, the EPA requires that a manufacturer account for a credit
limitation at 1037.40(c), yet there is no such provision. The agency needs to clarify. 1037.40(c) [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 117]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
The EPA requested comments on the life of Phase 1 credits in 2021. We are working with some OEMs
to produce Phase 1 credits with advanced technology in the market today and are accelerating advanced
technology development and deployment. Should Phase 1 credits carry over toward 2021 compliance,
we would be further incentivized to accelerate new fuel saving technology as it would also generate
compliance value and flexibility for our customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 19]
Organization: General Motors
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 103.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 121-122.]
We have also had favorable experience with the extended carry forward time allowed in the light duty
regulation, which has resulted in manufacturers achieving greater improvements sooner based on the
understanding that they will not waste through expiration the surplus credits that they have earned
through their early actions. This concept could also be applied to the medium and heavy duty segments.
Organization: Gentherm, Inc.
Comment #1. Treat Tractor emissions at the Tractor level; provide a transparent mechanism for
efficiency improvements trades between Powertrain and Engine technology areas. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.l]
Background from Draft
"We also propose not to allow trading between engines and chassis, even within the same vehicle class.
Such trading would essentially result in double counting of emission credits, because the same engine
technology would likely generate credits relative to both standards." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-
A1 p. 1-2]
-------
In the proposed draft the target for improvements of C02 emissions for Engines is listed as 4% for
diesel engines and 0% for gasoline engines. At the same time, the expected C02 emission reduction
resulting from powertrain improvements are listed at 24%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.2]
Proposed change: Gentherm recommends allowing for a mechanism to trade emission reductions
between engine and chassis. In other words, we are proposing an implementation of mechanism which
would encourage engine manufacturers to adopt advanced technologies which would reduce C02
emissions beyond the level defined in this ruling. To achieve this we are proposing an ability to apply
additional improvements at the tractor level. As an example, if an engine improvement in a gasoline
engine (and associated technologies such as Waste Heat Recovery) of Class 7 vehicle can contribute to
C02 emissions reduction, this could be accounted towards the overall goal of efficiency improvement.
Another example would be a case where improvement of diesel engine emission exceeds the stipulated
4%. The proposal would is to allow the improvements above the stipulated numbers to count towards
overall tractor improvement efficiency, effectively allowing trading between the improvements from
Engines and Powertrain. Instead of the concern of double-counting the credits, as indicated in the draft
of the rule today, the allowance of trading would stimulate industry cooperation between engine and
chassis/powertrain makers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.2]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
NADA/ATD fully supports the proposals allowance for averaging, banking, and trading, for small
business accommodations, and for other flexibilities designed to enhance compliance and program
effectiveness. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 11]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Sections 1036.730 andl037.730 of the NPRM propose to set the deadline for filing final ABT reports to
March 31st following the model year, thus reducing total the period for filing final ABT reports. This is
a significant reduction in the filing time frame from that in the current rule requirements of 90 days for
an end of the year report and 270 days for a final report. Navistar opposes the reduced time frame for
the final report. The rules as they exist already constitute a significant burden. This change also appears
to reduce the time frame to correct errors, since the rules currently allow all errors to be corrected by the
final report. The proposal effectively only allows the correction of an error if it is works against the
manufacturer by reducing the number of credits. There is no reasonable basis for this change. Given the
complexity of the rules, manufacturers ought to be able to correct any errors within 270 days as is
presently the case. In addition, this proposed change coupled with significant cutting of the final report
deadline will have an unnecessary and unwarranted effect of increasing the burden on the manufacturer.
We also note that the 90 / 270 day timeframe has been in place for many years for other types of
emissions such as NOx, and will remain in effect in that context. There is no reason a dual time frame
should exist. Navistar would be in favor of eliminating the first report at March 31 as part of an
alternative approach that allows a single report, but provides sufficient time in which to create that
report. We also note, in this regard, that the Proposed Rule potentially significantly expands the number
of separate families that must be tracked for ABT purposes. This only increases the burden and argues
directly feasibility of allowing less time for report filing than is the case today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p. 14]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Retain the Existing ABT End of Year 270-day Reporting
-------
The proposal to reduce the time for end of year reporting for Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT)
and for production volumes to 90 days after the end of the calendar year named in the model year is
overly restrictive. This proposal comes too soon after production periods are completed and will add an
unnecessary burden onto manufacturers as well as preventing EPA and NHTSA from receiving the most
complete and thus more accurate data on the vehicle and engine configurations that are entering into
operation. PACCAR recommends retaining the current 270 days from the end of the calendar year that
is named in the model year for report submission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.29]
Organization: Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc.
IV. Compliance with the proposed regulations using ABT is not possible or feasible for Tiffin
After a studied reading of the proposed regulations, it is not possible or feasible for Tiffin to meet the
proposed 2021, 2024 and 2027 standards using ABT. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.3]
The ABT provisions are not a viable alternative for Tiffin for two reasons. First and foremost, Tiffin
currently manufactures only two chassis models, one classified as a MHO, the other as an HHD. These
chassis are produced only for motorhomes, and exclusively for Tiffin. This narrow range or products
along with the low production volume provide a much lower level of compliance flexibility under the
ABT provisions. The annual production volumes for these chassis are; MHO 300-500 units per year,
and HHD 500-700 units per year. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.3-4]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
AB&T Credit Life and Averaging
Allowing Phase 1 credits to carry-over into the Phase 2 program is critical to the feasibility and cost-
effectiveness of the Proposed Phase 2 Standards for medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. Simply
stated, if Phase 1 credits were to expire at the end of the Phase 1 program, the Phase 2 program, as
proposed, would not be feasible for heavy-duty vehicles. In addition, the Agencies should clarify that
manufacturers are not required to use current-year excess credits to balance a prior-year's deficit. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.47]
In particular, the Agencies will need to change the wording of proposed sections 1036.745(c) and
1037.745(c), which are carry-overs from the Phase 1 program. Currently, those provisions state as
follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.47]
(c) You may apply only surplus credits to your deficit. You may not apply credits to a deficit from an
earlier model year if they were generated in a model year for which any of your engine families for that
averaging set had an end-of-year credit deficit. (Emphasis added) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.47]
While the Agencies' intent in proposing this language may be to require manufacturers to reconcile an
aggregate deficit within a given model year before carrying credits over to off-set a deficit in a different
model year - with the net effect that only "surplus" credits from a model year can be used - the current
regulatory language is not so limited. Manufacturers necessarily will have engine and vehicle families in
a given model year that have deficit balances even though there is a net positive balance for the entire
averaging set. That is the whole point of "averaging." Consequently, the Agencies should revise the
proposed regulatory sections at issue to state as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.47]
-------
(c) You may apply only surplus credits to your deficit. You may not apply credits to a deficit from an
earlier model year if they were generated in a model year for which your averaging set had an end-of-
year credit deficit. (Emphasis added) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.48]
End-Of-Year Reporting
EMA supports the Agencies' proposal to have manufacturers submit one report at the end of the model
year to track compliance with the Proposed Phase 2 Standards. However, given the time that it takes for
many engines and vehicles (most especially from the most recent model year) to reach their final
configuration and point of sale, the deadline for the submission of that one end-of-year report should be
270 days (not 90 days) after the close of the calendar year named in the model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.48]
Organization: Volvo Group
Engine Efficiency
Recognizing that the Agencies have chosen to include a separate engine efficiency regulation, we
encourage them not to increase stringency beyond the proposed levels. Maintaining engine stringency at
these levels pushes the envelope of engine technology without forcing the many negative consequences
we have outlined in these comments. Furthermore, we are very concerned that an engine manufacturer
could generate significant credits (for example by selling alternatively fueled engines) so that they could
avoid selling undesirable, complex, expensive engine technology, while competitors, lacking such
credits, would be pushed out of the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 19-20]
Response:
The Phase 1 ABT provisions were patterned on established EPA ABT programs that have proven to
work well. In Phase 1, the agencies determined this flexibility would provide an opportunity for
manufacturers to make necessary technological improvements and reduce the overall cost of the
program without compromising overall environmental and fuel economy objectives. Commenters
generally supported this approach for engines, pickups/vans, tractors, and vocational vehicles. Thus, we
are generally continuing this Phase 1 approach with few revisions to the engine and vehicle segments.
However, as described in Section 5, we are finalizing a much more limited averaging program for
trailers that will not go into effect until 2027. The agencies see the overall ABT program as playing an
important role in making the technology-advancing standards feasible, by helping to address many
issues of technological challenges in the context of lead time and costs. It provides manufacturers
flexibilities that assist the efficient development and implementation of new technologies and therefore
enable new technologies to be implemented at a more aggressive pace than without ABT.
Relation of ABT to Stringency
Volvo commented that the ABT program should not be used to justify more stringent standards.
However, ABT programs are more than just add-on provisions included to help reduce costs. They can
be, as in EPA's Title II programs generally, an integral part of the standard setting itself. A well-
designed ABT program can also provide important environmental and energy security benefits by
increasing the speed at which new technologies can be implemented (which means that more benefits
accrue over time than with later-commencing standards) and at the same time increase flexibility for,
and reduce costs to, the regulated industry and ultimately consumers. Without ABT provisions (and
other related flexibilities), standards would typically have to be numerically less stringent since the
-------
numerical standard would have to be adjusted to accommodate issues of feasibility and available lead
time. See 75 FR 25412-25413. By offering ABT credits and additional flexibilities the agencies can
offer progressively more stringent standards that help meet our fuel consumption reduction and GHG
emission goals at a faster and more cost-effective pace.22
Volvo's comments seemed to be primarily addressing the proposed vocational vehicle standards. They
argued that "it is completely unacceptable that the Agencies promulgate a regulation where an entire
class (regulatory subcategory) of vehicles is known and intentionally targeted beforehand to be
incapable of meeting the standard for that subcategory when utilizing the full technology package and
the expected penetration rates used to set the standard." However, that is not what is being done in the
final rule for vocational vehicles. As explained in Preamble Section V.C.(2) and RIA Chapter 2.9, the
vocational vehicle standards for each of the subcategories (Regional, Multi-Purpose, Urban powered by
LHD, MHD, and HHD engines) were developed as are all the other standards in the rule: reflecting
achievable reductions based on the technology packages and penetration rates in the agencies'
designated potential compliance pathways. In particular, the agencies are not basing any of the
vocational vehicle standards on either normalization of the baseline, or equalization of the standard
stringencies. The standards being adopted thus would be achievable without averaging.
Carryover of Phase 1 Credits and Credit Life
The agencies proposed to continue the five-year credit life provisions from Phase 1, and not to adopt
any general restriction on the use of banked Phase 1 credits in Phase 2. In other words, Phase 1 credits
in MY2019 could be used in Phase 1 or in Phase 2 in MYs 2021-2024. CARB commented in support of
a more restrictive approach for Phase 1 credits, based on the potential for manufacturers to delay
implementation of technology in Phase 2 by using credits generated under Phase 1. We also received
comments asking the agencies to provide a path for manufacturers to generate credits for applying
technologies not explicitly included in the Phase 1 program. In response to these comments, the
agencies have analyzed the potential impacts of Phase 1 credits on the Phase 2 program for each sector
and made appropriate adjustments in the program. For example, as described in Section II of the FRM
preamble, the agencies are adopting some restrictions on the carryover of windfall Phase 1 engine
credits that result from certain test procedure aspects of the Phase 1 vocational engine standards. Also,
as described in Section III of the FRM, the agencies are projecting that Phase 1 credit balances for
tractor manufacturers will enable them to meet more stringent standards for MY2021-2023, so the
agencies have increased the stringency of these standards accordingly.
In particular, CARB argued that the agencies had not analyzed the impacts of allowing carryover of
Phase 1 credits into Phase 2. However, we have analyzed such impacts and have adjusted the MY 2021
tractor standard to be one percent more stringent based on projected Phase 1 credit balances for tractor
manufacturers.23 Although not explicitly quantified in other cases, the likelihood of manufacturers
having significant Phase 1 credits available in the Phase 2 timeframe has allowed us be less conservative
in our projections of the availability and effectiveness of technologies. Just as important, CARB
appears to be overlooking a very important benefit of allowing manufacturers to bank credits. It
provides an incentive for manufacturers for manufacturers to develop new technologies and introduce
them into the market as soon as possible. The effect of CARB changes would be to reduce this
incentive, which appears to conflict with their comments regarding advanced technologies.
22 See NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F. 2d 410, 425 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (upholding averaging as a reasonable and
permissible means of implementing a statutory provision requiring technology-forcing standards).
23 Memo to Docket, Phase 1 Credit Balance Analysis, August 2016.
-------
Although, as we have already noted, the numerical values of Phase 2 standards are not directly
comparable in an absolute sense to the existing Phase 1 standards (in other words, a given vehicle would
have a different g/ton-mile emission rate when evaluated using Phase 1 GEM than it would when
evaluated using Phase 2 GEM), we believe that the Phase 1 and Phase 2 credits are largely equivalent.
Because the standards and emission levels are included in a relative sense (as a difference), it is not
necessary for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards to be directly equivalent in an absolute sense in order
for the credits to be equivalent.
This is best understood by examining the way in which credits are calculated. For example, the credit
equations in 40 CFR 1037.705 and 49 CFR 535.7 calculate credits as the product of the difference
between the standard and the vehicle's emission level (g/ton-mile or gallon/1,000 ton-mile), the
regulatory payload (tons), production volume, and regulatory useful life (miles). The Phase 2 payloads,
production volumes, and useful lives for tractors, medium and heavy heavy-duty engines, or medium
and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles are equivalent to those of Phase 1. However, EPA is changing
the regulatory useful lives of HD pickups and vans, light heavy-duty vocational vehicles, spark-ignited
engines, and light heavy-duty compression-ignition engines. Because useful life is a factor in
determining the value of a credit, the agencies proposed to apply interim adjustment factors to ensure
banked credits maintain their value in the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2.
For Phase 1, EPA aligned the useful life for GHG emissions with the useful life already in place for
criteria pollutants. After the Phase 1 rules were finalized, EPA updated the useful life for criteria
pollutants as part of the Tier 3 rulemaking. The new useful life implemented for Tier 3 is 150,000 miles
or 15 years, whichever occurs first. This same useful life is being adopted in Phase 2 for HD pickups
and vans, light heavy-duty vocational vehicles, spark-ignited engines, and light heavy-duty
compression-ignition engines. The numeric value of the adjustment factor for each of these regulatory
categories depends on the Phase 1 useful life. These are described in detail in Sections II, V, and VI of
the Preamble. Without these adjustment factors the changes in useful life would effectively result in a
discount of banked credits that are carried forward from Phase 1 to Phase 2, which is not the intent of
the changes in the useful life. With the relatively flat deterioration generally associated with C02, EPA
does not believe the changes in useful life will significantly affect the feasibility of the Phase 2
standards. CARB's opposition to this adjustment appears to be the result of either its general opposition
to allowing Phase 1 credits into Phase 2, or a mistaken belief that there will be an actual in-use
difference between usage patterns for Phase 1 and Phase 2 vehicles. To the extent their comment
reflects the former, we do not believe it would be appropriate to use this useful life difference to
discount Phase 1 credits. If it is the latter, we do not believe there will an in-use durability difference
for vehicles at the end of Phase 1 (e.g. MY2020) and vehicles at the start of Phase 2 (e.g. MY 2021).
We note that the primary purpose of allowing manufacturers to bank credits is to provide flexibility in
managing transitions to new standards. The five-year credit life is substantial, and allows credits
generated in either Phase 1 or early in Phase 2 to be used for the intended purpose. However, we
believe that limited ability manufacturers have had to generate Phase 1 credits for Class 2b through 7
vocational vehicles, along with the sometimes narrow product line for some manufacturers, makes it
more likely that the five-year credit life would be too short for these vocational vehicles. As described
in Section I.C.(l)(b)(i) of the FRM Preamble, the agencies are extending the credit life for the Light and
Medium heavy-duty vehicle averaging sets (typically vehicles in Classes 2b through 7) so that all credits
generated in 2018 and later will last at least until 2027.
For other engines and vehicles, the agencies believe a credit life longer than five years is unnecessary to
accomplish this transition. Restrictions on credit life serve to reduce the likelihood that any
manufacturer will be able to use banked credits to disrupt the heavy-duty vehicle market in any given
-------
year by effectively limiting the amount of credits that can be held. Without this limit, or other
constraints, one manufacturer that saved enough credits over many years could achieve a significant
cost advantage by using all the credits in a single year. The agencies believe that allowing a five-year
credit life for all credits, and as a consequence allowing use of Phase 1 credits in Phase 2, creates
appropriate flexibility and appropriately facilitates a smooth transition to each new level of standards.
Averaging Sets
EPA has historically restricted averaging to some extent for its HD emission standards to avoid creating
unfair competitive advantages or environmental risks due to credits being inconsistent. It also helps to
ensure a robust and manageable compliance program. Under Phase 1, averaging, banking and trading
can only occur within and between specified "averaging sets" (with the exception of credits generated
through use of specified advanced technologies). We proposed to continue this regime in Phase 2,
retaining the existing vehicle and engine averaging sets, and creating new trailer averaging sets.
Comments were mixed, with some supporting the proposed restrictions, and others supporting
relaxation of the restrictions.
We are not allowing trading between engines and chassis, even within the same vehicle class. Such
trading would essentially result in double counting of emission credits, because the same engine
technology would likely generate credits relative to both standards (and indeed, certain engine
improvements are reflected exclusively in the vehicle standards the agencies are adopting). With
respect to Gentherms's comment, we believe the inclusion of fuel maps in GEM will provide sufficient
additional incentive for engine improvements.
The agencies continue to believe that maintaining trading to be only within the classes listed above will
provide adequate opportunities for manufacturers to make necessary technological improvements and to
reduce the overall cost of the program without compromising overall environmental and fuel efficiency
objectives, and it is therefore appropriate and reasonable to allow under the agencies' respective
statutory authorities. We do not expect emissions from engines and vehicles - when restricted by weight
class - to be dissimilar. Similarly we expect complete HD pickups and vans to be more similar to one
another than to other Class 2b-5 vehicles or to light-duty vehicles. We therefore expect that the lifetime
vehicle performance and emissions levels will be very similar across these defined categories, and the
credit calculations will fairly ensure the expected fuel consumption and GHG emission reductions.
These restrictions have generally worked well for Phase 1, and we continue to believe that these
averaging sets create flexibility without creating an unfair advantage for manufacturers with erratically
integrated portfolios, including engines and vehicles. See 76 FR 57240.
Credit Deficits
The Phase 1 regulations allow manufacturers to carry-forward deficits for up to three years. This is an
important flexibility because the program is designed to address the diversity of the heavy-duty industry
by allowing manufacturers to sell a mix of engines or vehicles that have very different emission levels
and fuel efficiencies. Under this construct, manufacturers can offset sales of engines or vehicles not
meeting the standards by selling others (within the same averaging set) that better than the standards.
However, in any given year it is possible that the actual sales mix will not balance out, and the
manufacturer may be short of credits for that model year. The three-year provision allows for this
possibility and creates additional compliance flexibility to accommodate it.
-------
EMA comments that "manufacturers necessarily will have engine and vehicle families in a given model
year that have deficit balances even though there is a net positive balance for the entire averaging set."
However, EMA misunderstands what it means for a family to have an end-of-year deficit. An engine
family is not actually considered to have an end-of-year deficit if the manufacturer has sufficient credits
to achieve a zero-balance in the end-of-year report.
Voluntary Retirement of Credits
CARB recommended that the agencies include a mechanism within the proposed Phase 2 rulemaking
for manufacturers to quantify and then voluntarily forego/retire emission reduction credits. The
agencies proposed such a program and are finalizing it. See 40 CFR 1036.701(e) and 1037.701(e).
Reporting Requirements
Several commenters opposed the proposed change to the reporting deadlines and supported maintaining
the Phase 1 ABT reporting deadlines where the final ABT report is due at 270 days after the end of the
model year. Some noted that the required information may not be known for well over 90 days after the
model year is over. The agencies have decided to not finalize the proposed changes and instead to
largely continue the Phase 1 approach. However, we are changing the reporting deadlines slightly to
make them dates certain rather than a number of days after the model year ends. Reports will now be
due on March 31 and September 30. These are essentially the same deadlines, but will be easier to
implement because neither manufacturers nor the agencies will be required to track small changes to the
end dates of model years.
Other Issues
Daimler identified an incorrect reference a nonexistent §1037.40(c) in the proposed 40CFR 1037.730.
This has been revised to refer to 1037.740(c)
1.4.8 Global Warming Potential Comments
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
• Global Warming Potential (GWP) change for non-C02 GHGs - EPA should refrain from
having different GWP based on vehicle classifications. If EPA chooses to lower the N20 GWP
from 298 to 268 and increase CH4 from 25 to 36 based on latest IPCC report, the cost-benefit
analysis needs to be clearly outlined in the final RIA inclusive of the impact on flex fuel vehicle
and CNG products. In addition, the effective impact on greenhouse gas stringency associated
with offsetting exceedances of the N20 and CH4 cap standards must be evaluated. Furthermore,
the draft RIA should also include a detailed analysis of the merits of using Global Temperature
Potential (GTP) values in lieu of GWP for both N20 and CH4 As stated above, this change
should be consistent across all vehicle classes, as well as, all regulations under EPA and
NHTSA authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 11]
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
We Strongly Support Maintaining the Agency-wide Use of the 100-year Global Warming
Potential of 25 for Methane that Was Established in the IPCC's AR4
-------
Establishing a global warming potential (GWP) is a critical issue in any GHG program. EPA has wisely
adopted a single GWP that it uses consistently in all of its programs and reporting obligations. More
specifically, EPA consistently uses a 100-year GWP of 25 for methane. This GWP was established in
the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007.4 We strongly support
maintaining this approach for the Phase 2 Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1223-A1 p.2]
Examples of EPA's use of the AR4 GWP include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.2]
• The LD Phase 1 Rule, the LD Phase 2 Rule, and the HD Phase 1 Rule;5'6'7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1223-A1 p.2]
• EPA's Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories;8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-
Alp.3]
• The recently-announced strategy to reduce methane from the oil and natural gas
industry;9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
• The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule;10 and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
• The national inventory of GHG emissions and sinks.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1
p.3]
In addition to ensuring internal consistency among EPA's many greenhouse gas programs, maintaining
the use of the AR4 GWP also enables EPA to coordinate its data with the data collected by EPA
pursuant to its obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). Doing so "improves EPA's ability to analyze corporate, national, and sub-national GHG
data consistently, enhances communication of GHG information between programs, and gives outside
stakeholders a consistent, predictable set of GWPs to avoid confusion and additional burden."12 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
We strongly support the continued use of the AR4 GWP in this Proposal. Furthermore, we believe that
changing the GWP should be an agency-wide decision, and not an outcome of any particular sector-
specific rule. Anything else could result in a patchwork of inconsistent metrics being used across the
array of EPA programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
4 P. Forster and V. Ramaswamy. "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing".
Chapter 2 of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, page
212. http://www.ipcc.ch/publicationsanddata/ar4/wgl/en/ch2s2- 10-2.html.
5 HD Phase 1 Rule, page 57188.
6 "Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards; Final Rule." Federal Register, May 7, 2010. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2010-05-
07/pdf/2010-8159.pdf. page 25421. (Hereafter cited as "LD Phase 1 Rule")
7 "2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule." Federal Register, October 15,
2012. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2010-05-07/pdf/201Q-8159.pdf. page 62667. (Hereafter cited
as "LD Phase 2 Rule").
8 "Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories". Environmental Protection Agency, April 4,
2014. http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/emission-factors.pdf. Table 9.
-------
9 "Fact Sheet: EPA's Strategy for Reducing Methane and Ozone-Forming Pollution from the Oil and
Natural Gas Industry". Environmental Protection Agency, January 14,
2015. http://www.epa.gov/airqualitv/oilandgas/pdfs/20150114fs.pdf.
10 "2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations for
New or Substantially Revised Data Elements". Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 98,
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934; FRL-9902-95-OAR, RIN 2060-AR52, page 21, November 15,
2013. http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/documents/pdf/2013/documents/2013-data-elements.pdf.
11 "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2013: Potential Revisions to Liquids
Unloading Methodology for Natural Gas Systems". Environmental Protection Agency, page 2,
December
2014. http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/pdfs/Potential%20Revisions%20to%20Liquids%20Un
loading%20Emissions%20Esti mate%2012.11 .pdf.
12 "Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories". Environmental Protection Agency, April 4,
2014. http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/emission-factors.pdf. Table 9.
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
The Methane GWP Used for Analysis and Trading Must be the 20-year GWP from AR5
The EPA has requested input regarding what methane global warming potential ("GWP") is appropriate
for the purposes of these standards. As we have strenuously urged in previous comments to the EPA, the
only reasonable source is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") most recent
assessment. At present, this is the Fifth Assessment Report ("AR5"), but GWP values should be updated
each time a new Assessment Report becomes available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 16-17]
As noted in the call for comments within the Proposed Rule, there are several GWP values from which
to choose, depending on both carbon cycle feedbacks and time frame for climate impacts. With regard
to carbon cycle feedbacks, it is essential to employ the GWP that includes carbon cycle feedbacks. The
groundbreaking realization by the contributors to AR5 was that carbon cycle feedbacks are an inherent
part of the warming caused by C02. Yet, until the most recent Assessment, they were omitted from
GWP values for other greenhouse gases. Thus, until AR5, the GWP conversion was actually comparing
apples to oranges. The only way to accurately compare among greenhouse gases - the entire purpose of
a GWP - is to include carbon cycle feedbacks. This amounts to a 100-year methane GWP of 36. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 17]
The second choice with regard to the GWP for methane is time horizon: 20 years or 100 years. We urge
the EPA to analyze the effects of the rule using both, but to use the 20-year GWP for trading purposes
as this is the most accurate reflection of the time scale for this rule.84 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-
A1 p. 17]
The selection of a particular time horizon for GWPs influences the policy focus because the analysis and
comparison occurs only at the selected time frame. Many policy analysts and decision makers, believe
that a 100-year focus is important for long-term climate stabilization, while a near-term (20 years or
less) focus is equally crucial because the next few decades will determine whether catastrophic and
irreversible damage can be avoided before tipping points are crossed. Decision makers and the public
should be presented with the 20-year effects of greenhouse gases to focus attention on short-term
-------
solutions that may abate immediate harm sufficiently to allow us to reach climate stability on a 100-year
and beyond time scale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 17]
The time-based distinction between GWPs is of key importance for a greenhouse gas such as methane.
Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere a little over a decade; by
contrast, C02 has an atmospheric lifetime of a century and beyond. Methane has exerted the second
largest warming influence since the Industrial Revolution, behind only C02.85 And crucially, the AR5
value for its 20-year GWP (87) is nearly 2.5 times higher than its 100-year GWP (36). The implications
of this difference for responsive action are enormous. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 17]
84 See Morgan R. Edwards & Jessika E. Trancik, Climate impacts of energy technologies depend on
emissions timing, 4 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 347 (2014).
85 Myhre 2013, supra note 69, IPCC Figure 8.17 at 69.
Organization: Clean Energy
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 248-249, 250-251.]
Specifically, we appreciate the continued allowance of cross-pollutant trading of CH4, N20, and C02.
The rule also provides consistency. Continued utilization of the 100-year global warming potential of 25
for CH4 provides a standard metric across the full array of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles as
well as other agency rules governing greenhouse gas emissions.
Organization: NGVAmerica
J. GWP Values for Methane (CH4) and N20. EPA has proposed using the GWP values identified
in the IPCC Fourth Assessment [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1270-A1 p. 8]
NGV America strongly supports the continued use of the GWP values used under the Phase 1 rules.
These GWP values have long-standing acceptance and are used for purposes of the greenhouse gas
regulations covering light and medium duty passenger cars, and also for numerous other EPA rules.
Using these values provides consistency and uniformity across a number of regulatory programs and
allows efficient comparisons across these regulatory programs. Therefore, we strongly urge EPA to
continue to use the GWP values adopted under Phase 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1270-A1 p. 8]
Organization: Optimus Technologies
GWP Values for CH4 and N20
Concerning the Request for Comment on Changing Global Warming Potential Values in the Credit
Program for CH4 and N20 at 80 FR 40206 (Column 1, Paragraphs 1-2): "Therefore, we not only
request comment on whether to update the GWP for methane and nitrous oxide to that of the Fifth
Assessment Report, but also on which value to use from this report." The IPCC states on page 44 of its
Synthesis Report1 that global concentrations of N20 (as well as C02 and CH4) have been steadily
-------
increasing despite efforts and regulations to curb and decrease its concentration. As such, Optimus
Technologies believes the higher value for nitrous oxide should be used. In regards to methane, Optimus
Technologies believes the EPA should consider using the 20-year GWP value, stated in the report as 86,
given the shorter lifetime of methane. The harmful effects of methane should be mitigated by increasing
the GWP of methane (and thus reducing the number of vehicles/engines with excess methane emissions
on the road). Methane emissions are especially prevalent with natural gas (CNG or LNG) vehicles. In a
recent Pennsylvania State University Study2, researchers state that "the CH4 emissions are nearly 100
times higher for CNG" and that the "CH4 emissions from the CNG vehicle lead to C02 equivalent
emissions of 1890 g/mi, compared to the 1785 g/mi of C02 emitted by the diesel vehicle." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1276-A1 p.l]
1 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5 SYR FINAL All Topics.pdf
2 http://www.research.psu.edu/events/expired-events/naturalgas/documents/trans-fuels-position-
paper.pdf
Organization: Securing America's Future Energy
We support maintaining key structural components established in the Phase 1 Rule, which provide for a
fair and consistent Phase 2 Proposal. Specifically, SAFE is agrees with the continuance of the
compliance pathway flexibility for cross-pollutant trading of methane and the 100-year global warming
potential factor for methane. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1462-A1 p.2]
SAFE supports the continuation of the compliance pathway flexibility for cross-pollutant trading of
methane and using 100-year global warming potential of 25 for methane. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1462-A1 p. 4]
Response:
The Phase 1 GHG rule included a compliance alternative allowing heavy-duty manufacturers and
conversion companies to comply with the respective methane or nitrous oxide standards by means of
over-complying with C02 standards (40 CFR 85.525). More specially, EPA allows manufacturers to
use C02 credits (generated from the same averaging set) to comply with the methane and nitrous oxide
requirements after adjusting the C02 emission credits based on the relative GHG equivalents. To
establish the GHG equivalents used by the C02 credits program, the Phase 1 heavy-duty vehicle
rulemaking incorporated the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report GWP values of 25 for CH4 and 298 for
N20, which are assessed over a 100 year lifetime. EPA is largely continuing this allowance for Phase
2.
Since the Phase 1 rule was finalized, a new IPCC report has been released with new GWP estimates.
EPA asked for comment on whether the methane GWP used to establish the GHG equivalency value for
the C02 Credit program should be updated to those established by IPCC in its Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5). The IPCC AR5 presents four different potential values for the GWP of methane over a 100 year
lifetime, ranging from 28 to 36. These values are the result of slightly different calculation methods.
Therefore, we not only requested comment on whether to update the GWP for methane to that of the
AR5, but also on which value to use from this report. The GWPs of 28 and 30 are both a result of using
a carbon cycle approach consistent with that used in the Fourth Assessment Report. This carbon cycle
approach included a climate-carbon feedback when calculating the lifetime of a pulse of carbon dioxide
emissions, but did not include any climate-carbon feedback when calculating the impacts of a pulse of
non-C02 greenhouse gas emissions. As the GWP is the ratio of the impact of a pulse of non-C02 GHG
-------
emissions relative to a pulse of carbon dioxide emissions, a second approach was presented where the
non-C02 GHG pulse also included climate-carbon feedbacks. This second approach yields GWP values
of 34 or 36. For the purposes of this rule, EPA is choosing the approach that includes climate-carbon
feedbacks for both non-C02 and C02 pulses, as the agency considers this the approach most likely to be
adopted by the international scientific community in future assessments on the timescale of this rule.
The IPCC presents the value of 34 as the default value for the methane GWP, but also reports a value of
36 for "fossil" methane to take into account the atmospheric C02 that would result from the oxidation of
methane in the atmosphere.
We received a number of comments on this issue. For the most part, the environmental community
favored using the more recent GWP value and even some commented that EPA should use a methane
GWP based on a 20 year timeframe. On the other hand, the natural gas industry and natural gas truck
manufacturers commented that EPA should not update to the newer GWP values but continue to use the
methane GWP value from the AR4 IPCC report because EPA is still using the methane GWP from the
AR4 today in other contexts. Although EPA is currently using AR4 values in other contexts, it is
unlikely that EPA will still be using AR4 values in 2021 when the Phase 2 requirements begin. Thus,
commenters opposing the use the methane GWP from the later IPCC report are not persuasive. EPA
will continue to base the credit adjustment on a 100 year timescale because it seems to best balance
short-term versus long-term effects of climate change.
Of the possible 100 year methane GWP values presented in the IPCC AR5 report, EPA is choosing to
use the value of 34 because it is the primary value presented by the IPCC and because the approach of
not accounting for the C02 oxidation product within the GWP for methane is consistent with prior IPCC
practice.24 The use of this GWP for credit adjustments will not begin until 2021, when the Phase 2
engine standards go into effect. The choice of this GWP value for future rules on this timescale does
not prejudice the choice of other GWP values for use in regulations and other purposes in the near term.
1.5 Lead Time 216
Organization: Advanced Engine System Institute (AESI)
There appears to be ample evidence to indicate that, of the options considered by the agencies,
Alternative 4's timeline comes closest to striking the right balance though it does appear greater
reductions than the 4.2% in the proposal could well be feasible now and still be quite cost-
effective. There are now a multitude of technologies, including waste heat recovery, turbo-
compounding, advanced downspeeding, hybridization, etc. that can be ready to deploy in the Alternative
4 timeframe or sooner at still reasonable cost, provided the right policy or market signal and some
combination of incentives or credits. EPA may want to consider whether such incentives or credits,
particularly in an era of low fuel prices, might expedite the development and commercialization of these
technologies and promote earlier and more cost-effective achievement of the program goals. If the
Agency chooses not to adopt a technology-driving engine standard in this rulemaking cycle, it may
make sense to incorporate a Mid-term Review or evaluation of engine related technologies in the not too
distant future so the standards can be adjusted and updated to keep pace with innovation and the
growing need to reduce carbon emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1 p.2 [[These comments
can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.290-291.]]
Organization: American Bus Association et al.
24 The corresponding N20 value from the AR5 report is 298, which is the same as the value used in Phase 1.
-------
We, the 16 undersigned trade associations, represent a diverse cross-section of industries that have a
strong interest in the joint U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration proposed rule "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2." Our combined 240,000 members rely on a strong,
vibrant U.S. commercial motor vehicle industry to safely and cost-effectively transport goods and
people, provide high quality direct and indirect job opportunities, and make meaningful contributions to
cleaner air and safer roads. Given we are already very concerned over the proposed Phase 2 "Alternative
3" efficiency targets, we ask EPA and NHTSA to reject what is defined in the NPRM as "Alternative 4"
to avoid serious negative economic implications for fleets, truck manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, and
the nation's economy as a whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1293-A1 p.l]
Equipment acquisition costs are a top consideration for all fleets. New and increasingly more stringent
emissions and safety regulations have required extensive changes to engines and vehicles, including the
addition of expensive technologies such as exhaust after-treatment systems. As a result, vehicle and
operation costs have risen significantly over the past 10 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1293-A1
p.2]
Fleets can better absorb cost increases associated with the purchase of fuel efficient technologies if they
deliver reasonable payback periods and return on investment. We are concerned that the actual costs of
Phase 2 technologies for model year 2017-2027 vehicles and trailers will greatly exceed the agencies'
estimates. Fleets look at the total cost of ownership—acquisition and operation costs, fuel, personnel,
maintenance, overhead, road charges, insurance, residual values, and taxes. If the incremental
investment and operating costs of trucks and trailers manufactured to comply with the Phase 2
regulations are not met by corresponding fuel savings and reliability benefits, it is likely that fleets will
avoid buying them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1293-A1 p.2]
For suppliers to the heavy-duty commercial vehicle industry, "pre-buys" and "low-buys" of Phase 2
technologies have serious economic implications. When EPA mandated new engine technologies
effective in 2007, fleets held off buying new vehicles and jobs at U.S. heavy-duty commercial vehicle
manufacturers, suppliers, and dealers suffered significantly. We are very concerned that the Phase 2
Rule "Alternative 4" is not achievable and could, as a result, seriously impact fleet operations and have
a downward effect on U.S. jobs and the economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1293-A1 p.2]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Standards in 2027 must drive advanced technologies.
If the program is extended to 2027, those standards must go well beyond what is currently proposed to
meet the agencies' requirements for appropriate and maximum feasible standards. A crucial function of
motor vehicle emissions standards is to promote the further development and accelerate the deployment
of promising technologies whose pathway to market acceptance is less clear. EPA has the authority to
set technology-forcing standards under the Clean Air Act; it is especially important that the agency
exercise that authority in a rule, such as this one, that has a long time horizon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.6]
The proposed rule recognizes this, and includes technologies such as advanced aerodynamics and
vocational hybrids in the compliance scenario for this reason. However, given that the proposed
standards can be met without drawing on those technologies, it is necessary to substantially strengthen
the 2027 standards to ensure the program does in fact promote the development of these and other
-------
advanced technologies and point the way to further, major gains for heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1280-A1 p. 6]
Recommendation: Acceleration of standards to 2024 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1280-A1 p.29]
• Adopt standards for 2024 that are comparable or superior in fuel consumption reductions to the
2027 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.29]
For 2027, adopt technology-forcing standards that will help drive advanced technologies into the market
and reduce overall fuel consumption by 31% beyond Phase 1 levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-
A1 p.29]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
The proposed 2027 standards - and more - can cost-effectively and feasibly be achieved by model
year 2024.
As discussed in detail below, the fuel consumption reduction achieved by 2027 in the preferred
alternative (Alternative 3) can and should be reached or exceeded by 2024. However, the agencies'
compliance package for Alternative 4 represents only one pathway to reach those reductions, and it is
unlikely to be the lowest cost option to do so. In particular, we find that an overall fuel consumption
reduction of 24% relative to 2017 levels could be achieved cost-effectively in 2024 without the use of
advanced technologies, as described later in these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.6]
Other Issues
Acceleration of Standards to 2024 and ensuring 2027 standards promote adoption of advanced
technology
As noted above, ACEEE finds that the overall stringency of the standards proposed in Alternative 4, and
more, is readily achievable. That is, the fuel consumption reduction achieved by 2027 in the preferred
alternative (Alternative 3), can and should be reached or exceeded by 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.27]
The majority of improvements beyond Phase 1 would come from fuel consumption reduction in tractor
trailers, followed by heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles. Table 9 replicates the
agencies' proposed improvement for heavy-duty vehicles and engines and the overall reductions in 2024
and 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.27]
[Table 9 can be found on p.27-28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
Greater reductions can be achieved in all vehicle and engine classes, however, even without accelerating
or increasing reliance on advanced technologies such as waste heat recovery (Rankine
cycle/turbocompounding), hybrids, or advanced aerodynamics. By adopting higher effectiveness values
from the SwRI study for some incremental engine, transmission, and vehicle technologies, as explained
in the previous sections, we can achieve 26% and 31% reductions in overall fuel consumption in 2024
and 2027, respectively, substantially more than the 23.5% reduction from the proposed 2027 standard.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.28]
-------
Moreover, given concerns that have been raised about the cost, performance and/or durability of some
advanced technologies, it is worth noting that similar results can be achieved in 2024 without any
adoption of waste heat recovery, advanced aero for tractors and trailers, level 3 tires, start/stop systems
or strong hybrids. If we exclude these technologies from our 2024 package and keep the agency
penetration rates for all other technologies, we can still attain 24% reduction in 2024, as shown in table
10. This shows that the manufacturers can comply with stronger standards than those proposed with
existing technologies in the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.28]
[Table 10 can be found on p.28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
However, it is important that the standards in fact help to draw new technology into the market,
especially if they are set out to 2027. The package mentioned above, delivering an overall fuel
consumption reduction of 31% in 2027 using the agencies' assumptions for adoption and effectiveness
of advanced technologies would be an appropriate target for that year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p.28]
Figure 3 shows the fuel consumption reductions in 2024 or 2027 for the three scenarios discussed, and
compares them with the Phase 2 proposal for 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1280-A1 p.29]
[Figure 3 can be found on p.29 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
Recommendation: Acceleration of standards to 2024 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.29]
• Adopt standards for 2024 that are comparable or superior in fuel consumption reductions to the
2027 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.29]
• For 2027, adopt technology-forcing standards that will help drive advanced technologies into
the market and reduce overall fuel consumption by 31% beyond Phase 1 levels. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.29]
Organization: American Lung Association
The American Lung Association offers the following recommendations to strengthen the stringency and
timing of the proposal and address several key elements of California's commitment to protecting public
health and air quality. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 143-144]]
The American Lung Association recommends adopting the most aggressive implementation schedule,
Alternative 4, bringing the rule online by 2024, and requiring much stronger fuel efficiency to achieve a
40 percent fuel reduction savings. These changes will help to drive down emissions sooner and help
move us further down the path to clean, healthy air by cutting significantly more carbon dioxide
emissions, cuts that are crucial to fighting climate change. The urgency of climate change and the air
pollution challenges in California indicate that we need all emission reductions possible in the near
term. Analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that a greater reduction in fuel use is
possible.1 Their analysis showed that by going to 10.7 mpg from 6.3 mpg, the standards could achieve a
40 percent reduction in fuel use by 2025. A stronger fuel efficiency standard will reduce petroleum
consumption more rapidly and reduce emission of greenhouse gases. There is no reason to delay-action
now will also help to spur further action to reduce emissions from the truck sector. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0087-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1420, p. 144.]]
-------
1 Union of Concerned Scientists. Engines for Change: From Cell Phones to Sodas, How New Truck
Standards Can Improve the Way America Ships Goods. March 2015. Available online at
http://www.ucsusa.org/enginesforchange
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ATA Opposes Alternative 4
Phase 2 will only be successful if projected future technology patterns are wholly recognized. Making
the best predictions on what the trucking sector will look like in over a decade from now is an extremely
difficult undertaking. Factors such as the state of technology development, fleet buying patterns, future
industry-wide purchasing estimates, the strength of the national and global economies, along with fuel
and equipment pricing, will determine whether the agencies' proposed targets can be achieved. Given
this multitude of variables, ATA strongly urges the agencies to adopt Alternative 3 as the chosen
pathway subject to addressing various concerns contained in our comments. Current cost projections
and efficiency improvements do not, and should not, warrant pulling-ahead the 2027 targets to 2024 as
proposed under Alternative 4. Such approach would result in serious market disruptions and force
unproven technologies into the market before being fully tested and verified - a dire result the industry
seeks to avoid given the recent history fleets experienced involving the regulation of particulate matter
('PM") and nitrogen oxides ('NOx") emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.5]
Organization: Autocar, LLC
4.6 Additional lead time would not provide sufficient relief. Although Autocar appreciates the
Agencies' willingness to consider providing additional lead time for compliance by small custom
chassis manufacturers, the Company believes that additional lead time would not remedy the difficulties
faced by such manufacturers in meeting the proposed standards or the negative consequences for the
industry. For example, the manufacturers would still have limited ability to benefit from averaging and
to spread compliance costs across many vehicles. We would still suffer from the shortage of technical
compliance expertise, and customers would still experience disruption to their businesses due to
production delays, upfront cost increases and increased continuing maintenance costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 16]
Organization: Barcode Technology Solutions
Please do not delay in enacting this important regulatory policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0764 p.2]
Organization: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
The proposed EPA/DOT Phase 2 rule-making can help us pursue both our air quality and GHG
emission reduction goals. To ensure the maximum benefits are achieved from this joint-rule-making
effort, we would like to offer the following suggestions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1136-A1 p.2]
Adopt the schedule proposed in Alternative 4 to accelerate the roll-out of the Phase 2 standards so full
implementation is reached by 2024 instead of 2027. This option will result in greater overall reductions
in fuel use and GHGs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1136-A1 p.2]
-------
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
The agencies are requesting comment on the alternatives described in Section X below. The agencies
seek comment on the feasibility of Alternative 4, whether for some or for all segments, including
empirical data on its appropriateness, cost effectiveness, and technological feasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1241-A1 p.2]
Bendix believes that Alternative 3 - 2027 proposed standard should be adopted rather than Alternative 4
- 2024 which is also under consideration. Alternative 3 will be more feasible by providing more time for
development of technologies required to meet the stringencies proposed by the agencies. In addition,
many of the technology adoption rates have significant uncertainty associated with them. We must
avoid situations where fleets and smaller customers experience increases in vehicle downtime due to
component failures or vehicle acquisition and operating cost increases that diminish the profitability of
their businesses. The fleets will create a market pull for technologies that save them operating costs with
payback times between 18 and 48 months. A well risk-managed adoption of new technologies is more
feasible with Alternative 3 for all regulatory categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.2]
Organization: BYD Motors
BYD would also support more aggressive implementation of the stringency levels, such as Alternative
4, which would accelerate the stringency levels by 3 years to 2024. This change would cause fleet
operators to more seriously consider advanced technologies. It would also allow the agencies the
flexibility to evaluate the appropriateness for the inclusion of advanced technologies for future phases
and the ability to implement those changes sooner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p.2] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.228.]]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
1. Strengthen the overall proposal and adopt the Alternative 4 timeline in order to deliver greater climate
benefits earlier
CARB strongly recommends that the federal agencies strengthen the overall proposal and adopt the
Alternative 4 timeline, rather than adopt the proposed Alternative 3. While the two alternatives are
nearly identical in terms of technological feasibility and payback periods for fuel efficient technologies,
Alternative 4 accelerates full program phase-in by three years, from 2027 to 2024, and as discussed
below, can be strengthened in overall stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.2] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.21-22.]]
By 2030, Alternative 4 as proposed would provide about four million metric tons more cumulative
greenhouse gas benefits in California than Alternative 3, and together with Phase 1 would reduce
petroleum use from the medium- and heavy-duty sector by about 22 percent. Yet, this still is not
enough, and even more needs to be done to strengthen the federal Phase 2 proposal, such as including an
increase in the engine-only standard, as described in our next recommendation. Overall, a strengthened
Alternative 4 would provide an important step toward reaching Governor Brown's climate goals and 50
percent petroleum reduction target for the transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.2]
Adopting Alternative 4 standards across all vehicle categories would also result in the Phase 2 program
being fully phased in by 2024 (by 2025 for pickups and vans), three years earlier than if Alternative 3
-------
standards are adopted. This would allow manufacturers to take action on reducing NOx emissions from
the heavy-duty vehicles addressed in this rulemaking in a timelier manner. This is especially important
since heavy-duty vehicles are responsible today for one-third of California's NOx emissions. The South
Coast Air Basin will need nearly a 90 percent reduction in heavy-duty vehicle NOx emissions by 2031
from 2010 levels to attain the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.
Additionally, on November 25, 2014, U.S. EPA issued a proposal to strengthen the ozone NAAQS. If a
change to the ozone NAAQS is finalized, California and other areas of the country will need to identify
and implement measures to reduce NOx as needed to complement federal emission reduction measures.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.21]
In this rulemaking action, Alternative 4 provides manufacturers of heavy-duty engines and heavy-duty
vehicles approximately eight years of lead-time to develop and apply technologies needed to comply
with the most stringent greenhouse emission standards. This time frame is 60 percent longer than the
time frame considered by the NRDC court, and in light of the extensive information discussed in this
NPRM regarding the numerous control technologies that manufacturers are anticipated to utilize to
comply with the proposed standards, their capability of reducing GHG emissions, current states of
development, and identification of the major steps needed to refine those technologies for
implementation in MY 2024 engines and vehicles, it is clear that Alternative 4 is consistent with the
lead time requirements of section 202(a)(2) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7521 (a)(2)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.25-26]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Lead time
The NPRM requests comment on the lead time for the proposed rulemaking and market disruption.
CARB staff suggests that U.S. EPA and NHTSA conduct additional research on the market impact of
the proposed rulemaking, including an ex post (retrospective) analysis of the market impacts resulting
from existing GHG and criteria pollutant engine and vehicle regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 187]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc, et al.
Expected technologies must be appropriately demonstrated
A core principle of the Clean Air Act is that expected technologies must be feasible, including
accounting for cost and development lead-time. Given the complexity of modern technology, unique
customer duty cycles, and the myriad of federal, state, and local regulations under which commercial
vehicles operate, it is not enough to presume a technology will be available and gain market acceptance
unless it has been adequately demonstrated in commercial service. An effective "technology
demonstration" must include a substantial amount of successful testing (meaning it is reliable, durable,
efficient, and cost effective) within a commercial fleet in revenue-generating applications. It is
insufficient to rely on demonstration of a few vehicles operating in carefully selected applications or
routes tailored to their design. It is even less appropriate to rely on promises of future technology from
suppliers who wish to ensure a market for the technologies in their development plans. There is a very
long history of failed technologies in both of these categories. A number of key technologies within the
Phase 2 rule expectations fail to meet the hurdle of adequate demonstration, including for example:
Rankine waste heat recovery; tractor aerodynamics (within the proposed regulatory context); future
levels of tire rolling resistance; "deep integration" of vocational powertrains; stop-start for heavy-duty
-------
diesels; and vocational hybridization. It is unacceptable to base stringency targets on such unproven
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.5]
One thing we are certain of is that we could not achieve, and therefore cannot support, the pull-ahead of
these standards according to the plan identified as "Alternative 4" in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1215-A1 p.7]
One key factor is the cost of an increase in both reliability and durability failures due to forcing
technology that is immature or inadequate for all applications within the defined regulatory
subcategories and their associated duty cycles (e.g. increased warranty surcharges, repair costs after the
warranty period, increased downtime and the resultant loss of income, and penalties for missing delivery
on time-sensitive loads). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.7]
The Agencies have also proposed to revise certain provisions of the Phase 1 protocols. These revisions
have the effect of increasing the stringency of the Phase 1 requirements already in the implementation
phase. We oppose any such changes because the requisite lead time is not provided to comply. [EPA -
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p. 8]
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
Accelerated Implementation
As explained in the Proposed Rule, an accelerated schedule for implementation is part of the "maximum
feasible and appropriate" alternative. The proposed rule refers to "Alternative 4" as an option to speed
implementation by 2 to 3 years. The Center strongly urges the Agencies to adopt this earlier
implementation schedule for greenhouse gas standards. Earlier implementation will allow for 13 percent
greater cumulative emissions reductions, given the same engine and vehicle standards.56 As noted in the
Proposed Rule, this accelerated implementation schedule would extend the payback period for most
commercial trucks by only about 3 months57 and appears to be "very cost effective." Earlier
implementation is a key component of meeting the technology-forcing mandate of the governing
statutes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 12]
Besides greater lifetime emissions reductions and fuel savings, an earlier implementation schedule
would provide an earlier date to revisit the standards and adjust as necessary. As proposed, the standards
would cover nearly 10 years. This is an exceedingly long period in which there is much opportunity for
innovation and more advanced technology to come to the fore. Even over the short period of the Phase 1
standards, it has become clear that technology implementation is outpacing the standards. An
accelerated implementation schedule for Phase 2 that ends with model year 2024/2025 would allow the
Agencies to re-analyze at an earlier date the level of fuel savings and emissions reductions that are
feasible and appropriate, with the potential for the next phase of fuel savings to begin sooner. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 12]
The available data indicate that manufacturers have easily complied with Phase 1 standards, which had a
shorter implementation time.59 For instance, the Proposed Rule indicates that "credit surpluses could be
quite large at the beginning of the proposed Phase 2 program." The accumulation of such excess credits
is a clear indicator that the Phase 1 standards were not stringent enough, and by extension, necessitates
more stringent Phase 2 standards than what the Agencies are currently proposing. Another indicator that
compliance with Phase 1 standards has been nearly effortless is the fact that some technologies assumed
for Phase 1 standards have not been used at all to comply with 2014 standards, as is the case with
automatic engine shutdown and idle reduction technology on Class 8 tractors. This is particularly
-------
noteworthy considering that idle reduction technology was one of only four classes of technology
assumed for the purposes of Phase 1 standards for Class 8 tractors.62 Finally, there is clear evidence that
most manufacturers (including those that also produce heavy-duty pickups and vans) are beating even
the more stringent standards for large light-duty pickups and vans.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-
A1 p. 12-13]
Another factor that must be considered is the high cost of the total delay in meaningful emissions
reductions between both the lenient Phase 1 standards and the currently-proposed decade-long delay
until full implementation of the Phase 2 standards. In light of the fact that, under optimistic assumptions,
only a few decades remain to achieve sharp greenhouse gas emission reductions to avoid exceeding the
2°C warming increase that is the internationally-agreed target, scheduling full compliance with the
Proposed Rule's targets over ten years from now is unreasonable and unjustifiable. As the
Administration's laudable recent report on the cost of delaying action on climate change demonstrates,
the cost of delay is extremely steep as well as irreversible, and it rises exponentially as delay
continues.64 Based even on this recent report's highly conservative assumptions (omitting, for example,
the effects of crucial tipping points such as methane release from melting permafrost), the report values
the cost of delay alone as at least $ 150 billion for every year of delayed action if the delay results in
overshooting the increase of temperatures over pre-industrial levels by just one degree Celsius, and
sharply higher annual amounts for every degree of warming thereafter.65 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1460-A1 p. 13]
At present, global emissions continue to increase and are on a path leading to a projected total warming
above pre-industrial temperatures of some 4.5° Celsius,66 resulting in annual costs exponentially higher
than those examined by the Cost of Delay report.67 Plainly, every year of unnecessary delay in
implementing the maximal technological feasible reductions in the face of steeply rising, persistent, and
irreversible costs - including the acknowledged possibility that mitigation will be too late altogether68 -
is unreasonable and unjustifiable. The final rule should accelerate the implementation timeline to at least
2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p. 13]
In sum, the Proposed Rule does not embody a reasonable balance between the statutory factors to reach
standards that are technology-forcing under the Clean Air Act or that represent the maximum feasible
improvement under EISA. This is a result of underestimations of technology availability and
effectiveness, market penetration, and overestimation of the time needed to implement the Phase 2
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 13-14]
56 Draft RIA at 5-47.
57 Id. at 10-29.
59 Implementation times: Final rule for Phase 1 was promulgated in 2011, with C02 standards in effect
beginning in 2014; fuel standards were not mandatory until 2016. In the Proposed Rule, the earliest start
of standards would be 2021, with final stringency not reached until 2027.
62 Phase 1 Final Rule, supra note 11 at 57,207.
63 US EPA, http://www3.epa. gov/otaa/climate/ghg-report.htm; Union of Concerned Scientists, Fact
Sheet: Tomorrow 's Clean Vehicles, Today (May 2015), available at
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/05/tomorrows-vehicles-todav.pdf.
-------
64 The White House, Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change at 2 (July 29, 2014), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/29/white-house-report-cost-delaving-action-stem-
climate-change ("Cost of Delay").
65 Id.
66IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM at 14.
67 See, e.g., Nicholas Stern, The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate
Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models, 51 Journal of
Economic Literature, (3), 838-59 (2013), available at
http://www.aeaweb.org/atvpon.php7return to=/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/iel.51.3.838; Frank Ackerman and
Elizabeth Stanton, Climate Risks and Carbon Prices: Revising the Social Cost of Carbon, Economics:
The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 6, 2012-1 (2012), available at http://www.economics-
ei ournal.org/economics/iournalarticles/2012-10; Frank Ackerman, Elizabeth Stanton and Ramon Bueno,
Fat Tails, Exponents, Extreme Uncertainty: Simulating Catastrophe in DICE, 69 Ecological Economics
(8): 1657-65 (2010), available at
http://econpapers.repec.Org/article/eeeecolec/v 3a69 3av 3a2010 3ai 3a8 3ap 3al657-1665.htm;
Timothy Lenton and Juan-Carlos Ciscar, Integrating Tipping Points into Climate Impact Assessments
(2013), 117 Climate Change (3): 585-97, available at
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs 10584-012-0572-8#page-l.
68 Id. at 20.
Organization: Ceres
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 200, 202.]
We urge the agencies to strengthen the proposed phase 2 standard under consideration today by
adopting a standard requiring a 40 percent reduction in fuel consumption by 2025. Alternative 4 comes
closest to that standard.
Ceres agrees with the California Air Resources Board, which recommends the adoption of the
Alternative 4 standards at a minimum, stating this option is both technology forcing and technologically
feasible.
Organization: Coalition for Clean Air/California Cleaner Freight Coalition
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 217.]
EPA should adopt the 2014 alternative 4 because it is urgent we get the emissions reductions.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports the timeline of the proposed Alternative 3 standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p. 18]
-------
Lead-time and stability are critical to achieving the goals of the proposal. The three steps proposed in
2021, 2024 and 2027 give adequate lead-time and stability for manufacturers to develop and implement
the technology needed to meet the standards. The long-term certainty of known reductions through 2027
benefits component suppliers, manufacturers and end users who will invest in fuel-saving technologies.
Therefore, Cummins supports the proposed timeline of the Alternative 3 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 18-19] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, p.49.]]
The Alternative 3 timing proposed by the Agencies, with a final step in 2027, should be maintained in
the Final Rule in order to provide the lead time, stability and certainty necessary for manufacturers to
invest in and develop reliable technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.42]
Organization: Curl, Tilden
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 185.]
While the agencies' proposal of alternative 3 mostly pushes for technology which is largely of use today,
there are some concerns to be recognized. If the agencies pursue alternative 4, there are many more
concerns about, again, thrusting unproven technology into the marketplace. This would result in more
truckers choosing to keep their current trucks on the road even longer. I want to stress the agencies'
approach must allow for ample time for the OEMs to develop the new technology.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Regulatory paradigm of 4 year lead-time and 3 year stability - The regulatory paradigm of 4 years
lead-time and 3 years stability needs to be revisited given the complexities of today's powertrain
technologies as required to meet multiple regulations and heightened customer expectations. We believe
that a three year cadence of tightened standards is too fast, as our experience has shown us that the three
year criteria pollutant emission periods caused significant instability. Moreover, as the agencies press
manufacturers for further improvements in fuel efficiency-which we at DTNA have been pursuing for
decades~the changes become more difficult and more time-consuming to implement. Development of a
new engine or a new cab takes on the order of a decade. Implementing new aftertreatment device
requirements or, if it is necessary, waste heat recovery systems on all chassis takes more than three
years from the time that we know what the technology will be. OBD calibration development must be
performed on final calibrations, so its development is time shifted to later in the timeline and more time
is needed overall. Plus, the workload has to be prioritized as cab redesigns, implementing aftertreatment
devices, etc. cannot all be done at once; we have a limited engineering staff and a vast array of HDV
products. In contrast to simple mechanical emissions controls utilized in engines at the onset of
regulations, when 4 year lead-time and 3 year stability was conceived, the process for fuel economy
optimization now involves development and integration of highly complex electronically controlled
engine systems, transmissions, aftertreatment systems with DPF and SCR based NOx control systems,
development of sophisticated diagnostics, and integration with vehicle system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. Ill]
HDV operators rely on higher levels of reliability and durability to prevent downtime that would
compromise their investment in increasingly expensive technologies. Even if there is a warranty, HDV
operators lose money whenever their vehicle is stranded by the side of the road; they may default on
contracts; they may lose future business. HDV operators, therefore, have become very wary of new
-------
technologies released prematurely. For the sake of HDV operators, the agencies should regulate with
achievable lead-time and stability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014- 0827-1164-A1 p.Ill]
Therefore, as stringency of the regulations increases, and with it the complexity of technologies required
to meet new regulations, the agencies should commensurately provide both additional lead-time for new
technology introduction and increase the stability period between regulatory steps. In short, tightening
standards every three years is too rapid, both for vehicle and for engine standards. We recommend
standards in 2021 based on a lower penetration rate of new technologies and a subsequent round of
standards no sooner than (say) [redacted]. [EPA-HQ- OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p. 111-112]
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
We believe these are also important considerations for EPA in developing a final Phase 2 rules, as
follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.5]
• That ample lead time and stability are provided: This is important because the number of
commercial trucks made and sold each year (several hundred thousand) is a tiny fraction of the
11-17 million cars made. The significant diversity in the marketplace will require many
hundreds if not thousands of different approaches depending on the type of vehicle.
Manufacturers must have adequate lead time to make changes in technology for this diverse
vehicle population along with regulatory stability so that they can recoup their investments over
the longer sales and turnover cycles common in this segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1171-A2 p.5]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Eaton believes the NPRM proposes performance-based standards that ensure that the fuel savings
certified by the test procedures deliver fuel cost savings to truckers and fleets on the road. Eaton is also
encouraged by the potential of a long term rule of 10 years. We believe regulatory certainty will help
focus R&D efforts of companies like Eaton that are investing heavily in advanced technologies aimed at
significant fuel savings. Clarity provided to the market with the proposed 10 year length of the rule
allows Eaton to work with our customers in the near, mid and long term on solutions to meet the
prescribed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1194-A1 p.5]
The EPA requested the technology readiness for alternative 4. Eaton supports the preferred Alternative
3. While some of the powertrain technologies discussed are already entering the market, there is
significant work ahead of us to ensure the product reliability and its extensions and impact in larger
segments. Furthermore, as we show in our remarks on hybrids, we do not see the right market or
regulatory conditions for progress in the near future. As the objectives of Phase 2 are dependent on a
more significant hybrid adoption, we support MY2027 to target full implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 19]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Overarching principles
Our technical comments support two overarching recommendations: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-
A1 p.26]
-------
The proposed 2027 standards—and more—should be accelerated to model year 2024
We recommend that the proposed 2027 standards be strengthened and accelerated to 2024. More
protective standards can be met in 2024 by technologies that are already proven and mature - no
advanced technologies are needed to go meaningfully beyond the proposed standards.123 Moreover, the
technologies needed are already in use today and manufacturers have indicated that they plan to further
deploy them to meet anticipated standards.124 In addition, these technologies are extremely cost effective
and have short payback periods that present a very attractive market proposition for truckers.125 Nine
years provides a feasible lead-time for manufacturers to adopt these available technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.26]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing held on
August 6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 33.]
The second recommendation is to accelerate the timing of the most stringent standards to 2024. The
compliance timeline in alternative four is consistent with our assessment of the appropriate timeframe
for implementing the most stringent standards. Nearly a decade away, it provides sufficient lead time for
manufacturers to cost-effectively scale fuel saving solutions. It also better reflects the urgent need to
reduce climate disrupting emissions.
123 See ACEEE comments submitted to this docket; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
124 See ICCT comments submitted to this docket; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4
125 Meszler, et al.. Cost effectiveness of advanced efficiency technologies for long-haul tractor-trailers
in the 2020- 2030 timeframe, (2015), available at http://www.theicct.org/us-tractor-trailer-tech-cost-
effectiveness.
Organization: FedEx Corporation
Provide Regulatory Certainty to Ensure Advanced Technology Investments: Longer time frames and
enough lead time to develop, mature and deploy advanced technology will provide regulatory certainty
and pull through advanced solutions that will provide significant GHG and fuel consumption reduction
in an economically sustainable fashion. This is necessary for both manufacturers to make long-term
investments that would support the new standards, as well as for fleets that need a high level of
reliability and cost effective solutions in order to deploy new technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1302-A1 p.2-3]
Organization: First Industries Corporation
(3) EPA must not adopt Alternative 4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.2]
EPA's Must Not Adopt Alternative 4
EPA's proposal for GHG phase 2, known as Alternative 3, is very aggressive and will force technology
into the marketplace that does not yet exist. This creates significant risk of a pre-buy/no-buy. Indeed, it
is not apparent how OEM's will meet the challenge of Alternative 3. It is very clear, however, that
-------
accelerating the timeline for those technologies by way of Alternative 4, will lead to a pre-buy/no-buy
similar to 2007. This is bad for the trucking industry, bad for the US economy and bad for the
environment as delayed purchases delay environmental benefits under the rule. Accordingly, we urge
EPA to not even consider adopting Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.5]
Organization: Ford Motor Company
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 28.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 158.]
It is of critical importance to provide manufacturers with adequate lead time to meet the requirements.
Organization: Honeywell Transportation System (HTS)
Honeywell also appreciates the proposed rule's ten year timeline through 2027 and the three-phased
approach because it provides the industry with clear milestones that support long-term investment in the
development of enabling technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1230-A1 p.2] [[These comments can
also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.256.]]
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law
Stringency: The agencies have proposed a technology-forcing standard with compelling net social
benefits. However, Alternative 4 would generate even higher net social benefits than the agencies'
preferred alternative. And, for most vehicle classes and under most methodological assumptions,
Alternative 5 would generate even greater net benefits. Unless the agencies have good reason to believe
that their estimates of costs and benefits for these alternatives are wrong, they are under-regulating by
failing to select Alternative 4 or Alternative 5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1195-A1 p.3]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Advancing the proposed 2027 standards by three years would achieve the agencies' requirements for
appropriate' and maximum feasible2 standards. Advancing the timing for the standards is based on three
fundamental reasons: (1) that the applicable technologies to comply with the proposed standards are
already mature, (2) that these technologies are the ones that manufacturers are already planning to
deploy, and (3) that these technologies offer a very attractive market proposition for heavy-duty vehicle
owners. The rationale and references for these reasons are provided below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1180-A4 p.4]
Technology maturity . The proposed stringency of the Phase 2 standards is predicated on well-
understood and proven technologies. Given that the proposed stringency falls short of the demonstrated
technology potential in the rule's timeframe, the required technology can be deployed between 2016 and
2024. In many cases the required technology is commercially available. Here are several examples that
put the required technology penetration in the context of the full known technical potential: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.4]
-------
• Diesel engines - The engine standards are based on modest incremental improvements
including engine friction, air handling, and combustion/controls, which are part of every
engine/vehicle manufacturers existing technology portfolio and therefore allow for accelerated
deployment before 2024. For context, the agencies proposed standards require less than half of
the known technology potential for diesel tractor engines (e.g., see Eckerle, 2015;
Thiruvengadam et al, 2014; Reinhart, 2015). The proposed standards (Phase 1 and 2 together
from a 2010 baseline) also fall well short of SuperTrucks' engine technologies (i.e., 10% versus
SuperTrucks' 15%, over the SET cycle) that have already been physically demonstrated in
Peterbilt and Daimler tractors (Lutsey, 2015a). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1180-A4 p.4]
• Transmissions - Advanced integrated transmissions, including automated manual transmissions
that enable downspeeding and optimal engine operation, by leading companies like Eaton and
Volvo, have already been introduced (Stoltz and Dorobantu, 2014; Greszler, 2014). Automatic
transmissions are the norm in Europe, and increasingly advanced dual-clutch transmissions are
being introduced there. The agencies considered this technology as part of their stringency
determination, but more advanced versions of this technology have been demonstrated in
SuperTruck (Delgado and Lutsey, 2014). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.4]
• Trailers - The trailer technologies upon which the stringency is determined embrace the already
commercialized technologies that have been spurred by EPA's SmartWay program and
California's in-use regulation. These technologies are already being adopted in increasing
numbers by leading SmartWay Elite fleets and as part of the California regulation (Sharpe and
Roeth, 2014). Asking trailer manufacturers and tractor fleets to move toward 2015's leading
technologies by 2024 provides sufficient lead time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.5]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.39]
• Tractor-trailers - Overall for tractors, the technologies included in the stringency determination
are far short of the full technology potential. Applying the available incremental technologies
for engines, transmissions, and aerodynamics can achieve technology potential far greater than
agencies' proposed 8 miles-per-gallon tractor-trailer standards before 2025 (See Delgado and
Lutsey, 2015). SuperTruck teams are achieving 10.7 mpg (Peterbilt) and 12.2 mpg
(Daimler/Freightliner) in real-world testing (Buchholz, 2014; Daimler, 2015) with combinations
of engine, tractor, and trailer technologies that greatly surpass the proposed 2027 standard
analysis. After correcting for test cycle differences, the SuperTruck technologies demonstrated
by manufacturers would achieve up to 10 miles per gallon (Lutsey, 2015b); because the
proposed 2027 stringency levels do not approach these stringency levels, the standards can be
advanced by at least several years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.5]
Industries' expected technology roadman: The agencies chose technologies, with input from extensive
industry discussions, based on the technologies that the various companies are prepared to, and plan to,
deploy in much larger numbers in the rules' timeframe. Based on publicly available data, the
technologies in the engine, powertrain, aerodynamics, and tire areas are exactly the ones that suppliers
and vehicle manufacturers have been discussing for the rules' timeframe (Lutsey, Langer, Khan, 2014;
Greszler, 2014; Salemme, 2014; Stoltz and Dorobantu, 2014). All of the major companies (e.g.,
Peterbilt/Cummins, Daimler, Navistar, Volvo) have participated in the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) SuperTruck program, which has the explicit goal of using over $140 million in public funding to
demonstrate and help transition the efficiency technologies to the commercial marketplace over time
(Delgado and Lutsey, 2014). Manufacturers and suppliers have already begun commercializing many of
the technologies (Bloch-Rubin and Gallo, 2014), and therefore moving toward SuperTruck technologies
considerably faster than the agencies are projecting. The fact that the technologies are already squarely
in the plans of the several major manufacturing companies suggests that the agencies' proposed
timeframe to allow 12 years for implementing the standards is substantially more time than necessary
and do not meet the statutory criteria of maximum feasible and appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1180-A4 p.5]
-------
Market-ready technologies. Not only are the technologies mature, but they are well vetted and market-
ready due to their attractive fuel-saving proposition for truck owners. At the proposed stringency levels,
the standards can be met almost entirely with commercialized technologies that are available today in
the marketplace and that have already been embraced by early adopters. Efficiency technologies, though
highly cost-effective, are held back by prevailing market barriers (Vernon and Meier, 2012; Roeth et al,
2013). The proposed regulations remove many of these barriers. The applicable technologies, based on
the latest analyses, are highly cost-effective - allowing average tractor-trailer owners to return their
technology investments in fuel savings in 6 months to 2 years, even if diesel fuel prices are low
(Meszler et al, 2015). Similarly, looking just at trailers, the cost-to-fuel saving proposition is even more
attractive (See Sharpe et al, 2014). Because the efficiency technologies offer the rapid payback periods
as desired by truck owners, the regulated fleet can easily take them up within the nine years between
2015 and 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.5-6]
1 Per the Clean Air Act, EPA has broad discretion to give appropriate consideration and weight to the
statutory factors of emission reductions, cost, and lead time and allows EPA to adopt technology-
forcing standards.
2 Per the Energy Independence and Security Act, NHTSA is instructed to set standards that "achieve
the maximum feasible improvement", previously defined as including factors of appropriateness, cost-
effectiveness, and technological feasibility.
Organization: International Foodservice Distributors Association
IFDA is particularly concerned that the proposal's Alternative 4 would accelerate the timetable well
beyond what is feasible both in terms of the ability of manufacturers to comply and adoption by the
industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1258-A1 p.l]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
The UAW supports standards with sufficient lead time allowing for research and development of cost
effective and reliable technology that will be accepted by the fleets and other customers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.2]
In this vain, we strongly oppose Alternative Four which pulls stringency requirements forward from
2027 to 2024. Pulling the 2027 requirements forward may not only force unreliable and unproven
technology to market, it is a de-facto increase in stringency requirements. Alternative Three is highly
ambitious but could reach the proper balance if important modifications are made. Our concerns and
recommendations are detailed in our comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1248-A2 p.3]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA supports the EPA proposed reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for the heavy-duty truck
segment, and believes that the proposed reductions are technically feasible using technologies that are
ready for deployment on trucks today. Numerous analyses have estimated greater potential reductions of
C02 than will be achieved by this proposal suggesting that EPA's Alternative 4 may be the more
realistic scenario. EPA's own analysis shows that the faster Alternative 4 implementation timeline
-------
provides nearly the same payback periods as the longer Alternative 3 implementation timeline. The
Department of Energy's SuperTruck program has demonstrated the magnitude of reductions that engine
and vehicle technologies can deliver. A 2024 final implementation date, under Alternative 4, would
allow developmental technologies to be optimized and ready for deployment under future, Phase 3
heavy-duty GHG standards to achieve the full potential reductions that exist from this transportation
sector. We urge EPA to finalize a set of stringent Phase 2 standards that would incentivize the
deployment of the full spectrum of cost effective technologies developed for engines and vehicles to
guide industry investment and maximize environmental benefits. At a minimum, MECA is supportive
of a final rule with a 2024 final phase-in date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.2] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.211.]]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Center for Biological Diversity (web) -
(4,429)
To that end I support the timeline for implementation as currently set out in Alternative 4.' But I also
urge you to opt for an alternative that will actually drive innovation by requiring greater reductions in
fuel usage over this time. An analysis from the International Council on Clean Transportation has
developed a roadmap for achieving up to 30 percent greater reductions in C02 emissions by 2040 than
would be achieved under your currently proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1167-A1 p. 1]
Organization: NAFA Fleet Management Association
Given we are already very concerned over the proposed Phase 2 "Alternative 3" efficiency targets, we
ask EPA and NHTSA to reject what is defined in the proposal as "Alternative 4" to avoid serious
negative economic implications for fleets and truck manufacturers. Alternative 4 would "pull- ahead"
the 2027 greenhouse gas/fuel efficiency target dates for engines, vehicles, and trailers by three years to
accomplish all such milestones in 2024. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.4]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
With respect to timing, NACAA strongly supports EPA's proposed Alternative 4, under which the
standards would be fully implemented by 2024. This implementation deadline is entirely feasible and
vitally important to spur much-needed near-term emissions reductions and technological innovation.
Further, Alternative 4 would provide manufacturers of heavy-duty engines and vehicles nearly eight
years of lead-time to develop and apply technologies needed to comply with the most stringent GHG
emissions standards and is consistent with the lead-time requirements of section 202(a)(2) of the Clean
AirAct. NACAA urges EPA to finalize Alternative 4 rather than Alternative 3, which would
unnecessarily extend full implementation by three years to 2027, particularly when all of the
technologies/approaches required already exist, with many already deployed on today's trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.53-54.]]
We believe, in general, that the Phase 2 proposal is overly pessimistic regarding the implementation
outlook for advanced technologies nationwide. The proposal also underestimates the ability of engine
and truck manufacturers to incorporate longer-term technical solutions now for meeting global climate
goals. As such, we recommend that EPA take a more assertive stance in challenging industry to
accelerate technology innovation by adopting Alternative 4. EPA includes the projected compliance
costs for the proposed emission standards under Alternatives 3 and 4 in the proposal. Even the projected
higher compliance costs for Alternative 4 - which constitute only a fraction of the base costs of new
-------
engines and vehicles - are more than offset by the cost savings from reduced fuel consumption within
two to six years. With respect to fuel efficiency and emission reductions, the proposal indicates that, on
a nationwide basis, Alternative 4 overall would save 10 billion more gallons of fuel and provide about
130 more million metric tons of GHG reductions by 2030 than Alternative 3. These are important
improvements that can and should be realized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.3]
In addition to early climate benefits, federal action on our recommendation to adopt Alternative 4 (full
implementation by 2024) would also provide manufacturers the ability to incorporate technologies to
significantly reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in a more timely manner. While already
crucial for a number of areas, NOx reductions from the heavy-duty sector will become increasingly
important to additional areas under strengthened National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone,
which are expected imminently. We urge that EPA include in the final Phase 2 rule a clear and
comprehensive discussion of the need for very substantial additional NOx reductions from heavy-duty
vehicles and engines and, even more critically, an explicit commitment to begin immediately a separate
rulemaking initiative to capture those reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.4] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.54.]]
Organization: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Finally, the NAM strongly encourages the EPA and NHTSA not to adopt the pull-forward of the vehicle
standards from MY2027 to MY2024 under Alternative 4.' Manufacturers want and need regulatory
certainty, and the vehicle standards pull-forward in Alternative 4 would jeopardize this certainty by
creating early deadlines that manufacturers may not be able to meet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1323-
A2 p. 2]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
However, unlike Phase 1 which largely involves currently available technologies, the Phase 2 proposal
focuses on many that are not yet fully developed or deployed. For each vehicle group, the proposal
suggests that fuel savings should offset the up-front and ongoing costs of new technologies, but fails to
adequately recognize how those technologies inevitably will make vehicle ownership and operations
more complex. Since commercial truck purchasers are very risk averse, any higher costs, reduced
performance, or increased complexities associated with the Phase 2 program could undermine its
potential benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.5]
NADA/ATD categorically objects to Alternative 4, which would effectively impose MY 2027 targets in
MY 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 09-A1 p. 11]
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372 pp. 42-43.]
First, the compliance timeline should be moved up. The environmental community conducted
conservative analysis showing that the new fleet fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions can be
reduced by at least 40 percent from 2010 levels by 25. Within the proposal alternative four, which
achieves full compliance in 2024, is the closest to meeting our target. When it comes to cutting carbon
and reducing our dangerous dependence on oil, every year counts.]
-------
The agencies' own analysis shows that alternative four is technically feasible and cost effective. NRDC
believes that the 2024 compliance timeline is also appropriate. Compared to the proposal, alternative
four reduces oil consumption and carbon pollution by an additional 13 percent, and increases net
benefits by over $24 billion. NRDC urges the agencies to accelerate the compliance timeline.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
In the NPRM the agencies have offered several alternatives and asked for comments on Alternative 4 in
particular. This proposal would compress the timeline for adoption from a three - -stage process to a
two—stage process, with completion of implementation scheduled in 2024 instead of 2027. The
administration believes this alternative is the maximum feasible and appropriate alternative but they
have outstanding questions about the relative risks and benefits and are seeking comments. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p. 17]
In preparing comments for this Proposed Rule, Navistar devoted significant engineering time to provide
a detailed analysis of the rule and the company has already commented extensively on the fundamental
problems with Alternative 3, which is the agencies' preferred option. Alternative 4, which would pull
the implementation date forward by three model years, would significantly increase the technological
risk and in some cases would make compliance with the final rule impossible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p. 17]
The most significant examples of the risk this alternative introduces relate to engine emission standards
and the aerodynamics component of the Proposed Rule. The four truck OEM's and the US Department
of Energy have spent over $250 million on the SuperTruck program to develop highly advanced Class 8
line haul tractor-trailers. In these Comments Navistar discusses in detail how the 2027 aerodynamics
standard are unachievable even utilizing the tractors developed for the SuperTruck program. Pulling an
unachievable standard forward by three years would merely accelerate the problem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1199-A1 p.17-18]
The impact on the engine would be at least as severe, since one of the critical technologies is waste heat
recovery, which is not yet commercially viable and will not be viable by 2024. Alternative 4 does not
provide enough lead time for this technology and the NPRM has not shown that any technologies are
feasible in the Alternative 4 time frame. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 18]
Alternative 3 also presumes extremely aggressive technology adoption rates. This is particularly the
case for the use of hybrid powertrains in the vocational vehicle sector. The NPRM is based on 18% of
urban and 18% of multi-purpose vocational vehicles utilizing hybrid powertrains by 2027. As we note in
our discussion on hybrids, this is not likely to be feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 18]
The adoption rate for hybrid vocational vehicles is essentially zero today because of low fuel prices and
the significant regulatory burden that hybridization faces in the commercial vehicle space. As one of the
first companies to market commercial hybrid vehicles, we know there is little evidence to suggest our
customers will be willing to buy vocational hybrids in sufficient numbers to meet the standard in 2027.
In fact, at its highest, the penetration rate for hybrids never exceeded 1%. Predicating this alternative on
the assumption that hybrid adoption rates will reach 18% by 2024, instead of 2027 will inject significant
risk into the technology path that the NPRM lays out for vocational vehicles to achieve compliance.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 18]
The NPRM also has an aggressive adoption rate for low rolling resistance drive and steer tires in both
vocational and line haul trucks. While low rolling resistance tires offer clear benefits to some
-------
commercial vehicle operators, there is a trade-off in adopting lower rolling resistance tires, which will
impact traction and durability in negative ways. This is a tradeoff that many of Navistar's customers
will be unwilling to make given the capabilities of low rolling resistance tires today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 18]
While Alternative 3 has substantial problems, Alternative 4 compounds those problems by shortening
the timeframe for compliance. Navistar therefore strongly believes that Alternative 4 would cause
massive disruptions in the industry and lead to a significant pre-buy/no-buy in 2023MY-2024MY as
customers seek to avoid additional costs and complexity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 18]
Navistar feels the following are key areas the agencies must address: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
• The accelerated option of Alternative 4 is not achievable. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.3]
Organization: North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
NADCA does support comments made by a number of groups that Alternative 4 is not feasible at this
time and regulators should reject pressure to adopt these standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1283-
Alp.3]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
The agencies should adopt the timeline proposed in Alternative #4.
Given that the proposed technologies are already mature or have been successfully demonstrated, and
given our states' need for significant GHG reductions in the near term, the timeline proposed in
Alternative #4 is both reasonable and appropriate. Based on the assessments of the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), a full phase-in
of the rules by 2024 is technologically feasible. Given the scope of needed GHG reductions, and the
compelling benefits to freight industries and their consumers from reduced fuel expenditures, 2027 is
too long to wait to realize the full potential of this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.2]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 136-137.]]
As ICCT1 and CARB2 have noted, existing technologies are already available to provide the proposed
reductions in the 2024 timeframe. Moreover, manufacturers have expressed their intentions to further
increase the deployment of these technologies in the near term. These technologies are cost-effective
and have been shown to provide strong return on investment for operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1221-A1 p.2]
1 International Council on Clean Transportation, Advanced Tractor-Trailer Efficiency Technology
Potential in the 2020-2030 Timeframe (April 2015). Available at:
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_ATTEST_20150420.pdf.
2 California Air Resources Board, Draft Technology Assessment: Engine/Powerplant and Drivetrain
Optimization and Vehicle Efficiency (June 2015). Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/techreport/epdo_ve_tech_report.pdf.
-------
Organization: Orange EV
Targeting incremental improvements by 2027 may be slower than achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1135-A1 p.l]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Lead Time
A crucial aspect of this rulemaking is the amount of time which the manufacturers will be given in order
to comply with the new standards. OOIDA members are concerned that if there is not sufficient lead
time to develop and test new technologies, that trucking companies will be forced to purchase, at an
extra cost, unreliable equipment which is susceptible to frequent repairs - further increasing the truck
owners costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 15]
For the past decade, the trucking industry has been flooded with emission reduction regulations
including EPA 2007, EPA 2010, Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) in 2013, GHG14, OBD in 2016, and
GHG17. The rapid succession of regulations has not given the manufactures time to work to reduce the
costs of new vehicles, therefore, these forced regulations will dramatically increase the cost of medium-
and-heavy-duty trucks. A study published in 2012 entitled A Look Back at EPA's Cost and Other
Impact Projections For MY 2004-2010 Heavy-Duty Truck Emissions Standards, detailed EPA's
significant underestimation of real-world vehicle costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p. 15]
[Chart 1 can be found on p. 16 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1]
Further, the decreased reliability of EPA compliant truck and engine models has been well
documented. A 2011 J. D. Power and Associates study suggested that, "With the new technology
required to meet emissions standards, today's engines simply are more problematic than the previous
generation. So, while it's possible that manufactures can continue to improve the quality of the engines,
it's unlikely that they'll quickly get back to the pre-2004 levels.19" In addition, Daimler Trucks North
America has stated that vehicle efficiency improvements reduce real-world NOx emission benefits in
proportion to power demand reduction. The combustion fundamentals state that any increase in
stringency of NOx standards will compromise the ability to optimize for minimum C02 emissions and
maximum fuel efficiency. While EPA admits that there were some problems with the Phase I trucks,
the agency fails to recognize that similar problems could develop with Phase II. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p. 16]
For example, the MaxxForce engine produced by Navistar was labeled as an "approved engine." As
Navistar attempted to perfect its exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) technology, many trucking companies
with MaxxForce powered trucks experienced repeated breakdowns and engine failure between 2010 and
2012, many of which were directly related to the EGR system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1
p. 17]
Problems with components such as EGR valves, EGR coolers, EGR inlet tubes, EGR sensors, and
defective ECM modules were being experienced by trucking companies throughout the United States.
Not surprisingly, both Navistar's International trucks and MaxxForce engines experienced numerous
recalls and dozens of service bulletins related to the EGR system. These problems led to increased
breakdowns, downtime, repair costs, and lost profits for the companies operating these trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 17]
-------
Without proper lead time, the OEMs will not have sufficient time to produce proven and reliable trucks,
which could create a pre-buy scenario in which the agencies have hoped to avoid. OOIDA's preferred
option is Alternative 1. This Alternative will allow the market to drive fuel efficient technologies at a
pace that is conducive to healthy growth and actual consumer costs, which will assist the agencies in
reaching their objectives that much sooner by avoiding pre-buys, risky technology, and negative
outlooks on any future rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 17]
OOIDA proposes that agencies' preferred alternative, Alternative 3, as well as Alternatives 4 and 5, are
unrealistic and if adopted as part of this rulemaking process, will severely compromise the agencies'
praiseworthy objectives to increase the fuel efficiency of medium-and heavy-duty trucks and reduce
GHG emissions. Truck drivers certainly desire fuel efficient trucks and appreciate cleaner air to
breathe. While various governmental agencies and environmental groups tend to paint owner-operators
as individuals who do not care about the environment, nothing could be further from the truth. It is
crucial to understand that owner-operators are not only hardworking Americans who help to move our
economy, but that they also spend a majority of their life around tractor-trailers. Therefore, it is in their
best interest, as well as in the interest of the public, to operate clean and efficient trucks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.36-37]
Alternatives 3 or 4 very well could put many owner-operators out of business, and thus would have a
major unintended consequence on the nation's economy, as 70 percent of all freight is moved by a
truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.38]
19 CCJ Staff, "J.D. Power, Heavy-duty Engine Quality, Satisfaction Up Since Last Year," Commercial
Carrier Journal (2011) http://www.ccjdigital.com/j-d-power-heavy-duty-engine-quality-satisfaction-up-
since-last-year/
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Stringency of Standards: EPA and NHTSA Should Adopt Alternative 3 Standards with
Appropriate Revisions Because these Offer the Optimum Combination of GHG Reductions and
Lead-Time for Manufacturers [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p. 1]
PACCAR has worked closely with EPA and NHTSA in the development of the proposal, providing
feedback and data points on many technical aspects of the rule. PACCAR strongly urges the Agencies
to adopt Alternative 3, which if appropriately modified, is the best combination of standards and
compliance deadlines to achieve environmental protection goals, as well as ensure that consumer
demands and expectations are met. Alternative 3 will, without question, require significant
technological development and widespread implementation of new technologies. In Section II below,
we outline the issues that make compliance with Alternative 3 standards challenging and should be
addressed by the Agencies before promulgation of final standards. The lead-time provided in
Alternative 3 will minimize disruptions to our customer base while achieving significant improvements
in fuel efficiency and GHG emission reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.2]
Alternative 4 Pulls Ahead Compliance with more Stringent Standards but Will Not Result in
Significant Additional GHG Reductions or Fuel Efficiency Improvements in the Long Run
In contrast to Alternative 3, Alternative 4 would require greater emission reductions on an accelerated
basis. This combination may have the counterproductive effect of causing truck owners to either pre-
-------
buy less-efficient models or delay the purchase of more efficient, yet more expensive and technically
complex, new trucks and engines, leaving older, less-efficient trucks on the road for longer. Overall,
PACCAR believes that Alternative 3 will achieve the same emission-reduction and fuel-efficiency goals
as Alternative 4, but without the market disruption and customer dissatisfaction that Alternative 4 would
create. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.4]
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
Further, while Alternative 3 in the Proposed Rules would be highly problematic for the motorhome
sector for the reasons stated below, EPA should not choose an even more restrictive option, Alternative
4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A 1 p.4]
In no event should EPA choose Alternative 4 for its overall standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1 p.28]
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Lead time
Both the NPRM and the DOT draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) propose lead time of not less
than 4 model years, consistent with the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA) at 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k)(3)(A). Although RMA recognizes that the Clean Air Act does not
provide similar guidance to EPA on lead time for its rulemaking, RMA encourages both Agencies to
recognize the significant challenges associated with redesigning certain tires (e.g., drive tires for
vocational vehicles and tires for non-aero vans and non-box trailers) to meet aggressive rolling
resistance targets. As discussed above regarding tires for non-aero vans and non-box trailers, significant
lead time is needed to design lower rolling resistance tires for these applications, due to the specialized
performance needs of these tires and the fact that SmartWay tires are not appropriate fitments for non-
aero vans and non-box trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.34]
RMA has stated in previous discussions with EPA, DOT/NHTSA, the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) committees that have studied these areas and the California Air Resource Board (CARB), a 5
year lead time is necessary to effect changes to tire technological advances, e.g. design, development,
testing, validation, and commercialization. This lead time is critical to assuring the development of new
tires that meet the myriad needs of customers in the areas of tire performance, including durability, load
carrying capacity, tread wear, traction, rolling resistance and retreadability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p.34]
Continuous rolling resistance improvements will require an evaluation of available technologies and
materials, the development of new technologies and materials, as well as reasonable lead times. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.34]
Organization: Schneider National Inc
Schneider is an early adopter of fuel efficiency technologies and is constantly evaluating options for
improving overall freight efficiency. New technologies, however, take time to develop in order to
ensure the products are reliable, safe and provide real world benefits. Accordingly, Schneider opposes
EPA's Alternative 4, which seeks to move already aggressive targets from 2027 to 2024. Such a
proposal creates the risk of forcing technology into the market before it is ready. The increased risk of
-------
such action will likely lead to a pre-buy of existing technologies (as occurred when EPA pulled forward
2004 engine emission standards to October 2002), with the net effect that anticipated air quality benefits
were not realized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1201-A1 p.3-4]
Organization: School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
The SBMTC would also like to comment that we feel that the proposed Alternative 3 implementation
timeline (years 2021, 2024, and 2027) is reasonable and gives adequate time for manufacturers to
implement reliable technologies and designs to meet end users requirements and to be compliant. We
support retaining this timeline in the Final Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1287-A1 p.2]
Organization: Sierra Club
Accelerate the timeline of efficiency improvements
While the proposed standards would decrease fuel consumption by 36% by 2027, analysis by the Union
of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resource Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, and
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has shown we can reduce new truck fuel
consumption 40% by 2025, compared to 2010 vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1 p.2]
Indeed, in the proposed rule, the agencies consider Alternative 4, in which full compliance is achieved
by 2024 and find that this alternative is both technically feasible and cost-effective. Not only would this
alternative reduce oil consumption and carbon pollution by an additional 13 percent, it would increase
net benefits by more than $24 billion. We urge the agencies to adopt the timeline and stringency of
Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 188-189.]]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
U.S. EPA and NHTSA Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards
The SCAQMD staff strongly believes that tighter greenhouse gas emission standards should be
established and the timeframe for full implementation be shortened relative to U.S. EPA's
recommended standards and timeframe. As such, we strongly support adoption of Alternative 4 rather
than Alternative 3 to achieve full implementation by 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181 -A 1 p.2]
In summary, the SCAQMD staff urges U.S. EPA to finalize the proposed Phase 2 greenhouse gas
emissions and fuels standards rule as early as possible with the inclusion of proposed revisions from
CARB andNACAA along with the comments provided above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181-A1
p.8] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.34.]]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Phase 1 has required vehicle manufacturers to undertake significant IT investments and complex
process upgrades in order to generate and organize the data needed for GHG/FE compliance reporting to
EPA and NHTSA. For each vehicle manufacturer, the necessary IT upgrades have involved millions of
dollars and multiple years of development effort to generate and finalize all of the required data
elements. The IT solution for GHG/FE tracking and reporting has had to be integrated into existing
-------
systems to deliver the required compliance data. In that regard, manufacturers' systems need to
interrogate the listing of materials for each vehicle (i.e., each VIN) to identify the relevant vehicle
subcategory, aerodynamics, tires, weight, AES/VSL. engine, and other operative GHG/FE factors. That
information is then used to calculate the required inputs for "GEM" (the Agencies' greenhouse gas
emissions model) and to generate the unique complex vehicle label. GEM is run for each vehicle to find
the VIN's predicted C02. All of those data are required for the compliance reports submitted to EPA
and NHTSA. In addition to the IT infrastructure and programming, significant resources also have been
required to maintain and secure the information necessary for compliance with Phase 1. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.2-]
For Phase 2, significant additional IT investments will be needed to develop and input engine fuel maps,
transmissions (including powertrain test data), rear axles, and other vehicle attributes for the revised and
more complex Phase 2 GEM calculations. Consequently, the IT investment for Phase 2 is expected to be
even more significant than for Phase 1, which, as noted, was itself very substantial. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.3]
Infeasibility of "Alternative 4"
Leadtime and stability are critical to achieving the goals of the Phase 2 proposal. The Agencies have
proposed three steps of standards for engines and vehicles - in 2021, 2024, and 2027. The long-term
certainty of knowing the required reductions through 2027 provides benefits to component suppliers and
manufacturers, who need to invest in, develop, and validate reliable fuel-saving technologies, and to the
end-users who will ultimately depend on those technologies in the market. Pulling ahead the 2027
standards by three years reduces the necessary certainty for manufacturers and results in less reliable
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.55]
In that regard, the Agencies have asked for comment on the feasibility of "Alternative 4," which would
pull ahead by three years the proposed effective dates of the Phase 2 Standards as laid out under
Alternative 3. Simply stated, Alternative 4 is not feasible for medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p. 55]
Proponents of Alternative 4 may opine that it is feasible based on assumed "pay-back" periods, and
based on assertions that the potential pay-back periods would be, by and large, the same under either
Alternative 3 or Alternative 4. But that argument is irrelevant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.55]
The stringency of the Proposed Phase 2 vehicle standards is premised on assumptions (albeit
overestimated assumptions) about technological developments and on the market penetration rates for
those to-be-developed vehicle technologies, not on assumed "pay-back" periods. Neither the timeline
for the necessary technological developments nor the realistic market penetration rates for those vehicle
technologies would allow Alternative 4 to be feasible, let alone cost-effective. In that regard, the
presumed penetration rates for the higher-bin aerodynamic packages, as well as for stop-start
technologies, single tires, hybrid powertrains, and "6x2" axle systems, among other technologies, are all
overstated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p.55]
For example, "6x2" axle systems cannot be implemented as the Agencies have assumed, since they are
not allowed in all localities. Local and state laws pertaining to bridge loads, per-axle weights and tire-
patch requirements simply make it impractical to implement "6x2" axle configurations at the rate of
penetration that the Agencies have forecast. There are similar impracticalities with respect to the
Agencies' other forecasted penetration rates as well. As a result, a three-year pull-ahead of already
-------
overstated penetration rates would only serve to exacerbate the infeasibility of the proposed vehicle
program, cause significant market disruptions, and would result in disproportionately costly and delayed
reductions in GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.55]
Accordingly, Alternative 4 should not be the basis for the Proposed Phase 2 Standards. The Alternative
3 timeframe (assuming the Agencies make the required revisions, as noted in EMA's comments) will be
challenging enough. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.55]
Potential Pre-Buy/Low-Buy Concerns
Other issues exacerbate the problems associated with adopting Alternative 4 for medium-duty and
heavy-duty vehicles. As the Agencies well know, there is significant elasticity in the demand for the
commercial vehicles at issue in this rulemaking. The Agencies only regulate the manufacturing of new
engines and vehicles. There is no obligation for customers to buy the new products - and certainly not at
the time of implementation of a new regulation. Moreover, experience has shown that adverse
economics, globally or affecting key market segments, have resulted in customers delaying vehicle
purchases. Similarly, experience has shown that actual or perceived concerns about the cost,
performance, durability, serviceability, or overall efficacy of new-tier vehicle technologies have also
resulted in customer "pre-buys" of current-tier technologies and/or the delayed purchase of new-tier
technologies. Neither manufacturers (who wish to start recovering their investment in new-tier engine
and vehicle technologies as soon as possible) or regulators or the public (who wish to realize the
benefits of new regulations as soon as possible) want to experience a pre-buy/low-buy response to the
Phase 2 Standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.56]
Alternative 4 increases the risk for such a potential response since it likely would result in significantly
higher per-vehicle cost increases (compared to Alternative 3), and could produce real or perceived
concerns for product durability, reliability and maintenance issues. Those possible circumstances -
necessarily more likely under Alternative 4 - could induce vehicle and fleet owners to revise their
scheduled purchases of new Phase 2 vehicles. In that regard, and as the Agencies expressly
acknowledge, Alternative 4 would deprive manufacturers of three-years of learning time and therefore
would decrease the "learning-benefit" savings otherwise available under Alternative 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.56]
The net result could be that manufacturers will be unable to recoup their capital investments in the time
period projected in the NPRM. Worse, the very marginal GHG emission benefits ascribed to Alternative
4 might not be realized, even if the three-year pull-ahead could be accomplished, if the Alternative 4
standards proved in the market to be perceived as problematic by customers. The higher costs and
potential reliability issues associated with Alternative 4 could be enough to cause vehicle and fleet
owners to keep their Phase 1 vehicles longer than otherwise. Consequently, Alternative 4 might actually
result in higher aggregate GHG emissions than under Alternative 3, not marginally lower emissions.
This is another reason why the Agencies should not implement Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.56]
Overall Feasibility Of The Proposed Phase 2 Vehicle Standards
As noted above, many of the Agencies' Proposed Phase 2 Standards for heavy-duty and medium-duty
vehicles are based on a series of very aggressive assumptions regarding the development of efficiency-
enhancing technologies and regarding the market penetration rates of those technologies out to the year
2027. In that regard, EPA and NHTSA have developed a number of tables summarizing the Agencies'
key assumptions that led to the development of the Proposed Phase 2 Standards for Class 7 and 8 heavy-
-------
duty tractors, heavy-haul tractors, trailers, and vocational vehicles. Each of those tables (including Table
III-10, Table III-18, Table IV-4, Table IV-13, Table IV-14, Table V-15, Table V-19, and Table VIII-3)
contains assumptions that are incorrect or over-estimated, and that call into question the feasibility of
the Proposed Phase 2 Standards for the heavy-duty vehicles at issue. Included among those flawed or
over-estimated assumptions are the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.71]
• The assumptions that Class 7 and Class 8 high-roof vehicles will achieve a 35% penetration rate
into Bin V, a 20% penetration rate into Bin VI, and a 5% penetration rate into Bin VII are
grossly over-stated and unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.71][This section
can also be found in section 4.3 of this comment summary]
• The assumed aerodynamic performance improvements to be achieved by daycab and mid and
low-roof vehicles are over-estimated by at least one Bin, and so are inherently unreasonable.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.71][This section can also be found in section 4.3 of this
comment summary]
• The assumptions that 90% of Class 8 sleeper caps and 90% of long-haul tractor trailers will
utilize APUs to achieve extended idle emission reductions is based on grossly underestimated
cost estimates and is unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.71][This section can
also be found in section 4.3 of this comment summary]
• The assumption that 40% of all Class 7 and 8 vehicles will utilize automated tire inflation
systems lacks any factual basis, overlooks the prevalence of tire inflation monitoring systems,
and is unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.71][This section can also be found
in section 4.3 of this comment summary]
The Agencies will need to correct all of the foregoing unreasonable assumptions, along with the others
noted in these comments, before finalizing the Phase 2 Standards. Otherwise the Phase 2 Standards will
likely prove to be infeasible for medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p. 72]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
However, TRALA has several concerns about the Proposed Standards, which we have set forth below:
(5) TRALA strongly opposes Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.2]
TRALA Opposes Alternative 4
For the reasons stated above, TRALA believes that the Proposed Standards already go too far in
imposing burdensome costs and technology-forcing mandates that industry and its customers are not
equipped to bear. Making the Proposed Standards even more stringent by, for example, moving up the
full implementation date to MY2024 from MY2027 would run the risk of resulting in a largely
unworkable regulatory program that would have to be later revised to enable compliance in the years
ahead. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.6]
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
The Problem with Technology Forcing and Long-Duration Regulations:
This proposed regulation postulates an aggressive schedule of technological development for a long
period into the future. While we appreciate the experience the agencies have brought forward in making
these predictions, and that the regulation is crafted with the intent of bringing a certain degree of
-------
stability to regulation by laying out a roadmap until MY 2027, facts often fly contrary to the best
predictions. Moreover, other voices are calling on the agencies to pursue a more aggressive schedule,
one that would require an even faster technological development and deployment schedule. Therefore,
we request that the regulation have built into it a mid-course review. For areas where there have been
unexpected delays, say due to intellectual property rules creating a monopoly for a critical item such as
a trailer boat-tail, then this could be addressed. If the rule posited the boat tails would be developed for
trailers equipped with roll-up doors despite that no such devices exist today, only to find out that the
technical challenges of creating a viable device precluded one, the rule could be revisited. Similarly, if a
new device came along that offered improvements beyond what the Agencies envisioned, then the rule's
goals could be pushed forward to include that. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 18]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
As the agencies move to finalize the standards, we urge you to adopt Alternative 4, with modifications
to strengthen the standards for tractor engines, vocational vehicles, and heavy-duty pick-ups. The
stringency and timing of this proposal would maximize the overall environmental, economic, and
energy security benefits of the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 1-2]
We would support the timing and stringency of Alternative 4 with the following modifications: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.4]
• Increasing tractor engine stringency up to 9.0 percent by 2024, compared to the current
baseline;
• Increasing vocational vehicle stringency by at least 5 percent;
• Increasing the stringency of gasoline-powered pick-ups and vans by more than 7 percent; and
• Moving to SmartWay Elite levels for van trailers in the timeframe of this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2 p.5]
The agencies' proposal must be 'technology-forcing' and achieve the 'maximum feasible' reductions in
the timeframe of the rule. To do this, the agencies must strengthen Alternative 4 by: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2p.27]
• Increasing the stringency of the engine standard in 2024 to at least 9 percent from the current
baseline to ensure real-world reductions over the lifetime of the vehicles; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p.27][This comment can also be found in section 3.3 of this comment summary]
• Increasing the stringency for tractors by 6 percent in 2024 to reflect the full range of
improvements to the powertrain; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.27] [This comment can
also be found in section 4.2 of this comment summary]
• Increasing the stringency for gasoline-powered vocational vehicles by 7.8 percent and those for
diesel-powered vocational vehicles by 3.6 percent in 2024 to fully reflect the ability for
conventional technologies to reduce fuel use from this sector, while incentivizing the adoption
of more advanced technologies where appropriate; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
p.27][This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary]
• Ensuring that light- and heavy-duty pick-up and van standards are more closely aligned by
acknowledging the full complement of applicable technologies - this would reduce
consumption from gasoline-powered pick-ups and vans by 8.8 percent and diesel-powered pick-
ups and vans by 2.1 percent in 2024; and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.27][This
comment can also be found in section 7.2 of this comment summary]
• Proposing guidelines for the inclusion of upstream emissions in these regulations to ensure that
as the fuels powering these vehicles become more diverse, the emissions benefits of alternative-
-------
fuel powertrains are appropriately credited and accurately reflect real world performance [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.27]
In making these modifications to the proposal, the agencies will have ensured the further reduction of
tens of millions of barrels of oil each year and avoided greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to shutting
down 10 coal-fired power plants. In doing so, they will have also saved truckers hundreds of millions of
dollars in fuel, costs which are inevitably borne by consumers.
Should the agencies extend the timeframe of the rule to 2027, these modifications must go further. EPA
and NHTSA have the opportunity to put heavy-duty trucks on a more sustainable path, and they have an
obligation to strengthen the proposed regulation in order to get us there.
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
Opposition to Alternative 4
UPS supports Alternative 3, and opposes alternative 4, which would move the targets for 2027 earlier to
2024. In addition to our comments above about forcing premature technologies, and after looking at the
state of our suppliers' readiness, we do not see any basis for such acceleration. The trucking industry is
already challenged, as perhaps never before, by alternative fuel options, new impending emission
requirements from multiple quarters, and unpredictable fuel prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-
Alp.3]
Organization: Volvo Group
Timeframe of the Rule
The extended timeframe of the proposed rule stretches beyond our visibility range for technology
development and other influences on trucking operations.
The proposed rule would first impose new requirements as early as 2020 (when many manufacturers
release their MY 2021 vehicles), and then extend additional requirements out to model years 2027 and
beyond. Under this timeline, manufacturers will be stripped of the necessary lead-time contemplated by
the Clean Air Act at the front end, while simultaneously faced with the considerable uncertainty created
by imposing vastly more stringent requirements in the future based on the assumption that new,
unproven technologies will emerge. We are very concerned that the feasibility and costs of technology
are unknown 12 years into the future. And this concern is supported by the track record for regulators
predicting the efficacy of emissions control technology in heavy-duty vehicles far in advance of their
use. For example, in 2000 EPA promulgated a rule regulating NOx and particulate emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles, which became fully effective in 2010. At the time of promulgation, the presumed
technology for NOx control was NOx adsorbers (or NOx trap). The cost of the rule was then projected
by EPA based on this technology: "We project that the emission reductions and the resulting significant
public health and environmental benefits of this program will come at an average cost increase of about
$1,200 to $1,900 per new vehicle, depending on the vehicle size." Similarly, the Agency predicted it
would cost up to $368 per vehicle for the EGR systems to be deployed in 2004. By the time these rules
were fully implemented in 2010, the actual cost increase for a Class 8 truck was approximately $20,000
(this figure does not include significant increases in operating and maintenance costs), and not one
heavy-duty manufacturer was successful in industrializing a NOx adsorber. Instead, all heavy-duty
diesel manufacturers deployed selective catalytic reduction; a technology originally dismissed by EPA.
-------
("SCR has significant NOx control potential, but it has many roadblocks to marketability in this
country. These roadblocks include infrastructure issues that we believe would prove exceedingly
difficult and potentially costly to overcome. Because of that, we believe that the NOx adsorber is the
best technology for delivering significant diesel NOx reductions, while also providing market and
operating characteristics necessary for the U.S. market.") [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p. 16-17]
Apart from the fact that vehicle technology appropriate for meeting 2027 emissions standards is
unknown, there are also a host of other potential influencing factors that may change substantially
before then. These include the availability and GHG impact of alternative fuels, vehicle size and weight
limits, highway congestion, vehicle connectivity and autonomy, engine NOx limits, mandatory road
speed limits, and others. These factors will influence vehicle duty cycles (payload, speed profiles, cruise
power) and the optimum specifications for efficiency. But manufacturers will be constrained by fixed
regulatory duty cycles and protocols, limiting their capacity to react to the changing environment and
potentially forcing the introduction of technologies with limited real-world benefits that customers will
not want to purchase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p. 17]
It is also possible that new novel concepts may be deployed in this time frame. The advent of connected
or autonomous vehicles could significantly change vehicle duty cycles, for example: reducing idle time
or modifying vehicle speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 17]
Given the history of the 2000 emissions regulations (effective in 2010) and the uncertainty of evolution
in how vehicles are used, manufacturers are rightfully concerned that this long timeframe will introduce
the risk of unpredictable and unintended consequences. In their Regulatory Impact Analysis, the
Agencies outline the expected vehicle and engine technology areas and penetration rates for the
stringency steps associated with model years 2021, 2024, and 2027. As stated herein, however, this
outline remains speculative at best, as it is difficult to know how and whether the potential design
changes will deliver the efficiencies predicted in each technology area. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p. 17]
We also note that pulling the MY 2027 standard forward (alternative 4) is not a solution to this issue. As
discussed below, the alternative 3 stringencies are already infeasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p. 17]
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
WM Supports a Regulatory Compliance Schedule with Full Implementation in MY 2027
EPA and NHTSA have proposed a compliance schedule for fuel efficiency improvements and GHG
reductions from trucks to occur over a period beginning in MY 2021, with further reductions required in
MY 2024 and final implementation in MY 2027. Although the Agencies have proposed this schedule,
they are also taking comment on an expedited schedule with full implementation of required reductions
in MY 2024. WM believes this would be an unwise approach. Both equipment manufacturers and
purchasers need sufficient lead-time to test new technologies or new applications of existing
technologies in the field to understand how they will operate in real world circumstances. Expediting the
compliance schedule by three years would significantly curtail valuable field-testing that is so necessary
to assess the real world GHG reductions and fuel efficiency enhancements that may be achieved by new
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.6]
WM has significant experience testing new technologies on our vocational refuse vehicles in the field.
We have learned a great deal from those road tests, where we can evaluate equipment while operating in
-------
the various duty cycles that we use in serving our customers. Refuse vehicles are not typical of most
vocational fleet vehicles. They are extremely heavy and have difficult duty cycles that place substantial
demands on the vehicle. We have found that it is often necessary to test new technologies using a
typical refuse duty cycle to assess whether they can achieve the advertised fuel or GHG reductions, or
even operate properly in our work environment. We are very concerned that expediting the compliance
schedule by three years would preclude much of the valuable field-testing time that we need to assure
ourselves that we are purchasing vehicles and equipment that can serve our and our customer's needs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.6]
Response:
The agencies noted in the proposal that the Phase 2 standards represent a more technology-forcing
approach than the Phase 1 approach, predicated on use of both off-the-shelf technologies and emerging
technologies that are not yet in widespread use. 80 FR 40154. As such, we recognized that assuring
proper lead time would be very important and requested comment on this issue. Many commenters,
including most non-governmental organizations, supported more stringent standards with less lead time.
Vehicle manufacturers did not support more stringent standards and emphasized the importance of lead
time. Although some technology and component suppliers supported more stringent standards, they also
supported the proposed lead time.
To the extent these commenters provided technical information to support their comments on stringency
and lead time, it is discussed in Sections II through VI of the Preamble, and in Chapter 2 of the RIA.
However, the vast majority of the comments summarized here addressed the issue of lead time from a
broader view. This section primarily addresses these broader comments.
Need for Lead Time
The standards being adopted provide approximately ten years of lead time for manufacturers to meet
these 2027 standards, which the agencies believe is appropriate to implement the technologies industry
could use to meet these standards. For some of the more advanced technologies, production prototype
parts are not yet available, though they are in the research stage with some demonstrations in actual
vehicles. Additionally, even for the more developed technologies, phasing in more stringent standards
over a longer timeframe will help manufacturers to ensure better reliability of the technology and to
develop packages to work in a wide range of applications. For example, consider the one extreme of
technologies that are currently available for some but not all vehicles. These may represent the easiest
technologies to develop. Yet even for these technologies, manufacturers will need to spend some time
and resources to complete such tasks as:
• Packaging the technology for each vehicle model, including physically fitting the technology
within the available space.
• Evaluating and optimizing the effectiveness of the technology across the range of in-use
operation.
• Identifying and remedying failure modes for unique or severe duty cycles.
• Retooling facilities.
As noted in the NPRM, providing additional lead time can often enable manufacturers to resolve
technological challenges or to find lower cost means of meeting new regulatory standards, effectively
making them more feasible in either case. See generally NRDC v. EPA, 655 F. 2d 318, 329 (D.C. Cir.
1981). On the other hand, manufacturers and/or operators may incur additional costs if regulations
-------
require them to make changes to their products with less lead time than manufacturers would normally
have when bringing a new technology to the market or expanding the application of existing
technologies. After developing a new technology, manufacturers typically conduct extensive field tests
to ensure its durability and reliability in actual use. Standards that accelerate technology deployment can
lead to manufacturers incurring additional costs to accelerate this development work, or can lead to
manufacturers beginning production before such testing can be completed. See RIA Chapter 2.3.9.
Some commenters identified the introduction of diesel particulate filters and/or SCR in response to the
2007 heavy-duty engine standards as an example of durability problems that can occur. While it is
unclear whether the problems occurred because of insufficient lead time or because of other factors, it is
clear that manufacturers did not perform sufficient product development validation, and that led to
additional costs for operators when the technologies required repairs or resulted in other operational
issues in use.
Daimler noted that the combination of greater product diversity and lower sales volumes than light-duty,
makes lead time a more critical issue for heavy-duty. The agencies have considered these factors.
Another issue raised by commenters was the possibility of disrupting the market if compliance required
application of new technologies too suddenly. Some noted that expectations of reduced reliability,
increased operating costs, reduced residual value, or of large increases in purchase prices can lead the
fleets to pull-ahead by several months planned future vehicle purchases by pre-buying vehicles without
the newer technology. In the context of the Class 8 tractor market, where a relatively small number of
large fleets typically purchase very large volumes of tractors, such actions by a small number of firms
can result in large swings in sales volumes. We agree with commenters that, to the extent such market
impacts occur, they could be followed by some period of reduced purchases that can lead to temporary
layoffs at the factories producing the engines and vehicles, as well as at supplier factories, and
disruptions at dealerships. Such market impacts also could also reduce the overall environmental and
fuel consumption benefits of the standards by delaying the rate at which the fleet turns over. See
International Harvester v. EPA, 478 F. 2d 615, 634 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
While the agencies do not agree with commenters that argue the proposed lead time will cause such
problems, we do agree with the points raised that these things could have resulted if we had provided
insufficient lead time. The agencies have taken steps in the design of the program to avoid such these
potential disruptions, including:
• Providing ten years of lead time for full implementation of Phase 2
• Adopting standards that will result in significantly lower operating costs for vehicle owners
(unlike the 2007 standard, which increased operating costs)
• Phasing in the standards
• Structuring the program so the industry will have a significant range of technology choices to be
considered for compliance, rather than the one or two new technologies the OEMs pursued to
comply with EPA's 2007 criteria pollutant standard
• Allowing manufacturers to use emissions averaging, banking and trading to phase in the
technology even further
Statutory Requirements for Lead Time
EISA requires that NHTSA provide four model years of lead time (and tree years of stability) for heavy-
duty fuel consumption regulations. Beyond that, NHTSA has the broad discretion to weigh and balance
lead time with the other applicable factors in order to accomplish EISA's mandate of determining
-------
maximum feasible standards. The fact that the factors may often be at odds gives NHTSA significant
discretion to decide what weight to give each of the competing factors, policies and concerns and then
determine how to balance them—as long as NHTSA's balancing does not undermine the fundamental
purpose of the EISA: energy conservation, and as long as that balancing reasonably accommodates
"conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute."
EPA also has significant discretion in assessing, weighing, and balancing the relevant statutory criteria.
Section 202(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires that the standards "take effect after such period as the
Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period." This language affords
EPA considerable discretion in how to weight the critical statutory factors of emission reductions, cost,
and lead time (76 FR 57129-57130). Section 202 (a) also allows (although it does not compel) EPA to
adopt technology-forcing standards. Id. at 57130; see also responses in Section 1.7 below.
Is the Final Lead Time Sufficient?
Comments on the sufficiency of the proposed lead time were mixed and somewhat nuanced. Many
commenters stated that the proposed lead time was more than sufficient. These comments supporting
less lead time are discussed in the next subsection. On the other hand, many other commenters
supported the lead time as being appropriate, although some did so while arguing for less stringent
standards. Commenters who believe (or appear to believe) that the proposed lead time is insufficient,
generally expressed the concern in the context of less stringent standards rather than additional lead
time. Comments addressing the stringency of the standards, as well as those regarding the lead time
necessary to address specific technologies, are addressed in Sections 3 through 7 of this RTC.
Although the agencies are finalizing the proposed implementation schedule that will provide at least
four years of lead time for most standards, we have also revised many aspects of the proposal including
providing additional lead time to address concerns raise in the comments.
Daimler commented that "a three year cadence of tightened standards is too fast" and should be
revisited. We disagree. Most of the projected technologies can be introduced incrementally and would
not need to be tied to vehicle redesign cycles. Also manufacturers may use the averaging provisions to
provide additional flexibility. Where product introduction is closely tied to design cycles (e.g.
introduction of WHR), the agencies have carefully accounted for projected redesigns. See, e.g. RIA
section 2.7. 5.
RMA commented that tires require five years of lead time. Although we do not necessarily agree with
this comment, we note that tire manufacturers could provide themselves this amount of lead time if they
so choose. The standards that take effect before model year 2024 can be met with tires already on the
market. To the extent that the standards require new tire designs in 2024, industry will have eight years
of lead time.
Finally, we do not believe comments related to the implementation of the 2007/2010 standards are
directly relevant here (other than to highlight the importance of considering reliability when adopting
new technologies). In discussions with EPA outside of the context of this rulemaking, manufacturers
have acknowledged that their internal processes were not adequate when they implemented the
2007/2010 standards. However, they have also indicated that they have improved these internal
processes to ensure similar problems do not occur for other new technologies.
Are the Agencies Providing Too Much Lead Time?
-------
Comments on lead time overlapped with comments on the overall stringency of the proposed Phase 2
program. Many commenters, including most non-governmental organizations, supported more stringent
standards with less lead time. They generally supported the proposed Alternative 4. However, many
technology and component suppliers supported more stringent standards but with the proposed lead
time. Vehicle manufacturers strongly opposed the reduced lead time of Alternative 4. To the extent any
of these commenters provided technical information to support their comments on stringency and lead
time, it is discussed in Sections II through VI of the FRM Preamble. Comments regarding the lead time
necessary to address specific technologies, are also addressed in Sections 3 through 7 of this RTC.
Many of the comments supporting the Alternative 4 standards stated that they would be "cost-effective".
In general, however, we did not find costs or cost-effectiveness to be a significantly limiting factor in
determining the stringency of the standards. Rather, we found that actual technological feasibility and
lead time to be the more limiting factors. Manufacturers and suppliers have limited research and
development capacities, and although they have some ability to expand, the process of developing and
applying new technologies is inherently constrained by time. This limits the extent to which they can
bring new technologies to market EMA also commented that even the IT system improvements will
require substantial lead time.
While the agencies agree that many cost effective technologies exist, and indeed, we reflect the potential
for many of those technologies to be applied in our analysis for today's final rule, commenters who
focused on the cost-effectiveness of technologies did not consistently recognize certain real-world
constraints on technology implementation. Adequate lead time is also necessary to complete durability,
reliability, and safety testing and ramp up production to levels that might be necessary to meet future
standards. If the agencies fail to account for lead time needs in determining the stringency of the
standards, we could create unintended consequences, such as technologies that are applied before they
are ready and lead to maintenance and repair problems. In addition to cost-effectiveness, then, lead time
constraints can also be highly relevant to feasibility of more stringent standards.
In response to CARB's comment that the lead time we are providing "is 60 percent longer than the time
frame considered by the NRDC court", we note that this is not relevant. The requirements for lead time
do not require any fixed length of time, or any other formulaic value. Rather, the statutes require that
we provide the lead time "necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology".
Lead Time for Engine Standards
Many commenters specifically cited the engine technologies as an area for which the agencies had
proposed too much lead time. They generally supported the Alternative 4 lead time with more stringent
standards. We agree partially with these commenters. We have reanalyzed the technological feasibility
of engine improvements and are now projecting manufacturers will be able to largely achieve the
Alternative 4 engine improvements in 2024.
Additional Lead Time for Small Manufacturers
Autocar commented that providing an additional year of lead time was not sufficient to address the
concerns of small custom chassis manufacturers. In response, the agencies note that we are also
finalizing other relief for these manufacturers including the optional custom chassis program.
Need for Market Research
-------
CARB suggested that the agencies "conduct additional research on the market impact of the proposed
rulemaking, including an ex post (retrospective) analysis of the market impacts resulting from existing
GHG and criteria pollutant engine and vehicle regulations." We do not believe this is necessary. Our
goal was to provide enough lead time to allow manufacturers to develop the applicable technologies and
complete the necessary durability testing before widespread use of the technology is required to meet
the standards.
Lead Time for Phase 1 Changes
Caterpillar commented that the agencies have not provided sufficient lead time for changes to Phase 1.
However, the changes applicable to Phase 1 are all minor and do not require substantial lead time (and
EPA is providing additional lead time to accommodate additional paperwork possibly needed for the
revised delegated assembly provisions). Nevertheless, we also note that 40 CFR 1068.40 allows for
manufacturers to request additional time (up to 12 months) to comply with newly adopted changes to
existing regulations.
Standards beyond 2024
Several commenters expressed support for setting standards for MY 2027 because they believe it will
provide valuable certainty for OEMs and technology manufacturers. However, Volvo expressed
concern about the ability to project technology development so far into the future. While we understand
Volvo's concern, we believe the value of longer-term standards offsets this concern.
TTMA supports a "mid-course review" of the standards. While the agencies are not finalizing a formal
process for such a review, we note that we expect to do so informally. In addition, manufacturers (and
other stakeholders) retain the ability to formally petition us for a reconsideration of some or all of the
Phase 2 program based on new information.
Impact of GHG Lead Time on Potential NOx Standards
Some commenters argued that pulling ahead the Phase 2 standards under the Alternative 4 time frame
would allow manufacturers to adopt NOx improvements sooner. However, EPA believes the opposite
would be true. If we provided less lead time for Phase 2, it would make it harder for manufacturers to
devote resources to improving NOx emissions. As noted in Section 15, EPA believes that the lead time
being provided for Phase 2 will allow manufacturers to simultaneously work to reduce NOx emissions
by the 2024 model year.
1.6 Alternative Refrigerants
1.6.1 Requests for Credit/Incentive for Alternative Refriqerants250
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
AC refrigerant changes: DTNA agrees with EPA that a change to refrigerants for heavy vehicles should
not be assumed. The heavy vehicle industry, with its lower volumes, follows the passenger vehicle
industry in this regard and cannot be expected to change refrigerants until several years after the light-
duty vehicle industry does. That said, the agencies should consider giving GHG credits for low GWP
-------
refrigerants (of course, adjusted for the GWP reduction from today's refrigerant). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 110]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
At the same time, the final provisions should incentive the use of lower GWP refrigerants. Shifting the
heavy-duty sector to low GWP refrigerants will result in far greater emissions reductions than leakage
reductions alone. The light-duty sector has already begun such a shift, proving that the technology and
refrigerants are available, cost-effective and successful. The Phase 2 rule should drive the heavy-duty
sector toward lower GWP refrigerants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.52]
Instead, EPA states in the Preamble that it is not making any attempts to incentivize or require the use of
lower GWP refrigerants because, "there is great uncertainty about when significant adoption of
alternative refrigerants for HD vehicles might begin, on what timeline adoption might become
widespread, and which refrigerants might be involved." By waiting for industry members to take action,
EPA is failing to fulfill its duty under the CAA. Indeed, EPA has authority, and the duty, to drive
technology and promote the adoption of cleaner refrigerants. It is not necessary for EPA to "attempted
to project any specific hypothetical scenarios of transition." EPA's job is to protect human health by
adopting provisions that reduce harmful emissions from the heavy-duty sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.52]
We urge EPA to accelerate the SNAP approval process for additional lower GWP refrigerants for use in
heavy-duty applications. Simultaneously, EPA should finalize a rule prohibiting the use of HFC-134a in
heavy-duty A/C systems. In the interim, EPA should take steps in this final rule to incentivize the
adoption of low GWP refrigerants before high GWP ones are prohibited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.52]
These actions would support the Obama Administration's Climate Action Plan call for EPA to use its
authority under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program to encourage alternatives and
prohibiting the use of the most harmful chemical alternatives.220
220 The White House, The President's Climate Action Plan, (June 2013), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
Organization: Honeywell Fluorine Products
We support EPA's approach to use the established processes to expand the pool of qualified low GWP
refrigerants to replace HFC-134a. While EPA has not yet approved HFO-1234yf under SNAP for use
in HD, MD and VV, we believe that the crediting methodology in 40 CFR 86.1867-12(e) offers an
appropriate approach to leak crediting/scoring once EPA grants SNAP approval for these applications.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191 -A 1 p. 5]
Organization: FCA US, LLC
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 62.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 134.]
-------
As far as A/C system improvements, we believe there is value in recognize the greenhouse gas and fuel
consumption contributions from reducing the energy demand of the A/C systems. We also believe
there's additional opportunity to further harmonize with the Light Duty Program and recognize the
added greenhouse gas emission benefit beyond leak reduction. That's switching to a lower global
warming potential a refrigerant can provide.
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Light-Duty MAC Refrigerant/Leakage
The table above documents the rapid reduction in refrigerant leakage resulting from the direct MAC
credit program. Leakage reduction improvements increased 69% to 10.3 million megagrams in only
three years, from 2009 to 2012. The increase on a per vehicle basis was from approximately 3.5 grams
per mile of C02 per vehicle in 2009 to approximately 4.0 grams per mile in 2012 (EPA Manufacturer
Performance Report for the 2012 Model Year, p. 29). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 19]
Although industry-wide statistics have not yet been published beyond 2012, production capacity for the
new low-global-warming refrigerant R-1234yf has increased. Following its introduction on a few
models in 2013, R-1234yf has been implemented on many important vehicle platforms totaling millions
of vehicles. The incentive created by pre-defined MAC credits has accelerated the U.S. HFC reduction
program into a leading position worldwide, laying the groundwork for eventual phase-out or dramatic
phase-down of high GWP automotive refrigerants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 19]
Class 2b/3 Pre-Defined Refrigerant Credit List
The experience from the Light-Duty vehicle program shows that a pre-defined list of credits for
refrigerant improvements on heavy-duty vehicles would accelerate these improvements. Credits for low
leak air conditioner systems and credits for low-global-warming refrigerants should both play a role,
laying the basis for eventual industry-wide refrigerant replacements in systems with high refrigerant
containment integrity. By using an incentive approach, rather than mandates, companies move as
quickly as they can, according to their various constraints and capabilities, with the result that the most
eager early actors break down barriers and reduce costs to smooth the path for an eventual industry-wide
switchover. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 19]
The current rulemaking is an appropriate time to create this incentive structure in heavy-duty vehicles.
At a minimum, given the similarities in the air conditioning systems between Class 2b/3 trucks and
many light-duty trucks, as well as the experience of the light-duty vehicle manufacturers with these
provisions of the Light-Duty regulation, a pre-defined credit list for refrigerants should be created for
Class 2b/3 trucks. The credit levels and other provisions should be identical to the credit provisions for
light-duty trucks in the same time period, through 2025 model year, including acknowledging further
improving leakage and moving R-134a systems to low-GWP refrigerants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1 p.20]
Organization: Chemours Company FC, LLC
Chemours recognizes the need for concerted action to avoid significant future growth in greenhouse gas
emissions. That is why we are bringing low global warming potential (GWP), energy efficient products
to market across various end uses. We also believe it is critical that emissions are reduced in a manner
that ensures that we are able to deliver the critical societal benefits that HFCs provide today including
safe and energy efficient air conditioning. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1231-A1 p. 1]
-------
The proposed regulation includes two options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to HFC
refrigerants. Under EPA's current proposal manufacturers could continue to meet the leak-tight A/C
systems requirements or could choose to comply by installing systems that use a low GWP SNAP-listed
MVAC refrigerant. While this is a good proposal, it may not offer credit to those manufacturers who
have already complied. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1231-A1 p.l]
Therefore, Chemours suggests that an opportunity to secure C02 credits be offered in addition to the
current "leak-tight" requirements. In addition to these credits, Chemours recommends that credits for
early adoption should also be given. These early adopter credits could motivate manufacturers to
transition to low GWP solutions sooner further reducing greenhouse gases than might be emitted under
the current proposed standard. The value of these credits should be set at a sufficiently high value to
incentivize vehicle manufacturers to absorb the higher cost of the low GWP refrigerant option. The
successful credit structure in the 2017-2025 EPA/NHTSA CAFE/Greenhouse Gas Final Rule for Light
Duty Vehicles provides a template that should also work for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1231-A1 p.l]
EPA specifically requested comments on ways to prevent or discourage manufacturers that transition to
an alternative low GWP refrigerant from discontinuing existing, low-leak A/C system components and
instead reverting to higher-leakage components. Incentives or credits could be provided to
manufacturers who elect to convert to a low GWP refrigerant and utilize leak-tight A/C systems
concurrently as a means of encouraging the continued use of low-leak A/C system components. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1231-A1 p.l]
Response
A transition to lower-GWP A/C refrigerants by HD vehicle manufacturers, although not specifically
required or incentivized in this rule, may already be underway. LD vehicle manufacturers are currently
making investments in systems designed for lower-GWP refrigerants, both domestically and on a global
basis. In support of the LD GHG rule, EPA projected a full transition of LD vehicles to lower-GWP
alternatives in the United States by MY 2021. We expect the costs of transitioning to decrease over
time as alternative refrigerants are adopted across all LD vehicles and trucks, in part due to increased
availability of components and the continuing increases in refrigerant production capacity, as well as
knowledge gained through experience. As lower-GWP alternatives become widely used in LD vehicles,
some HD vehicle manufacturers may wish to also transition their vehicles. Transitioning could be
advantageous for a variety of reasons, including platform standardization and company environmental
stewardship policies. Also, the recently-proposed EPA action under the SNAP program to list HFO-
1234yf as acceptable for some HD vehicles (subject to use conditions) could affect future plans,
depending on what EPA ultimately finalizes. (See the response to Section 1.7.2 below).
Because the Phase 1 HD A/C refrigerant leakage standards are separate from the C02 standards (unlike
the LD leakage standards), and because the Phase 2 program is not changing these standards or their
structure, the program does not have a mechanism for providing credit for lower-GWP refrigerants.
1.6.2 Requests for EPA Action on Status of Current or Alternative Refrigerant
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Encourage the rapid adoption of alternative refrigerants with low global warming potentials. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.2]
-------
Encourage Rapid Transition to Alternative Refrigerants
Using energy-efficient, low global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants in medium- and heavy-duty
motor vehicle air conditioning systems is an important part of reducing the overall greenhouse gas
impact of the sector. NRDC recommends approaches to facilitate a smooth transition to low-GWP
refrigerants as they become available for heavy-duty vehicles in comments filed separately from these
with partners at the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development. Please refer to those
comments for details. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 10]
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Institute for Governance and
Sustainable Development (IGSD)
As EPA recognizes, transitioning to energy-efficient, low-GWP refrigerants in medium- and heavy-duty
motor vehicle air conditioning systems is an important part of reducing the overall greenhouse gas
impact of the sector. The most important way in which EPA can achieve this result is by promptly using
its Significant New Alternatives Policy Program (SNAP) authority to approve low-GWP alternative
refrigerants for use in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and to prohibit use of the high-GWP
refrigerants currently in use. We understand that EPA is currently considering a low-GWP candidate,
HFO-1234yf, in certain types of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. As EPA approves low-GWP
replacements for use in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, EPA should also move forward as quickly as
possible to phase out use of high-GWP HFC-134a. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1305-A1 p.l]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Include requirement for low-GWP refrigerants once commercially available
The NPRM requests comment on industry development and other aspects of low-GWP refrigerants for
heavy-duty vehicles. CARB staff supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA's intent to consider and evaluate
alternative, low-GWP, refrigerants for use in heavy-duty AC systems. Using low-GWP refrigerants
would significantly reduce the climate impact from the direct refrigerant emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles. R-744 (C02) and HFC-152a have already been approved by U.S. EPA Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program for use in all (including heavy-duty) AC applications. One
chemical manufacturer, Chemours, is preparing an application to U.S. EPA SNAP program to qualify
HFO-1234yf (another low-GWP refrigerant which is SNAP approved for light-duty use) for heavy-duty
applications. In general, however, industry development and adoption of low-GWP refrigerants in
heavy-duty subsectors has been relatively slow compared to light-duty applications, despite the
substantial similarity between the AC systems for light-duty and for heavy-duty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 144-145]
CARB staff believes that regulatory requirements or incentives can motivate those research and
development activities, and speed up the transition to low-GWP refrigerants for heavy-duty
applications. Therefore, CARB staff is considering developing regulations to prohibit the use of high-
GWP refrigerants for these applications, as a part of CARB strategies to reduce short-lived climate
pollutants. For the same reason, CARB staff urges U.S. EPA and NHTSA to expedite the review and
determination process for the upcoming HFO-1234yf SNAP application for heavy-duty. Furthermore,
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA include in the Phase 2 standards a requirement of
using low-GWP refrigerants, starting as early as legally and technologically possible. (For example:
"Starting in Model Year 2021, or the model year commencing four years after this provision is
promulgated, or the model year commencing three years after a low-GWP refrigerant for this end-use
becomes commercially available, whichever comes last, the GWP of Motor Vehicle AC refrigerants
used by manufacturers in new heavy-duty vehicles be equal to or less than 150. Being 'Commercially
Available' in this provision means having been approved for the concerned end-use by the SNAP
-------
program, having been determined to be acceptable for adoption by at least one vehicle manufacturer,
and being produced at commercial quantities. This provision must stay in effect till the end of the
current regulation, and no less than three model years." The three-year lead time is based on a
stakeholder (Honeywell) comment on CARB Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Concept Paper that
manufacturers would need two to three years to implement a transition to a low-GWP alternative once
the refrigerant has been evaluated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 145]
Organization: Chemours Company FC, LLC
EPA has requested comment on the possible change of status of HFC-134a for use in Medium- and
Heavy-Duty vehicles. Chemours supports a change of status of HFC-134a to unacceptable for use in
Medium- and Heavy-Duty vehicles after equipment manufacturers have had sufficient time to finalize
designs to utilize the new refrigerants and after low GWP replacements have been approved and listed
under the SNAP program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1231-A1 p. 1-2]
Organization: Honeywell Fluorine Products
Honeywell is a strong supporter of EPA's commitment to reducing the use of substances with a high
global warming potential (GWP) and the use of its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
program and motor vehicle related rules to transition the automotive industry to low-GWP alternatives.
We have been working diligently to develop and commercialize products and technologies to further
those goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p. 1-2]
Honeywell appreciates EPA's continued recognition that low GWP refrigerants can contribute
significantly to the reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector, including from heavy
duty (HD), medium duty (MD), and now, through this Proposed Rule, in vocational vehicles
(VV). (Also referred to collectively throughout as HD) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.2]
In response to EPA's request in the Proposed Rule for "comment on all aspects of our proposed
approach to HD vehicle refrigerant leakage and the potential future use of alternative refrigerants for
HD applications," Honeywell offers the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.2]
1. Low GWP Refrigerants Are Poised to Make Significant Contribution to a Reduction of GHG
emissions from HD Vehicles Without Compromising Performance or Safety [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1191-A1 p.2] HFO-1234yf has been proven effective in light duty vehicles. We estimate that
approximately five million light duty vehicles using HFO-1234yf will be on the road by the end of this
year. European Union regulations require the phase out of R- 134a in all new light duty vehicles by
January 1, 2017 and the vast majority of European auto manufacturers intend to use HFO-1234yf. In
the United States, many manufacturers are adopting voluntarily HFO-1234yf as part of their strategy to
comply with EPA's stringent C02 emission requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.2]
As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule, air conditioning systems in HD vehicles are very similar in
design to light duty vehicles, only with bigger equipment that holds a significantly larger charge of
refrigerant. Many of the same Tier 1 manufacturers make the air conditioning systems for both light
and HD vehicles, and Honeywell believes that HFO-1234yf would work well in HD and MD vehicles as
well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.2]
As EPA notes, "most manufacturers of LD vehicles have identified HFO-1234yf as the most likely
refrigerant to be used in that application. For that reason, EPA would anticipate that HFO-1234yf could
-------
be a primary candidate for refrigerant substitution in the HD market in the future if it is listed as an
acceptable substitute under SNAP for HD A/C applications." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.2]
Honeywell agrees with EPA that low GWP refrigerants such as HFO-1234yf will offer similar
performance and safety in HD vehicles as they have demonstrated in light duty vehicles. Compared to
134a, HFO-1234yf demonstrates comparable energy efficiency over the complete operating range and
good life cycle performance in all climates. After extensively studying the use of HFO-1234yf for light
duty vehicles, SAE concluded that HFO-1234yf has the best environmental performance and judges it to
be safe in use through extensive risk assessments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.3]
Honeywell is committed to working with EPA, NHTSA and industry to address any issues regarding the
safe and effective adoption of 1234yf. Parallel to this effort, Honeywell will seek SNAP approval for
HFO-1234yf in HD, MD and vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.3]
Organization: FCA US, LLC
As far as A/C system improvements, we believe there is value in recognize the greenhouse gas and fuel
consumption contributions from reducing the energy demand of the A/C systems. We also believe
there's additional opportunity to further harmonize with the Light Duty Program and recognize the
added greenhouse gas emission benefit beyond leak reduction that switching to a lower global warming
potential a refrigerant can provide.
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Light-Duty SNAP Program
Based on the early start and clear incentives provided by the MAC provisions in the Light-Duty
greenhouse gas regulation, EPA recently published a final rule (80 Federal Register 42870) under its
Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) which will remove high-GWP R-134a entirely from use
as an air conditioner refrigerant in new light-duty vehicles by the 2021 model year. AAPC recommends
that EPA approve R-1234yf and other low GWP refrigerants for use in heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 19]
Response:
Under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, EPA has found acceptable, subject
to use conditions, three alternative refrigerants that have significantly lower GWPs than HFC-134a for
use in A/C systems in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles: HFC-152a, C02 (R-744), and HFO-
1234yf. HFC-152a has a GWP of 124, HFO-1234yf has a GWP of 4, and C02 (by definition) has a
GWP of 1, as compared to HFC-134a which has a GWP of 1,430. C02 is nonflammable, while HFO-
1234yf and HFC-152a are flammable. All three are subject to use conditions requiring labeling and the
use of unique fittings, and where appropriate, mitigating flammability and toxicity. Currently, the
SNAP listing for HFO-1234yf is limited to newly manufactured A/C systems in light-duty vehicles,
whereas HFC-152a and C02 have been found acceptable for all motor vehicle air conditioning
applications for new equipment, including heavy-duty vehicles.
A change in A/C refrigerants requires significant engineering, planning, and manufacturing investments.
EPA is not aware of any significant development of A/C systems designed to use alternative refrigerants
in heavy-duty vehicles. However, all three lower GWP alternatives are in use or under various stages
of development for use in LD vehicles. Of these three refrigerants, most manufacturers of LD vehicles
-------
have identified HFO-1234yf as the most likely refrigerant to be used in that application. For that
reason, EPA anticipates that HFO-1234yf will be a primary candidate for refrigerant substitution in the
HD market in the future if it is listed as an acceptable substitute under SNAP for HD A/C applications.
As mentioned above, EPA has listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, two lower-GWP
refrigerants, R-744 (C02) and HFC-152a, for use in new HD vehicles. On April 18, 2016, EPA also
proposed to list HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in A/C systems for newly
manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans (81 FR 22810). In that action, EPA
proposed to list HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for those vehicle types for which
human health and environmental risk could be assessed using the currently available risk assessments
and analysis on LD vehicles. Also in that action, EPA requested "information on development of HFO-
1234yf MVAC systems for other HD vehicle types or off-road vehicles, or plans to develop these
systems in the future." EPA also stated "This information may be used to inform a future listing" (81
FR 22868).
In another rulemaking action under the SNAP program, on July 20, 2015, EPA published a final rule (80
FR 42870) that will change the listing status of HFC-134a to unacceptable for use in newly
manufactured LD motor vehicles beginning in MY 2021 (except as allowed under a narrowed use limit
for use in newly manufactured LD vehicles destined for use in countries that do not have infrastructure
in place for servicing with other acceptable refrigerants through MY 2025). In that same rule, EPA
listed the refrigerant blends SP-34E, R-426A, R-416A, R-406A, R-414A, R-414B, HCFC Blend Delta,
Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda as unacceptable for use in newly manufactured light-
duty vehicles beginning in MY 2017. EPA's decisions were based on the availability of other
substitutes that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment, when used in accordance
with required use conditions. Neither the April 2016 proposed rule nor the July 2015 final rule consider
a change of listing status for HFC-134a in HD vehicles.
Overall, EPA acknowledges commenters' perspectives about alternative refrigerants and will consider
the comments as it evaluates possible future status change rules under the SNAP program. These
comments support the Agency's understanding that HFO-1234yf could be a primary candidate as an
alternative refrigerant for certain heavy-duty vehicles in the future if it is listed as an acceptable
substitute under the SNAP program.
1.6.3 Comments Relating to Alternative Refrigerants and Compliance with
Leakage Standards
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Institute for Governance and
Sustainable Development (IGSD)
EPA also seeks comment on whether manufacturers using low-GWP refrigerants would be likely to
revert to more leak-prone systems if EPA were to no longer require maximum leak rates. We expect that
manufacturers are not likely to do so. HFO-1234yf is more costly than HFC-134a and we expect that
manufacturers will want to continue to use the same systems that are currently required in order avoid
more expensive refrigerant recharges. Even if some greater leakage did occur, the environmental effect
of leaking HFO-1234yf is of course not nearly as harmful as leaks of HFC-134a. Thus, if EPA believes
that it can encourage a transition to low-GWP systems early by exempting the leak provisions, then such
a strategy is likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If such an exemption is provided for low-GWP
systems, EPA should require that the system be recharged only with low-GWP refrigerants. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1305-A1 p.2
-------
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
We encourage EPA to ensure that the proposed new "deemed to comply" provision does not result in
backsliding of HFC emissions. EPA is proposing that if a manufacturer switches to a lower GWP
refrigerant listed as acceptable under the SNAP program, it will be "deemed to comply" with the low
leak standard - meaning that A/C system will not have to employ low leakage components as finalized
in the Phase 1 rule. Without requirements for continued in-use compliance with a lower GWP
refrigerant, we are concerned this proposed provision would allow manufacturers who choose a lower
GWP refrigerant to switch back to higher leakage components at the time of manufacture and
compliance. Subsequently, the consumer could immediately, or at the time of replacement, switch back
to a high GWP refrigerant, seriously undercutting the benefits and flouting the intent of the program.
We strongly encourage EPA to put in place in-use protocols to ensure that high GWP refrigerants are
not used for recharge. If this cannot be ensured, we recommend EPA maintain the low leak requirement
for all heavy-duty A/C systems at least until the SNAP listing for HFC-134a is changed to
"unacceptable" for use in new heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.52]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Not appropriate to allow manufacturers to be "deemed to comply" with Air Conditioning (AC) leakage
standard by using an alternative refrigerant
U.S. EPA and NHTSA are proposing to allow a manufacturer to be "deemed to comply" with the
leakage standard by using a lower global warming potential (GWP) alternative refrigerant. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 139]
Although CARB supports the promotion of the development and use of lower-GWP refrigerants for
heavy-duty vehicle air conditioning, CARB staff has significant concerns regarding the proposed
"deemed to comply" provisions, because CARB staff believes that maintaining a low leak rate is
important, regardless of the refrigerant in use, for the reasons discussed below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 139]
First, having a low leak rate helps realize the full direct refrigerant emission benefits of a transition to a
low-GWP refrigerant by reducing the need for AC service, and hence reducing the potential for
consumers to recharge their low-GWP AC systems with hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-134a (a high-GWP
refrigerant), as HFO-1234yf (a low-GWP refrigerant) is more expensive than HFC-134a. Due to similar
thermodynamic properties between HFO-1234yf and HFC-134a, it is possible that an HFO-1234yf AC
system can have satisfactory performance when recharged with HFC-134a. A leak-tight system will
reduce this possibility, simply because the AC system is less likely to need recharging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 140]
Second, having a low leak rate also reduces the possibility of loss of cooling performance and energy
efficiency due to undercharging. Experimental and modeling studies have shown that as an AC system
loses refrigerant charge, its cooling performance generally decreases, and its energy efficiency
(Coefficient of Performance, or COP) first remains constant or increases slightly, then decreases
markedly after the charge drops below a certain level, usually about half the nominal charge.53 When
significant charge loss occurs, vehicle drivers or operators would have to either endure compromised
performance and efficiency, or have the AC recharged, in many cases more frequently than necessary,
hence incurring emissions and cost associated with service. The most efficient and cost-effective means
to tackle the undercharging issue is to use better refrigerant containment technologies to make the AC
leak rate low. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 140]
Therefore, having a low leak rate complements using a low-GWP refrigerant, and ensures that the
optimal benefits of the use of a low-GWP refrigerant would be achieved. Such rationale also applies to
light-duty vehicle AC systems, and formed the basis for a "high-leak disincentive" term in the AC
-------
leakage credit provisions in the U.S. EPA GHG emission standard for MY 2017-2025 light-duty
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 140]
CARB staff further believes that retaining a leakage standard separate from a low-GWP requirement is
necessary to maintain low leak rates. Such a separate leakage standard would apply to existing
manufacturers to ensure that they continue to use good refrigerant containment technologies after the
Phase 1 implementation period ends. The leakage standard would also apply to new entrants to the
market to hold them to the same requirements. A "deemed to comply" provision would result in the use
of either low-leak technologies or low-GWP refrigerants, but likely not both, hence losing the benefits
that can only be realized when a leakage standard and a low-GWP requirement work in tandem. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 141]
Therefore, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA not include such a "deemed to comply"
mechanism, but rather develop a provisional requirement for the use of low-GWP refrigerants (see
CARB comment regarding alternative refrigerants) while retaining the leakage standard. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 141]
Organization: Honeywell Fluorine Products
3. Honeywell Supports EPA's Decision to Adopt a "Deemed to Comply" Standard for HD Vehicles that
Use Low GWP Refrigerants [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.4]
Honeywell supports EPA's decision to ease "the burden associated with complying with the lower-
leakage requirements when a lower-GWP refrigerant is used instead of HFC-134a. These provisions
would recognize that leakage of refrigerants would be relatively less damaging from a climate
perspective if one of the lower-GWP alternatives is used. Specifically, EPA is proposing to allow a
manufacturer to be "deemed to comply" with the leakage standard by using a lower-GWP alternative
refrigerant." P. 40172. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.4]
Honeywell supports EPA's approach to deem manufacturers in compliance with the AC leakage
requirements for any vehicle that uses approved low GWP refrigerants. Such an approach will provides
certainty that a proper incentive is in place as the market transitions to lower GWP refrigerants. We
agree that the environmentally friendly aspect of refrigerants such as HFO-1234yf eliminates concern
for extensive procedures and technologies to assure compliance with the leakage rates offered in the
Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.4]
"In order to be "deemed to comply" the vehicle manufacturer would need to use a refrigerant other than
HFC-134a that is listed as an acceptable substitute refrigerant for heavy-duty A/C systems under SNAP,
and defined under the LD GHG regulations at 40 CFR 86.1867-12(e). The refrigerants currently defined
at 40 CFR 86.1867-12(e), besides HFC-134a, are HFC-152a, HFO-1234yf, and C02. If a manufacturer
chooses to use a lower-GWP refrigerant that is listed in the future as acceptable in 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G, but that is not identified in 40 CFR 86.1867-12(e), then the manufacturer could contact EPA
about how to appropriately determine compliance with the leakage standard." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1191-A1 p.4-5]
4. Honeywell Agrees that EPA Must Establish and Implement Appropriate Measures to Assure
Compliance with the Proposed Rule, including compliance with Leakage Rates and to Protect Against
Backsliding [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.5]
As EPA is well aware, even the best designed regulatory program will not achieve its objectives unless
there are high levels of compliance with the rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.5]
-------
"We specifically request comment on whether there should be additional provisions that could prevent
or discourage manufacturers that transition to an alternative refrigerant from discontinuing existing,
low-leak A/C system components and instead reverting to higher-leakage components." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.5]
Honeywell encourages EPA to consider ways to better promote, monitor and assure compliance with all
standards that EPA adopts with regards to the use of refrigerants in HD vehicles. This is important both
with regards to assuring that new vehicles contain a proper mix of equipment from EPA's A/C menu to
comply with maximum leakage rates, as well as to assuring that vehicles which utilize low GWP
refrigerants do not backslide to higher GWP refrigerants upon recharge without detection. Given that
lack of existing legal mechanisms to prevent against backsliding to higher GWP refrigerants during
retrofit and recharge, we support regulatory measures that protect against reverting to higher GHG
emissions over the life of a vehicle. We recommend that EPA provide incentives for the aftermarket
industry to assure use of compliant, low GWP refrigerants. One option is for EPA to consider a credit
based system similar to the effective light duty C02 credit program as a way to accelerate the transition
away from R-134a in HD vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.5]
We support requirements for manufacturers to attest to the durability of components and systems used
to meet the maximum refrigerant leakage standards, however we believe that independent, real world
testing is the preferred method that EPA should adopt. Independent, real world testing on refrigerant
leakage rates of HD vehicles will promote transparency and best ensure data accuracy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1191-A1 p.5]
Honeywell appreciates EPA's and NHTSA's recognition of the meaningful contribution that low GWP
refrigerants offer to reducing the GHG emissions from HD, MD and vocational vehicles. Assuring a
rapid and smooth transition to low GWP refrigerants will deliver comparable cooling in all climates,
while saving time, costs, and environmental impact for years to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1191 -A 1 p. 6]
We respectfully request EPA to continue to work with all stakeholders to establish a regulatory program
that fairly accounts for GHG emissions from air conditioning in HD vehicles and establishes
mechanisms to assure compliance with all aspects of the proposed rule in advancing our nation's clean
energy and environmental objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A 1 p.6]
4 Compare Establishment of Leakage Rates of Mobile Air Conditioners in Heavy Duty Vehicles: Part 1
Trucks (ENV.C. l/SER/2005/0091r), Prepared for the European Commissions (DG Environment) by
Winfried Schwarz (Oko-Recherche) (27 January, 2007) with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, MY
2015 Mobile Air Conditioner Leakage Rates. See also, A. Burnette and R. Baker, CARB. Contract No.
06-342 (showing very high leakage rates in HD vehicles. Study involved approximately 65-70 vehicles,
measured initial charge in vehicle, sent into field for a few months, re-measured charge for
comparison).
5 The SAE J2727 that EPA recommends does take into account variation in components. For example,
a single o-ring connection will have a higher leak rate than seal washer connection for two reasons: 1)
average leak rate through properly installed o-ring is higher than average leak rate through properly
installed seal washer, and 2) o-ring is more likely to be mis-assembled (i.e. pinched/cut upon assembly)
which leads to even higher leak rates. J2727 was based upon study of assembly of many connections
and some of the o-ring connections were less than optimal (pinched/cut, etc). However, there is no
-------
additional variation added for things like road damage, accidents, service failures, etc. It only considers
variation from "normal wear and tear" of system during operation.
Response:
EPA proposed to allow a manufacturer to be "deemed to comply" with the leakage standard if its A/C
system used a refrigerant other than HFC-134a that was both listed as an acceptable substitute
refrigerant for heavy-duty A/C systems under SNAP, and was identified in the LD GHG regulations at
40 CFR 86.1867-12(e). 80 FR 40172.
For several reasons, EPA has reconsidered the proposed "deemed to comply" provision for this rule, and
instead, the Phase 2 program retains the Phase 1 requirement that manufacturers attest that they are
using low-leak components, regardless of the refrigerant they use. In general, we expect that the
progress LD vehicle manufacturers are making toward more leak-tight A/C systems will continue and
that this progress will transfer to HD A/C systems. Still, we agree that continued improvements in low-
leak performance HD vehicles is an important goal, and that continuing the Phase 1 leakage
requirements in the Phase 2 program should discourage manufacturers from reverting to higher-leak and
potentially less expensive components. It is also important to note that there is no "deemed to comply"
option in the parallel LD-GHG program - manufacturers must attest to meeting the leakage standard.
There is no compelling reason to have a different regime for heavy duty applications.
At the same time, EPA does not believe that finalizing the "deemed to comply" provision would have an
impact on any future transition of the HD industry to alternative refrigerants. As discussed above, two
lower-GWP refrigerants are already acceptable for use in HD vehicles, and EPA has proposed to list
HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for limited HD vehicle types. As also discussed
above, and especially in light of the rapid expansion of alternative refrigerants that has been occurring in
the LD vehicle market, similar trends may develop in the HD vehicle market, regardless of EPA's action
regarding leakage of alternative refrigerants in this final rule.
Although leakage of lower-GWP refrigerants is of less concern from a climate perspective than leakage
of higher GWP refrigerants, we also agree with the concern related to the servicing of lower-GWP
systems with higher-GWP refrigerants in the aftermarket. We agree that this could result due to factors
such as price differentials between aftermarket refrigerants. However, as is the case for Phase 1, as a
part of certification, HD manufacturers will attest both to the use of low-leak components as well as to
the specific refrigerant used. Thus, in the future, a manufacturer wishing to certify a vehicle with an
A/C system designed for an alternative refrigerant will attest to the use of that specific refrigerant. In
that situation, any end-user servicing and recharging that A/C system with any other refrigerant would
be considered tampering with an emission-related component under Title II of the CAA. For example,
recharging an A/C system certified to use a lower-GWP refrigerant, such as HFO-1234yf, with any
other refrigerant, including but not limited to HFC-134a, would be considered a violation of Title II
tampering provisions.
1.6.4 Additional Issues
Organization: Structural Composites, Inc. and Compsys, Inc.
Our preliminary research indicates that approximately one-tenth of the HFC-134a used in our composite
preforming process is released into the atmosphere. Our polyurethane foam is sprayed into a mold that
is completely encapsulated in a composite coating. Because of the size of the HFC-134a molecule, it
cannot pass through the composite coating. Thus, any HFC-134a that reaches the atmosphere occurs
-------
during the spray process. Once the foam is enclosed and fully encapsulated, any HFC-134a retained in
the foam will be permanently enclosed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1205-A1 p.2]
As a result, the GHG emissions and overall global warming potential associated with HFC-134a use in
composite preforming are extremely low. Moreover, such GHG emissions are non-recurring and are
negligible in comparison to the overall GHG reductions that will be achieved by improving boat and
vehicle fuel economy. Our calculations indicate that use of Prisma preform technology in refrigerated
trailers can reduce GHG emissions by approximately 25 tons of C02-equivalent per year and 650,000
lbs. of C02-equivalent over the useful life of the trailer. Also associated with use of lightweight Prisma
products would be hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1205-
A1 p.2]
EPA Should Coordinate Internally to Ensure that the Agency's SNAP Rule Does Not
Prevent Significant GHG Reductions under the Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle GHG Program.
Our technology has the potential to offer significant overall GHG reductions and fuel savings for this
transportation sector. However, in a final rule issued at 80 Fed. Reg. 42,870 (July 20, 2015), entitled
"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program," EPA appears to have eliminated Compsys' ability to
produce our Prisma product in the U.S. after 2020. We therefore urge EPA to carefully consider the
relationship between the SNAP program and the heavy-duty GHG rule. Due to the great potential for
longer-term GHG reductions at the cost of de minimis emissions of HFC-134a from the foam blowing
process, Compsys and Structural Composites urge EPA to continue to allow unrestricted use of HFC-
134a as a blowing agent for composite preforming. If the SNAP rule limits or prohibits the use of HFC-
134a as a foam blowing agent for our process, EPA will have eliminated a potential avenue for
achieving even greater GHG reductions from the on-road transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1205-A1 p.2]
Compsys and Structural Composites have requested that EPA reconsider the final SNAP rule and clarify
that the use restrictions placed on HFC-134a as of January 1, 2020 do not apply to our product or
process. Compsys and Structural Composites have researched, and continue to investigate, whether
alternatives to HFC-134a can be used in our process. We previously phased out HCFC-22 and replaced
that substance with HFC-134a. However, we have not yet identified a substitute for HFC-134a. We
continue to examine alternatives but urge EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality and Office of
Stratospheric Protection to work together to ensure that the SNAP rule does not prevent the achievement
of significant lifetime GHG reductions under the heavy-duty vehicle and engine GHG program. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1205-A1 p.2]
The SNAP rule also would permit the importation of refrigerated trailers and other products produced
outside of the U. S., even if those items are produced using foam blowing agents such as HFC-134a that
would be prohibited for use within the U.S. Any reductions in GHG emissions that EPA expects to
achieve under the SNAP rule may easily be offset by companies moving production of foam blowing
operations outside of the U.S. Even leaving aside environmental considerations, EPA's decision to
continue to allow imported foam products while prohibiting the same manufacturing processes within
the U.S. has massive financial and competitive consequences for the foam blowing industry. Companies
with operations located solely within the U.S.—including small businesses such as Compsys and
Structural Composites—that contribute to the growth and prosperity of the U.S. economy will be put out
of business. Compsys respectfully requests that OTAQ and the Office of Stratospheric Protection
coordinate efforts to ensure that on-road trucking products manufactured within the U.S. are protected to
avoid bankrupting successful, innovative American small business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1205-
A1 p.2-3]
-------
Response:
EPA appreciates the comments by Compsys and Structural Composites; however, these comments go
beyond the scope of the current rulemaking. The commenter has also raised these comments in
connection with the SNAP program, and EPA will address them through that process.
Organization: EOS Climate
Our comment is focused on the flexibility that is proposed for use of alternative (nonhydrofluorocarbon,
HFC) under Section 1037.115(e)(2). Under the proposal, an alternative refrigerant is defined as a
refrigerant other than HFC-134a that is listed as an acceptable substitute under EPA's Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. Manufacturers using an alternative refrigerant are exempt from
reporting on their vehicles' air conditioning leakage rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1170-A1 p. 1]
We recommend the Agency consider expanding the definition of alternative refrigerant to include HFC-
134a that has been reclaimed. Reclaimed HFC is refrigerant that has been previously used, recovered
from equipment (typically at equipment end-of-life), and processed to remove contaminants (e.g., oil,
water, other refrigerants) and restored to virgin-grade purity for re-use in other equipment by an EPA-
certified refrigerant reclaimer. In contrast to HCFC-22 which is being phased out of production in the
United States, there is no economic incentive to recover and reclaim HFC refrigerant today. Even under
the most conservative assumptions, the best estimate is that less than 5-10% of HFC refrigerant is being
reclaimed for re-use. By using reclaimed HFC-134a, vehicle manufacturers would be displacing new
production of virgin HFC-134a and thereby preventing additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1170-A1 p. 1]
The reduced GHG emissions associated with use of reclaimed HFC refrigerant is quantified and verified
under a new protocol under the American Carbon Registry (ACR)1. Our company, EOSClimate,
originated the protocol, in conformance with the International Standards Organization (ISO) Standard
14064-2. The protocol relies on data and modeling from the U.S. EPA, the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the Montreal Protocol Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP),
the California Air Resources Board, and other technical literature, and has been peer reviewed by
industry and government experts, and the public. The protocol establishes baseline scenarios, emission
factors, monitoring and reporting requirements, regulatory parameters, project eligibility criteria, and
the other elements involved in generating GHG emission reductions that are then verified by certified
3rd parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1170-A1 p.l]
As an example, using the quantification methodology in the new ACR protocol, if a heavy-duty truck
has an air conditioning system with a 3 pound refrigerant charge of HFC-134a, using reclaimed HFC-
134a would prevent the equivalent of 1.35 metric tons of C02 over 10 years (the crediting period under
the protocol, accounting for normal system leaks and the baseline reclamation rate in the United States).
Alternatively, the manufacturer could achieve the same greenhouse gas reduction by purchase of 1.95
verified credits (representing the equivalent of 1.95 metric tons of C02) which would correspond to the
reclamation of 3 additional lbs of HFC-134a refrigerant for re-use in the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1170-A1 p. 1-2]
We encourage EPA, and your colleagues at the Department of Transportation to consider reclaimed
HFCs and reclaimed HFC credits as part of a comprehensive approach to reduce GHG emissions across
multiple components of trucks and automobiles, including for example, use of re-refined motor oil. By
using reclaimed HFC refrigerant, or alternatively, by purchase of the verified GHG credits generated by
reclaiming HFC refrigerant, vehicle manufacturers would be reducing the GHG footprint of their new
-------
vehicles. Prior to full market availability of new low- GWP alternatives, use of reclaimed HFC or
purchase of verified, reclaimed HFC credits delivers immediate GHG reductions associated with vehicle
air conditioning systems and gives the industry a market-ready tool to promote EPA's goals, as
highlighted in the President's Climate Action Plan, of expanding reclamation of fluorochemical
refrigerants across the United States and driving down HFC emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1170-A1 p. 2]
1 americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/use-of-reclaimed-hfc-
refrigerants-andadvanced-refrigeration-systems
Response:
EPA does not believe the definition of alternative refrigerant should be revised to include reclaimed R-
134a. EPA has defined "reclaim" refrigerant at 40 CFR 82.152 to mean "to reprocess refrigerant to all
of the specifications in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (based on ARI Standard 700-1995,
Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants) that are applicable to that refrigerant and to
verify that the refrigerant meets these specifications using the analytical methodology prescribed in
section 5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F." Additionally, EPA does not differentiate
between virgin and reclaimed refrigerants based on the difficulty in determining whether refrigerant that
is undergoing a phase-out for certain end-uses in the United States (e.g., R-134a) is virgin refrigerant or
is used refrigerant that has been reclaimed. This is especially true for appliances and components that
are produced and pre-charged abroad and imported into the United States. It would not be possible for
EPA to determine whether such imported pre-charged appliances and components were manufactured
with reclaimed refrigerant.
Organization: Chemours Company FC, LLC
To make this a lasting environmental improvement, Chemours strongly encourages the EPA to pursue
additional efforts to prevent both intentional and unintentional improper service (servicing vehicles with
low GWP refrigerant based A/C systems with R-134a). Further, Chemours suggests that EPA clearly
state on the SNAP website that any low GWP MVAC refrigerant system only be serviced with the OEM
refrigerant listed in the vehicle A/C manual and A/C system label and require that all HFC-134a MVAC
service containers be clearly marked that it is a violation to use the product for servicing vehicles other
than those that were originally charged with HFC-134a or CFC-12. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1231-
A1 p. 2]
In addition, EPA requirements for Certification for Refrigerant Handling Equipment and Technician
Training and Certification are one-time events, and such training and certification can at this point be
decades old. Much has changed in the world of MVAC, including transitioning from non-flammable to
mildly flammable refrigerants, and new compressor certification standards. Refresher training is
commonly applied in many fields to both ensure technicians are reminded of basic requirements and to
update technician knowledge with more recent developments. Chemours recommends mandatory
technician training and certification be required every five years to ensure technicians are current on
regulatory requirements, including use conditions, and appropriate industry standards. This requirement
could be phased in such that any technician whose training and certification was more than five years
old as of the date the final rule goes into effect would have a period of time (such as 12 months) to
complete the training and certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1231-A1 p.2]
-------
Response:
These comments go beyond the scope of the current rulemaking as they concern CAA section 609,
which directs EPA to establish standards and requirements regarding the servicing of MVACs.
However, EPA appreciates receiving this information and will consider the comments as it evaluates
possible future actions.
In the SNAP July 2015 final rule (80 FR 42953), EPA listed R-134a as unacceptable for newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles beginning in Model Year 2021, except where allowed under narrowed
use limits. In this rule, we stated that "HFC-134a is listed, and will remain listed, as an acceptable
refrigerant for retrofit of existing systems designed to use CFC-12, but because of the use restrictions
for refrigerants listed as acceptable, it cannot be used as a retrofit for MVAC systems using other
alternatives. EPA did not propose to revise the listing decision for use of HFC-134a as a retrofit and
thus did not establish a new use condition as part of the final rule. See section V.B.6.e of that SNAP
final rule for a response to several comments on servicing CFC-12, HFC-134a, and the lower-GWP
alternative refrigerant MVAC systems. EPA understands that Chemours and/or other refrigerant
manufacturers may be interested in voluntarily providing information to customers on permitted uses of
their products and EPA sees no barriers to such communication. EPA will consider updating the
information on our website, as appropriate.
EPA agrees on the importance of technician training on safe handling of refrigerants, and notes that
EPA has received additional requests to establish recertification requirements for technicians outside of
this rulemaking process. The Agency is currently working with the approved CAA section 609
technician training and certification programs to update training material to focus on HFC-134a and the
new climate-friendly alternatives that technicians will encounter in the coming years. The goal of this
update is to ensure that technicians entering the field today are aware of the growing use of additional
MVAC refrigerants and their unique properties, current regulatory requirements for MVAC under CAA
section 609, section 612 (SNAP), and section 608, and relevant industry standards. EPA has also made
an effort to update the information available on our website
1.7 General Comments on Regulatory Framework and Rule Principles
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Need for Customer Acceptance - AAPC strongly believes that the Phase 2 program must continue to
recognize the unique functionality and utility needs of the trucking industry, and that this regulation
must preserve the performance integrity of these work trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.2]
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
We Strongly Support the Preservation of the Conversion Factor between C02 and Fuel
Consumption
The agencies' three previous rulemakings (the LD Phase 1 Rule,13 the LD Phase 2 Rule,14 and the HD
Phase 1 Rule15) established a "one-to-one" relationship between C02 emissions and fuel consumption.
This relationship converts measured C02 emissions into fuel consumption by using gasoline- and
diesel-specific conversation factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
We support the preservation of this approach in the Phase 2 Proposal because it maintains a "uniform
approach to rulemaking"16 across the range of GHG and fuel consumption rules in the transportation
-------
sector and continues the approach of calculating fuel consumption according to measured levels of C02,
regardless of fuel type.17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1223-A1 p.4]
We commend your efforts to propose an equitable Phase 2 Rule that will deliver significant
environmental and fiscal benefits to 2027 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 14]
Organization: Behrendt, Diane
We are as small as a small business can be. We operate one tractor and one trailer and have done so for
the last 23 years. My husband has been a professional driver for the last 36+ years. So our experience
with 'big trucks' goes back decades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0949-A1 p.l]
The EPA and the NHTSA need to realize trucking is not a one size fits all industry. We live in a country
with lots of variables, such as the weather. A truck cannot have automatic engine shut off, when temps
are below fuel gelling conditions. The 2010 International had a maximum run time of 90 minutes, this
does not work when you live in central Minnesota and do not have a heated garage. Let alone when your
job takes you through the harshest conditions in the country. Engine idling wastes fuel, but are
necessary if you don't want to freeze to death, or suffer heat stroke. Idling also clogs up the DPF. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0949-A1 p.2]
The government should not mandate technology that does not exist at this time. Society will pay a heavy
price for goods and services if this failed "technology" continue to bankrupt an industry that has been
financially strained for years. When you pay 140-160 thousand dollars for a truck, it needs to be reliable
and last far longer than 5 years or 435,000 miles that the EPA proposes in its GHG Phase 2 plan. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0949-A 1 p.2-3]
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
In summary, the market should have choices and options to achieve the goals of the regulation. Through
choice, optimum flexibility is enabled, providing multiple options to achieve the intent of the regulation
and deliver the results expected. Bendix is committed to policies that enable the introduction of new
technologies needed to support sustainable mobility. The interconnectedness of the industry drives the
need for consistent, long-term policies, regulations and standards so that all stakeholders can more
effectively incorporate technologies into the nation's fleet. Suppliers are a key part to producing the
results outlined by the Administration. Bendix urges the agencies to consider all of these comments as
the final rule is developed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241 -A 1 p. 8]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc, et al.
Expected technology penetration rates must align with market needs and legal restrictions
EPA and NHTSA must ensure that their assumptions about various technologies match with market
reality and that their cost estimates are comprehensive and accurate so that environmental benefits and
efficiency gains are realized in a logical and cost-effective manner. Stringency of the standards should
be based on products customers can actually afford to purchase and that do not interfere with operations.
Customers will not buy technologies in order to meet a regulatory target. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1215-A1 p.5]
-------
The following proposed penetration rates are a few examples of overly aggressive targets and in our
estimation must be adjusted downward: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.5]
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
We also note that there has been a call from various organizations for fuel neutral standards (i.e., a
single standard for both gasoline and diesel engines) since the Phase 1 rulemaking.30 The principal
reason for moving to fuel neutral standards is that a single standard allows all engines to compete in the
same market, thus driving selection and innovation further. Many international standards are fuel
neutral, as are the large light-duty pickup and van CAFE standards. The market is already largely
segregated between gasoline and diesel engines depending on work capacity such that the largest
overlap would be in the pickup and van classes where there are abundant technologies being developed
for large light-duty pickups and vans that could easily be applied to heavy-duty pickup and van engines.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p. 8]
30 See, e.g., summary contained in ICCT Pickup Report, supra note 27 at 11.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Through these avenues and our comments here, Cummins supports continuation of the Phase 1
regulatory framework as the foundation for the Phase 2 program. Key elements include separate engine
and vehicle standards, clear enforceability to ensure real world benefits, adequate lead-time and stability
and regulatory flexibilities for manufacturers. Phase 2 should also strive for performance-based
standards that are fuel neutral. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.5-6]
Organization: Caterpillar, Daimler, Navistar, PACCAR, and the Volvo Group
Careful execution of fuel efficiency standards for this industry will enable the classic win-win scenario.
As manufacturers, we support a practical, achievable greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency regulation that
does not disrupt the market due to over-reaching demands, while allowing the flexibility to offer each
customer the features they need in their specific operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.2]
It's imperative that our ability to deliver on these fundamental customer expectations is preserved by
this regulation. Said another way, correctly finalizing the certification and compliance protocols in this
rule and the associated standards is essential to maintaining customer demand for these work tools, and
thereby critical to successfully achieving the environmental goals of the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1215-A1 p.2]
To assure this success, the Phase 2 regulation must be finalized with seven basic principles in mind:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215 -A 1 p. 3]
-Regulation must appropriately reflect real-world reductions
-There must be a single, national GHG regulation adopted by EPA, NHTSA and CARB
-Expected technologies must be appropriately demonstrated
-------
-Expected technology penetration rates must align with market needs and legal restrictions
-Regulation must take into account total cost of ownership
-Protocols must be clearly defined, and accommodate production and test variability
-Regulation must recognize the trade-off of NOx and C02 reduction targets [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1215-A1 p.3]
We believe that if these principles are fulfilled in the crafting of the final version of this regulation, the
stage will be set to deploy a new fleet of highly efficient, low-emitting medium-and heavy-duty vehicles
fully capable of fulfilling the mission for which they were purchased, with minimal risk of unintended
consequences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.3]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
The agencies should not require powertrain testing nor premise standards on a significant amount
of powertrain testing - The agencies request comment regarding EPA requiring broad use of
powertrain testing (80 FR 40179). DTNA believes that complete vehicle simulation be established in
Phase 2 as the preferred method of certification. Complementing GEM simulation with selectable
dropdown fuel efficiency features that represent benefits of specific powertrain controls is a reasonable,
efficient, and cost effective way to include benefits of integration features. EPA should go no further
than to offer powertrain testing as an option for manufacturers and should not consider powertrain
testing more broadly. 80 FR 40179 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.66-67]
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
We believe these are also important considerations for EPA in developing a final Phase 2 rules, as
follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.5]
The program must be fuel neutral in nature. Through the adoption of emissions standards, testing
procedures and other provisions, the proposed rule must ensure that one fuel or technology is not
directly or indirectly favored over others, for any of the categories of vehicles covered. Manufacturers
and their customers are best suited to select the technology that makes the most sense for their specific
needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.5] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 111-112.]]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
As we did in Phase 1, Eaton supports the push for a new generation of clean, fuel-efficient commercial
vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen the U.S. economy. Phase 1 has been
successful in that it put together a sound regulatory framework that is aligned with market forces. The
separate engine and vehicle standards reflect the reality of the commercial vehicle. Also, Phase 1 was a
nationally harmonized 50-state solution which is essential for commercial and compliance purposes. We
are encouraged by the EPA's preference to keep in place the Phase 1 regulatory structure that minimized
market disruption and compliance burdens. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.4]
We believe that the framework outlined in the NPRM for Phase 2 is a good step toward a final
regulation that will drive innovation, foster both technology and competition, while maintaining fleet
-------
diversity and incentivizing over-compliance with emissions and fuel economy targets. By following the
structure in Phase 1, the agencies are relying upon an established regulatory structure, testing and
processes that are efficient and fair. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.4-5]
The NPRM sets forth clear, achievable objectives that spur innovation and deployment, while avoiding
negative impact on the economy and promoting leadership in commercial vehicle fuel efficiency. We
believe that many of the technologies needed to achieve the proposed standards are available. Some are
in low volume production, and others need a path into a market that values their contributions to
emissions reduction and fuel efficiency. Phase 2 will provide clear and realistic targets for industry and
will accelerate adoption of these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.5]
Eaton was a founding member of The Heavy Duty Fuel Efficiency Leadership Group; we believe the
Phase 2 NPRM generally reflects the Statement of Principles put forward by the Leadership Group, as
follows [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.5]
1. The Phase 2 rule should maintain market, fleet and technology choice by allowing OEMs and
component suppliers to continue to produce vehicles that perform the work required of them [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.6]
-The EPA Phase 2 regulations should ensure continued investment in advanced powertrain technology
to maintain market dynamic and fleet technology choice.
-The EPA should not promulgate standards that would prohibit, either directly or indirectly, the
continued production of specialized commercial vehicles
-The EPA should expand the list of current exempt vehicles to include highly specialized, low volume
vehicles
2. The EPA should ensure that all testing and certification requirements are cost-effective, straight
forward, and they accurately measure fuel efficiency and GHG reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1194-A1 p.6]
Powertrain testing should remain an optional requirement that can measure the real world performance
differentiation among drivetrains; GEM should be refined in order to accurately capture the benefits of
closely integrated engines and transmission.
The EPA should provide a method to protect intellectual property of component suppliers
3. If the EPA includes different transmission architectures in GEM, they must be fully supported with
data and technical analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.6]
Phase 2 Rule should ensure that no transmission architecture is unduly favored in GEM
4. Duty cycles must accurately measure fuel economy and GHG reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1194-A1 p.6]
They must reflect real world driving conditions.
-------
They must incorporate substantially more transient operation than Phase 1 standards for vocational
vehicle sector.
5. The EPA should maintain current responsibilities in Phase 1 regarding certificates of conformity in
the Phase 2 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1194-A1 p.6]
6. Vocational vehicles should be further subcategorized to reflect usage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1194-A1 p. 6]
7. The EPA should continue advanced and innovative technology credits in Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1194-Alp.6]
-The EPA should allow for certification using full vehicle, powertrain or component testing.
8. A long-term Phase 2 rule would provide certainty to drive investments in technology development.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.6]
Organization: Enovation Controls (ENC)
EPA/NHTSA Phase 2 Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Regulations are of particular interest to ENC
because our company's Class 6, 7 and 8 on-highway products directly enable lower tailpipe emissions
using natural gas. We believe a fuel-agnostic approach must be taken to any emissions regulation in
order to provide a level playing field for traditional and alternative forms of energy. The proposed
regulation must result in lower greenhouse gases to effectively result in cleaner air and increasing
energy independence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1 p. 1]
1.1 Continuation of Phase 1 Approach - ENC agrees with the general direction presented to adopt the
Phase 1 approach to calculated fuel consumption based on tailpipe emissions. However, the wording
should be unified between petroleum consumption and C02 emissions in order to specifically highlight
the overarching goal for the legislation. It is our opinion that C02 emission limits properly and
accurately address concerns regarding both greenhouse gas environmental impact and petroleum
consumption. A lack of clarity between fuel / petroleum consumption and C02 emissions is likely to
create areas of misalignment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
The Proposed Rule: an Important First Step
EDF fully supports a comprehensive and robust heavy-duty program.
The Phase 1 rule established an effective structure and many key components to a successful program
that have been carried over to the Phase 2 proposal, and in some cases improved upon. While we believe
the final standards should go much farther in driving technology and providing benefits to our families
and communities, the Agencies' proposed structure can help secure these reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 15]
Standards in 2027 must drive advanced technologies
-------
If the program is extended to 2027, those standards must go well beyond what is currently proposed to
truly force technology development. Doing so would be consistent with EPA's CAA technology-forcing
authority and NHTSA's maximum feasible mandate in EISA. A crucial function of motor vehicle
emissions standards is to promote the further development and foster the deployment of promising
technologies whose pathway to market acceptance is less clear. The proposed rule recognizes this, and
includes technologies such as advanced aerodynamics and vocational hybrids in the compliance
scenario for this reason. However, the proposed standards can be met without even drawing on these
technologies; to promote the development of these and other advanced technologies the 2027 standards
must be substantially strengthened.126 With many previous rulemakings, EPA has set a precedent for
establishing standards based on a reasonable projection that technology still in the research stages of
development when the rules were adopted would be available at the time the standard went into
effect.127 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.27]
A. A stronger rule is necessary for broader climate and health benefits
A rigorous Phase 2 program could fundamentally alter the path of medium- and heavy-duty GHG
emissions - reducing fuel consumed by the entire on-road truck fleet to below today's levels, while
helping the freight economy grow. To achieve this, however, the Phase 2 program must fully mobilize
all existing modern technologies and drive the development and deployment of advanced technologies.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 17]
A joint analysis by EDF, NRDC, UCS, ACEEE and the Sierra Club in 2014 found that by 2025, the first
and second phases of standards together could cut fuel consumption of new trucks by at least 40 percent
compared to 2010 levels.75 The analysis - based on a broad set of analyses by the National Research
Council, research by Southwest Research Institute ("SwRI")and results from the Department of Energy
("DOE")'s SuperTruck program - also found that the technologies to improve fuel efficiency are cost-
effective in the 2025 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 17]
While the proposal is an important step in this direction, it does not drive these technologies to their full
potential. The Agencies estimate that the proposed standards would cut climate pollution by 1 billion
tons and reduce fuel consumption by 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the vehicles subject to the
rule. These are necessary and significant reductions. However, finalizing standards that are consistent
with a 40 percent reduction in fuel consumption by 2015, as outlined by EDF and others, would save an
additional 200,000 barrels of oil per day in 2035 and reduce 40 million addition tons of GHG emissions
annually.76 A more protective rule would also hasten and possibly enhance NOx reductions- 2.4 million
tons reduced over the life of the program. Our comments in Section VI below provide more detailed
recommendations on how these improvements can be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1
p. 17]
C. Comprehensive, rigorous program is needed to address market barriers
Robust Phase 2 standards are needed to deliver the full benefits available from existing and developing
efficiency technology. There is clear evidence, as summarized in the proposal, that market barriers exist
preventing consumers from investing in efficiency technology that will save them money in the long
term. For example, consumers may not have complete or reliable information about the effectiveness
and durability of the technology or vehicle they are interested in - both in the new vehicle market and
the resale market. An additional barrier in the heavy-duty market is a split incentive where the party
paying the upfront cost may be different from the party realizing the fuel cost savings. These barriers
impede the development and uptake of the full array of modern technologies. As the Agencies stated in
the Preamble, "a significant number of fuel efficiency improving technologies would remain far less
-------
widely adopted in the absence of these proposed standards." This is true. However, a weak final rule
would also leave certain advanced technologies on table. Therefore, it is imperative that the agencies
finalize more robust fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards to realize the full potential of
efficiency improvements from the heavy-duty sector. Doing so "would provide regulatory certainty and
generate important economic benefits in addition to reducing externalities." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p. 18-19]
EPA and NHTSA Must Finalize Standards that Reflect the Full Range of Existing and Advanced
Technologies
EDF provides extensive comments and recommendations below on how the Agencies can improve and
strengthen the final standards to reflect today's available technologies and drive adoption of more
advanced technologies. Making these important improvements to the final standards will deliver
additional emissions reductions and fuel savings while saving customers and businesses money and
providing certainty for manufacturers investing in innovative solutions. As examined in detail below,
the Agencies' proposed engine standards are unlawful in failing to carry out the Agencies' delegated
statutory responsibilities, in proposing standards that are unreasonable in light of the body of evidence
indicating that far more protective standards are available, and in proposing resulting emission standards
that are fundamentally irrational in relying on decision criteria and conclusions that break the bond of
reasoned decision-making, severing the facts available in the record before the Agencies from the
proposed choices made by the agencies. This is contrary to law. See Motor Veh. Mfrs. Ass'n v. State
Farm Ins., 463 U.S. 29 (1983). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.26]
1 The White House, Remarks by the President on Climate Change, Georgetown University (June 25,
2013), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-
change.
2 The White House, The President's Climate Action Plan, (June 2013), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
3 White House press release, US-China Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change, (September 25,
2015), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-
statement-climate-change.
4 Energy Information Agency (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook (2015), Tables A-7 and A-19.
5 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook (2015), Table 19.
75 EDF et al., Big Fuel Savings Available in New Trucks, (2014), available at
http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/trucksavingsfactsheet-2014-06-ll.pdf .
76 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Newly Proposed Heavy-duty Truck Efficiency Standards for
2018-2029, (July 2015), available at http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/proposed-
heavy-duty-vehicles-standards.pdf.
77 Assumes Class 8 truck VMT of 120,000 miles and average fuel economy of 6.1 MPG, and sedan
VMT of 11,318 and average fuel economy of 31 MPG. Energy Information Agency (EIA), Annual
Energy Outlook 2014, Table 68; Freight Transportation Energy Use. Heavy Duty Fuel Efficiency,
-------
Existing Trucks by Size Class. University of Michigan Eco-Driving Index available at
www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/data/UMTRI_sales-weighted-CAFE_April-2015.xls; and Federal Highway
Administration, Table VM-1 American Public Transit Association's Public Transportation Fact Book
Tables 8, 16, and 21.
78 American Transportation Research Institute, An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking,
(September 2013), available at http://truckexec.typepad.com/files/atri-operational-costs-of-trucking-
2013-final.pdf.
79 EDF et al., Big Fuel Savings Available in New Trucks, (2014), available at
http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/trucksavingsfactsheet-2014-06-ll.pdf.
126 Walsh and Charlton, Feasibility Assessment of Future Efficiency Improvement for Class 8 Diesel
Tractor Engines, Consultant Report, (September 2015). See also ICCT comments submitted to this
docket, UCS comments submitted to this docket and ACEEE comments submitted to this docket.
127 For example, the 2007/10 heavy-duty NOx and PM standards that EPA finalized in 2001 required
the application of both NOx and PM aftertreatment to HD trucks for the first time. These aftertreatment
technologies had existed in research laboratories before the rule was finalized, but system- and
component-level development and demonstration had not taken place. EPA projected that with 6 to 9
years lead-time manufacturers could continue the development of these technologies and successfully
deploy them commercially beginning in 2007. In fact, the industry was able to successfully deploy PM
aftertreatment (traps) to their entire 2007 truck fleet. Again in 2010, the industry successfully deployed
NOx aftertreatment (selective reduction catalysts (SCR)) to their entire fleet. The Agency had projected
NOx adsorbers would be the system of choice for 2010, but instead the industry utilized SCR, a
technology not even relied upon by EPA. This rule demonstrates the successful application of the CAA
technology forcing authority and the ingenuity of industry in meeting those requirements.
Organization: FedEx Corporation
Achieve Significant Environmental, Economic and Energy Security Benefits: Phase 1 has begun
reducing U.S. oil consumption, cutting GHG emissions and producing fuel costs savings for fleets.
Phase 2 should also drive GHG reductions and fuel savings while achieving important economic and
energy security benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A 1 p.2]
Maintain Market, Fleet and Technology Choices: Fleets are necessarily diverse in weight, size and
capability to perform specific work tasks. Phase 2 should achieve significant GHG/Fuel Efficiency gains
without restricting fleet choice of product specifications and GHG/Fuel Efficiency technologies needed
for different applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.2]
Build on Success of Phase 1: Phase 1 utilized proven testing/certification protocols while establishing
incentives to drive adoption of advanced and innovative technologies. Additionally, it minimized
compliance burdens by relying heavily on the existing emissions protocols. Phase 2 should not impose
requirements that shift compliance burdens to end-users. The Phase 1 framework, which minimized
market disruption and compliance burdens, should be maintained and improved for Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.2]
Organization: Honeywell Transportation System (HTS)
-------
Honeywell believes the goals of the proposed rule can be best achieved through a technology/fuel
neutral approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1230-A1 p.l]
Whenever possible, government should set regulatory standards, and industry innovation should be
allowed to meet those standards in the most economical and consumer friendly manner. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1230-A1 p.l]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
We believe it is possible to craft a regulation that sets reasonable standards while promoting good jobs
and protecting the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p. 1-2]
The medium and heavy duty truck industry is already working to comply with the Phase 1 Greenhouse
Gas Emission and Fuel Efficiency Standard that is projected to save 530 million barrels of oil and
reduce carbon emissions by 270 million metric tons. In fact, we do not know the full impact of prior
regulations as comprehensive data is only now being gathered and analyzed for the 2014 model year.
The new data should be carefully evaluated and compared to the estimates and assumptions used to
formulate both Phase 1 and the proposed Phase 2 of the heavy duty regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1248-A2 p.7]
We urge EPA, NHTSA and other regulatory agencies to refrain from altering intersecting regulations in
a way that affects Phase 2 standards outside of existing timelines and benchmarks. This is a major
concern in light of the numerous initiatives the Administration has undertaken to combat climate
change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.7] The SNAP program impacted the agreement reached
by the EPA, NHTSA, and UAW, automakers, environmentalists and CARB. Clearly a similar scenario
can occur in the future in conjunction with this proposed regulation, all the more reason why the final
rules should be flexible and designed with caution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1248-A2 p.7-8]
Manufacturers need flexibility to meet stringency standards via a mix of different technologies and
paths based on competitive advantages, market position, brand, customer demands and product cadence.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.9]
Medium and heavy truck manufacturers have overcome challenges meeting Phase 1 stringency
requirements that were developed assuming market adoption of existing off the shelf technology. Phase
2, in contrast is technology forcing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.8]
The UAW supports developing and bringing new technology to the fleet as long as the technology is
reliable, cost effective and manufacturers have more than one technology path to comply with
stringency requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.8]
We strongly agree with the EPA and NHTSA's warning that poorly crafted regulations forcing
unproven technology can lead to: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1248-A2 p.8]
Expectations of reduced reliability, increased operating costs, reduced residual value, or of large
increases in purchase prices can lead the fleets to pull-ahead by several months planned future vehicle
purchases by pre-buying vehicles without the newer technology. Such market impacts would be
followed by some period of reduced purchases that can lead to temporary layoffs at the factories
-------
producing the engines and vehicles, as well as at supplier factories, and disruptions at dealerships.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p. 8]
The stringency of the Phase 2 standards must be crafted with the realities of the market in mind. As we
have seen, regulations requiring customers to buy technology that are not proven or cost-effective lead
to unintended consequences as customers often keep their vehicles longer or pre-buy vehicles in
advance of new standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.8]
Stringency requirements must recognize customer expectations, vehicle work and functionality
requirements, product cadence, lower volumes and cost structure of the market. Final regulations should
not be overly prescriptive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.9]
Organization: Mannix, Brian
Impact on Competition
The RIA does not include an analysis of the impact of the proposed standards on competition. Generally
it is a good idea to explore such impacts, particularly to counteract the tendency of a benefit-cost
analysis to point to one apparently "optimum" solution to a given problem. Such a calculated solution is
rarely optimal, and never optimal for very long, so it is important not to lock it in. Moreover,
competition remains the most effective overall regulator of economic performance and efficiency, and
by-the-book regulators need to be very careful, while pursuing their own missions, not to inflict a
greater harm by impairing competition. The proposed standards appear to have been developed in close
consultation with industry incumbents, and incorporate prescriptive requirements that are likely to
create barriers to entry. Rather than encouraging innovation, the standards are likely to make innovation
very difficult. Even the exemptions for small manufacturers incorporate caps and grandfather features
that appear to be designed to suppress competition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.7]
The danger of impaired competition is even greater when regulations require the use of proprietary
technologies. Complying with the proposed Phase 2 standards will require vehicle manufacturers to use
a range of advanced technologies, discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA. In many cases these
technologies appear to be proprietary. For example, the RIA discusses the effectiveness of SABIC Roof
Fairing Technology16 in reducing drag, but does not discuss the potential costs that can result when a
regulation effectively requires the use of patented technologies,17 leaving manufacturers at the mercy of
the patent holder. The agencies seem unconcerned about the danger of creating mandated monopolies:
"We are currently coordinating with SABIC [Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation] on future
efforts to determine feasibility and capability of this concept on additional areas of the tractor (e.g.,
bumper, hood, fuel tank/chassis skirt fairings, cab side extenders)."18 The proposed standards appear to
be dramatically increasing our dependence on proprietary intellectual property, even "as we take another
big step to grow our economy and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil."19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1222-Alp.7-8]
16 RIA, p. 2-19.
17 "Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) has passed the milestone of having more than 10,000
patents either issued or pending approval, making it the largest owner of intellectual property in the
Middle East." Arab News, "SABIC becomes region's largest patent developer," 13 June 2014.
http://www.arabnews.com/news/585811
-------
18 RIA, p. 2-20.
19 President's remarks.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Technology development has a 15-20 year cycle from the lab to commercialization. This is why
stringent standards are a critical signal to industry to make investments today for technologies that will
be needed in the future. MECA members are engaged in developing a large portfolio of efficiency
technologies that will directly or indirectly impact C02 emissions. These technologies include advanced
SCR catalysts, passive NOx adsorbers (PNA) and substrates, waste heat recovery, turbochargers, turbo-
compounding, EGR coolers, EGR valves and other air management technologies, thermal management
strategies including insulated dual wall manifolds and exhaust systems, active thermal management
approaches, advanced fuel injection and ignition systems. Technologies, like turbo-compounding and
advanced air management strategies are already being commercialized in Europe whereas others such as
Rankine cycle systems and advanced high pressure injection, are under demonstration and technologies
with still longer term horizons, such as thermoelectric generators are still in the laboratory. MECA
members estimate that using the proposed Alternative 3, 2027 engine efficiency standards, some of
these technologies, such as waste heat recovery, will fall significantly short of the penetration rates
forecasted in the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.2]
Organization: Meritor, Inc.
Maintain Broad Regulatory Framework - Nationally and Internationally
Meritor supports the proposed nationwide regulatory framework as demonstrated in Phase 1 and
proposed for Phase 2. We encourage the agencies to resolve any open issues with state regulatory bodies
to ensure a unified, national regulation. As a global company, we also encourage the agencies to take a
leadership role and collaborate internationally so that the final regulation may harmonize with global
actions that are proposed or already completed. Addressing the global issue of reducing greenhouse gas
on a state-by-state or a country-by country level will contribute to proliferation which increases cost and
requires that limited resources be dedicated to compliance rather than the pursuit of technologies that
will further drive greenhouse gas reduction. Although we recognize the feasibility limitations of global
regulatory standards, we encourage the agencies to continue efforts to commonize global regulation
where possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.2]
As noted in the April 2015 white paper from the International Council on Clean Transportation,
"Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Simulation: A Comparison of U.S. and EU Tools," a key area for
harmonization is the alignment of test procedures to quantify a technology's performance or efficiency
benefit. For example, it would be ideal to conduct a single axle-efficiency test to create an input map for
both the U.S. and EU regulatory models. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.2]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Ensure Technology-Neutral, Performance-Based Standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1274-A1
p.3]
MEMA maintains that instituting technology-neutral, performance-based standards are the best way to
ensure that the compliance targets are achieved by utilizing application-appropriate technologies and
-------
concurrently preserving choice and avoiding unintended market shifts. In this manner, then the overall
objectives of the Phase 2 program are not unintentionally compromised. Ultimately, the end goal of this
regulation is to reduce emissions and to take the nation to a new level of clean air and energy
independence. We believe that a technology-neutral approach is the ideal way to approach the standards.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 3]
Not only would a technology- and performance-based approach be fair and equitable, but also it would
establish regulatory consistency with elements of other emissions standards, enable the industry to
develop the best available GHG emission reduction technologies and provide the intended C02
reduction in the most cost-effective, customer-friendly, and technology-neutral way. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1274-Alp.4]
MEMA and the supplier industry are committed to policies that enable the introduction of new
technologies needed to support sustainable mobility. The interconnectedness of the industry drives the
need for consistent, long-term policies, regulations and standards so that all stakeholders can more
effectively incorporate technologies into the nation's fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1274-A1 p. 12]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
The Phase 2 technology-forcing proposal does not fully recognize the complex and varied nature of
commercial vehicle manufacturing, sales and ownership. For example, commercial purchasers often do
not spec and purchase truck bodies and trailers from tractor and truck chassis manufacturers and their
dealers, but rather from body and trailer manufacturers and dealers. Moreover, vehicle purchasers often
spec engines and other major components from a variety of manufacturers with no single manufacturer
having complete dominion over the finished product. Also, due to the prevalence of leasing (35-40
percent) and other commercial realities, operators often do not own and control the trucks, tractors, and
trailers they operate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.5-6]
Organization: Schneider National Inc
Schneider strongly supports all efforts to improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. Our experience has
shown this can best be done in a free market where customers and suppliers can work together to define
the most fuel efficient vehicles available which meet the needs of the driver and the end customer. A
realistic improvement goal for the supplier of equipment, with flexibility to deploy specific components
where the overall total business benefit is positive, is strongly preferred. Regulations should promote
adoption of cost-beneficial technologies, maintained by users, and that continue to generate positive
environmental and total business results. Forcing technologies into industry applications for which there
is no benefit will simply add to costs and the technology will not be sustained/maintained for its life. If
the cost and operating risks are severe enough, purchasing cycles could be impacted with pre-buys to
avoid unfavorable mandates. No one in the industry wants to alter purchasing cycles to postpone the
consequences of a poor regulation, and we believe this should be avoided by promoting improvement
with the flexibility to obtain efficient new vehicles which meet the many diverse and unique
requirements of end users of the equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1201-A1 p.4]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
While implementing the Phase 1 standards has been a formidable task, the Proposed Phase 2 Standards
are more challenging in very fundamental ways. Phasing-in between 2021 and 2027 (starting in 2018 for
trailers), the Proposed Standards for heavy-duty vehicles are truly "technology-forcing," relying on
-------
technological advancements and improvements that have yet to be fully developed, demonstrated or
commercialized. Consequently, there are many assumptions based on unproven technological
advancements in fuel efficiency, and on uncertain adoption rates for those technological advancements,
that form the foundation for the Proposed Phase 2 Standards. To the extent that those assumptions are
wrong or over-estimated, compliance with certain of the Proposed Standards for heavy-duty vehicles
will be infeasible. As a result, the GHG/FE Standards that EPA and NHTSA are proposing in Phase 2,
which in their present form are infeasible and impractical for many categories of heavy-duty vehicles,
are fundamentally different from what the many key stakeholders negotiated and consensed around in
Phase 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.3]
It is very important, therefore, that EPA and NHTSA recognize and acknowledge that the pending Phase
2 rulemaking is not simply a continuation of the Phase 1 rulemaking. More specifically, the Agencies
will need to make significant and, in some cases, fundamental changes to their Phase 2 proposal in order
to avoid the adoption of a number of infeasible and cost-prohibitive heavy-duty vehicle standards.
Indeed, as explained below, without certain fundamental changes to the Phase 2 proposal, many of the
projected improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency could remain theoretcial only, and the primary
outcome of this rulemaking could be significant disruptions in the manufacture and sale of medium-duty
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles, products that are quite literally the driving force behind this
nation's economic welfare. That said, and as was the case with the development of the Phase 1
standards, EMA remains willing to work diligently with EPA and NHTSA to craft the revisions
necessary to ensure a viable and successful Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.3]
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
The existing proposal is overly complex and in our "Ways to Simplify/Streamline" section (9), we
discuss a few ideas to modify it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.2]
Organization: Volvo Group
All, or nearly all, heavy-duty vehicles are purchased by businesses to perform services that support the
business and enhance profits. In the largest market segment, Class 8 tractor-trailer rigs, fuel costs are a
high percentage of the operating cost, creating a strong commercial incentive to minimize fuel use.
Heavy-duty on-road vehicles cover a vast range of size, load capacity, and function. Examples include
tractor-trailer rigs, dump trucks, concrete mixers, urban delivery, refuse collection, street sweepers,
urban buses, motor coaches, and utility trucks. Vehicles are specified by customers, working with
manufacturers, to serve the target application efficiently and cost-effectively. Tractor-trailers use the
majority of fuel and deserve the greatest attention, but even in this segment there is huge variety with
tractors designed to haul single box vans, multiple trailers, tankers, flatbeds, etc., and with load capacity
ranging up to 120,000 lbs. and more. Purchasers often target their vehicles to operate in specific regions,
accounting for terrain, speed, loading, and other variables in their specifications. Vehicles may need to
get in and out of construction sites, mines, dumps, oil drilling sites, or other off-road situations.
Manufacturers offer an enormous number of options to accommodate this vast array of customer
requirements, including many engine ratings, transmission types, gearing options, axle ratios, axle
combinations, tires, aerodynamic treatments, weight ratings, sleeper cabs, etc. All of these options
impact fuel consumption and GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.8]
No regulation can accommodate all these variables without considerable complexity. An enforceable
regulation requires each vehicle to be assigned to a regulatory category or market segment that defines
its regulatory duty cycle including load, speeds, road grades, trailer type (if applicable) and other
operating parameters to assess performance. Proliferation of vehicle categories and duty cycles
-------
increases the burden to determine which category is appropriate for any vehicle, to develop a
representative duty cycle, and to establish regulatory targets based on appropriate technologies and
penetration rates. In some cases a vehicle manufacturer builds a chassis for a body builder without
knowing what the application will be, further frustrating the ability to segment vehicles into finer
categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 8]
Well-chosen regulatory duty cycles and load factors can approximate actual in-use performance for an
average vehicle in a particular category, but cannot account for performance in any specific application.
This creates two key issues. First, accurate characterization of duty cycles requires a large number of
vehicle measurements in each vehicle category over an extended time period, a difficult task during an
expedited rulemaking. Second, there must be adequate flexibility to design and specify vehicles for the
intended function rather than the regulatory duty cycle. If these factors are not considered and accounted
for, in-use operational efficiency and fuel consumption will be compromised, not improved. Ideally, the
rule should be carefully crafted and tested to ensure that regulatory requirements translate to real world
efficiency, and avoid unintended consequences. Volvo Group is concerned that the compressed schedule
for adopting the GHG Phase 2 regulation has not allowed sufficient time to fully consider all of the
factors at play in this rulemaking. In Europe, regulators are proposing to test their heavy-duty C02 rule
by requiring efficiency labelling for several years. This preliminary step offers manufacturers and
regulators the opportunity to evaluate the testing and evaluation protocols, and to gain an understanding
of the market efficiency baseline before setting limit levels. Unfortunately, it appears that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) will move ahead on an arbitrary, compressed schedule, without market testing. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 8]
It should be noted that the current (Phase 1) rule provides little guidance toward the Phase 2 rule. The
Phase 1 rule governs only a few of the design parameters that impact efficiency, using an EPA devised
"generic" engine and powertrain for each vehicle category rather than the components actually installed
by the manufacturer. For vocational vehicles, the only variable considered in Phase 1 is rolling
resistance of the tires. Even if there is a modicum of guidance available from Phase 1, it only became
mandatory in 2014, which means that the August 2015 final reports for this first year were not available
to inform the proposed rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.9]
Given the requirement for regulation enforceability, the expedited rulemaking schedule (although there
may be some delay, President Obama announced a final rule to be completed by March, 2016), limited
Agency resources and data, and the need to avoid an impossibly complex rule, the only practical way to
avoid negative unintended consequences under the current rulemaking schedule is to set reasonable
stringency targets that provide averaging margin to allow the best specification for each vehicle's
application, while still achieving the average target for the vehicle category. Appropriately, the EPA and
NHTSA have attempted to do this by evaluating the effectiveness and optimal penetration level for each
efficiency technology in each vehicle category. Even so, the effectiveness and market acceptance of
many of these technologies as far as 15 years into the future is speculative and therefore unknown, and
many of the targeted technology penetration rates are unrealistically high. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p. 9]
The 2300 page draft NPRM and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) underscores the huge complexity of
the heavy-duty vehicle market and the difficulty in creating an appropriate regulation while avoiding
unintended consequences that could actually degrade efficiency. EPA and NHTSA have made great
effort to create effective measurements for GHG emissions and vehicle efficiency and to set stringency
targets that force development and deployment of available technologies at a rate and cost that the
-------
market will accept. There remain, however, many problematic elements that demand resolution if this
rule is to be workable and effective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.9]
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Manufacturers Need Flexibility to Meet Application Requirements
A truck, tractor, or bus is only useful if it can efficiently perform its work at an acceptable cost. Efficient
performance is not only measured in fuel consumption, but in time and cost to complete its mission,
including all costs of ownership. If a vehicle does not have the features needed for efficient
performance, it will not be purchased. Breakdowns, equipment damage, inadequate traction for any part
of a mission, reduced load capacity, inadequate torque or power, inadequate ground clearance, poor
drivability, and a host of other concerns must be considered when specifying each vehicle. Rule makers
have the luxury to focus on a single desired outcome, but manufacturers must have flexibility to meet all
requirements. This means many vehicles will not be able to utilize fuel efficiency features that the
Agencies expect in a given vehicle segment. This is anticipated by the Agencies and AB&T (Averaging,
Banking, and Trading) is provided to accommodate this need. But this is only effectual if target
stringencies are based on realistic technology effectiveness and penetration rates that markets will
accept while still meeting all operational requirements. If technology penetration rates exceed market
acceptance due to mission requirements or cost, the customers will opt to maintain and rebuild existing
vehicles to the detriment of regulator's objectives while causing potentially severe market and economic
disruptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.30]
Overly stringent expectations can actually lead to greater in-use fuel consumption if we are forced to
specify vehicles optimized to Agencies' duty cycles rather than customer's requirements. For example,
a truck set up with a lower axle ratio that is efficient at 65 mph may actually run a gear down if the
customer typically runs at lower speed or sets his road speed limit at 62 mph, resulting in more fuel
consumption than if the appropriate axle was specified. This issue is even more acute if the regulatory
duty cycles do not match the typical in-use duty cycles, an issue further discussed in these comments.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.30]
Compromising Vehicle Utility
Given the previously stated concerns regarding inability to meet the standards with the Agencies
assumed technology packages and penetration rates, the far reaching timeframe for the Phase 2
regulation, the uncertainty in the feasibility of the proposed technologies and their penetrations, and the
expected increases in fuel economy and GHG performance measured on non-representative duty cycles
that are still under revision, Volvo Group is concerned that the proposed regulation will force
technologies that are not suited for the specific intended applications and duty cycles. One such example
is expected penetration of Waste Heat Recovery on a highway tractor which could serve to limit
aerodynamic performance due to increased cooling package size, as well as suitability for weight
sensitive applications. If, forced to introduce this technology, OEMs could likely face pre-buy, no-buy,
or delayed-buy effects, all of which would result in continued operation of old trucks and large scale
rebuilding of older vehicles and engines. This again renders the proposal uncertain to accomplish its
intended purpose. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.31-32]
Organization: Walsh, Michael and Charlton, Stephen
A stated goal of the Phase 2 GHG rule for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles is to be
'technology advancing' over the lifetime of the rule, i.e. through 2027 - in response to the President's
-------
directive on February 18, 2014 [13], Such a goal makes sense in light of the climate crisis we are facing
and is consistent with the technology forcing nature of the Clean Air Act. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
p. 10]
This analysis finds the agencies to be overly conservative in their assessment of technology
effectiveness, cost / retail price and adoption rates, which is reflected in the very modest HD tractor
engine standards proposed. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 10]
13 "FACT SHEET: Opportunity For All: Improving the Fuel Efficiency of American Trucks -
Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting Carbon Pollution, Saving Money and Supporting Manufacturing
Innovation", The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Fenruary 18, 2014.
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
In particular, we support the Agencies developing a Phase 2 rule that builds on the success of the Phase
1 rule, which minimized compliance burdens on end-users and provided compliance flexibilities for
regulated original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). WM also strongly supports a final Phase 2 rule
that maintains market, fleet, fuel and technology choices for end users. Phase 2 can provide advances in
GHG reductions and fuel efficiency without restricting our choice of product specifications or
technologies needed to conduct our refuse collection services. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.2]
EPA and NHSTA have Appropriately Proposed a Fuel-Neutral Vehicle Emission Program
The regulatory framework adopted by EPA and NHTSA establishes a vehicle emission program that is
fuel-neutral. In EPA's Denial of the Petition To Reconsider the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (77 FR 51705), EPA
discusses the fundamental premise of a fuel-neutral vehicle standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-
A2 p.3-4]
"The Phase 1 rules comprise a coordinated and comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program designed
to address the urgent and closely intertwined challenges of reduction of dependence on oil, achievement
of energy security, and amelioration of global climate change." EPA further explained, "A further
reason this heavy-duty rule does not regulate GHG emissions from a lifecycle perspective,... is that it
would no longer be possible to establish harmonized, performance-based tailpipe GHG emissions
standards (EPA) and fuel efficiency standards (NHTSA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.4]
Organization: Werner Enterprises
Additional concerns within the proposal include the technology-forcing standards for both the engine
and the vehicle that affect 2021, 2024, and 2027 model year vehicles and engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
There are several key areas the Agencies need to address: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
- Unproven technologies with too many associated unknowns should not be included in this rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
-------
- Accurately reflect operators' total cost of ownership, and provide realistic targets in a realistic
timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1236-A1 p.2]
Ultimately, the manner in which Phase 2 is implemented will decide the success and failure of this rule.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
Response:
The commenters make numerous suggestions as to the regulatory framework and guiding principles that
a final Phase 2 program should follow. As discussed in Section I of the Preamble, the agencies set
standards based on our respective authorities and have certain statutory considerations to take into
account when determining feasibility of the final program. EPA's HD Phase 2 GHG emission standards
are authorized under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA's HD Phase 2 fuel consumption standards are
authorized under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The agencies are adopting these
standards because, based on the information available at this time and careful consideration of all
comments, we believe they best fulfill our respective statutory authorities when considered in the
context of available technology, feasible reductions of emissions and fuel consumption, costs, lead time,
safety, and other relevant factors.
We agree with the commenters on the importance of basing the structure of the Phase 2 program on the
existing Phase 1 standards, and we have continued to do so for the final standards. The Phase 2
standards will maintain the underlying regulatory structure developed in the Phase 1 program, such as
the general categorization of MDVs and HDVs and the separate standards for vehicles and engines.
Also like the Phase 1 program, we are applying the Phase 2 standards in a manner that is fuel neutral
(See Preamble Section I for further discussion).
The Diesel Technology Forum commented that the "program must be fuel neutral in nature." Although
we see many positive features of fuel-neutrality, we recognize that they must be balanced against other
important market factors. We believe that continuing the Phase 1 approach appropriately balances these
factors.
Many commenters stressed the importance of flexibility. The Phase 2 standards are performance-based,
meaning that the industry will have a significant range of technology choices to be considered for
compliance, rather than the one or two new technologies the OEMs pursued to comply with EPA's 2007
criteria pollutant standard. It is important to emphasis here that the agencies are generally not
mandating the use of a specific technology to meet the Phase 2 standards, rather manufacturers would
be able to choose the technologies, or combinations of technologies, that are best for them in achieving
the standards.25 In emphasizing the need for flexibility, commenters raised concerns about market
disruptions. As discussed further in Preamble Section I, the agencies have considered the possibility of
market disruptions (e.g., we understand the potential impact that fleets pulling ahead purchases can have
on American manufacturing and labor, dealerships, truck purchasers, and on the program's
environmental and fuel savings goals), and we have taken steps in the design of the program to avoid
such disruption. These steps include the following:
• Providing considerable lead time
• Adopting standards that will result in significantly lower operating costs for vehicle
owners (unlike the 2007 standard, which increased operating costs)
• Phasing in the standards
25 The one exception to this general rule is the category of non-box trailers which have simple design standards.
-------
• Structuring the program so the industry will have a significant range of technology
choices to be considered for compliance
• Allowing manufacturers to use emissions averaging, banking and trading to phase in the
technology even further
Commenters have varying views about how technology-advancing (or technology-forcing) the standards
should be: some commenters arguing that the standards go to far and rely too much on "unproven"
technologies, while others argue that the standards do not go far enough and should further "force" more
advanced technology. As dicsussed in Preamble Section I, the Phase 2 standards represent a more
technology-forcing approach than the Phase 1 approach, predicated on use of both off-the-shelf
technologies and emerging technologies that are not yet in widespread use. The agencies are adopting
standards for MY 2027 that we project will require manufacturers to make extensive use of these
technologies. The standards increase in stringency incrementally beginning in MY 2018 for trailers and
in MY 2021 for other segments, ensuring steady improvement to the MY 2027 stringency levels. For
existing technologies and technologies in the final stages of development, we project that manufacturers
will likely apply them to nearly all vehicles, excluding those specific vehicles with applications or uses
that prevent the technology from functioning properly. We also project as one possible compliance
pathway that manufacturers could apply other more advanced technologies such as hybrids and waste
engine heat recovery systems, although at lower application rates than the more conventional
technologies. To the extent that commenters provided technical information on their specific
technologies, we address these comments in the appropriate sections of the Preamble, the RIA, and this
Response to Comment document.
With respect the Daimler's comment that we "should not require powertrain testing nor premise
standards on a significant amount of powertrain testing" we note that the final standards are premised on
less powertrain testing than the proposed standards. Nevertheless, we do not agree that "selectable
dropdown fuel efficiency features" are inherently preferable to powertrain testing.
Finally, Volvo identified many issues to emphasize the complexity of the HD Phase 2 program and
underscore the potential for unintended consequences. We have considered these factors, most of which
were discussed in the NPRM or are addressed in more detail in other sections of this RTC.
Nevertheless, the agencies will monitor the implementation of this program and would take appropriate
action that would be necessary to avoid these unintended consequences.
1.8 Basing Standards on Life Cycle Analysis283
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
In this regard, AISI has previously filed comments with respect to the Model Year ('MY') 2012-2016
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule and the MY 2017 and Later Light -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Rule. Our comments concerning this Proposed Rule center on some of the same concerns that we
have previously expressed, namely that the Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA') and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration CNHTSA') more accurately take into account the greenhouse
gas ('GHG') emissions associated with vehicles and engines, specifically life cycle emissions associated
with the use of various materials in vehicle and engine manufacturing. Our comments with respect to
the Proposed Rule, however, take on added importance regarding the agencies' new effort to promulgate
medium- and heavy-duty standards, which will be implemented over the next decade. EPA and NHTSA
must make every effort in such a long-term rule to address important structural issues in how GHG
emissions and fuel efficiency are measured. We do not believe that EPA and NHTSA can maintain a
'wait and see' approach to life cycle analysis. Doing so undermines both the accuracy and legal basis for
this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 1-2]
-------
A. Life Cycle Analysis of Materials Will Provide More Accurate Assessment of Vehicle GHG
Impacts and Improve GHG Benefits of Final Rule
The Proposed Rule represents a 'more technology-forcing approach' than Phase I standards. Specifically,
it 'will effectively require manufacturers to develop new technologies (or to significantly improve
technologies) from standards that can be met using off-the-shelf technology alone.' According to EPA
analysis, fully-phased in standards will result in 24 percent lower carbon dioxide ('C02') emissions for
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and a 16 percent C02 reduction from Phase I for vocational
vehicles.24 Total GHG reductions from the program are estimated at 1 billion metric tons. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 9]
Emissions from steel manufacturing are substantially lower than alternative materials used in motor
vehicles.26 Within the context of the Proposed Rule - which contains interim standards in MY 2021 and
MY 2024 and extends through MY 2027 -EPA must incorporate life cycle analysis and not 'lock in'
vehicle material choices for the next decade. While current vehicle C02 emissions are dominated by the
utilization of the vehicle, as GHG and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
are implemented with increasing stringency, the balance between emissions associated with materials
versus driving will shift and selection of materials will become increasingly important. EPA should not
ignore this evolving opportunity to increase, and not unintentionally decrease, the projected benefits of
the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.9-10]
Within the LDV sector, production phase GHG emissions can account for about 40% of total C02
emissions from a vehicle.28 It has also been estimated that the percentage of such emissions could rise to
50% by 2020. Since the LDV sector is defined in terms of 8,500 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
('GVWR') and below, the relative GHG emission reductions associated with vehicles in medium- and
heavy-duty sector, with range from 8,500 to over 60,000 GVWR will be comparatively greater based on
weight. Even accounting for the greater utilization of commercial versus personal LDVs, significant
reductions in GHGs could be expected by influencing the selection of materials in vehicle construction.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 10]
In general, heavy-duty trucks are limited with respect to payload because of road restrictions. Therefore,
if a truck weighs less, it is able to carry additional payload (in most situations), while the total weight of
the vehicle remains the same. Since more payload is able to be transported per vehicle, benefits are
created with respect to reducing the number of trips that are required to engage in the same commercial
activity. This results in a direct benefit in terms of overall GHG emissions. The resulting benefit is
correspondingly greater in city driving and stop/start performance. Since reduction in mass is central to
this benefit, EPA and NHTSA must more accurately assess the GHG emissions associated with the
reduction in mass, namely through utilization of life cycle analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-
Alp.10]
Methodologies to incorporate life cycle emissions into the regulatory structure of this rulemaking are
available and would improve the accuracy of EPA's assessment of a vehicle's GHG emissions. In this
regard, Ricardo has examined the feasibility of considering a vehicle's entire life cycle to be able to
compare the impact of different LDVs.30 While this assessment recognized that there are indeed
strengths to the current system of testing and certifying vehicles over a defined drive cycle, the report
noted multiple limitations to this regulatory system, including the lack of measurement of emissions
upstream of vehicle use where the strong influence of the carbon intensity of material can be quantified.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 11]
-------
24 EPA and NHTSA Proposed Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel
Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond, EPA-420-F-15901,
June 2015.
26 Incorporating Life Cycle Principles in Vehicle Regulations, Jody Shaw, U.S. Steel, Great Designs in
Steel Conference, July 27, 2011. Attachment B.
28 Comparative LCA Model, Roland Geyer, University of California at Santa Barbara (download from
http: //www. worldautosteel. org/Proj ects/LC A- Study/2010-UC SB -model, aspx.
30 Preparing for a Life Cycle C02 Measure, Ricardo, May 20, 2011.
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
EPA and NHTSA have statutory authority to incorporate life cycle analysis into GHG emission and fuel
efficiency standards. To the extent either agency may believe it is legally constrained in this area, past
practice would allow either agency to 'conform' its final standards to those promulgated by the other
agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.2]
If EPA and NHTSA believe that there is insufficient information in the Proposed Rule to incorporate
life cycle analysis in a final rule, there are several administrative alternatives to correct this situation.
The agencies have authority to issue supplemental rules or a Notice of Data Availability CNODA'). In
the alternative, a 'look-back' mechanism could be incorporated into the final rule that would allow for
future integration of such analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.3]
III. EPA and NHTSA Should Incorporate Life cycle Analysis into Phase 2 HD Standards
AISI has previously submitted comments and detailed information with respect to life cycle analysis in
EPA/NHTSA vehicle rulemakings and other agency interactions. Some of this information is attached
and submitted to the docket for the agencies' further consideration in this rulemaking, including recent
WorldAutoSteel studies.15 We respectfully request that the agencies thoroughly review this information
and engage AISI if there are questions concerning study methods or results.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1275-A1 p.7]
To date, however, the agencies have only provided summary responses to AISI's comments in this area17
and, within the Proposed Rule, EPA and NHTSA are now specifying 'that Phase 2 standards apply
exclusively at the vehicle tailpipe . . . compliance is based on vehicle fuel consumption and GHG
emission reductions, and does not reflect so-called life cycle emission properties.' EPA and NHTSA,
however, should reconsider this course of action for several legal and policy reasons, including
improving the accuracy and reliability of its regulation in this area and the opportunity to secure
additional improvements in GHG emissions and fuel efficiency. Indeed, given the lengthy phase-in of
new medium- and heavy-duty regulations over the next 12 years, the Proposed Rule provides a perfect
opportunity for the agencies to incorporate life cycle analysis into the final standards. The long
timeframe of the rule would allow the market to respond and better incorporate material selection into
their compliance strategies. Moreover, there are existing GHG emissions measurement models and
several different regulatory methods that can be utilized, including phase-in of such analysis or
supplementary rulemaking that would provide additional adjustment to the GEM utilized in this
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.7-8]
-------
The National Research Council has recognized that EPA and NHTSA should address 'well to wheel
GHG and petroleum reduction benefits' with respect to light duty alternative- fueled vehicles.19 In its
report regarding light-duty vehicle technologies, the council noted that starting in MY 2020, EPA and
NHTSA will utilize data with respect to the actual use of alternative fuel in such vehicles. The intent of
this change in regulatory policy is abundantly clear: emission benefits in alternative-fueled vehicles are
only achieved if the vehicles are utilizing fuel which contains fewer upstream GHG emissions, i.e., the
GHG emissions associated with the production of alternative fuels versus 'conventional' fuels such as
gasoline and diesel. The same concept applies with respect to vehicle materials: the benefit of weight
reductions can only be accurately measured if the full life cycle of the materials are considered. Without
consideration of such upstream GHG emissions, EPA and NHTSA estimates of the resulting benefits of
this rulemaking will be inaccurate as well as any standards premised on such estimates.21 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 8]
Similarly, the Department of Energy ('DOE') has considered the relevance of 'well to wheels' assessment
related to different types of fuel as part of its 21st Century Truck Partnership. Particularly regarding
natural gas vehicles, DOE noted that "Natural gas based fuels for heavy-duty vehicle applications are of
importance to the [21st Century Truck Partnership], Several recent U.S. studies have examined the
impacts of shale gas and conventional [natural gas] production, so any effort to examine these fuels
should build on this work.' Again, since the focus of this analysis is with respect to upstream production
of fuel utilized in vehicles, there is no logical distinction between considering such emissions and those
associated with the life cycle emissions attributable to the materials utilized in vehicle production.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 9]
The agencies' discussion of life cycle analysis in the Preamble along with the review and solicitation of
comment on using such analysis with respect to natural gas vehicles forms a basis under which the
agencies could finalize a broader use of life cycle analysis for materials in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1275-A1 p. 18]
In the alternative, the agencies could solicit additional comment on the broader use of life cycle analysis
of vehicle materials and components, either in a supplemental rule or NODA to this rule. If this course
is taken, we would request that this procedure occur in a timeframe so as to allow incorporation of life
cycle analysis prior to the implementation of the new GHG and fuel efficiency standards established by
this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 18]
AISI previously submitted draft regulatory language to create a life cycle assessment report in the
context of the LDV rule. Regarding this rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA should incorporate a regulatory
provision that creates an advisory board to assess current information on life cycle analysis of materials
and then require subsequent action to revise the GHG and fuel efficiency standards applicable to in-use
heavy duty vehicles beginning in MY 2021 and 2024. Draft regulatory language to accomplish this
result is attached to these comments.57 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 19]
The long-term nature of this rulemaking means that accuracy of GHG emission reduction estimates and
the mechanisms by which the agencies seek to achieve GHG reductions and improvements in fuel
efficiency must be improved. This rulemaking is the appropriate time to incorporate life cycle analysis
since it would improve the data utilized in GEM to project vehicle emissions and to certify vehicles. As
EPA and NHTSA seek to reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency, the relative amount of
materials-related emissions will grow. It would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to ignore such a
long-term condition, which threatens the accuracy of its estimates of the benefits of this rulemaking as
well as the accuracy of its compliance mechanism. While the agencies have broad statutory criteria
under which to establish final standards, administrative discretion is not unlimited. Continuing to ignore
-------
life cycle analysis or delay its consideration could undermine the rational basis of this rulemaking and
lead to the unintended consequence of increasing emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 19]
15 See Attachment A.
16 While EPA, like other parts of the Executive Branch, is not required to 'discuss every item of fact or
opinion included in the submissions is receives in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it must
respond to those comments which, if true, would require a change in [the] proposed rule. Louisiana
Federal Land Back Association, FCLA v. Farm Credit Administration, 336 F. 3d 1075, 1080 (D.C. Cir.
2003). See also Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control v. EPA, Slip op.
13-1093 (D.C. Cir. 2015). "Naturally, an agency need not 'discuss every item of fact or opinion included
in the submissions made to it.' Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F. 2d 186, 197 (D.C. Cir 1993). . . But an
agency must respond sufficiently to 'enable us to see what major issues of policy were ventilated . . . and
why the agency reacted to them as it did.' Id. at 24.
17 See 2017 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards: EPA Response to Comments, Section 14, Treatment of Life-Cycle
Emissions Related to Vehicle Manufacturing, August 2012 at 14-1921.
19 Cost, Effectiveness and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles,
National Research Council, Recommendation 10.6.
21 To the extent EPA and NHTSA might treat such emissions as a 'credit' versus a direct part of the
calculation of emission standards applicable to vehicles is of no matter. The consideration of weight
based on different material use serves as a compliance mechanism for the standards and is integral to the
implementation of the final heavy-duty GHG requirements. Thus, if this credit is inaccurately measured
due to the failure to consider the life cycle impact of various materials, the regulatory requirements of
the final rule are negatively affected.
57 See Attachment K; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A12 In the event that EPA and NHTSA do not
directly incorporate life cycle analysis into the final rule, we request that EPA and NHTSA incorporate
this review mechanism into the rule
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
The Clean Air Act Allows for Life Cycle Analysis
EPA cites Clean Air Act ('CAA') Sections 202(a), 203 and 207 as authority for this rulemaking. Under
CAA Section 202(a), EPA is required to promulgate regulatory standards for 'any air pollutant from any
class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines' which are considered to cause or
contribute to air pollution that 'may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' EPA
has previously taken an expansive view of this authority.4 In this rulemaking, EPA addresses arguments
that it cannot regulate trailers since they do not emit pollutants and therefore cannot be subject to
emission standards. EPA considers this argument 'without legal predicate' and states that '[t]here is no
requirement that pollutants be emitted from a specified part of the motor vehicle or engine.' This
interpretation of its authority applies equally to life cycle analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1275-A1
p.3-4]
-------
Historically, EPA has not considered itself to be constrained to one particular regulatory approach in
addressing engine and vehicle emissions. For example, EPA's current Light-Duty Vehicle ('LDV') rules
utilize a mathematical curve-based computer modeling of 'feasible' levels of emissions relative to the
footprint of a vehicle. Many other engine and vehicle programs allow for fleet averaging and emission
credits to be generated and used, rather than standards applied solely on the basis of contemporaneous
emissions. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that EPA does not believe the CAA limits the agency to
promulgate only traditional 'tailpipe' standards that rely on the direct measurement of air pollution.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.4]
EPA has, in fact, made previous statements that it does possess the authority to utilize life cycle
emissions as part of engine and vehicle regulations. Within the Response to Comments document for the
MY 2012-2016 LDV rule, EPA indicated that the agency 'agree[d] that the issue of life cycle emissions
accounting may be appropriate to consider for subsequent rulemakings.'6 In addition, EPA believes it
can advance different policy objectives through its engine and vehicle rulemakings. In the MY 2012-
2014 LDV rulemaking, for example, EPA indicated using a vehicle's footprint as part of its regulatory
standard would minimize incentives to 'downsize' vehicles as a compliance strategy. Thus, it would be
reasonable to conclude that EPA considers the authority Congress granted to it within Title II of the
CAA and CAA Section 202 specifically, to encompass an ability to incorporate life cycle analysis into
motor vehicle regulatory standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.4]
C. EPA's Denial of Petition for Reconsideration on Fuels Does Not Impact Life Cycle Analysis
Based on Materials
In support of its decision to utilize tailpipe standards and not to propose standards that 'reflect any so-
called life cycle emission properties,' EPA cites its denial of a petition for reconsideration from POP
Diesel with respect to the MY 2014-2018 medium- and heavy-duty GHG rule. But EPA's rationale in
denying the POP Diesel petition has no bearing on the use of life cycle analysis with respect to materials
in this rulemaking. Instead, EPA's denial was focused on the existence of other programs that already
control GHGs from fuels, i.e., the renewable fuel standard contained in CAA Section 21 l(o). Clearly,
there is no corollary program regarding the life cycle analysis of materials within the statutory
authorities cited for this rulemaking. Otherwise, EPA's denial of the POP Diesel petition was largely on
procedural grounds - on that the basis of their petition for reconsideration did not, in fact, occur after the
period for public comment had closed. Since we are currently in the rulemaking process itself, this
rationale is also inapplicable to incorporating life cycle analysis of materials. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1275-A1 p. 14]
4 For example, in the proposed rule for light-duty greenhouse gas standards for MY 2012-2016 EPA
stated that Title II of the CAA provides for 'comprehensive regulation of mobile sources' and that the
title offers 'sweeping grants of authority' that allow the Agency to consider numerous factors including
technological effectiveness, the impact of standards on oil conservation and energy security and other
energy impacts. 79 Fed. Reg. at 49,454.
6 'Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards EPA Response to Comments Document for Joint Rulemaking,' Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-420-
R-10-012aEPA-420-R-10-012a, April 2010 at. 4-16. (Emphasis added).
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Support/Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
-------
Comment - Upstream emissions/deemed zero language for BEVs
Like the Phase 1 standards, Phase 2 standards are based on tailpipe emissions. Because the expected
penetration of BEVs is low, U.S. EPA and NHTSA propose to continue to treat BEVs as if they have
zero emissions of C02, methane, and nitrous oxide (N20) without accounting for upstream emissions
from charging. The NPRM specifically requests comment on this continued use of deemed zero
language for EVs. While there are clearly emissions associated with power production to charge
medium-and heavy-duty EVs, emissions associated with producing a kW of power are declining, and
medium- and heavy-duty BEVs currently comprise a small portion of the fleet that the emissions
associated with charging the vehicles is comparatively insignificant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p. 99]
The 2017 to 2025 MY light-duty vehicle GHG rule includes a cap whereby upstream NHTSA believe
such a cap is not needed for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs due to their anticipated low likelihood of
significant production volumes in the Phase 2 timeframe. CARB staff agrees such a cap need not be
included in this regulation at this time. CARB staff believes a different regulatory structure for the likely
small number of anticipated vehicles would put an extra burden on manufacturers and would not result
in significant emission reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.99-100]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports the Agencies 'proposal for GHG/FE compliance based on tailpipe emissions, not
lifecycle emissions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.41]
Cummins supports the proposal that Phase 2 GHG/FE compliance is based on tailpipe emissions. As
stated in the Preamble (80 FR 40503), this approach allows for fuel neutral standards and maintains a
unified program between EPA and NHTSA, so the tailpipe approach should continue in Phase 2. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.41]
Organization: National Biodiesel Board
4) EPA and NHTSA Properly Focus on Tailpipe Emissions Rather than Lifecycle Emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p. 11]
EPA and NHTSA are proposing that the Phase 2 standards apply exclusively at the vehicle tailpipe. 80
Fed. Reg. at 40,158-40,159. In other words, "compliance is based on vehicle fuel consumption and
GHG emission reductions, and does not reflect any so-called lifecycle emission properties." Id. at
40,159. NBB agrees that the agencies should not seek to undertake a separate analysis of lifecycle
emissions here. 77 Fed. Reg. at 62,823. Indeed, the lifecycle analysis utilized by EPA for the RFS
cannot assess actual emissions and should not be applied here.13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1
p. 11]
13 In the RFS rulemaking, EPA rejected inclusion of a global rebound effect in assessing emissions. See
EPA Response to Clean Air Taskforce, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and Friends
of the Earth's Petitions for Reconsideration of the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS2) (2011), available
at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/rfs-response-to-petitions-02-17-
1 l.pdf. NBB believes such analysis is speculative and unnecessary in light of the GHG emission
reductions and energy security goals of the proposal.
-------
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
As discussed throughout the final rule, close coordination in this first heavy-duty rule enabled EPA and
NHTSA to promulgate complementary standards that appropriately allow manufacturers to build one set
of vehicles to comply with both agencies' regulations." WM, therefore, strongly recommends the
Agencies abstain from incorporating lifecycle GHG emissions accounting in the Phase 2 rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.4]
WM Supports the Adoption of Tailpipe-based GHG and Fuel Efficiency Standards
I. Executive Summary
Electricity as a transportation fuel offers significant long-term environmental benefits. Increased
deployment of medium- and heavy-duty PEVs will both increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions
of GHGs and criteria pollutants from the transportation sector. These environmental benefits will only
be multiplied by the continued reductions in upstream emissions of both GHGs and criteria pollutants
related to the generation of electricity that will fuel the PEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p.3-
4]
EEI strongly supports the EPA's and NHTSA's decision to apply the proposed Phase 2 standards
exclusively at the tailpipe. Consistent with Phase 1, the agencies correctly recognize that EVs emit 0.0
g/mile, for both GHG emissions and criteria pollutants, and therefore assess emissions and fuel
economy appropriately. For purposes of compliance with vehicle emissions or fuel efficiency standards,
any assessment of emissions should continue to be confined to the tailpipe and should not include
estimated upstream emissions. However, should EPA and NHTSA determine that a review of upstream
emissions for the Phase 2 Program, or in other future rulemakings, any such assessment must be fair,
assessing the upstream national and/or international emissions of all transportation fuels (conventional
and PEVs), and it must be based on current data with a clear recognition of regulatory developments
that address and limit those stationary emissions sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p.4]
A. Tailpipe Emissions From Electric Vehicles Are Zero and the Phase 2 Program Correctly
Focuses on Tailpipe Emissions
As a preliminary matter, EEI strongly supports the EPA's and NHTSA's decision to apply the proposed
Phase 2 Program standards for medium- and heavy- duty engines and vehicles exclusively at the vehicle
tailpipe.15 As proposed, the Phase 2 Program standards correctly focus compliance on vehicle fuel
consumption and GHG emission reductions. Similar to the Phase 1 Program, the agencies appropriately
recognize that EVs emit 0.0 g/mile, for both GHG emissions and criteria pollutant emissions.16 For
purposes of compliance with vehicle emissions or fuel economy standards, any assessment of emissions
should continue to be confined to tailpipe emissions (consistent with past EPA practice under Title II of
the Clean Air Act) and should not include estimated upstream emissions.17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1327-A2 p.7-8]
Consistent with the Phase 1 Program, and unlike the 2017-2025 light-duty standards, the agencies
appropriately do not propose a "cap" for the technically accurate application of the 0.0 g/mile standard
for heavy duty EVs. In the proposed rule, however, EPA and NHTSA state that this is "because of the
small likelihood of significant production of EV technologies in the Phase 2 timeframe."18 All EVs
should be judged on their actual tailpipe emissions, which are 0.0 g/mile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1327-A2 p. 8]
-------
B. If Assessed At All, Estimated Upstream Emissions Should Be Calculated Using Recent,
Accurate Data and Should Recognize Current and Future Regulations that Limit These Emissions
While EPA and NHTSA propose to measure compliance with the proposed Phase 2 Program standards
at the tailpipe, the agencies have specifically requested comment on this issue.19 This request appears to
be aimed at concerns relating to upstream emissions—those emissions related to the production and
delivery of transportation fuels. As a general matter, and consistent with the approach proposed for the
Phase 2 Program, vehicle emissions standards should focus on actual vehicle emissions. However,
should EPA and NHTSA determine that it is appropriate to assess upstream emissions for EVs, this
assessment must be fair—it must assess the upstream impacts of all transportation fuels20—and its must
be based on current data (national and international) and recognize regulatory developments that address
and limit upstream emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1327-A2 p.8]
With respect to EVs, the agencies have not included any analysis or discussion of the upstream
emissions related to electricity as a transportation fuel. However, the proposed Phase 2 Program makes
unsubstantiated statements about the environmental benefits of EVs that appear to be related to concerns
about estimated upstream emissions from electricity production. For example, in discussing possible
compliance flexibilities and incentives for heavy duty (HD) pickups and vans, EPA states that
incentives for EVs "would result in reduced benefits in terms of C02 emissions...due to the Phase 2
Program."21 As EV deployment would reduce emissions from vehicle tailpipes, it can only be assumed
that this statement reflects concerns about upstream electricity emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1327-A2 p.9]
As discussed in the proposed rule, back in 2010, NHTSA and EPA issued a joint final rule that
established CAFE and GHG standards for passenger cars and light trucks for MY 2017-2025.22 As part
of that rule, EPA conducted an assessment of upstream emissions from electricity generation and
determined that it would only use the technically correct emissions value of 0.0 grams/mile for a limited
number of EVs sold per manufacturer. In support of this position, and based on outdated data from
2005, EPA calculated a nationwide average electricity upstream GHG emissions rate. Using this
national annualized average, EPA came to the spurious conclusion that "actual" GHG emissions
attributable to EVs exceed the GHG emission of conventional fuel vehicles.23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1327-A2 p.9]
As the agencies have not provided any discussion related to upstream electricity emissions in this
docket, EPA and NHTSA may be continuing to rely on this outdated analysis. However, in the draft EIS
for the vehicle standards for passenger vehicles and trucks for model years 2022-2025, which was
released in 2012, NHTSA found that "even in modeled scenarios in which EVs charge from a carbon-
intensive grid mix (i.e., electricity generated mostly from coal plants), the vehicle life-cycle emissions
from EVs are less than conventional gasoline vehicles." Draft EIS at 6-22. At a minimum, it is unclear
why the agencies are not using their own, more recent assessments of upstream emissions from EVs and
the potential for EVs to reduce emissions. Moreover, it is inappropriate to rely on EPA's 2010 analysis
of upstream emissions related to electricity production because it is flawed, outdated and does not
consider significant regulatory developments that will further reduce both GHG and criteria pollutant
emissions from the electric sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 10]
First, EPA's creation and use of a national annualized average electricity upstream GHG emissions rate
fails to account for significant regional differences in electricity generation. National averages cannot
help the agencies estimate any localized or regional impacts of potential increased penetration of PEVs.
Emissions associated with generation of electricity vary significantly from utility to utility—with
nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric powered sources emitting very low or no GHGs or
-------
criteria air pollutants in varying degrees across the country. Any meaningful estimates of upstream
emissions associated with electricity as a transportation fuel would need to be tailored not only to reflect
regional variations in current electricity baseload generation and expectations for marginal electricity
generation mix, but also assumptions about usage and recharging of the vehicle as well as
state/regional/federal electric generation policies (such as state Renewable Electricity Standard (RES)
requirements) and state/regional/federal GHG emissions limits and reductions programs (e.g.,
California's A.B. 32, the New England Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and the federal CAA). For
example, the timing of recharging patterns is highly significant because if, as expected, PEVs are largely
charged at night, they will be charged at a time when nuclear, wind, and other clean sources provide
perhaps the highest contribution to our electricity generation mix, depending on the region. Appropriate
consideration of these regional variations and usage rates represent an integral step in producing a full
and fair analysis of the upstream emissions for PEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 10]
Another significant flaw in the prior analysis lies in the utilization of historic and not projected data on
power plant emissions. For example, according to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), total carbon
dioxide emissions from electric generation were 10.8 percent lower in 2009 and 14.6 percent lower in
2013 respectively, when compared to the 2005 data relied upon for standards that will be in effect
through 2025.24 As a result, historic data cannot be viewed as a reasonable proxy for expected emissions
10 plus years into the future. Any analysis that fails to use projected data would be inaccurate at best
and most likely highly misleading. Given that any future standard would have to rely on these
projections, the agencies should document all assumptions and allow for public review and comment on
any estimates related to future electricity supply and demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2
p. 11]
Most importantly, however, analysis of upstream emissions that relies on 2010 data fails to consider
significant regulatory developments that have and will continue to reduce both GHG and criteria
pollutant emissions. In particular, this means that EPA and NHTSA have failed to account for the
implementation of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which began in April 2015. It also
means that neither agency considered the long-term GHG reductions that will be associated with the
final Clean Power Plan, which the EPA Administrator signed on August 3, 2015. This program, by
EPA's own estimates, will reduce power sector GHG emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by
2030.25 The final Clean Power Plan also includes incentives for early—2016-2021—deployment of
renewables and certain end-use efficiency programs. As EIA noted in its analysis of the proposed Clean
Power Plan, which was projected to achieve lesser reductions, "the Clean Power Plan has a significant
effect on projected retirements and additions of electric generating capacity. Projected coal plant
retirements over the 2014-40 period, which are 40 GW in the AEO2015 Reference case (most before
2017), increase to 90 GW (nearly all by 2020)... [and] the Clean Power Plan increases projected
renewable capacity additions in all cases."26 The agencies cannot assert that increased EV deployment
will undermine the GHG emissions reduction goals of the Phase 2 Program (or of any vehicle standards)
because of potential increases in upstream emissions without assessing the impacts of the final MATS
and Clean Power Plan.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 11-12]
If the agencies chose to include upstream GHG or criteria pollutant emissions in the final Phase 2
Program or in other future rulemakings, the analysis must be fuel neutral, assessing the upstream
national and/or international emissions of all fuels, conventional and alternative, and all vehicles,
conventional and PEV. Moreover, the agencies must recognize the significant changes to the emissions
profile of electricity generation that are occurring as a result of other regulatory programs aimed at
stationary sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 12]
-------
4 For more information, see http://www.pluginamerica.org/drivers-seat/plug-electric-vehicle-sales-pace-
double-first-five-vears-plugless-hvbrid-sales.
5 See U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA, Model Year 2015 Fuel Economy Guide (Updated
Sept. 9, 2015).
6 For more information, see https://www.whitehouse. gov/the-press-office/2014/11/18/fact-sheet-
growing-united-states-electric-vehicle-market.
7 For more information,
see http://www.eei.org/resourcesandmedia/newsroom/Pages/Press%20Releases/EEI%20and%20DQ
E%20Launch%20Partnership%20to%20Accelerate.aspx.
8 For more information, see http://globenewswire.com/news-
release/2015/09/09/767097/10148751/en/UPS-Expands-Hvbrid-Electric-Fleet html
9 DOE, Quadrennial Technology Review, p. 294 (Apr. 2015).
10 Id.
11 Electric Power Research Institute, Environmental Assessment of a Full Electric Transportation
Portfolio, Volume 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, p. 12 (Sept. 2015).
12 Id. at 96.
13 ICF International and Energy and Environmental Economics, California Transportation
Electrification Assessment, Phase 1: Final Report, p. 11 (Aug. 2014) (updated Sept. 2014) (California
Transportation Electrification Assessment: Phase 1).
14 California Transportation Electrification Assessment, Phase 2: Grid Impacts at 65.
15 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,158.
16 See id.
17 See Delta Construction Co. v. EPA, 783 F 3d. 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
18 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,159.
19 Id.
20 In past vehicle standards rulemakings, NHTSA has failed to provide upstream analyses addressing
petroleum or natural gas. EEI notes that NHTSA's Draft EIS in support of the proposed Phase 2
Program contains a discussion of the upstream emissions related to the production and transmission of
natural gas and some discussion of the upstream emissions related to petroleum production and
transportation. This Draft EIS, unlike those for standards for passenger cars and trucks, does not address
upstream emissions related to electricity production and transmission, likely because NHTSA does not
rely on EVs as the basis for any of the proposed Phase 2 Program standards and does not expect many
EVs to be deployed in these vehicle classes. Similarly, the Preamble to the proposed Phase 2 Program
-------
discusses lifecycle emissions for natural gas and diesel vehicles, as does the draft Regulatory Impacts
Analysis. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,503-10.
21 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,389.
22 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,158; see also, 75 Fed. Reg. 25,324, (May 7, 2010).
23 See 75 Fed. Reg. at 25,436-37.
24 See EIA, Electric Power Annual 2013 (Mar. 2015) available at:
http: //www, eia. gov/electricitv/annual/.
25 See EPA, Clean Power Plan Fact Sheet available
at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/20140602fs-overview.pdf.
26 See EIA, Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan (May 2015).
27 Further, failure to acknowledge and account for the reductions associated with regulations that
address electricity generation is inconsistent with the approach that EPA and NHTSA have taken with
respect to regulations addressing fuels. In the Preamble, the agencies note that it is appropriate to focus
on tailpipe emissions because of the existence of "Clean Air Act programs that encourage the use of
renewable fuels." 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,189. The Clean Power Plan does not just encourage GHG
emissions reductions from electric generating units, but will require them during the MYs covered by
the proposed Phase 2 Program.
Organization: Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA)
We support the proposed rule's tail-pipe focus and zero emission status for electric vehicles as
appropriate for this rulemaking.3 We reiterate our support as provided in comments on the most recent
light duty rule, 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, that any future regulatory regimes that seek to incorporate
upstream emissions associated with vehicles should apply upstream metrics to all fuels.4 Regarding
electricity, upstream modeling must be sufficiently granular to recognize regional variations in power
profile and sufficiently dynamic to measure and project the rapidly evolving regulation and operations
of the nation's power sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-A1 p.2]
3 80 Federal Register 40158, July 13, 2015
4 See EDTA Comment #80fb45ce athttp://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0799-9449
Response
We are applying the Phase 2 standards at the vehicle tailpipe. That is, compliance is based on vehicle
fuel consumption and GHG emission reductions, and does not reflect any so-called lifecycle emission
properties. The agencies have explained why it is reasonable that the heavy duty standards be fuel
neutral in this manner and adhere to this reasoning here. See 76 FR 57123; see also 77 FR 51705
(August 24, 2012) and 77 FR 51500 (August 27, 2012).
-------
NHTSA notes that the fuel efficiency standards are necessarily tailpipe-based, and that a lifecycle
approach would likely render it impossible to harmonize the fuel efficiency and GHG emission
standards, to the great detriment of our goal of achieving a coordinated program. 76 FR 57125/1-2;
(similar finding by EPA); see also Sections I.F. (1) (a) and XI of the FRM preamble.
The agencies received mixed comments on this issue. Many commenters supported the proposed
approach, generally agreeing with the agencies' arguments. However, some other commenters opposed
this approach. Opposing commenters generally fell into three categories:
• Commenters concerned that tailpipe-only standards ignore the GHG benefits of using
renewable fuels.
• Commenters concerned that upstream emissions of methane occurring during the
production and distribution of natural gas would offset some or all of the GHG emission
reductions observed at the tailpipe.
• Commenters concerned that ignoring upstream emissions overstates benefits for certain
technologies.
These and other factors are discussed below. These factors were considered in the context of EPA's
engine and vehicle emission standards andNHTSA's vehicle fuel consumption standards (including
those for light-duty vehicles), which have been in place for decades as tailpipe standards. The agencies
find no reasonable basis in the comments or elsewhere to change fundamentally from this longstanding
approach.
Although the final standards do not account for life cycle emissions, the agencies have estimated the
upstream emission impact of reducing fuel consumption for heavy-duty vehicles. As shown in Sections
VII and VIII of the Preamble to the final rule, these upstream emission reductions are significant and
worth estimating, even with some uncertainty. In addition, NHTSA has conducted a life-cycle impact
assessment as part of its final environmental impact statement, including an assessment of an
examination of medium- and heavy-duty vehicle materials and technologies.[1] Because the standards in
today's final rule are performance-based and not attribute-based standards, NHTSA's analysis features a
literature synthesis of existing credible scientific information relevant to evaluating the potential
environmental impacts from some of the fuels, materials, and technologies that may be used to comply
with the standards. However, while the agencies considered life-cycle impacts during the rulemaking
process, the inability to quantify those impacts limits the agencies' ability to incorporate life-cycle
considerations into the standards themselves.
Renewable Fuels
With respect to fuel effects, EPA notes that there is a separate, statutorily-mandated program under the
Clean Air Act which encourages use of renewable fuels in transportation fuels, including renewable fuel
used in heavy-duty diesel engines. This program considers lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
compared to petroleum fuel. The agencies are not issuing rules that effectively would turn the Phase 2
rules into a fuel program, rather than an emissions reduction and fuel efficiency program, and thus will
continue to measure compliance at the tailpipe, for the reasons just stated. See also response to POP
Diesel in Section 1.3 above.
Methane Emissions
Issues relating to whether to consider in the emission standards upstream emissions related to natural
gas exploration and production are addressed in detail in Section XI of the FRM and in Section 12 of
-------
this RTC. It is sufficient to state here that the agencies carefully investigated the potential use of natural
gas in the heavy-duty sector and the impacts of such use. We do not believe that natural gas is likely to
become a major fuel source for heavy-duty vehicles during the Phase 2 time frame. Thus, since we
project natural gas vehicles to have little impact on both overall GHG emissions and fuel consumption
during the Phase 2 time frame, the agencies see no need to make fundamental changes to the Phase 1
approach for natural gas engines and vehicles.
EPA further notes that it is directly addressing the issue of methane emissions relating to production,
transport and distribution activities upstream of vehicular applications. The EPA-promulgated 2012
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) will reduce emissions of ozone precursors from natural gas
facilities and have methane and hazardous air pollutant reduction co-benefits. The NSPS standards
require that emissions from natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured be controlled using flaring
or reduced emission completion (REC) technology from completions and workovers starting in 2012.
RECs used by natural gas well drillers capture the natural gas emissions that occur during well
completion, instead of venting or flaring the emissions. Starting in January 2015, RECs are required for
natural gas well completions and workovers. The NSPS also regulates the emissions from certain new
natural gas production equipment, including dehydrator vents and condensate tanks. EPA is taking
additional steps to reduce the emissions of methane from natural gas and oil production facilities. On
May 12, 2016, EPA finalized regulations (2016 NSPS) which, among other things, include methane
standards for oil and gas equipment used across the oil and gas sources currently only regulated for
VOCs, and require the use of reduced emissions completions at hydraulically fractured oil wells.26 In
March of 2016, the U.S. EPA and Canadian ECCC announced plans to regulate emissions from existing
oil and gas sources.27 28 The goal of these various actions is to achieve an aggregated 40 to 45 percent
reduction in methane emissions relative to methane emissions in 2012. The lifecycle analysis presented
here and in RIA Chapter 13 does not take into account the 2016 NSPS, or a future action that would
address existing sources, thus, it likely overestimates methane emissions from natural gas facilities.
EPA believes that is the more reasonable approach than to use the vehicle program to indirectly seek to
affect upstream emissions.
Technology-Specific Life Cycle Emissions
In a very practical sense, the agencies cannot accurately address life-cycle emissions on a technology
specific basis at this time for two reasons:
1. We lack data to address each technology, and see no path to selectively apply a life cycle
analysis to some technologies, but not to others.
2. Actual life cycle emissions are dependent on factors outside the scope of the rulemaking that
may change in the future.
With respect to the first reason, even if we were to accept the AISI comments, this would not allow us to
address life cycle emissions for other technologies. For example, how would the agencies address
potential differences in life cycle emissions for shifting from a manual transmission to and AMT, or the
life cycle emissions of aerodynamic fairings? If we cannot factor in life cycle impacts for all
technologies, how would we do it for weight reductions? Given the complexity of these rules and the
number of different technologies involved, we see no way to treat the technologies equitably.
26 Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources; 40CFR 60, May 12, 2016.
27 https://www.whitehouse.gOv/the-press-office/2016/03/10/us-canada-joint-statement-climate-energy-and-arctic-
leadership
28 https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2016/03/epa-taking-steps-to-cut-methane-emissions-from-existing-oil-and-gas-sources
-------
Commenters do not provide the information necessary to address this challenge, nor are the agencies
aware of such information.
The second reason is potentially more problematic. This rulemaking is setting standards for vehicles
under specific statutory provisions. It is not regulating manufacturing processes, distribution practices,
or the locations of manufacturing facilities. And yet each of these factors could impact lifecycle
emissions. So while we could take a snapshot of lifecycle emissions at this point in time for specific
manufacturers, it may or may not have any relation to lifecycle emissions in 2027, or for other
manufacturers. Consider, for example, two component manufacturers: one that produces its
components near the vehicle assembly plant, and relies on natural gas to power its factory; and a second
that is located overseas and relies on coal-fired power. How would the agencies equitably factor in
these differences without regulating these processes? AISI, in its comments, does not address the issue
much less offer potential solutions.
Given these challenges, as well as the other factors already mentioned, the agencies are not adopting
lifecycle-based standards in this rulemaking.
Electric Vehicles
The agencies note further that a consequence of the tailpipe-based approach is that the agencies will
treat vehicles powered by electricity the same as in Phase 1. In Phase 1, EPA treated all electric
vehicles as having zero emissions of C02, CH4, and N20 (see 40 CFR 1037.150(f)). Similarly, NHTSA
adopted regulations in Phase 1 that set the fuel consumption standards based on the fuel consumed by
the vehicle. The agencies also did not require emission testing for electric vehicles in Phase 1. The
agencies considered the potential unintended consequence of not accounting for upstream emissions
from the charging of heavy-duty electric vehicles. In our reassessment for Phase 2, we have found only
one all-electric heavy-duty vehicle manufacturer that has certified through 2016. As we look to the
future, we project limited adoption of all-electric vehicles into the heavy duty market. Therefore, we
believe that this Phase 1 provision is still appropriate. Unlike the 2017-2025 light-duty rule, which
included a cap whereby upstream emissions would be counted after a certain volume of sales (see 77 FR
62816-62822), we believe there is no need to establish a cap for heavy-duty vehicles because of the
small likelihood of significant production of EV technologies in the Phase 2 timeframe. Commenters
specifically addressing electric vehicles generally supported the agencies' proposal. However, some
commenters did support accounting for emissions from the generation of electricity in the broader
context of supporting full lifecycle analysis.
-------
2 Vehicle Simulation Model
2.1 General Comments
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Vehicle Simulation, Engine Standards and Test Procedures
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) outputs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.6]
As in the Phase 1, the output files of the GEM executable distributed with the Phase 2 proposal display
only the composite fuel consumption and emissions results and not the individual cycle results. Basing
the fuel efficiency standard on a weighted average of cycle-specific fuel consumption results makes
sense. However, there is no justification for not providing these cycle-specific results to the GEM user,
for whom the individual cycle results clearly constitute valuable information about vehicle performance.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 6]
Furthermore, the individual cycle results for each model should be reported in a publicly accessible
electronic database. The variation in duty cycles experienced by heavy-duty vehicles, even within a
vehicle category, is among the challenges to creating a sound and equitable program of standards.
Knowing how vehicles compare on individual cycles can be much more valuable information than the
composite results for some purchasers, especially those for whom the relevant duty cycle involves much
more or much less transient and idle operation than is reflected in the weighting assumed for purposes
of the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1280-A1 p. 6]
Recommendation: GEM outputs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.7]
-The GEM executable should be revised to report sufficient fuel efficiency performance data to permit
buyers to assess fuel consumption over customized duty cycles. In particular, outputs should include
fuel efficiency results over each discrete test cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.7]
• Full vehicle integration. The proposal takes very important steps toward making the standards
full-vehicle standards. In Phase 2, tractor and vocational vehicle certification levels will reflect
the efficiency of the engine sold with the vehicle, rather than a default engine, and how that
engine operates in the vehicle. Transmission efficiency, which allows for several additional
percentage points savings, will be recognized and credited for the first time. Integration of
engine and transmission can be captured through a powertrain test, an important option
introduced in the proposal. The greenhouse gas emissions model (GEM), which is used to
calculate vehicles' fuel efficiency, will become more sophisticated and allow many more
technologies to contribute to certified fuel efficiency. The vehicle certification protocols will
promote integration of engine, transmission, and vehicle components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.5] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372,
pp.54-55.]]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
Improved functionality
-------
In the MATLAB version of the model, it is possible to obtain detailed outputs for the 55-mph, 65-mph,
and transient modes that include average engine speed and torque; crankshaft, transmission, and axle
work; number of shifts; and grams fuel, grams C02, and grams C02 per ton-mile. This "detailed
output" option is a change noted in the documentation for GEM P2v2.1,11 and we expect this
functionality to be available in the final, executable version of GEM. We support this addition to GEM
output options. The ability to view these results for individual modes will allow end users to better
understand the benefits of technologies for their own duty cycles, which may be better represented by
weighting the three drive cycles differently than they are weighted for certification purposes. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.4]
11 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1626/NHTSA-2014-0132-0181, "Summary_GEM_P2v2. l_Updates"
Organization: Autocar, LLC
GEM
The GEM program comprises a complex emissions simulation tool, which heretofore Autocar has not
utilized. However, to identify and address any potential issues with GEM P2v2.1, EPA and DOT must
allow stakeholders a sufficient opportunity to perform their own simulations. Yet EPA has not posted
the new version for download from the Web, instead requiring that people request a copy on a CD,
thereby delaying receipt of the updated (version 2) model with the known bugs removed. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1869-A1 p.2]
Only through these simulations can interested parties such as Autocar assess whether EPA's claims
about the effectiveness of various compliance measures matches what data from the field shows, and
provide the agencies appropriate commentary on its proposed rule. This is especially true for small
manufacturers such as Autocar that were exempt from Phase 1 and have no prior experience with GEM
modeling. To further the agencies' efforts at developing an appropriate compliance model, Autocar
requests an extension to run full and simplified GEM simulations (as contemplated by the Memorandum
referenced in Section 2 below) with the goal of identifying any issues with, or limitations of, the model.
That "simplified model" is not yet available for parties to use and review, making commentary on that
approach even more difficult. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1869-A1 p.2]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Neutral/Provide Additional Information Comment
Comment - Overall Phase 2 GEM
The GEM was developed by U.S. EPA for demonstrating compliance with U.S. EPA's GHG emissions
andNHTSA's fuel consumption vehicle standards, applicable to class 7 and 8 combination tractors,
trailers, and class 2b-8 vocational vehicles. In Phase 1 GEM, most of the simulation parameters were
predefined and there were only very limited number of user input parameters. The proposed Phase 2
GEM (GEM P2vl.O) was substantially improved to better model real-world impacts of various fuel
efficiency technologies. GEM P2 allows more user input simulation parameters including engine-
specific fuel maps, transmissions, and drive axle ratios, which will increase accuracy. The model was
validated using approximately 130 vehicle variants, using both chassis and powertrain dynamometer
tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 122]
-------
CARB staff commends U.S. EPA for taking significant steps to improve the model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 122]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc, et al.
The GEM simulation, fed by appropriately representative vehicle and component characteristics and
operational duty cycles, is the best way to compare real-world performance of vehicles. We fully
support this approach, but remain concerned that the regulatory measurements and duty cycles must be
firmly grounded in engineering principles and a thorough survey of how these vehicles are used.
Otherwise, the assessments of technology impacts will not match real-world results. Our assessment is
that the proposed rule needs significant improvements to aerodynamic measurement and analysis, audit
margins, duty cycles, and other areas in order to meet this objective. Indeed, the provisions as proposed
have the effect of increasing real-world stringency requirements by as much as 50% beyond the
intended improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.4]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) is applied to demonstrate compliance for vocational
vehicles and combination tractors. GEM is a more practical solution compared to chassis dynamometer
testing for the abundant variations of vehicles in this market segment. Full vehicle testing is costly
considering test facilities and the large proliferation of vehicles that would need to be tested. However,
the agencies must recognize that a vehicle modeling approach significantly impairs the ability of the
agencies to verify and enforce emissions control at the vehicle level in use. Engine standards are based
on direct, experimental measurement and verification of performance, unlike model-based vehicle
standards. Hence, it is imperative that use of GEM at the vehicle level is complemented with a separate
engine standard to ensure compliance and real-world C02 reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p. 7]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Regulations are correct in not requiring GEM inputs be finalized before vehicle build - Although
no portion of the regulation requires a GEM number in advance of the vehicle build, 1037.520(a)(2)(h)
with its reference to the calibration identifier (an item not associated with a vehicle until the engine is
installed, at the vehicle build) might lead someone to mistakenly think that all of the GEM inputs
including engine inputs will be known prior to building a vehicle. That is not the case. Engines are
pulled from inventory and may have calibrations that are a few weeks or months old. The engines may
be in inventory with newer engines usable in the same vehicles but with newer calibrations. To vehicle
manufacturers, either calibration is acceptable. Only after the vehicle manufacturer pulls the engine
from the inventory does the vehicle's engine calibration get decided: was the engine the older one or a
newer one? Plus, engines fuel maps can be reflashed during vehicle manufacturing, if an engine's
programming (e.g., selection of map and torque curve) contains inconsistencies. As a result, the EPA
cannot expect us to have an exact GEM value until the vehicle and its engine are united. This should not
matter to the EPA, and the EPA's regulations do not require a priori knowledge of the calibration. But
we wish to make clear, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, that a priori knowledge of the
calibration that will be associated with a vehicle is not possible. 1037.520(a)(2)(h). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 108]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
-------
Ensure the standards are performance-based: The EPA has adopted a computer model simulation
approach to vehicle certification that in principle drives performance-based standards. However, we
recognize that it is impossible to simulate all technologies that contribute to fuel efficiency and that at
some point, a limit is reached between the accuracy of physics-based models coded in GEM, their
fundamental modeling assumptions, and the quality of measured data in the lab. We believe the
powertrain test can be used to quantify the benefits of many technologies. In rare cases, such as
predictive powertrain management [Verma 2015]1, post-processing the GEM results is appropriate with
a "slightly conservative" offset based on industry best practice (sometimes referred to as "Drop-down
menus") is recommended. However, these should be used conservatively so they do not compete
unfairly with technologies that should be recognized through a powertrain test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1194-A1 p.4]
1 Verma, R., Patanwala, N., Tang, Z., Saltsman, B., (2015) 'An intelligent driver assistance system for
improving commercial vehicle fuel economy', Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 208-224
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
D. Modify the engine inputs in GEM to reflect all GHG emissions; not just C02
As it is currently designed, the engine inputs into GEM only reflect emissions of carbon dioxide. This is
a significant oversight when certifying alternative fueled vehicles. Methane emissions from natural gas
trucks greatly exceed the proposed methane standard. As EPA noted in the proposed rule, "for the initial
natural gas engine certifications that EPA received for 2014, the truck manufacturers chose to continue
to emit high levels of methane." The final standard must ensure GEM engine inputs accurately reflect
emissions from NGVs and other vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.42]
Organization: Ford Motor Company
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 29-30.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 159-160.]
Ford has some concerns with the accuracy of the greenhouse gas emissions model used to determine
compliance for vocational vehicles, particularly in the case of vehicles with heavy duty gasoline and
light heavy duty diesel engines. Ford recommends that data is used to validate the model for these
engines and vehicles. Ford will provide detailed written comments on this subject once we have fully
evaluated the model. We'll continue to cooperate with EPA and NHTSA requests for data to support the
refinement of the GEM model.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Data sharing. We commend the agencies for continuing to conduct rigorous analysis and share detailed
data that underpins their regulatory development work. The level of testing, analysis, and data sharing
by regulatory agencies within the regulatory process, as exemplified in the NODA, is commendable. For
example, the data on the engine maps, model development, powertrain procedures, aerodynamics testing
-------
is all very helpful in describing important underlying factors related to the agencies' movement from the
proposal and final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1876-A1 p.2]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Ensure an Adaptable Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-
Alp.8]
MEMA recognizes the scope and scale of the agencies' endeavors to conduct a significant amount of
research and data to offer a proposal that is more representative of real-world applications. Suppliers are
the key innovators, developers and manufacturers of many of the technologies and systems recognized
in the GEM program (e.g. lightweight materials, automatic tire inflation systems, advanced cruise
control systems, improved aerodynamics, workday idle reduction systems, integrated drivetrains and
transmissions). As such, MEMA supports the proposed expansion and modification of the Phase 2
greenhouse gas emissions model (GEM) because it recognizes a wider variety of systems and
technologies in its menus and calculations compared to Phase 1. That notwithstanding, once the
technology choices in GEM are finalized, they are essentially locked-in and making changes will be
difficult. The result is the consequence of creating technology "winners and losers" unless a mechanism
is created to assure the GEM remains a robust tool throughout the length of the standard. Therefore,
MEMA proposes the agencies consider an approach to make the GEM a "living and breathing" tool to
measure, include and credit future technologies that have quantifiable efficiency benefits. Such a
process would be a streamlined, efficient and cost-effective way to drive adoption of fuel efficient
technologies via the GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.8-9] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 195.]]
Certainly MEMA supports and appreciates the need for long-term certainty in these standards for
investments, product planning and research and development. Yet, over the length of the standards, it is
plausible and inevitable that breakthroughs in technologies will happen; some breakthroughs are on the
horizon but not yet commercialized and some are not yet discovered. Future developments in current
technologies or creation of new ones, would be essentially locked-out of the GEM menus once this rule
is finalized. Adding technologies that approach commercialization during the course of Phase 2 to the
credit menu allows for adjustment of an existing credit if evidence emerges to better quantify benefits.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 9]
Therefore, as technologies evolve and become commercially available, MEMA asks the agencies to
consider a streamlined mechanism as part of the rule's structure that would also allow for GEM to
evolve. Such an approach would allow for the future inclusion of technologies that have verifiable
benefits at defined/designated milestones. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1274-A1 p.9]
It is important that such a process be public, transparent, data driven and have defined milestones.
Perhaps this process could take the form of public government-industry workshops or forums
announced in the Federal Register, in a manner similar to those held by the California Air Resources
Board. Here industry stakeholders - including suppliers - can petition to amend the GEM either with
new technology additions or modifications to existing GEM values. The petitioners' evidence must be
robust with data to support amendments to the GEM. It will further allow the GEM to account for
adjustments if evidence emerges that there are quantifiable, verified improved benefits. Such a process
would have to be demonstrable, rigorous, transparent and well-managed (i.e. accurate tracked changes
and GEM version control). This proposed process offers an approach not only for industry stakeholders,
but also government entities to benefit from having as robust a model as possible that reflects what is
-------
available and of benefit in the marketplace that can be properly accounted for during the length of the
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1274-A1 p.9]
Consequently, a "living, breathing" and flexible GEM will increase market penetration and
commercialization of these important technologies as well as drive continuous innovation and
improvements. OEMs and engine manufacturers will be incentivized to always look beyond the horizon.
Suppliers will be encouraged to continue to innovate new and creative technologies to take the next
generation of commercial vehicles to another level of efficiency and performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1274-A 1 p.9]
Address Technical Problems with Phase 2 GEM Executable File [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-
A1 p.9]
Certainly such a complex compliance tool must be ensured to be accurate, consistent and reliable.
Unfortunately, some of our members that have been running the publicly released GEM executable file
have encountered some problems (e.g. errors with coding and algorithms). Other stakeholders testified
in the public hearings that they have experienced problems running the GEM executable files and
expressed serious concerns. MEMA urges the agency to resolve these "bugs" before issuing a final rule
and to utilize the administrative law tools available to ensure that this compliance mechanism is failsafe.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 9-10]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar feels the following are key areas the agencies must address: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
• The Greenhouse Gas Emission Model (GEM) must be accurate, flexible and fully developed.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) Issues
EPA and NHTSA have acknowledged that there are a number of issues with the GEM model as it
currently configured, and therefore have outlined some revisions during the public comment period.
PACCAR and EMA have worked with staff from the agencies after GEM revisions were made public.
The EMA comments reflect these discussions. Furthermore, PACCAR has performed substantial testing
with the GEM tool and have encountered a number of issues that remain unaddressed. A discussion of
each of these remaining issues follows. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 17]
Organization: SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC
SABIC also encourages EPA to release a 32-bit version of the software, in addition to the currently
available 64-bit version, so that more users may evaluate the software. SABIC urges the agencies to
resolve any technical issues before issuing the final rule. SABIC also points out the need to keep the
software current to reflect changes in the truck marketplace in coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1207-A1 p.6]
-------
However, SABIC notes the critical need to improve the publicly released GEM software and
respectfully requests that technical issues be resolved prior to the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1207-A1 p. 7]
2 R. McCallen et al., DOE's Effort to Reduce Truck Aerodynamic Drag: Joint Experiments and
Computations Lead to Smart Design, presented at AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, June 28, 2004.
13 Testimony of Debbie Gordon, Allison Transmission, U.S EPA Public Hearing on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles, August 6, 2015.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
We also support: (1) the use of more robust models to more accurately simulate the work done by
vocational vehicles; (2) greater weighting of emission benefits from currently available and
commercially viable components and technologies in the GEM model [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1140-A1 p. 2]
Organization: Volvo Group
Volvo Group was pleased to be an early test site for the GEM simulation and we have fed back findings
that have been corrected or are in process of being corrected. Unfortunately every change in GEM has
potential to impact the outputs for vehicle GHG emissions and fuel consumption. Combining GEM
changes with other regulatory changes (aerodynamic method, duty cycles, vocational vehicle
segmentation, alternative engine certification, highway grades, etc.) we are working against a constantly
moving target in trying to assess where our technology plans put us against the proposed standards that
are also subject to change. None-the-less, we offer our input on changes still needed in GEM. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 50]
The NoDA proposes an updated version of the Greenhouse Gas Efficiency Model ("GEM") and
associated protocol for determining inputs. Many of the changes represent important improvements to
earlier versions of GEM. There are, however, some critical elements that are not representative and risk
driving designs and specifications that do not align with real world gains. We have provided details in
our comments, and will continue to support effective resolution, though we are very concerned about
the ability to appropriately resolve these matters within the agencies' rulemaking timeline. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.2-3]
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
However, EPA asked us to provide our thoughts on the assumptions used in the GEM model 2.0 relating
to heavy-duty refuse trucks in the vocational category, and we have included comments on those
assumptions as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.2]
WM Supports a Vehicle Testing Approach that Best Measures Real World Vehicle Performance
We understand that EPA is continuing to evaluate alternative engine mapping tools to assess vehicle
fuel efficiency and GHG emissions performance. Our primary concern as a major fleet operator and
-------
purchaser is that the investments we make in new vehicles will continue to allow us to meet our
customers' needs and our operational requirements. Towards that end, we support engine and vehicle
assessment tools and approaches that most accurately reflect the fuel efficiency and emission reduction
performance achievable by a refuse vehicle operating in real world scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1214-A2 p.7]
WM Urges Further Review of the Handling of Natural Gas Engines in GEM
Based on our discussions with vehicle and engine OEM partners, we are concerned that GEM does not
account for the lower carbon content of natural gas when calculating GHG emissions rates. We strongly
urge the agencies to review this aspect of the GEM model and make the appropriate corrections to the
model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.7]
Response:
While the agencies received many comments supporting the Phase 2 improvements to GEM, we also
received comments supporting additional changes to GEM. The more general comments are addressed
here, while the more specific comments are addressed in Sections 2.2 through 2.6 below.
We have made significant marginal improvements to GEM based on comments. For example, we have
revised the way in which GEM treats natural gas and other alternative fuels.
Technical Accuracy of GEM
Some commenters stressed the importance of the technical accuracy of GEM. The more specific
comments are addressed in Section 2.3 below. See Chapter 4 of the RIA for a broader discussion of
GEM's accuracy.
While we share the goal to have GEM accurately simulate overall vehicle performance in an absolute
sense, it is actually more important that GEM is accurate in relative comparisons. This is because the
agencies used the same version of GEM to calculate the stringency of the standards as was used to
evaluate baseline performance for this rulemaking. The ultimate purpose of the FRM version of GEM
will be to evaluate changes or additions in technology, and compliance is demonstrated on a relative
basis to the numerical standards that were also derived from GEM. The importance of relative
comparisons can be further explained with the following simplified example.
Assume you have two simulation models: one that says a baseline vehicle with Bin 3 aerodynamics and
a conventional automatic transmission would be 90 g/ton-mile, and another that said the same vehicle
would be 95 g/ton-mile. Assume also that there was a similar vehicle that was the basis of the new
standards that had Bin 4 aerodynamics and a dual-clutch transmission. If both models simulated the
second vehicle as being 10 g/ton-mile better than the baseline vehicle, then the models would work
equally well for compliance as long as they were also used to set the standards. With the first model, we
would set the standard at 80 g/ton-mile. And with the second, we would set the standard at 85 g/ton-
mile. In both cases, manufacturers adding Bin 4 aerodynamics and dual-clutch transmissions would
meet the standard. In other words, the two models would be equivalent in terms of measuring the effect
of the change in technology on emissions, even though the absolute values were significantly different.
We largely agree with Eaton's comment that it is appropriate in some cases for GEM to be conservative,
especially where manufacturers have the option to more accurately reflect the technology by performing
-------
powertrain testing. Nevertheless, we have done sparingly, and generally avoid intentionally introducing
significant inaccuracy into the model to be overly conservative.
Usefulness of GEM
Some commenters, such as ACEEE, suggested ways to broaden the usefulness of GEM. While we have
tried to make the FRM version of GEM relatively user-friendly, we note that the purpose of GEM is as a
compliance tool. Thus, our focus to date has been on making GEM both technically sound and
equitable, so that it will accurately and fairly represent the various technologies. We believe the FRM
version of GEM meets these criteria. Having said that, we understand the comments supporting the
broader perspective, and we may consider developing more user-friendly versions for broader purposes
in the future. Should we do so, we would intend maintain the same numerical outputs as the FRM GEM
so as to not create issues related to stringency.
Using GEM to Estimate Methane Emissions
EDF supported modifying GEM to simulate methane emissions and factor those emissions into the
vehicle standards. We are not doing so for several reasons:
• The FTP-based controls are adequate.
• The Phase 1 and Phase methane standards are anti-backsliding or cap standards. Thus, a more
complicated treatment is not warranted.
• Since measuring methane is somewhat more challenging than for most other exhaust pollutants,
requiring methane measurements for all fuel maps would increase test burden, without
significant additional benefit
• GEM is used for both EPA's standards and NHTSA's fuel consumption standards. Addressing
methane in the vehicle standards would create disharmony between the programs.
Future changes to GEM
The purpose of this rulemaking is to achieve in-use emission and fuel consumption reductions by
requiring manufacturers to demonstrate that they meet the promulgated emission standards. Thus, it is
important that GEM simulations be reasonably representative of in-use operation. Testing that is
unrepresentative of actual in-use operation does not necessarily tell us anything about whether any
emission reductions occur. However, we recognize that certain simplifications are necessary for
practical simulations. In the past, EPA has addressed this issue by including in our testing regulations a
process by which EPA can work with manufacturers to adjust test procedures to make them more
representative of in-use operation. For engine testing, this provision is in 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1), where
EPA requires manufacturers to notify us in cases in which they determine that the specified test
procedures would result in measurements that do not represent in-use operation. That provision states:
The objective of the procedures in this part is to produce emission measurements equivalent to
those that would result from measuring emissions during in-use operation using the same
engine configuration as installed in a vehicle. However, in unusual circumstances these
procedures may result in measurements that do not represent in-use operation. You must notify
us if good engineering judgment indicates that the specified procedures cause unrepresentative
emission measurements for your engines. Note that you need not notify us of unrepresentative
aspects of the test procedure if measured emissions are equivalent to in-use emissions. If you
notify us of unrepresentative procedures under this paragraph (c)(1), we will cooperate with
you to establish whether and how the procedures should be appropriately changed to result in
more representative measurements. While the provisions of this paragraph (c)(1) allow us to be
-------
responsive to issues as they arise, we would generally work toward making these testing
changes generally applicable through rulemaking. We will allow reasonable lead time for
compliance with any resulting change in procedures.
Although we are not adopting an equivalent provision for GEM at this time, we expect similar
principles to apply. To the extent that GEM fails to represent in-use emission, we would expect to work
with manufacturers to address the issue - under the existing regulations where possible, or by
promulgating a new rulemaking.
In some respects, powertrain testing can be considered to be a reference method for this rulemaking.
Because manufacturers have the option to perform powertrain testing instead of engine-only fuel
mapping, the stringency of the final standards can be traced to powertrain testing. In other words,
methods that can be shown to be equivalent to powertrain testing can be considered to be consistent
with the testing that was used as the basis of the final Phase 2 standards. Thus, it may be useful in the
future to consider equivalency to powertrain testing as an appropriate criterion for evaluating changes to
GEM to address new technologies. Consider, for example, a new technology that is not represented in
GEM, but that is reflected in powertrain testing. The agencies could determine that it would be
appropriate to modify GEM to reflect the technology rather than to require manufacturers to perform
powertrain testing. In such a case, the agencies would not consider the modification to GEM to impact
the effective stringency of the Phase 2 standards because the new version of GEM would be equivalent
to performing powertrain testing.
Similarly, the agencies may revise GEM in the future to reflect technologies otherwise being recognized
as off-cycle technologies. In other words, the agencies could determine that it would be appropriate to
modify GEM to reflect the technology rather than to require manufacturers to go through the off-cycle
process, and could do so without impacting the effective stringency of the Phase 2 standards because the
new version of GEM would be equivalent to the off-cycle approach.
Opportunity to Comment on Phase 2 GEM
Some commenters maintain that they did not receive sufficient notice to provide informed comment on
the GEM. The agencies disagree. As described in Section II. C of the Preamble and Section 15.5 of this
RTC, the agencies have provided numerous opportunities for comment on GEM, and its iterative
development. Even at proposal, Phase 2 GEM provided nearly all of the essential features of the
version we are promulgating in final form. These include: (1) the reconfiguration of the engine,
transmission, and axle sub-models to reflect additional designs and to receive manufacturer inputs; and
(2) the addition of road grade and idle cycles for vocational vehicles, along with revised weighting
factors. Moreover, the changes the agencies have made to GEM in response to public comment indicate
that those comments were highly informed by the proposal. The agencies thus do not accept the
contention that commenters were not afforded sufficient information to provide meaningful comment on
GEM.
2.2 Proposed Modifications to GEM
Organization: Alcoa
As it is currently written, the proposed GEM methodology creates two lightweighting categories. The
first category is unloaded and partially loaded. In lightweighting, this equates to the emissions reduction
benefit. On trucks and trailers, the GEM assumes a light weighted vehicle will realize an emissions
reduction for 66% of the vehicle usage. On vocational vehicles, the GEM assumes a light weighted
-------
vehicle will realize an emissions reduction for 50% of vehicle usage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1216-
Alp.l]
The second category is when the vehicle is fully loaded. In lightweighting, this is the emissions
avoidance benefit. The GEM calculates trucks and trailers run fully loaded for 34% of their usage and
that vocational vehicles run fully loaded for 50% of their usage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1216-A1
p.l]
Currently, the GEM only recognizes benefits in the first category, emissions reductions, while
disregarding the benefits in the second category, emissions avoidance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1216-A1 p. 2]
Alcoa believes this is a serious oversight. Although emissions reduction is a critical component in an
overall emissions strategy, it can never fully ameliorate the problem of greenhouse gases and
environmental particulate matter. Rather, the only realistic path to a goal of zero emissions is through
emissions avoidance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1216-A1 p.2]
Alcoa appreciates the difficulty in measuring real world benefits of some emissions avoidance
technologies like logistics Improvements. However, Alcoa hopes this difficulty will not impede the
agencies from recognizing easily calculated emissions avoidance benefits of technologies like
lightweighting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1216-A1 p.2]
For example, if an OEM reduces the weight of their vocational vehicles by 1,000 lbs, the fleets will be
able to use that weight to increase the payload, reducing the total number of needed trips in fully loaded
applications. Since vocational applications run fully loaded for 50% of their usage, we can see that the
1000 lbs weight reduction results in emissions avoidance of 3.3% through reduced trips by simply
dividing the weight reduction by the baseline payload, then multiplying by the duty cycle (For
vocational applications, this would be 0.5 * [weight reduction / 15,000]). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1216-A1 p.2]
Fleets can see similar emissions avoidance benefits on their trucks. According to research conducted by
Ricardo Consulting Engineers, fleets can realize 3,300 lbs of light weighting benefits on 'aluminum
intensive' class 8 tractor trailers. Using the EPA's assumption that tractors and trailers run fully loaded
for 34% of their usage, an 'aluminum intensive' class 8 tractor trailer will realize an emissions avoidance
benefit of almost 3% through reduced trips. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1216-A1 p.2]
Every day, fleets and OEMs work to maximize their efficiency. One very real benefit of these efficiency
efforts is the avoidance of emissions In the first place. In addition to maintaining the current
lightweighting credits for emissions reductions, Alcoa requests the agencies make adjustments to the
final rule that will incorporate an appropriate recognition of the role of lightweighting plays in fleet
efficiency, allowing fleets and OEMs to be credited for a portion of their activities which avoid the
generation of emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1216-A1 p.2]
Response:
The commenter misunderstands the functioning of lightweighting in GEM and the metric of the
standards. Because the metric is grams (or gallons) per ton-mile, both types of benefits described by the
commenter - emissions reductions and emissions avoidance ~ are applied. When a user enters a positive
value in the GEM input field for weight reduction, GEM allocates this reduced weight as described by
-------
the commenter both ways: both increased payload and avoided emissions. In this way, manufacturers
get full credit for every pound they certify as being reduced.
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
The Greenhouse Gas Emission Model ("GEM") used in this rulemaking has been improved from Phase
1, but still requires several changes in order to properly credit emission reduction technology such as
Neutral-Idle and Stop-Start technologies. To the extent GEM is revised, the agencies must allow for
sufficient public review and comment. Some of the areas that need to be addressed include: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.2]
o Better representation of torque converter lock up engagement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1
p.2]
o Automatic Neutral at Stop should be included in GEM for tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-
A1 p.2]
o Drive cycles used in GEM should be reweighted to include additional transient operation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.2]
o Variable Power Accessory Load should be included in GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.2]
o Road grades should be better represented to reflect real-world highway conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.2]
EPA and NHTSA should not include DCTs within GEM or through post simulation adjustment. There
is not a sufficient basis in the record for this rulemaking to support crediting DCTs. Moreover, recent
testing indicates that transient and idle operation of DCTs utilize more fuel than an Allison 2000
SeriesTM transmission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.3]
VI. GEM Should Account for Differences in Vehicle Configurations That Cannot Meet Required
Drive Cycles
After reviewing the Proposed Rule and the NODA, it is apparent that EPA and NHTSA have not
addressed an underlying issue in GEM's modeling of emission results. That is, GEM does account for
engine/transmission/vehicle configurations that cannot meet duty cycles utilized. This means that
vehicles configurations that cannot maintain the prescribed vehicle speed during the GEM cycle will
receive a GHG benefit from GEM since aero drag decreases along with decreasing speed. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p. 10]
To simulate the effects of underperformance over an entire cycle, one can build a family of engines of
different HP and Torque ratings to simulate a range of vehicle performance in GEM. Using this family
of curves, a general approximation of aero drag benefit can be determined. For example, using the GEM
455 HP heavy duty engine to build a family of curves from 455 HP down to 215 HP, a series of
identical vehicle (Sleeper Cab, High Roof, Tractor) configurations with the following torque curves
were simulated to judge the impact on meeting the cycle and creating a GHG measure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1892-A1 p. 10]
[Chart of torque curves can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1]
-------
Using these torque curves, as expected, Allison simulations show that lower rated engines were less
likely to track the cycle. See the chart below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p. 10]
[Chart of simulations can be found on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1]
The grams of C02/ton-mile generated for each segment of the GEM run is plotted on the next graph.
For lower rated engines that cannot maintain the drive trace, a benefit is seen from GEM, and the overall
GEM measure of grams of C02/ton-mile closely tracks with the benefit seen on the 65 MPH segment of
the cycle where the underperformance is most. Based on this result, Allison believes the bulk of the
benefit is from reduced aero drag due to the lower speeds on the high speed cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1892-A1 p. 11]
[Chart of C02/ton-mile can be found on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1]
Unless the aero benefit from underperformance is captured and compensated, vehicles that cannot
maintain the vehicle speed trace could receive GHG benefits from GEM. Allison suggests that EPA
track the difference in speed between the trace and the simulated configuration vehicle speed during
each phase of the test cycle, and then compensate for underperformance to the trace by applying an
offset to the C02 emissions result during that underperformance period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1892-A1 p. 11]
In addition to technical accuracy, there are policy concerns which should also drive this result. If this
matter is not addressed, manufacturers may build vehicles that cannot meet HD performance
requirements for the work required (as evidenced by not meeting the cycle). In an extreme case, an end
user fleet may need to purchase additional vehicles to get jobs done because the original purchased
vehicles could not meet the performance requirements. More vehicles means more C02 emitted. In a
less extreme case, an end user fleet would have the underperforming vehicles on the road more hours
per day to get the same amount of work done as vehicles that can meet the prescribed cycles. This again
would result in additional GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p. 12]
EPA and NHTSA Must Include Road Grade in Certification Duty Cycles
EPA and NHTSA have proposed to revise the urban and rural highway duty cycles to incorporate
changes in road grade. The agencies rely on various analyses to derive road grade profiles, including
profiles recommended by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL"). A memorandum
supporting the proposed incorporation has been placed into the docket50 as has the NREL Analysis.51 As
the agencies note, utilizing flat road grade profiles over constant speed tests not only does not reflect
real world operation of vehicles, but also may result in unjustified crediting of underpowered vehicles or
excessively downsped drivetrains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.31]
Allison supports incorporation of road grade profiles into the certification process. We agree with the
agencies that incorporation of road grades into the 55 mph and 65 mph cycles is needed to better
represent the actual use of vehicles and to account for differences in vehicle performance, emissions and
fuel efficiency. Based on testing at Oakridge National Laboratory ("ORNL") with the TC10
(represented by the chart below), the 55 and 65 mph cycles result in an engine being forced to operate
over a wide torque band and speeds, from zero to full torque; the transmission is forced to downshift
and upshift to maintain cycle speed. This better represents actual vehicle operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.31]
[Chart, 'Datalog showing 65 mph drive cycle (with EPA proposed grades)' can be found on p.32 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1]52
-------
Indeed, if EPA and NHTSA seek to make changes to road grade profiles in the final rule, Allison would
only support increasing grades from the currently proposed grades. The proposed grade profile in GEM
favors lower grades than the national average. Ideally, the grades should reflect the national average.
The proposed alternate grades being developed by EPA for the 55 and 65 mph cycles are constructed
from a series of mathematical "half hill" elevations. The half hills all have the same shape and are
simply scaled vertically and horizontally. Thus, the grades simply do not look like grade profiles that
would be encountered in the real world and the synthetic shapes may impact the transmission shifting
algorithm in a manner which does not reflect real world use. The synthetic grades only achieve max
grade for a short period of time, where real world grades have a longer duration at a grade which allows
the transmission time to obtain the desired gear, stabilize and maintain acceptable performance. While
we recognize that part of the agencies' evaluation and purpose is to "compress[ ] a large, real-world,
drive cycle dataset into a single, statistically representative cycle,"53 the current GEM profile favors
lower grades than the national average. Allison therefore believes that a more aggressive grade profile
should be incorporated into the final rule which would ideally reflect the U.S. average grade. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.32]
[Chart, 'Grade plotted against percent of miles for US interstate highways', can be found on p.33 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1]
The agencies are also specifically seeking comment on whether or not these duty cycles should also
simulate driver behavior in response to varying traffic patterns. Allison's analysis of TC10 testing at
ORNL indicates that the addition of grade causes sufficient changes in throttle as to induce upshifts and
downshifts. Given the difficulty in obtaining a representative driver model, Allison believes that the
currently proposed grades are sufficient to utilize a full range of engine torques and thus largely
achieves the intended testing result. Allison would note, however, that GEM P2vl.O does not downshift
correctly on grade; correcting this defect is necessary to ensure that GEM has proper shifting when
grade profiles are applied. Specifically, Allison has observed this defect in GEM simulations,
particularly with lower numerical axles, in which engine speeds dipped as low as 768 rpm at 100%
throttle on positive grades. Meanwhile, the vehicle lagged behind the 55 mph duty cycle. Even with real
world fuel economy type shift schedules, this degree of downshift reluctance is unrealistic. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.33]
On Page 9 of Memo to Docket- GEM new release (GEM P2vl_l).docx (which accompanied the latest
GEM release), the agency acknowledged this defect as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.33]
Issue: Late downshift after losing speed on cruise cycles with high grade and vehicles with low torque
to weight ratios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.33]
Workaround: None, needs to be addressed as a calibration change to the shift schedule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.33]
Notes: Several solutions are available, we just need to pick one and implement it for the FRM. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.33]
This matter should be addressed in the final rule after allowing for public comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.33]
We are pleased that EPA and NHTSA agreed with our public testimony and provided the opportunity
for additional review of the GEM in this NODA. We also appreciate the willingness of both agencies to
-------
work with affected industry to refine the GEM and to address lingering technical issues with the
operation of the model. The additional material and analysis placed in the docket for the NODA is also
helpful in understanding the direction of EPA and NHTSA's thinking regarding several other important
aspects of the Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p. 1]
At the same time, Allison believes that additional improvements and alterations to GEM, as well as
additional technical information, must be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of a final rule. Specifically,
EPA andNHTSA should: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1892-A1 p.l]
• Revise the engine stop-start delay time downward to better reflect the actual operation of existing and
planned systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.2]
• Correct certain aspects of the Southwest Research Institute ("SwRI") report, including its assessment
of hybrid vehicle manufacturing and barriers to market entry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1892-A1 p.2]
• Revise GEM's methodology to estimate transmission losses which unduly favors some transmission
types over others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.2
• Address issues in GEM related to vehicle configurations that cannot meet duty cycle speeds. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.2]
• Correct calculations concerning maximum engine speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.2]
Allison looks forward to continuing to work with EPA and NHTSA as the final rule moves forward. As
we indicated in Chicago, to the extent possible, GEM must reflect real world vehicles and their
operation. While no model will ever be perfect, EPA and NHTSA must strive to improve the accuracy
of the current model and continue to review relevant data. As we indicated in our testimony - since
GEM affects the stringency of the standards and largely provides the compliance mechanism for the
Phase 2 rules - any inaccuracies in GEM could result in unjustified benefits and detriments to different
transmission architectures as well as counter-productive effects in the marketplace. Further
improvements are therefore needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.2]
50 Development of an Alternative, Nationally Representative, Activity Weighted Road Grade Profile
for Use in EPA GHG Certification of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, May 13, 2015.
51 EPA GHG Certification of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Development of Road Grade
Profiles Representative of US Controlled Access Highways, May 2015.
52 Data from Oak Ridge National Lab test cell, Cummins ISX15 engine, Allison TC10 10-speed
transmission, weight 67,000 lb, July 2015. A larger version of this chart is also provided as Attachment
5.
53 EPA GHG Certification of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Development of Road Grade
Profiles Representative of U.S. Controlled Access Highways, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
May 2015 at 27.
Response:
We have made significant improvements on GEM based on many constructive and helpful comments
from public. Those major changes can be summarized as follows:
• Modified road grade profile for 55- and 65-mph cruise cycles
• Revised idle cycles within the vocational vehicle duty cycles, and new vocational cycle
weightings
-------
• Made significant changes on the input file structures. Examples includes additions of columns
for axle configuration ("6x2", "6x4","6x4D", "4x2"), and additions of a few more technology
improvement inputs, such as "Neutral Idle and Start/Stop."
• Made significant changes on output file structures. Examples include an option to allow the user
to output detailed results on average speed, average work before and after transmissions, and the
numbers of shift for each phase (55 and 65mph cycles and ARB cycle).
• Added input file for axle power losses (function of axle output speed and torque) and replaced
single axle efficiency in model with lookup table of torque loss
• Added simulation of engine torque response with fast response region defined by engine
displacement, and slower torque increase in boosted region with fast falloff on available torque
• Added regression models for all certification cycles to allow the user to simulate vehicle with
cycle average approach
• Added different fuel properties according to 1036.530.
• Significantly improved shift strategy based on testing data
• Adjusted transmission loss & inertia scale factors per regulatory subcategory
• Added optional input table for transmission power loss data
• Added minimum torque converter lock-up gear input for AT
• Retuned the default transmission mechanical efficiency based on the testing data
• Added neutral idle and start/stop features during simulation
• Adjusted shift and torque converter lockup strategy
• Added neutral idle as a technology for tractors.
The agencies agree with the comment from Allison that DCT should not be explicitly modeled in GEM
at this time. Instead automated manual transmission can be selected for vehicles with DCTs, if good
engineering judgment indicates that the DCT can be accurately represented in GEM as an automated
manual transmission. See 40 CFR 1037.520 (g).
The agencies agree with the comments from Allison that the road grade profile should be nationally
representative. Due to this the agencies have used the data from the NREL analysis along with in-use
vehicle and engine data from manufactures in creating the final road grade profile. See chapter 3.4.2.1
of the RIA for the detailed description of the process the agencies took in creating the road grade
profile. However, we do not agree that we should penalize vehicles that cannot maintain the GEM
speed cycles. Allison expressed the concern that "manufacturers may build vehicles that cannot meet
HD performance requirements for the work required," but we do not share this concern. Any benefit
over the GEM cycle is likely to be too small to justify producing vehicles with insufficient power to
perform the work. To the extent that this aspect of GEM has any impact on the vehicles, it is more
likely to provide a small disincentive to design vehicles with significantly more power than needed,
which could provide an in-use benefit.
The agencies agree with the comments from Allison on not including traffic in the cycles, and have
finalized the rule without including traffic in the drive cycles.
In regard to the following comment from Allison:
"Revise the engine stop-start delay time downward to better reflect the actual operation of
existing and planned systems. "
Engine stop-start is recognized in two of the five duty cycles in GEM for vocational vehicles. The first
is in the transient cycle where the engine will shut down, 5 seconds after the vehicle speed has reached
zero mph. Since the amount of drive idle time is not fully represented in the transient cycle the agencies
-------
have finalized a separate cycle. If stop-start is selected, GEM determines the fueling for this cycle by
assuming the engine is running for 10% of the time and is off for the remaining 90%. The assumptions
for both of these cycles was determined, to account for not just the time the vehicles is in drive and at
zero speed, but to also account for the overrides that are allowed in 40 CFR part 1037. If a manufacture
designs a system that shuts down in less than 5 seconds after reaching zero speed or is operational
during some of the exclusions defined in 40 CFR part 1037 the manufacturer can use the off cycle
provisions to get credit for the system.
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Vocational Vehicles and GEM Model - AAPC supports the intended direction of the Phase 2 GEM
approach. However, the execution of Phase 2 GEM is not complete and does not accurately reflect
vocational vehicle performance and physical characteristics. AAPC has numerous recommendations
related to these concerns and recommends establishing an industry/agency working group to address
them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.3]
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p. 32]
Phase 2 GEM Road Grade
EPA has proposed (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1032) changing the GEM 55 mph road grade profile to
include additional road grades up to 5%. While AAPC supports the inclusion of road grades in Phase 2
GEM, the VMT traveled on grades as well as the duration and frequency of the grades proposed for the
Phase 2 GEM cycle is disproportionate to actual in-use operation. AAPC recommends lengthening or
modifying the cycle to reflect the correct proportion and frequency of positive and negative road grades
relative to VMT traveled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.32-33]
§ 1037.560 BASF EMGARD FE 75W-90 Fuel Efficient Synthetic Lubricant
While AAPC agrees with the agencies intent to incentivize advanced low friction lubricants in Phase 2
GEM, the reference to the BASF EMGARD FE 75W-90 specification in its entirety and comments
about reducing frictional losses at every test point relative to EMGARD are too specific and should be
generalized. 1037.510 should be revised to include a generic Viscosity Index Specification per ATSM
D2270 and Viscosity cSt requirements per ASTMD-445 that meet or exceed the BASF EMGARD FE
75W-90 specifications. Furthermore the requirement about exceeding the EMGARD FE 75-90 at every
test point should be removed and replaced by a cycle average friction reduction requirement. As
proposed, a new lubricant could exceed the BASF EMGARD lubricant at every test point except one
and manufacturers would be denied a GEM credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.34]
Additionally, the agencies should incentivize other technologies that accomplish the same friction
reduction vs. other mechanisms. For example, active axle lubricant heating with a standard mineral oil
base lubricant and/or perhaps active axle cooling with a very low transmission oil type lubricant could
achieve the same results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.34]
AAPC suggests technical corrections to various aspects of GEM:
• Fuel property adjustments and reference fuels: Gasoline test fuel adjustments per 1036.530
and 1036.535 introduce a significant new source of unneeded variability in the phase 2 HD FTP
and GEM measurement requirements. With adoption of Tier 3 fuels into this segment in
2021MY, these adjustments are no longer required. The gasoline ethanol blending specification
-------
required by 1065.710 tightly controls the test fuel heating value and carbon weight fraction and
renders the 1036.530 and 1036.535 post-test corrections an unneeded source of variation.
AAPC recommends removing the 1036.503 and 1036.535 criteria for gasoline engines tested
with Tier 3 1065.710 fuel.
• Fuel mapping adjustments to account for engines that run negative brake torques: GEM
fuel mapping requires fuel flow to be measured at 0 n-m brake torque and various engines
speeds. GEM then uses this value to linearly interpolate 0 n-m brake torque fuel rates to zero as
determined by operating point relative to the motoring friction curve. While this approach will
work to assess light load and near motoring fuel flow conditions, AAPC recommends that
OEMs be optionally allowed to map engines at conditions less than 0 nm brake torque to
minimize interpolation errors.
AAPC suggests technical corrections to various aspects of GEM, including: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1898-A1 p.2]
o Fuel property adjustments and reference fuels; and
o Fuel mapping adjustments to account for engines that run negative brake torques.
• GEM 2 road grade assumptions are not aligned with U.S. road grade profiles and could drive
manufacturers to implement technologies with adverse on-road C02 impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1898-A1 p.2]
• AAPC suggests improvements to various procedures and methods associated with GEM inputs
including: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1898-A1 p.2]
o Neutral/light load fuel measurements;
o Fuel mapping procedures; and
o Accounting for measurement variability.
Response:
We have made significant improvements to GEM based on many constructive and helpful comments
from the public, which improvements should address their concerns.
Based on AAPC's comments and others like it, the agencies are finalizing 40 CFR 1037.560 ("axle
efficiency test") which provision recognizes improvements to the axle or the lubricant or both instead of
a fixed improvement based just on the lubricant. Using a procedure that tests the full axle system allows
GEM to weight the losses across the axles operation for the vehicle that the axle is installed in. In
addition to having a more complete way of looking at the axle as a whole by bringing the loss table into
GEM ties the cycle average losses to the vehicle the axle is installed in. Lastly by testing the full axle
system, there is a robust way recognize improvements to lubricants beyond BASF EMGARD FE 75W-
90 Fuel Efficient Synthetic Lubricant.
Regarding fuel property adjustments and reference fuels, the agencies have performed testing at
Southwest Research Institute utilizing both Tier 2 and Tier 3 certification test fuels. These results show
that post-test correction of the tv02 results back to the reference fuel as required in 40 CFR 1036.530
does not result in a statistically significant difference in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 fuel results. In other
words, the specified correction adequately accounts for test fuel effects. Thus there is no effect on
stringency and the agencies will not be developing a Tier 3 E10 gasoline factor for Tier 3 certification
fuels.
Regarding fuel mapping adjustments the agencies can see the value in adding additional points to the
fuel map and would be interested in discussing with AAPC how 40 CFR 1036.535 could be modified to
achieve this.
-------
We also made adjustments relating to road grade, which are more representative to the real world
driving routes. This was achieved by limiting the change in grade versus change in distance to rates of
change seen in-use. In addition to this we also added additional distance with grade between ±0.5
percent to better align engine operation in GEM with engine operation in-use. See Chapter 3.4.2.1 of
the RIA for the detailed description of the process the agencies took in creating the road grade profile.
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
Updates to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM P2v2.1)
Significant changes have been made to the GEM model release that accompanies the NODA. These
improvements enable more accurate modeling of the behavior of heavy-duty trucks and therefore can
more readily capture technology improvements that were left on the table in the proposal. We support
the changes to the GEM model and recommend that the standards be strengthened to reflect the
additional fuel savings opportunities captured by the improved GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-
Alp.3]
New drive cycle weightings
As noted in the vocational vehicle section of these comments, the updated certification cycles both are
more representative of vocational vehicle duty cycles and highlight further opportunities for fuel
consumption reduction at high-speed (e.g., from aerodynamic improvements) and at low-speed through
idle reduction (including automatic shut-down for parked idle). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1
p.3]
Cycle-average map
Perhaps the biggest change to GEM is the replacement of the transient cycle modeling with the cycle-
average mapping procedure to assess a vehicle's fuel consumption over the transient cycle. Most
importantly, this replaces the "transient adjustment factor" of 1.05 with a value that more accurately
captures the vehicle's transient behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.4]
Impact on the proposal
The agencies used a transient adjustment factor of 1.05 so that leading engines with better transient
response on a powertrain test would not receive undue advantage as a result of the test procedure.
However, eliminating this factor would appropriately reward manufacturers who can prove better real
world transient response. Replacing the transient adjustment factor may result in slightly higher baseline
fuel consumption if the baseline reflects average performance, but it should allow the standards to drive
leading-edge transient operation in the later years, creating a greater transient performance improvement
from 2018 to 2027 than in the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.4]
Response:
We appreciate ACEEE's positive comments on GEM, drive cycle, and cycle average mapping.
Regarding the transient correction, the agencies have removed the fixed 1.05 correction now that the
cycle average engine test procedure has been finalized as part of the engine fuel map. One of the main
advantages of the cycle average mapping procedure is that transient engine fueling is measured during
the test, so improvements to transient fueling can be recognized in GEM without performing powertrain
testing. The agencies believe that using the 1.05 multiplier to define the baseline and requiring the cycle
average fuel map will give the proper recognition to technologies that improve transient engine fuel
efficiency.
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
We Recommend that the Agencies Include Additional Inputs to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Model (GEM)
-------
We commend the agencies' efforts to modify the GEM in the Phase 2 Proposal by requiring that tractor
and vocational chassis manufacturers provide their own engine, transmission, drive axle(s) and tire
radius inputs.32 This expands the GEM to better account for a wide range of technological
improvements. We support the expansion of GEM to enable certain advanced technologies that are not
yet widely used and that are not otherwise incorporated into the GEM to generate off-cycle credits, such
as improvements to the driver controller, engines, transmissions, and axles; lightweight thermoplastic
materials; automatic tire inflation systems; advanced cruise control systems; engine stop-start idle
reduction systems; and axle configurations that decrease the number of drive axles.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1223-A1 p.8-9]
However, we are concerned that the GEM assessment of natural gas-fueled vocational trucks may be
overestimating the C02 emissions of natural gas due to the GEM treatment of the relative carbon
content of diesel and natural gas fuels and other GEM components. We encourage EPA and NHTSA to
investigate this further, and correct any shortcomings that are found, and request opportunities to discuss
these issues further with the agencies before the Rule is finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1
p.9]
In addition to the carbon content issue, we disagree with the Proposal's assignment of a fixed weight
increase to natural gas-fueled vehicles.34 While we agree with the Proposal's assertion that natural gas
fuel tanks are heavier than diesel and gasoline tanks, we raise two concerns with the Proposal as written:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223 -A 1 p. 9]
• The Proposal does not include weight penalties for other weight-increasing technologies, such
as hybrids, Rankine cycle engines, and non-engine technologies that add weight. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.9]
• The proposed weight increases that are assigned to natural gas vehicles do not take into account
the real-world weight differences among natural gas fuel systems.35 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1223-A1 p.9]
With respect to our first concern, we request that the agencies assign weight increases to hybrid and
Rankine cycle engines and non-engine technologies that add weight. There are numerous technologies
used by both conventional and alternative fuel vehicles that will increase the weight of the vehicle. For
instance, auxiliary power units, waste heat recovery systems, and refrigerated trailer units ("reefers")
add weight to the overall system. However, these technologies do not receive weight penalties in the
GEM. We appreciate that all-electric and fuel cell vehicles generate zero GHG tailpipe emissions and
are thus not requesting weight penalties for these specific alternative fuel types. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1223-A1 p.9]
With respect to our second concern, we request that the agencies decrease the proposed weight increases
that apply to natural gas-fueled vocational vehicles. We believe that the agencies' proposed use of a
fixed weight increase for both tractors and vocational vehicles fueled by natural gas does not reflect the
weight differences between the fuel tanks in these vehicles, and thus unfairly penalizes vocational
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.9]
The amount of fuel storage required varies considerably with the class and type of the vehicle. As a
result, natural gas fuel storage systems installed on vocational vehicles typically are smaller and weigh
less than those installed on Class 7 and 8 tractors. This is because vocational vehicles themselves weigh
less and often run less mileage, thus requiring less fuel. Class 5 vocational vehicles may be fitted with as
little as 25 - 32 gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) natural gas fuel storage systems.36'37 Refuse trucks (a
type of vocational vehicle) may operate with a 60 - 80 diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) natural gas fuel
-------
storage system.38 By comparison, Class 8 tractors may occasionally operate with a natural gas fuel
storage system of up to 120 DGE.39 These examples demonstrate the need for differentiated weight
increases among the various classes of natural gas vocational vehicles and tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 10]
The need to decrease the proposed weight increases for natural gas-fueled vocational vehicles also plays
out in the GEM's payload calculations. For the tractor-trailer calculation in the GEM, one-third of the
weight reduction (or increase) is added (or subtracted) to the available payload number in the
denominator while two-thirds of the weight reduction (or increase) is subtracted (or added) to the
overall weight of the vehicle.40 However, the calculation for vocational vehicles is different: one-half of
the weight reduction (or increase) is added (or subtracted) to the available payload number in the
denominator while the other one-half of the weight reduction (or increase) is subtracted (or added) to the
overall weight of the vehicle.41 This difference in calculation means that the weight increase is much
more significant for natural gas-fueled vocational vehicles because it assigns a larger tank weight
relative to the size of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 10]
In sum, we commend the agencies' efforts to update the GEM to better reflect real-world
driving conditions and technologies. We believe that the recommendations listed above further advance
those efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1223-A1 p. 10]
Response:
With regard to natural gas fuel properties, GEM contains the reference fuel properties for all fuels
defined in Table 1 of 40 CFR 1036.530. For natural gas the reference fuel carbon-mass-specific net
energy content was carried over from the Phase 1 rule and the reference fuel carbon mass fraction was
determined based on a fuel composition consistent with Table 1 of 40 CFR 1065.715 and the carbon
mass fraction of the pure compounds (methane, ethane, etc).
Consistent with AGA's comment about weight for natural gas vehicles, we have removed all weight
penalties from the weight reduction tables included in 40 CFR part 1037. The tables only recognize
weight reductions. The final Phase 2 GEM does not contain any weight penalties.
Organization: NGVAmerica
Weight Penalty for Natural Gas Vehicles. The agencies have proposed specific weight penalties to
be assigned to natural gas trucks. These default figures would be used as part of the GEM
modeling of emissions and fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.3]
NGV America believes that the weight penalties included in the proposal for vocational vehicles
are too high and are not reflective of fuel systems in use today. We would welcome the opportunity to
discuss this issue further with the agencies. We note that the comments submitted by Gladstein and
Neandross on behalf of the American Gas Association, Clean Energy and Westport Innovations also
address this issue and we support their remarks on this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1270-A1 p.3]
Response:
We agree with NGVA's comment about weight for natural gas vehicles and have revised the regulation
to remove the proposed fixed weight penalties. The agencies are not finalizing a weight penalty for any
components since this would require detailed information on conventional and light-weight vehicle
components to establish a baseline and the weight reduction potential for each component. Although we
are not requiring a weight penalty in GEM at the time of certification for any technology, the agencies
-------
have accounted for increased weight due to projected adoption of some technologies (i.e. for vocational
vehicles we accounted for added weight in subcategories where hybrid systems are projected) as part of
our inventory modeling with the MOVES model.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Support Comment
Comment - Reflecting weight decreases for lightweight components, and weight increases for
natural gas fuel tanks versus gasoline or diesel tanks
CARB staff supports the Phase 2 proposal to give weight reduction credit for the use of lightweight
components, and a weight increase (i.e., negative credit) for natural gas vehicles to reflect the increased
weight of natural gas fuel tanks versus gasoline or diesel tanks. The weight reductions or increases
translate into decreased or increased C02 emissions in GEM. The weight increases would be 600 lbs for
a compression ignition LNG tractor, 525 lbs for a spark-ignited CNG tractor, and 900 lbs for a
compression ignition CNG tractor; those same weight increases would also apply to vocational vehicles.
The weight reductions (credits) for lighter components range from 4 lbs to 588 lbs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 163-164]
Response:
We appreciate CARB's support regarding reflecting weight of lightweight components in GEM. The
agencies are not finalizing a weight penalty for any components since this would require detailed
information on conventional and light-weight vehicle components to establish a baseline and the weight
reduction potential for each component. Although we are not requiring a weight penalty in GEM at the
time of certification for any technology, the agencies have accounted for increased weight due to
projected adoption of some technologies (i.e. for vocational vehicles we accounted for added weight in
subcategories where hybrid systems are projected) as part of our inventory modeling with the MOVES
model.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Phase 2 GEM improvements
CARB staff has evaluated and run GEM P2vl.O and has several suggestions and recommends for
clarification: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 122]
While GEM for Phase 1 included a graphical user interface (GUI), GEM P2vl.O does not. CARB staff
still prefers GUI for data input. We believe that GUI makes it easy for users to select or input data
without the need to see behind the scenes information. We understand that GUIs are not simple to make
or upgrade. However, we encourage U.S. EPA to develop a GUI for GEM P2 that can integrate the
added Phase 2 technology information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 123]
In the GEM user manual, it is not clear on how to input or edit parameters. We recommend adding
clarification regarding how to create new input files and how to use the 'Sample Input Files'. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 123]
-------
The proposed GEM was generally designed for diesel engines. We recommend that natural gas engines
be treated separately in GEM because their specifications are significantly different from the diesel
engines. Please see page 148 for detailed comments on natural gas requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 123]
In the future, we encourage U.S. EPA to consider linking GEM to the VERIFY database to make
analysis of GHG and criteria pollutant data more convenient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1
p. 123]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Phase 2 GEM technologies included
We appreciate U.S. EPA and NHTSA including additional technologies such as low friction axle
lubricant in GEM P2's pull-down menus that were not included in GEM for Phase 1. We recommend
U.S. EPA and NHTSA also add to GEM P2 potential aerodynamic improvements and electrified
accessories for vocational vehicles and solar control for heavy-duty pickups and vans in the pull-down
menu as well. We believe that both technologies must be considered in the overall stringency to further
improve emissions in the vocational sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 123]
Please see detailed comments on vocational vehicles, vocational aerodynamics, and BEVs on pages 36,
44, and 84 respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 123]
Response:
CARB recommended a graphic user interface (GUI) for Phase 2 GEM. After consulting all the major
vehicle manufacturers, however, it appears there is consensus against a GUI. In particular, GUI is
viewed as an impediment for batch operations - the industry norm. Consequently, we decided not to
develop any GUI.
CARB also commented that GEM should include all other engines instead of diesel engine alone. The
response to this comment is that we have modified GEM to allow gasoline and natural gas engines as
input to GEM.
The GEM user's manual issued with the final Phase 2 rule includes sample input and output files.
Regarding the comments on aerodynamic improvements and electrified accessories for vocational
vehicles, we have taken actions to implement these two things into GEM as inputs. See RTC Section 6.3
for a discussion of comments and responses related to applying aerodynamic improvements and
electrified accessories on vocational vehicles. In general, heavy-duty pickups and vans are chassis-
certified and do not use GEM, therefore, ARB's suggestion is not applicable to GEM.
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
Modifications made to the compliance model (GEM) help ensure that we are driving real-world
performance improvements and capture even more of the fuel consumption reductions possible from
future technology, especially to the powertrain. In addition, the new analysis put in the docket shows
that vocational trucks idle much more than the agencies realized. Therefore the agencies should do more
to incentivize idle reduction technologies, which result not only in lower fuel use but also improved
-------
health outcomes for communities. The improved analysis of how vocational trucks operate also
underscores the importance of moving towards more advanced technologies as we look beyond this rule
towards continued reductions in fuel use and emissions from the freight sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1925-A1 p.2]
Response:
We have made significant improvements on idle reduction, which includes neutral idle, start/stop, and
automatic engine shutdown, thus greatly incentivizing the idle related technologies. See RTC Section
6.1 for a discussion of comments and responses related to vocational vehicle duty cycles including the
appropriate test cycle weighting of idle. See RTC Section 6.3 for a discussion of comments related to
applying workday idle reduction technologies on vocational vehicles.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America and Detroit Diesel Company
• GEM's latest version (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1626, NHTSA-2014-0132-0181):
Although the agencies have made all of the changes to GEM that they said they would, we cannot repeat
and verify the agencies' stringency analysis. Despite the changes to GEM, there remain problems with
the program. First, it incorporates a drive cycle (Drive Cycle D) that diverges significantly from real
world driving, as we have discussed with the EPA. In particular, the driving appears very binary: full
torque and zero torque are over represented, while medium torque is underrepresented, relative to actual
on-road driving—either based on Daimler's internal simulation or based on in-vehicle data collected by
other manufacturers. We commend the EPA for recognizing the problem and seeking a solution. But we
fear that the proposed solutions, allowing over- and under-shoot in vehicle speed as well as slight
modifications of the Profile D, will not fully resolve the problem. It is very important for the drive cycle
to line up with real-world driving, so that manufacturers can design for on-road fuel savings and do not
erroneously design to a mismatched cycle. So we need to reach a good solution, perhaps even revising
the drive cycle or scrapping Drive Cycle D altogether, to ensure GEM improvements translate to the
real world.
• Adding road grade to the GEM Duty Cycles for Tractors and Vocational Vehicles - The
agencies propose to add road grade to the 55 mph and 65 mph drive cycles. We strongly agree,
as this is necessary to show the full powertrain operation and engine map (as opposed to
showing the operation at one point in a map). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.35]
• Basic Philosophy Behind the Choice of Road Grades - The agencies request comment on the
proposed road grade profile, other ways in which the proposed 55 mph and 65 mph duty cycles
could be enhanced, whether a more aggressive road grade profile would induce a more realistic
and representative number of transmission gear shifts, and whether to apply a workday idle
cycle to certain tractor types like day cabs that could experience more significant amounts of
time stopped or parked as part of an urban deliver route. We have had discussions with the
agencies about what constitutes a proper regulatory drive cycle, how we characterize drive
cycles (including the speeds, hilliness factor, and coast factor), and how the agencies' initially
proposed drive cycles compare to several representative cycles. Our underlying philosophy is
that the agencies should try to match the regulatory cycles as closely as possible to nationwide
average driving, not to (for example) enhance the aggressiveness of the drive cycles beyond the
average in order to test the impact of an increased number of gear shifts. Similarly, we believe
the agencies should try to match the vehicle speed and torque that would be observed for the
average vehicle, so that manufacturers designing for on-road fuel savings will also do well in
-------
the regulatory arena (as opposed to making one arena differ from the other). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 P.35]
• Originally proposed road grades - Following the philosophy stated above, we voiced
concerns that the agencies' originally proposed topography differed from real-world driving by
having too high of torques. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 P.36]
[The graphics, illustrating GEM drive cycle and nationwide average on-road drive cycles, can be found
on p.36 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
Left is the GEM drive cycle, right is the nationwide average on-road drive cycles. The circles show the
areas of highest frequency—clearly in different areas of torque and speed. As we have done more study
of this road grade profile and the agencies' newly proposed one (discussed below), we think that either
profile is generally sufficient, although neither is perfect. The original one might be better than the new.
In any case, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the drive cycles further with the agencies? Newly
proposed road grades - Near the end of the comment period, we learned that the agencies are working
on revised drive cycles with NREL. The agencies request comment on the new road grades. We have
begun to analyze the drive cycles but are not yet finished. As we look at the new road profile, again
compared to a nationwide average, we find that the new profile has a lot of up and down-grades with a
lot less flat ground driving than experienced on the road in the US, as shown in the charts below:
Left is the GEM drive cycle, right is the nationwide average on-road drive cycles. The circles show the
areas of highest frequency—clearly in different areas of torque and speed. As we have done more study
of this road grade profile and the agencies' newly proposed one (discussed below), we think that either
profile is generally sufficient, although neither is perfect. The original one might be better than the new.
In any case, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the drive cycles further with the agencies. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 36]
Newly proposed road grades - Near the end of the comment period, we learned that the agencies are
working on revised drive cycles with NREL. The agencies request comment on the new road grades.
We have begun to analyze the drive cycles but are not yet finished. As we look at the new road profile,
again compared to a nationwide average, we find that the new profile has a lot of up and down-grades
with a lot less flat ground driving than experienced on the road in the US, as shown in the charts below:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.36]
[Graphics, a series of illustrations of on-road drive cycles versus new proposed GEM drive cycles,
indicated a lack of alignment, can be found on p.37-39 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
This is the nationwide average of seven major on-road drive cycles. The darkest red shows the areas of
highest frequency. As can be seen, most of the activity takes place in the center of the torque band,
representing flat roads or gentle grades. Note that we present more detail, showing individual routes, in
the Appendix. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.37]
These, by contrast, are the agencies' newly proposed cycles, showing that the cycles still do not line up
with the on-road driving. Unlike the cross country routes, for which most of the activity is at the center
of the torque range, representing flat roads or gentle grades, the agencies' proposal focuses on the
highest and lowest torques with very little operation in the center of the operating map. In other words,
the agencies' route is predominantly hilly—either up or down with nothing in between—while we find
that many routes contain flat ground not represented by the agencies' route. Note that we used two
assumed final drive ratios [redacted] for comparison purposes as these are ratios that we think might
represent the 2027 fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.39-40]
-------
Whichever drive cycles the agencies choose, the original ones, the new ones, or still some newer ones,
we need to discuss the drive cycles further with the agencies to ensure that these properly characterize
actual vehicle operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.40]
Suggestion for choosing a final road grade profile - The best way to create drive cycles is to work with
NREL and manufacturers to mine on-vehicle data collection during fleets' driving, then to create an
aggregate that matches this driving in vehicle speed and torque (in other words, making the histograms
of speeds and torques from the regulatory cycle line up as closely as possible with those from the real-
world driving). We strongly advocate for the agencies to use a route profile that is representative of the
ton-mile freight national average. Considering that 1) for practical purposes the regulatory high speed
cycles can only have a limited length yet 2) short cycles can overemphasize minor components of those
cycles, it is vital that the profile that is ultimately chosen is a true representation of average real world
driving conditions with no unrepresentative portions. Otherwise a significant disconnect between
regulatory and real world driving could have the unintended consequence of OEMs having to focus too
much on regulatory requirements instead of what the customers really need in order to do their job in the
most fuel efficient manner. In the same vein, we think that the amount of idling for both vocational
vehicles and day cab vehicles should align with the data collected from real-world vehicles, including
the idle time data that can be downloaded from engine control modules. (For sleeper cab vehicles, the
ECM idle time would be misleading as most customers these days opt for idle shutdown timers, such
that their engine-off hoteling time~the time that the agencies want to reflect with the idle portions of the
cycles-would not be accurately captured by the ECM data). 80 FR 40188. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p. 40]
Response:
We appreciate DTNA's comments on the road grade. Since we released the earlier proposal on road
grade profile called Profile D, we received many constructive comments from stakeholders. Consistent
with DTNA's suggestion, the agencies obtained comprehensive data from NREL and based the final
road grade simulation in GEM largely on those data (as well as reflecting comments the agencies
received in response to the NODA setting out those data for comment). The agencies made many
changes to the road grade as proposed. Examples include adding flat road and ±0.5 percent road grade at
the beginning and end of cycle, and shrinking the peak grades. See Chapter 3.4.2.1 of the RIA for the
detailed description of the process the agencies took in creating the road grade profile.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Other Structures Considered, Alternative aka Cycle Average Mapping Approach - The agencies
discuss the complex cycle average approach of engine-only testing over the GEM duty cycles over a
range of simulated vehicle configurations, which then gets used in GEM through interpolation based on
cycle-average N/V and cycle work. And the agencies request comment on whether to replace the steady-
state operation representation of the engine in GEM with the alternative cycle mapping approach. 80 FR
40176. DTNA strongly urges the agencies not to replace the proposed steady state map engine
representation with the cycle average approach. Given the fact that there is not enough time in this
rulemaking to adequately familiarize ourselves with this concept we believe this concept should stay
outside of this rule altogether. While we do not dismiss the possible technical merits of this idea
outright, there are just too many unknowns left at this point to support its immediate adoption in the
GHG Phase 2 rule. Having said that, after finalizing this rule we are open to collaborate with the
agencies in a future industry - agency cooperative effort to further investigate this approach in order to
thoroughly weigh its pros and cons and if the approach is found to be viable and equitable, aid in
development of procedures to ensure that regulatory stringency is not compromised. As it stands, the
-------
lack of definition of the process and requirements are such that there is an unquantified risk that the
cycle average mapping procedure will provide an "easy path" to certification and circumvent the
stringency that the agency intends for Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 P.34-35]
• Distance-based drive cycle: DTNA welcomes the agencies' proposed approach to ensure a
distance neutral simulation for all vehicle configurations. In our opinion using a distance-based
road profile definition in conjunction with a time-based speed profile that includes a distance
correction is an important/integral improvement to GEM for Phase 2. 80 FR 40187. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 P.35]
Adding GEM Inputs - The agencies request comment on the inclusion of new proposed
technologies into GEM in Phase 2. Although, as we stated above, DTNA fully supports the proposed
additional inputs to GEM, we recommend adding still further inputs—for example OEM measured
transmission efficiencies and a pulldown credit for neutral coast technology like eCoast. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.42]
Detailed proprietary transmission shift logic omitted from GEM as too complicated: DTNA agrees that
in a regulatory context it makes sense to use a generic shift strategy in GEM as oppose to using a
manufacturer's actual shift strategy. Especially for long-haul applications DTNA simulations have
shown that a generic shift algorithm can sufficiently reflect real world shift behavior (absent a neutral
coast feature like our eCoast). In case of more transient operation the differences between simulated and
actual shift behavior are admittedly larger, but avoiding the implications of implementing actual shift
strategies in GEM (i.e., definition of a generic GEM interface, maintaining a level playing field between
OEMs, IP concerns) by far outweighs the loss of simulation accuracy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p.42]
[Table is redacted, showed results of an analysis presented earlier to EPA]
This table, above, shows the results of an analysis that we presented the EPA earlier, an analysis of
several vehicle types simulated over several drive cycles with several shift strategies. The leftmost
column is the drive cycle. The next column is the vehicle configuration. The columns labeled "Shift
strategy" show the results of the analysis using DTNA's proprietary strategy, simulated using Software
In the Loop (SIL), and ACEA's "polygon approach." Although the agencies have advanced their shift
logic in GEM since using a strategy like the polygon approach, the polygon approach is representative
of what would result with any non-SIL strategy, including the agencies' new one. (Note that these fuel
consumption values in 1/100 km are simulation values for specific vehicles under specific boundary
conditions and do not indicate that a DTNA customer should see the same values). The columns labeled
"Difference" show the difference in results with the different shift strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p.42-43]
As can be seen from the columns labeled "Difference," there is negligible difference in the results using
the simpler and the more complex shift logic. The reason is that there is so little gear shifting occurring.
So the agencies' use of a generic shift strategy for tractors is valid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.43]
Idle Fuel Consumption Inputs - The agencies request comment on the inclusion of two idle points from
the engine test for use in GEM for purposes of calculating emissions during vehicle idling over the
vocational vehicle test cycles. We think that this is appropriate and will help to quantify idle fuel saving
technologies like neutral at idle. We do, however, want to make sure that the agencies properly use
-------
those idle fuel consumption rates: if a transmission has neutral idle or a clutch, it should get the lower
fuel consumption rate during any GEM idle time step. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.45]
Steady state to transient correction factor (1.05) - The agencies seek comment on whether the single
value multiplier (1.05) is an appropriate way to correct between steady-state and transient engine fuel
consumption and C02 emissions, specifically over the ARB transient duty cycle. 80 FR 40184. The
agencies propose that a multiplicative factor of 1.05 be applied to the steady state map for transient
simulation. Firstly, DTNA believes that inputting the actual engine data in GEM is an important and
necessary step to improve the fidelity of simulations in Phase 2. Use of a default or assigned fuel map in
GEM restricts a manufacturer from showing in GEM any benefits from improvements to engine systems
or their unique integration with the drivetrain and vehicle. It is critical in Phase 2 that manufacturers be
enabled and encouraged to seek fuel efficiency improvements through innovative engine and drivetrain
integration and optimization. Use of the actual engine data in GEM facilitates manufacturers to seek
improvements in this manner. That said, there is a question as to the use of a map or a cycle-averaged
approach, [redacted] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.45]
This results from differences in engine combustion and controls and the performance of the
aftertreatment system under generally lower operating temperatures. Applying the steady state fuel map
in GEM without some level of adjustment to reflect this difference could be interpreted as overstating or
misrepresenting the actual vehicle efficiency which would be detrimental to the integrity and objectives
of the Phase 2 program. That said, use of the cycle averaged approach is problematic, because of
(among other things) the differences between the shifting and emissions profile of the children relative
to the parent—which the agencies claim not to be an issue but which has not yet been demonstrated.
This is not a problem with a fuel map approach. So we recommend the map approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p.45]
DTNA's investigation of the transient vs. steady-state efficiency difference leads us to believe the
EPA's suggested 1.05 multiplier is generally conservative in that it overestimates the actual difference
between modes of operation, and clearly should mitigate concerns that the GEM simulation is
overstating a transient cycle performance. EPA asks for comment regarding whether the multiplier
should be higher considering that its investigation showed that the 1.05 factor represented the mean
difference observed for the population of engines that it tested and that a higher factor could encourage
manufacturers to pursue powertrain testing in order to establish a less punitive factor. DTNA shares
EPAs concern that a higher multiplier, for example 1.07 would force some manufacturers to implement
costly and burdensome powertrain testing to "provide credits for many current powertrain designs." In
DTNA's view it does not make sense to set an artificially high factor that would result in extraordinary
expenses for most manufacturers to prove that their nominally average systems do not perform poorly.
Rather, setting the level at 1.05 is sufficiently conservative to meet the needs of avoiding overestimation
of transient performance and providing room for manufacturers to demonstrate better performance.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.45]
DTNA believes that both powertrain testing and the "alternative" approach are, at the least, overly
burdensome and complex methods for engine manufacturers to represent powertrain performance in
GEM. We suggest a simpler approach: if EPA seeks to improve the fidelity of the adjustment factor, as
opposed to using a "fits all" 1.05 factor, EPA should allow manufacturers to establish an engine family
specific factor that more accurately reflects the effect of the manufacturer's control strategies. The
manufacturer would conduct testing a representative rating of their engine family by running the ARB
Transient Cycle on the engine dyno (using an EPA defined generic representative vehicle configuration)
and comparing the resulting C02 emissions level against the result of a simple simulation of the same
test cycle (speed - torque sequence) using the steady state map that is defined for GEM input. The
-------
results of the test and simulation would be used to derive the unique multiplier for the engine family.
This approach essentially reflects the methodology used by EPA to derive its recommended factor of
1.05, additionally, such a manufacturer derived factor would be simple to audit or evaluate during
confirmatory testing since only one additional test (the engine dyno test on the ARB Transient Cycle)
and a simple simulation would be required. 80 FR 40184. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.45-
46]
Default engine maps - The EPA and NHTSA request comment on whether the agencies should provide
default generic engine maps in GEM for certain vehicle sub-categories, albeit allowing manufacturers to
optionally override these generic maps with actual maps measured in the normal manner (the agencies'
proposed engine dynamometer steady-state test procedure). 80 FR 40184. We think that this is
unnecessary. Engine manufacturers will have to generate fuel maps for engines, so the only time a
vehicle manufacturer would choose not to use the optional, actual map is when that actual map is worse
than the generic one~thus giving a credit for use of bad engines. Since manufacturers will have the
actual maps, they should use those maps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.46]
Simulating Accessories for Vehicle Certification - The agencies request comment on several aspects of
simulating accessories for vehicle certification: whether to allow some manufacturer input to reflect the
installation of accessory load reduction in GEM, how to distinguish advanced accessories that would
qualify for load-reduction credits, how to unambiguously distinguish these from other similar
components that do not decrease accessory loads, and how much credit to give. 80 FR 40186. We
recommend that the agencies follow an approach similar to that used by ACEA in Europe: taking
different literature values (for example) for fans that are 1) crankshaft mounted, 2) belt driven with a
transmission, 3) hydraulically driven, and 4) electrically driven, with each variant given a value
representative of the actual energy consumed. This would give manufacturers incentive to use the most
efficient accessories without putting a large burden on manufacturers to demonstrate the relatively small
energy savings from each individual accessory. With such an approach, it will be easy to distinguish the
advanced accessories, as it is easy to tell just by sight whether (again using the same example) a fan is
mounted off the crankshaft, mounted by a belt with a transmission, and so on. With accessories that are
more difficult to see, like water pumps or steering pumps, the manufacturer can declare the pump type
in the end-of-year report; if the agencies wish to audit, then the agencies can see part numbers on any
particular vehicle's pumps and compare these too broadly available descriptions of the part by part
number. The process for certifying to the agencies that the accessories are fuel saving accessories would
be simple: it would simply be a declaration that the accessory works as described, for example, is a
hydraulic fan. And the amount of credit should be similar to that tabulated by ACEA for the same
accessories. We would be happy to work further with the agencies on how this would work. Refer to
Appendix C, Truck Auxiliaries for more details of the ACEA approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p. 50]
Tire Revs Per Mile is the Correct GEM Input - GEM should use either dynamic tire radius (meaning,
not the static loaded radius but the radius during motion) or better tire revs per mile, from the tire
manufacturer. This information is routinely collected by tire manufacturers and should be supplied as
part of the tire manufacturer information in 1037.520(c) and 1037.650. Using such data will improve
GEM fidelity by aligning GEM engine speeds with real engine speeds. 80 FR 40187, the agencies ask
for comment on whether the proposed test procedure should be modified to measure tires' revolutions
per distance directly, as opposed to using the loaded radius to calculate the drive axle rotational speed
from vehicle speed. We recommend tire manufacturers' stated tire rev per mile numbers.
1037.520(a)(2)(vii), 1037.520(c), and 1037.650. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.53]
-------
GEM needs a way for manufacturers to input different Crr's for vehicles with different tires on each
axle, 1037.520(a)(l)(iv) - The agencies have not clarified how we enter into GEM the Crr's for vehicles
with different tires on each axle or with lift, tag, or pusher axles having different Crr's than the drives.
There are many such vehicles. GEM should allow for such entry, or a manufacturer should be explicitly
allowed to enter the numerical average of the axles' Crr's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.53]
Tire Test Procedures - The agencies request comment on whether the proposed test procedure should be
modified to measure the tires' revolutions per distance directly, as opposed to using the loaded radius to
calculate the drive axle rotational speed from vehicle speed. 80 FR 40187. As we note elsewhere, the
agencies should. The agencies should use tire manufacturers' measurements of tire revolutions per mile,
in order to get correct GEM results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.62]
Vehicle Manufacturers Receiving Tire Data from Tire Manufacturers - In Phase 1, the agencies
established a procedure by which vehicle manufacturers could rely on tire data measured by tire
manufacturers. The agencies propose to carry over this procedure for Phase 2. This is an invaluable
procedure, and we strongly agree with the agencies' proposal. We as vehicle manufacturers, not tire
manufacturers, do not routinely test tire rolling resistance, static loaded radius, or tire revolutions per
mile. Therefore we agree with the agencies' proposal for vehicle manufacturers' getting tire data from
tire manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.62]
ePTO Test Procedures - We have several concerns with the ePTO procedures. The procedures are
written to test the PTO by ensuring that the engine produces all of the energy with no net change in
stored energy. But plug-in electrified PTOs are already on the market, so there should be a provision for
vehicles which can charge up fully from the grid, perform the prescribed PTO duty cycle, and are then
recharged from the grid. There are other sections in this procedure which seem to ignore this possibility
as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.64]
In § 1037.540(b), the agencies prescribe the duty cycle based on target pressures that a hybrid vehicle
must hit, insinuating that the hybrid vehicle spins a PTO pump constantly just as an idling truck would.
However, an electrified PTO doesn't operate in this manner at all; the pump can stop completely if there
is zero demand, which would be used in practical use to maximize engine-off time and overall
efficiency. While a typical conventional vehicle does idle constantly during PTO use, creating a mean
minimum pressure greater than zero, the hybrid vehicle would have zero pressure with zero demand. It
would make much more sense if the PTO duty cycle prescribed PTO power. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p.64]
There are only two duty cycles listed in Appendix II, but there are many different target customers for
which any given ePTO system might be designed. The OEM should have the ability to propose
alternative duty cycles to the EPA for approval if other duty cycles are more appropriate in the future,
but we do not see this as a possibility the way the regulation is currently worded. Subsection (e) also
says that all cycles should be used (refuse and utility), even though the hydraulics required for these
applications might be quite different. Again, this highlights that power (pressure*flow) required for the
job should be used rather than only pressure, and only systems designed for refuse vehicles should use
that duty cycle (likewise for utility vehicles using utility duty cycle). If a multi-cycle system is intended
to be used as a catch-all to create a single, more simplified certification, power vs. time should be the
expected measurement method rather than pressure vs. time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.64]
Post-processing technology credit values not given for fuel saving accessories like variable
speed water pump or clutched air compressor. The agencies propose to give credits for electrified
accessories but not for equally fuel saving alternatives like [redacted]. 80 FR 40304. First, we think that
-------
if the accessory is active in the engine cert test, then its benefit should not be included in post-
processing drop down. For example the [redacted] water pump is actually active during the RMC. But,
second, if it is not active in the test cycle, such as a [redacted] feature, then it should get post-processing
credits whether it saves fuel through electrification or through some alternative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p.80]
TPMS and Alternative Tire Pressure Systems Should Be Sufficient for Credits - We
disagree with the EPA's approach of not crediting tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMSs) in GEM.
Several studies have been performed on fleets of vehicles which demonstrate an FCR of 1-2% for
TPMS without any special intervention to ensure the operators act on the notifications. One such study
was FMCSA-RRT-13-021 published in February 2014 which showed an average 1.4% FCR attributed
to TPMS. Similarly, there are systems that need not be carried around on vehicles, which measure tire
pressure as a vehicle is driven over them. These can be placed in a fleet's truck yard to catch vehicles
with low tire pressure. There is no reason to credit vehicles with systems that prevent low tire pressure
only if the systems must be carried on the vehicle; these systems add weight. Rather, there should be a
method to get credit for these alternatives that add no vehicle weight. If the agencies' concern is that the
systems might not catch a low tire pressure immediately and might allow a vehicle to operate with low
pressure for some time, then the agencies can give a slightly reduced FCR benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-Alp.80]
• [entire bullet redacted]
Electric Accessories Given GEM Credits But [redacted] Ones Not Given Credit: The
agencies propose to treat differently accessories that have similar FCR benefits. 1037.520(f)(6). Electric
accessories get their power from the engine, albeit through the electrical system (with the inefficiency
associated with energy conversion to and from electrical energy), while the [redacted] accessories do the
same thing-reduce energy consumption and save fuel-but they do it without the energy conversion
losses. DTNA testing indicates that [redacted]. Therefore, these accessories should get credit too. We
can support this claim with data, in a confidential setting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 81]
Response:
We understand DTNA's concerns regarding the cycle average approach. However, we initiated this
approach in the fall of 2014. Since then, we have received strong support for most of the major industry
manufacturers. More importantly, significant progress has been made in both the engine dynamometer
tests and the test procedure development. Six different engine platforms, including Cummins ISX, ISB,
ISL engines, Navistar N13 engines, Volvo D13 engines and Ford Gasoline engine, some of which were
conducted at manufacturers site. Parent and child ratings were also extensively tested. All the results
point to the same conclusion - cycle average approach is more accurate than the steady state map
approach, specifically in transient cycle even with a transient correction factor. As a result of that, we
believe that use of cycle average approach would be justifiable. With this change, we completely
removed the transient correction factor proposed in NPRM. Many of these activities were conducted
through the industrial group regular meetings that have been put into the memo docket (Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827). See RIA Chapter 3.1.2.6 for further discussion on the cycle average test
procedure.
We appreciate the DTNA's support on our decision to use the agency's auto-shifting for transmission
model. We also modified idle fueling to update our idle fueling maps based on many constructive
comments from manufacturers, including DTNA.
-------
Regarding simulations on accessories for vehicle certifications, we decided not to model these features.
Model validation would be very difficult given the range of potential accessories. Similarly, each
manufacturer may have unique accessories, which are virtually impossible to capture in a simulation
tool. Consequently, we decided to use the same principle as in Phase 1: to use constant accessory power
in GEM. In addition, Phase 2 GEM does provide additional opportunity to recognize advanced
accessories through the mechanism of technology improvement input from the main GEM input file.
We agreed with DTNA's comments on tire input using tire revs per mile. We also allow the user the
input different Crr for vehicle with different tires on each axle.
ePTO Test Procedures
Based on DTNA and others' comments, the agencies have expanded 40 CFR 1037.540 for Phase 2, to
test PHEV PTO systems in charge depleting mode in addition to charge sustaining mode. With this
change and with the utility factor curve that we developed jointly with National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, the procedure can now account for the full benefit of plug-in hybrid PTO systems. See
Chapter 3.7.4 of the RIA.
The PTO cycle is deformalized by zero PTO demand and maximum PTO demand. If an ePTO system
has zero pressure with zero demand then the ePTO system will not run during the 0% points, which is
consistent with how the systems run in-use.
Just like the vehicle duty cycles that are used in this rule, the agencies have defined the PTO duty cycle
but manufactures have the opportunity to ask for approval for a different cycle under the off-cycle
provisions.
The systems we test for the development of the PTO procedure in the first heavy-duty greenhouse rule,
the flow was generally independent of the pressure, so the pressure determined the power output of the
PTO system. Because of this the agencies defined the cycle in terms of normalized pressure.
We appreciate the DTNA comments on TPMS. In the final rule, the agencies defined an effectiveness
for both TPMS and ATIS and each is allowed for as a technology improvement input of the GEM input
file. Those accessories that can be recognized through engine certification tests, such as variable water
pump and oil pump, are not included as part of technology improvement inputs. Accessories that cannot
be measured from engine tests can be either recognized in GEM as a technology improvement input or
through off cycle credit.
Organization: Dana Holding Corporation
Simulating axles for vehicle certification
Dana offers various products related to the entire scope of the proposed rule (Class 2b - Class 8 trucks);
however, we see the most significant impact of the proposed rule in relation to the class 7 and 8 line
haul application. Within this heavy-duty class 7 and 8 market, Dana has made several significant
technology advancements. In fact, our company continues to develop our latest technology offerings
that are scheduled to be released in advance of the implementation of the new standards proposed by
EPA and NHTSA in Alternative 3 of the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.2]
Dana's current portfolio of technology offerings that would support the proposed Phase 2 improvements
in fuel efficiency include the Spicer® AdvanTEK® heavy-duty (40,000 lb. GAWR) tandem axle that is
currently offered at a rear-axle ratio as low as 2.26:1. This latest axle development was designed to
-------
operate with the increased torque loads experienced through engine down-speeding. The new fast ratios
below 2.64:1 is one key enabling factor to support reducing the engine speed toward 1150 rpms at 60-65
mph cruise speeds. Given the generally accepted principle that every 100 rpm reduction in the engine (at
cruise speeds) accounts for al% fuel-efficiency improvement, Dana is pleased that the EPA and
NHTSA have recognized the need to include axle-ratio as an input in the proposed Phase 2 GEM
simulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.2]
In addition to enabling engine down-speeding, a reduction in the axle ratio at highway speeds provides
further efficiency improvement within the axle. Dana's efficiency testing clearly indicates that a
reduction in axle ratio (i.e. a lower numerical ratio) improves the efficiency of the axle. Therefore, the
ratio reduction will provide two forms of efficiency improvement: first, engine efficiency due to engine
down-speeding and secondly, drive axle efficiency through the inherent efficiency gain with the
reduction of the axle input speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.2]
In fact, there are several other axle features in addition to axle-ratio that influence axle efficiency and
can be visually verified during an in-use compliance audit. Such features include pinion gear offset
(spiral beveled, hypoid, or amboid gearing), axle lube quantity, dual-range, and axle weight. Based on
these easily verifiable features, Dana believes that the proposed 95.5% fixed axle efficiency rating
(while lower than Dana's reported efficiency in most axle families) is reasonable and additional credit
should be provided for specific improved axle features. It is Dana's opinion that the dynamometer
testing proposed as an alternative in Section II.C. l.(c) (pg. 40185) of the proposed rule would result in
excessive complexity and documentation for fractions of a percent improvement in efficiency, while
easily identified features (such as the ones noted above) can serve as a less complicated checklist of
credits with prescribed efficiency improvement values as used in the post-simulation approach. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.2-3]
With regards to the emission reduction for fuel-efficient synthetic lubricants (40 CFR 1037.520(f)(2),
pg. 40631 of the proposed rule), Dana fully supports the 0.5% efficiency credit offered towards the use
of BASF FE 75 W90 lubricant. BASF FE 75 W90 qualifies as a Dana SHAES 256 Rev. C. approved
lubricant. As a further advantage, Dana promotes the use of a BASF XFE 75 W90 as an extreme high-
efficiency lubricant. Based on internal testing at Dana, we propose that the agencies offer a 0.7%
minimum credit for the use of the XFE 75 W90 lubricant as a 6x4 tandem drive axle lubricant. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.3]
Modeling C02 emissions to show compliance with the proposed rule
As truck manufacturers take steps to comply with the proposed Phase 2 GHG and fuel-efficiency
standards, Dana believes there will be a continued need to further down-speed the engine. To facilitate
this "extreme" engine down-speeding need, Dana is currently developing technologies that will support
our customers' ability to reduce engine speeds to 1050 rpm or below (at cruise speeds). This new level
of extreme down-speeding can provide an estimated 3% (with a 300 rpm engine-speed reduction from
current state) of additional GHG and fuel-efficiency improvement. However, this aggressive down-
speeding can result in a series of trade-offs, such as: compromised low-speed vehicle maneuverability
and performance; increased noise, vibration and harshness; higher torque through the drivetrain of the
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.3]
To overcome these issues, Dana has developed a dual-range, "disconnectable," tandem axle. This new
axle innovation will operate as a traditional axle in 6x4 configuration with a higher numerical rear axle
ratio to support the low-speed vehicle performance and safety. While approaching cruise speeds the
tandem axle will "disconnect" and no longer turn the inter-axle driveshaft, rear-rear pinion and ring-
-------
gear, therefore, operating fully on the forward of the rear axle. During this disconnected configuration,
the axle operates at the equivalent efficiency of a 6x2 arrangement offering an additional 2.5% of
improved GHG and fuel-efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.3]
It is our interpretation of the proposed rule that the Phase 2 GEM accounts for additional technologies
and vehicle configurations that are applied after the simulation is completed. Within the post-GEM
simulation the proposed rule and the GEM Phase 2 user manual (Table 6, pg. 16, of the user manual) list
a series of technologies that reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption in Class 7 and 8 tractors but
are not easily captured in GEM. The proposed rule allows Class 7 and 8 tractor manufacturers to take a
further post-simulation "reduction value" if their vehicles contain these technology improvements.
Given our latest disconnecting axle innovation noted above, Dana further interprets that the proposed
post-GEM simulation includes provisions for 6x2 configurations (noted as "permanent 6x2
configuration") and disconnecting axles (noted as "part-time 6x2 configuration"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1138-A1 p.3]
If we are interpreting the proposed rule correctly, Dana supports both having these axle arrangements
listed as a post-simulation technology and providing a 2.5% reduction value for permanent and part-
time drive axles. Dana further suggests including an additional efficiency improvement value for dual-
range axle configurations as it enables slower engine speeds and faster axle ratios at highway speeds,
boosting the vehicle's efficiency performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.3]
Tires and tire inflation systems
In addition to driveline systems (steer axles, driveshafts and drive axles), Dana offers tire pressure
management systems that can be used on the full range of vehicles associated with the proposed rule
(class 2b - 8). The Spicer® Optimized Tire Pressure System is designed for use with steer and drive
axles, ensuring that tires in all tractor positions are at their target inflation without dependence on
human intervention. Dana's automatic tire inflation (ATI) solution is one of a number of available
systems in the commercial vehicle space that automatically keep tires at the appropriate inflation to
reduce rolling resistance, and provide significant fuel economy benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1138-A1 p. 4]
Dana's independent studies support the findings in Section II.C. l.(f) (pg. 40187) of the proposed Phase
2 rule, highlighting that tire pressure monitoring systems cannot sufficiently guarantee the proper
inflation of tires. These studies are supported by substantial fleet testimonials suggesting that monitor-
only systems are too dependent on driver intervention to be effective, and even when used in
combination with telematics, fleet managers typically only direct a truck in for unscheduled service if
tires are at dangerously low pressures and at risk of blowout. Until tires reach this point, the benefits of
reduced rolling resistance are typically not realized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.4]
While Dana supports the agency's findings as it relates to providing post-simulation adjustments for
class 7 and 8 tractors, the fuel economy benefits of reduced rolling resistance can be realized for all
vehicles spending time on highway. As a result, Dana proposes that credit for automatic tire inflation
systems be granted for all vehicle classes (2b-8) included in the rule, including credit for vocational
vehicles as these vehicles tend to be on-highway between 40-60% of their life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1138-A1 p.4]
Finally, the proposed rule grants a 1% "reduction value" as a post-simulation adjustment for the use of
ATI systems on drive axles in tractors (40 CFR 1037.520(f)(7), pg. 40631 of the proposed rule).
Maintaining proper tire inflation of the front tires on the steer axles can also contribute to reduced
-------
rolling resistance, and improved fuel economy. Dana proposes an additional 0.25% credit be granted for
tractors with ATI systems equipped on both steer and drive axles, for a total credit of 1.25 percent.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1138-A1 p.4]
Response:
We made appropriate changes relating to axle efficiency. Unlike the NPRM, where a fixed efficiency
with 95.5% was used, the final rule uses the default power loss to represent the axle. The default power
losses are derived from CBI data from two major axle manufacturers. The manufacturer has an option to
override the default losses using the specified test procedure in 40 CFR 1037.560. With full axle
testing, the benefits resulting from lubricants can be recognized as well. We also provide a mechanism
to account for Dana's disconnectable axle defined 6x4D. However, only one axle ratio can be selected,
requiring the OEM to select the axle ratio that is expected to be engaged for the greatest driving
distance. The main reason for this decision is that we believe that disconnectable axle is primarily used
in tractor applications, where cruise speeds are predominate. The cycle weighing on transient cycle is
small compared to the weighting of the two cruise cycles. We also recognize either ATIS or TPMS
through the technology improvement input of the GEM input file (see Preamble Section III.D. l.b.iv).
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Drive cycles
We have seen the briefly analyzed proposed new drive cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1
p.3]
New high speed cycles in GEM have a significant grade.
- We understand that the steeper grades in the cycles mimic national statistics of road grade and we have
seen that the steeper grades exercise more shift control and other features, such as neutral coasting.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p. 3]
- We believe the Agency may want to revise actual profiles to mimic realistic roads, eg. piece-wise
constant grade, besides the national statistics. The unrealistic hill shapes not realistic will distort shifting
algorithms, especially significant when exercising the powertrain test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1875-A1 p.3]
- With higher grades, the simulated truck will also lose road speed while climbing. Thus it is important
that these cycles should be distance-based and throttle demand should be 100% during the entire speed
loss [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A 1 p.3]
- Neutral coasting is "witnessed" by this test. There is a potential "double counting" with pull-down
option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.3]
- Eco-Roll like techniques are also credited by the powertrain test version, however these may clash
with constant speed requirement and there is potential double counting the benefit with pull-down
option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.3]
- The grade sensor must be active in powertrain test mode and grade data set from the simulation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A 1 p.3]
Transient drive cycles proposed by NREL
We fully support the transient drive cycles proposed by NREL. In our experience, these are more
representative of how trucks are being driven and thus we use very similar cycles to calibrate our shift
controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.3]
Value of transmissions in GEM-based certification: Advanced transmissions, deeply integrated
powertrains and the powertrain test option deliver a significant part of the compliance burden without
significant incremental product cost, complexity, weight or vehicle architecture changes. We have
provided data to the EPA showing that 25-33% of the line haul tractor compliance gap between
-------
MY2017 and MY2027 can be covered through such technologies, and 33-50% of that gap can be
covered in the vocational segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.3]
A consistent approach to manual drivers: Fleet data indicates that automation introduces a 2% or
more fuel economy advantage through human factors that go beyond technology — making vehicles
shift at the correct conditions and drive more efficiently. We caution the EPA that this behavior is
already coded in GEM ~ manual transmissions are shifted at higher engine speeds, with longer shift
times -- as well as a 2% "automation bump" given in post-processing. A consistent set of assumptions
should be adopted, carrying over to both GEM simulations and powertrain tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1194-A1 p.4]
Consistent approach to manual drivers
The NPRM suggests that GEM accounts for the fuel economy benefits of automation realized in line
haul and some vocational applications. We agree with the EPA assessment that based on fleet reports,
the impact of automation is around 2% fuel reduction or better. These efficiencies are realized primarily
through human factors that go beyond technology: making vehicles shift at the correct conditions and
drive more gently. They also do not apply to any particular driver but rather hold in a statistical sense.
Due to these considerations, the EPA opted for a 2% automation benefit to be given to automated
powertrain technologies as a post-GEM simulation of the fuel consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1194-A1 p. 15]
We caution the EPA that some driver behavior is already coded in GEM (manual transmissions are
shifted at higher engine speeds, with longer shift times in GEM simulations), as well as a "2%
automation bump" given in post-processing of GEM simulations. Furthermore, the fleets tend over time
to configure AMT trucks for more engine downspeeding by deploying faster axles. We have CBI data
that shows the trend toward higher final drive ratios as AMTs penetrate fleets. Thus, part of the 2% fuel
benefit is in fact an artifact of the engine downspeeding enabled by automation that is already captured
in GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.15-16]
We prefer that GEM codes the manual driver as a higher shift point and longer shift because in that
case, we are able to run manual transmissions on powertrain tests using their AMT versions. As the
AMT also uses some power from fuel to perform shifts, the test will in fact slightly overstate the manual
transmission fuel economy benefit, in the spirit of always being "slightly conservative." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 16]
Recommendation: The EPA should consistently adopt one of the following hypothesis: either A) the
AMT shift strategy is already programed to emulate a normal driver (and hence the manual
transmissions should be simulated identically to an AMT) in which case a uniform "automation bump"
should be maintained, B) or B) the poor efficiency manual drivers shift late and at higher speeds (as in
current GEM), but then the benefit of automation was already encoded in the manual shift schedule so
that no "automation bump" is necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 16]
Recommendation: Should the EPA decide to treat manual transmissions identically to AMTs from a
shifting perspective and provide a post-GEM simulation "2% automation bump," then the GEM
simulations using powertrain results should benefit from the same treatment when implemented in GEM
(currently is seems that if powertrain data is used, there is no means to alert GEM to an automated
transmission). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 16]
Higher grade drive cycles
-------
We support the existing grade profiles for the 65 mph and 55 mph cycles with up to +1-2% grades. We
do understand those road grades correspond to actual highway conditions in a relatively flat part of the
country. However, we are not opposed to steeper grades in the cycles shown recently by the EPA and
developed by NREL to mimic the national grade distribution. In fact, we believe the steeper grades will
exercise more shift control features and other features, such as neutral coasting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1194-A1 p. 16]
We do caution that the actual road profiles recently discussed, also called "half-hills," need some re-
thinking. Although we have not yet run either GEM simulations or powertrain tests by the end of the
comments period, we are concerned with the rapidly changing slope that is unrealistic and may confuse
the grade sensor. Should the actual profiles be revised to mimic realistic roads (with the potential
consequence of a longer drive cycle), then we would have no objection to steeper grades. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1194-A1 p. 16]
However, it is important to realize that the steeper grades can exceed the grade-ability of some
configurations. Thus, not only will the shift controls be exercised significantly more, but the simulated
truck will also lose road speed while climbing. For GEM simulations, this is not a significant issue, but
for powertrain testing it may be. It is imperative that a constant speed cycle is not only distance-based
(which is the current GEM setting) but that it also demands that the throttle be open 100% during the
entire speed loss. Otherwise, the slower truck will look more fuel efficient but in reality it would be an
artifact of reduced aerodynamic loads at lower speed, even if the route is completed in a longer time.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 16]
The EPA asked if it should consider speeds other than 65 mph and 55 mph vs other speeds. We see no
significant benefit to other highway speeds, although we have had a situation where the 55 mpg at zero
grade happened to be a worst and relatively unique operating point on the engine. However, as soon as
variable grades were introduced, that problem ceased to exist because the engine is still exercised at
multiple points due to the changing grade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 19-20]
Eaton comments on the EPA MD/HD Greenhouse Gas Phase II NODA
Background
The Agency has provided the industry with several opportunities to monitor and provide input into the
development of the Phase II regulations. Recently it has requested comments around several issues.
Eaton will comment and share experiences around the technical implementation and updates of GEM,
which we view as core to the rule and its success. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1875-A1 p. 1]
GEM has improved significantly since its early Phase II version was released in 2015. We believe that
the powertrain technology is now well represented in GEM. We believe that the following are
characteristics are critical to the success of GEM as a tool and to realizing the improvements envisioned
by the rule in an efficient way for the industry: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p. 1]
- GEM predictions need to be "slightly conservative" versus real-life applications, so that GEM does not
either create a bias or drive "paper-only" improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p. 1]
Eaton has noted significant improvement in GEM along the directions outlined above and we have a
high degree of confidence that GEM will be ready and effective by the time of rule finalization. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.l]
Conclusions
The improvements to GEM have improved significantly the quality of the predictions, making us
believe that the Agency is on track to have a good and robust regulatory tool. We appreciate the open
manner which the Agency solicited feedback from stakeholders and provided status updates and we
believe it was a key factor in improving GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.3]
-------
Based on hardware data and powertrain tests, we feel the Agency has achieved the following: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1875-A1 p.3]
- GEM results capture correctly the fuel consumption differences based on transmission architecture and
fuel reduction technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.3]
- The GEM predictions are "slightly conservative" when compared to non-optimized, commercially
available transmissions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.3]
- GEM has robust and accurate means to overwrite default loss models and default control logic, and
thus account for advanced technologies and transmissions optimized for fuel efficiencies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.3]
- GEM predictions using the powertrain-based model reflect the real-life fuel efficiencies tested for
optimized transmissions, and thus is reasonably future-proofed for new technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1875-A1 p.4]
- The high-speed test cycles exercise fully the powertrain and are statistically representative of national
roads. However, the hill shape could be improved to mimic more realistic road grades and thus more
realistic shifting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.4]
- The transient cycle proposed by NREL is better matched to what the industry uses to optimize fuel
efficiency regardless of regulations. Its adoption will only increase the consistency between real-life
design practices for fuel consumption reduction and the regulatory drive to reduce C02. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.4]
GEM offers manufactures the ability to quantify significant C02 reductions in both line haul and
vocational segments, especially with the options to overwrite defaults with transmission loss data and/or
powertrain test-based models. This enables manufacturers significant flexibility in achieving stringent
standards with technologies that do not significantly add weight, complexity or cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1875-A1 p.4]
Response:
We appreciate Eaton's various constructive and positive comments, specifically on the NODA version
of GEM. We provide 2% benefits for automated manual transmission (AMT) as opposed to manual
transmissions (MT). See RIA Chapter 2.8.2.5.
We seriously considered many constructive comments on the road grades. Consequently, we made quite
a few changes to the road grade. Examples include adding flat road and ±0.5 percent road grade road at
the beginning and end of cycle, and shrinking the peak grades of the shortest hills by capping the change
in grade per change in distance to rates see from in-use CBI data provided by manufacturers. See
Chapter 3.4.2.1 of the RIA for the detailed description of the process the agencies took to create the road
grade profile.
In addition to modifying the road grade profile the agencies have also conducted many powertrain tests
with the profile to see how actual powertrains responded to the cycle. From this testing the agencies not
only believe that the road grade profile is representative but it also fully exercises the powertrain. With
regard to the road grade of the cycle exceeding the grade-ability of the vehicle, GEM already handles
this, because the drive model in GEM will go to 100% pedal position if the vehicle falls off the trace
significantly. As for powertrain testing this is handled by the requirements of 40 CFR 1037.550 (g) that
require the pedal to be at 100% if the vehicle speed is lower than the lower speed tolerance. The
agencies understand the comment that the shape of the half-hills are synthetic and do not look like
typical hills, but with regard to the shift strategy the agencies have not found that the synthetic hills
-------
cause the transmissions that were powertrain tested at Oakridge National Laboratory29 or Southwest
Research Institute30 to shift in an unrepresentative way. We agree with Eaton that the cycles should be
distanced based and that the throttle demand should be 100% when the vehicle is not able to meet the
demand of the cycle.
The agencies do not agree that that there is double counting of neutral coasting and eco-roll technologies
in the pulldown input and in the actual simulation of the vehicle on the cruise cycles. This is because
the allowance for the vehicle speed to overshoot the cycle speed by 3 mph when going downhill is to
simulate how conventional cruise-control algorithms run. The "Intelligent controls" pulldown is
designed to give credit for technologies that use predictive control to adjust current operator demand
based on future vehicles demands for example reducing operator demand even when going uphill,
knowing that the vehicle will be going downhill in a short distance.
The agencies agree that grade or other sensors that allow the powertrain to operate in a way that is more
representative of in-use operation should be used or should be simulated in another way. That is why
we added change to 40 CFR 1037.550 (i) to allow this.
The agencies thank you for your comments regarding the transient drive cycles proposed by NREL, but
since the agencies did not have enough time to fully evaluate the cycles the agencies finalized the cycle
we proposed for the transient phase of the duty cycle.
Organization: Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA)
Models and Testing
To capture the full benefits of electric drive, compliance pathways should also recognize its diverse
contributions to efficiency, particularly in the duty cycle of vocational vehicles. The EPA's Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Model (GEM) model should better model fuel efficiency improvements for hybrid and
plug-in hybrid systems. Vocational vehicles, as defined by the EPA, represent about one fifth of the
total medium- and heavy-duty fuel consumption and include numerous vehicles types: "delivery trucks,
refuse haulers, public utility trucks, transit, shuttle, and school buses. This segment also includes very
specialized vehicles such as emergency vehicles, and cement and dump trucks."6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1217-A1 p.3]
The varied nature of the vocational vehicle fleet calls for a more comprehensive accounting of
efficiency and emissions reductions in the full duty cycle. Specifically, the rule should establish
compliance pathways that recognize the efficiency and emissions contributions of electrification
including Power Take Off systems, which are increasingly being integrated into fleets' vocational
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-A1 p.3]
These systems could be recognized in the testing procedures for vocational vehicles or in off-duty cycle
credits. In the former scenario, lessons can be learned from CARB's modeling of the full day vocational
duty cycle. In the latter, establishing off-duty credits based on clear criteria and eligibility will increase
certainty and uptake in this area. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1217-A1 p.3]
29 Oakridge National Laboratory July 2016, "Powertrain Test Procedure Development for EPA GHG Certification
of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles."
30 Southwest Research Institute July 2016, "Validation Testing for Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Test Procedures and
the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Powertrains."
-------
6 EPA and NHTSA Propose Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel
Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond (PDF) (6 pp, 545K,
EPA-420-F-15-901, June 2015)
Response:
The agencies agree with EDTA that hybrid and plug-in hybrid systems should have a pathway to
recognize the benefits of the technology in GEM and because of this have modified 40 CFR 1036.540,
40 CFR 1037.540 and 40 CFR 1037.550 to allow for testing of these systems. 40 CFR 1036.540 and 40
CFR 1037.550 can be used to test hybrids and PHEV that use the stored energy to propel the vehicle.
For electrified and PHEV PTO systems 40 CFR 1037.540 can be used to recognize the benefits of these
systems. Even though GEM does not model hybrid or plug-in hybrid systems, GEM has been designed
to use the output of these tests to account for the benefits of the systems.
Organization: Hino Motors, Ltd.
2. Balancing of Battery SOC (State of Charge) for HEV Configurations
Vehicle fuel efficiency is measured as the efficiency of the energy supplied from external sources to the
vehicle (i.e., diesel fuel for diesel vehicles). In this sense, HEV electric batteries energy for vehicle drive
should not be included in the fuel efficiency measurement. If this energy is included in the calculation,
the fuel efficiency value calculated will not represent the real-world fuel efficiency of the vehicle. For
this reason, the energy from vehicle drive batteries must have an energy balance of 'zero' between start
and end of the test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1877-A1 p.2]
Yet, it is quite rare that the energy balance settled down at zero during actual tests without paying any
attention to having the balance. Therefore, generally we conduct 3 or 4 tests with different SOC level to
determine the balanced SOC level by interpolation from test result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-
A1 p.2]
Consequently, HEV fuel efficiency test by cycle average map will necessitate engine manufacturers to
conduct three to four times more tests. This is extremely heavy burden for manufacturers to conduct
GHG certification test for HEV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1877-A1 p.2]
Request:
Hino would like to keep the discussion with EPA on the most practicable way of testing of hybrid
system to reduce a number of test on SOC balance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1 p.2]
3. Torque at Regeneration
Fundamentally, HEV fuel efficiency improvement is generated from the regeneration of vehicle energy.
Therefore, it is necessary to use the correct regeneration energy in the HEV fuel efficiency calculation.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1 p. 3]
In the proposed GHG Phase 2 regulation, the GEM program is used to convert the vehicle speed and
traction force on propeller shaft, based on vehicle specifications and road grade data. The traction force
to drive the vehicle is output from GEM, but it seems that negative traction force generated during
vehicle deceleration (regeneration) did not output in GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1 p.3]
Request:
Please confirm if GEM program takes into consideration regeneration force conversion. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1877-A 1 p.3]
4. GEM Negative Torque Calculation during HEV Regeneration
Also we would like to know if the GEM correctly calculates the engine torque based on the grade data
on a downward slope because a torque map (see the map below) in the EPA document does not show
the negative value less than 0. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1 p.3]
Request:
-------
Please confirm if GEM correctly calculates the negative engine torque based on the grade data on a
downward slope. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1 p.3]
[Figure can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1]
5. Equivalent Opportunities for Various Hybrid Systems
There are several types of hybrid system, such as parallel hybrid system, series hybrid system, split
hybrid system, etc. As represented by series hybrid system, there are some types of system which have
several power sources. In such a system, motor to drive vehicle and engine to generate electric energy
are not connected mechanically. Therefore two test dynamometer is required for such system. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1 p.4]
Generally speaking, this way of test equipment setup is practically difficult on the ordinary test bench.
Because of this difficulty, equal opportunities for the hybrid system are disadvantaged compared with
the conventional diesel engine from a certification standpoint. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1 p.4]
Request:
Provide a standard GEM improvement for hybrid systems and do not make powertrain testing a
requirement for hybrid systems to accommodate various type of hybrid system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1877-A1 p.4]
Response:
We share the same concern with Hino on the test burden for HEV systems. To help address this the
agencies have extended the cycle average mapping procedure to HEV and PHEV systems. To do this
we updated the definition of the motoring torque curve to include the braking torque of the hybrid.
With this change GEM will calculate the braking torque that is required by the hybrid during the test.
With regard to your comment on SOC balancing, the agencies would also be interested in continuing
discussion on further ways to reduce the test burden on hybrid vehicles.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Testing and compliance protocols
Test procedures, cycles, and simulation modeling
We support the agencies decision to maintain the Phase 1 regulatory structure of including a separate
engine standard for the reasons outlined in Sharpe, Delgado, Muncrief (2014). In summary, it was found
that the benefits of a certification protocol that include a separate engine standard while simultaneously
enhancing the GEM certification with improved inputs outweigh any potential disadvantages. Key
advantages include acknowledging the market structure, promoting improvement in all technology
areas, and linking to criteria pollutant emissions. We also raise several issues that could help strengthen
the agencies' regulatory design and testing procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 12]
There is a predefined list of off-cycle technologies that are not captured by GEM simulation but are
recognized via post-simulation adjustment factors. The agencies set fixed default effectiveness values
for such technologies. For example, automatic tire inflation systems effectiveness was set at 1.0%, and
6x2 axles was set at 2.5% (Table III-7 of NPRM). The following issues were identified with such
technologies and adjustment factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 13]
Drivetrain. An adjustment factor of 1.8% from downspeeding was set (Table III-7 of NPRM). There is
no need for such an adjustment factor since the downspeeding of the engine through transmission gear
ratio, drive axle ratio, and tire diameter is already captured by GEM. Also, a reduction in friction due to
low viscosity axle lubricants is set to 0.5%. It is not clear how the agencies would verify the use of such
-------
lubricants and there is the risk of giving 0.5% without any real-world fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 13]
Transmission. The benefits for automated transmissions (automated manual, automatic, and dual clutch
transmissions) are set at 2.0%. This number seems high, taking into account that part of the benefit of
such transmissions come from downspeeding and those benefits are already captured by GEM. Such
high number may discourage the use of powertrain testing. We recommend setting the adjustment value
to 1%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 13]
Accessory improvements. An adjustment factor of 0.5% is set for improved air conditioning systems. It
is not clear in the rule how one would determine if an air conditioning has improved, but based on
Reinhart (2015 a), an improved air conditioning system would reduce power demand by 600 W. A 600
W reduction in power demand only represents 0.33% fuel consumption reduction in GEM simulation.
Also, the air conditioner system is not used all the time so the real-world benefits will be even lower.
We recommend setting the adjustment value to 0.3%. Also, an adjustment factor of 1% is set for electric
accessories. It is not clear if these refer to all of any of the accessories that have potential to be
electrified (e.g. water pump, oil pump, power steering pump). Note that the effect of some of these
accessories (e.g. water pump, oil pump) is already captured in the engine mapping process and therefore
would be captured by GEM simulation and there is no need for adjustment factor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 13]
The off-cycle technologies' adjustment factors are additive, implying that there is not negative or
positive interactions among technologies. We recommend that multiplicative aggregation of
technologies' effectiveness—similar to the one conducted for engine technologies—be applied in order
to better quantify these effects. Also, these adjustment factors inherently assume that all the technology
variants within a technology category provide the same fuel consumption benefits. Not all the models
and brands of a certain technology feature would provide the same fuel consumption benefits. There is
the risk of giving artificial credits to products that perform at a lower level than the value that is selected
from the drop-down menu, thus rewarding poor performers. The default values ideally would be set to
the minimum values of the ranges. The users have the option to use off-cycle credit proposed by the rule
(similar to innovative credits in Phase 1) to quantify the additional benefits of individual technologies.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 13]
GEM Simulation. The fact that the user can input specific powertrain parameters but does not have the
option to input or modify the simulated payload could create the situation in which some simulated
vehicles, the ones with low power-to-weight ratios, will show high deviations from the target speed-
distance trace. This affects the simulation results since these underpowered vehicles will take more time
to complete the assigned route and will show a lower average speed. This could lead to underpowered
vehicles being improperly credited. We recommend that a performance criterion that captures the trace-
following capabilities of the simulated truck (e.g. percent difference between target speed and simulated
speed) is used and be a part of the output of the tool. Ideally, the allowed deviations from the target trace
should be minimized for the simulations to be considered valid and allow comparisons between them.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 13-14]
There are opportunities for fuel savings from mechanical accessories and electric accessories but the
agencies decided to keep with the Phase 1 approach of having pre-defined and not customizable power
from accessories. If these parameters are assigned default values, there are no incentives to implement
new technologies that could have greater impact. Allowing accessories' power consumption to be user-
defined inputs in GEM can be used to promote developments in technologies that currently are not
-------
considered in the proposal (e.g. power demand reductions from the alternator and cooling fan). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 14]
Powertrain test
The ICCT supports the use of a powertrain test to ensure that transmission and integrated engine-
transmission efficiency technologies are acknowledged and promoted within the regulation. To make
sure the powertrain provisions serve that objective, the default credits (e.g., for automated manual
transmissions) would ideally be established at the lowest potential improvement level that any company
might reasonably achieve, such that any additional benefits would require data from the powertrain test
submitted to the agencies. It would appear that the 2-3% automated manual transmission (AMT) benefit
(for tractors and vocational) may be too high, considering that many AMTs based on company and fleet
input may offer limited benefits compared to manual transmissions (Lutsey et al, 2014). We would
recommend considering an AMT default at 1% to better reflect the range of transmissions in the
marketplace and their various potential final drive ratios. Also, a 1% AMT default would encourage
manufacturers to utilize the powertrain test. Greater potential exists to promote more powertrain
technology, and the agencies could consider significantly more technology penetration and greater C02-
reduction effectiveness from integrated powertrain approaches that include shifting strategies and
integrated controls directly in the stringency determination (Stoltz and Dorobantu, 2014; Jackson and
Palazzo, 2015; ongoing Bosch track test results). In order to ensure that the GEM result reflects a
slightly conservative value that does not unduly credit powertrain technology and that promotes the
appropriate utilization of the powertrain test option, we suggest that the agencies conduct powertrain
versus GEM testing on the most common integrated powertrains and adjust the GEM model
appropriately. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 14-15]\
Response:
We thank ICCT for many constructive comments.
ICCT is correct in their assessment that the effectiveness of downspeeding is accounted for through the
transmission gear ratio, drive axle ratio, and tire size. The downspeeding value listed in Table III-7 of
the NPRM highlighted the approximate effectiveness of the change in axle ratios modeled for setting the
proposed stringency levels. The agencies did not apply a separate adjustment factor for downspeeding
in the NPRM. For the final rule, the agencies removed this row of the table and added a better
description of how downspeeding is modeled through the use of axle ratios in GEM and used in setting
the tractor standards.
The agencies determined the effectiveness of automated transmissions based on literature values,
comments, and CBI of transmission suppliers. We believe that automated manual transmissions lead to
a two percent reduction in C02 emissions and fuel consumption compared to manual transmissions in
real-world driving conditions. See Preamble Section III.D. l.b.vi.
The agencies have refined the definitions and the effectiveness of accessories in the final rule. See 40
CFR 1037.520. The agencies are only allowing the predefined accessories to be included in GEM. We
are not allowing customizable power inputs for accessories because we do not have test procedures
developed to quantify what the power requirement is for each subcategory of HD vehicle over each test
cycle.
The agencies defined the curb weight of the HD vehicles and the associated payloads for each
subcategory. This is necessary because allowing a variable payload would result in different numerical
-------
standards. If a vehicle configuration, such as under-power engine vehicle, is not able to keep up with
the drive cycle trace during the simulation, the vehicle will go to 100 percent pedal position when the
vehicle speed is significantly below the cycle speed and the simulation will continue until the vehicle
completes the entire cycle.
On powertrain testing, again we believe that an AMT is two percent more effective than manual
transmissions in the real world driving and it is appropriate based on the information we received. We
do believe that powertrain testing will still be the appropriate mechanism to evaluate shift schedules and
other integrated controls, as noted by the commenter.
Organization: Meritor, Inc
Expand GEM to Foster More Innovation
Meritor is supportive of the proposal "to significantly expand GEM" from Phase 1 "to account for a
wider range of technological improvements that would otherwise need to be recognized through some
off-cycle crediting approach." Furthermore, Meritor believes that the inclusion of distinct GEM inputs
"to represent the engine, transmission, drive axle(s) and loaded tire radius," as opposed to the default
value approach in Phase 1, incentivizes the development of fuel efficient individual and collaborative
power/drivetrain technologies. In short, it supports competition and collaboration; both of which are
needed to meet the proposed Phase 2 rule on greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p.3]
Response:
We very much appreciate the positive comments on GEM from Meritor.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
We note that GEM inputs add static loaded radius to inputs in GEM. Navistar does not oppose the
addition of static loaded radius. However, we believe that the tire manufacturers are in the best position
to make this measurement in a consistent manner. Static loaded radius should come from a tire
manufacturer using their methodology and tire manufacturers should provide this information along
with rolling resistance data. We agree with the EMA comments in this regard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p.41-42]
IV. Revisions to GEM
a. Grade
The agencies released a new version of the Greenhouse Gas Emission Model ("GEM") and sought
comment in the NODA. A major change to the assumptions surrounding grade distribution and
transitions is incorporated in the new version of GEM. The modeling framework that the NPRM is built
around has had much time, effort and discussion around the specific inputs and the processes of
generating these inputs. The grade profile is a topic that did not receive much attention from the vehicle
manufacturers during the original NPRM phase due to the understanding that the grade profile would be
revisited and a new one would be put forth for consideration. There were some concerns expressed by
the industry during the initial release of the NPRM focused on the original grade profile which resulted
in the engine being driven in an uncharacteristic manner. The root cause of this was not fully known at
the time, but it was thought to be due to an unrealistic grade distribution. The expectation was that the
-------
new grade profile the EPA was working on would be an improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1919-A2 p.5]
The EPA proposed Grade D profile has been shown to match the grade histogram generated by the
EPA-commissioned study, as well as lining up with manufacturer's customer data, and the associated
development cycles. With a brief look one would think the problem would be alleviated. However, upon
more detailed analysis of the output of the recently released NODA GEM version it was quickly
recognized that the original concerns are still not fully addressed. Even with the inclusion of the new
grade profile the engine operation is still being incorrectly represented within the regulatory framework.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.5-6]
[Figure, 'Grade Profile D: Nav Cruise', can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1919-A2]
To rehash, the main problem that Navistar has with the grade profile in the revised GEM is that it results
in engine operation that is uncharacteristic, and misrepresentative of what actually occurs in the real
world. It is unrealistic to the point that the simulation of vehicles on the Grade D Profile could (and
already does) poses a risk for adverse consequences in the future. Information shared with the EPA
provided evidence that customer data shows that there is significantly less time spent at WOT in the real
world than the 40% shown above when using the Grade D profile. One way to alleviate this issue is to
make changes to the driver model within the GEM simulation. The driver model improvements that are
recommended are that the logic be updated such that for the highway cycles trucks be allowed to over
speed the speed set point by an allowable amount when the vehicle is traveling downhill. This is a
common driving behavior utilized by drivers and cruise controllers alike to increase fuel economy and
productivity. Given the way in which the Grade D cycle is built, in that the road has repeated and
discontinuous transitions from downhill to uphill segments, the improved driver model will allow the
vehicle to carry more speed into the uphill section and thereby reduce need for WOT operation. The
total effect of this is on the order of about 10% reduction in fuel used at WOT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1919-A2 p.6]
The main reason for the unrealistic engine behavior is that although the grade profile distribution, aligns
well in 1-D domain, it does not align well with the real world in how it transitions the grade profiles.
This, as demonstrated in the two figures below, is found to be an artifact of trying to represent the
national grade profile in a condensed length of road. These charts are the differences in the transition
probability of the grade profiles and they show that, when compared to data collected from the real
world, the Grade D profile is not very representative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.6-7]
[Figure, 'Transition Probability Matrix Differences', can be found on p. 7 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2]
The chart on the left represents grade profile that does not exist in the real world, and the one on the
right shows places where there is a lack of grade information in the Grade D profile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1919-A2 p.7]
The impact of this will be felt by both OEMs and customers alike and could negate the penetration rates
and costs predicted by the agencies for the implementation of the rule. Certain technologies such as
down speeding will be under represented in their impact which will result in other technologies being
incentivized to meet the regulation versus this lower cost and potentially more suitable option. There is
also the impact to technologies such as predictive cruise (should an OEM desire to do additional testing
for a higher effectiveness number), and mild hybrids to name a few. There is also always the potential
-------
risk due to the misalignment of regulatory and real world operation that other technological and/or
certification issues present themselves in an adverse manner that is detrimental to either customers,
OEMs, or regulatory agencies. The new grade in GEM could, thus, lead to the kind of distortions that
the agencies should seek to avoid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.7]
b. Other Issues in GEM
Navistar has been attempting to evaluate GEM beyond the issues identified above with grade so that it
may adequately comment on this latest version. However, given the very tight timeframe for comment
we have been unable to fully assess whether GEM contains changes other than those specifically
addressed. Navistar's NPRM Comments addressed extensively what we felt was the lack of adequate
opportunity to comment on GEM.9 Those issues with respect to adequate notice and comment still exist,
and are not fully addressed by the short period with which impacted parties have to analyze the GEM.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 7]
Moreover, the GEM version provided with the NOD A did not contain any information as to the baseline
values, which Navistar discussed at length in the NPRM Comments.10 Without that information, there is
virtually no way to adequately determine, with reference to the agencies' data, whether GEM is
performing correctly or not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.7-8]
To create the hypothetical engine that forms the baseline for the vocational engine in GEM, the agencies
constructed a hypothetical engine map. This was not derived from an actual in-use engine. Our current
analysis of this hypothetical map shows a shift in the baseline from actual, real-world engines. That is,
the theoretical starting point, the MY 17 standards, changed. The baseline engine maps within GEM for
the vocational vehicle are not aligned with current 2017MY compliant engines and hence, set up an
unrealistic baseline for the vocational vehicle standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.32]
Navistar took one of its MY2017 C02 compliant engine families and created an engine map for use in
the Phase 2 version of GEM. Comparing the tested engine map to the 2018MY baseline maps the tested
engines showed differences ranging between 1 to 5% in the cruise part of the map and around 10% in
the "acceleration" part of the map for the 345hp engine map to 10% to 15% differences for the 350hp
engine map. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.32
The problematic areas of the hypothetical vocation baseline engine include the following: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.32]
• The EPA 345 hp HD generic engine map has an uncharacteristic shape where the minimum
BSFC points is at 9% of maximum power. Other hypothetical engines show 80% of maximum
power. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.32]
• The 270 hp MD hypothetical engine is flawed as well. Comparison with actual compliant
MY2017 engines show that the hypothetical engines were 10% higher in fuel consumption than
the real-world engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.32]
Ultimately, this discrepancy must be corrected. Navistar will separately provide proprietary information
to EPA showing this concern in greater detail. All manufacturers should begin from the same starting
line, the actual MY2017 emission performance of the engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1
p.32]
-------
2 NPRM Comments at 31.
9 NPRM Comments at 4-5.
10 NPRM Comments at 24-25.
Response:
With respect to Navistar's comment on adequate notice, please see the agencies' response in RTC
Section 15.5.
The agencies have changed the tire input to GEM from loaded radius to revolutions per mile because
this is the value more often used by tire manufacturers. We have considered many constructive
comments on the road grades. Consequently, we made quite a few changes to the road grade. The
examples include adding flat road and ±0.5 percent road grade road at the beginning and end of cycle,
and shrinking the peak grades. The changes to the road profile were made to better align the engine
operation in GEM with the engine operation of in-use vehicles. See Chapter 3.4.2.1 of the RIA for the
detailed description of the process the agencies took to create the road grade profile.
All the agencies' baseline engines are developed based on real life in-use engines. In the final rule, we
have combined a 345hp engine with a 350hp engine as one engine, which will be applied to both tractor
and vocational vehicles. We also made changes to the 270hp baseline engine fuel map. However, it
should be pointed out that the engine for the baseline 270hp rating engine was 7 liter based, and is much
smaller than Navistar 9 liter engine. As a result, the engine sweet spot and the rated speed are also
appreciably different. On the other hand, the 350hp engine used by the agencies is 11 liter based, and is
bigger than Navistar's N10 engine. Depending on the vehicle configurations, such as transmission, and
axle ratio, the engine operating points in terms of engine speed and load can be so different between two
different engines, resulting in different values of C02 g/hp-hr. Although we did not provide the
baseline values, we made the best efforts to supply those vocational vehicle baseline values in the later
power user release version.
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Odyne works closely with Allison and would like to echo their concerns on the need for better modeling
since our system is integrated via the PTO interface on their transmissions. Not all hybrid systems are
physically located in existing powertrain components; some systems can include external components
added and integrated with powertrain components, which is the case with our system. So any issues that
would impact the transmission could also impact our hybrid system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-
A1 p. 19]
Allison Comments from public hearing in Chicago on August 10th
"Allison fully supports EPA's ongoing efforts to make GEM more accurate and more representative of
real world vehicles. We also support the use of GEM as the primary certification methodology — but we
have some significant concerns with the quality of GEM software and EPA technical and policy choices
regarding GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.20]
First, GEM does not run well. When GEM was delivered, there were missing files and then when we got
it to run, there were a number of coding errors identified. Secondly, the model produces unrealistic
operation over the duty cycles. The lockup shift strategy and the neutral loading and automatic neutral
-------
functionality are inappropriate. And, finally, there are major deficiencies in the base control
algorithms. Some production vehicle configurations would not shift out of first range. Others do not
downshift at highway speeds when a load is encountered. We have also seen the GEM controller release
lockup at highway speeds which would never happen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 20]
These examples do not reflect how fully automatic transmissions operate. And flaws in GEM will
directly translate into flaws in the final rule. In short, GEM is not ready for "prime time " as the
certification tool. Given this situation, we believe that EPA and NHTSA must be mindful of the
procedural requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Adequate
opportunity for comment must be provided, especially with regard to a central element of the
rulemaking, such as GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.20]
With regard to GEM, the devil really is in the details. It is impossible to understand and reasonably
project the effect of any final rule without understanding precisely how GEM will operate, what it will
measure and how it will assess different systems. This is especially true in the vocational vehicle market
where there are hundreds of different vehicle types and is amplified where, as here, EPA and NHTSA
intend to decrease greenhouse gases and improve fuel efficiency through the deployment of new
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.21]
When GEM executable files will not run; when other errors are found in GEM, when delays occur in
making changes to the model — the very process of the public comment period is called into question.
Without refinement, GEM results could be considered arbitrary. " [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1
p.21]
Response:
We understand the commenter's concerns on the early version of GEM. Since then, significant
improvements have been made, such as the following:
• Modified road grade profile for 55- and 65-mph cruise cycles
• Revised idle cycles into overall vocational vehicles with new vocational cycle weightings
• Made significant changes on the input file structures. Examples includes additions of columns
for axle configuration ("6x2", "6x4","6x4D", "4x2"), and additions of a few more technology
improvement inputs, such as "Neutral Idle and Start/Stop."
• Made significant changes on output file structures. Examples includes an option to allow the
user to output detailed results on average speed, average work before and after transmissions,
and the numbers of shift for each phase (55 and 65mph cycles and ARB cycle).
• Added input file for axle power losses (function of axle output speed and torque) and replaced
single axle efficiency in model with lookup table of torque loss
• Added simulation of engine torque response with fast response region defined by engine
displacement, and slower torque increase in boosted region with fast falloff on available torque
• Added regression models for all certification cycles to allow the user to simulate vehicle with
cycle average approach
• Added different fuel properties according to 1036.530.
• Significantly improved shift strategy based on testing data
• Adjusted transmission loss & inertia scale factors per regulatory subcategory
• Added optional input table for transmission power loss data
• Added minimum torque converter lock-up gear input for AT
• Retuned the default transmission mechanical efficiency based on the testing data
-------
• Added neutral idle and start/stop features during simulation
• Adjusted shift and torque converter lockup strategy
It should be mentioned that all hybrid systems and technical features are not modeled by GEM. The
benefits of a hybrid can be addressed through the powertrain test in 40 CFR 1037.550. The provisions
will work for hybrids that are integrated into the transmission or that interface with the PTO shaft.
Using the powertrain test eliminates any issues with GEMs ability to model the transmission because
the powertrain test results effectively replace the engine and transmission in GEM. In addition to 40
CFR 1037.550, the agencies have also finalized changes to 40 CFR 1037.540 to quantify the benefits of
hybrid PTO systems including plug-in hybrids.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
OOIDA appreciates the fact that the agencies decided to add road grade to Phase II's Greenhouse Gas
Emission Model (GEM) simulation tool in order to better reflect real-world operation. However, while
the addition of road grade is laudable, it is disconcerting that the agencies could propose Phase I
standards without considering terrain, as the Oak Ridge National Lab found that the impact of a mild
upslope of one to four percent led to a decrease in average fuel economy from 7.33 mpg to 4.35 mpg.9 It
is equally disturbing that while road grades were included for the urban and rural interstate driving
cycles as part of the Phase IINPRM and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), it was not included for the
stop-and-go city driving. This fact coupled with the absence of considering LSFC, demonstrates the
agencies' lack of understanding of the trucking industry and ultimately the customers who purchase the
vehicle. In addition, these facts have caused OOIDA to question the legitimacy of the agencies'
assertions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.9]
9 80 Fed. Reg. 40247.
Response:
Although the Phase 1 standards did not seek to model road grade, the technologies on which the rule
was predicated (chiefly tire and aerodynamic improvements) are not as sensitive to road grade as the
driveline, transmission, and engine-based technologies that are included in the Phase 2 rule. Because
the Phase 2 version of GEM uses data from the actual powertrain and driveline of the vehicle, the
agencies added road grade to the cruise cycles. As described in Chapter 3.4.2.1 of the RIA, the agencies
partnered with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to develop a nationally
representative road grade profile. This was achieved by taking the half-hill road grade distribution of
the limited access highways in each county in the United States and weighting it by the vehicle miles
traveled in that county. The profile was fiirther refined by limiting the change in grade per change in
distance to the levels found on road and adding additional distance at zero percent and ±0.5 percent
grade, to better align engine operation in GEM with engine operation of in-use vehicles.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Automatic Engine Shutdown (AES) System Automatic Engine Shutdown (AES) System
GEM currently does not account for the provisions in § 1037.660 that allow the 5 percent reduction to be
prorated as an input to GEM using the miles of expiration flexibility in the rule This functionality was
present in the Phase I GEM tool, but not carried over in the proposed Phase 2 GEM. The proposed GEM
-------
only includes a "Y" or "N" input for this feature, which would indicate the technology must be set to be
tamper-resistant for the full 1,259,000 miles. GEM needs to be corrected so that the proper calculated
inputs can be utilized. Additionally, the examples for calculating the input to GEM for the expiration
mileage option should all be updated to reflect the 5 percent reduction in addition to the 5 g/ton-mile
reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 17]
Vehicle Speed Limiters (VSL)
Similar to AES, speed limiters can be programmed to be tamper-resistant for a reduced expiration time
frame and the vehicle score will receive partial credit. § 1037.640(c)(2) states that the input to GEM
must be calculated and rounded to the nearest 0.1 MPH. PACCAR's use of the Phase 3 GEM shows that
GEM is not recognizing the decimal places on the GEM input and is effectively rounding the input to
the nearest whole number. Therefore, the results from GEM is the same for every tenth of a decimal
depending on how the inputs round (up or down). Without correction to this, the benefit of incremental
changes to speed, expiration, or soft top limits would not be accurately recognized in the vehicle scoring
model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 17-18]
GEM Runtime Errors/Crashes
Using the stand alone executable version of GEM, there are instances where GEM will not process the
inputs and will crash, providing the user an error message. An example of an error message repeatedly
received is:
Attempted to access result.phase_NV_ratio(2); index out of bounds because
numel(result.phase_NV_ratio)=l. Error in => GEM_main.m at line 251
PACCAR provided the agencies examples of the configurations that failed to run and will work with
them on testing and mitigation of the issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p. 18]
NHTSA Phase 1 Stringency and Credits
In addition to the GEM-specific features above, PACCAR brought to the agencies' attention the issue
that the NHTSA stringency values were not determined the same way that the NHTSA vehicle
assessment values were from GEM. The stringency was the rounded output of GEM 2.0 and all vehicles
are being reported with the rounded output of GEM 2.0.1. The difference in GEM output for NHTSA
showed some vehicles to be above the NHTSA standard when the same vehicle was at or below the
EPA standard, and vice versa. This caused credits and debits to be inconsistent between the two
agencies. The agencies corrected the discrepancy through the modification of the NHTSA stringency
calculation and by changing the precision of decimal places to be used for the NHTSA FEL scores.
Previous to the amendment, the level of precision of the NHTSA standards was to one decimal place,
and the amendment revised this precision to 4 decimal places. While this addresses the misalignment
issue, it does not address retroactively correcting any credit balances accumulated since model year
2013. In order to do this, the agencies will need to issue a modified version of GEM 2.0.1 to account for
this level of precision. Additionally, PACCAR strongly recommends that EPA and NHTSA clarify in
the Final Rule documents that credit balances for all model years will be adjusted by the agencies in
accordance with the proposal and the adjusted totals will be communicated to the regulated entities
(vehicle OEMs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p. 18]
Tire Size Input
-------
PACCAR recommends that the agencies change GEM to utilize the tire manufacturers' stated tire
revolutions per mile data as the tire size input to GEM. This is the data that is used to spec vehicles for
customers and therefore it should be used to assess vehicles for GHG performance. Tire static loaded
radius, which is currently used in GEM Phase 2, is only used for determining vehicle height, not
powertrain performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 19]
Road Grade Profile
PACCAR has reviewed the updated road grade profile proposal that comes from the EPA commissioned
NREL study. In general, the profiles appear to be an improvement over the road grades that were
initially proposed in the NPRM. Additional time is needed to finish the assessment of the new profiles.
PACCAR recommends that the agencies work with industry to make any needed modifications to the
newly proposed road grades based on the assessments that all OEMs are now working on. PACCAR
also requests that the agencies reissue GEM Phase 2 with the new road grades incorporated so that the
assessment of the proposed regulation will include the correct performance of the technologies that the
agencies are including in the stringency determination and that OEMs must use for compliance. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 19]
For powertrain testing in a dyno cell, allowance should be made for any fuel-saving strategies that may
result in a deviation from the desired vehicle speed during the 55 MPH and 65 MPH cycles. Strategies
such as fuel cutoff while coasting, or even coasting in neutral, during slight down-grades show
considerable potential for fuel savings especially if vehicle speed is allowed to deviate slightly below
the set point (target speed of either 55 or 65 MPH). Additionally, if vehicle speed is allowed to be offset
lower than target on uphills, and slightly above target on downhills, this could result in matching the
considerable real world fuel savings during powertrain dyno testing. Furthermore, the inclusion of grade
in the 55 and 65 MPH cycles will result in transmission gear shifts that may not be capable of allowing a
± 1 MPH tolerance band. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 19]
It is recommended that the point-by-point tolerance be ±4 MPH, with the requirement that average
vehicle speed for the entire cycle (for 55 and 65 MPH cycles) be held to ±2 MPH. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 19]
Natural Gas Engine
PACCAR investigated the GHG / fuel consumption impact of compressed and liquid natural gas (CNG
and LNG, respectively) engines in GEM. The weight penalties for the CNG and LNG fuel tanks were
properly reflected in the GEM output, giving a GHG emission increase versus a diesel engine fuel tank.
However, GEM did not properly calculate the carbon content differences between CNG or LNG and
diesel. Specifically, when the same fuel flow map was used in GEM with for all three fuel types, GEM
calculated the exact same grams per ton-mile result for the vehicle. The GEM output should have been
notably different for all three fuels under these test conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1
p. 19-20]
PACCAR has notified the agencies of this issue and requests that the agencies investigate the GEM
assessment of CNG and LNG engines and corrects GEM to properly determine the CNG and LNG
engine performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.20]
GEM Integration
-------
Lastly, with the increased complexity in the GEM Phase 2 model, coupled with the increase in
stringency of the proposed Phase 2 standards, the agencies should release a ."dll" executable version of
GEM that can be integrated into manufacturer's business systems. This would allow for real-time
processing of changes and impact to compliance. This solution would need to be fully capable for
performing certification and compliance purposes, as well as being backwards compatible to Phase I
GEM. The ."dll" version of GEM should be a certified version from the agencies that can be used for
the certification process and end of year compliance reporting to the agencies. PACCAR, along with
EMA, is willing to work with the Agency to define the necessary inputs and outputs for this solution.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.20]
Off-Cycle Technologies
PACCAR supports the concept of credits for reductions associated with off-cycle operation. At the
present time, neither EPA nor NHTSA has outlined what technologies they believe should be eligible
for such credits nor the amounts of any such credits. Some ideas for items that could be included are:
solar reflective paints and glazing, workday idle reductions for day cab tractors, and any possible
improvements in aerodynamics for vocational vehicles. Each of these involves significant research and
may or may not have benefits. PACCAR also supports EPA considering the proposal advanced by the
manufacturers of re-refined engine oil that credit should be provided for the use of such oil as original
fill and service fill in vehicles used or sold by OEMs. The manufacturers of re-refined oil have peer
reviewed studies showing that there are significant and quantifiable energy and GHG benefits to the use
of such lubricants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.25]
PACCAR will work with the agencies to determine the process for evaluating such technologies and the
proper credit amount. In no circumstances should early concepts such as those identified as examples be
used as part of a stringency determination for Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1
p.25]
Transmission Efficiency
Phase 2 GEM uses default transmission efficiencies that were determined by the agencies. These
efficiencies for gear and pumping losses can be reduced by approximately 1% to 2% through design-
specific actions to transmissions. Having an optional test to capture the product-specific performance
and transmission efficiency inputs for GEM would allow OEMs to determine and utilize the engineered
GHG / fuel consumption benefits in Phase 2. The EU and European manufacturers are working on a
transmission efficiency test procedure for their GHG Declaration regulation that should be the starting
point for the agencies in developing the Phase 2 option. EMA recommends that the same test procedure
and data input formats as Europe be finalized for Phase 2. PACCAR joins in that recommendation.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.25-26]
Response:
We appreciate the many constructive comments from Paccar. Consequently, we have made many
changes in the final GEM.
With regard to automatic engine shutdown, the agencies have modified Phase 2 GEM for the final rule
to accommodate a percent input value to represent the emissions reduction due to various idle reduction
technologies, as specified in 40 CFR 1037.520. The agencies are recognizing both tamper-proof and
adjustable AESS in Phase 2, therefore, we are not applying the Phase 1 expiring mileage option to Phase
2. The Phase 2 AESS will either be tamper-proof for 1,259,000 miles or else it is deemed adjustable.
-------
We also made the change to VSL, so that GEM accurately accounts for input values rounded to the
nearest 0.1 MPH.
We recognized a few issues related to GEM runtime errors and crashes for the early released version of
GEM, and all of these issues have been resolved by first identifying the bugs, and then correcting them,
and finally testing them to make sure that GEM can produce the correct results.
Consistent with the recommendation of PACCAR and other manufacturers, the agencies have changed
the tire size input to revolutions per mile.
In order to correct the misalignment noted by the commenter, NHTSA proposed to amend the existing
fuel consumption standards and the method for calculating performance values for all compliance
categories by increasing the significant digits in these conversion values. Increasing the significant
digits in these values will result in more precise alignment between final compliance credit balances.
NHTSA proposed that the increased resolution would apply retroactively starting for the model year
2013 standard. However, because the Phase 1 fuel consumption standards created a difference in
compliance margins which could potentially have an adversely impact for certain manufacturers who
have already developed engineering plans considering previous credit balance, NHTSA sought
comments on whether optional to allow manufacturer to continue using the Phase 1 standards.
NHTSA is finalizing its standards and method for calculating performance values for the Phase 1 and 2
programs with increased significant digits as the only option for compliance. Retaining the previous
method would result in ongoing differences in credit plans and balances, and continue the associated
burden on manufacturers. Since manufacturers already have and will continue to develop compliance
strategies for the EPA GHG program, the change will enable those strategies to also directly comply
with the NHTSA fuel efficiency program, creating a more aligned National Program. Compliance with
the EPA GHG program is unaffected by the change. EPA will make the update to its system so that the
NHTSA values with increased resolution can be applied retroactively.
With regard to the road grade profile of the cruise cycles the agencies shared the road grade profile in
the NODA and continued to work with manufactures after the NODA to finalize a road grade profile
that is nationally representative but also allows engine operation in GEM to match engine operation of
in-use vehicles. See Chapter 3.4.2.1 of the RIA for the detailed description of the process the agencies
took to create the final road grade profile.
Regarding the recognition of technologies that allow the powertrain to not maintain the commanded
55mph and 65mph of the cruise cycles the agencies have updated the powertrain procedure so that the
speed of the powertrain can overshoot the cycle speed by up to 3 mph when going downhill. This
change has been added to the powertrain procedure as well as in GEM to better align with how vehicles
are driven. The agencies did not change the lower speed tolerance for two reasons. The first is that
GEM already has an input for vehicle speed limiters. Second, because changes in vehicle speed have a
significant effect on the work the vehicle does per mile. If the powertrain procedure allowed for
significant deviations from the cycle the results would not be representative. However, the procedure
does allow for greater than 1 mph deviation from the cycle during shifts. In addition, the agencies have
added neutral coast as an intelligent control technology that is recognized in GEM (see 40 CFR
1037.520).
-------
On natural gas engine fuel properties, as noted in previous responses, we did make changes to GEM to
include all the reference fuel properties defined in Table 1 of 40 CFR 1036.530. This change will allow
GEM to accurately calculate the C02 emissions from all fuel covered by 40 CFR 1036.530.
We appreciate Paccar's comments on a ".dll" executable version of GEM. We are considering the
implement this feature into the GEM after the final rule is signed. Since this ".dll" only acts like an
interface between GEM output and OEM's information system, it would not change the GEM results,
and therefore, this can be done after the final rule is signed.
We have made changes to the off-cycle technologies as evidenced by the technology improvement
inputs from the input files of both tractor and vocational vehicles.
Significant changes on transmission modeling has been made since the NPRM GEM. We now allow the
OEMs to input their own power loss for each gear to replace the default power loss tables based on a
transmission efficiency test.
Organization: Plastics Industry Trade Association (SPI)
Specifically, we support the inclusion of thermoplastic parts in the Green House Gas Emissions Model
(GEM) lightweighting credit menu, and the agencies' efforts to better recognize parts and materials with
superior aerodynamic performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p. 1]
Thermoplastic Lightweighting
SPI strongly supports the inclusion of lightweight thermoplastic materials in the GEM lightweighting
credit menu. Thermoplastics are a reliable way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by improving fuel
consumption rates. The credit menu includes thermoplastic hoods and front fender, day and sleeper cab
roof fairings and the aerodynamic side extender. This grants OEMs another path to lightweight vehicles
and comply with more stringent regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1225-A1 p.2]
SPI also encourages EPA and NHTSA to include thermoplastics that are in development in the GEM
credit menu. SPI members are currently developing plastics, and are working to transfer technologies
that have been successful for lightweighting light duty vehicles to heavy duty vehicles. These
technologies should be included in the menu because it will encourage further breakthroughs in
lightweighting vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.2]
Response:
We appreciate SPI's comments on lightweighting. The thermoplastic lightweighting is part of the
weight reduction of the GEM input.
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
The Agencies Should Clarify Terms When Referring to Loaded Radius to avoid confusion and
provide clarity for compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.2]
The Agencies Should Allow a GEM Credit for Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS), as they
are proposing for Automatic Tire Inflation Systems (ATIS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.3]
-------
Other GEM Input Issues. Tire Loaded Radius and Tire Revolutions per Mile
i. The Agencies Should Clarify Terms When Referring to Loaded Radius - Static vs. Dynamic
As an input into the GEM, clarification is needed as to what is intended, i.e. static or dynamic, for the
GEM conversion of simulated vehicle speed into axle speed, transmission speed, and ultimately engine
speed. Throughout the NPRM, the agencies refer to the static loaded radius measurement from the ISO
28580 tire rolling resistance test method, i.e. "rL" and in the NPRM, the terms "static loaded radius"
and "loaded radius" are both used. After reviewing where the terms are used, it seems that the agencies
refer to these terms for three purposes: when referring to the ISO 28580 test method for measuring tire
rolling resistance, for use in measuring roof height and as an input into the GEM. The agencies may be
intending to refer to terms with the same meaning for all three purposes, or not. The agencies should
clarify the term intended for each of these purposes and provide unambiguous definitions for each terms
used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.31]
When referring to the ISO 28580 test method for measuring tire rolling resistance, the proper term is
dynamic loaded radius. In Section 7.5, subsection (e) of ISO 28580 (2009),35 rL is defined as "the
distance from the tire axis to the drum outer surface under steady-state conditions" and is expressed in
meters. The term "steady-state conditions" indicates that this is a dynamic, rather than a static
measurement of the tire's radius. It is also important to note that this measurement is conducted on a
curved wheel. Depending on the agencies' needs, this may or may not be an appropriate measurement
for use in calculating roof height or as a GEM input, without first adjusting from a curved surface to a
flat surface. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1304-A1 p.31-32]
Table 1 below shows the various times similar terms are used in the NPRM. Interestingly, in the
Department of Transportation proposed regulatory text, of all of the terms listed above, the only term
defined in the definitions section is "static loaded radius arc." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1
p.32]
[Table 1, 'List of References in the NPRM to Tire Loaded Radius or Similar Terms', p.32 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A 1]
ii. The Agencies Could Use Tire Revolutions per Distance or Use Dynamic Loaded Radius per ISO
28580 to Calculate the Drive Axle Rotational Speed from Vehicle Speed
In the NPRM, the agencies propose for the vehicle manufacturers to "enter into GEM the tire
manufacturer's specified tire loaded radius for the vehicle's drive tires," but the agencies also ask for
comments on "whether the proposed test procedure should be modified to measure the tire's revolutions
per distance directly, as opposed to using the loaded radius to calculate the drive axle rotational speed
from vehicle speed." RMA views both tire revolutions per distance, recognizing that this may require a
separate test, and dynamic tire loaded radius, per ISO 28580, as candidates for this purpose. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.33]
Truck tire revolutions per mile (RPM) can be measured separately on a flat road surface using for
example SAE 1025-2012 "Test Procedures for Measuring Truck Tire Revolutions per Kilometer/Mile.
It is important to note that the test methods may cause variations on both "loaded radius" and "RPM"
among similar tires. Even if the similar tires have the same overall diameter, it does not mean that they
will have the same tire RPM. Some factors that cause variations include load and pressure, tread wear,
tread geometry, driving and braking torque, and type and condition (wet, dry) of the pavement. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.33]
-------
Trailer yaw at 0° vs the average yaw at 0° - 6° as a GEM P2 vl.O input
The NPRM states that tractor aerodynamic drag is determined by testing conducted over a range of 0° -
6° yaw and averaged for the GEM P2 vl.O input. The NPRM requires only a trailer aerodynamic drag
delta CDA for trailer aerodynamics using the zero-yaw, e.g. 0° (or head-on wind) values. For a realistic
and complete assessment of the overall trailer aerodynamic performance, a range of yaw angles, e.g. 0°
- 6°, needs to be included for an averaged aerodynamic drag delta CDA GEM input, i.e. effects of real
world cross winds on such tractor-trailer combinations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.33]
b. The Agencies Should Consider Subcategorizing Vocational Vehicles to Address the Wide
Diversity of Configurations and Applications
Referencing the proposed updates to the GHG Phase 2 GEM, outlined in EPA-HQ-OAR-20140827-
DRAFT-1768, the agency is recognizing that varied and complex axle configurations exist in the
NAFTA Market. It has been proposed that these complex axle configurations be grouped into the model
designation for a standard 6X4 Tractor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.3]
While this grouping to the classification would help OEMs utilize the GEM, it underscores the RMA
position that the vocational classification is widely varied in scope, and should be defined to match the
actual market diversity. The driving need to manufacture axle configurations such as an 8X4, or 10X4
single unit truck, is governed by the specific needs of loading and road type. It is clear that these
configurations would be considered non-standard, but still subject to the GHG regulation. To group
configurations with non-standard needs into the 6X4 classification could place OEM at disadvantage for
loading specific, or environmental specific designs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.3]
In contrast, the long distance fuel-efficient market segment can be characterized by a homogenous
application with fairly consistent axle configurations. The only reasonable method to address the
vocational applications is to define subsets that take into account the varied needs of the vocational
marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.3]
III. Other GEM Input Issues
In its October 1, 2015 comments, RMA highlighted several issues associated with the GEM. RMA
continues to believe that these issues should be addressed in the final GEM. It is unclear whether the
updated version has been adjusted to address these concerns. RMA encourages the agencies to assure
that these issues are addressed when the rules are promulgated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1
p.4]
First, RMA commented that the agencies should clarify what is intended when the term "loaded radius"
is used. It is unclear whether the agencies are intending static loaded radius or dynamic loaded radius.
When referring to the ISO 28580 test method for measuring tire rolling resistance, the proper term is
dynamic loaded radius. However, throughout the NPRM, the agencies refer to the static loaded radius
measurement from the ISO 28580 tire rolling resistance test method, i.e. "rL" and in the NPRM, the
terms "static loaded radius" and "loaded radius" are both used. After reviewing where the terms are
used, it seems that the agencies refer to these terms for three purposes: when referring to the ISO 28580
test method for measuring tire rolling resistance, for use in measuring roof height and as an input into
the GEM. The agencies may be intending to refer to terms with the same meaning for all three purposes,
or not. The agencies should clarify the term intended for each of these purposes and provide
unambiguous definitions for each terms used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.4]
-------
Second, the agencies should use tire revolutions per distance or dynamic tire loaded radius to calculate
the drive axle rotational speed from vehicle speed. In the NPRM, the agencies propose for the vehicle
manufacturers to "enter into GEM the tire manufacturer's specified tire loaded radius for the vehicle's
drive tires," but the agencies also ask for comments on "whether the proposed test procedure should be
modified to measure the tire's revolutions per distance directly, as opposed to using the loaded radius to
calculate the drive axle rotational speed from vehicle speed."3 RMA views both tire revolutions per
distance, recognizing that this may require a separate test, and dynamic tire loaded radius, per ISO
28580, as candidates for this purpose. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.4-5]
Third, the agencies should include a range of yaw angles, e.g. 0° - 6°, for an averaged aerodynamic drag
delta CDA GEM input, for a realistic and complete assessment of the overall trailer aerodynamic
performance. The NPRM states that tractor aerodynamic drag is determined by testing conducted over a
range of 0° - 6° yaw and averaged for the GEM P2 vl.O input. The NPRM requires only a trailer
aerodynamic drag delta CDA for trailer aerodynamics using the zero-yaw, e.g. 0° (or head-on wind)
values. For a realistic and complete assessment of the overall trailer aerodynamic performance, a range
of yaw angles, e.g. 0° - 6°, needs to be included for an averaged aerodynamic drag delta CDA GEM
input, i.e. effects of real world cross winds on such tractor-trailer combinations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1933-A1 p.5]
3 80 Fed. Reg. at 40187.
35 ISO 28580:2009 Passenger car, truck and bus tires ~ Methods of measuring rolling resistance ~
Single point test and correlation of measurement results at 7.
Response:
With regard to loaded radius, GEM now uses tire revolutions per mile instead of loaded radius. See 40
CFR 1037.520 (g), which refers to SAE J1025 for the prescribed test procedure for determining tire
revolutions per mile. If a vehicle is certified to the custom-chassis standards of 40 CFR 1037.105 (h)
tire revs per mile is not an input for GEM.
The agencies agree with the comments from Rubber Manufacture Association regarding TPMS and
have added the ability to recognize the effectiveness of TPMS in GEM.
The agencies evaluated the aerodynamic test data for our trailer program and concluded (consistent with
this comment) that wind-averaging is able to better capture aerodynamic improvements from many
devices, including several small-scale devices. We are adopting a wind-averaged approach for
aerodynamic testing in the trailer program. Consistent with the tractor program, the trailer program is
basing its wind-averaged values on the average of results from +4.5 and -4.5 degrees yaw.
On Diversity of Configurations and Applications
The agencies disagree that grouping configurations with non-standard axles into the 6X4 classification
could place OEMs at a disadvantage for loading specific, or environmental specific designs. Because
GEM uses a default vehicle tare weight and payload, we do not believe that certifying vehicles that are
designed to haul heavier loads in GEM using the default settings will create a meaningful disadvantage
for such vehicles. One clear disadvantage of simulating the additional axles of say a 10x6 as a 10x6
instead of a 6x4, is that these vehicles would have higher C02 compared to a vehicle with a 6x4 axle
-------
which would put these vehicles at a disadvantage. Doing so could take away these options or at a
minimum make them cost more from a certification perspective. Potentially one disadvantage could be
if the configuration uses an overpowered engine for the default vehicle weight and payload, but adding
additional vehicle categories comes with many other complexities. We conclude the advantages of
regulatory simplicity outweigh the potential disadvantages to a small sales volume of specialty
configurations. For further discussion of comments related to heavy-haul vocational vehicles, see the
Preamble Section V.
Organization: SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC
Credits for Lightweight Components Acknowledge their Contribution
SABIC strongly supports the agencies' inclusion of lightweight thermoplastic materials in the GEM
model lightweighting credit menu, summarized below in Table 1. The competitive fuel conservation and
emission reduction benefits offered by thermoplastics can and should be on equal footing with those
achievable by aluminum and high-strength steel. The credit menu for the proposed Phase 2 rule includes
thermoplastic hoods and front fenders, Day and Sleeper Cab roof fairings and aerodynamic side
extenders, as shown in Table 1 below. These components have been commercialized or validated by
customers, or in the case of the Sleeper Cab fairing, are in the process being validated. This supports
their marketplace potential, while also allowing the agencies to gauge their lightweighting benefits.
These components typify the 'emerging technologies not yet in widespread use' whose adoption is
promoted by the credit menu. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1207-A1 p.2]
[Table 1, NPRM Proposed Weight Reduction Credits, can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1]
Lightweighting and aerodynamic improvements will provide cost-effective pathways to greater fuel
efficiency and reduced emissions, while preserving vehicle performance and utility. SABIC appreciates
the opportunity to comment and looks forward to working with the agencies and the industry to achieve
that goal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.6]
In summary: SABIC supports the addition of thermoplastic parts to the lightweighting credit menu,
including Day cab roof fairings, Sleeper Cab roof fairings, hood and front fenders and aerodynamic side
extenders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.6]
Response:
We appreciate SABIC's support on the thermoplastic lightweighting components included in the
regulations (see 40 CFR 1037.520).
Organization: Securing America's Future Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM)
We agree with the agencies' efforts to modify the GEM in the Phase 2 Proposal. However, we
recommend addressing two important issues: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1462-A1 p. 10]
• The Proposal does not include weight penalties for other weight-increasing technologies in the
GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1462-A1 p. 10]
-------
• The proposed weight increases that are assigned to natural gas vehicles do not take into account
the weight differences among the wide variety of natural gas fuel systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1462-A1 p. 10]
For parity, we suggest the agencies assign weight increases to hybrid and Rankine cycle engines and
non-engine technologies that add weight. There are numerous technologies used by both conventional
and alternative fuel vehicles that increase the weight of the vehicle but do not receive weight penalties
in the GEM. (We acknowledge that all-electric and fuel cell vehicles generate zero GHG tailpipe
emissions and therefore do not include these technologies in our request). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1462-A1 p. 10]
Additionally, we recommend the agencies consider reducing the proposed weight increases that apply to
natural gas-fueled vocational vehicles. The proposed use of a fixed weight increase for both tractors and
vocational vehicles fueled by natural gas does not appear to take into consideration the weight
differences between the fuel tanks in these vehicles, and therefore may unfairly penalize vocational
vehicles. The amount of fuel storage required varies considerably with the class and type of the vehicle.
As a result, natural gas fuel storage systems installed on vocational vehicles typically are smaller and
weigh less than those installed on Class 7 and 8 tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1462-A1 p. 10]
Response:
The final rule will only provide opportunities for weight reduction and the agencies have removed all
weight penalty items.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Automatic Engine Shutdown (AES) Systems
GEM currently does not account for the provisions in proposed section 1037.660 that allow for the 5
percent credit to be prorated as an input to GEM based on the number of miles that tamper-resistant
AES features will be in place. This feature, albeit a 5.0 g/ton-mile reduction, was included in the Phase
1 GEM tool, but not carried-over in the proposed Phase 2 GEM. The proposed Phase 2 GEM only
includes a "Y" or "N" input for this feature, which would indicate that the prorated distance is no longer
applicable and that credit-generating AES technology must be tamper-resistant for the full 1,259,000
miles. GEM should be corrected so that properly calculated, prorated inputs can be utilized.
Additionally, the examples for calculating the input to GEM for the expiration mileage option should be
updated to reflect the 5 percent reduction in addition to the 5.0 g/ton-mile reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.57]
Vehicle Speed Limiters Similar to AES, speed limiters can be programmed to be tamper-resistant for a
reduced expiration time frame (or mileage) and the vehicle should receive corresponding partial credit.
In that regard, proposed section 1037.640(c)(2) states that the input to GEM must be calculated and
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mph. However, GEM does not recognize decimal places on the GEM input
and is effectively rounding the input to the nearest whole number. Consequently, the results from GEM
are the same for every tenth of a decimal depending on how the inputs round (up or down). Without
correcting this error, the benefit of incremental changes to speed, expiration times, or "soft top" limits
will not be accurately recognized in the vehicle scoring model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.57]
-------
GEM Runtime Errors and Crashes Using the stand-alone executable version of GEM, there are
instances where GEM will not process the inputs and will crash, providing the user with nothing other
than an error message. An example of an error message repeatedly received is: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.57-58]
Attempted to access result.phase_NV_ratio(2); index out of bounds because numel
(result.phase_NV_ratio)=l. Error in => GEM_main.m at line 251 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1
p.58]
The agencies will need to work on resolving these significant functionality issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.58]
Torque Response
GEM has no torque lag and so assumes instant torque response to the throttle command. In reality,
however, every engine requires some time to build up torque, particularly highly turbocharged heavy-
duty diesel engines. This issue is not significant for vehicle simulation, but becomes significant when
GEM output is used to create engine test cycles as proposed by the alternative engine certification
("cycle-average") method. Although each engine has a unique torque response, inclusion of an average
response characteristic would be much better than the current simulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.58]
Gear Shifting
GEM shifting does not match either a typical driver using a manual transmission or an automated
manual transmission. This results in engine operation that does not match the real world. For example,
GEM does not skip-shift either on acceleration or deceleration. Drivers and automated transmission will
skip-shift when accelerating whenever conditions permit and will certainly skip-shift under deceleration.
Again, this may not create a significant problem when GEM is used to simulate vehicle fuel
consumption as originally intended, but can create significant anomalies when GEM is used to create
engine test cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.58]
N/V Output
GEM has an N/V output function that was set up for powertrain testing - i.e., the N/V is the
transmission output speed over the vehicle speed. If the agencies intend to continue development of the
alternative engine certification method, GEM must be set up to output engine speed over vehicle speed
as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.58]
Additional GEM Features Needed
Transmission gear efficiency should be an input to GEM based on a defined test protocol. As noted,
since the European Union is undertaking considerable work in defining a transmission test, and since
similar transmissions are used in the US and EU, a common test protocol based on the EU test method
should be considered. Currently, the only provision in the NPRM to account for gear efficiencies
requires running the powertrain test. However, as also noted earlier, there are significant costs and
facility constraints to running a powertrain test. Adding a transmission test and input to GEM would
capture the benefits of more efficient gear meshes without the need to run the powertrain test. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.58]
-------
Tire Rolling Resistance
When using the tables in the NRPM, the calculation of the model year 2024 tire Crr GEM input that is
determined (by multiplying the penetration rate times the Crr value for each of the levels and then
summing them together) does not match the GEM input value that EPA has shown for model year 2024
stringency determination. For example, for tractors, the baseline Crr of 7.8 multiplied by the 5%
penetration rate, plus Level 1 Crr of 6.6 multiplied by the 50% penetration rate, plus Level 2 Crr of 5.7
multiplied by the 30% penetration rate, plus the Level 3 Crr of 4.3 multiplied by the 15% penetration
rate, equals a Crr value of 6.045. However, EPA is using a Crr of 5.9 for the GEM-based stringency
determination, which yields a more stringent standard than the technology performance and rates would
dictate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.58-59]
Provisions also should be added to GEM to allow for the specification of different tire rolling resistance
for vehicles equipped with tandem axles. That input is particularly important for 6x2 axle configurations
where only one axle is driving and the tires are transmitting higher torque values than in a 6x4
configuration, which requires higher traction and more durable construction. At the same time, the tag
axle has no torque transfer requirement, and so may be fitted with a low Crr tire that is typically used in
trailers. In such cases, the tractor should not be penalized with the incorrect assumption that both axles
use higher Crr tires. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.59]
In addition to implementing the foregoing updates to GEM (as it continues to evolve), and to facilitate
the implementation of Phase 2, especially in light of the increased complexity and stringency of the
Proposed Phase 2 Standards, EPA should make available to engine and vehicle manufacturers a ."dll"
executable version of GEM (along with a source code that matches the executable code) that can be
integrated into manufacturers' production systems to allow for real-time processing and scoring of
vehicles. That "final" version of GEM should be fully capable of being used for certification and
compliance purposes. EMA's members are willing to work with EPA to define the input and output files
for a ."dll" version and a suitable source code version of GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.59]
Response:
We appreciate EMA's constructive comments. Consequently, we have made many changes to address
to GEM.
With regard to automatic engine shutdown, the agencies have modified Phase 2 GEM for the final rule
to accommodate a percent input value to represent the emissions reduction due to various idle reduction
technologies, as specified in 40 CFR 1037.520. The agencies are recognizing both tamper-proof and
adjustable AESS in Phase 2, therefore, we are not applying the Phase 1 expiring mileage option to Phase
2. The Phase 2 AESS will either be tamper-proof for 1,259,000 miles or else it is deemed adjustable.
We also made the change on VSL, allowing the user to input a value rounded to the nearest 0.1 MPH.
We recognized a few issues related to GEM runtime errors and crashes for the early released version of
GEM, and all of these issues have been resolved.
The agencies agree with the comment regarding engine torque lag and have updated GEM to have a
realistic torque response. The torque response in GEM was validated using data from a 2012 Cummins
ISX.
-------
With regards to comments on transmission shifting GEM does skip shift has the algorithm has been
validated with powertrain, chassis and on-road vehicle data.31,32 We also have made significant
improvement on gear shifting based on many testing data, which should address the gearing issues
mentioned by EMA.
The agencies agree with the comment regarding GEM outputting engine N/V for the cycle average
procedure and have added average vehicle speed to the GEM output file containing the engine cycle.
The average engine speed comes for the engine test to get N/V.
Significant changes to transmission efficiency modeling in GEM have been made since the NPRM. We
now allow the OEM to input the power loss for each transmission gear to replace the default power loss
tables as indicated in Chapter 4.2.2.3.3 of the RIA. The test procedure that defines how to measure the
transmission power losses is in 40 CFR 1036.565.
The agencies have modified the Crr levels and adoption rates for tractors in the final rule (see Preamble
Section III.D. l.b). During that process, we have addressed the error highlighted by the commenter.
We also made changes to GEM that allow the manufacturer to input a different Crr value for each axle
of the tandem to address the mismatched issue raised by the commenter. Since we implement a
mechanism to account for the power loss of different axles, such as 6x4 and 6x2, the power loss for each
type of axle can be input from the user. The user can also select default axle power loss specified by the
agencies.
We will implement a "dll" solution in the future. Since this "dll" only acts like an interface between
GEM output and OEM's information system, it would not change the GEM results, and therefore, this
can be done after the final rule is signed.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
2. Updated Version of GEM
While the updated version of GEM that the NODA describes and makes available is improved, it still
contains a number of significant problems. Those problems include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1891-
Alp.3]
• GEM incorporates a new road grade model (Road Grade Profile "D") that is unrealistic and overly
aggressive, including grades that are too steep over the modeled road cycle (which is only 12 miles).
That results in forcing unrepresentative transmission behavior and engine performance. EMA is
working on an alternative revised road grade profile, and encourages the agencies to adopt the necessary
revisions to the road grade profile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1891-A1 p.3]
Response:
31 SwRI July 2016, "Validation Testing for Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Test Procedure and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Model (GEM) for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Powetrains."
32 Oakridge National Laboratory July 2016, "Powertrain Test Procedure Development for EPA GHG Certification
of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles."
-------
Since releasing Road Grade Profile D, we have received many constructive comments from various
stakeholders. We discussed many potential solutions through many EMA meeting held at the EPA site
as well as many industry group conference calls. Some of the stakeholders also shared their CBI data
with us, helping the agencies to develop a more reasonable grade profile. Consequently, we have made
many changes to continue improve the road grade profile to better represent the real-life driving
conditions. Those changes include addition flat road and ±0.5 % road grade at the beginning and end of
cycle, and reducing the peak road grades.
Organization: Volvo Group
Because some vocational vehicles are gear-bound at speeds below 65 MPH, the engines in these
vehicles will necessarily run on the high speed governor when the GEM duty cycle drives the engine
above the rated speed. To properly account for how these vehicles run at high road speed, the GEM
torque curve input should be extended to the high idle speed. Fuel rate should be interpolated from the
highest speed point measured in the proposed fuel map down to zero at the high idle point. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.37-38]
It must also be noted that since the entire range of the engine fuel map is to be regulated and subject to
compliance testing, the OEM will be subject to review and approval of even minor and inconsequential
changes to the engine calibration. Furthermore the EPA will be obliged to provide such a review and
approval. Such requirements will greatly increase the workload of both the OEM and the EPA with little
benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.38]
Since the Agencies have chosen to regulate both the engine and the vehicle (including the engine),
Volvo Group believes that the composite emissions from the regulated engine cycles (FTP, RMC)
should be sufficient to ensure engine efficiency and fuel map compliance as has traditionally been the
case. This also has the benefit of eliminating the non-value added work created by reporting and
approving inconsequential changes to engine calibrations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.38]
Lastly, it should be noted that the advent of technologies being deployed to learn and adapt calibrations
to customer duty cycles could be stifled by such restrictive requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.38]
Currently no credit is provided for vehicle speed limiters set at 65 MPH or above, despite the fact that a
significant number of vehicles and miles are run above this speed. Duty cycles should account for the
actual speeds run by heavy duty vehicles and speed limiter credit should be determined in GEM based
on the actual speed reduction. This should apply to vocational vehicles and tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.50]
Transmission gear efficiency should be an input to GEM based on a defined test protocol. Since the
European Union has done considerable work to define a transmission test and since similar
transmissions are used in both the US and EU, a common test protocol based on the EU test should be
established. Currently, the only provision in the NPRM to account for gear efficiencies requires running
the powertrain test. As noted earlier, there are significant costs and facility barriers to running a
powertrain test. Adding a transmission test and input to GEM would capture the benefits of more
efficient gear meshes without the need to run the powertrain test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.50-51]
-------
The NPRM does provide an axle efficiency test protocol but GEM currently has no means to input axle
efficiency. We strongly support use of the axle test and request that GEM be upgraded to incorporate the
results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.51]
GEM Executable Format
The EMA has requested that a ."dll" or other source code version of GEM be compiled to allow for
easier system integration. As did other manufacturers, Volvo Group invested significant time, effort,
and money in development of IT infrastructure and programming to allow for automated batch
processing of production data to meet the Phase 1 reporting and storage requirements. Due to the Linux
based production systems that Volvo Group utilizes and the Windows based Phase 1 GEM executable,
the architecture that Volvo Group developed required complex system integration across multiple
platforms. This integration would still be necessary with a ."dll" compiled Phase 2 version of GEM 2.0,
as the .dll format is a Microsoft format used for storing code and procedures for Windows based
programs. As such, Volvo Group also requests that the agencies provide a GEM 2.0 version that is
compiled and validated in Linux based architecture. Another solution would be to provide the GEM 2.0
source code to the regulated entities and allow them to compile the code into any platform necessary
and then validate the results against the agencies' GEM 2.0 file. In this way each manufacturer could
simplify the integration of the GEM model as necessary for their specific platforms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.51]
Torque Response
GEM assumes zero torque lag, and therefore assumes instant torque response to the throttle command.
In reality, every engine requires some time to build up torque, particularly highly turbocharged heavy-
duty diesels. This issue is not significant for vehicle simulation but becomes significant when GEM
output is used to create engine test cycles as proposed by the alternative engine certification (cycle
average) method. Although each engine has a unique torque response, inclusion of an average response
characteristic would be much better than the current simulation, allowing actual engines to more closely
follow the GEM engine cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.51]
Gear Shifting
GEM shifting does not match either a typical driver using a manual transmission or an automated
manual transmission. This results in engine operation that does not match real world. For example,
GEM does not skip shift either on acceleration or deceleration. Drivers and automated transmission will
skip shift when accelerating whenever conditions permit and will certainly skip shift under deceleration.
Again, this may not create a significant problem when GEM is used to simulate vehicle fuel
consumption as originally intended, but can create significant anomalies when GEM is used to create
engine test cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.51]
N/V Output
GEM has an N/V output function that was set up for powertrain testing, i.e. the N/V is the transmission
output speed over the vehicle speed. If the agencies intend to continue development of the alternative
engine certification method, GEM must be set up to output engine speed over vehicle speed as well.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 52]
Tire Rev/Mile
-------
For accuracy in GEM calculations and in the proposed Vocational Duty Cycle segmentation
calculations, the agencies should utilize tire revolutions per mile (rev/mile) as the GEM input and in the
segmentation calculation as opposed to tire static loaded radius (SLR). Tire manufacturers should be
given a standard procedure, such as SAE Recommended Practice J1025, to provide calculated tire
rev/mile data, correlated to the standard procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.55]
The agencies have proposed utilizing tire static loaded radius in both GEM and Vocational
segmentation. Based on discussions with tire manufacturers, SLR, when used alone, is not an accurate
determinant of a tire's rotational speed at a given vehicle ground speed due to the tire's deflection under
load. As a result unnecessary error is introduced and a higher GEM output is produced since GEM
calculates axle RPM and, subsequently, engine speed based on the tire static loaded radius. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.55]
As seen in the Michelin Truck Tire Service Manual pg. 131 inserted below, Michelin uses SAE
Recommended Practice J1025 to measure tire rev/mile and has developed a correlated calculation to
determine rev/mile based on the tire's outside diameter, SLR, and deflection under load that matches the
measured value in the inserted example within 0.1% for a new tire. In contrast to the described method,
using only SLR to calculate tire rev/mile provides a value of 536.4 rev/mile, which differs from the
measured value of 513 rev/mile by 23.4 rev/mile, or 4.6%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.55]
GEM currently uses the vehicle speed, SLR, and total drivetrain gear ratio to determine engine speed,
resulting in an engine speed over 50 RPM higher in GEM for a typical vehicle with a targeted cruise
speed of 1,250 RPM. For this reason Volvo Group believes Tire Revolutions per Mile, provided by tire
manufacturers, should be used instead of Static Loaded Radius. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.55]
Volvo has been evaluating the latest GEM release (P2V2.1) and providing feedback on issues affecting
GEM performance as they arise. We will continue to work with the Agency to bring these issues to
light. In addition we have noted some assumption and calculation issues that impact GEM's ability to
accurately reflect vehicle operation and improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p. 18
NREL Road Grade Profile
Volvo cannot support a duty cycle which results in engine operational characteristics that are not
supported by real world data and could cause vehicle specifications driven by regulatory compliance,
but that do not meet the end-user's application requirements and need for real-world fuel economy
improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p. 11]
Volvo analysis of-8,000 tractors equipped with Volvo's proprietary XE powertrain package (which
was previously submitted to the agencies as CBI) shows the proposed NREL Road Grade Profile D
results in engine operation on the 55 MPH and 65 MPH cruise cycles that is not representative of real-
world engine operation in that the engine experiences significantly more time at 100% torque when
simulated on the proposed profile. A result of this increased torque demand is a higher average power
demand, along with an increased shift schedule. Volvo has worked with the EPA to understand
significant contributing factors that may bias the analysis of Volvo's data, such as average vehicle mass
compared to the default GEM value; however, the cumulative bias is insignificant when compared to the
overall differences in results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p. 11]
As a result of this intense analysis, Volvo believes that NREL's method of looking only at road grade
distribution is incorrect, as it does not provide for GEM simulations that appropriately reflect the actual
-------
operation of vehicle systems in real-world operating modes. Volvo does agree that grade distribution
should be considered, but not as the only variable to be matched. Though Volvo's data shows road
grade distributions that match fairly well with the NREL analysis, at least on a macro scale, we find the
way the distribution was stitched together inappropriately biases simulation results. Because of this we
believe that NREL should consider additional parameters in their development of a realistic road grade
profile, to include speed, torque, and power distributions, percent time in transmission top gear, number
of shifts, and percent time coasting. Without considering these additional parameters to validate the road
grade profile there is significant chance the regulation will drive vehicles configured for the demands of
the regulatory model and not provide the in-use benefits projected in terms of reduced fuel consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 11]
The Agency has proposed a modified Profile D and analysis is ongoing, but the mandated timeline is
driving decision timing, rather than decision timing being driven by a validated solution; thus, Volvo
recommends the agencies take the appropriate time to develop a new road grade profile with the above
considerations included in the analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 11-12]
Response:
With regard to the engine torque curve and fuel map covering the entire operating range of the engine,
the fuel mapping procedure in 40 CFR 1036.535 has been modified to map the engine from idle speed
to «hi. /?hi is defined in 40 CFR part 1065 as the highest speed where engine power equal to 70 percent
of maximum engine power. Since 40 CFR part 1065 already requires the engine torque curve to be
measured up to nm, both procedures now cover the full engine operating range.
The agencies do not agree that the FTP and SET are sufficient for determining compliance of the
procedures defined in 40 CFR 1036.535, because the FTP and SET are different duty cycles from the
cruise cycles where the fuel map is used to determine the vehicle C02 emissions.
The 65 mph cycle was created to be representative of the heavy-duty vehicle VMT-weighted speed
limits, as detailed in RIA Chapter 3.4.2. The agencies did not receive any new data to support
increasing the speed of this cycle. In addition, DOT is considering heavy-duty vehicle speed limiters in
a separate rulemaking.
Significant changes on transmission modeling has been made since the NPRM GEM. We now allow the
OEM to input the power loss for each gear to replace the default power loss tables by following the test
procedure 40 CFR 1036.565 We have made many improvements on transmission gear shifting. The
shifting logic in GEM now includes gear skip and we continued to improve the shifting in GEM based
on new data including both CBI from our stakeholders and the agencies-sponsored programs at both
SwRI and ORNL. The final GEM allows the user to input their own axle power loss by following the
test procedure 40 CFR 1036.560.
We will implement a ."dll" solution. Since this ."dll" only acts like an interface between GEM output
and OEM's information system, it would not change the GEM results, and therefore, this can be done
after the final rule is signed.
We also modified GEM to better model torque response during transient operation in response to the
comments by Volvo as well as others.
We also made N/V changes, allowing it to work with the cycle average approach.
-------
With regard to loaded radius, GEM now uses tire revolutions per mile instead of loaded radius. See 40
CFR 1037.520 (g), which refers to SAE J1025 for the prescribed test procedure for determining tire
revolutions per mile. If a vehicle is certified to the custom-chassis standards of 40 CFR 1037.105 (h)
tire revs per mile is not an input for GEM.
We appreciate the comments made on "NREL Road Grade Profile." In the final rule, we did not fully
adopt the proposal made by Volvo, the proposal by NREL, but we did combine the NREL analysis with
the other in-use data received from Volvo and other manufacturers. One of the reason why we did not
fully adopt Volvo's suggestions is that we recognize that their data only represented one engine power
rating and a lower average vehicle mass than the average vehicle mass of our defined regulatory
categories, so it does not represent the higher power ratings and higher vehicle weights. After taking all
comments obtained from all stakeholders into consideration, we have made many changes on the road
grade called Profile D after we released the NODA version of GEM to maintain the national
representativeness of the profile and to better match engine operation of on road tractors. Some of the
ways we did this was by adding additional miles at zero grade and ±0.5 percent road grade road at the
beginning and end of cycle, and reducing the peak grades, and to match the rate of change in grade of
actual roads. See Chapter 3.4.2.1 of the RIA for the detailed description of the process the agencies took
to create the final road grade profile.
Organization: Walsh, Michael and Charlton, Stephen
3.2.2 Vehicle Drive Cycles
Many vehicle drive cycles have been created, all with the objective of representing a given duty-cycle
for a given vehicle class for the purpose of measuring emissions, fuel economy or performance under
controlled and standardized conditions. Here the focus is on HD tractor engine drive cycles and
especially their equivalence with engine test cycles. In a later section, engine BTE and fuel consumption
data will be compared across several different sources, using a range of metrics. Therefore, the goal of
this analysis is to compare and contrast the various cycles and to understand how they align one with
another. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 12]
Considering the key references reviewed in the report, the most important drive cycles to consider are:
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p. 13]
1. NESCAUM / NESCCAF long haul cycle with gradient
2. GEM 55mph cruise with gradient
3. GEM 65mph cruise with gradient
4. World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle (WHVC)
5. SuperTruck drive cycles [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 13]
The NESCAUM/NESCCAF long haul cycle [47] is a 117 minute road test simulation with
approximately 27 minutes of urban driving and 90 minutes of interstate driving. The interstate portion is
at vehicle speeds between 65mph and 70 mph. The cycle includes gradient changes which will require
operation on the engine torque curve and gear shifts to access higher engine speeds. Figure 5 shows the
region of the engine speed / load map where the NESCAUM long haul cycle will operate the majority of
the time, assuming the truck is geared for 65mph between the A and B speeds. The region indicated is
where the engine will spend most time on the cycle, it also the region of highest fuel burn - which
largely determines C02 emissions on the cycle. The WHVC and NESCAUM/NESCCAF cycles are
shown in Appendix C [see p. 38 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1], Figure 18 for
reference. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 13]
-------
The GEM 65mph cycle with gradient [51] is very similar to the NESCAUM cycle, spending significant
time at the cruise speed with gradient changes requiring access to the torque curve and gear shifts to
access higher engine speeds. The GEM 65mph region is narrower than the NESCAUM/NESCCAF
region since the NESCAUM/NESCCAF cycle is essentially 65mph to 70mph cruise, see Figure 5.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p. 13]
The WHVC cycle [49] consists of urban, rural and motorway segments. For simulation of HD tractor-
trailers the recommended weighting factors are 90% motorway, 10% urban. The average vehicle speed
on the motorway segment is only 55mph (88kph). Therefore this cycle is very close in character to the
GEM 55mph cruise with gradient drive cycle [51], There is a danger at 55mph that a tractor-trailer
engine could be operated at the edge or outside of the NTE zone, if the engine were integrated with a
DCT or AMT transmission, allowing operation in top gear at low engine speeds. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p. 13]
While there are a variety of engine test cycles and vehicle drive cycles, this analysis shows that the
55mph drive cycles (GEM 55mph and WHVC) are outliers and unlikely to be comparable with the other
cycles from a C02 perspective. These cycles are valuable is illustrating the risk that engines could be
operated outside of the NTE zone, with resulting risk to NOx and PM emissions. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p. 13]
The remaining test cell and vehicle drive cycles overlap considerably as would be expected since they
are all attempting to achieve the same goal. Data from various sources with the exception of GEM
55mph and WHVC will be directly comparable within a small margin of error, estimated at 1-2% of
C02 or fuel consumption. Figure 6 from SWRI [42] confirms this finding where results are compared
for the GEM 65mph cycle, modeled by SWRI as a single engine operating point, and NESCAUM long
haul cycle, and show little to no difference in fuel savings with different technologies. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0102-A1 p. 13]
This is important because it allows direct comparison of data from the various sources referenced in this
study, even though they were gathered in slightly different ways. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 13]
5.3 SWRI Report#! Commissioned bvNHTSA, June 2015 [421
The SWRI research project, contained in two reports by Reinhart [42, 43], was designed to inform
NHTSA and EPA's development of Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (Class 2b - 8). [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 16]
The study included a literature review to identify potential fuel saving technologies and to assess the
state of the art. A large number of engine and vehicle technologies were selected for analysis, and their
fuel saving performance was simulated to assess the fuel savings potential of each technology over a
wide range of duty cycles. The study used a combination of computer simulation and experimental data
to assess the potential for improvements in engine and vehicle fuel efficiency. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p. 17]
The engine study assessed a range of incremental improvements and new technologies in two stages.
Report #1 [42] assessed the fuel efficiency impact of technologies individually. Report #2 [43] assessed
the fuel efficiency impact of technologies in combination. The assessments were made over a range of
drive cycles, including: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 17]
-------
• GEM 55mph cruise and GEM 65mph cruise - without gradient changes [51], single operating
point
• WHVC [49]
• NESCAUM/NESCCAF Long Haul Cycle with gradient changes [47]
Each of the above cycles was studied at 0%, 50% and 100% payload. The engine used in the study was
the MY 2011 14.8L DD15 produced by Daimler for application in Freightliner and Western Star trucks
in the U.S. The vehicle road load was represented by a Kenworth T700 tractor unit with empty weight
of 33,960 lb., payload capacity of 46,040 lb., and a GVWR of 80,000 lb. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
p. 17]
The analysis consisted of running GT-Power simulations at multiple steady-state engine operating
points to allow estimates of drive-cycle fuel economy to be made. Appendix E [see p.40], Figure 21
describes the analysis plan for the assessment of engine technologies and Appendix F [see p.41]
describes the analysis plan for the assessment of vehicle technologies. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
p. 17]
It should be noted that the SWRI analysis was carried out at a single operating point for the GEM
55mph and 65 mph drive cycles, which is also the approach taken by the SuperTruck projects in
demonstrating engine BTE performance. Unlike the SuperTruck over-the-road drive cycle
demonstrations, the SWRI analysis did not include transient performance. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-
A1 p. 17]
The literature review covered air handling, combustion, aftertreatment, friction and parasitic losses, and
waste heat recovery. However, with few exceptions, only a modest attempt was made to quantify the
potential fuel consumption gains of these areas of advanced technology - either for the near term or for
the time frame of the proposed Phase 2 rule. Where estimates of fuel savings are made, there is little
evidence those estimates were used in the analysis, preferring instead to perform 'parametric sweeps'
over a range of values which seem to have been chosen semi-arbitrarily. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
p. 17]
This is a weakness of SWRI report #1 [42], which is carried over into SWRI report #2 [43], where
combinations of advanced technologies are assessed to ensure interactions are accounted for. The GT-
Power simulation study which forms the basis of SWRI report #1, is a parametric study which in
significant areas is a simple sensitivity study with ranges applied to key parameters, for example:
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p. 17]
• 10% reduction in engine friction (FMEP) at high loads, 35% at lower loads
• 10% reduction in turbocharger efficiency
• 25% reduction in tractor aerodynamic drag (Cd)
• 30% reduction in tire rolling resistance [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 17]
Results from this parametric 'sweep' study are shown in Figure 6 for engine, and Figure 7 for vehicle
technologies. Below is an example of a 'technology package' with semi-arbitrary values given to key
parameters taken from the second study where technologies are studied in combination [43], [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0102-A1 p.17]
[Figure 6 and 7 can be found on p. 18 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1]
-------
"T700 Package 2 has a 25% Cd reduction, a 30%> Crr reduction, and a 6.5% empty weight reduction,
with the 2019 baseline DD15 engine. This package provides 19 to 24%) fuel savings on the three high
speed cycles, with the smaller values coming on the more realistic NESCCAF cycle, which includes
grades and a small stop and go segment. Fuel savings are over 7%> even on the low speed CARB cycle
[43][NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 17]. "
When viewing these results it important to bear in mind the nature of the study. The study is simply
exploring the parametric design space, and makes little attempt to assess or extrapolate the state of the
art between 2015 and 2027. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.17]
Downspeeding results are shown in Figure 6, which presents results from a GT-Power cycle simulation
of a HD tractor engine - in this case a Daimler DD15 engine rated at 455 HP. Through gearing and
drive axle selection the highway cruise speed of the engine was reduced from 1368 rpm to 1209 rpm at
65 mph (Downspeed A) and reduced further to 1051 rpm (Downspeed B). Figure 6 shows that
downspeeding can reduce fuel consumption by between 2% and 4% with engine speeds as low as 1051
r/min at 65 mph. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 18]
Turbocompound results are also shown in Figure 6 in two different formats - with electric drive, and
downsized power turbine ('optimized turbocompound'). The results show fuel savings of less than 1%
on all drive cycles, compared with WHR, which shows 2.5%-5.0% fuel savings with these assumptions.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p. 18]
42 Reinhart, T. E., "Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study -
Report#l. (Report No. DOT HS 812 146). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. June 2015.
47 Marin, A.N., "Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck GHG Emissions and Fuel
Consumption," Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee, NESCAUM/NESCCAF, October 6,
2009
49 "Development of WHVC Weighting Factors," Working Paper No. HDH-15-07e, 15th HDH meeting,
Institute of Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics, October 2013
5 l"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) User Manual - Vehicle Simulation Tool for Compliance
with the Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and
Heavy -Duty Engines and Vehicles: Phase 2," Assessment and Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 2015.
Response:
We appreciate the commenter's comments on vehicle drive cycles, and some of points on NTE for
WHVC and 55mph cycles are very well taken. We are aware that there is a possibility that under some
vehicle configurations, such as very low axle ratio, the vehicle operating points could be in or even
slightly out of the boundary of NTE zone. We also notice that for those potential vehicle configurations
with very low axle ratio may run into the issue with higher frequent gearing shifting due to lack of
torque margin at such low engine speeds, which could result in poorer fuel economy. Therefore, it
would not be vehicle manufacturers' interests to design a vehicle to continue running the engine into
this operational region. Even though this could happen, 55mph cycle is still a small portion of the tractor
C02 emissions and fuel consumption. Regarding the SwRI report, we believe that SwRI has done a
-------
good job in analyzing the potential impact of future technologies. These were done by varying a range
of vehicle and engine key parameters to address the impact of the future technologies on fuel economy.
While it seems that the range of variations sounds to simply explore the sensitivity studies, more careful
review on the range of parameter variation shows that the range is consistent with our finding based on
different sources. For example, 25% of Cd reduction translates the CdA drops from 6.481 to 4.86,
which is just in the range of Bin V of our evaluation for 2027 vehicle (Table III-10 of Section III.D of
the Preamble), while our data collection is completely independent of SwRI report. Furthermore, with
the limited data source, we are not sure how they could do better to define the range of the parameters to
predict the long-term technology impacts.
Organization: ZF TRW Commercial Steering
Introduction
ZF TRW has been a supplier to the automotive and commercial vehicle market for over 100 years. ZF
TRW Commercial Steering Division is based in Lafayette, Indiana, and specializes in Steering Systems
for the Class 5 -8 market with a very strong presence in North America. Part of the steering system is
the power steering pump, which is traditionally driven by the engine. This is a parasitic loss in a similar
manner as the alternator, air compressor, and water pump. Any efficiency improvements to these
subsystems also improve the overall efficiency of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1882-A1 p. 1]
On March 2, a revised version of GEM was included as part of the Phase 2 Notice of Data Availability.
As explained in our comments to follow, ZF TRW requests that a power steering pump using secondary
chamber deactivation be credited and accounted for in the Phase 2 Standards' Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Model (GEM). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1882-A1 p.l]
Power Steering Background and Power Consumption
The power steering system is sized to match the vehicle needs and the driver's expectations. This
includes the ability to have full power assist during a docking or parking maneuver when the engine is at
idle speed, and the vehicle is not moving. The driver expects to be able to turn the steering wheel
approximately 1.5 turns per second. This performance expectation is part of what determines the size of
the power steering pump. As the vehicle is driven at speed and the engine rpm increases, the extra flow
generated by the pump must be controlled and re-circulated. This extra flow is wasted energy and is a
parasitic loss to the engine above what is necessary for proper function of the steering. Per SAE J1343, a
typical line haul truck requires an average of 0.4 -1.1 kW for hydraulic steering. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1882-A1 p.l]
Current Technology Considerations
EPS (Electric Power Steering) - This technology holds great promise, but is power limited and the
adoption rate and business case limit the potential environmental impact in the near future. The ability
to steer Class 7- 8 vehicles will require electrical upgrades and is likely 10 years away. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1882-A1 p.2]
EHPS (ElectroHvdraulic Power Steering) - This technology (or the above) allows for engine off power
steering, but the efficiency of an EHP S system is highly dependent upon the duty cycle of the vehicle.
Line haul vehicles benefit more from a direct drive power steering pump, without the electric
conversion efficiency losses. Again, adoption rates and return on investment will limit the impact to the
environment on a large scale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1882-A1 p.2]]
-------
ZF TRW Consideration
ZF TRW has been working on fuel efficient options for several years. Based on vehicle duty studies,
line haul commercial vehicles spend most of their time either at engine idle, or at cruising speed. While
efforts to reduce idle time are being addressed by OEMs, ZF TRW has developed a new power steering
pump that addresses the wasted energy of excess flow at cruising speed. This pump is called ActivMode
(trademark pending), and it effectively behaves as two pumps in one. At engine idle, both sides of the
pump combine to provide the required flow and pressure for the system needs. At highway speeds, the
pump flow control system shifts to generate flow only from one side, thereby deactivating the secondary
chamber. The effect of this deactivation is to reduce the pump drive torque by approximately 30-40%.
In addition, since it is not generating extra flow, it also reduces the system temperature of the power
steering fluid. As such, power steering coolers can be avoided or eliminated for further cost and weight
savings. This technology is undergoing vehicle fleet testing and will be available for full production in
2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1882-A1 p.2]
This pump is a direct bolt on replacement, requiring only minor changes (if any) to the hose
connections, but without any performance sacrifice for the driver. The cost impact is a minimal up
charge from current production, approximately $25-50 more than a standard hydraulic pump. The
anticipated payback on fuel savings alone is less than 6 months for a normal line haul application.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1882-A1 p.2]
As such, this type of product has the potential for a rapid, high adoption rate at the OEMs, with
additional benefits of improved fuel economy and reduced power steering temperatures for the end user.
The cumulative effect for the environment can be very positive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1882-A1
p.2]
We request that this technology is accounted for and added to the Phase 2 regulations for greenhouse
gas credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1882-A1 p.2]
Response:
We introduced a mechanism to recognize some accessories, including electric power steering pumps.
More information can be seen in 40 CFR 1037.520 0. Manufacturers have the option to apply for off-
cycle credits for the other types and designs of high efficiency accessories, such as dual displacement
power steering pumps.
2.3 Validation of GEM
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Flaws of EPA's GEM validation testing - The EPA purports to have validated GEM but, in doing so,
some of the validation used different powertrain inputs than are available in GEM. Specifically, in
testing 28 vehicles with SwRI and putting their corresponding inputs into GEM, the EPA did not use
GEM as the agency would require manufacturers to do; the EPA used the vehicles' actual transmission
characteristics in simulating the vehicles. By contrast, the regulatory GEM uses default transmission
information like gear efficiencies. The agencies should recognize that manufacturers will need accurate
GEM results, like the agencies did, and therefore should be similarly willing to let vehicle
manufacturers input actual transmission information into GEM. Manufacturers should get the same
benefits as the agency. 80 FR 40522. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.54]
-------
Response:
Please see the agencies' general response to GEM validation in RTC Section 2.1 above. In the final
GEM, the transmission efficiency and power loss are part of the user input.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Open Issues With the Revised GEM
The agencies purport to have validated GEM. While the agencies have undertaken validation testing -
for example, testing 28 vehicles at SwRI and incorporating the corresponding inputs into GEM - that
testing did not demonstrate GEM's validity as EPA claims. In particular, EPA used different powertrain
inputs in GEM than are available in the regulatory program. EPA also used the vehicles' actual
transmission characteristics in simulating the vehicles. By contrast, the regulatory GEM process uses a
default shift schedule and gear efficiencies. Therefore, it is not correct to assert that the alignment of test
and simulation results validates GEM. EPA did not actually simulate GEM results as manufacturers
must. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.56]
Moreover, as noted above, there are still many issues that need to be finalized and accounted for in the
revised GEM. For example, there currently is no means to account for rear axle efficiency in GEM. That
needs to be corrected. Similarly, there are inadequate means to account for auto-shut down features and,
more importantly, programmable idle-shutdown, which is widely deployed in the heavy-duty and
medium-duty vehicle fleet, in part due to state and local regulations that mandate idle-shutdown after a
prescribed number of minutes. GEM needs to give clearly defined credit for those factors, and others
impacting vehicle fuel efficiency, including, but not limited to, "Eco-Roll" and "E-Coast" technologies,
programmable automatic engine-shutdown systems, and tire-pressure monitoring systems. Further,
transmission modeling is inadequate in GEM, forcing the engine to run at unrealistic speeds and loads in
some cases. That could be especially problematic if GEM were used to create test profiles, as proposed
under the alternative certification ("cycle-average") method. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.57]
Among the many specific revisions and updates that still need to be incorporated into GEM are the
following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.57]
Response:
Please see the agencies' general response to GEM validation in RTC Section 2.1 above. Validation
against the transmission shifting tables provided by manufacturers are the first, and most important step
to demonstrate the model fidelity, ensuring all components to work properly. We made improvements
on transmission gear shifting prior to the final rule to more realistically represent the real world driving
condition. Since NPRM, significant model validations have been conducted against powertrain tests
with the agencies' default shifting strategy. In addition, GEM validation with default transmission
shifting logic was also conducted against a real-world driving routes with two very well defined trucks.
The detailed comparisons and discussions can be seen in Chapter 4 of the RIA. More detailed
explanation and derivation on the gasoline engine map can be seen by SwRI final report entitled
"Validation Testing for Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Test Procedures and The Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Model (GEM) for Medium- and Heavy Duty Engines and Powertrains" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827], In
the final GEM, the transmission efficiency and power loss are part of the user input. The axle efficiency
is also part of the user input by allowing the user to input their own power lass table. We have made
many improvements and changes in those technology inputs to GEM related to idle, tire pressure
-------
monitoring systems, intelligent control such as predictive cruise and neutral coast to address these
concerns, which are specified in CFR 40 1037.520 (j).
2.4 Supplements to GEM Simulation
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Powertrain testing
ACEEE strongly supports the inclusion of an option to test tractors and vocational vehicles using a
powertrain test (p.40179). Given the very substantial benefits to be gained from the integration of
engine and transmission, it is important that the efficiency benefits of such integration be not only
recognized but factored into the stringency of the standards, especially for vocational vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1280-A1 p. 7]
Needless to say, this option will not help to incentivize engine-transmission integration unless
powertrain testing can demonstrate the efficiency benefit of the integration. If the integrated powertrain
does not achieve better results on the powertrain test than it - or a less efficient powertrain - achieves in
GEM testing, the powertrain option will serve no purpose. Transmission loss in present GEM is
conservative and efficiency gain from transmission is generous than powertrain testing. It is important
that the agencies keep this issue in mind as they determine how the GEM executable handles the various
transmissions types. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.7]
Recommendation: Powertrain testing [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.7]
-Calibrate GEM treatment of transmission efficiency to yield result that can be compared to results of
powertrain testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.7]
Response:
We appreciate the ACEEE's support on powertrain testing.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Advantages of Complete Vehicle Simulation - In the NPRM the agencies discuss how they intended
to provide regulatory incentives to use more fuel efficient technologies and expanded GEM to recognize
engine and other powertrain component improvements. But the agencies state one disadvantage of the
increased complexity of including engine details in GEM: vehicle manufacturers would be required to
conduct additional engine tests, and track additional GEM inputs for compliance purposes. 80 FR
40181. The agencies seek comment on the changes. DTNA strongly agrees that expanding GEM to
recognize more engine and other powertrain components provides flexibility and reduces the risk of a
divergence between test-cycle and real-world fuel efficiency improvements. We think that the benefits
of a more accurate GEM outweigh the drawback that we will need to do more testing. Rather, we think
the solution to the problem of additional testing is that the EPA and NHTSA try to align their test
procedures as much as possible with those being used in Europe, so that there is commonality of testing.
For example, there is no reason to test rear axles differently in the US than in Europe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 13]
-------
Moreover, the agencies request comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed structure
that would require vehicle manufacturers to provide additional inputs into GEM to represent the engine.
80 FR 40250. DTNA thinks it is unlikely that recognizing engine improvements in GEM could force a
vehicle manufacturer to do engine testing as the engine manufacturer must provide certified engine data
to the OEM for use in GEM. A vehicle OEM would not rely on its own engine test data in order to
certify a vehicle in GEM, nor (as we understand) would the regulations require a vehicle manufacturer
to do so. Rather, a vehicle OEM would rely on engine manufacturer data in Phase 2 just the same as it
relies on tire manufacturer data in Phase 1. In summary, we strongly support adding inputs to GEM, as
this makes for a more accurate simulation process that can better regulate what is important—the fuel
consumption of the full vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 13]
DTNA Agrees that GEM Should Be Updated and Expanded - The agencies request comments on
the proposed GEM structure that would require vehicle manufacturers to provide additional inputs into
GEM to represent the engine, transmission, drive axle(s), loaded tire radius, etc. We strongly agree with
the agencies' approach of regulating through an updated version of GEM that incorporates many more
vehicle and engine parameters and with realistic drive cycles. This better represents the actual vehicle in
real-world operation than does the Phase 1 GEM. 80 FR 40181. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.42]
Transmission Mapping Improvement to GEM - The agencies requested comment on aspects of the
GEM tool relating to how it models transmissions and shifting strategies. 80 FR 40297. Separately the
agencies proposed a powertrain test in order to incorporate to the GHG Phase 2 program the 'deep
integration' of the transmission with the engine. As we discuss in our comments, below, we believe that
what the agencies mischaracterize as deep integration is in significant part just the benefit of using
actual transmission gear efficiencies in GEM calculations. That is, if the agencies would allow vehicle
manufacturers to input into GEM the measured transmission efficiency map, as is proposed for rear
axles, then GEM would properly capture integration effects. For example, in tractor applications, there
is little gear shifting in GEM for tractor applications so that, no matter the gear shifting strategy, there is
so little shifting that there is no room for improvement (as we have shown the EPA and would be
willing to show again in a confidential setting). Similarly, for vocational vehicles, although there is
more gear shifting, much of the deep integration benefit comes from efficient gearing and only a part
from optimized shifting, such that the agencies penalize manufacturers by using the default gears or
forcing manufacturers into expensive and resource intensive powertrain testing. In short, we recommend
allowing transmission efficiency maps as inputs to GEM, and we propose that the agencies adopt the
European transmission mapping procedure to do so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.54-55]
Hybrid Test Procedures - The agencies propose to keep hybrid features out of GEM and to only credit
hybridization if a manufacturer does actual powertrain or vehicle testing. We agree with this approach.
GEM would become too complicated if it had to account for all types of hybrids. In their comments and
the new regulatory text about the hybrid powertrain testing, the agencies seem to propose that
manufacturers would perform powertrain testing using only powertrain and hybrid components,
omitting all "non-powertrain features" like variations in aerodynamics or tires. 80 FR 40298 and §
1037.550. We agree that this is the correct approach to minimize test burden yet get sufficiently accurate
results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.64]
Response:
We appreciate DTNA's support adding more inputs to GEM and the support to keep hybrid out of
GEM. We also made significant changes and improvement on GEM, which can be summarized as
follows, which address the comments related to GEM.
-------
• Added optional input table for transmission power loss data
• Modified road grade profile for 55- and 65-mph cruise cycles
• Revised idle cycles into overall vocational vehicles with new vocational cycle weightings
• Made significant changes on the input file structures. Examples includes additions of columns
for axle configuration ("6x2", "6x4","6x4D", "4x2"), and additions of a few more technology
improvement inputs, such as "Neutral Idle and Start/Stop."
• Made significant changes on output file structures. Examples includes an option to allow the
user to output detailed results on average speed, average work before and after transmissions,
and the numbers of shift for each phase (55 and 65mph cycles and ARB cycle).
• Added input file for axle power losses (function of axle output speed and torque) and replaced
single axle efficiency in model with lookup table of torque loss
• Added simulation of engine torque response with fast response region defined by engine
displacement, and slower torque increase in boosted region with fast falloff on available torque
• Added regression models for all certification cycles to allow the user to simulate vehicle with
cycle average approach
• Added different fuel properties according to 1036.530.
• Significantly improved shift strategy based on testing data
• Adjusted transmission loss & inertia scale factors per regulatory subcategory
• Added minimum torque converter lock-up gear input for AT
• Retuned the default transmission mechanical efficiency based on the testing data
• Added neutral idle and start/stop features during simulation
• Adjusted shift and torque converter lockup strategy
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
In our comments to the Phase 1 rule, NRDC urged the agencies to ensure that the medium- and heavy-
duty standards and compliance mechanisms recognize the potential for fuel efficiency technologies
applied across the vehicle. Therefore, NRDC greatly appreciates the agencies' proposed expanded full
vehicle simulation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM). By expanding GEM to include the
engine, transmission, axle and tires in actual vehicle configurations (instead of the constant default
values), manufacturers have an enhanced incentive to integrate the various components to improve
efficiency. NRDC agrees with the agencies' assessment that the GEM improvements also enhance
manufacturer flexibility to mix and match technologies as they wish to meet the performance-based
targets of the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.6]
Response:
We appreciate NRDC's comments on GEM.
2.4.1 Technology Test Procedures
Organization: Afton Chemical
As a leading producer of fuel and lubricant additives, Afton Chemical Corporation has long been
recognized as an expert in developing and testing products that lead to an increase in fuel efficiency
while reducing emissions. It is with this expertise in mind that we would like to comment on EPA and
-------
NHTSA's proposed rule on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1129-A2 p.l]
Our comments will be focused on the Heavy Duty Axle Efficiency procedure and how lubricant oils
will be tested in this process. We agree with EPA that fuel efficient gear lubricants can make a
worthwhile and measureable contribution to fuel efficiency. Thus Afton's comments are directed at
comparing fuel efficient commercial gear lubricants in a way that can precisely detect efficiency
differences in these lubricants. Afton has significant experience in running gear fuel efficient tests. We
believe the procedure as proposed by EPA has areas that will lead to high variability of results. As
proposed, there is the potential for poor performing oils to be determined good and good oils to be
rejected. We do not believe that it is EPA's intent to develop a procedure that will inaccurately
demonstrate the effectiveness or lack thereof of lubricant oils. Such a result will not help EPA or the
country reach the stated goals of the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p. 1]
We have separately attached our comments that look at modifying the procedure and how the lubricant
is evaluated. We would be pleased to work and discuss with EPA how these changes and refinements
can improve the procedure We believe these refinements to the procedure can be run by a number of
laboratories, provide precise results at meaningful speed and torque combinations, produce an incentive
for lubricant suppliers to innovate for better lubricant efficiency and be accomplished in a cost effective
fashion. In this way, we believe this will help carry out EPA's mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1129-A2 p.l]
Areas of comments related to the EPA test procedure given in 40 CFR 1037.560 of the Phase 2 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.2]
• The Emgard® FE 75W-90 lubricant has been assigned a 0. 5% efficacy advantage over normal
lubricants in axle efficiency. We agree that this is realistic and propose the Emgard® FE 75W-
90 lubricant be considered a reference oil by which other lubricants can be measured in an axle
efficiency test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.2]
• We know lubricants can exceed the FE improvement offered by the Emgard® FE 75W-90
lubricant. The EPA proposal does not indicate additional credit can be gained by these
lubricants. This could stifle innovation. We believe if an oil run in the FE test shows statistically
significant better FE than Emgard® FE 75W-90 it should be awarded additional efficiency credit
beyond the 0.5% afforded by Emgard® FE 75W-90 if employed as initial fill by the truck
manufacturer. If it shows statistically equivalent to Emgard® FE 75W-90 it should be awarded
the same 0.5% improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.2]
• All tested lubricants must hold SAE J2360 performance credentials to demonstrate fluid
performance for major commercial vehicle axles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.2]
• As acknowledged by your comments in the proposal, axle efficiency varies by speed and torque
with highest efficiency being given at high torque, high speeds. Hence at high efficiency
conditions, there is little room for improvement. However, most commercial vehicles run only a
small portion of time at these high torque values and in general run at a fraction of rated speed
and torque. It is at these lower speeds and loads that one can see significant differences in
lubricant efficiency. Thus, we propose that lubricants be evaluated at a maximum of 4 speeds
and loads with greater weight being given to those areas of speed and load that correspond to
actual vehicle service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.2]
• Different axles can give different efficiencies; however, a FE lube will generally be efficient
regardless of the axle. To verify the efficiency, we believe a matrix of no more than 2 axles, one
each from the two major axle manufacturers supplying the U.S. commercial vehicle market.
These axles could be specified by these same manufacturers. If a lube shows an average
-------
efficiency statistically the same or better than Emgard, it should be awarded FE credit. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.2]
• The test was originally defined to measure axle hardware capabilities. It was not defined for
lubricant efficiency measurements. However, areas within the test procedure that could be
improved: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.2]
o Break-in time of 3 increments of 77 minutes may not be enough. In our experience, the
axle requires at least a full day of break-in and often more before stable results are
obtained. We believe the break-in should be run until a measure of adequate
repeatability is obtained to show stable results. This could be something akin to repeat
runs of efficiency which show an effective repeatability of no more than 0.2%. If as
noted above no more than 2 'mainline" axle assemblies are used to measure lubricant
efficiency, then these 2 axles once broken in can be repeatedly used for different
lubricants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.2]
o Order of running for FE measurement should be Emgard® FE 75W-90 at different
speeds and loads run multiple times with repeatability of the runs falling within an
appropriate band followed by the lube to be measured at same conditions and
repeatability followed by Emgard to verify there has been no change in the repeatability
measurements or the test stand or axle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.2]
o Test rig capability needs to be defined, but ultimately it needs to achieve the precision
necessary for measuring the FE differences in lubes. Thus, a precision statement or rig
precision requirements will be very important. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2
p.2]
o In our experience, a test point of 0 Nm can create control problems for the dynos. This
could lead to dangerous instability and thus we never run or try to control a large dyno
rig at that point. 0 Nm is more suited to what is measured by a 'spin loss' rig. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.3]
o Testing order, sets of test, calculation of efficiency data, data quality and acceptance
limits, and statistical methods to be used all need to be defined to assure adequate
precision and quality testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1129-A2 p.3]
• The time for release of the proposal is first part of 2016. This does not leave much time to
develop a comprehensive and well thought out procedure. However, Afton stands ready to work
with EPA and other parties to help develop and refine a procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1129-A2 p.3]
Response:
We appreciate many constructive comments by Afton Chemical. We recognize the importance of
lubricant additives used in axle. As a matter of fact, we modified the final GEM to allow the user to
input their own axle power loss, where the measurement on the power loss will include any benefits due
to lubricant and its additives. See 40 CFR 1037.560.
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
The Version of GEM Available For Public Comment Contains Several Deficiencies and
Inaccuracies; EPA and NHTSA Must Revise GEM and Allow for Further Review and Comment
On the whole, Allison believes that EPA and NHTSA have made substantial progress in revising GEM
for the Phase 2 rule to make this model a more accurate predictor of real world GHG emissions and FE.
In the Phase 2 GEM, the engine is better defined and the agencies have incorporated or improved
-------
several vehicle elements that can have significant impact on the emissions profile and fuel use of
MD/HD vehicles. GEM inputs concerning transmission ratios, axle ratios and tire size all represent
improvements compared with the inputs utilized in the Phase 1 GEM. And, as we stated at the
beginning of these comments, Allison supports the use of GEM as the primary certification tool. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p. 18]
Despite improvements to GEM, however, the agencies must recognize that this model is still somewhat
a work in progress. Allison addressed this issue in its comments at the public hearing held in Chicago,
Illinois on August 6th along with specific recommendations as to how the agencies should proceed with
further GEM development after the close of this comment period, including with regard to seeking
additional public review and comment of significant alterations to GEM.32 In the comments, below we
submit additional technical issues with GEM P2vl.O along with proposed solutions.
EPA and NHTSA Must Make Several Changes In Order to Properly Credit Neutral-Idle
Technology Within GEM
In the Proposed Rule, EPA and NHTSA explicitly state that GEM is intended to address Neutral-Idle
technology that is utilized during the transient cycle. We agree with the agencies that many vocational
vehicle applications operate on patterns implicating workday idle cycles and that GEM should account
for these cycles and the control of emissions which results through the use of Neutral-Idle technology.
Including such technology within GEM would both increase the accuracy of projected emissions/fuel
consumption of the vehicles being modeled as well as more accurately represent what is already
occurring within the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 19]
Given the overall purpose and intent to account for such systems in GEM, however, it is inconsistent for
EPA and NHTSA to not simulate Neutral-Idle within GEM during the ARB transient cycle - or to not
credit this technology within the ARB transient cycle through post processing for an AT. Specifically, it
can be seen that since 16% of the ARB transient cycle consists of idle, the impact of ARB transient idle
time can be nearly as much in the weighted C02 emissions calculation (i.e., 74%) as the idle cycle itself
(depending on vocational chassis subcategory). EPA and NHTSA cannot ignore such significant periods
of vehicle operation and must accordingly make changes to GEM to account for Neutral-Idle in the
ARB transient cycle. The GEM simulation does credit the AMT and the MT with Neutral-Idle fuel rate
during the ARB transient cycle simulation and does not use Neutral-Idle fuel rate for the AT even when
Neutral-Idle is selected as an option. The agencies must correct this disparity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p. 19]
This disparity is even more important to address when one considers that GEM correctly rewards
Neutral-Idle technology in the idle cycle. Recognizing Neutral-Idle technology in the idle cycle, but not
within the transient cycle, would lead to inconsistent results in projecting real world emissions and
would be arbitrary and capricious. Retaining this differential treatment in the final rule would
effectively give partial credit for this important and effective emission reduction technology and unduly
and incorrectly penalize ATs that incorporate the technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p. 19]
The agencies should also be aware that Eaton has announced AMT product changes affecting low speed
operations.34 Allison does not know precisely how this functionality is achieved; its existence, however,
it raises serious questions as to whether the AMT will always operate at a true Neutral-Idle state as
modeled in GEM. Therefore, given the possibility that AMTs operation may change in the direction of
higher fuel consumption during the lifespan of the Phase 2 rule, Allison recommends that GEM drop-
downs for Neutral-idle also be used for AMTs. Since new features may consume more fuel at idle, the
-------
likelihood of higher fuel rates being reflected via an optional powertrain test is unlikely and further
reinforces the need to account for this fuel usage in GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p. 19]
In addition, EPA and NHTSA must also address engine Start-Stop technology within the ARB transient
cycle. GEM already provides such credit in the idle cycle, creating the same issues as described above
with respect to Neutral-Idle technology. Again, EPA and NHTSA must correct this differential
treatment in the final rule. The Proposed Rule does not allow Neutral-Idle technology and engine Start-
Stop to both be utilized in the same simulation even though both features are offered together with an
AT transmission. If engine Start-Stop credit remains in the idle cycle only, then Neutral-Idle technology
option should be available to be utilized in the GEM simulation of the ARB transient cycle for the AT
transmission. AMT and MT simulation will assume Neutral-Idle fuel rates during the ARB transient
cycle and the AT should be treated similarly as well if the Neutral-Idle option is selected. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.20]
Finally, EPA and NHTSA must recognize Neutral-Idle technologies within the ARB transient cycle not
only with respect to vocational vehicles, but also with regard to tractors. Even if an idle cycle is not
added to the tractor weighted emission calculations, there is still no rational reason to exclude Neutral-
Idle technology in tractors during ARB transient idle time. The chart below summarizes our
recommendations as to the periods of time when both Neutral-Idle and Stop-Start technologies should
be credited within the ARB transient cycle for all vehicles subject to such testing/simulation: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.20]
[Chart, 'Recommendations for when neutral-idle and stop-start technologies should be credited within
the ARB transient cycle', can be found on p.20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1]
EPA and NHTSA Should Not Include Dual-Clutch Transmissions Within GEM
In the Proposed Rule, manufacturers can select from one of three types of transmissions in GEM: MTs,
AMTs and ATs. With regard to heavy-duty DCTs, the agencies explain that "because production of
heavy-duty dual clutch transmissions has only begun in the past few months, we do not yet have any
experimental data to validate our GEM simulation of this transmission type." Despite lacking data with
regard to DCTs, however, EPA and NHTSA have indicated that they "may finalize GEM for Phase 2
with a fourth transmission type for dual clutch transmissions." The agencies also indicate that they may
address DCTs through post-simulation adjustment. Table 4-12 of the RIA lists a 2% adjustment for
DCTs for certain Class 7 and 8 vehicles, the same adjustment as provided for ATs and AMTs. Table 4-
13 of the RIA provides a 2.3% adjustment for Vocational Vehicle HHD AMTs or DCTs, but no similar
adjustment for ATs.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.20-21]
EPA and NHTSA do not have a sufficient basis in the record to either include DCTs within GEM or to
allow for a post-simulation adjustment such as that indicated in the RIA. First, as EPA and NHTSA
admit, there is no data to validate GEM simulation of DCTs. Without such data, any value that would be
included within GEM for DCTs would be without foundation and, by definition, arbitrary and
capricious. Second, even if there were some data available, the agencies need to account for the fact that
there are a number of DCT variants and a number of control strategies that could potentially affect
related emissions and fuel efficiency. Due to all of this variation, it would not be possible to render a
singular GEM value for this technology. Finally, EPA and NHTSA must take into account the fact that
DCTs are often larger and heavier than current MTs, AMTs and ATs. This additional weight would
negatively affect the emissions and fuel efficiency associated with DCTs. Yet Allison has not uncovered
anything in the rulemaking record to indicate that the agencies are aware of this negative effect and have
-------
taken it into account in calculation of technology improvement values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p.21]
In general, DCTs share some characteristics of AMTs and some characteristics of powershifting ATs.
For many of the same reasons that DCTs cannot be included in GEM, however, a post simulation
adjustment also cannot accurately characterize DCT performance when compared to a MT, AMT or AT.
Specifically, the agencies lack any basis in this rulemaking to assign the same value of 2% for DCTs in
certain Class 7 and 8 applications as AMTs and ATs and there is no record support for a 2.3% value for
DCTs and AMTs in the Vocational Vehicle category when denying such an adjustment for ATs. Again,
since EPA and NHTSA cannot reasonably predict the effect of utilizing DCTs in vocational vehicles or
tractor applications, the percentage values for DCTs are inherently unsupported in the record. As a data
point, Allison recently completed competitive assessment testing of the Eaton Procision DCT. During
that assessment, the Procision DCT fuel usage at idle in drive was significantly higher than the fuel
usage for the Allison 2000 SeriesTM used in the assessment. This seems to be a result of the Eaton
hardware/software implementation that some clutches stay applied during stop in drive scenarios (see
table below). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.21]
Instead, EPA and NHTSA must only include DCTs in GEM when there is a verified model available.
Since that currently does not exist, the agencies must develop or obtain such data and make it available
for public review prior to assigning a regulatory value to utilization of DCTs. Such data must be done
with a 2010 engine in order to have the same baseline as other transmission technologies; utilizing a
newer engine would create unacceptable bias in the results. Altogether, without a factual basis in the
Proposed Rule, including DCTs in GEM or allowing for post-simulation adjustment cannot be
considered a logical outgrowth of the general discussion of this technology provided in the Preamble
and supporting documents.38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.21-22]
Moreover, if additional information is provided regarding DCTs, EPA and NHTSA must conduct
additional notice and comment rulemaking before including DCTs in GEM or otherwise allowing for
crediting of this technology. This is especially true since testing conducted by Allison has indicated that
DCTs have more GHG emissions and less fuel economy in transient operation when compared to
vehicles incorporating ATs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.22]
In recent testing, two trucks were setup to be identical except for the transmission for each vehicle. Full
throttle shift speeds were changed on the Allison 2000 SeriesTM to match the Eaton Procision DCT and
Neutral at Stop was enabled for the AT. Subsequently, ARB Transient, 55 mph, 65 mph and idle tests
were conducted following SAE1526 testing guidelines. The 55 mph and 65 mph tests were conducted
on a circle track with a maximum positive grade of 0.78% and maximum negative grade of -0.78%.39
The results of this testing are contained on the chart below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.22]
[Table, 'Results of fuel usage tests for DCTs versus ATs', can be found on p. 22 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1]
EPA and NHTSA Must Revise Assumptions on Full Pressure Pump Loss
For Idle Stop simulation of ATs, GEM assumes full pressure pump loss. In current production, AT
transmissions reduce pressure when not needed for clutch capacity or other purposes. By 2021, this on-
demand pressure reduction will operate at even lower pressures at idle in all AT transmissions. This
pressure reduction directly reduces the pump loss and thus emissions. GEM must therefore be adjusted
to take this capability into account. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A 1 p.26]
-------
The example below is a combination of test results and analytical post-processing (to convert measured
pressures to torque). The figure demonstrates a real world reduction in pump loss during an Idle Stop,
versus a Drive Stop. The pump loss reduction is approximately 66%, with very little influence from idle
speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.26]
[Chart, 'Pump Loss Reduction at Idle Stop', can be found on p.26 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1]
EPA and NHTSA Should Reweight Drive Cycles Used in GEM
The agencies have requested comment on whether there is a need to "include segments of lower or
variable speed operation in the nominally 55 mph and 65 mph drive cycles used in GEM and how this
may or may not impact strategies manufacturers would develop." Data that Allison has developed
indicate that average cruising speeds and stops are much greater than reflected in the proposed duty
cycle weightings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.27]
Allison has assembled data from 16 different tractor fleets using the TCI0 transmission. TC10 customer
evaluation fleets average 1.5 stops/mile, with a range of 0.2 to 8.9 stops/mile. Duty cycle information
for the TCI0 therefore indicates that more stops/mile and idle time should be incorporated into the day
cab cycle. In general, Allison supports weighting the ARB transient cycle more heavily, reducing the 65
mph cycle percentage and adding 5% idle cycle to the tractor day cabs. Our specific recommended
values as weighting and average speeds are contained below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.27]
[Tables, 'recommended values for weighing and average speeds', can be found on p.27 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1]
Allison Agrees With EPA and NHTSA General Approach on Shift Strategies, But Improvements
Are Necessary To Generic Shift Algorithm To Address Lockup
EPA and NHTSA have recognized that there are a number of technical and policy barriers to
incorporating proprietary shift strategies within GEM, including the disclosure of proprietary
information and the total number of such strategies and the use of dynamic switching as between
strategies. Including such strategies within GEM could also be counterproductive and lead to sub-
optimal vehicle configurations. Allison concurs with the agencies in this assessment. It would be
exceedingly complex to simulate all the various shift strategies which exist in a single Transmission
Control Module (TCM). Utilization of a generic shift algorithm presents a reasonable approach and
strikes a reasonable balance between the testing burden imposed and the need for accuracy in testing
and certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.29]
Allison does have several concerns regarding the general shift algorithms; however, Allison is
concerned about the timing of torque converter lockup (LU) engagement. Allison's TC10, 2000 xFETM
and 3000 xFE TM transmission models operate with LU in 1st range. Early LU operation increases
efficiency significantly and improves fuel economy by up to 3%. Due to the larger ratio step required
for some transmissions, Allison does not believe that all transmissions will have LU in 1st. Allison
recommends that GEM be modified to require input of the range in which LU is applied in order to
better represent the real world fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.29]
In addition, within GEM, the MLHD48 AT and HHD AT lock/unlock schedules appear to match Allison
maximum performance shift schedules. These samples are outliers and do not accurately represent
-------
typical shift schedules in today's fuel economy-driven industry. Further, these lock/unlock schedules
must not be used for slower engines because lockup may be unattainable and GEM emissions results
would be unrealistically high. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.29]
Therefore, Allison requests to replace the current MLHD AT lock/unlock schedule (similar to Allison
2600 performance schedule) with the Allison 1800 performance schedule. The Allison 1800
performance schedule still has a performance-oriented shift strategy, but the lower speeds would make it
universally compatible with engines in this category. Likewise, we request to replace the current HHD
AT lock/unlock schedule (similar to Allison 2100 performance schedule) with the Allison 1600
performance schedule. The Allison 1600 performance schedule still has a performance-oriented shift
strategy, but the lower speeds would make it universally compatible with engines in this category.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.29-30]
Lastly, Allison requests to utilize the 1st Range lock and unlock schedules from these respective shift
schedules in those cases where 1st lockup is selected by the user and enabled by GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.30]
[Chart, 'Percent throttle plotted against turbine speed for MLHD AT and HHD AT', can be found on
p.30 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1]
EPA and NHTSA Must Give Equal Credit to ATs for 1:1 Gear Ratio
GEM assumes certain transmission gear efficiencies for all ranges. Furthermore, GEM credits a 2% gear
efficiency improvement for any range with a 1:1 gear ratio. Allison agrees this is a reasonable
assumption, since 1:1 ranges do not exercise any dynamic gear meshes, thus gear meshing losses are
reduced. However, this 2% gear efficiency credit for 1:1 ranges is applied to AMT and MT only.
Allison requests the same credit for AT, since the same physical phenomenon is observed in AT
planetary and countershaft systems alike. Since EPA and NHTSA lack a reasoned basis to distinguish
between ATs, AMTs and MTs with regard to 1:1 gear ratios, it would be arbitrary and capricious to
selectively grant credits to some, but not all, transmission architectures where this gear ratio is included
in the certified vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.30]
EPA and NHTSA Must Fix GEM "Bugs"
In GEM simulations with automatic transmissions, Allison has commonly observed the lockup clutch
cycling during vehicle launches. When this cycling occurs, it is generally followed by 3rd Range torque
converter operation. This behavior is unrealistic and does not reflect the lockup schedules embedded
within GEM. If followed correctly, those GEM TCC schedules would result in vehicle launches which
lockup in 2nd Range and stay locked until vehicle slows to the 2nd Range unlock shift point. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.30]
The GEM transmission controller also consults the lockup schedules using the current range, rather than
the selected range. Thus, during a 2-3 upshift, turbine speed is commonly pulled below the 2nd Range
unlock threshold, thereby triggering GEM to unlock incorrectly. EPA and NHTSA should allow the
GEM transmission controller to consult the lockup schedules using the selected range. This would result
in the 3rd Range unlock threshold being much lower and correct the unintended unlock and lockup
cycling defect. Other solutions do exist, but for any solution, Allison requests that the GEM lockup
controller be corrected to reflect real world behavior of the torque converter lockup operation. In 2nd
Range lockup transmissions, this means that the torque converter locks in 2nd Range and stays locked.
-------
Likewise, in 1st Range lockup enabled transmissions, the torque converter should lock in 1st Range and
stay locked. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.30-31]
GEM Should Include Starting Range Input for ATs
Allison manufactures a 7 speed transmission. The 7 speed transmission is a 6 speed gear box with an
adaptor housing for a low range or "granny" gear. This low range is only accessible via a manual range
selection made by the operator and is only used in off-road conditions. Normal on-highway driving
utilizes 2nd thru 7th ranges. The current GEM model operates the ARB Transient cycle using 1st
through 7th ranges which does not reflect real world operation. Therefore Allison recommends GEM
add a starting range input and the criteria for selecting the starting range would be the starting range
used most often (similar to the two speed axle requirement). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.31]
32 Attachment 3.
34 See Attachment 4.
37 RIA at 4-36.
38 An agency "must itself provide notice of a regulatory proposal." Fertilizer Inst. V. EPA, 935 F 2d.
1303,1312 (D.C. Cir 1990). See also Ass'n of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan, 681
F. 3d (D.C. Cir.2012).
39 It should be noted here that the grades to do not match the GEM simulation grades.
48 "MLHD" is the term utilized in GEM for the combination of LHD and MHD vehicle classes.
I. EPA and NHTSA Must Correct Stop Start Delay Time
From Allison's review of the NODA and associated documents, it appears that when using engine
stop/start in GEM, the simulation puts the transmission into neutral at stops, waits for 5 seconds, and
then stops the engine. Specifically, during analyses that we performed using GEM 2v2.1, the following
transmission/engine behavior was observed for the simulated engine stop/start feature during the
transient cycle: (1) vehicle decelerates to a stop; (2) transmission shifts to neutral (if automatic
transmission neutral idle is enabled); (3) a 5 second period ensues; and (4) after this 5 second period, the
engine shuts down. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.2]]
This element of GEM, however, is inaccurate when compared to the operation of an engine stop-start
system that is under development. Based on the current Allison stop-start development level with the
1000/2000 SeriesTM, the transmission generated delay time is less than 1.5 seconds. Overall, the time
from vehicle stop, to engine stop, is typically less than 2 seconds. EPA should therefore correct the
model's time variable to substantially revise downward the current level of 5 seconds, to something
approximating Allison's experienced delay of between 1.5 and 2.0 seconds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1892-A1 p.2]
Although less of a concern for non-transient duty cycles that are largely composed of 55 miles per hour
("MPH") and 65 MPH operation, the excessive time that the model places a vehicle in neutral
disadvantages an automatic transmission ("AT") more severely than an automated manual ("AMT") or
manual transmission ("MT") since ATs are more efficient in transient drive cycles than AMTs. A longer
period of time before engine-shut down occurs directionally hurts the more efficient operation of ATs in
-------
transient cycles and creates an unjustified disparity in measuring the emissions performance of AT
versus AMT orMT transmissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A 1 p.2-3]
IV. GEM's Estimation of Transmission Losses is Flawed and Results in Unjustified Benefits to
AMTs
After reviewing the most recent updates to GEM, it is clear that EPA has adopted a conservative
approach towards modeling losses in a transmission. That is, GEM results in an overestimation of
transmission losses in order to provide an incentive for a transmission manufacturer to either provide
actual loss data or conduct powertrain testing. This result first conflicts with what should be the goal of
GEM modeling: to provide the best estimation of real world performance. But additionally, this result
unduly and unjustifiably favors AMTs over ATs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p. 8]
For an AMT, there are two areas of losses: gear efficiency and spin loss. For an AT, there are four areas
of losses: gear efficiency, spin loss, pump loss and torque converter loss. Therefore, in GEM, an AT
may have a larger total number of losses than an AMT/MT transmission. But it appears that EPA may
have applied a "conservative factor" to each such loss in the form of a percentage. This has the effect of
multiplying losses for transmissions with higher number of losses. In other words, if the conservative
factor is 1.2 (20% higher losses) when applied to a transmission with a 20 Nm loss - this results in 4
Nm of extra loss. But if a transmission has higher losses, for example 100 Nm, then applying the same
1.2 factor results in 20 Nm of additional loss which is highly overstated on an absolute basis. Allison
does not believe that application of such a factor - presuming we are right in how the calculation was
made ~ is either technically supported or justified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p. 8]
As an example of this effect, the GEM model was executed on two 10-speeds, an Eaton MT and an
Allison TC10® AT on both tractor day cab and sleeper cab weighted cycles. Then, actual loss numbers
were substituted into GEM. The results are contained in the chart below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1892-A1 p. 8]
[Chart, 'C02 Impact of Power Loss', can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1892-A1]
The above chart shows when going from GEM default losses to actual losses for the MT, C02 was
reduced 1.5% and 1.4%. But when GEM default losses to actual losses are compared for the AT, actual
loss data resulted in C02 reductions of 3.2% and 2.6%. This means that the GEM modeling of ATs
would be severely disadvantaged relative to AMTs no matter what specific method was used to
calculate the differentials. The important, real world effect of this calculation, however, is to create
significant incentives to not use GEM defaults for ATs; an undue test burden is placed on manufacturers
who produce AT-equipped vehicles and/or ATs creating an associated market disadvantage. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p. 9]
Instead, Allison recommends that EPA apply a fixed amount of extra loss (i.e., a single Nm amount) to
all transmission types. Such an approach would level the playing field as between all transmission types
and not unduly favor a transmission with lower actual losses in GEM. A manufacturer would always be
free to provide actual loss data or conduct powertrain testing in order to replace the default values, but
would not be "forced" to do so based on transmission type. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1892-A1 p.9]
Response:
We have made significant changes and improvements based on Allison comments as well as address the
issues Allison raised regarding GEM.
• Modified road grade profile for 55- and 65-mph cruise cycles
• Revised idle cycles into overall vocational vehicles with new vocational cycle weightings
• Made significant changes on the input file structures. Examples includes additions of columns
for axle configuration ("6x2", "6x4","6x4D", "4x2"), and additions of a few more technology
improvement inputs, such as "Neutral Idle and Start/Stop."
-------
• Made significant changes on output file structures. Examples includes an option to allow the
user to output detailed results on average speed, average work before and after transmissions,
and the numbers of shift for each phase (55 and 65mph cycles and ARB cycle).
• Added input file for axle power losses (function of axle output speed and torque) and replaced
single axle efficiency in model with lookup table of torque loss
• Added simulation of engine torque response with fast response region defined by engine
displacement, and slower torque increase in boosted region with fast falloff on available torque
• Added regression models for all certification cycles to allow the user to simulate vehicle with
cycle average approach
• Added different fuel properties according to 1036.530.
• Significantly improved shift strategy based on testing data
• Adjusted transmission loss & inertia scale factors per regulatory subcategory
• Added optional input table for transmission power loss data
• Added minimum torque converter lock-up gear input for AT
• Retuned the default transmission mechanical efficiency based on the testing data
• Added neutral idle and start/stop features during simulation
• Adjusted shift and torque converter lockup strategy
The agencies made changes to GEM with respect to neutral idle as well as start-stop. More can be seen
in Chapter 4.4.1.7 of the RIA .
We agree that DCT should not be included in the final GEM. As a matter of fact, DCT is modeled as
AMT. More can be seen in Chapter 4.4.1.1 of the RIA.
We also made a number of improvements on pressure pump loss of the transmission as the default input
tables. We also allow the OEM to input their own power loss tables if they believe our default power
loss is too conservative. In addition, we also provide OEM an option to conduct powertrain test if its
own power loss table would not be able to address the benefits related the integration of engine and
transmission.
The agencies considered these comments along with the information that was used to derive the drive
cycle weightings in Phase 1. The agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2, and have existing
provisions in Phase 1 (EPA's 40 CFR 1037.630 andNHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR 523.2), that allow
low-roof tractors intended for intra-city pickup and delivery, such as those that deliver bottled beverages
to retail stores, to be treated as vocational vehicles. The vocational vehicle standards are predicated on
drive cycles with distance-based weighting factors of 20, 54, or 90 percent transient cycle depending on
the type of vocational operation (see 40 CFR 1037.510). The agencies cannot determine based on the
information provided whether some of these tractors may actually be treated as vocational vehicles in
the regulations, but it is possible. The agencies believe this new data from a small subset of the tractor
fleets falls within the range of drive cycle weightings for day cabs and the final vocational drive cycle
weightings. Therefore, we are adopting the drive cycle weightings for tractors that we adopted for
Phase 1 and proposed for Phase 2.
We did change the 1:1 gear ratio efficiency based on the data we obtained for both AT and AMT.
We did not make the stop-start delay time shorter as Allison recommended. We have to consider all
related technologies on the market, making sure that we would not reward those technologies that
cannot shut down in 5 seconds.
-------
We have made many changes on AT transmission loss.
We did add features into GEM, allowing idle stop, neutral stop, and Start/Stop technologies to be
accounted for.
The agencies evaluated an AT and AMT during powertrain testing. Please see RIA Chapter 2.8.2.6.
The AT we tested included some features that are unique to AT, such as TC 1st gear lockup, and neutral
idle, and start/stop features. Once AT can utilize those features, difference between AT and AMT
would be small. As a matter of fact, AT can perform better than AMT for certain conditions. However,
we have a concern using the Allison TC10 as the default automatic transmission. This is because this
TC10 is unique and it appears more efficient than many other transmissions, and using it as the baseline
would award those transmissions that do not have the same performance as the TC10.
With regard to the default transmission losses, the agencies used data provided by manufacturers to set
the losses for each transmission type and weight class so that GEM represented a conservative 2018 MY
baseline. This was done to fairly represent each transmission architecture without overly benefiting
transmissions that have lower efficiency than the high volume transmissions. With regard to increasing
the losses of all transmission, we did not do this because we did not want manufactures to get credit for
just performing the test without improving the efficiency of the transmission.
With regard to manually engaged granny gears, 40 CFR 1037.520 (g) states to input into GEM all the
"available" gears. This language was written to address transmissions that have gears that are not
available to the operator, but could be expanded to automatic transmission that have manually engaged
granny gears. The agencies welcome input on how this language could be modified to more clearly
apply to these transmissions.
Organization: Aluminum Association
Freight Efficiency Benefits
As regards item 2 above, the Association is concerned that the existing EPA GEM methodologies do not
adequately account for the benefit inherent in the lightweighting of medium and heavy duty vehicles.
The GEM calculates the benefit of lightweighting a heavy duty tractor and/or trailer by assigning 33%
of the decrease from lightweighting to a payload increase and 67% of the decrease from lightweighting
to a vehicle mass decrease. For vocational trucks, the GEM assigns 50% of the decrease from
lightweighting each to a payload increase and to a vehicle mass decrease. This makes sense when
applied to the fuel efficiency calculation for an individual heavy duty tractor, trailer, or vocational truck
and EPA's GEM ratios in this area account for the fact that the trucking industry values lightweighting
benefits differently according to whether or not the truck/trailer is 'weighted out' or 'cubed out'. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.4]
What they significantly fail to capture, however, is the benefit that lightweighting provides to
dramatically increase overall freight efficiency in addition to individual truck fuel efficiency. This is a
key distinction and the difference between the two is best captured by the Lightweighting Confidence
Study report issued on August 25, 2015 by the National Council on Freight Efficiency (NACFE) which
notes - [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.4]
"Freight efficiency is the measure of the quantity of goods moved per unit of energy needed (measured
in ton-miles per gallon offuel if the load is heavy and cube-miles per gallon for lighter weight loads),
while fuel efficiency is simply the miles per gallon achieved by the truck at its maximum weight, but
-------
does not take into account the amount of work being performed (work being the movement of cargo). "
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.4]
Measured through the GEM lens of fuel efficiency, the per truck fuel economy benefit of lightweighting
is in the range of 0.5% to 0.6% improvement in fuel efficiency per 1,000 lbs of weight reduction and
EPA in fact notes that weight reduction is a "technology with a high cost that offers small benefit to the
transportation sector" (80 FR 40223). However, this misses the real and fundamentally significant
benefit of lightweighting to improve the overall freight efficiency of transportation operations. In this
regard, lightweighting is the only technology being considered for Phase 2 inclusion in the GEM that
confers this benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.4-5]
And what a benefit it is - For heavy duty trucks and trailers, the GEM methodology reflects that 340
pounds of every 1,000 lbs of weight reduction is translated to increased payload. Using the GEM's 19
ton default payload for heavy duty trucks and trailers, an aluminum intensive combination tractor/trailer
as modeled by the Ricardo Study noted above with 3300 lbs of aluminum lightweighting transports 3%
more freight overall (3300 x ,34)/(19 x 2000), equivalent to a 3% overall increase in freight efficiency
and eliminating the need for one trip out of every 33 previously taken. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1260-A1 p.5]
For vocational trucks, the savings are similar as the GEM reflects that a 1000 lb weight reduction
(assuming a smaller weight reduction as vocational trucks are smaller and lighter to begin with) would
result in a 500 lb payload increase. This corresponds to a freight efficiency increase of 3.3 % (1000 x
0.50)/(7.5 x 2000) and eliminating the need for one trip out of every 30 taken. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1260-A1 p.5]
Because the GEM as currently configured only looks at vehicle specific fuel efficiency and not at
overall freight efficiency, the portion of lightweighting of an individual truck allocated to a payload
increase is considered detrimental in the GEM methodology. This masks the true value of
lightweighting's benefit in terms of fuel efficiency and GHG emissions reduction at the freight
efficiency level as it is not captured in the current GEM calculations and subsequent output. This must
be corrected in the final rule and its accompanying GEM. The best way to do this would be to include
the full credit for weight reduction in the GEM to account for the freight efficiency component of that
weight reduction which results in the elimination of vehicle trips and the commensurate reduction in
GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.5]
Response:
We agree with Aluminum Association on the benefits of light weight material. We have enhanced the
number of lightweighting components recognized in the regulations. The detailed list can be seen in 40
CFR 1037.520.
The agencies did not assess the impact of individual technologies in terms of freight efficiency of the
entire sector. The metrics we use to evaluate a single vehicle is a freight efficiency metric - grams of
C02 per ton-mile and gallons of fuel per 1000 ton-miles. Our split treatment of the weight reduction
items recognizes that for a portion of the trips when the vehicle is at weight limit, that vehicle will be
able to carry more payload.
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Adding Technologies to GEM
-------
While the introduction of dual clutch heavy transmission may be a few years away from entry in the
U.S. market, EPA needs to establish a procedure to add new fuel saving technologies to GEM. The
process to add technologies must be clearly written and concise. The procedure should be vetted
throughout the agencies, including EPA certification staff, and issued via guidance. Investing in new
technologies can require hundreds of millions of dollars in up front funding. Furthermore, GEM, as
proposed, provides no clear path towards incorporation of new, fuel saving technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.33]
While the feasibility of a heavy-duty dual clutch transmission may be debatable, the possibility of new
technologies emerging that could and should be included in GEM is real. Hence the agencies needs to
layout out a clear, concise, step by step process that OEM's can follow to add technologies to the GEM
pick list and the EPA certification staff can follow to approval or deny technology. Furthermore this
process needs to be open and transparent to all parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.33]
Simply discussing a process to add technologies to GEM in the draft RIA and assuming it can be used to
make GEM technology changes post rulemaking is insufficient. The agencies need to add clear step-by-
step guidelines with multiple examples using aero, driveline, axle, transmission, engine, aftertreatment,
and climate control (heating and cooling technologies) that both industry and EPA can follow. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.33]
Given the "newness of GEM" and the extreme difference in terms of speed and load demanded by the
various urban, 55 mph, and 65 mph drive cycles vs the heavy-duty FTP additional flexibilities are
needed to reflect in-use accessory load reduction. In addition to FEAD components discussed in the
NPRM, other technologies that may not be fully reflected in the engine mapping process or
underrepresented because of improper or unknown GEM assumptions need to be included. These
include clutched, electric, variable speed, variable pressure coolant, fuel, engine oil, transmission oil, air
conditioning and/or DEF pumps. Additionally, the agencies should consider adding generic powertrain
and vehicle scaling features to GEM (aerodynamics, loads, etc.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1
p.33]
AAPC believes that GEM credits for idle reduction technologies, such as neutral idle, idle shut down
and stop-start, fall short of actual on-road C02 benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1898-A1 p.2]
Response:
We have considerably expand the technology improvement inputs to recognize many new technologies
including various idle technologies. We also expand the test procedures that can detail the procedure of
how these new technologies can be recognized. For example, all new technologies related to the engines
will be recognized during the engine fuel map generation, including variable speed pumps on oil, fuel
and water, as long as those components are part of the engines that are being tested. For transmission
related new technology, it can be recognized by individual gear transmission efficiency tests or
powertrain tests. As pointed out in Chapter 4.4.1.1 of the RIA, we do not model DCT directly. Rather,
we model DCT as AMT.
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
Updates to modeled technologies
Changes to the representation of transmission, engine, and axle allow for more precise modeling of
vehicle behavior in the GEM model. Additional vehicle technologies and greater acceptance of numeric
-------
parameters (instead of Y/N) for technology inputs allows manufacturers greater representation of the
vehicles they are actually putting on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1896-A1 p.4]
Impact on the proposal
Modeling powertrain technology more accurately will help align GEM results with real world
reductions. It will also allow for greater capture of incremental improvements. The proposal assumed
fixed technology improvements—however, as is evident from sources like the Southwest Research
Institute report,10 there will be continuous development of many of these technologies throughout the
course of this rule. Because GEM can now better capture these more subtle technology improvements
related to transmission efficiencies, etc., it is critical that the agencies tighten their 2024 and 2027
targets accordingly to ensure that the targets represent the "maximum feasible" and "technology
forcing" standards. Similarly, the inclusion of technologies that the agencies did not originally model
within the GEM model (e.g., tractor neutral idling) means that those targets should be tightened to
recognize that these technologies can reduce fuel use from heavy-duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1896-A1 p.4]
10 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1623/NHTSA-2014-0132-0185.
Response:
We have changed many technology improvement inputs from Y/N to %, allowing the user to input
specific values for those technologies defined by 40 CFR 1037.520. These technologies are very well
defined as part of the stringency development. Please see Preamble Sections III.D, IV.D, and V.C for
discussions regarding the stringency of the tractor, trailer, and vocational vehicle standards.
Organization: BYD Motors
Further Refine Duty Cycles to More Fully Capture Technology Benefits
Despite significant improvement to the duty cycle, particularly for urban and multipurpose vehicles that
spend much of the day parked or in transient operation, further improvements can be made to ensure
that the broad spectrum of vocational vehicles is adequately represented and that the regulation drives
the full spectrum of fuel consumption reduction technologies applicable to such a diverse fleet. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p. 3]
Work trucks frequently experience idle time exceeding those of even the urban vehicle
category. Furthermore, by setting stringency exclusively with the GEM model, the agencies have
excluded fuel used for power take-off (PTO) operation at work sites and, in turn, technologies that
would reduce this fuel use. The agencies have in Phase 2, as in Phase 1, a certification pathway that
allows manufacturers to claim credit for hybrid and electric PTO; however, they did not include any
uptake of this technology in the baseline assumptions, further undermining the stringency levels that
should be assumed in vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p.3]
Response:
We have made numerous changes to account for the benefits related to idle and PTO as part of input
parameters for GEM, specifically targeting vocational sectors.
-------
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Use of rear axle efficiency test results to override GEM defaults - The agencies request comment on
an optional axle efficiency test procedure to override the agencies simulated axle in GEM. 80 FR 40176.
DTNA welcomes the option to override the GEM default value for axle efficiency based on the result of
an axle efficiency test. This will be beneficial both to manufacturers and the agencies by providing
better information about actual axle efficiencies than the default, literature value of 95.5%. While we
appreciate the agencies' efforts to define a new procedure to measure axle efficiency, we recommend
instead aligning with the ACEA's test protocol for axle efficiency measurement. Refer to Appendix D
for ACEA's Axle Test Method. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.54]
Axles - The agencies request comment on the best way to recognize improved axle technology for
vocational vehicles, either through a GEM calculation or a fixed assigned value. 80 FR 40299. Axle
efficiency improvements whether it is lubrication or axle disconnect (6x2) should be rewarded with a
GEM calculation or a fixed value. In the interest to keep a uniform approach across all vehicle
subcategories we recommend adopting the proposed method for tractors, i.e. applying a fixed
improvement value in the post-processing of GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.54]
Simulating Human Driver Behavior and Transmissions for Vehicle Certification - The EPA
describes the complexity of its driver model on 80 FR 40184 and requests information on ideas like
using transmission-specific shift logic and improved driver models. We at DTNA have modeled
vehicles with different shift logic, from a simplified version to a complex one that required software in
the loop. We found that for the EPA's linehaul cycles, there was very little difference in the results for
the different versions~the reason being that there is very little gear shifting involved in the EPA's
linehaul cycles. See the section on GEM, above. On vocational cycles, there could be significant
differences, because the higher frequency of gear shifts. But the complexity of modeling all of the
different drivers and the ways that their quirks impact shifting make it impossible to get one common
driver model that both covers all of the quirks yet is generic enough to work in a regulatory setting.
Therefore, we think that the agencies' approach with the generic shift strategy and driver model is the
correct approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.63]
DCT Should Get No More Credit Than AMT - The agencies propose to assign a 2% benefit for dual-
clutch transmissions. § 1037.520(f)(3). Despite having studied such transmissions, we do not see so
large a FE benefit beyond the benefit that comes from the automated nature of the transmission.
Therefore, we agree with the agencies' proposal—as we understand it—that gives DCTs the same 2%
benefit that AMTs get. If however we misunderstand and the DCT gets 2% plus the 2% for being
automated, then we think the agencies' approach is incorrect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.63]
Off-Cycle Technology Credits - The agencies propose to continue the process of innovative
technology credits, now called off-cycle technology credits. We agree that this is an appropriate method
of incentivizing development of FE technologies, even those that do not show FCRs on the GEM cycle
or on a chassis dynamometer, given that a lot of the real world cannot be accurately represented on a
chassis dynamometer. We also agree that the agencies should take the list of known off-cycle
technologies, including predictive cruise control and tire inflation systems, and give manufacturers
credit without forcing the manufacturers to go through the cumbersome off-cycle certification
procedure. However, if a manufacturer makes a significant breakthrough, for example taking predictive
technologies and developing one that can achieve significantly more than the 2% that the agencies
currently propose to credit, then the manufacturer should be able to use the off-cycle credit procedure to
demonstrate that delta and to get credit for it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.76]
-------
Innovative and Off-Cycle Technology Credits - The agencies request comment on whether off-cycle
technologies in the Phase 2 program should be limited by infrequent common use, in what model years,
and what should be penetration rate to be considered not in common use. 80 FR 40158. First, as a
preface, DTNA tried very hard for two years to get certification for off-cycle technologies (then called
innovative technologies) that were not in common use at the start of Phase 1; we never achieved
certification. For some technologies, the agencies objected that the technology was common enough at
the beginning of Phase 1 that it could not be considered innovative. Leaving this to regulators' discretion
after rulemaking seemed to open the door to the arbitrary decision that some technologies, which were
not in common use at the start of the program, were in sufficiently common use to be denied innotech
credits. As a solution to this, we propose that any technology be eligible for off-cycle credits if it is not
included in GEM. Obviously, if a FE technology was invented only after start of Phase 2, it will be too
new to be in GEM and should automatically be eligible for off-cycle credits. Similarly if there is a
technology not invented at the time of the rulemaking but invented prior to the start of Phase 2, then it
should automatically be eligible too. But even if the technology was invented and in use during the
rulemaking or before, the fact that the agencies did not consider it for a pull-down menu-type credit
should not prevent its eligibility. Any fuel savings are valid fuel savings. In short, with the agencies
trying to capture as many technologies as possible with the pull-down menu credits, any that are omitted
or that are not captured by GEM should be eligible for off-cycle credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p. 76-77]
Innovative and Off-Cycle Technology Credits - On an appropriate penetration rate for a technology
not to be considered in common use. 80 FR 40330. DTNA believes that any technology that provides
measurable fuel savings and is not reflected in GEM should be eligible to be an accredited off-cycle
technology. Especially in light of the ambitious C02 reduction targets proposed by the EPA the ability
to generate C02 credits is very important and should further incentivize OEMs improve fuel
efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.77]
Innovative Technology and Off-Cycle Credits - Not granting any off-cycle credits for crash
avoidance technologies, and also the possibility of adopting aspects of the light-duty off-cycle program.
80 FR 40158. DTNA believes that crash avoidance technologies have a tangible effect on FCR. Any
reduction in crashes and the road congestion often associated with them will result in wasted fuel.
NHTSA should grant off-cycle credits for crash avoidance technologies. DTNA agrees with the
requirement for documentation for off-cycle requests so long as the requirement is straightforward and
not unnecessarily complex. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.77]
Off-cycle (innotech) burden in Phase 1 is too high; this is a better approach: DTNA favors to see as
many technologies as possible to be recognized via separate fixed inputs into GEM. Beyond that DTNA
fully supports the agencies' intention to provide a regulatory path for off-cycle technology credits as a
complement to GEM. 80 FR 40330. However, following our experience with the inno-tech process in
Phase 1, we urge the agencies to clearly define a clear path towards certification of a given technology,
[redacated] For Phase 2 it is important to avoid scenarios like this. It should be feasible for OEMs to
claim credits with a reasonable amount of effort, even at the expense of slight over crediting. Of course,
good engineering judgement always has to be employed. It is important to remember that the agencies
intend to credit similar technologies (with variable benefits) via predefined improvement factors in
GEM. AMTs always allow the possibility to be operated manually and predictive cruise control
technologies may never be active in a metropolitan area with dense infrastructure and high traffic
density. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 77-78]
Off-cycle (innotech) DF: in 1037.610(d)(7), the EPA proposes to require a demonstration of the in-use
durability of the off-cycle technology. This is likely unnecessary or impracticable for many off-cycle
-------
technologies. For example, if there is some technology like the future version of eCoast or Predictive
Cruise Control, a programming-based technology, the technology does not degrade, so no
demonstration is necessary. And for other technologies that are more hardware based (as opposed to
software based), the demonstration may be impracticable or impossible, especially given the limited
resources available to run test trucks for long mileages simply to look for deterioration. That is, trucks
are designed for approximately a million miles of operation, with hardware components designed for
similar operation (albeit perhaps with maintenance involved, as is allowed under the EPA's DF
procedures for engines). There is no reason to believe that off-cycle technology would be any less
robust than the rest of a vehicle. Then, to slow production and agency recognition of such technologies
by mandating several hundred thousand miles of operation to validate a manufacturer's claim of
durability is unnecessary. We recommend that the EPA apply a 'good engineering judgment' standard
here, allowing a manufacturer to claim no deterioration (albeit, again, perhaps with maintenance
required at prescribed intervals). If after introduction into commerce of such a technology, the agency
has reason to believe the technology is not as durable as the manufacturer claimed, the agency could
revoke certification of the technology or demand it be recalled and upgraded. 1037.610(d)(7) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 78]
Describing post-processing technologies in 1037.205(b): it is not clear to us what level of detail would
be required in describing the technologies listed in 1037.205(b), such as predictive cruise control.
Additionally it is not clear whether a vehicle manufacturer could provide such information when the
technology, again such as PCC, is supplied by an independent engine manufacturer. These are details
that should be ironed out during the rulemaking process, as (in our experience) leaving this until after
the rulemaking when manufacturers are trying to certify off-cycle technologies leads to months or years
of back-and-forth on what information is required for certification. 1037.205(b) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p.78]
Predictive Cruise Control (PCC) is counted as a pull-down menu technology but eCoast, which
provided huge fuel savings on Super Truck, is not. The agencies should correct this omission. At the
least, the agencies should use a [redacted] value, which is representative of an average vehicle with
eCoast. It is worth noting that the more aerodynamic a vehicle and/or the lower its rolling resistance, the
more its eCoast will save fuel (as demonstrated by the DTNA Super Truck). If the agencies have the
time, they should provide increased eCoast FCR benefits in GEM for the more aerodynamic vehicles
(e.g.,[redacted]% for eCoast on a Bin VII vehicle and [redacted].5% on a Bin VI, etc.). 1037.520(f)
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 80]
Response:
We appreciate many constructive comments from DTNA. Accordingly, we made many changes.
We do allow the rear axle efficiency tests result to override GEM defaults, which specifically address
the benefits from 6x2 and lubricant, many advanced technologies related to axle.
We appreciate DTNA's support for us to use generic shift strategy.
GEM will model DCTs as AMTs as DTNA suggested.
Although off-cycle credits will remain an option under Phase 2, the agencies have included many more
technologies within GEM (so these are not off-cycle anymore, but rather already credited). These
include predictive cruise control and tire inflation systems through % instead of N/Y option. Both
predictive cruise control and neutral coast (eCoast) are defined as Intelligent Controls in the GEM input
-------
file, which means that they can be all recognized as technology improvement inputs to get credit. How
all those technology improvement inputs for off-cycle credit are used in GEM is defined in 40 CFR
1037.520(j).
Organization: Dana Holding Corporation
These comments specifically address the newly docketed Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM)
P2v2.1 (EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1626), on which the agencies requested public
comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.l]
Axle Efficiency Testing
Dana fully supports the joint initiative by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency to further reduce greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and improve the
fuel economy of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles as described in Alternative 3 of the proposed rule
published in 80 FR 40137. On September 24, 2015, Dana submitted comments identifying our position
related to the proposed rule and made several suggestions for consideration by the agencies during the
process of promulgating a final rule. Dana remains committed to the views contained in our September
24, 2015, comments. Dana believes that various material changes have been made to the GEM since
those comments were submitted that require the filing of these additional comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1917-A1 p.2]
Specifically, Dana notes that the agencies have adopted a "two-option" approach to determining axle
efficiency within GEM P2v2.1. This new two-option approach will provide axle manufacturers with the
choice to use either a very conservative default fixed axle efficiency that can be interpolated by ratio
through a linear equation or, as a second option, to provide a full rear axle power-loss map obtained
through standardized dynamometer testing. Given that the default efficiencies are very conservative and
understate leading axle efficiency ratings, axle manufacturers like Dana are most likely to rely on the
full dynamometer test to determine credits for the efficiencies designed into their proprietary axles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p. 2]
It is important to note that, given this new two-option approach, Dana supports the use of conservative
default efficiency values to ensure that higher efficiency ratings are not awarded to axles that do not
merit them. Our review of the GEM P2v2.1 shows that all default efficiency values are in fact
conservative. As a result, Dana supports these efficiency values and related equations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1917-A1 p.2]
Dana's primary concerns are with the full dynamometer testing for rear axles. Our position remains the
same as noted in our first set of comments on the proposed rule. It is Dana's opinion that the
standardized dynamometer testing would result in excessive complexity and documentation for fractions
of a percent improvement in efficiency. It is also our opinion that various easily and visually identifiable
features can serve as a less complicated checklist of efficiency credits with prescribed efficiency
improvement values. A checklist approach with prescribed efficiency values for various features would
be less complicated and allow axle manufacturers to focus on the development of innovative products
rather than testing axles for the pure benefit of certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.2]
As an axle manufacturer that is not vertically integrated within a vehicle manufacturer, Dana provides
axles that are designed to meet the needs of a full range of customers. This results in extensive
complexity within our product portfolio and requires us to provide customers with a number of axle
offerings. For example, axle manufacturers (not vertically integrated within vehicle manufacturing
-------
OEMs) serve the heavy-duty, on-highway line haul market with an array of axle families with multiple
ratios for each axle family. Under the new GEM P2v2.1, leading axle manufacturers like Dana would
need to conduct full dynamometer testing for their axles to ensure that they do not understate the
efficiency values for their products by using the proposed conservative default values. Providing axle
dynamometer testing for all axle families and each ratio will be extremely demanding on our human and
capital resources with little resulting gain in achieving the proposed rule's goals to reduce emissions and
fuel consumption. Even minor changes to the axles would require recertification to ensure that
efficiency values are stated correctly. Given the number of axle families produced by Dana, the various
ratios offered within those axle families, and the numerous changes that occur on axles over their
product life, the cost of testing for certification and recertification could be prohibitive. In addition to
the cost of dyno-testing, there would be the opportunity cost of not utilizing those same human and
capital resources for research, development, and advanced engineering programs that lead to innovative
products that drive efficiency gains in our products and help improve the fuel efficiency of our
customers' vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.2-3]
For the reasons noted above, we are suggesting a more simplistic approach to the full dynamometer
bench testing. Rather than testing each ratio or variant of the axle within a product family, Dana
suggests a combination of testing two book-end ratios for the product family and the development of an
industry-acceptable mathematical formula to interpolate the remaining ratios. This will minimize the
extent of the testing and balance the need to provide accurate axle efficiency values while not imposing
costs that could limit our ability to develop innovative products to make the vehicles affected by the
proposed rule more efficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.3]
Full-time 6x2s, Part-time 6x2s, and Two-Speed Disconnecting Tandems
Class 8 on-highway line haul vehicles with 6x2 and part-time 6x2 configurations will clearly offer an
option to help achieve the proposed rule's GHG emissions and fuel-efficiency standards. At Dana, we
are positioning our products to support both full-time and part-time 6x2s to accommodate the future
market. Given the important role these configurations could play in meeting the proposed standards, we
can agree with the agencies' position not to offer a fixed 2.5% efficiency credit post GEM for 6x2
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.3
The new two-option approach of using conservative default efficiency values or full power-loss
efficiency maps within the GEM supports a more accurate approach. We can attest that the default
values are in fact conservative. We also find that the mathematical equation used to interpolate ratio
efficiency for 6x2 configurations is reasonable and uses a conservative 37 Nm loss for tag axles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.3]
Our review of the GEM P2v2.1 also concludes that it does not accommodate two-speed axles. As noted
in our previous comments, Dana has developed a dual-range (two-speed), "disconnectable" tandem
axle. This new axle innovation will operate as a traditional axle in 6x4 configuration with a higher
numerical rear axle ratio to support the low-speed vehicle performance and safety. While approaching
cruise speeds the tandem axle will automatically (without driver intervention) "disconnect" and no
longer turn the inter-axle driveshaft, rear-rear pinion and ring-gear, therefore, operating fully on the
forward of the rear axle. During this disconnected configuration, the axle operates at the equivalent
efficiency of a 6x2 arrangement. Since the GEM does not allow for two-speed axles, we suggest that the
GEM use the ratio that is expected to be engaged over the greatest driving distance to be used to
determine axle efficiency and power-loss values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.3-4]
Automatic Tire Inflation Systems
-------
In addition to driveline systems (steer axles, driveshafts and drive axles), Dana offers automatic tire
inflation systems that can be used on the full range of vehicles affected by the proposed rule (class 2b -
8). The Spicer® Tire Optimization Management System is designed for use with steer and drive axles,
ensuring that tires in all tractor positions are at their target inflation without depending on driver/human
intervention. Dana's automatic tire inflation (ATI) solution is one of a number of available systems in
the commercial vehicle space that automatically keep tires at the appropriate inflation to reduce rolling
resistance, and provide significant fuel economy benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.4]
Dana's independent studies support the findings in Section II. C. l.(f) (80 FR 40187) of the proposed
Phase 2 rule, highlighting that tire pressure monitoring systems cannot sufficiently guarantee the proper
inflation of tires. These studies are supported by substantial fleet testimonials suggesting that monitor-
only systems are too dependent on driver intervention to be effective, and even when used in
combination with telematics, fleet managers typically only direct a truck in for unscheduled service if
tires are at dangerously low pressures and at risk of blowout. Until tires reach this point, the benefits of
reduced rolling resistance are typically not realized. Dana therefore agreed that the proposed rule did not
assign an efficiency credit for tire pressure monitoring systems. We have learned that the agencies may
now offer a 0.25% efficiency credit for tire pressure monitoring systems. For the reasons stated above,
Dana does not support offering a 0.25% efficiency credit for tire pressure monitoring systems that
require human intervention to pressurize the tire when signaling a low-pressure warning. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.4]]
While Dana supports the agencies' findings related to providing post-simulation adjustments for class 7
and 8 tractors, the fuel economy benefits of reduced rolling resistance can be realized for all vehicles
spending time on highway. As a result, Dana proposes that credit for automatic tire inflation systems be
granted for all vehicle classes (2b-8) included in the rule, including credit for vocational vehicles as
these vehicles tend to be on-highway between 40-60% of their life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-
A1 p.4]
Further, the proposed rule grants a 1% "reduction value" as a post-simulation adjustment for the use of
ATI systems on drive axles in tractors (40 CFR 1037.520(f)(7) (80 FR 40631 of the proposed rule).
Maintaining proper tire inflation of the front tires on the steer axles can also contribute to reduced
rolling resistance, and improved fuel economy. Dana proposes an additional 0.25% credit be granted for
tractors with ATI systems equipped on both steer and drive axles, for a total credit of 1.25%. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.4]
Automatic Tire Inflation & Deflation System Credit
In addition to automatic tire inflation, the Spicer® Tire Optimization Management System will include
an active deflate feature for an incremental fuel economy and safety benefit. In a recent OEM study, it
was determined that tractors equipped with active inflate and deflate technology saw a 2% improvement
in fuel economy as a result of making active modifications due to terrain, vehicle load, and duty-cycle.
This level of sophistication is currently provided by Dana and is used in military and vocational
vehicles. Dana is committed to bringing this technology to fruition in support of all on-highway tractors,
and suggests that the agencies account for this enhanced solution in the final version of GEM by
providing a 2% reduction value for active inflate and deflate systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-
A1 p.4-5]
Early Banking of Automatic Tire Inflation & Deflation System Credits
-------
As automatic tire inflation systems are currently available, Dana suggests that the agencies allow
vehicle OEMs that adopt automatic tire inflation systems before the start of phase 2 to be able to bank
the 1% - 2% (depending on whether the system includes active inflate and deflate features) credit for
such systems during the phase 1 timeframe. Those credits could be banked for use within the MY2021 -
MY2027 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1917-A1 p.5]
Overall, Dana supports the changes made to GEM that are reflected in the new release (GEM P2v2.1).
The changes support a more accurate approach and provide additional efficiency credits that reflect the
important role axles and automatic tire inflation systems can play in meeting the proposed Phase 2
standards. Dana's suggestions above aim to better balance the amount of axle testing with the
anticipated value achieved by that testing. We believe that the suggestions provided above strike that
balance. Dana's commitment is to continue to provide innovative solutions that enable our customers to
transport freight and people safely, efficiently and effectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1917-A1 p.5]
Response:
We appreciate Dana's support on our axle two-option approach. In principle, we agree with Dana that
rather than testing each ratio or variant of the axle within a product family, we could develop a
combination of testing two book-end ratios for the product family and the development of an industry-
acceptable mathematical formula to interpolate the remaining ratios. This methodology is adopted in the
final rule in 40 CFR 1037.560.
GEM does allow two speed disconnecting tandems named as 6x4D, where the vehicle is simulated on
the 55 and 65mph cycle as a 6x2 and as a 6x4 on the transient cycle. However, the axle ratio would be
still the same for this two speed axle option, prompting OEM to select most commonly used axle ratio
for GEM based on their driving condition. The main reason for this decision is that we believe that two
speed axle is primarily used in tractor applications, where cruise speeds are pre-dominated. The cycle
weighing on transient cycle is small compared to ones on two cruise speed cycles. As such, the lower
axle ratio should be selected. This is not a perfect solution, but can greatly simplify GEM.
Taking into many other comments on tire pressure system, we recognize both TPMS and ATIS in Phase
2 GEM, though the effectiveness of TPMS is lower than ATIS to recognize the need for operator
intervention. Please see Preamble Section III.D. l.b for further discussion. Consistent with Dana's
recommendation, the agencies are providing early credits for ATIS (see 40 CFR 1037.150(y)).
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Introduce the ability to overwrite GEM defaults with measured data: We recommend the
certification procedure allow the GEM default transmission efficiencies to be overwritten with values
measured on transmission efficiency test stands. This approach pulls through hardware improvements
such as advanced lubrication and reduced friction similar to the measured axle efficiencies described in
the NPRM. While the magnitude of these improvements is modest compared to those provided by
controls, they are intrinsic to the transmission hardware and independent of its controls. Thus, the
benefits can be exercised for all vehicles with the same transmission and without concerns over in-use
tampering or family definitions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.3-4]
Overwriting GEM defaults with measured data
The NPRM defines two paths for certification: the use of "slightly conservative" transmission models
and the powertrain test option. The latter makes sense to be used only for those transmissions that
-------
implement advanced technologies not modeled in GEM, and where the benefits of transmission shift
strategies and engine/transmission deep integration is significant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1
p. 11]
Rationale
For axle technologies, the NPRM has two different options: GEM "slightly conservative" models
(power-loss or efficiency models, to be precise), and the potential to overwrite these models with a loss
model that is linear in input shaft speed (so-called spin losses that have to do mostly with lubrication)
and torque (losses that have to do mostly with gear contacts and friction of sliding surfaces). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 11]
We recommend the agency allow a similar procedure for transmissions. The GEM default transmission
efficiencies would be overwritten with values measured on transmission efficiency test stands for
selected gears, and GEM defaults would be used for all other gears. A variant of this test is used in the
draft European Commission VECTO simulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 11]
Technical approach
The basis of this approach is to recognize that the transmission power loss in a given gear k is of the
form: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 11]
Transmission torque loss = akwmput + BkTmput
The coefficient ak is determined on a spin test by measuring the power loss of a transmission spun at a
few different engine speeds wmput at the input shaft, but with no load on the output shaft. The coefficient
Bk is calculated using the transmission in gear k between two dynamometers that load both the input
shaft with torque and the output shaft with the corresponding torque to balance the system. In the second
case, torque is measured at both inputs and outputs and the difference determines the torque loss, hence
Bk. It is important to run the test at two representative oil temperatures and the losses of the test stand
itself need to be isolated from the losses of the transmission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 11]
[Figure 1 can be found p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1]
Note that the European VECTO approach is measuring data at many torque and RPM points, in some
estimates at more than 1,300 test points per transmission. Such burden and precision are excessive,
especially given that GEM and VECTO are run with generic controllers that introduce more significant
errors than the actual power loss versus the bi-linear model above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1
p. 12]
We run such tests for development purposes to determine transmission efficiency. Based on that
approach, we estimate that the unburdened costs of such tests are less than $40,000 per test. We have
provided cost estimates based on actual expenses to the EPA [CBI data provided]. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 12]
Limitation and compliance value
This approach pulls through hardware improvements such as advanced lubrication and reduced friction.
While the magnitude of these improvements is modest compared to those provided by controls (5-10%
-------
of the compliance gap for line haul tractors and 10-20% of the compliance gap for Vocational vehicles),
they are intrinsic to the transmission hardware and independent of its controls. Thus, the benefits can be
exercised for all vehicles with the same transmission and without any in-use tampering concerns or
powertrain family issues. For example, for an Eaton LAS 10-speed transmission approximately 2% fuel
reduction over GEM predictions can be captured with such an approach. However, for an MXP 18-
speed transmission the benefit is minimal because the most used gears are roughly 96% efficient and
98% efficient in direct applications (close to the GEM defaults). We have provided the EPA with
relevant data from several transmissions that show that f3 = 0.02 in direct gear (98% efficiency) and
f3=0.04 (96% efficiency) in other gears is a "slightly conservative" GEM setting [Jackson 2015 and CBI
data provided]1, but for other transmissions the typical values range between 0.007 and 0.011 in direct
and 0.015 in the other relevant gears. For such transmissions, the benefit of overwriting GEM default
values results in 1-3% fuel consumption improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 12]
Recommendation: The EPA should introduce a transmission efficiency overwrite of GEM defaults
based on measured gearbox efficiency in select gears. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 12]
1 Jackson, G.A. and Palazzolo, J.J. (2015) 'Fuel economy and performance improvement enabled by
medium-duty dual clutch transmissions', Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.243-262
We believe that the following are characteristics are critical to the success of GEM as a tool and to
realizing the improvements envisioned by the rule in an efficient way for the industry: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1875-A1 p.l]
- GEM results need to reproduce the technology trends in transmission technologies, so that GEM does
not create a bias in vehicle design. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p. 1]
Response:
We have made many changes to address Eaton's constructive comments. We do allow GEM default loss
for transmission to be overwritten by the OEM's data.
Organization: Genthem, Inc.
All of our comments are directly addressing observed shortcomings and we are suggesting mechanisms
which would incentivize engine manufacturers to replace inefficient, mechanically driven accessories
with highly efficient and better controlled electrified accessories. Supertruck Program1 has shown that
such replacement is one of the basic approaches in further improving engine and overall vehicle fuel
efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.l]
Comment #3. Provide a clear mechanism for off-cycle credits for waste heat recovery and other
alternative means to produce on-board electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.4]
Background from Draft
"In particular, we project a more limited use of waste exhaust heat recovery systems in 2027, projecting
that about 10 percent of tractor engines will have turbocompounding systems, and an additional 15
percent of tractor engines would employ Rankine-cycle waste heat recovery. We do not project that
-------
turbocompounding or Rankine-cycle waste heat recovery technology will be utilized in vocational
engines. Although we see great potential for waste heat recovery systems to achieve significant fuel
savings and C02 emission reductions, we are not projecting that the technology could be available for
more wide-spread use in this time frame." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.4]
Agencies are recognizing limited penetration of waste heat recovery and other energy harvesting
technologies. It is justified to assume that implementation of Rankine-cycle waste heat recovery in
vocational vehicles will remain to be limited due to complexity of the ORC equipment. This comment
addresses the issue of off-cycle accounting for electricity production using innovative waste energy
recovery and energy harvesting technologies which are producing electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1133-A1 p.4]
Proposed change: Gentherm proposes a simplified mechanism to provide the off-cycle credits for fuel
savings and emissions reduction by allowing the bench testing at component- or subsystem-level, and
then using the results of the testing to calculate emission reduction and fuel saving coefficient in the
GEM simulation. In general, we view implementation of an energy source which is not using additional
fuel to generate electricity as a clean energy source which is reducing fuel consumption. Waste heat
recovery is an example of such an energy source. We propose using similar approach in evaluating this
benefit as in case of evaluating effect of electrification of accessories. Waste heat recovery or energy
harvesting electrical source is substituting mechanically driven alternator. We propose a four-step
calculation: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.4]
Step 1: Benchtop evaluation of efficiency of efficiency of alternator (r|aitemator). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1133-A1 p.4]
Step 2: Measurement of electrical power generated by a waste heat recovery device in the range of
conditions matching the engine operating range PWHR. Calculate instantaneous energy saving (Psavmg)
as a result of implementation of waste heat energy source as: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.5]
Psaving H Peng ine " PwHR/^laltemator
Using alternator efficiency in the denominator of term on the right side ensures appropriate accounting
for downsizing of alternator as a result of additional electrical power generated by waste heat recovery
device. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.5]
Step 3: Use calculated net energy saving to calculate engine load reduction coefficient as: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.5]
Kwhr = (average engine power in the regulatory cycle) - Average PSavmg in regulatory cycle/(average
engine power in the regulatory cycle)
Step 4: Apply calculated coefficient (Kwhr) in GEM simulation as an engine emission and fuel
efficiency correction coefficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.5]
The proposed process does not take in account duty cycle that would be observed while using waste
heat recovery device. However, it stimulates engine manufacturers to design engines and exhaust
systems in such a way that waste heat recovery devices can be optimally integrated. Waste heat
recovery systems are the only type of devices that produce electricity without consuming any additional
fuel. Making more electricity available without addition of larger, inefficient alternator encourages other
energy beneficial choices such as downsizing of electrified accessories and developing new electrified
-------
accessories. These devices are otherwise not taken in consideration during engine or powertrain test and
are normally used in vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.5]
1 The U.S. Supertruck program, expediting the development of advanced heavy duty vehicle efficiency
technologies, O. Delgado andN. Lutsev, ICCT, 2014
Response
We appreciate the comments and suggestions on a new potential and simplified test procedure to
recognize benefits from an accessory device. It should be clear that waste heat recovery technologies,
such as Rankine cycle and turbo-compound, mentioned in our regulation is not an off-cycle credit. Its
benefits are fully measureable by the dynamometer test procedure, and, in addition, it is part of the basis
for the tractor standard and so would not be an off-cycle credit for that reason alone. In addition, any
benefits due to technologies or components that can be measured through engine dynamometer tests as
part of the engine fuel map procedure will be recognized by GEM. Technologies that cannot be
measured through engine or powertrain test or are not part of technology improvement inputs used in
GEM could be recognized by the innovative off-cycle credit, following the procedure defined as 40
CFR 1037.610.
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation
Axle and Transmission Lubricants
Higher-performing axle and transmission lubricants should also play an important role in helping the
OEMs comply with the Phase 2 Rule. Providing the most effective incentives for the use of higher-
efficiency axle and transmission lubricants will provide benefits throughout the recommended service
interval of all trucks that use these fluids. In addition, because service intervals vary considerably across
the range of applications covered by the Phase 2 Rule, additional consideration should be given to
ensuring that this efficiency improvement remains after the initial required service interval and
throughout the useful life of the vehicle or equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.5]
As currently drafted in the Phase 2 Proposal, OEMs will be incentivized to use higher-performing axle
lubricants via a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) credit that will go to OEMS that use higher-
performing axle lubricants in certifying their vehicles.9 More specifically, the Proposal provides a 0.5
percent C02 emissions reduction value to OEMs that certify their vehicles with a qualifying axle
lubricant. 10 This will likely ensure widespread adoption of 75W90 axle lubricants, which will be a
significant improvement over the status quo. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.5]
While Lubrizol supports the adoption of a rear-axle efficiency test, eliminating ambiguities in the test
procedure and providing a mechanism for additional GEM credits for axle lubricants that provide
greater-than-0.5 percent efficiency improvements will make a very useful provision even more effective
over the long run. We also recommend the adoption of incentives for higher-efficiency transmissions
fluids (i.e., provisions to encourage higher-efficiency manual transmission fluids) and the inclusion of
axle and transmission lubricants in the categories that can qualify for future Off-Cycle Technology
Credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.5]
-------
We appreciate that the current Proposal will help ensure a significant improvement over the status quo.
We have provided recommendations below that we believe will further strengthen the Proposal by
clarifying language in the test procedure and further incentivizing or encouraging higher-efficiency axle
and transmission lubricants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1325-A1 p.5]
Higher-Efficiency Axle and Transmission Lubricants
While the Phase 2 Proposal does not regulate axle or transmission lubricants, it does include a number
of provisions related to these lubricants. These include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 12]
• Low-friction axle lubricants: The Phase 2 Proposal maintains the current 0.5 percent default
value for the C02 and fuel consumption reductions provided for low-friction axle lubricants in
the Greenhouse Gas Emission Model (GEM);[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 12]
• Rear-axle Efficiency Test (§1037.560(draft)): The Proposal seeks comment on a new test
procedure to compare new lubricants to BASF Emgard FE 2986 and to identify superior
performance at specified speed and torque values; and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1
p. 13]
• Off-Cycle Technology Credits: If adopted, these could be used to provide additional credits to
new axle lubricants and other advanced technologies that are not widely used and are not
reflected in the GEM simulation tool even after the rule is finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1325-A1 p. 13]
Lubrizol Supports the Proposed 0.5 Percent Default Value for Low-Friction Axle Lubricants, But
Encourages EPA to Remove the Ambiguity in the Current Proposal
Based on significant experience with speed-load testing in commercial vehicles, Lubrizol strongly
supports including the 0.5 percent default value for low-friction axle lubricants in the Proposal. The
current Proposal will likely ensure widespread adoption of 75W90 axle lubricants, which will be a
significant improvement over the status quo. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 13]
Under the current Proposal, a lubricant qualifies if it meets the specifications for BASF Emgard FE
2986 as described in "Emgard®FE 75W-90 Fuel Efficient Synthetic Gear Lubricant." BASF Emgard
FE 2986 is a good choice of baseline, but some consideration should be given to ensure it remains
constant over the life of this rule. In addition, it is possible that a variety of 75W-90 fluids could meet
the performance described, but not deliver the same efficiency improvement as BASF Emgard FE 2986.
We recommend that EPA adopts a baseline that is based on a static formulation and include a defined
procedure for equivalent, or improved, efficiency demonstration. Doing so will eliminate the risk that
OEMs will be able to claim the 0.5% credit without actually delivering the efficiency benefit. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 13]
We note that it is more accurate to call these lubricants "higher efficiency" than to call them "low-
friction." While lowering friction may be a necessary attribute of the higher-efficiency axle lubricants
that will be in the market during the Phase 2 period, it is not a sufficient definition to ensure safe,
efficient operation over the life of the vehicle, given the need to address churning losses and traction in
all modes of operation. Thus, we suggest that the final Phase 2 Rule adopt a "High Efficiency"
terminology, rather than continue the use of the "low-friction" phrase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1325-A1 p. 13]
Lubrizol Supports the Adoption of a Rear-Axle Efficiency Test, but the Final Rule Should
Eliminate the Ambiguity in the Proposal
-------
We strongly support the adoption of a new rear-axle efficiency test to evaluate new lubricants, and agree
that the BASF Emgard FE 2986 is a good choice as the baseline lubricant for such a rear-axle efficiency
test. We believe that this will help incentivize the use of axle lubricants that exceed the 0.5% default
value and add value to the overall Phase 2 program. However, we are concerned that the proposed test is
not defined in an unambiguous way. The final Phase 2 Rule should include three clarifications or
changes to remove these ambiguities and improve the overall program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1325-A1 p. 13]
First, the baseline fluid should be unambiguously defined and should be used in all rear-axle efficiency
testing. Given that developing new fluids requires a significant investment in time and resources, it is
critical that the baseline fluid remains static so it can be relied upon as a reference constant throughout
the Phase 2 Rule's time frame. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 14]
Second, we note that, within any given viscosity grade, there can be significant variations in efficiency
and C02 emissions. Therefore, we recommend that EPA provide a more consistent technical baseline
than exists in the current draft. API specification, viscosity, and the exact fluid to be used are examples
of details that should be clearly defined in any comparative test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1
p. 14]
Third, we also note that the proposed test design requires that the lubricant is equivalent or better than
the Emgard baseline fluid at each and every of the many points in the test cycle. We are concerned that
this approach applies a "one-strike baseball" test that will disqualify lubricants that provide better
performance than the baseline fluid in most real-world conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1
p. 14]
Given that no axle or transmission spends equal time at each of the proposed conditions, we recommend
an approach that weights the various results in each stage of the test and then converts them into an
overall axle efficiency score. The overall axle efficiency score could then be used to provide additional
GEM credits to axle lubricants that exceed the performance of the Emgard baseline fluid, i.e., beyond
the 0.5 percent default value in the Proposal. Given that there is evidence that higher efficiencies are
possible,24 doing so would create incentives for higher-efficiency axle lubricants to enter the market in
years to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 14]
Lubrizol Supports Additional Credit for Higher-Efficiency Rear-Axle and Transmission
Lubricants Through the Off-Cycle Technology Credit
We encourage EPA to provide additional credit for rear-axle lubricants that exceed the 0.5 percent
default value provided in the GEM. In addition to establishing a mechanism within the Rear-Axle
Efficiency Test to provide such GEM credit, as discussed above, this can be done via the adoption of the
proposed Off-Cycle Technology Credit. If the final Phase 2 Rule includes the Off-Cycle Technology
Credit, we encourage EPA to unambiguously define the conditions and thresholds for demonstrating an
efficiency gain that is greater than 0.5 percent, as well as the data or other proof that would be necessary
to secure the additional credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 14]
Because providing credits for the use of higher-efficiency axle and transmission lubricants will provide
benefits throughout the useful life of all trucks that use these fluids, we also recommend that
transmission lubricants be included in any future Off-Cycle Technology Credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1325-A1 p. 15]
Higher-Efficiency Lubricants for Manual Transmissions Can Provide Additional Improvements
-------
As noted above, the Proposal does not regulate transmission lubricants. It also provides no incentives
(through the use of GEM credits or otherwise) for the use of higher-performing transmission lubricants.
However, including provisions to encourage higher-efficiency manual transmission fluids in the final
Phase 2 Rule will be very worthwhile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 15]
Lubrizol testing has found that significant efficiency improvements can be obtained through the use of
high-performing transmission lubricants. Lubricant-based efficiency gains in the transmission can be
similar in magnitude to those in axles. Like the axle test results noted above, this data is proprietary, but
is based on years of rig testing involving significant capital investments.25 We are happy to discuss this
data with you further upon request. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 15]
We encourage the creation of GEM credits for lubricants that increase efficiency in manual
transmissions. There are a number of ways to do this, including (i) creating a comparative test that
provides credit for percentage improvements over a baseline fluid or (ii) providing some other
mechanism that enables OEMs to validate equivalence to a designative test fluid. Lubrizol has test data
and other information that it would be willing to share with EPA in order to assist in the creation of such
GEM credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 15]
Summary of Axle and Transmission Comments
Providing the most effective incentives for the use of higher-efficiency axle and transmission lubricants
will provide significant benefits that will enhance the overall Phase 2 Rule. The current proposal will
likely ensure widespread adoption of 75W90 axle lubricants, which will be a significant improvement
over the status quo. However, eliminating the ambiguity in baseline fluid and the test procedure and
providing a mechanism for additional GEM credits for axle lubricants that provide greater-than-0.5
percent efficiency improvements will make a very useful provision even more effective over the long
run. Similarly, including provisions to encourage higher-efficiency manual transmission fluids is worth
doing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 15]
24 See, e.g., Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles;
National Research Council; Transportation Research Board (2010). "Technologies and Approaches to
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles."
http://www.naD. edu/catalog/12845/technologies-and-approaches-to-reducing-the-fuel-consumption-of-
medium-and-heavv-dutv-vehicles. page 67 (justifying a 1.0% improvement); and Green, D.A., et al.
"The Effect of Engine, Axle, and Transmission Lubricant, and Operating Conditions on Heavy Duty
Diesel Fuel Economy. Part 1: Measurements." SAE 2011-01-2129. SAE International Journal of Fuels
and Lubricants, http://papers.sae.org/2011-01-2129/. January 2012 (summarizing European field tests
that found improvements up to 1.8%).
25 Rig testing is a better way to isolate the efficiency improvements of one transmission fluid over
another than in-use or chassis dynamometer testing.
Response:
We appreciate Lubrizol's comments on both axle and transmission lubricants. In order to fully
recognize the benefits resulted from lubricants, we allow the axle or transmission manufacturers or other
manufacturers to perform their own tests to overwrite the default power loss table in GEM. In all of
-------
these tests, benefits due to lubricants will be measured, and therefore the benefits due to lubricants can
be recognized by GEM.
Organization: Meritor, Inc
Upgrade the GEM Baseline Axle-Efficiencv Model
Meritor is concerned that a flat 95.5 percent axle efficiency as proposed in the rule is not representative
of the "typical" 2017 axle upon which the baseline truck model is derived. In fact, when considering the
breadth of the commercial truck segments that are being regulated, Meritor believes that 95.5 percent
axle efficiency is artificially high, which would dis-incentivize the implementation of higher efficiency
axles. For example a 95.5 percent efficient axle for a heavy haul application does not seem appropriate
given the high numerical axle ratio. Chart 4.1 compares three common 40k GAWR tandem axles, each
with a 3.55 ratio, for a typical North American linehaul application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-
Alp.3]
[Chart 4.1, 'Ratio Axle Efficiency Comparison', can be found on p. 4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1254-A1]
Therefore, Meritor is requesting that the default axle efficiency in GEM be modified from the current
flat 95.5 percent assumption in the current proposal to a ratio- sensitive axle-efficiency model which is
more realistic, as illustrated in Chart 4.2, and appropriately supports the downspeeding trend. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.4]
[Chart 4.2, 'Tandem Axle Efficiency Ratio Sensitivity', can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1]
The GEM model already includes an input for axle ratio so establishing a relationship between axle ratio
and efficiency seems relatively straightforward to implement into the model. It should also be noted that
the default axle efficiency in the EU regulatory compliance model (VECTO) is currently ratio sensitive.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.4]
Although Meritor is advocating a single, ratio-sensitive default-axle efficiency, we acknowledge that
there may be alternate ways to implement this methodology. The following is a list of alternative axle-
efficiency methods in preferential order: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p.5]
Linear Formula - Our preferred method is to calculate default axle efficiency for the bulk of the axle
market using a formula based on a sloped line. Based on the chart above, we suggest the following
formula: EfiAxle = 99.56 - (1.54*RatioAxle), for ratios 2.15 to 4.11. For ratios outside of this range, the
axle efficiency at the nearest limit can be assumed to be constant. For example, ratios less than 2.15 will
assume the efficiency of the 2.15 ratio (96.2%) and ratios numerically higher than 4.11 will use the
efficiency of 4.11 (93.2%). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.5]
[Chart, 'Single Reduction Axle Default Efficiency', can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1]
Linear Bi-modal - This simpler method, if less accurate method establishes two default axle
efficiencies, one for low ratios and one for high ratios. This method mirrors the bi-modal nature of axle
ratios in the actual market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.5]
-------
[Chart, '2015 Percent of N.A. Sales', can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1254-A1]
Meritor's bi-modal recommendation is: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.5]
Effing = 95.5% @ RatioAxie EITa,x|c = 94.1% @ Ration > 3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.6]
If a single number is necessary, then a more appropriate value based on the distribution of the market
would be 94.8% (the average of 95.5% and 94.1%). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.6]
It should be noted that all axle-efficiency recommendations detailed above include the use of BASF
EmGuard® FE 2986 SAE 75W-90 or equivalent lube which is the current standard for the 0.5 percent
high efficiency credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p.6]
Include Axle-Efficiencv Map Input in GEM and Modify the Associated Axle Test.
Meritor is supportive of an optional axle efficiency test that can be used to override the default GEM
axle efficiency values. We believe this test option encourages continued development of high efficiency
axles as it provides an established avenue to validate technologies and receive the appropriate fuel-
efficiency credit throughout the lifetime of the regulation. Meritor acknowledges that we made several
recommendations that influenced the axle efficiency test in the current proposal; we are now
recommending an alternative that better aligns with the direction of the test procedure and axle mapping
method from the proposed EU greenhouse gas simulation model known as VECTO. As such, Meritor
proposes that the EU VECTO mapping method be considered as a starting point, and that the U.S.
method be as consistent as is practical with that method. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p.6]
First, output torque is the preferred test specification method as opposed to input torque for a final drive
(the proposed procedure specifies input torque). A vehicle drive cycle dictates a common output - or,
wheel torque profile - for a given macro vehicle specification, independent of axle ratio. Therefore,
output torque will normalize the map across the spectrum of axle ratios. Also, it is difficult to test at true
zero input torque as the output will be in a negative (coast mode) torque condition. If input torque is
desirable for GEM as a forward-looking simulation type, GEM could internally convert an output-
torque-based map to an input-torque-based map by considering both the axle ratio and the torque loss.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.6]
The map torque specification should account for the number of drive axles. For example, 6x2 and 4x2
drive axles should be tested at two times the output torque as a single-drive axle of a 6x4 configuration
as it sees two times the torque in operation. A composite 6x4 drive-axle map should consist of the
average of the front- and rear-drive axle-efficiency maps. This will normalize the maps such that an
"X"x2-axle map will have the same grid density as a combined 6x4-axle map across the vehicle
operating envelope. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.6]
The maximum mandatory output torque for the map should be limited to a reasonable level for two
primary reasons: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p.6]
Axle dynamometers used for efficiency testing require highly sensitive torque sensors to measure small
torque losses through the final drive. This imposes practical limits on maximum torque as torque cells
with adequate sensitivity have limited torque range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.7]
-------
Most of the operating torques on the GEM drive cycle are well below the peak torque for the transient
drive cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.7]
A recommended maximum mandatory output torque is equivalent to 1.0 - 1.5 percent steady state grade
torque at cruising speed for a Class 8 vehicle which is approximately 4000 N-m (2950 lb-ft) total wheel
torque, or 2000 N-m (1475 lb-ft) for each drive axle of a 6x4 configuration. This is high enough to
capture most of the operating points for both Cruise cycles (see Annex A). Note this is less than the
maximum torque of the EU VECTO map proposal of 10,000 N-m which we find excessive. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 7]
Meritor offers two recommendations for handling torque beyond the maximum mandatory standard
output: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.7]
Allow optional torque levels to be included in the map above the maximum mandatory torque, at
standard increments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p.7]
In the GEM simulation, extrapolate to torque levels above the map by assuming a linear relationship
between torque loss and nominal torque at a given speed. This recommendation is based on the EU
VECTO map proposal and on Meritor's observation that torque loss is very linear with nominal torque
(see Annex B). Note that the linear relationship assumption means that the axle efficiency will approach
a constant maximum value at high torque, with the value being a simple function of the slope of the
fitted line. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.7]
Provision should be made to exclude map points above a given power. A rectangular torque/speed-map
grid will include points at the high-torque/high-speed "corner" that exceed the maximum power of the
powertrain (for example, the largest default GEM engine is rated at 455 hp [339kW]). These points are
immaterial as they will never be encountered in operation. Therefore, the map should allow no entry or
"NaN" (Not a Number) type entries for "excessive power" grid points. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1254-A1 p.7]
Table 5.1 below illustrates the EU VECTO axle map grid. On the whole it is adequate for North
American purposes but the torque and speed granularity is rather fine, resulting in many cells and a
heavy testing burden. Also, the mandatory maximum torque is rather high. A proposed map grid is
given in Table 5.2 in which the torque and speed increments are larger but consistent with the EU
VECTO map, and the mandatory maximum torque is lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p.7]
[Table 5.1, 'Reference EU VECTO Axle Map Grid', and Table 5.2, 'Proposed Axle Map Grid for Single
Axle Efficiency Test', can be found on p. 8 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1]
In addition to the items noted above, other characteristics of the test method associated with map
generation and usage should be either common with or as consistent as practical with EU VECTO for
the intent of making axle map data portable between the U.S. and the EU. These elements include oil
temperature, type, level, condition, and filtering; ambient temperature; torque and speed tolerances;
torque cell temperature correction; run-in procedure; test torque-speed sequence; data sampling time,
rate, averaging, and filtering; and "lumping" parameters and tolerances for grouping of axle maps.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 9]
Resolve 0.5 percent Advanced Lube Credit with Axle-Efficiency Test Baseline Lube
-------
With regard to the Advanced Lube Credit of 0.5 percent, Meritor is in favor of the concept, however, it
is important to clarify a few matters prior to implementation of the rule as written. One concern is that
BASF EmGuard FE 2986 SAE 75W-90 is designated as the baseline lubricant for the axle efficiency
test but is also the baseline lubricant for the 0.5 percent "advanced lube" FE credit. As a result, if an
axle supplier submits an axle map from an efficiency test, the results would include the advanced lube.
When implemented in production, the OE would claim the axle efficiency as tested with the advanced
lube and receive the 0.5 percent advanced lube credit, in effect double dipping. This cannot remain the
case. One solution is to give the 0.5 percent advanced lube credit when using the default GEM axle
efficiency, but eliminate the credit when using an axle-efficiency map. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1254-A1 p. 9]
Also, there is no flexibility in the rule to get credit for an even more advanced lube except through off-
cycle. We suggest allowing an axle test and the associated map using a more advanced lube than 2986
to provide a simple avenue for more advanced lubrication credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1
p.9]
It is important to note that if a 0.5 percent FE credit is to be given for the use of 2986, then our previous
recommendations for baseline axle efficiency should be reduced by 0.45 percent accordingly (i.e. 99.56
is reduced to 99.11; 95.5% and 94.1% are reduced to 95.05% and 93.65% ,repectively; and 94.8% is
reduced to 94.35%). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.9]
Account for 2-Speed Axles
Although there is no regulatory framework regarding 2-Speed Axles, they are mentioned in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis' Technology Section 2.4.5.2 Gear Ratio (2-37) as a technology "many axle
manufacturers are developing" to enhance vehicle performance. If that statement is true then it follows
that 2-Speed Axles should be included in the regulation to better account for future market penetration.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 11]
The first area that needs to be addressed with regards to 2-Speed Axles is fuel efficiency. A 2-Speed
Axle can improve tractive force at low speeds and allow greater downspeeding at high speeds thereby
potentially netting greater vehicle fuel efficiency however, it requires several more gears and bearings
which will actually reduce axle efficiency. Meritor recommends that default axle efficiency of a 2-
Speed Axle be reduced by 1 percent to prevent an artificial market incentive to a potentially less
efficient axle configuration. Secondarily, there needs to be some instruction on how to model a 2-Speed
Axle in GEM. As written, GEM allows a single-axle ratio input but a 2- speed axle has two distinct
ratios. Although a 2-speed axle can be used in conjunction with a transmission to double the number of
gear ratios; that is not how this technology is being applied in North America. Rather, the 2-speed axle
is being used to enable engine downspeeding by providing a very low downspeed axle ratio as well as a
high torque "starting" ratio. Therefore, we suggest that GEM allow for an axle ratio input for each drive
cycle in which the lower numerical axle ratio would apply to the 55- and 65-mph drive cycles and the
higher numerical ratio would be applied to the transient drive cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-
A1 p. 12]
Response:
We appreciate Meritor's constructive comments on axle efficiency with a flat and fixed efficiency of
95.5% used in NPRM. Specifically, we appreciate very much that Meritor provided many highly
valuable information on the axle performance and power loss tables to the agencies. As a result, we
adopted their recommendations of using the power loss tables as default, and those default tables can be
-------
replaced by a manufacturer's measured values, and therefore, all technologies related to the axle, such
as advanced lubricant, can be accounted for by this approach. GEM does allow two speed tandems
named as 6x4D, which is only applied to 55 and 65mph cycle with 6x2 option, and then switch back to
6x4 once running the transient cycle. However, the axle ratio would be still the same for these two speed
axle option, prompting OEM to select most commonly used axle ratio for GEM based on their driving
condition. The main reason for this decision is that we believe that two speed axle is primarily used in
tractor applications, where cruise speeds are pre-dominated. The cycle weighing on transient cycle is
small compared to ones on two cruise speed cycles. As such, the lower axle ratio should be selected.
This is not a perfect solution, but can greatly simplify GEM.
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Modeling and Testing for the Full Workday
Odyne understands the difficulty in modeling fuel efficiency improvements for hybrid technology
within the GEM, as hybrid systems interact with the transmission, drivetrain, and engine, in addition to
auxiliary activities beyond driving not currently modeled in the GEM. We appreciate EPA's efforts to
improve the accuracy of the GEM to account for real work driving. However, Odyne strongly believes
that it is important to model the full day vocational vehicle duty cycle, including driving, idling, and
stationary operation of truck-mounted equipment through a Power Take-off (PTO). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1239-A1 p.18-19]
Modeling the entire duty cycle would be consistent with efforts by CARB to understand the total
emissions produced by the vehicle throughout the entire day. Since the GEM does not have a specific
module for hybrid systems it is difficult to evaluate their impact on driving and stationary aspects of the
full workday. Also it does not seem to properly account for all the differences in idle conditions, which
are a large part of the full workday. We believe improvements to the accounting of hybrid systems and
modeling of the full workday are necessary to properly developing emission standards and verifying
emission savings. This needs to be handled separately from the hybrid PTO / e-PTO module in the GEM
to account for idle time. Our system is active during the driving and stationary operation of the vehicle
and provides unique benefits in both and when they are properly combined result in the real world
benefits of a full workday. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 19]
Response:
The agencies agree with comments from Odyne with regard to recognizing technologies that reduce
emission while the vehicle is moving and at idle and because of this have modified 40 CFR 1036.540,
40 CFR 1037.540 and 40 CFR 1037.550 to allow for testing of these systems. 40 CFR 1036.540 and 40
CFR 1037.550 can be used to test hybrids and PHEV that use the stored energy to propel the vehicle.
We added many features to recognize the benefits with various idle technologies. This has been done by
the two idle cycles (parked idle and drive idle) and the PTO test. For electrified and PHEV PTO
systems 40 CFR 1037.540 can be used to recognize the benefits of these systems, through an input to
GEM.
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
Simulating Axles for Vehicle Certification - The agencies request comment on whether or not we
should finalize this test procedure and either require its use or allow its use optionally to determine an
axle efficiency data table as an input to GEM, which would override the fixed axle efficiency we are
proposing at this time. 80 FR 40185. We recommend that the EPA and NHTSA use the European test
-------
procedure, word for word and step by step. There should be the ability to input our own axle efficiency
value if greater than the baseline value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.63]
Response:
Regarding the axle efficiency test, the agencies have reviewed the draft European test procedure but
since it was not a final procedure that could be referenced, the agency have worked closely with major
axle manufacturers and lubricant manufacturers to define a robust test procedure for measuring axle
power losses. The agencies have worked to make the procedures overlap is as much as possible so that
data from one procedure could be used for the other test procedure.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Transmission Efficiencies
The currently available Phase 2 version of GEM uses default transmission efficiencies. However, those
efficiencies for gear and pumping losses can be reduced by approximately 1% to 2% through design-
specific actions to transmissions, and will vary from product-to-product. Accordingly, having a test
method that can capture the product-specific performance and an optional transmission efficiency input
for GEM would allow OEMs to determine and utilize the actual engineered GHG/FE benefits in Phase
2. The European agencies are working on a transmission efficiency test procedure that could be the
starting point for the agencies in developing a Phase 2 option. EMA recommends that the same test
procedure and data input formats that are being developed in Europe should be incorporated into Phase
2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.53]
Response:
In the final rule, we do allow the manufacturers the option to use their own tested power loss table to
replace the agency's default power loss table by following the test procedure 40 CFR 1036.565.
Organization: Volvo Group
Axle Efficiency Test
Volvo Group supports the option to test axle efficiency and offers comment on ensuring the test is run
appropriately and consistently. In general, we suggest the test protocol should be reviewed jointly by the
agencies working with the EMA Vehicle Measurement and Test Committee. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.52]
We first note that the new axle break-in period is inadequate. Although we expect a longer break-in is
needed, we do not have a specific recommendation at this time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.52]
Test targets should be based on output torque rather than input torque. Use of input torque will result in
extremely high output torque for high axle ratios. Manufacturer axle torque ratings are not specified in a
consistent manner and should not be the basis for test set-up. Maximum output torque should be based
on the wheel slip torque on dry pavement at the legal load for the axle. Testing could be done in
increments of axle slip torque, i.e. 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.52]
-------
The accuracy of the average torque set point control within 1 N-m is tighter than it needs to be and may
not be feasible. We expect that 5 N-m's would not affect the efficiency result. The deviation of
individual test points should also have a limited band, i.e. +/- 5% or 10%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.52]
Ambient temperature is irrelevant when oil temperature is controlled. In any case, maintaining ambient
temperature between 20-30° C would require an unnecessary air conditioned facility. We recommend
that the oil temperature measurement location be specified as the drain of the sump. Since the test result
is an average of four runs at each torque and wheel speed, criteria should be established as to allowable
variation between runs and to identify outlier data that should be discarded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.52]
The protocol requires testing 5 torque levels and 6 speeds, repeating each 4 times. This requires 120 test
runs, and this is just for one axle ratio. Unless there is data showing significant variability within the 300
seconds run for each test point, it should not be necessary to repeat each test point four times. The 300
seconds of data could be parsed into 10 second test segments to establish efficiency variability.
Alternatively, we could commission testing to determine variability at a given test point to see if the
proposed protocol could be shortened. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.52]
Default Axle Efficiency Map
The NoDA GEM release incorporates axle efficiency maps in place of a single axle efficiency number.
A vehicle manufacturer has the option to use the default map provided within GEM, or to derive by test
the axle efficiency map for the actual axles installed in the vehicle. If the default map is selected GEM
uses the GEM_default_axle.m file to determine the axle efficiency based on a vehicle's weight class,
drive axle configuration, axle gearratio. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p. 18]
Where the default map is determined as a function of the vehicle's axle configuration (e.g. 6x4), the
Agency assumes that a dual-drive 6x4 configuration has a base spin loss torque 2.1 times that of a single
drive 4x2 or 6x2 configuration. In addition, a 6x4 disconnect configuration uses a factor of 1.06 when
operating in a 6x2 drive configuration. However, in a typical 6x4 configuration the front drive axle of
the tandem has an additional gear mesh compared to the rear drive axle of the combination in order to
accommodate the front axle's output to the rear axle. In addition, the front drive axle incorporates an
inter-axle differential or power divider. In the case of a single drive axle, the need for the additional gear
mesh to accommodate the throughput to the second drive axle is eliminated, along with the inter-axle
differential or power divider. Because of this, the front drive axle in a typical tandem will have a lower
efficiency than the rear. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 18-19]
As such, Volvo does not agree that the base spin loss torque of a tandem axle configuration, either
disconnectable or full time, would be 2.1 times that of a single drive axle. Nor do we agree with the 1.06
factor applied to a 6x4 disconnect when operating in 6x2 mode, as a disconnectable 6x4 configuration
would also have a front drive axle with a lower efficiency than the rear. For accuracy, Volvo suggests
revision of the default axle map to accommodate these effects, as well as the ability within GEM to
accommodate unique front and rear tandem drive axle efficiencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-
A1 p. 19]
Axle Family Definition
The proposed axle mapping test procedure requires axles to be split into families for which a test of the
"parent" could apply. Volvo proposes that axle families be defined by the following attributes: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 19]
1. Carrier family (typically driven by torque capacity)
2. Number of gear meshes
3. Inclusion of interaxle differential or power divider
4. Number of reductions (single reduction vs. double reduction)
-------
Volvo also proposes that axles within a family be defined by a parent ratio that would either represent
the worst efficiency map in the family, or that a default ratio efficiency factor be applied across all
families as the EPA has done for the default axle map (gear_efficiency_norm as defined in the above
noted default axle efficiency file). In addition, where a manufacturer believes their ratio efficiency
numbers are better than the Agency's default, they should be allowed to perform testing based on the
proposed axle efficiency test procedure and use the resultant values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-
A1 p. 19]
In order to eliminate unnecessary test burden, axle manufacturers should also be given the option to
declare and test tandem axle families where the front and rear axles of a tandem are installed together in
the vehicle. In this case tandem families would be defined by, at least: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1928-A1 p. 19]
1. Carrier family (typically driven by torque capacity)
2. Number of reductions (single reduction vs. double reduction)
Additional Axle Efficiency Item of Note
It is not clear why the Agency has applied a factor of 1.65 to the base_spin_loss_torque_Nm parameter
in GEM_default_axle.m. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 19]
Transmission Efficiency
In the agencies' summary of GEM P2V2.1 updates provided with the GEM release, it is noted that the
agencies have revised the Automated Manual Transmission (AMT) and Automatic Transmission (AT)
default gear efficiencies. For an AMT the default efficiencies were changed to 99.5% for direct drive
and 96.5% for non-direct drive. For ATs the defaults were changed to 99.5% and 98.5% for direct drive
and non-direct drive respectively. It is Volvo's experience that mechanical efficiency of both a Manual
Transmission and an AMT typically exceeds that of an AT. Therefore, Volvo requests the supporting
data to understand these assumptions and the opportunity to work with the agencies to correct any
erroneous values. In addition, Volvo does not agree with the assumption that all non-direct drive gears
have the same efficiency and suggests a default file that accounts for each gear individually. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.20]
The 2% difference between a manual and an AMT in our view is questionable. From a technology
standpoint, a skilled driver should be able to obtain the same fuel efficiency as an AMT. So the
difference is human (an unskilled or aggressive driver), not the technology. We have done simulations
for highway cycles that supports they are equivalent or at most 0.5% worse, but clearly not 2%. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.20]
Response:
Regarding the axle efficiency test, the agency has worked closely with major axle manufacturers and
lubricant manufacturers to define a robust test procedure for measuring axle power losses. With respect
to the break-in period the agencies believe leaving it up to good engineering judgement is a conservative
position because axle losses typically decrease with additional break-in time. In addition to this the
procedure has a specified repeatability requirement so if the axle has not been broke-in enough the
repeatability specification will not be met, due to the axle losses changing with additional testing.
Based on comments the axle test procedure has be updated in the following ways:
Test targets have been changed to output torque.
Torque transducer accuracy requirements have been changed to ±0.2 % of the maximum axle
input torque or output torque tested for loaded test points, and ±1 N-m of the maximum axle torque
tested for unloaded test points.
-------
Stabilization and averaging period has been changed to a minimum of 10 seconds.
Specify that the gear oil temperature must be measured at the drain of the sump.
• Axle family definition.
With the update to the stabilization and averaging time and the requirement of a minimum of 3 repeats
the time to complete the testing has reduced significantly from the procedure that was published with
the proposal to the rule.
The agencies have based the default axle losses on data from multiple axle manufacturers. Based on our
analysis of this data the default axle losses are consistent with the manufacture data. In addition to this,
the ability for an OEM to input the specific loss map for the axle being installed on the certifying
vehicle, allows the actual losses of the axle to be used in GEM for vehicle certification.
On axle family comments, we ask the manufacturers to use good engineering judgment to divide your
product line into axle or transmission families that are expected to have similar hardware, noting that
efficiencies can differ across the members of a family.
Regarding transmission efficiency used in GEM, the mechanical efficiency we chose for both AT and
AMT are based on the recommendations of transmission OEMs. In the final GEM, we further split the
AMT gears into two groups for a total gear number larger than 10. When the gear number is smaller
than 6, it will use 96% as the default efficiency, and when the gear number larger than 6, it will use 98%
except 1:1 gear ratio. The reasons why MT has 2% worse than AMT in efficiency is based on the
valuable inputs from one major transmission supplier. We believe that their recommendations reflect
the reality.
2.4.2 Powertrain Testing
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Powertrain Test Requirements
The preliminary results obtained through the powertrain test are uncertain and unproven. It is unclear
how child ratings are to be treated, how the powertrain test applies across different engine and vehicle
configurations, and what specific test procedures apply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.39-40]
In addition, the proposed powertrain test is inadequately defined and fails to include a proper test
protocol for managing a modern transmission. Specifically, testing in the lowest transmission gears is
not feasible due to high torque and low RPMs. It also appears that the dynamometer inertial effects have
not been accounted for. Other issues are likely to arise under the proposed powertrain test, but many
manufacturers have not had the opportunity to run the test (which may not even be loadable into GEM
as of yet) and so have not been able to complete a thorough evaluation. Such an in-depth evaluation
should be undertaken before the agencies finalize the powertrain test procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.40]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
-------
We believe that the powertrain testing proposal and the subsequent stringency as related to the
vocational vehicle segment are entirely unreasonable. The proposed powertrain testing method is a
relatively new concept, and while it does show technical merit we believe that it should be included as
an optional method for showing compliance. However, even if the powertrain alternative method were
to be used as only an optional method there are significant issues and risks associated with this method
that we wish to address. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.34]
The first issue, and likely the most complicated to resolve, is the selection of the generic vehicles with
which to test in a powertrain dynamometer. The variability in truck configurations sold in both the
vocational and tractor market space will inevitably cause certain configurations to fall outside the
bounds of the powertrain generic vehicle map. We foresee extrapolation outside the bounds of the test
points as an unacceptable method of certification due to the large amounts of error that can arise from
this method as already noted by EPA data. One might initially think that modification of the point
selection technique could alleviate this problem; however, testing will be difficult as it will prove more
difficult to derive the correct test points for certain powertrain families than others. If manufacturers are
not able to ensure that the powertrain testing maps will ensure coverage of all vehicle configurations,
this could limit both manufacture and customer choice in terms of vehicle configurations that are made
available for sale. This limitation could lead to customers choosing vehicles that perform sub-optimally
thereby leaving potential C02 reductions on the table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.34]
The current nine point selection method for the powertrain testing points also requires testing of vehicle
configurations that are entirely unreasonable. The selection of a vehicle to run at the minimum NTE
exclusion speed at 65mph will result in either cruising engine speeds that are entirely too low when
compared to real-world trucks, or will result in gearing down to run the GEM cycles thus resulting in
higher engine speeds than intended. If the method was to be made optional and a range of vehicles were
tested using a specific powertrain that would exhibit the sought-after deep integration benefits, we
would request that the points be chosen in such a way as to cover the range of vehicles sold. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.34-35]
Secondly, the family structure is ambiguously defined. Different manufactures could take a widely
different view on what constitutes a "common calibration attribute" thus lead to a certification process
that is unnecessarily complex and burdensome. The RIA itself notes that "impact of transmissions
including shifting strategies and numbers of gears, axle ratio to be minimal if the plots are designed in
such a way that average engine speed (N) over average vehicle speed (V) defined as N/V is selected." If
this is the case, then it could be argued there is no need to separate the families in such a way. If this is
the case it is potentially contradictory to the proposal's sections on deep integration which makes the
exact counter claim that significant fuel economy gains can be had through these types of changes.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.35]
Because of these uncertainties, even if the powertrain testing procedure is used as an option, it should
await the completion of the SAE technical procedure, currently under development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1199-A1 p.35]
In order to address this issue we have undertaken a study of our own vehicle sales volumes and
generated powertrain maps and fuel used values via an in-house simulation tool for all one year period
of vehicles using a BSFC and a powertrain map. The trends we have seen from this study show that
when applied to a whole vehicle population the powertrain testing issue shows inaccuracies that have
not appeared in the limited testing performed. These issues are best described by having r-square values
lower than .7 and .9 for the 55 and 65 GEM cycles respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1
p.35]
-------
It is also important to note that a powertrain test will be for a particular transmission calibration and
engine calibration. The worst case calibration for the combination needs to be selected per the protocol
requirements. Although it is uncertain whether a benefit can be demonstrated on a powertrain test that
could meet the stringency requirement of 4-7%, it is even more unlikely that the worst case
configuration will meet this aspect of the NPRM's estimate. If transmission families are divided even
further, which will further increase the test burden, there is an adverse consequence that these
calibrations will be unable to be adjusted in the field. Because of an inability to modify the calibration,
customers may order the powertrain that is NOT tested so as to preserve their resale value even if the
tested combination provides better fuel economy. This will drive the opposite behavior from that desired
by the regulation. For this reason, if powertrain testing is included in the final rule, the rule should allow
powertrain modifications to ensure the customer can optimize for their application while still improving
their fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.36]
Along the same lines, one could potentially see how the difference between GEM results and powertrain
testing done thus far could be the result of inadequacies in the GEM modeling process. The combination
of transmission efficiencies, differences in accessory loads (GEM uses constant power sink) and the
lack of an engine transient torque model can all lead to a reduction in C02 emissions that is not due to
any inherent advantages in engineering development but is due instead unaccounted for pieces within
the model. Although this requires additional test methodologies, we feel this is preferable to the test
proliferation and mandatory inclusion of powertrain testing in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1199-A1 p.36]
Finally, the implementation in GEM of the powertrain method has several structural issues. The method
of calculation of N/V in the proposed rule is based solely on the axle ratio and tire size, as opposed to a
true N/V (engine rpm/vehicle speed). The workgroup associated with this method and most of the
analysis upon which the method is based has not yet even completed this methodology. While the same
trends and results may hold true for both methods, insufficient work and time have been expended to
verify this possibility. This method of accounting for N/V would seem to have little to no impact on 55
and 65 mph cycles with the current grade, because most of the cycle will be driven in a single gear. The
general trend for these types of cycles will be that decreasing the N/V ratio, as calculated in the
proposal, will result in a better C02 number, e.g. down speeding. However, the ARB cycle, as well as
other more urban type cycles can exhibit different characteristics and highly non-linear trends,
depending on the cycle and powertrain under study. Accounting for N/V as done in the proposal will not
represent these non-linearities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.36-37]
Further complicating these matters is that when certifying a combination via GEM with the powertrain
option one is no longer certifying the actual vehicle configuration or powertrain family. Instead, the
GEM model is run with a generic engine, and generic transmission, failing to account for the potentially
differences in the number of gears, the transmission technology type, the size of the engine, and the
operating range of the engine, among other factors. Since the N/V ratio is calculated using only the axle
ratio and tire radius this could be viewed as a way of generating the required cycle work for use in the
powertrain table lookup; except for the fact that the vehicle drive cycle, thus the total cycle work, can be
impacted. This problem would further exacerbate itself should the new grade profiles presented in the
NREL report be adopted, as the drivability and performance differences in powertrains would be more
apparent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.37]
Finally, the method of calculating the gear efficiencies is based on finding the direct drive gear. The
default powertrain scripts have a modifier of some "Fixed Axle/Specified * Gear Ratios," so, unless the
same axle as the Fixed Axle is used, there will be no direct drive gear and thus a penalty will be taken
-------
on the GEM simulation for this vehicle. We view this as a bug that the agencies should address. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p. 37]
Beyond everything we have mentioned, there is nothing in the record to show that powertrain testing
will actually captures the benefit any better than GEM for vocational vehicles. At some point, however,
a powertrain test method may be developed that, for some applications, could show results that are more
sensitive than GEM. For that potential, we propose that if the powertrain option is kept, in any form, it
be limited to an option for a defined application that is approved on a case-by-case basis, similar to the
process for an off-cycle technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.37]
The proposed powertrain certification test process used to leverage the deep integration of engine and
transmission systems also fails to account for the inherent variability present in engine testing without
the complexities of a transmission with a simulated or actual axle. Part 1037.550(g) calls for the
development of a driver model to "mimic a human driver" which can comply with the statistical cycle
validation criteria as presented in Table 4 of 1037.550. This expectation ignores the diverse range of
Part 1065 capable engine/powertrain dynamometer test cell configurations currently available. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.37]
The requirement to develop a driver model that mimics normal operation assumes that all transmissions
will be either automatic or automated manual transmissions. Currently there are no provisions or
available robotic drivers that can accommodate a manual transmission. This limitation effectively rules
out an entire segment of medium duty and heavy duty transmissions currently available. If a technology
becomes available whereby robotic manual transmission shift control is possible, a shift schedule and or
logic map would need to be created either by the test facility or the engine/transmission manufacturer.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.37-38]
The importance of a consistent and repeatable transmission shift schedule extends to either a manual or
automatic transmission. If there are changes in theses calibrations or other warm up control features, the
vehicle certificate holder would be required to perform additional testing to demonstrate calibration
transparency and compliance. This would in turn require the transmission OEM to continuously disclose
any changes that could affect the C02 result to the GHG certification holder, prior to implementation.
This continuous disclosure requirement would have the net effect of increasing deployment cost, adding
compliance margin and delaying implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.38]
This concern reinforces our overall concern that powertrain testing cannot yet capture benefits over the
existing engine test in conjunction with GEM in a manner that does not increase variability. In short, as
stated, we do not think it is ready for adoption, other than in a specific method that can be demonstrated
as reliable to the agencies and that should only be included as an optional test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p.38]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Powertrain testing should be allowed as an optional certification method, however, EPA and NHTSA
should not create incentives within this rulemaking for its use. EPA and NHTSA have seriously
underestimated the costs of such testing. GEM must be modified to be reasonably accurate and suitable
for certifying the large majority of vehicles; overreliance on powertrain testing could have several
negative impacts including increased costs, and increased limits on consumer choice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.2-3]
-------
EPA and NHTSA should credit other technologies not recognized in GEM or measured in powertrain
testing such as load-based and grade-based shift algorithms and acceleration rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.3]
EPA and NHTSA Must Not Require or Create Undue Incentives for Powertrain Testing
EPA and NHTSA are proposing to allow powertrain testing as an "optional certification path" but also
request comment on whether the agencies should require such testing "more broadly." While Allison
supports retaining powertrain testing as an option, such testing should be the exception rather than the
norm for certification. There are several reasons why this testing option should not be expanded. First,
as EPA and NHTSA recognize, this type of testing has never before been used for vehicle certification.
Instead, the Phase 1 rule only allowed for different certification under limited circumstances where
normal testing procedures would not be adequate to measure emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p. 22]
Second, requiring powertrain testing in some circumstances or increasing the regulatory incentive for its
use would substantially increase the cost of this regulatory program. As noted, EPA has estimated that
the upgrade costs to an existing engine test cell is on the order of $1.2 million and new test facility in an
existing building is estimated at $1.9 million; the estimated cost to test each powertrain family in a
completed cell would be about $69,000. Given the large variety of vehicles in the vocational vehicle
area, costs for such testing could add up to substantial amounts of money, especially in relation to
smaller manufacturers who build different, specialized vehicle types.42 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p.23]
Third, the vocational vehicle space consists of highly varied vehicles that are tailored to meet the work
needs of the vehicle. "Sub-optimizing" these configurations in order to fit within different powertrain
families in order to avoid additional powertrain testing would lead to poorer fuel economy and more
vehicles required to accomplish the same work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.23]
Finally, excessive powertrain testing could occur. For example, under the proposed regulation, Allison
conventional planetary on-highway products would be classified into 10 unique transmission families.
Allison hybrid transmissions would be classified into 6 unique hybrid transmission families. In 2014, in
North America, Allison transmissions were used with over 30 different engine families. Thus, in
combination with conventional and hybrid transmission families, there were at least 74 unique engine
family/transmission family configurations. Moreover, most of these configurations are used in multiple
regulatory classes which, per the test configuration proposal, would result in approximately 140 test
configurations assuming a single calibration for each configuration and approximately 260 transmission
family/maximum gear/engine family regulatory combinations assuming a single calibration for each
configuration. Factoring in shift related calibrations, the number of unique test configurations would
easily exceed 1,000. It is clearly not practical or cost-effective to conduct this level of powertrain testing
each year. Thus, in order to limit the testing required, a likely result would be a reduction in consumer
choices regarding vocational vehicle configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.23]
Altogether, it is critically important that GEM be reasonably accurate so the majority of vehicle
configurations can be certified without powertrain testing. As discussed elsewhere in Section III, GEM
does not accurately assess multiple features of ATs; this lack of accuracy creates a market disadvantage
both by misinforming potential customers regarding the performance of ATs and literally "forcing"
Allison to conduct powertrain testing in order to provide more accurate information regarding the
performance of transmissions. In sum, Powertrain testing should be a tool that is used primarily for
highly integrated powertrains that perform significantly better than non-integrated powertrains. It should
-------
not become the de jure or de facto certification methodology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.23]
EPA and NHTSA must recognize that the net result of imposing powertrain testing requirements or
including explicit or implicit incentives for such testing in the final rule could severely limit customer
choices. This is because manufacturers seeking to avoid additional testing would have strong incentives
not to specifically design systems that would either require powertrain testing or need such testing to
properly account for emission improvements or efficiency gains. One concrete example of this is the
Allison hybrids that are sold in transit buses. Based on the powertrain family definition, there would be
6 powertrain families to cover 2 hybrid models that work with 2 engines and are sold in Class 7 and
Class 8 vehicles.43 Based on our current annual volume, doing 6 unique powertrain tests would result in
a cost over $1000/unit, not covering the investment required for a powertrain test capability. Therefore,
in order to better compete on price in the marketplace, a manufacturer might eliminate an offering to
effectively reduce the need for powertrain testing, potentially at the expense of additional C02
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.24]
EPA and NHTSA Have Underestimated Costs of Powertrain Testing
Based on the Proposed Rule's estimate of $70,000/test and the 140 unique powertrain configurations as
described above, Allison estimates that it would need to bear an annual expense of at least $9.8 million
just to test a single calibration for each configuration. Assuming one test facility and 3 tests per week, it
would further require an entire year to test the 140 configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.24]
It is also unreasonable to assume a single calibration for each configuration would be acceptable so the
costs would be even higher. The ability to accomplish such a testing regimen is unlikely due to test
throughput, engine and transmission availability, and calibration readiness. Moreover, this level of
testing would force many final powertrain configurations to be completed at least one year in advance of
sales for the following year and force capital investment for multiple powertrain test cells. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.24]
The vocational vehicle industry is highly horizontal. While the vehicle is configured by the vehicle
OEM, the transmission and engine are often calibrated by the specific component supplier. Stock trucks
are often built and configured to a specific vocation when sold from the dealer lot. Currently, the
transmission reconfiguration is handled by the transmission supplier via their systems and tools. This
will no longer be possible for powertrain tested configurations. Since the vehicle OEM factors the
specific vehicle/transmission/calibration into their overall greenhouse gas compliance, they must
approve and potentially manage calibration changes which will be a significant constraint to the industry
and could ultimately eliminate stock truck sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.24]
In the RIA Section 7.1.1.2, EPA has estimated that 11 powertrain test cells would be either constructed
or upgraded. A second assumption is that 3 large manufacturers would each conduct 20 tests/year. It
does not appear logical that 8 manufacturers would invest in the test capability and then not conduct a
powertrain test. This puts into question the estimated costs of compliance or the assumptions regarding
the frequency of powertrain testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.24]
EPA has also assumed that 70% of vocational vehicles will undergo a powertrain test in 2027. Based on
the 140 powertrain families (without shift calibrations) in our current product portfolio, Allison does not
believe the assumption that 70% of vocational vehicles in 2027 could be achieved by conducting only
-------
20 powertrain tests/year. Given this low estimate of the number of tests required, EPA and NHTSA's
estimates of resulting costs are therefore flawed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.25]
EPA and NHTSA Should Not Replace Powertrain Testing with European Union Efficiency Test
One concept that industry has suggested that EPA and NHTSA should explore is allowing
manufacturers to input the European Union ("EU") transmission efficiency data into GEM.
Transmission efficiency data will be required for the EU Regulatory program either through
transmission testing or extremely conservative calculations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.34]
Allison believes that fuel efficiency improvements that will be validated through powertrain testing will
primarily come from the integrated controls of the engine and the transmission. Since transmission gear
boxes are already relatively mechanically efficient, improvements in transmission efficiency will have a
minimal effect on fuel consumption when compared to controls integration which determines where the
engine operates in a given duty cycle. Allison also believes the overall testing costs of EU efficiency
testing will not be less than powertrain testing due to Type Approval Authority involvement, long test
duration and the quantity of transmission families. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.34]
Allison is also concerned about the administrative burden that would be associated with compliance
with both EU and US rules. Specifically, family definitions, alignment of certification
calendars/frequency of testing, running changes, conformity of production and audits are areas where
manufacturers would have manage the two extremely different regulatory programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.34]
In summary, Allison believes that powertrain testing is a viable methodology to validate the GHG
emissions/fuel efficiency of a powertrain and it should remain in Phase 2. The optional EU transmission
testing is burdensome and offers only a minimal benefit, if such exists, when compared to the
powertrain test. Therefore, Allison believes that EPA and NHTSA would be justified in relying solely
on powertrain testing for validation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.34]
EPA Should Amend Proposed 40 C.F.R. 1037.231(b) Criteria for Powertrain Families
EPA and NHTSA are proposing to group powertrains in the same powertrain family if they share all of
11 different attributes. Allison is supportive of the attributes that have been defined in the proposed
regulatory text to differentiate powertrain families. There are areas of the proposed regulations,
however, that could benefit from further definition in order to increase the clarity of the Final Rule.
Therefore, within the final regulatory text, the agencies should: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.36]
(1) Specify the type (and thereby the number) of clutches the proposed 40 C.F.R. 1037.231(b)(3)
regulatory text refers to (e.g., starting clutches, friction plate clutches, dog clutches, torque converter
lockup clutch, etc.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.36]
(2) Specify the type of clutches in 40 C.F.R. 1037.231(b)(4) based on the clarification above in (1);
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.36]
(3) Clarify that there are additional permissible architectures beyond those that are proposed in 40
C.F.R. 1037.23 l(b)(6)(i)-(iii) including combination of the identified architectures and Infinitely
Variable. While this may be implied by the use of exempli gratia in the text of the regulatory
-------
subparagraphs, EPA and NHTSA should not limit the type of architectures that are or may be available
in future years; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.36]
(4) Specify the energy storage capacity and rated output of hybrid technology at 40 C.F.R.
1037.23 l(b)( 10) and (11)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.36]
(5) Clarify 40 C.F.R. 1037.231(b)(7) with respect to the number of forward gears and how this will be
specified for different configurations (e.g., granny gears and secondary shift schedules).58 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.36]
Comment on N/V Ratios on Powertrain Testing with CVTs
In Sections 1037.550 (h) (1) and 1037.550 (h) (2), the N/V determination appears to be on a fixed ratio
gear reduction transmission. For continuously variable (CVT) and infinitely variable (IVT)
transmissions that do not have a fixed engine speed at a set output speed, the procedure is not clear.
Allison recommends the procedure be modified to use the lowest numerical gear that is available for a
CVT or IVT transmission. Additional flexibility should be considered to allow a manufacturer to define
the tire radius for the generic vehicle since there will be few axles available for some powertrains.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.36]
Response to CARB Letter and Recommendations
With respect to the CARB letter on this matter, in order "to allow additional flexibility, ARB staff
recommends allowing powertrain testing, as described in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 1037 as an
option to chassis dynamometer testing. If this is done, we recommend that the Orange County Bus
Cycle 90or UDDS cycle be used, along with another test cycle that the certifying party believes to be
more representative of the specific vocational duty cycle of the hybrid vehicle." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.54-55]
CARB further estimates chassis testing costs at $30,000 not including vehicle pickup, delivery, or rental
costs and recommends two options to relieve the cost of testing and the accessibility of test vehicles:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p. 55]
1. If vehicle OEM is meeting Phase 2 GHG targets without the hybrids factored into their mix, then do
not require the supplemental test. Instead, "U.S. EPA could require submittal of emission test data
indicating NOx emissions are acceptable via another method, for example from Portable Emission
Measurement Systems (PEMS) testing." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A 1 p.55]
2. If vehicle OEM is making less than some threshold of hybrids (suggested number of vehicles is 500
vehicles per year) then do not require the supplemental test. Instead, "U.S. EPA could require submittal
of emission test data indicating NOx emissions are acceptable via another method, for example from
PEMS testing."92 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A 1 p.55]
To better understand the impact of the CARB recommendations, Allison has used the ratio method
calculation (from the Attachment section of the letter) along with data from the June 2015 NREL report
NREL/TP-5400-62009 "Data Collection, Testing, and Analysis of Hybrid Electric Trucks and Buses
Operating in California Fleets." In our calculations, we find that all of the hybrid vehicles cited and
tested in the NREL/TP-5400-62009 study would fail the supplemental NOx test which is computed as a
combination of grams of NOx/bhp-hr and grams of NOx/mile. Sample calculations are detailed in the
attached table. In this regard, it is important to note that the NREL study data was collected on vehicles
-------
that had low kinetic intensity, and that a low kinetic intensity cycle does not reflect well on the benefits
of a hybrid powertrain. Allison is very interested in similar studies involving high kinetic intensity, but
we are not familiar with any studies of recent model year vintage that includes that type of data. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.55]
[Table, ARB Ratio Method Using Data from NREL Report NREL/TP-5400-62009 June 2015', can be
found on p.56 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1]
When considering HD vehicles, Allison believes the ratio method presented by CARB is faulty. A more
reasonable metric would be grams of NOx /ton-mile. In particular, for transit buses that are intended to
displace multiple passenger vehicles (keeping such vehicles off the road in favor of large public transit
vehicles), HD vehicles should be properly credited for the work being done to reduce overall vehicle-
related emissions. Especially in the case of transit buses, an HD vehicle should not be penalized as if it
were a single passenger commuter vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.56]
In summary, Allison understands that CARB is attempting to rationalize hybrid NOx performance
compared to conventional NOx performance at a vehicle level. Based on a lack of data to understand
hybrid impacts on vehicle level NOx in high kinetic intensity applications, however, it is not possible to
draw a conclusion this way, most especially with regard to a vehicle like a transit bus. Thus,
implementation of the test protocol as proposed would be premature and unsupported in the record for
this rulemaking. A more reasonable approach would be for EPA and NHTSA to gather additional data,
conduct an analysis of the same and then, if necessary, propose a regulatory amendment that includes
some factor of grams of NOx/ton-mile as opposed to grams of NOx/mile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p.56]
Other Elements of CARB Memorandum
Despite recommending that EPA and NHTSA not include CARB recommendations Allison believes
that understanding in-use NOx emissions concerns from HD hybrid vehicles is important to the future of
the HD hybrid vehicle market. In this regard, Allison agrees with the following portions of the ARB
memorandum: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.57]
1. Computing a supplemental NOx value for a hybrid vehicle can be done with a hybrid powertrain test.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.57]
2. If a vehicle OEM is meeting GHG targets without considering hybrids in its vehicle mix, then a
supplemental NOx test is not required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.57]
3. If a vehicle is a produced by a low volume manufacturer, then a supplemental NOx test is not
required. Allison suggests the threshold for an OEM should be 1,000 hybrid vehicles per year. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.57]
4. Allison believes PEMs equipment should be used to gather in-use emissions data on a prescribed duty
cycle, and that data should be considered for future rulemaking concerning a supplemental NOx test for
HD hybrids. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.57]
On the other hand, ARB states that a chassis dynamometer emissions test for HD truck can be run for
"approximately $30,000 per test vehicle or hybrid engine family, excluding vehicle pick-up and delivery
service." Allison disagrees with this specific portion of the memorandum. Allison testing experience
suggests that the cost to conduct this type of vehicle test could be at least double the ARB estimate.
-------
Also, in cases of delegated assembly, the cost of producing/acquiring a test vehicle of the fidelity
required for this type of testing is an additional burden beyond the cost of the test itself. The ARB memo
also contains the provision "in order to allow additional flexibility, ARB staff recommends allowing
powertrain testing." While that may allow flexibility, the EPA estimated cost of that testing is $70,000
per powertrain family which is more than double the ARB estimate, albeit low, for a chassis test. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p. 57]
CARB Recommendations Run Counter to Proposed Rule Advancement of Hybrid Technology
Allison would observe that the program that EPA has proposed to allow on-highway engines for
specialty vehicles to be certified as non-road engines will provide meaningful advancement of the HD
hybrid industry while maintaining a firm emissions standard. CARB's proposal on NOx, however,
appears to be directly at odds with this objective. The emission factor ratio application calculations
essentially state that a given hybrid powertrain must equal ~ or produce less ~ NOx emissions than a
conventional powertrain. But this requirement could easily result in hybrid powertrains that meet the
NOx certification guidelines while at the same time emitting 25-35% more C02 emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.57]
The underlying reason for this result is that hybrids have the tendency to cause engines to run at lower
speeds than conventional powertrains. That is, the engines used in hybrids are certified on the FTP cycle
which runs at speed/load points that are representative of a conventional powertrain that may have been
used in the past. In the future, however, engines used in conventional vehicles with more transmission
ranges will run at much slower speeds that the hybrid runs at today. It is expected that this migration to
engine down speeding on all vehicles will have the side benefit of reducing NOx emissions on hybrid
vehicles in use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.58]
Ultimately, Allison believes one solution could be changing the baseline FTP cycle to run closer to the
lowered engine speed points that are commonly seen in the hybrid systems today and the conventional
systems in the very near future. This kind of strategy will deliver both hybrid systems that reduce NOx
as well as prepare for inevitable changes in conventional powertrains. Conversely, if changes in the test
cycle are not made (and engine manufacturers choose to not optimize the SCR catalyst for the lower
operating speeds of the hybrid) the hybrid manufacturer will be forced to sub-optimize the hybrid
system. The sub-optimization of the hybrid will result in an estimated 20-30% reduction of the fuel
economy gains associated with the hybrid system along with corresponding increases in C02 emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.58]
42 The RIA estimates that industry-wide costs associated with the Proposed Rule would amount to only
6 upgraded and 5 new powertrain test facilities. These are projected to cost $16.6 million; operational
costs for powertrain testing facilities would total $4.1 million per year, based on an estimate of 20 tests
per year for three manufacturers. RIA at 7-6. Allison believes that these estimates are very conservative
and do not fully account for the need for parties to do powertrain testing. Outside of vehicle certification
per se, the Proposed Rule would drive additional powertrain testing throughout the industry (e.g., in the
development of new products, in order to ensure compliance, to quantify potential emission reductions
for potential purchasers, etc).
43 This number could potentially double with a second battery offering.
58 See Section III comments regarding secondary shift schedules.
-------
90 This cycle is also sometimes referred to as the OCTA cycle.
92 Note, it is not clear from the CARB letter as to what duty cycle would apply in the PEMS testing in
either situation.
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
We request comment on whether the agencies should consider requiring powertrain testing more
broadly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241 -A 1 p.2]
Similar to the comments on chassis dynamometers, Bendix does not believe that the agencies should
require powertrain testing in lieu of the vehicle simulation approach being proposed. It is our belief that
the associated costs of making it a requirement are not understood well enough to assess the financial
impact and testing standards are not fully developed. However, we do believe that the use of powertrain
testing will increase and the resulting data should be able to be used as input to GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1241-A1 p.2]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Powertrain testing
The NPRM requests comment on "if the generic powertrains should be modified according to specific
aspects of the actual powertrain. For example using the engine's rated power to scale the generic
engine's torque curve." For hybrid technologies, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA
consider the effect of the hybrid system, e.g., the work performed by the electric motor, on the generic
engine's torque curve. Because the electric motor is sharing some of the vehicle load requirements, the
engine torque map will be altered from its designed targets for similar total power requirement, at least
for some operating regimes. If this is not properly accounted for by the powertrain testing procedures,
inaccurate fuel economy and emissions test data may likely result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.88]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Powertrain testing requirement
The NPRM requests comment on whether U.S. EPA and NHTSA should require powertrain testing
more broadly. CARB staff supports the proposed use of powertrain testing, and also supports future
further exploration of powertrain and powerpack testing for certification use. The demands on the GEM
simulation will be reduced as more of the engine/transmission interaction is demonstrated by physical
operation in test cells. In this fashion, the detailed engine/transmission interaction behavior will be
directly captured rather than being potentially ignored by simplifying assumptions in the GEM model.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 113-114]
CARB staff anticipates that growth in powertrain testing will act to encourage collaborative information
exchange between engine, transmission, and hybrid powertrain development groups. Maximization of
the anticipated GHG savings from advanced powertrains cannot be realized without engine,
transmission and hybrid powertrain development groups affecting the designs of each other's products.
-------
CARB staff sees adoption of a powertrain testing pathway for certification as a possible incentive in this
collaborative direction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 114]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Powertrain testing in GEM (generic powertrain modification, transmission gear ratio
scaling)
The NPRM requests comment on whether the generic powertrains should be modified according to
specific aspects of the actual powertrain, for example by using the engine's rated power to scale the
generic engine's torque curve. CARB staff believes the generic powertrains should be modified with
actual powertrain data and support the proposed efforts to include further experimental data into the
GEM simulation. The interpolation of powertrain test C02 data for advanced powertrains allows the
real 104 | Page behavior of the powertrain control algorithms and actuator responses to more fully
manifest in the GEM evaluation while also minimizing testing burden and avoiding the need to divulge
detailed proprietary powertrain control algorithms. CARB staff support gear ratio scaling as it is in line
with including all trivially available powertrain parameters in the GEM simulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.115-116]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Hybrid charge sustaining operation - FTP or "City" Test and HFET or "Highway"
Test: modifying the minimum and maximum allowable test vehicle accumulated mileage for both
BEVs and PHEVs
The RIA requests comment on modifying the minimum and maximum allowable test vehicle
accumulated mileage for both BEVs and PHEVs. CARB staff agrees with SAE's test validity criterion
of a 1 percent limit on net State of Charge compared to fuel energy. CARB staff agrees minimum and
maximum test vehicle allowable mileage should have flexibility to account for unique usage and wear
accumulation in plug-in and BEV vehicles. CARB staff recommends that deviations from the standard
requirements be contingent on the certifying manufacturer submitting an engineering justification and
the agency's subsequent approval. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 120]
38 (NREL, 2015b) National Renewable Energy Laboratory, "Data Collection, Testing, and Analysis of
Hybrid Electric Trucks and Buses Operating in California Fleets - Final Report," page 35, June 2015,
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl5osti/62009.pdf>.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports the powertrain testing option [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.38]
The Phase 1 vehicle simulation utilized a generic, manual transmission model which did not capture the
active nature of certain types of advanced transmissions such as automated manual transmissions
(AMT) or automatic transmissions. For Phase 2, a powertrain testing option is proposed to evaluate the
efficiency benefits of an integrated engine and active transmission system. Results of the powertrain test
can be used in GEM in place of the engine fuel map and transmission model. Since both the engine and
transmission contain highly complex controllers, a powertrain test recognizes the interaction between
these two systems while avoiding the challenges associated with full vehicle testing and simulation.
Furthermore, a powertrain test provides high fidelity measurement of fuel efficiency over powertrain
-------
cycles and provides manufacturers with a clear path to demonstrate the benefits of optimized powertrain
systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.38]
The agencies proposed powertrain test in 40 CFR 1037.550 has been applied by Dykes and Dorobantu24
to a HD diesel engine and AMT. Dykes and Dorobantu demonstrated the benefits of the powertrain
procedure in capturing the improvements that would not normally be recognized in simulation and
engine testing. Cummins supports the option of a powertrain test to evaluate GHG/FE benefits obtained
from an integrated engine and transmission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.39]
Cummins supports powertrain families to limit the powertrain testing burden rEPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298-A1 p.39]
While Cummins is still evaluating application of the powertrain testing option, there is some concern
regarding the powertrain family structure proposed in 40 CFR 1037.231. Grouping similar powertrains
into a family structure, analogous to engine families, helps reduce the certification and testing burden to
manufacturers. However, if 70% of vocational vehicles require powertrain testing as the agencies have
estimated, then the powertrain test burden due to the number of engine and transmission combinations
likely exceeds the agencies' assumptions. Cummins commits to working with vehicle OEMs,
transmission manufacturers and the agencies to ensure a practical powertrain family structure is
available for Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.39]
Cummins supports powertrain engines included in engine families [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1
p.39]
Cummins supports allowing manufacturer's engine families to contain engines used in powertrain
families, which helps minimize proliferation of engine families in Phase 2. Cummins urges the agencies
to clarify: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.39]
• Engines used in powertrains shall be included in the engine program ABT for C02 emissions
certified over the FTP and/or RMCSET cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.39]
• Powertrain C02 emissions levels only apply to engine ratings tested as part of the powertrain
system when considering SEA and in-use testing (see 40 CFR 1036.630(a)). Engine
certifications submitted with fuel maps are only liable for C02 emissions measured using the
fuel map procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.39]
24 Dykes, Erik and Dorobantu, Mihai, "Certification Test Approach for the Phase II Greenhouse Gas
Regulations," Eaton Corporation, Southfield, Michigan, Technical Report, May, 2015. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0130
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America and Detroit Diesel Company
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory powertrain data (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1622, NHTSA-2014-
0132-0183):
We continue to analyze these data to double-check ORNL's work, but it is not clear to us what
conclusions the agencies expected us to draw from all of these data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-
A2 p.4.]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
-------
Powertrain or Chassis Dyno Testing: The agencies discuss Powertrain testing extensively in
the NPRM and we would like to provide our opinion. 1) We recommend the agencies
completely remove the need for Powertrain testing, however, 2) if required, Powertrain testing as
described risks not accurately capturing powertrain controls and shift strategy. The rule requires 9
different vehicle configurations. Of these 9 configurations, 8 are either at extremes of cycle work, or
extremes of engine speed. Four are at extremes of both. While the final point may be considered a
reasonable configuration, no consideration is given to a manufacturer's recommended configuration, or
a manufacturer's specification guidelines on final drive ratio. This may upset a manufacturer's
powertrain control strategy - In the cases of low speed, causing the vehicle to spend too much time in
top gear minus 1, increasing cycle C02. In the case of maximum speed, the powertrain may spend too
much time in top gear, and frequently operate in the peak fuel consumption point. This is unrealistic,
and again, elevates cycle C02. These extreme speeds may also cause a transmission or axle to run
outside of their designed operating envelope. This may mean that they run in a worse section of their
efficiency maps, compounding the C02 penalty due to engine operating point and powertrain controls.
Because the cycle C02 is interpolated from these points, it is likely that a manufacturer's best C02
powertrain will be estimated to have higher cycle C02 (from the interpolation) than if that particular
powertrain configuration were tested. For example, if an OEM's best powertrain were designed to
operate at an optimum speed between the min NTE speed and B speed, the cycle C02 measured in the
powertrain test at the surrounding points would all be higher than the actual configuration. Therefore, it
appears that sufficient resolution around actual configurations has been sacrificed to capture the breadth
of all configurations, regardless of whether those configurations are allowed by the manufacturer. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.64-65]
There is no need for powertrain testing for linehaul vehicles, rather we should be doing
transmission efficiency test like the rear axle efficiency test: We recognize that the agencies attribute
a significant amount of the projected C02 reductions to using powertrain tests in order to show the
benefits of engine and transmission (powertrain) integration. However, especially in the case of all
tractor categories where the high speed cycles are weighted the highest we recommend that the agencies
accept transmission efficiency testing in lieu of powertrain testing. Given the fact that most driving at
high speeds incurs relatively few shift events, there is very little benefit to using powertrain testing as a
means to show the benefits of improved shift strategies. The only exception would be neutral coast
technologies which become more and more prevalent in the market. However, showing the benefits of
i.e. DTNA's ECoast is very challenging on a test bench and would certainly not be feasible under the
proposed Phase 2 powertrain test procedures. Similarly with vocational vehicle, a lot of the undefined
"deep integration" benefit that the agencies seek can likely be found on a transmission efficiency test, in
that manufacturers will be able to demonstrate improved gear efficiencies relative to those assumed in
GEM. In our opinion it is more advantageous to capture transmission efficiency benefits with a
dedicated transmission efficiency test than powertrain testing, because one transmission test can cover a
broad range of powertrain configurations. Therefore, similar to our recommendation to align test
procedures for axle efficiency with the ACEA approach we recommend aligning transmission test
protocols as well. Given the global nature of the heavy duty truck industry DTNA would welcome the
ability to leverage test results for global components in multiple regulatory areas of the world. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.65]
Other Structures Considered: Powertrain Testing - The agencies propose powertrain testing
and request comment regarding what key attributes should be considered when defining a transmission
family. 80 FR 40178. DTNA recommends against powertrain testing as it is a burdensome approach to
measure the same results that GEM is well-crafted to simulate. In particular, we recommend
transmission mapping to get realistic transmission inputs. This would require one test per transmission,
rather than multiple tests per transmission—at least one for each engine family, likely many more as a
manufacturer will not be able to get much value from the worst-case transmission and engine rating
-------
combination. We certainly will not be able to show the "deep integration" that the agencies expect when
we are required to test worst-case configurations. So we will need to test a lot of variants, at the expense
of a lot of money and time. Better is to use GEM with transmission inputs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p. 66] That said, if the agencies plan to incorporate powertrain testing, DTNA recommends that
EPA include variants of automatic transmission torque converters. It is understood that changing torque
converter design on an otherwise identical powertrain configuration can drastically affect engine
operating points, and change the cycle fuel economy. This is due in part to what gear the TC locks up in,
idle torque requirements, and slip. It appears that EPA just wants to know if there is a torque converter,
and where it's located. But we are not certain. We wish to work further with the agencies to understand
your request and how we can work toward transmission mapping without need to define transmission
"families" (particularly for powertrain testing). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.66]
Powertrain Testing - If the generic powertrains should be modified according to specific aspects
of the actual powertrain. - DTNA does not support that EPA promulgate rules that incentivize a
preferred path for certification as it appears to have treated powertrain testing. 80 FR 40190. DTNA
believes that full vehicle simulation using a verifiable suite of input values for key attributes is the most
effective approach to Phase 2. Should EPA continue with offering the powertrain certification path, it
should consider allowing manufacturers to establish the range of attributes that establish the matrix of
configurations it plans to test. As manufacturers optimize their powertrain designs to specific
applications, they should be allowed to configure the powertrain test matrix to closely bind the region of
optimization. By doing so, the manufacturer can improve upon interpolation error that could otherwise
be significant if the boundaries of the matrix are defined too widely as may be the case in EPAs
proposed default configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.66] DTNA also questions the
use of the criteria pollutant parent rating as the sole rating to establish fuel consumption characteristics
for a family of ratings. It is clear that shifting patterns and engine operating speeds over a given drive
cycle vary significantly with engine rating characteristics. EPA is encouraged to investigate how
powertrain test results are affected as a function of engine rating. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.66]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Potential of powertrain testing: Through prototype powertrain testing, we have data showing the
incremental cost of testing is reasonable. For advanced vehicles there is no practical alternative because
it is the proprietary shift logic and integrated engine-transmission controls that drive the differences
between GEM-based predictions and real performance. Since the powertrain test results are a product of
the engine and transmission controls, attention needs to be focused on maintaining the ability of
authorized parties to modify calibrations in the field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.3]
Importance of realistic GEM default values and baseline values: GEM defaults need to be set at
"slightly conservative" in all powertrain configurations. We believe there is still work to be done in
choosing the default values. For transmission losses, it is important that a "slightly conservative"
approach be taken so the relative ranking is preserved across different architectures. Fortunately, the
EPA has developed a powertrain test capability at Southwest Research Institute and other locations, so it
can collect real test data of 2015 powertrains and use this information to develop a consistent, data-
driven set of MY2017 baseline assumptions and GEM defaults. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1
p.4]
Furthermore, we are pleased the EPA is developing a powertrain test option that accurately measures the
fuel benefits of advanced technologies in realistic driving conditions. We believe that the EPA/NHTSA
proposal to offer powertrain testing as an optional feature to measure the efficiencies of advanced
-------
transmissions and powertrains is a critical expansion of its use in Phase 1 for hybrid certification. We
believe the powertrain test option is an essential complement to model-based certification. The fact that
the benefits of advanced transmissions and controls can be visible in the vehicle assessment, through the
powertrain test option, enables OEM's to achieve compliance though these technologies, in a cost-
effective fashion. Coupled with the Averaging, Banking and Trading program proposed in the rule, it
offers OEMs flexibility in achieving stringent standards and allows Eaton to bring advanced
technologies to the market earlier, driving further emissions and C02 reductions on an accelerated
timeline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.5]
Value of transmissions in GEM-based certification
Advanced transmissions, deeply integrated powertrains, and the powertrain test option, deliver a
significant part of the compliance burden without significant incremental product cost, complexity,
weight or vehicle architecture changes. We have provided data to the EPA showing that 25-33% of the
line haul tractor compliance gap between MY2017 and MY2027 can be covered through such
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.6]
Specifically, we have compared GEM simulations and powertrain tests of identically specified vehicles.
For the GEM simulation, we used the engine fuel map and for the transmission we used actual gear
ratios. In the powertrain test, we looked at both a normal powertrain configuration (450 HP ISX engine
and an Eaton 10-speed LAS transmission without downspeeding), as well as the deeply integrated
SmartAdvantage Powertrain (ISX engine with SmartTorque 2 communicating with an Eaton FAS high
efficiency 10-speed transmission with increasingly more aggressive engine downspeeding). We
observed a difference on average of 6.3% (and more than 8% in a particular vehicle combination) in the
powertrain test versus the GEM prediction with the identical vehicle settings and appropriate engine fuel
map and default transmission model. This difference is explained by the features present in the real
hardware and controls but not modeled in GEM (e.g., the specific engine dynamics and controls, the dry
sump technology and advanced shift strategy in the transmission, etc). These results show that through
better engine transient controls transmission controls and architecture, the integration of the two
components and advanced lubrication and efficiency treatments, it is possible to cover 25-33% of the
line haul tractor compliance gap between MY2017 and MY2027 (6-8% improvement on a 22-24%
target improvement). These results are described in [Dykes 2015, Stoltz 2014]1,2[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1194-A1 p.6-7]
Similarly, using the powertrain test methodology and comparing dual clutch transmissions in fuel
economy mode versus incumbent technology in base mode, we have quantified the fuel advantage at 7-
8%, numbers confirmed by test track tests. This shows that 33-50% of that gap in the vocational
segment (14-16% improvement target can be covered by improvements in transmission efficiency and
deep integration with the engine resulting in, e.g., minimizing idle losses and engine downspeeding.
This value is realized assuming the GEM models are "slightly conservative" when simulating basic
technologies. Specific results are presented in [Jackson 2015, Dykes 2015, Dorobantu 2014 and CBI
data provided]3'1'4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.7]
Powertrain testing
The powertrain test option is applicable to advanced vehicle features where there is no practical
alternative, because it is the proprietary shift logic and integrated engine/transmission controls that drive
the difference between GEM-based predictions and the real performance. Since the powertrain test
results are a product of the engine and transmission controls, attention needs to be focused on
maintaining the ability of authorized parties to modify calibrations in the field, within certain limits.
-------
Without such an option, the significant impact of controls cannot be accounted for in the vehicle
certification, rendering the approach useless and leading to increased cost, weight and complexity of
compliance by forcing hardware-only solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.7]
Certification value
As shown before, the powertrain test methodology applied to advanced transmissions and deep
engine/transmission integration, can yield 6% fuel reduction in line haul tractors and 7-8% fuel
reduction in vocational categories. The reductions account for engine and transmission dynamics not
modeled in GEM, as well as mechanical efficiency improvements of advanced transmissions. This
offers OEMs flexibility in achieving the tractor and vocational vehicle standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1194-A1 p.7]
Powertrain families
We agree with the EPA's proposed definition of powertrain families and use of engineering judgment to
determine the family and worst case representative. We believe that for our business, we will likely
recommend splitting engine families into two groups; one with performance calibrations, the other with
fuel efficient calibrations, so that the worst performing combination in each category will still provide
significant certification to OEMs. We will stress that we do not believe there is significant value in
powertrain testing to be applied across all powertrains. For example, using our portfolio today as a
guide, we think only a few Eaton transmissions such as the FAS (as part of the SmartAdvantage
package) or the Procision dual clutch (integrated with the ISB engine) will maximize the certification
value through a powertrain test. For other transmissions that are mechanically more efficient than GEM
defaults -such as our LAS 10-speed transmission ~ we recommend a gearbox efficiency test only. Yet
for another category of high performance transmissions ~ the MXP 18-speed transmission, for example
- we would recommend GEM defaults. We also believe OEMs will select only higher volume
powertrains for full powertrain testing, perhaps segregated into 2-3 families each. The RIA suggests that
70% of vocational powertrains will need to be powertrain tested for compliance. However, in terms of
test burden, the appropriate metric is the number of distinct families that would need such testing, which
needs an assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.7-8]
Recommendation: Continue evaluating the concept of powertrain families to assess the realistic test
burden in the vocational space. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 8]
Powertrain test procedures
We agree with the EPA description of the powertrain test procedure and we support the approach to
mapping the powertrain space as a function of work and N/V ratio. We understand that the EPA is
trying to define a single procedure that serves powertrain with and without the axle(s), and realizes this
objective by specifying multiple tire radii. We are concerned that during a powertrain test, unrealistic an
tire radius may be misinterpreted by either engine or transmission controllers resulting in erratic
behavior. We believe that it is prudent to develop different (but equivalent) specifications for the
powertrain test when a physical axle is present and when the axle is virtual. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1194-A1 p. 8]
Recommendation: Allow an option to use either axle ratio or tire radius for the nine vehicle
configuration setup for powertrain testing. Axle ratio can be used if the physical axle is not part of the
powertrain test lab. If the physical axle is part of the setup than tire radius may be used. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 8]
-------
Powertrain cost estimates
A significant issue around using powertrain tests is the cost of the test, assuming there is no cost in
running a GEM simulation using the GEM default transmission efficiency values. Based on two years of
experience with two powertrain test cells, we estimate that the unburdened incremental costs of
powertrain tests are below $10,000 for a test with an engine and a transmission that have been
previously tested (i.e., fixtures, wire harnesses, etc. already exist), below $15,000 per test with a
previously tested engine but new transmission family, and below $20,000 when a new engine is tested.
The differences in costs are driven by the need to create new fixtures, harnesses, etc., and to calibrate
the test cell. We have provided the EPA with a detailed cost analysis based on actual expenses [CBI
data provided], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.8]
At Eaton, we have converted an engine emissions test cell as a medium-duty powertrain test for work
under Phase 1, and a heavy-duty test cell for studying powertrain test options in Phase 2. The
incremental costs of converting the cells (new simulation software and controls, replacing the engine
dynamometer with a higher torque machine and additional wiring) over the cell's emissions sensing
system was under $1,000,000. We have provided the EPA with a cost analysis based on actual spend
[CBI dataprovided].[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-Al p.8]
Calibrations issues
There is a significant concern around the ability to perform adjustments and running changes to the
transmission controller if the powertrain testing methodology is used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-
Alp.8]
Eaton releases annually two software updates that are flashed (sometimes remotely) onto transmission
controllers with the truck in the field. The bulk of these changes are bug fixes. Also, post-sale changes
to the transmissions are made, mostly focused on adjusting shift durations and clutch engagement
(usually not shift tables). These changes are essential to the correct functioning of the vehicle in areas
such as low speed maneuverability when backing into a dock, and even to improving vehicle safety. It is
important to recognize that most U.S., non-vertically integrated OEMs are not currently aware of these
changes which are usually the responsibility of independent suppliers of engines, transmissions, and
soon axles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1194-A1 p.8-9]
Since the powertrain test results are a product of the engine and transmission controls, attention needs to
be focused on maintaining the ability of authorized parties to modify calibrations in the field within
certain limits. Without such an option, the significant impact of controls cannot be accounted for in the
vehicle certification, rendering the approach useless and leading to increased cost, weight and
complexity of compliance by forcing hardware-only solutions. The issue is not dissimilar to engine
calibration adjustments, recently reported in the press to actually drive less fuel consumption by
allowing fleets to optimize stock engine parameters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.9]
We believe the EPA is trying to avoid situations where OEMs might sell a "fuel economy package" and
account for a significant C02 credit at the sale, but then other parties change the calibration to
"performance" which may impact adversely the C02 emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1
p.9]
Recommendation: The EPA considers a range of options. Willfully changing from a "fuel economy
calibration" to a "performance calibration" during the regulatory useful life of a vehicle certified with
powertrain tests would be illegal resulting in the agency having significant enforcement opportunities in
-------
such unlikely scenarios. However, a constant re-testing of new settings or adopting a worse-case
situation would also defeat the goals of the regulations. A compromise but clearly articulated solution
based on either experience in light duty CAFE with multiple powertrain settings ("comfort" versus
"sport" versus "eco" modes), and/or agreed upon limits in which adjustments can be made without re-
testing, should be established by the EPA in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.9]
Importance of grade sensors
Modern transmissions have grade sensors and load sensor or estimators to determine the appropriate
shift points. These tend to be proprietary algorithms as they dictate the quality and the feel of the shifts.
A limitation of the powertrain test is that it cannot physically reproduce grades, and in some cases the
load information is external to the powertrain (e.g., a vehicle level data and estimate). Grade is not
important in the ARB cycle, but we have seen that it does make a substantial difference in the 65mph
and 55mph cycles with the +/-2% grade proposed in the NPRM. Should that grade increase as the
agency is suggesting up to +/-5% grade, the grade sensor data becomes a very significant part of the
powertrain test. In our experience, the grade sensor is implemented as a pendulum and its readings are
corrected for vehicle acceleration. Thus, in a test it will compensate for acceleration, tricking the
controller into assuming a steep grade which will result in wrong gear selection. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1194-A1 p.9]
Recommendation: The EPA should allow the powertrain vehicle simulation to feed the simulated
grade directly to the transmission controller, e.g., through an additional CAN signal, and allow a test
version of the controller to accept that data instead of using its internal grade sensor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1194-A1 p.9]
Simulated transmissions
An idea developed in the industry is to perform powertrain testing on an engine test stand with
simulated transmission behavior. We do not agree with this approach for several reasons: First, the
powertrain test should be used to give credit to transmission controls and integrated
engine/transmissions controls. If the transmission is replaced by a model controller, that purpose is
defeated. Second, the powertrain test is meant to reward advanced transmission technology which
would not be seen in such a test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 10]
A variant of this request would be to run a transmission mechanical model in GEM, but replace the
transmission logic with the actual transmission controller in a hardware-in-the-loop setting. Such an
endeavor is feasible in development centers and the engine transmission communications would be
captured by such a test. However, the controller-in-the-loop needs to be validated that it is functioning
correctly, communicating with sensors, and correctly putting loads on simulated actuators. The
validation of such an approach for regulatory reasons is open to interpretation and its interfaces are
extremely complex. It could be argued that the powertrain itself is in fact hardware-in-the-loop and open
to the same validation issues. That, however, is not the case because the powertrain has simple
interfaces with the rest of the vehicle: CAN bus communications, one load at the prop-shaft, and a few
well known electrical accessory loads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 10]
Recommendation: The EPA should not implement a simulated transmission in a powertrain test. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 10]
GEM default values and baseline values
-------
"Slightly conservative" GEM default efficiencies
GEM defaults need to be set to being "slightly conservative" in all powertrain configurations. As an
objective measure, we recommend defining "slightly conservative" GEM predictions relative to a
powertrain test of an identically configured vehicle using the steady state engine fuel map and
corresponding gear ratios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 13]
The behavior of the GEM transmission model is mainly driven by the power-loss models and the
assumed shift controls. We believe there is still work to be done in choosing the efficiency default
values. For transmission losses, it is important that a "slightly conservative" approach be taken so the
integrity of the certification process is maintained. This is further complicated by the fact that there are
fundamentally two different transmissions architectures available in GEM that have different modeling
assumptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 13]
Data that the EPA shared recently with EMA and other powertrain manufactures is encouraging in
terms of the correct ranking between architectures. The earlier version of GEM had significant issues
with the relative ranking of various architectures in GEM versus their relative ranking in real world
conditions or on the powertrain test. For example, when simulating in GEM for the Procision DCT and
the automatic transmissions without fuel efficiency calibrations, were ranked as shown in the figure
below where the measured quantity is g/ton-mile. However, the powertrain test results and the test-track
simulation results showed the exact opposite trend. Furthermore, the effect of downspeeding the
powertrain by simulating increasingly higher speed axles was correct for the DCT, AMT and MT
architectures, but incorrect for the AT architecture. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 13]
[Figure 2, An early version of GEM simulations where the results are counter to physics and hardware
test data', can be found on p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1]
We also have data that shows that GEM is "optimistic" in terms of fuel consumption, rather than the
needed "slightly conservative" even for manual and AMT transmissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1194-A1 p. 14]
We have compared a few configurations using the early publicly available GEM version, as well as
accessing computations with later development code shared by the EPA with the EMA and other
industry participants. Our findings are as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 14]
There are modern transmissions on the market with the overall efficiencies of 98% in direct and 96% in
other gears [CBA data provided]. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.14] There are significantly
more mechanically efficient transmissions, such as the Eaton LAS 10-speed and the FAS 10-speed.
Recognizing the contributions of such transmissions through either a powertrain test or overwriting the
GEM defaults as described above provides an impetus to the industry to improve the technology. In the
case of LAS, the GEM defaults understate the fuel consumption between 0.7% and 6.0% versus
powertrain testing using different axle ratios at 55 mph and 65mph simulations with a slight grade (i.e.,
GEM is too optimistic instead of conservative in its fuel consumption predictions). Some of that
difference is attributable to differences in shift controls and some is due to the loss model. However,
these results point to a methodology to objectively tune GEM to "slightly conservative" predictions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 14] On the contrary, artificially inflating the default efficiencies
removes the compliance incentive for better efficiency and would allow less efficient transmissions to
claim fuel efficiency that is not real-world, defeating the purpose of the certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 14] It is also critically important to establish a realistic baseline for the
regulations using the GEM models, even if the relative change in stringency remains unchanged. We
-------
agree with the EPA assessment that changing the standards numerical values (that are dependent on
GEM tuning and choice of grade profiles in the duty cycle), while maintaining the relative stringency
change in MY2021, MY2024 and MY2027 does not change the analysis of technology paths, their cost
or their impact. However, it is important that the baseline is realistic because of the ability to compare
against powertrain tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 14]
If the baseline is too high, the standards will be automatically achieved by a simple exercise of GEM
which defeats the purpose of the rule. If the baseline is too low, the standards become impossible to
achieve in any powertrain test setting. Fortunately, the EPA has developed a powertrain test capability
at Southwest Research Institute and other locations allowing it to collect real test data of MY2015-16
powertrains and to use these to develop the MY2017 baseline assumptions. In this way, the GEM model
does not need to be tuned to road data but rather to very repeatable tests, strictly equivalent GEM, that
exercise real powertrains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 14]
Recommendation: to resolve the issues of realistic baselines and "slightly conservative" GEM defaults,
the EPA should consider selecting a few representative powertrains for the 2017 baseline whose
performance settings are typical in the market today, and then use the SWRI powertrain test capability
on vehicle configurations such that: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 14]
GEM is tuned to reproduce the ranking of different transmission architectures when exercised over the
same engine and vehicle, to avoid creating a "pull" for any particular technology based on GEM
modeling assumptions and simplifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 15] Ensure that
GEM results are "slightly conservative" on the configurations where advanced transmission controls or
deep engine/transmission integration are either nonexistent or disabled (e.g., fuel efficiency
calibrations), and the degree of under-prediction is consistent across different transmission architectures.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 15]
1 Dykes, E., Dorobantu, M. (2015) 'Certification Test Approach for the Phase II Greenhouse Gas
Regulations', Eaton Technical Report, Powertrain working group, May 2015 (also on EPA Phase 2
docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827013 0)
2 Stoltz, T., Dorobantu, M. (2014). 'Transmission potential to contribute to C02 reduction: 2020 and
beyond line haul perspective'. ACEEE-ICCT workshop. Washington, DC. July 22
3 Jackson, G.A. and Palazzolo, J.J. (2015) 'Fuel economy and performance improvement enabled by
medium-duty dual clutch transmissions', Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.243-262
4 Dorobantu, M. (2015) 'Special Issue on Advanced Powertrain Testing Methodologies for Fuel-
Efficient Commercial Vehicles - Editorial', Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 191-195
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
We believe that the following are characteristics are critical to the success of GEM as a tool and to
realizing the improvements envisioned by the rule in an efficient way for the industry: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1875-A1 p.l]
-------
- GEM needs the flexibility to include data-driven models as technology advances, so that GEM does
not become a barrier to introducing new products. Powertrain test-based models and transmission power
loss models are excellent options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p. 1]
- GEM test cycles need to be representative of real-life operations, and it is critical that GEM exercise
the largest part of the powertrain modes. We believe the agency has developed a data-based approach
that is statistically significant and achieves the needs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p. 1
Representation of powertrain technologies in GEM
Eaton has performed a number of simulations using GEM in both tractor-trailer and vocational vehicle
mode. We noticed the following trends: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.2]]
- GEM correctly captured the effects of downspeeding engines through the combined effects of
transmissions and axle ratios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.2]
- GEM captured correctly the effects of gears designed for more down-sped operations [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1875-A1 p.2]
- GEM captured correctly the differences between major transmissions architectures. For example, the
impact on predictions of C02 emissions of automatic, dual clutch and AMT transmissions are consistent
with differences observed in powertrain tests or fuel tests when these technologies are compared. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.2]
- GEM captured correctly the impact of neutral-idle and start-stop technologies on automatic
transmissions. When applied to automatic transmissions, they reproduce the effect of such transmissions
to gain fuel efficiency and approach the efficiency of AMT and DCT transmissions with similar gear
ratios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1875-A1 p.2]
Powertrain and efficiency test methodology
We have performed experiments with the powertrain test methodology outlined by the EPA, and have
evaluated the applicability and consistency of the results. We have established that the powertrain test is
reliable in predicting the performance of real transmissions and integrated engine-transmissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.2]
- The methodology for deriving the powertrain representation using 9 vehicle points and testing over the
three cycles is sound. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.2]
- GEM simulations based on the powertrain test data recover the powertrain performance at the design
points. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.2]
- The interpolation error is reasonable when comparing the powertrain test at a different test condition
and comparing with the powertrain-based GEM model at that same condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1875-A1 p.2]
Consistency between GEM prediction and hardware tests
We have also evaluated the ability of the powertrain test to quantify the advantage of advanced
technology over a simulation using defaults [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-A1 p.2]
- GEM simulation using transmissions default efficiencies is "slightly conservative." We compared
GEM outputs with the default transmission loss model to GEM outputs that overwrote the defaults with
actual measured transmission losses. The calculations show a close match in the situation of an actual
transmission in the market that is not optimized for efficiency. This allows us to conclude that the GEM
default transmission losses are "slightly conservative," in the sense that they predict correctly
transmissions in the market that are not optimized for fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1875-
A1 p.2]
- Powertrain method quantifies correctly the benefits advanced technologies. We compared GEM
predictions with default losses to powertrain tests of transmissions optimized for fuel economy. We
found that the difference observed is correct and consistent with both hardware tests and fleet reports.
The differences observed match and quantify, the effects of better mechanical efficiency, including dry
sump, optimized shift points, and optimized engine-transmission response during shifts. We observed a
-------
less than 1% uncertainty in the matching which we attribute to uncertainty in the auxiliary load used in
the GEM assumptions and the hardware tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1875-A1 p.2-3]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Furthermore, we are pleased the EPA is developing a powertrain test option that accurately measures the
fuel benefits of advanced technologies in realistic driving conditions. We believe that the EPA/NHTSA
proposal to offer powertrain testing as an optional feature to measure the efficiencies of advanced
transmissions and powertrains is a critical expansion of its use in Phase 1 for hybrid certification. We
believe the powertrain test option is an essential complement to model-based certification. The fact that
the benefits of advanced transmissions and controls can be visible in the vehicle assessment, through the
powertrain test option, enables OEM's to achieve compliance though these technologies, in a cost-
effective fashion. Coupled with the Averaging, Banking and Trading program proposed in the rule, it
offers OEMs flexibility in achieving stringent standards and allows Eaton to bring advanced
technologies to the market earlier, driving further emissions and C02 reductions on an accelerated
timeline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.5]
Organization: Hino Motors, Ltd.
1. Cycle Average Mapping Test and Powertrain Test
With regard to the proposed test procedures on GHG emission test specified in 40 CFR part 1036, 1037
and 1065, Hino noticed some inconsistent testing frequencies from critical emission test. According to
the proposal, set point frequency and validation frequency which are specified in 40 CFR part
1036.540(b)(5) and part 1037.550(1) and (k) are excessively high compared with those of measurement
system response in 40 CFR part 1065.205, 1065.512(c) and 1065.514. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1877-A1 p.l]
[Table can be found on p. 1 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1877-A1]
As shown in the table above, we found following issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1 p.2]
1. The response timing requirement in the GHG test is considerably fast and difficult to meet with existing
test cell equipment.
2. The response timing requirement in the GHG test is not consistent with that of exhaust emission test
specified in 40 CFR part 1065.
Request:
The same frequency which is proven in the FTP emission test for EPA emission test should be used in
the GHG certification test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1877-A1 p.2]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar feels the following are key areas the agencies must address: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
• Powertrain testing should be optional, not mandatory, and the proposed protocol should be completely
revised to be more representative of customer applications. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Proposed Powertrain Integration Testing Requirements are Far More Burdensome than the
Agencies Estimate
-------
The proposal also would require that any running changes to powertrain test family components that
have, or may have, effects on fuel efficiency and GHG emissions must undergo powertrain integration
testing before the running change could be implemented. This testing burden would make implementing
necessary running changes extremely difficult, if not prohibitively expensive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1204-A1 p.21]
PACCAR recommends that the agencies significantly reduce the powertrain integration testing burden
by reducing penetration rates for vocational stringency determination and by limiting emissions
measurements in the powertrain test cell to C02, N20 and CH4, provided that criteria pollutants (NOx,
CO, THC, PM etc.) are measured and reported as part of the engine certification process. PACCAR also
recommends that the agencies provide increased flexibilities that will allow needed running changes and
field fixes without the delay of additional testing and will work with the agencies to develop the best
regulatory approach to support this need. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.21]
As an additional note, the agencies ' early estimate is that the transmission would not be required for
confirmatory and SEA testing of deep integration technologies. However, initial assessments indicate
that the transmission will be needed if an SEA is performed because the engine torque output from the
engine ECU does not reflect the engine performance at a given moment of time to the accuracy
necessary to replicate the test without the transmission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.21]
Organization: School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
Powertrain Testing - The agencies have proposed powertrain testing and requested comments regarding
what key attributes should be considered when defining a transmission family. SBMTC recommends
against powertrain testing as it is a burdensome approach to measure the same results that GEM is well-
crafted to simulate. SBMTC believes the best choice is to use GEM with both separate engine and
transmission inputs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1287-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
Automated manual transmissions allow for significant application for downspeeding, and some of this is
captured in the updated GEM model. However, true powertrain integration can push these reductions
even further by better matching torque to the vehicle's operating conditions , as evidenced by the
technical report published by Eaton and submitted to the docket (Dykes and Dorobantu 2 015 ). In this
report, the SmartAdvantage powertrain achieved a 3.4-percent improvement on the line - haul cycle and
a 3.7~percent improvement on the regional-haul cycle. However, the GEM model would only capture
the benefits of the top - gear being downsped by about 100 rpm. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
p. 11]
We calculated the impact of the 100- rpm downspeeding improvement in GEM us ing public data on the
gear steps for the two transmissions (Eaton n.d., 2015) and the 2017 aerodynamic and tire coefficients.
We've considered both the 2018 and 2 027 final drive ratios to bound the problem — as mentioned
above, the engine speed in 2018 is much higher than a typical engine today but is the default used by the
agencies to set the regulations, while the 2027 final drive ratio leads to an engine cruise speed
comparable to what the SmartAdvantage powertrain was designed for. This modeling shows that GEM
is able to capture between 2.0- and 2.3-percent improvement on the line-haul cycle and just 1.6 to 2.0
percent on the regional cycle, well short of the 3.4- to 3.7-percent improvement shown in the powertrain
test. Using the average result, this is 1.3-percent improvement from line-haul and 2.0-percent from day
cab that is not being captured, and therefore not being incentivized, under the current regulation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 11-12]
-------
Powertrain integration can provide significant fuel economy improvements, particularly in transient
operation. Despite significant improvements, this is inadequately captured in the GEM model, and
therefore the agencies should be moving towards a regulatory approach that captures transient operation
better, such as the powertrain test. Furthermore, the agencies should ensure that the GEM model is not
undercutting improvements measurable by powertrain testing by over crediting performance of
conventional transmissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1329-A2 p. 12]
Dykes, E. and M. Dorobantu. 2015. Certification test approach for the phase II greenhouse gas
regulations. Technical report by Eaton. Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0130. Online at
http://www.regulations, gov/# !documentDetail,D=EPA-HQ-OAR- 2014-0827-0130 .
Eaton. No date. SmartAdvantage™ Powertrain. Features & specifications. Online at
http://www. roadranser.com/rr/ProductsServices/ProductsbvCatesorv/Intesrated-
Powertrains/SmartAdvantase/index.htm.
Eaton. 2015. Fuller Advantage' Series manual transmissions. TRSL0303-0515. Online
at httv://www.roadran2er.com/ecm/2rouvs/vuhlic/(a),vub/(d),eaton/(a)roadran2er/documents/content/vct
470 345 .pdf.
Organization: Volvo Group
Powertrain Testing
We have had neither the time nor the resources necessary to adequately evaluate the powertrain test
proposal. This is particularly troubling since much of the vocational efficiency improvement is based on
"deep integration" of the powertrain that can only be demonstrated via powertrain testing. This
procedure requires a thorough engineering investigation as is typically done within the EMA Emissions
Measurement and Test Committee in cooperation with the agencies. In addition, a procedure for
performing the powertrain testing should be established in 40 CFR Part 1065. The powertrain testing
requirements in 1037.550 do not clearly define the hardware requirements for the test cell. The language
is vague and could allow for inconsistent interpretation across the industry. At present, we can provide
only a few observations based on a cursory review, without having had the opportunity to conduct any
testing whatsoever. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.39]
We first note that available dynamometers are not rated at the very high transmission output torque
levels when in the lowest transmission gears. As an alternative, we propose to simulate the vehicle
operation in the lowest gears while running in the lowest gear that maintains output torque below the
dynamometer limits. Since work done while at these low speed is small, the measurement impact should
be minimal. Upgrading dynamometers to have full torque capability for the proposed testing would
require investment on the order of $1,000,000 per test cell. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.40]
In order to properly manage transmission gear shifting, it is essential to provide the necessary inputs to
the transmission controller. Currently our AMT requires road grade data that is acquired via a level
sensor. This input must be simulated during the test. Without this input, the transmission controller
would assume widely varying vehicle mass; and shifting would not be properly controlled. In the future,
the transmission will utilize learned grade data from on-board GPS to optimize shifting on hills and we
would expect this input data can also be simulated during the testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.40]
-------
In addition, the NPRM does not adequately define the test procedure. For instance, if a manual
transmission were to be employed within a given powertrain family, the method of managing the testing
is left largely to the manufacturer. This could result in an OEM employing a shift strategy for the test
that would be un-realistic in the real world. This could serve to lessen the real-world benefit of auto
shifting transmissions. At the same time, Volvo Group believes that the Powertrain Testing provision
must include manual transmissions: otherwise the high power transmission efficiency benefits of
manual transmissions could be misrepresented due to the forced usage of default GEM settings while
less efficient technologies (i.e. torque converted automatics) may appear to offer an advantage, which is
not real, but only a product of the test protocol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.40]
Volvo Group notes that while there has been a substantial penetration of auto-shifting transmissions,
manual transmissions will continue to play a significant role especially in certain market segments for
the foreseeable future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.40]
With regard to the axle, the measured axle efficiency should be an input to the powertrain test based on
the results of the axle efficiency test, if available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.40]
A preferred alternative to the proposed powertrain testing procedure would be an engine test wherein
the engines speed and torque is managed using the transmission control strategy such that the actual
engine speed and torque is matched to how it would operate in the prescribed vehicle duty cycle.
Measured axle and transmission efficiency in each gear or default values could be used as an input to
the test. Volvo Group has demonstrated good correlation with vehicle tests using this method. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.40]
Powertrain Family Definition
1037.231 states the definition and structure for powertrain families. The provision at 1037.231(a) (2) (7)
states that the number of forward gears is a defining factor for a Powertrain Family. This largely implies
that we would have to have a separate family for every transmission and engine combination and
therefore no reason even to define families. This also implies that the amount of testing needed to certify
using the powertrain family would prohibit the use of the procedure. Appendix 1 provides a list of
transmissions currently offered by Volvo and Mack Trucks. This includes 24 different transmission
offerings with unique numbers of gears and/or gear ratios. These can be paired with as many as four
different engine sizes each with many unique calibrations resulting in hundreds of powertrain families,
each needing to be separately tested to arrive at representative efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.40-41]
Volvo Group believes that Powertrain Families should be defined by logical, higher order parameters,
which do not over-constrain the product offering, thus promoting the usage of this method while not
sacrificing accuracy. For instance, sub-families of transmissions could be created which share
architecture, but do not have the identical number of forward gears or the identical ratios. The difference
in emissions from two such systems would be small when operated on the regulated duty cycles.
However the impact of such provisions would be large in allowing the industry to continue to offer the
broad range of systems that are needed in the diverse applications of heavy duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.41]
Organization: Volvo Group
Powertrain Test Data
-------
The agencies provided extensive data from testing performed at ORNL's (Oak Ridge National Lab)
heavy duty powertrain test facility along with a summary of the results. However, it is difficult to
understand all the results without more background on the testing and further discussion that has not
been feasible during the NoDA review timeframe. The data set does not include key details like the
transmission shift control schemes, engine torque curves, engine speed and torque plots, vehicle speed
plot, transmission gear, engine fuel maps, etc. that would help explain some of the unexpected results.
As a result, we are at a loss to explain possible inconsistencies with the data. For example, the number
of times the truck will need to shift gears during the testing has an impact on fuel consumption that will
vary with vehicle weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.20]
It is unclear why fuel consumption data is presented with multiple readings for each unit tested, but with
no explanation for the differences in these results that vary by as much as 7% for the same test. This
certainly raises the question of which measurement methods are most accurate and meaningful and why
they vary so much. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.21]
The chart copied below is a comparison of 4 drive cycles at 41T (tons) with the 2.4 FD (final drive
ratio) vs the 2.64FD and the 3.36FD respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p.21]
[Figure 6 can be found on p.21 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1]
The ARB cycle (transient) will include many shifts and speed changes and thus by conventional
understanding the FC will be slightly or significantly worse depending on the shift count. There is also a
concern that at 4 IT weight, the truck may not achieve the demanded speed during parts of the cycle and
will run at full throttle during that time. But without knowing the shape of the fuel map, it is difficult to
determine the validity and the magnitude of the reported differences in fuel consumption. The other
vehicle weights in the study (19, 22, 32 tons) all show worse fuel consumption for the ARB cycle when
the 2.4FD is used as compared to the other test ratios. This seems illogical, but without the shift strategy
and other data, we cannot draw a conclusion about the validity of this result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1928-A1 p.21]
The chart below provides the FC (fuel consumption) trends for the various FDs and weights on the 55
mph cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.21
[Figure 7 can be found on p.22 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1]
Use of the lower final drive ratios (2.4 vs the 2.64 for example) will normally reduce the engine speed
on the drive cycle and should result in better FC, unless the transmission down-shifts to maintain engine
speed and to increase torque to the axle. The expected lower FC is reflected here to some extent. An
anomaly occurs at the 19T, 2.4FD vs the 2.64FD where FC increases by 0.75%. It does not make sense
that the lighter vehicle would spend more time in a lower gear than a heavier vehicle with the same
powertrain. Again, without the fuel map or shift logic it is difficult to say whether there is a reasonable
explanation. The general trends seem to make sense given that as the FD decreases, the engine cruise
speed also decreases resulting in a greater FC benefit at the cruise condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1928-A1 p.22]
The data for the 65mph cycle again yields trends that are in agreement with conventional intuition:
decrease FD ratio; reduce engine speed at cruise; and decrease FC. However, in this chart the magnitude
of the FC improvement are alarmingly high, particularly at the lower weights. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1928-A1 p.22]
-------
[Figure 8 can be found on p.23 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1]
The 19T 2.4FD has a 12% FC improvement over the 2.64FD. A truck with 2.4 FD, 512rev/mile drive
tires, running at 65mph, and weighing 19T will have an engine speed of 1044 rpm. Conversely, the
same spec with a 2.64FD will run at 1140rpm, a difference of 96 rpm. Typically reducing engine speed
by 100 rpm would result in around 2% reduction in fuel consumption, not 12%. By comparison, the
2.4FD vs 3.00FD yields an engine speed reduction of 250 rpm but only a 7% reduction in fuel
consumption. Additionally, the 3.36FD shows a more than 16% reduction in FC as compared to the
2.4FD on the same weight. These values seem unreasonably high and illogical. Volvo cannot comment
effectively without much more detailed data, but with the information given, these values are out of line
with what Volvo would expect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.23]
On the ARB cycle, the data shows that the 2.4FD is significantly worse than the other FD ratios with the
exception of the 4 IT vehicle. The near 20% FC difference on this cycle is far too high. Volvo would
expect a 5-10% difference to be more reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p.23]
Although this testing provides valuable information on powertrain test variability, many of our concerns
are not addressed. These include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p.23]
• Are the results logical and consistent with field experience? From the data, there are significant
inconsistencies as already noted. This raises serious concern that a vehicle specified for optimum field
fuel efficiency will perform poorly on powertrain testing, or vice-versa. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1928-A1 p.23]
• What is the relative difference between powertrain test result and GEM simulation? This is not
addressed since no comparison to GEM is provided. This is important to help us understand the need to
run powertrain tests and the associated test burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.23]
• What is the impact of shift logic options on powertrain test results? This was not tested or at least not
reported. As a result, we don't know how programmable shift logic will be handled or its impact. This
would have large impact on the number of powertrain tests that we need to run, on the limits we might
need to set on operator adjustable parameters, and on our ability to reprogram transmissions to meet
field requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p.24]
• What is the impact of engine power and torque rating on test results? Although, a range of 400-450 hp
is tested, the data is not provided in summary form. In any case, we believe a wider range of power and
torque needs to be evaluated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.24]
• How will these results vary once the highway grade profiles are finalized? Since grade profile is as yet
not firm, the testing does not address this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.24]
• What improvement in fuel consumption should be expected from powertrain integration? We are very
concerned that the level of improvement presented in the data significantly overstates what can be
achieved and should not form the basis for expected stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1
p.24]
In conclusion, while the general trends from the powertrain test seem consistent with what Volvo would
expect, the magnitudes of the FC differences are too large in many cases, especially where the final
engine speed difference is relatively small. In some cases, the fuel consumption trend is also illogical.
There may be reasonable explanations if much more detailed data were provided. Without further
-------
investigation and explanation, Volvo is concerned that vehicles optimized for powertrain testing may
perform poorly in actual applications and that the expected improvement from powertrain integration
may be much greater than what can actually be achieved. In addition, we are left with little guidance as
to the relative advantage of powertrain testing over GEM simulation, how many powertrain tests may
ultimately be required, or the associated test burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.24]
Response:
The agencies appreciate all the comments on the powertrain test method, including the many comments
supporting the test as an optional certification path. EPA has heard the many comments on not overly
relying on or incentivizing the powertrain procedure. Due to these comments the agencies have
introduced the transmission efficiency test procedure. By introducing the transmission efficiency test
procedure GEM can reflect the improvements to transmission efficiency across many vehicles without
having to rely solely on the powertrain test. The method is particularly beneficial for the tractor sector
where much of the benefit from the powertrain test was quantifying improvements to transmission
efficiency. In addition to the transmission efficiency test procedure the agencies have also added the
cycle average engine mapping procedure in 40 CFR 1036.540 to measure the transient fueling of the
engine. With this change the benefits of improving transient fueling can be recognized without
performing the powertrain test procedure, which further reduces the reliance on the procedure.
Validation of Powertrain Procedure
EMA's objection to the powertrain test stated below:
The preliminary results obtained through the powertrain test are uncertain and unproven.
The agencies have modified the powertrain procedure for Phase 2, so that the output of the tests can be
used in GEM without A to B testing for a wide range of vehicle configurations. The procedure has been
tested and validated with testing at Oakridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Southwest Research
Institute (SwRI) and two manufacture laboratories with parent and child ratings of the engine family.
This testing has shown that the procedure can be implemented to meet all the requirements of the
procedure including the speed regression of the dynamometer. From this testing the agencies have
shown that the procedure is repeatable and accurate for measuring the benefits from integrated
powertrains. The agencies have also observed that test-to-test variability of measured fuel of the
procedure has a coefficient of variation (COV) less than 0.5%, which is at a level seen for engine
testing, even though the procedure is testing the transmission with its own variability in addition to the
engine. The figure below shows that powertrain testing compares on an absolute basis to chassis
testing, but typical COV of chassis testing of heavy-duty vehicles is greater than 2%, due to the
additional variability of the driver and the tires.
-------
Comparison: Chassis Rolls vs Powertrain-in-the-loop
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
-4.0%
-6.0%
-8.0%
-10.0%
i Fuel economy (from Fuel Mow Meter}
r lu
ni rr
u
r
Figure 2 Comparison of chassis rolls fuel economy vs Powertrain-in-the-loop fuel economy
Regarding the use of default powertrains in GEM, the agencies have looked at this with the data
collected at ORNL and have seen that GEM accurately interpolates the powertrain map even when a
generic powertrain is used in GEM. The main benefit of using a default powertrain in GEM is that it
gives a consistent process in GEM for all powertrains, including hybrids and transmission architectures
that are not in GEM. For hybrids, the engine's torque curve may not inform GEM of the total
powertrain" s power, and for continuously variable transmissions there are no discrete gear ratios that
can be put into GEM. Because of these reasons the agencies have chosen to use default powertrain
parameters in GEM for vehicles that are certified with a powertrain map.
Powertrain testing requirements
The agencies agree that powertrain testing does add additional requirements over engine testing but our
cost analysis outlined in detail in the RIA Chapter 2.9 and RIA Chapter 7.1 shows that for certain highly
integrated powertrains the additional complexity and cost is justified by the benefit of being able to
show the fuel savings of integrated powertrains and hybrids. As for the comments on high torque in
lower gears the agencies have seen that dynamometers that are currently used for heavy-duty engine
testing can be used for light-heavy and medium-heavy powertrain testing. Through our work at SwRI
we have also shown that with the addition of a relatively inexpensive water brake the typical
dynamometer used for heavy-duty engine testing can be adapted to test heavy-duty powertrains.33 One
other thing to note on the torque requirements for powertrain testing is that the powertrain doesn't stay
in lowest gears long enough to produce the theoretical peak torque for those gears. The figure below
shows the torque from the Cummins ISX - Eaton USP powertrain where the output speed is changing at
different rates. In the first curve in red, the speed is defined by the vehicle model simulating a full
throttle acceleration with a 30,000 kg vehicle. Comparing the peak torque of this test to a very slow
ramp of 8 rpm/s the powertrain produces just over half the torque. Even when a 60,000 kg vehicle is
simulated the peak torque is less than 70% of near theoretical torque of the powertrain in second gear.
33 Southwest Research Institute, July 2016 "Validation Testing for Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Test Procedures and
the Greenhouse Gas Emission Model (GEM) for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Powertrains."
-------
Torque Curve for 30000kg "vehicle"
Torque Curve for 60000kg "vehicle"
•—Experimental Torque Curve (8rpm/s)
Transmission Output Speed (rpm)
Figure 3 Comparison of theoretical torque to measured torque
Cost of powertrain testing
See Section 6.3.3.2 for responses to comments on costs of powertrain testing for vocational vehicles.
Updates to powertrain procedure from proposal
Navistar"s comment on generic vehicles:
The first issue, and likely the most complicated to resolve, is the selection of the generic vehicles
with which to test in a powertrain dynamometer.
Since the proposal the powertrain procedure has been updated to allow the manufacturer to choose the
range of axles and tire sizes to test the powertrain with, to cover the full range of axles and tires that will
be install on the vehicles with the powertrain. This will eliminate the problem of extrapolation while
not requiring the powertrain to be tested with axles and tires that are not used with the powertrain in-
use.
The agencies have also clarified 40 CFR 1037.550 to say that the vehicle model in the test cell shall run
at a minimum of a 100 Hz but the dynamometer control frequency has to run at a minimum of 5 Hz.
As for the control frequency of the cycle average test procedure 40CFR 1036.540, the agencies thank
you for your comment but are finalizing 10 Hz for both the cycle and the cycle validation. This is
because the cycle is generated using GEM where the torque and speed change at rates of 10 Hz and
higher due to transmission gear shifting and driver dynamics.
Eaton's comment on sending grade signal to powertrain controllers:
-------
The EPA should allow the powertrain vehicle simulation to feed the simulated grade directly to
the transmission controller, e.g., through an additional CAN signal, and allow a test version of
the controller to accept that data instead of using its internal grade sensor.
EPA agrees with Eaton's comment that signal from the duty cycle including road grade should be sent
to the powertrain controller if the data allows the powertrain to operate in a way that better reflects how
the powertrain operates in-use.
Powertrain Family definition
Navistar's comment on family definition:
Secondly, the family structure is ambiguously defined.
Based on all the comment received, the agencies have concluded that the powertrain family definition is
appropriately defined after the clarifications to clutch type.
Allison's comment on the number of families:
Finally, excessive powertrain testing could occur. For example, under the proposed regulation,
Allison conventional planetary on-highway products would be classified into 10 unique
transmission families. Allison hybrid transmissions would be classified into 6 unique hybrid
transmission families. In 2014, in North America, Allison transmissions were used with over 30
different engine families. Thus, in combination with conventional and hybrid transmission
families, there were at least 74 unique engine family/transmission family configurations.
After review all the comments on the penetration rates of powertrain testing and with the addition of the
transmission efficiency test procedure the agencies are projecting lower penetration rates of powertrain
testing. See chapter 2.9.3 of the RIA for the detailed discussion on penetration of powertrain testing.
The amount of testing is reduced by allowing manufacturers to override the default transmission power
losses by performing the test defined in 40 CFR 1037.565. The agencies agree that the transmission
efficiency test has comparable cost to the powertrain procedure but the results from the test are not
limited to one engine family so the overall cost is significantly less than powertrain testing for
transmissions that are paired with many engines.
With regard to Cummins comment"Powertrain C02 emissions levels only apply to engine ratings
tested as part of the powertrain system when considering SEA and in-use testing (see 40 CFR
1036.630(a)). Engine certifications submitted with fuel maps are only liable for C02 emissions
measured using the fuel map procedures. " the agencies have clarified in 40 CFR 1036.230 that an
engine family can be divided into subfamilies where only the fuel map or powertrain map are certified
with the applicable subfamily. 40 CFR 1036.630 has also been updated to clarify that SEA and in-use
testing will only be done with the applicable test procedures (40 CFR 1036.535, 40 CFR 1036.540 or 40
CFR 1037.550) that apply to the subfamily.
With regard to Cummins comment, "Engines used in powertrains shall be included in the engine
program ABT for C02 emissions certified over the FTP and/or RMCSET cycles. " the agencies are not
allowing powertrain results certified under 40 CFR 1036.630 to be included in the engine ABT program
for C02. This is because powertrain results generated according to 40 CFR 1037.550, are used for
vehicle certification and not engine certification over the FTP or RMCSET cycles.
Modifications to calibrations
-------
Eaton's comment on running changes to calibrations:
There is a significant concern around the ability to perform adjustments and running changes to
the transmission controller if the powertrain testing methodology is used.
The agencies share Eaton's concern that using the powertrain test option should not limit the
manufacturer's ability to make running changes to the powertrain's calibration that don't effect fuel
consumption. The agency has and will continue to work with manufacturers to streamline the process
for these types of changes to the powertrain calibration.
Definition of powertrain N/V and work
For the powertrain procedure, N/V is defined by the axle ratio and tire size, because the main benefit of
performing the powertrain test is to get credit for the shifting strategy of the integrated powertrain. If
engine N/V is used then GEM determined N/V would be used to interpolate the powertrain map. For a
powertrain that up-shifted early to operate the engine at lower engine speeds than in GEM, GEM would
still be interpolating the powertrain map at the higher engine speed of the simulation. This problem
becomes even more evident for hybrids where the engine N/V in GEM has no connection to the engine
N/V in the powertrain procedure because GEM doesn't model hybrids. For similar reasons work has
also been defined at the output of the powertrain, so that the losses of the transmission in GEM do not
affect how the powertrain map is interpolated. Using the output of the powertrain also simplifies the
measurement since the speed and torque measurements during that powertrain test are made at the
dynamometer.
ORNL Test Data
The agencies thank commenters for comments with regard to the test data that was submitted with the
NODA. The agencies have docketed the final report that covers the details of how the data was
collected. The title of the report is "Powertrain Test Procedure Development for EPA GHG
Certification of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles."
Powertrain testing of manual transmissions
The agencies are not allowing the powertrain procedure to be used for manual transmissions because the
main purpose of the powertrain method is to recognize the integration of the transmission and engine.
For improvements to the efficiency of manual transmissions the transmission efficiency procedure can
be used.
2.5 Production Vehicle Testing for Comparison to GEM
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Annual production vehicle testing for comparison to GEM requirement, chassis
dynamometer testing (cost and efficacy)
The NPRM requests comment on the proposed testing requirement for annual production vehicle
testing. CARB staff supports requiring annual production vehicle testing, but wants to encourage
sufficient chassis testing across the variety of vehicle types to verify that the GEM model remains robust
over time in the face of shifting vehicle and engine technologies. CARB staff also prefers that the range
-------
of technologies be represented rather than just those technologies present on the highest volume vehicle
models. Restriction to only the highest volume models could blind this GEM evaluation to a large
aggregate fraction of vehicle sales that will never individually rise to the popularity level necessary to
qualify for chassis testing under the current vehicle selection criteria. CARB staff prefers there be some
representation of non-highest-seller vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.116]
The "configuration" language is ambiguous. This GEM evaluation would be best served by spreading
the sparse testing across five vehicle configurations that differ from each other as much as possible
(transmission type and gearing, engine size, axle ratios, etc.) while selecting from widely used
configurations. CARB staff seeks to avoid a situation where the meaning of a "configuration" is
interpreted so strictly that all 12 most popular configurations, from which a manufacturer is allowed to
select, may be essentially the same configuration with near trivial differences from GEM or actual GHG
perspectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p,116]To address the concerns above, CARB staff
recommends amending the regulatory language as described below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p.117]
§ 1037.665 In-use tractor testing, perform in-use testing as described in this section.
(a) The following test requirements apply beginning in MY 2021:
1 or more models that you project to be among represent the diversity of your 12 highest-selling
vehicle configurations for the given year.
This tractor based GEM evaluation avoids the vehicles most likely to stress the GEM model's
assumptions. Particularly avoided are vocational vehicles in heavily transient applications such as urban
buses and solid waste collection vehicles, and vehicles with complex engine/transmission interactions
such as advanced powertrain hybrids. CARB staff sees widespread deployment of electrified vocational
vehicles (including hybrids) as central to meeting our GHG reduction goals thus lending importance to
planning for their inclusion in future GEM model evaluations. CARB staff would prefer to see some
representation of vocational and other non-tractor heavy-duty vehicle categories where the GEM model
assumptions may not hold as well as for classic tractor vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 117]
The NPRM requests comment on the costs and efficacy of the requirement for manufacturers to
annually chassis test three sleeper cab tractors and two day cab tractors and submit these data and GEM
results. CARB staff feels that this testing requirement for comparison to the GEM model gathered from
across the heavy-duty vehicle market is important for maintaining confidence in the certification
simulation method as vehicle technology evolves. The limited amount of annual testing per
manufacturer appears financially and operationally manageable while also providing an aggregate
industry-wide dataset needed for evaluating correlation of actual emissions with GEM simulation results
trends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 117]
The financial burden and operational limitation of available facilities are both eased by the relaxation of
emissions measurement equipment specifications from those typical of engine emissions certification
test cells. This allows any transient heavy-duty chassis dynamometer to be used by temporary placement
of a PEMS unit next to it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 117]CARB staff agrees that for the
purposes of this GEM evaluation the reduced instrumentation requirements of Subpart J are an
acceptable cost savings and open many more potential chassis testing sites for consideration. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 117]
-------
Response:
The agencies agree with the comment from CARB that the vehicles that are chosen for chassis testing
should reflect not only the high volume vehicles but also potentially cover the diversity of vehicles. For
this reason 40 CFR 1037.665 has been written to allow the agencies to choose which vehicles are tested.
2.6 Use of GEM in Establishing Proposed Numerical
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Spark Ignition (Gasoline) GEM 2 implementation concerns
AAPC has completed detailed analysis of the Phase 2 GEM 2b-5 gasoline baseline and has concluded
the baseline assumption of C02 levels is underestimated and the resulting required improvements are
overly stringent relative to other regulated segments and the agencies' stated intentions. Per the
summary table on the next page, the 2017MY baseline is underestimated by 10 - 15%. Further the
overall Phase 2 gasoline GEM has a total C02 reduction requirement of 29% with a required
improvement of 20% in 2021MY alone. This is further exacerbated due to the lack of opportunities to
build credits or phase-in to the standard prior to 2021 MY. Class 2b/3 chassis certified products and
planned Phase 2 GEM diesel standards appear to have been well studied and evaluated, but the Phase 2
gasoline GEM baseline and standards do not appear to have been evaluated with the same rigor. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.31]
[Tables of GEM baseline and percent improvement offsets can be found on p.32 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 ]
AAPC requests that the Phase 2 GEM 2017MY gasoline baseline assumptions and standards be
reevaluated based on a thorough analysis of all vocational vehicles with heavy-duty spark ignition
engines, and we recommend the agencies set up a working group to validate GEM model assumptions
and revise as additional data becomes available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.32]
§ 1036.535 Determining engine fuel maps and fuel consumption at idle
In previous comments submitted to the docket in response to the Proposed Rule, AAPC expressed
concern about the baseline assumptions and standard stringency built into the revised Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Model (GEM) for Phase 2 for Class 2b-5 Vocational Vehicles. In reviewing the data
associated with the March 2 NoDA, AAPC was encouraged to see that EPA and NHTSA have
conducted additional testing and model development work to better characterize these vehicles. Despite
these improvements, AAPC believes there are still technical issues associated with the model and test
procedures that must be addressed in order to have a successful and sustainable Phase 2 program for
Vocational Vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1898-A1 p.2]
Highlights of the AAPC's comments are as follows:
• Since the GEM model is still under active development, AAPC recommends that implementation of
the GEM-based C02 standards be postponed until 2023 to allow for public review and comment on a
substantially completed GEM model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1898-A1 p.2]
• The GEM 2 default assumptions for class 2b-5 truck aerodynamics, tire size, inertia weight, and axle
ratio are not correct and need to be fixed to insure the model encourages manufacturers to implement
technologies with real on-road C02 benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1898-A1 p.2]
-------
• The baseline heavy-duty gasoline fuel map uploaded to the docket is not representative of real spark
ignition engines and should be replaced with a map derived from actual engine testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1898-A1 p.2]
• Applying diesel-derived methodologies to spark ignition GEM vehicle categorization criteria is
inappropriate. Unique spark ignition methods should be developed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1898-
A1 p.2]
Response:
Many of issues mentioned by AAPC have been resolved as indicated from their NODA comments. We
also made a few changes on class 2b-5 configurations, such as CdA, Crr, and axle ratio and gasoline
engine fuel map, after taking many constructive comments from public as well as many CBI from
individual stakeholders. Many of these changes can be seen in Chapter 4.4.1.10 of the RIA.
Please see the agencies' response to the notice and comment of GEM in RTC Section 15.5.
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
However, we encourage others to investigate this new approach in detail, and we request comment on
whether or not the agencies should replace our proposed steady state operation representation of the
engine in GEM with this alternative approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.2]
As the agencies are aware, there are many simplifications made when only steady state fuel maps are
used to simulate the engine fuel consumption in vehicle operation. Bendix believes that the GEM3
should be made flexible enough to accept engine data that has been collected via engine dyno testing
over the GEM duty cycles over a range of simulated vehicle configurations which would include
transient conditions. In addition, we believe engine accessories which are typically excluded from
engine testing, should be included in the data collection. Examples include the engine cooling fan, air
compressor, air conditioning compressor and power steering pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-
A1 p.2-3]
Response:
We have made many improvements on GEM. On the transient condition, we introduced the cycle
average approach to replace the steady-state engine fuel map to better and more accurately account for
transient operations. The detailed test procedure can be seen in 40 CFR 1036.540. We do not believe
that it would be a simple task or even practical to include all major vehicle accessory losses, such as
engine cooling fan, air compressor, air conditioning compressor and power steering pump into the
engine dynamometer. Rather, we continue using the pre-defined accessory loss into GEM, as in Phase 1
GEM. However, we did take a further step to first collect the accessory power loss data from engine and
vehicle manufacturers, and then implement the values into GEM.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Support Comment
Comment - Fuel map requirements
U.S. EPA and NHTSA are proposing that engine manufacturers must certify fuel maps as part of their
certification to engine standards, except in cases where they certify based on powertrain testing, and that
engine manufacturers be required to provide these fuel maps to vehicle manufacturers beginning with
-------
MY 2020 engines, since MY 2020 engines may be used in MY 2021 vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers
may not develop their own fuel maps for engines they do not manufacturer. For Phase 2, GEM will
allow the input of engines-specific fuel maps, which will increase accuracy. CARB staff supports these
requirements as stated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 124-125]
Response:
Thank you for your support.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins opposes use of a steady-state engine fuel map to provide engine information into GEM [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.22]
The agencies are proposing that engine manufacturers provide a very detailed steady-state fuel map to
vehicle manufacturers to incorporate specific engine information into the vehicle simulation. The
proposed steady-state engine fuel map is flawed for at least three reasons. First, the proposal requires
engine manufacturers to release trade secret and confidential business information (CBI) to the public
and competitors alike. Second, the proposed steady-state engine fuel map does not adequately represent
true engine performance. Third, the proposed steady-state engine fuel map potentially gives C02 credit
at the cost of NOx emissions. Cummins understands the desire to include engine performance in the
vehicle program, but in order to perform that function fairly and practically, some key principles must
be met: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.22-23]
• Manufacturers' trade secrets and CBI must be protected. EPA has long recognized that
manufacturers rely on EPA's regulations (40 CFR Part 2) to protect proprietary information
related to engine operation, such as steady-state fuel maps, calibrations and controls
information, etc. submitted to the Agency as CBI. Cummins is aware of no circumstances in
which the agencies have publicly released such information claimed confidential by a
manufacturer. Whether disclosed in terms of C02 or fueling values (which are directly
correlatable), the proposed steady-state engine map would provide the public and competitors
CBI that EPA and manufacturers have long held secret. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1
p.23]
Further, engine manufacturers have historically competed on the basis of optimizing fuel economy and
criteria emissions control over the operating range of the engine. Requiring disclosure of steady-state
fuel maps for vehicle certification in GEM would force engine manufacturers (who are not always the
vehicle manufacturer) to divulge proprietary information, well ahead of production, to competing
manufacturers. Those competitors could use the trade secret information to gain an unfair advantage by
exploiting the research and development efforts of the engine manufacturer rather than investing their
own resources in developing and optimizing such systems. Forcing that disclosure violates the
principles of market integrity that have been the cornerstone of EPA regulations for decades and reduces
marketplace competition, providing a disservice to the customers. A reasonable alternative to protect
CBI contained in steady-state engine maps is the cycle-average map approach discussed below. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.23]
• The engine information should be accurate, including accurately representing transient engine
performance. In order to meet the accuracy need, the engine should be evaluated in a manner
consistent with how it will be used in the vehicle regulation, such as transient operation
simulated across a range of vehicle configurations. The steady-state engine fuel map does not
-------
meet this requirement. Transient engine operation is not well represented by the steady-state
engine fuel map as indicated by the agencies' use of a transient correction factor and described
in more detail below. The appropriateness of the transient correction factor for all engines and
engine technologies until 2030 is questionable, especially considering the implementation of
model-based controls in this timeframe as recognized and projected by the agencies in this
proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.23]
• The C02 evaluation of the engine for use in the vehicle program should be consistent with the
criteria emissions regulation protocol. If the protocol for generating credit for engine C02 in the
vehicle program is not consistent with the protocol for engine regulation for NOx, then
manufacturers will have an incentive to create systems that perform well on C02 at the expense
of NOx when certified separately and differently for C02. These systems will not drive both
NOx and C02 control in the real world. Conversely, the cycle-average map, as discussed below,
provides the opportunity in the future to re-align both transient and steady-state GHG and
criteria emissions, thus addressing this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.24]
The agencies should implement the alternative ("cycle-average ") map approach in lieu of the steady-
state fuel map in the final rule [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.24]
In the Preamble (see 80 FR 40179), the agencies request comment on replacing the steady-state fuel
map with an alternative mapping approach that tests the engine over "the GEM duty cycles over a range
of vehicle configurations." The result of this testing is a set of "cycle-average map" C02 values that can
be used in GEM to represent the engine. EPA has been working with a group of companies to develop
and validate the cycle-average map approach, described in the Draft RIA at Section 3.10, and results
show good correlation between this alternative method and experimental results (see Figure 12). Further
details of the cycle-average map validation work can be found in Zhang et al.22 and Salemme et al.23.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.24]
The use of cycle-average C02 values resolves many of the issues identified above with the steady-state
engine fuel map. The benefits of the cycle-average approach are: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1
p.24]
• Disclosure of C02 over the cycle-average map does not expose manufacturers' CBI that would
put them at a competitive disadvantage. Cycle-average test results have historically been
reported to the agencies and available to the public. The C02 values from the cycle average
map approach are a collection of cycle test results and can be treated the same. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p.24]
• It is more accurate. This approach is inherently testing the engine through a transient drive
cycle, so the engine is operating as it will in the vehicle, with all of the transient controls in
operation on realistic maneuvers. Including transient behavior in the cycle-average map
approach removes the need for a transient correction factor that is necessary with the steady-
state engine fuel map and the concerns and difficulty with determining the correct factor. Figure
12 compares the correlation of the two mapping approaches to the measured values. The cycle-
average map approach shows good accuracy without the need for a transient correction factor.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.25][Figure 12 can be found onp.25 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
• Auditing of the cycle-average C02 values can be accomplished by using any one of the pre-
defined vehicle configurations. This approach defines a clear and consistent audit test cycle for
manufacturers to evaluate production variation and product improvement changes. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.25]
-------
• The cycle-average map provides a framework of transient engine testing that could be utilized
in the future to link criteria emissions and GHG certification approaches. For example, current
engine FTP and RMCSET cycles could be replaced with cycles generated using predefined
vehicles, and both criteria emissions and GHG/FE engine standards could be established over
these cycles. Such a change should only be undertaken if both engine criteria emissions and
GHG/FE are simultaneously shifted to the new certification cycles to maintain the linkage
between all engine emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.26]
• The engine cycle-average map approach utilizes a similar mapping approach as the agencies
proposed for the powertrain test option. This provides consistency in the evaluation of engines
and powertrains used in the vehicle program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.26]
The agencies have also suggested the possibility of combining the cycle-average map and steady-state
engine fuel map in a hybrid approach to supplying engine information to the vehicle simulation.
Cummins does not support this hybrid approach as issues with the steady-state engine fuel map,
mentioned earlier, will remain (e.g., pre-production disclosure of CBI to competitors). Cummins urges
the agencies to implement the cycle-average map as the sole engine mapping approach for Phase 2 in
the Final Rule, and we commit to continued collaboration to refine the cycle-average mapping
procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.26]
Cummins does not support requiring a fuel map forMY20 engines used in MY21 vehicles [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.27]
Cummins opposes requiring MY20 engines to generate engine fuel maps. The agencies' proposal
attempts to address MY mismatch between engines and vehicles that occurs in practice today. This
requirement may effectively pull forward the MY21 engine standards as MY21 vehicles with MY20
engines would still be expected to meet vehicle standards that are premised on MY21 compliant
engines. To account for this, vehicle manufacturers may require engine makers' MY20 engines to
perform at MY21 standards to ensure vehicle fleet compliance. Similar situations will also occur at the
MY24 and MY27 standard changes. Cummins is willing to work with the agencies and industry on a
better remedy for MY mismatch that will not disrupt market dynamics and inadvertently pull ahead
engine standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.27]
Cummins supports the option of a generic fuel map in GEM that can be overridden by vehicle
manufacturers [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.40]
In the Preamble, the agencies request comments on providing default GEM maps for vehicle
certification (80 FR 40184): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.40]
We also request comment as to whether or not the agencies should provide default generic engine maps
in GEM for Phase 2 and allow manufacturers to optionally override these generic maps with their own
maps, which would be generated according to our proposed engine dynamometer steady-state test
procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.40]
Cummins supports this provision as it helps maintain the integrity of the engine ABT program. For
example, an engine manufacturer can elect to certify some engines using C02 credits. Since the engine
program ABT has already accounted for the excess C02 emissions, there is no need to also account for
the engine C02 emissions levels in the vehicle program. Therefore, allowing a manufacturer to apply a
default map would preserve the value of engine credits and ABT program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p.41]
-------
22 Zhang, H., Sanchez, J., and Spears, M., "Alternative Heavy-Duty Engine Test Procedure for Full
Vehicle Certification," SAEInt. J. Commer. Veh. 8(2):2015. doi: 10.4271/2015-01-2768.
23 Salemme, G., Dykes, E., Kieffer, D., Howenstein, M. et al., 'An Engine and Powertrain Mapping
Approach for Simulation of Vehicle C02 Emissions,' SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 8(2):2015,
doi: 10.4271/2015-01-2777
Response:
We have made significant changes on the engine fuel map used for GEM since NPRM. First of all, as
Cummins urges, the final rule uses the cycle average approach to replace the steady state engine fuel
map for the transient ARB cycle in GEM runs, and allows manufacturers the option to either use the
cycle average approach or steady state engine fuel maps during the simulation of the 55 mph and 65
mph cruise cycles in GEM.
Manufacturers that certify vocational vehicles to the custom-chassis standards are required to use the
agencies' default engine fuel maps, and they are not allowed to overwrite the default fuel maps with
their own maps. The certification of all other vocational vehicles and tractors requires the use of the
actual fuel map in GEM.
Regarding fuel map for MY20 engines used in MY21 vehicles, we have decided that it would be more
appropriate to harmonize the engine and vehicle model years, starting in MY 2021 so that vehicle
manufacturers will not need fuel maps for MY 2020 engines (see 40 CFR 1037.150(n) and the
definition of "model year" in 40 CFR 1037.801). Thus, we are not finalizing the requirement to provide
fuel maps for MY 2020 engines. However, we are requiring fuel maps for all MY 2021 engines, even
those (e.g., small businesses) for which the Phase 2 engine and vehicle standards have been delayed.
See 40 CFR 1036.150(n).
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
II. Engine Fuel Map Input to GEM
1. Cummins supports use of a cycle average map for evaluating the ARB transient cycle in GEM in the
final rule
In the time since the proposal, EPA and manufacturers have completed significant additional testing and
analysis to validate the use of a cycle average fuel map as input to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Model (GEM) used for vehicle certification. The NODA contains some of the new data related to the
cycle average approach originally described in the NPRM, including test results from Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI) in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1619 and NHTSA-2014-0132-0184 on more
engine models (Cummins ISB and Navistar N13 engines) and ratings (ISB 300 and 200 hp) and
comparisons of various numerical methods for using the cycle average map to predict engine fuel
consumption across a variety of vehicle configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.2]
The results from SwRI and from other EPA and industry tests continue to show that the cycle average
map is accurate in predicting engine fuel consumption on the ARB transient cycle and that robust
numerical methods such as global regression models can be implemented in GEM. As a result, the latest
version P2v2.1 of GEM released with the NODA at EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1626 andNHTSA-
-------
2014-0132-0181 now accepts a cycle average map as the fuel map input for evaluating vehicles over the
ARB transient cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.2]
As noted in our NPRM comments, Cummins supports using a cycle average map for evaluating vehicles
over the ARB transient cycle in GEM in the final rule. Because the cycle average map consists of data
obtained from running the engine on transient cycles, it is more accurate than using a steady state engine
fuel map and removes the need for the 1.05 transient correction factor proposed by the agencies in the
NRPM. The cycle average fuel map should be the only engine fuel map allowed for evaluating the ARB
transient cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p. 1-2]
2. Cummins supports use of a cycle average map for evaluating the 55 and 65 mph cruise cycles in
GEM in the final rule
The latest version of GEM released with the NODA still requires a steady state engine fuel map for
evaluating vehicles on the 55 and 65 mph cruise cycles. As noted in our NPRM comments, Cummins
opposes the use of a steady state map due to issues such as requiring engine manufacturers to provide
such trade secret and confidential business information (CBI) to competitors and the public and also
poor accuracy on current and future engines. Transient accuracy can be addressed by moving to the
cycle average map for the ARB transient cycle as discussed above, but disclosure of CBI is still an issue
that warrants fully removing the steady state map as a required input to GEM from the final rule. The
cycle average map is a reasonable alternative to address the competitive disadvantage that could result
from requiring disclosure of a steady state map. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1927-A1 p.3]
EPA or other stakeholders have expressed the following concerns with using the cycle average map
approach for the GEM cruise cycles: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1927-A1 p.3]]
• Accuracy on child ratings
• N/V overlap on generic vehicles (where N/V is the ratio of average engine speed to average vehicle
speed)
• Issues with vehicles that cannot follow the cycles
• Other needs for a steady state map within GEM
Each of these concerns will be addressed here, including presenting additional data or recommendations
for resolving them such that the cycle average map can be implemented for the GEM cruise cycles in
the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1927-A1 p.3]
(a) Accuracy on child ratings
EPA expressed concern with accuracy of the cycle average map for child ratings for 55 and 65 mph
cruise cycles based on results of the testing performed by SwRI on the Cummins ISB 200 hp rating.
That analysis used the cycle average map created from the "parent" ISB 300 hp engine to simulate the
performance of the "child" ISB 200 hp engine and found poor correlation between measured and
predicted results for the ISB 200 on the cruise cycles. However, when Cummins compared steady state
fuel maps for the ISB 300 and ISB 200, we discovered the two ratings had different fuel rates for the
same speed and load points. The analysis released in the NODA did not assess the steady state map
performance on the ISB child rating. Cummins' own analysis shows that performance of the cycle
average map on the cruise cycles is similar to the steady state map when the same certification process
-------
of applying the parent map to the child rating is applied in both cases. See Figure 1 which compares the
ISB 200 fuel consumption using the ISB 300 parent steady state map to the ISB 200 fuel consumption
using the ISB 300 parent cycle average map. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.3-4]
[Figure 1 can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1]
Another issue contributing to poor correlation is due to the vehicle configurations chosen to assess the
ISB cycle average map on the 65 mph cruise cycle. Four of the six additional vehicle configurations
chosen to evaluate accuracy (different from the generic vehicle definitions used to generate the map
itself), shown in Figure 2, had unrealistically low axle ratios such that the vehicles did not meet
Cummins recommended gearing guidelines. These unrealistic configurations are not valid vehicles to
use in assessing accuracy of a certification protocol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.4]
[Figure 2 can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1]
No cruise cycle concerns were raised regarding performance of the cycle average map for the ISB
parent rating. Figures 3 and 4 show good correlation associated with using the cycle average map
approach for the parent ISB 300 rating on the cruise cycles. Cycle average map accuracy is as good as
or better than the steady state map. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.5]
[Figure 3 can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1]
[Figure 4 can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1]
To further evaluate child rating accuracy, Cummins recently completed testing of a Cummins ISL
engine. Figures 5 and 6 again show good accuracy using the cycle average map on the parent rating, the
ISL 450 hp, for the cruise cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.6]
[Figure 5 can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-Al]x
[Figure 6 can be found on p.7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1]
When we used the procedure which would be used in the certification process to apply the ISL 450
parent maps to an ISL 300 hp child rating, the GEM output was equivalent between the cycle average
map and the steady state fuel map approaches, as shown in Figure 7. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-
A1 p.7]
[Figure 7 can be found on p.7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1]
(b) N/V overlap on generic vehicles Some stakeholders have encountered issues with the proposed
generic vehicle definitions used to generate the 55 mph engine cycles for populating the cycle average
map with results over an appropriate range of N/V. The N/V of a lower axle ratio vehicle configuration
has "overlapped" with the N/V of a higher axle ratio vehicle configuration, resulting in poor coverage in
N/V space by the cycle average map. (While the lower axle ratio vehicles are included to reach lower
N/V values, in some cases the lower axle ratio results in a change in shifting that causes a higher N/V
which overlaps with the N/V of the higher axle ratio). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p. 8]
Some revision of the generic vehicle definitions is needed. Currently, axle ratio for each test cycle is
calculated based on running at 65 mph in top gear at various defined engine speeds. Those same axle
-------
ratios are also applied in generating the 55 mph cycles. Revising the definitions to use a different axle
ratio calculation based on 55 mph in top gear (instead of 65 mph) can prevent N/V overlap for the 55
mph cycle. Considering the purpose of defining generic vehicles is to develop the cycle average map
over a suitable range of engine operation, revising the definitions in this way is appropriate. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.8]
Cummins demonstrates successful use of the revised definitions in Figure 8, which shows an
improvement in the range of N/V covered and no overlap compared to the generic vehicle definitions
from the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.8] [Figure 8 can be found on p.8 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 ]
(c) Issues with vehicles that cannot follow the cycles Other cycle average map accuracy issues can be
traced to vehicle configurations that do not follow the cycle. For example, certain vehicle specifications
are not geared to run at 65 or even 55 mph. Since such a vehicle is likely to be a low speed/urban
vocational vehicle, the weightings of the cruise cycles would be low. These vehicles should not be used
to assess cycle average map accuracy on the cruise cycles and would need to be handled uniquely for
certification. The question of whether a 65 mph cycle should be used to certify a vehicle that cannot run
65 mph is valid no matter what fuel map approach is used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.9]
(d) Other needs for a steady state map within GEM Other arguments that have been stated for requiring
an engine-specific steady state map in GEM are that it is necessary for GEM to execute shift logic or to
generate the engine speed and torque cycles for cycle average mapping. Cummins has completed
analysis to show that for these purposes, using a generic steady state map has minimal effect on vehicle
fuel consumption or engine cycle work and N/V compared to using an engine-specific steady state map.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A 1 p. 9]
Cummins ran GEM for eight vehicle configurations to compare the GEM output when the transmission
used an engine-specific steady state map for shifting versus when the transmission used a generic steady
state map for shifting. The two maps were different in their shapes and fuel consumption values. The
maximum differences in GEM outputs for two key parameters are shown in Figure 9. There is no
significant change in vehicle fuel consumption when the generic steady state map is used to execute
shift logic in GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p.9]
[Figure 9 can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1]
Cummins also investigated the impact of using a generic steady state fuel map in GEM for generating
the engine speed and torque cycles needed to create cycle average maps. Figures 10-12 show no
significant changes in N/V or cycle work space compared to using an engine-specific steady state map.
Many of the points align exactly, and any slight movement of points is inconsequential because the
purpose is to generate the map, not to hit a specific target N/V or cycle work. These two analyses
confirm that an engine-specific steady state map is not needed in GEM. A generic steady state map is
sufficient and a reasonable alternative that would not require manufacturers to disclose CBI. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p. 10]
[Figures 10-12 can be found on p. 10-11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1]
Cummins sees no technical or policy reasons for the agencies to require a steady state fuel map as an
input to GEM. Cummins is also not aware of any progress in protecting the confidentiality of a
manufacturer's steady state engine fuel map. Given the unresolved issues with requiring disclosure of
CBI associated with the steady state map, we urge the agencies to implement only the cycle average
-------
map in the final rule. If the agencies do not remove the steady state map as a required input to GEM,
they should at least allow engine manufacturers the option of providing a cycle average map for
evaluating the 55 and 65 mph cruise cycles instead of a steady state map. With such an option, use of a
generic steady state fuel map should also be allowed for executing shifting within GEM and generating
engine cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p. 12]
Finally, using the cycle average approach to represent the engine in GEM cruise cycles is consistent
with the powertrain test option, which has already been proposed to use cycle average maps to evaluate
both the transient and cruise GEM cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1927-A1 p. 12]
III. Conclusion
Significant progress has been made by the agencies and industry in answering open questions outlined
in the NPRM and elsewhere regarding the cycle average map approach. Its accuracy has been validated
across multiple engine models including child ratings. The cycle average map has been shown to be just
as accurate (and more accurate in the case of transients) as a steady state map. Additionally, robust
regression models have been developed for predicting points inside and outside the mapped regions, and
improvements related to generic vehicle definitions and vehicles that cannot follow the cycles are being
discussed. Cummins remains committed to collaborating with the agencies and industry to finalize a
rule that fully and successfully implements the cycle average map approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1927-A1 p. 12]
Response:
In the final rule, we use cycle average approach to replace steady state engine fuel map for the transient
ARB cycle in GEM runs, and then we allow manufacturers to have an option to either use the cycle
average approach or steady state engine fuel maps for certification using GEM. The testing data
obtained from many different engines show that the regression model used for cycle average approach
can be effectively used to address parent/child rating issues. We also recognize the issue with N/V
overlap, specifically on 55mph cruise speed cycle. Consequently, we allow different axle ratio between
55 and 65mph cycles. Most of technical information and improvements on parent/child rating, N/V
overlap and steady state maps issues can be seen in details from SAE paper 2016-01-801834. These
improvements were also reflected in the changes made to 40 CFR 1036.540.
With regard to vehicles that cannot meet the trace, these vehicles map qualify to be except from the
vehicle standards if they meet the requirements defined in 40 CFR 1037.631. One of the criteria of this
section is that the vehicle has a maximum speed at or below 54 mi/hr.
For vehicles that use the cycle average mapping procedure in 40 CFR 1036.540 for the cruise cycle the
steady-state fuel map that is needed by GEM for the shift strategy is defined in the Appendix of 40 CFR
part 1036.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America and Detroit Diesel Company
34
H. Zhang, J., Sanchez, M, Spear, J. Sarlashkar and D. Robertson, M. Ross, " Cycle-Average Heavy-duty Engine Test Procedure
for Full Vehicle Certification - Numerical Algorithms for Interpreting Cycle-Average Fuel Maps", SAE paper 2016-01-8018,
October, 2016.
-------
• Default gasoline engine fuel map for use in GEM (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1620, NHTSA-2014-
0132-0182): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.3]
[Redacted]
Here is the engine the agencies assumed:
[Figure can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2]
[Redacted]
In short, we have significant concerns about the agencies' standards for the gasoline powered HDVs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.4]
Response:
The agencies' 2018 baseline engine fuel map was developed based on a 2015 MY HD gasoline engine
with low pressure loop exhaust gas recirculation (LPL-EGR) and cam phasing technology, which could
be representative of a technology baseline in 2018 MY. EGR can improve efficiency in several
ways. It enables full-map stoichiometric operation, improves the ratio of specific heats of the working
fluid, lowers heat loss in-cylinder due to reduced combustion temperatures and reduces knock tendency
which allows more favorable combustion phasing and/or an increase in compression ratio. All of these
effects can be observed in the test cell. Cam phasing was altered from baseline cam timing based upon
our EGR experience. At low loads, normal to late cam phasing was used. At mid-loads, late cam
phasing was used. Cam phasing for high loads was selected for best volumetric efficiency. Because of
these technologies applied to the existing engine, the characteristics of the fuel map have be altered
from the 2015 MY fuel map. We believe that this engine technology package only represents one of
many potential paths to achieve the gasoline vocational vehicle standard. More detailed explanation and
derivation on the gasoline engine map can be seen in the SwRI final report titled "Validation Testing for
Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Test Procedures and The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) for
Medium- and Heavy Duty Engines and Powertrains" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827],
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
GEM Software Bugs - The agencies request for us to identify GEM software bugs, which would lead
EPA to make additional changed to GEM before the Final Rule. 80 FR 40191. We have worked
extensively with the agencies since the NPRM's publication and have shown them some bugs. We
continue to find them, however, due to the complexity of the program and the fact that the agencies
continue to change it. We strongly recommend that the agencies try to lock down GEM then set a thirty
day period for GEM power users to test this new version and submit comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p.43]
Fuel map measurement - The agencies propose a procedure for measuring fuel maps for use in GEM.
We agree with this procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.44]
Response:
We appreciate DTNA's comments. We have been considering all comments obtained from all of our
stakeholders through multiple GEM power user releases including pre-NODA and post-NODA releases,
-------
allowing users to have ample notices and time to respond and help the agencies to debug GEM. This
process allows us to lock down a version that can model vehicles in a most realistic way. Please see the
agencies' response in RTC Section 15.5 regarding the notice and comment of GEM versions.
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Performance-based standards
The EPA has adopted a computer model simulation approach to vehicle certification that in principle
drives performance-based standards. However, we recognize that it is impossible to simulate all
technologies that contribute to fuel efficiency and that at some point a limit is reached between the
accuracy of physics-based models coded in GEM, their fundamental modeling assumptions, and the
quality of measured data in the lab. These limit the ability to measure the performance of some
technologies (e.g., predictive controls or the effect of automation on drivers). Other technologies
become either computationally intractable or require a complex modeling framework that make model
validation impossible (e.g., sophisticated engine and shift controls). Furthermore, it is impossible to
predict all of the technologies that might be relevant to certification through 2030. We believe the
powertrain test can be used to quantify the benefits of many technologies. In rare cases, such as
predictive powertrain management, post-processing the GEM results is appropriate with a "slightly
conservative" offset based on industry best practice (sometimes referred to as "Drop-down menus").
However, these should rarely be used so they do not compete unfairly with technologies that should
legitimately be recognized through a powertrain test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 15]
We recognize the need to expedite the certification process and simplify the test and administrative
burden. It may be tempting to achieve these goals through higher use of "drop-down menus." We are
concerned that such an approach may drive the wrong technologies in the market by chipping away
from the performance-based standards approach and replacing it with a features-based approach. Higher
grades in the regulatory cycles and the consistent treatment of manual drivers described below are
examples of how the "drop-down menu" or post-GEM simulation feature-based efficiency credits may
be avoided. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 15]
Response:
We agree that the powertrain test can be used as one of the most effective approaches to quantify the
benefits of many technologies. We also recognize that it would still be expensive to use this approach to
quantify all technologies if we there are alternatives to simplify the process with a simpler and effective
approach. That is the reason why we derived an approach using technology improvement inputs in
GEM to account for those technologies that cannot be easily modeled but whose effectiveness can be
quantified today without the need to be evaluated with the powertrain test or other test method. Detailed
technology improvement inputs are included in 40 CFR 1037.520(j). We have carefully considered the
public comments as well as CBI to determine the value of the technology improvement inputs that we
adopted. We are confident that those values for the technology improvement inputs used in GEM can
simplify the process to recognize those technologies. However, as the commenter states, it is impossible
to predict all of the technologies that may be relevant in the future years. Therefore, the agencies are
maintaining the off-cycle credit provisions (see 40 CFR 1036.610 and 1037.610).
Organization: GILLIGLLC
-------
GILLIG is very concerned with the timing required for the proposed certification process and the impact
it would have on our business, employee jobs, delivery of replacement buses to municipalities, jobs at
those municipalities, and those who use public transportation daily. Although not addressed in the
proposed rule, it would make sense to us that the engine fuel maps that we would enter into GEM would
be from fully certified engines. It is common that certification for our engines has come in Q4 and many
of those in December of the year preceding the engine model year change. We see acquiring these fuel
maps, running GEM, submitting our request for our vehicle certificates of conformance, EPA
processing of those submissions and subsequent granting of the certificates extremely difficult to
accomplish in time for an early vehicle model year changeover. Delay of these certifications will also
delay processing of our applications for CARB EO's. Not having certified vehicle configurations to
build would bring transit bus production at GILLIG to a standstill, delay delivery of replacement buses
to municipalities responsible for sustaining transportation services, impact jobs at those municipalities,
inconvenience those who travel and depend on public transportation, and be financially devastating for
our business and our employees. We request the Agencies consider eliminating the Phase 2 proposal for
entering engine fuel maps in GEM and consider continuing the Phase 1 approach using a standard
engine in GEM for transit buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.5]
Response:
The final rule includes several provisions to address the timing concerns raised by the commenter.
Manufacturers of transit bus chassis have the option in the final rule to certify to the custom-chassis
standards which use a default engine fuel map defined by the agencies in GEM. In addition, the
agencies have harmonized the vehicle model years to align with the engine model years (see 40 CFR
1037.150(n) and the definition of "model year" in 40 CFR 1037.801). Finally, the agencies streamlined
the certification requirements during the application of certification and only require GEM simulations
of ten vehicle configurations covering the range of C02 emissions expected during the year's production
(see 40 CFR 1037.205(o)).
Additional response to GILLIG's related comments regarding stockpiling are included in RTC Section
13.2.5.
Organization: Isuzu Motors Limited
(1) GEM model results are inaccurate compared to actual (real world) test results due to rolling
resistance and Aerodynamic Value (CdA) being a fixed number in GEM. These physical parameters can
vary for different vehicles and applications. Therefore Isuzu believes CdA needs to be reconsidered for
all truck classifications and we are willing to meet with the agencies to discuss our results. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1263-A1 p.2]
Response:
We have validated GEM against many testing data, including extensive comparisons over vehicle
chassis dynamometer, powertrain tests, and real world driving conditions over two very well controlled
trucks. The detailed comparisons and discussion can be seen in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
Please see the agencies' response to CdA for vocational vehicles in RTC Section 6.2.1.
-------
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
As the Proposed Rule is currently structured the engine standard is effectively pulled ahead of its
nominal start date. Engine fuel maps are now part of the GEM input process. That means, to run GEM
for each individual vehicle, and to determine fleet-wide averages for overall compliance, a compliant
fuel map for an engine must be available. Of necessity, therefore, this pulls ahead the requirement to
develop the MY2021 engine since the fuel map is a key component that must be developed well before
MY2021. Essentially, manufacturers have to obtain the fuel map for the engine we believe a full 15
months before the actual standard comes into effect in model year 2021. The result is effectively a
staggered compliance deadline, which differs by engine and vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-
A1 p.7]
The data requirements of GEM cannot effectively drive the compliance dates. First, this would have
obvious lead time implications where less than four years lead time and three years of stability is
provided.10 This is as applicable for the second and third tier implementation dates as for the first.
Second, it essentially renders much of the Preamble NPRM misleading at best. For instance, the NPRM
states that "[E]PA considered proposing Phase 2 standards that would begin before MY 2021—that is
with less lead time." The NPRM also states that, with regard to the engine standard, the "EPA
determined that earlier model year standards would not be appropriate, especially given the value of
harmonizing the NHTSA and EPA standards." And yet, as a practical matter, that is exactly what the
Proposed Rule does—namely provide less lead time-since the regulation effectively forces
development of that engine at least one year prior to 2021. Navistar agrees with EPA that a requirement
that effectively forces the industry to develop a compliant engine 15 months prior to the nominal
effective period is not appropriate. To do so would be arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p.8]
Moreover, for a vehicle manufacturer that acquires engines from a third party supplier, the vehicle
manufacturer is left at the mercy of the third party manufacturer. The Proposed Regulation requires the
manufacturer provide MY2020 fuel maps, but the MY2019 maps will also be needed for the first few
month of calendar 2020 (MY2021 for the vehicle). There is no requirement, however, that a third party
supplier to provide aMY2021 compliant engine within the regulation. Similarly, this could drive the
costs up for engines if third party manufacturers charge higher prices to deliver engines or fuel maps
significantly ahead of the regulatory deadline. Using the engine model year to define the GHG model
year for both engine and vehicle will ensure that the standards align for a given vehicle. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.8]
In addition, the model year definition will cause significant disruption in certain industries, school bus
manufacturing in particular. School buses are ordered and manufactured on a specific schedule that is
dictated by the school year. In most cases, the buses are ordered for delivery over a short period in the
summer, between school years. As a result, common industry practice is to have a nominal model year
for school buses that can be a full model year before other vehicles. To change this would cause
significant disruption which could, among other things, impact the resale value of the vehicles due to a
potential model year skip or overlap as manufacturers are forced to adjust model years. In recognition of
this and other pre-existing industry standards, the agencies should adopt a provision that allows model
year modifications where there are specific industry conditions that justify a departure from normal
model year designations or to recognize a "regulatory only" model year for certain vehicle classes.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.8]
One of the primary concerns with the fuel mapping approach—namely its impact on timing-is addressed
elsewhere in these Comments. Navistar also opposes the adoption of a cycle average map in this
-------
Proposed Rule. This is not actually proposed within the NPRM, but is discussed generally in the RIA.
We have, as a result, have not seen the regulatory language that would implement the procedure and,
frankly, do not fully understand what the procedure would involve. As a result, almost by definition, the
agencies should not proceed with adopting such a procedure without further opportunity for notice and
comment, including disclosure of the potential language. Regarding the uncertainties of this approach,
we could not have stated them any better than the agencies in this quote from the RIA: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 19]
The following questions are only a subset of the questions that need to be answered: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 19-20]
-How does this alternative approach address parent and child rating? Would nine points be adequate to
cover the practical range of the vehicle operation on the road?
-How can this approach address those points that may be out of map ranges with much higher or lower
N/V?
-What kinds of numerical schemes, interpolation or surface fitting, shall be used to interpolate those
points that are located between testing points?
-What the numerical scheme shall be used to extrapolate those points outside the maps?
-How robust are these numerical schemes?
-Can what we have learned so far be applied to other engines?
-How the single engineering certification point shall be selected among the number of engine tests?
-Are there potential unintended consequences? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.20]
These are all excellent, very much open, questions that we feel preclude the option of this alternative
being adopted during this rulemaking. They are also not fully reflective of the other questions that may
be raised by this alternative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.20]
Though these questions remain open, the insights we have gathered so far indicate that this may be a
highly burdensome procedure. Analysis of prior year's sales data shows that the alternative engine
mapping approach would require almost three times as many engine tests as the proposed BSFC map
approach. The increase in the number of tests is due to the fact that engines can be used across vehicle
classifications and, as currently defined, would require a separate test for each vehicle sub-family (class
8 tractor and vocational, class 2b-7 vocational, and Class 8 HH). By contrast, the BSFC map approach
requires one engine test and that map is applicable across all vehicles without the need for extrapolation
of points outside the generic vehicle test points. In addition, Navistar is not in favor of measuring NOx
or other constituents not directly addressed by this rulemaking. In this regard, we fully agree with
EMA's comments on this point. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.20]
Response:
We have decided that it would be more appropriate to harmonize the engine and vehicle model years,
starting in MY 2021 so that vehicle manufacturers will not need fuel maps for MY 2020 engines (see 40
-------
CFR 1037.150(n) and the definition of "model year" in 40 CFR 1037.801).. Thus, we are not finalizing
the requirement to provide fuel maps for MY 2020 engines. However, we are requiring fuel maps for
all MY 2021 engines, even those (e.g., small businesses) for which the Phase 2 engine and vehicle
standards have been delayed. See 40 CFR 1036.150(n).
We understand Navistar concerns on cycle average approach. However, we initiated this approach in the
fall of 2014, in collaboration with five manufactures, one of which was Navistar. Since then, we have
received strong support from most of the major engine and HD vehicle manufacturers. More
importantly, significant progresses have been made in both the engine dynamometer tests and the test
procedure development.35 Six different engine platforms including Cummins ISX, ISB, ISL engines,
Navistar N13 engines, Volvo D13 engines and a Ford gasoline engine, some of which were conducted at
the manufacturer's site. Parent and child ratings were also extensively tested. More information on
cycle average approach related to parent/child rating, N/V overlap issues, and the accuracy of the
regression models can be seen in details from the SAE paper 2016-01-801834. All the results point to the
same direction - cycle average approach is more accurate than the steady state map approach,
specifically in the transient cycle even with a transient correction factor. Regarding test burden, we have
reduced numbers of the engine test points to determine the steady state fuel map used with the two
cruise cycles in GEM from 143 in the NPRM to 100 points in the final rule, thus reducing significantly
the test burden. In addition to reducing the number of steady-state test points 40 CFR 1036.540 allows
test points to be consolidated so that only 9 points are needed to cover the full range of vehicles the
engine will be installed in. According to our assessment, we expect that the cycle average approach
testing time plus the steady state engine fuel map testing time based on the procedures adopted for the
final rule to be similar in the time that would have been required to conduct the steady state fuel
mapping process included in the NPRM. With regard to the question if 9 points are enough, this was
looked at with the test data collected Oakridge National Laboratory and doubling the number of points
from 9 to 18 had minor effect on the accuracy of the method.36 In summary, we believe that use of
cycle average approach is the best approach with respect to evaluating performance on the transient
cycle, and a reasonable alternative for evaluating steady state cycle performance. With this change, we
removed the transient correction factor proposed in NPRM.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Engine Mapping for Vehicle Assessments in GEM May Need Revision
PACCAR has reviewed both the primary Steady-State Fuel Map approach and the alternative Cycle
Average approach for generating fueling data that would be used in GEM's vehicle assessment.
Advantages and disadvantages with both were found. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.21]
PACCAR will continue to work with the agencies to assess these methods and ensure that unintended
consequences are avoided. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.22]
The alternate method provides a viable option of quantifying C02 for specific vehicle configurations
using the Phase 2 GEM model, but has some concerns as detailed below. As noted in the draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), the method can only be applied to each specific cycle. That is, the
35 Memos to Docket, "Test Procedure Review with Cummins, Volvo, Navistar, Paccar, Daimler Eaton and
Allison."
36 Oakridge National Laboratory, July 2016, paragraph 2.2.2 of "Powertrain Test Procedure Development for EPA
GHG Certification of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles"
-------
transient, 55 MPH, and 65 MPH cycles must each have a separate C02 surface generated and used
independently. The range of input values provided for the nine (9) sample configurations provided in
Table 3-32 in the draft RIA requires more study to verify that it sufficiently spans the operating space in
terms of N/V (engine RPM per km/h) and cycle work (horsepower hour) for all available vehicle
configurations. It is recommended that the range of axle ratios and especially CdA values be expanded
slightly. In particular, vehicle configurations having higher cycle work than those shown in the draft
RIA must be accounted for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.22]
Response:
We appreciate Paccar's support on this matter. We did consider Paccar's specific recommendations on
increasing the axle ratio range and CdA values to make the cycle average approach more robust, and
consequently we revise the test procedure to reflect these changes (40 CFR Part 1036.540). As Paccar
is aware, we initiated this approach in the fall of 2014. Since then, we have received strong support
from most of the major engine and HD vehicle manufacturers. More importantly, significant progresses
have been made in both the engine dynamometer tests and the test procedure development35. Six
different engine platforms including Cummins ISX, ISB, ISL engines, Navistar N13 engines, Volvo
D13 engines and a Ford gasoline engine, some of which were conducted at the manufacturer's site.
Parent and child ratings were also extensively tested. More information on cycle average approach
related to parent/child rating, N/V overlap issues, and the accuracy of the regression models can be seen
in details from the SAE paper 2016-01-801834. All the results point to the same direction - cycle
average approach is more accurate than the steady state map approach, specifically in the transient cycle
even with a transient correction factor. Regarding test burden, we have reduced numbers of the engine
test points to determine the steady state fuel map used with the two cruise cycles in GEM from 143 in
the NPRM to 100 points in the final rule, thus reducing significantly the test burden. According to our
assessment, we expect that the cycle average approach testing time plus the steady state engine fuel map
testing time based on the procedures adopted for the final rule to be similar in the time that would have
been required to conduct the steady state fuel mapping process included in the NPRM. In summary, we
believe that use of cycle average approach is the best approach with respect to evaluating performance
on the transient cycle, and a reasonable alternative for evaluating steady state cycle performance. With
this change, we removed the transient correction factor proposed in NPRM.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Cycle-Average Engine Map
The agencies have requested comment on a potential alternative to the proposed 143-point steady-state
engine fuel map, referred to as a "cycle-average map," in an effort to address confidentiality, accuracy,
and other concerns relating to the proposed 143-point map approach. (See 80 FR at 40193, and RIA
Section 3.10). Open questions around the treatment of child engine ratings, applicability across various
engine/vehicle configurations, and test procedures for the alternative approach are being assessed by
several manufacturers and the agencies. EMA is evaluating the concept. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.26]
Response:
Regarding cycle average engine map, we initiated this approach in the fall of 2014. Since then, we have
received strong support from most of the major engine and HD vehicle manufacturers. More
importantly, significant progresses have been made in both the engine dynamometer tests and the test
procedure development35. Six different engine platforms including Cummins ISX, ISB, ISL engines,
-------
Navistar N13 engines, Volvo D13 engines and a Ford gasoline engine, some of which were conducted at
the manufacturer's site. Parent and child ratings were also extensively tested. More information on
cycle average approach related to parent/child rating, N/V overlap issues, and the accuracy of the
regression models can be seen in details from the SAE paper 2016-01-801834. All the results point to the
same direction - cycle average approach is more accurate than the steady state map approach,
specifically in the transient cycle even with a transient correction factor. Regarding test burden, we have
reduced numbers of the engine test points to determine the steady state fuel map used with the two
cruise cycles in GEM from 143 in the NPRM to 100 points in the final rule, thus reducing significantly
the test burden. According to our assessment, we expect that the cycle average approach testing time
plus the steady state engine fuel map testing time based on the procedures adopted for the final rule to
be similar in the time that would have been required to conduct the steady state fuel mapping process
included in the NPRM. In summary, we believe that use of cycle average approach is the best approach
with respect to evaluating performance on the transient cycle, and a reasonable alternative for evaluating
steady state cycle performance. With this change, we removed the transient correction factor proposed
in NPRM.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
4. Default Engines in GEM
The updated version of GEM does not include generic engine fuel maps for 2021, 2024 and 2027.
Manufacturers need the generic fuel maps to evaluate the vehicle-level custom chassis vocational
vehicle technology packages outlined in EPA's February 12, 2016, memorandum, which was released
with the NODA. Additionally, the generic engine fuel maps are needed to evaluate the GEM output
improvements from vehicle technologies that will be deployed in other vehicle categories. To isolate
and assess the GEM contributions from different vehicle technologies, manufacturers must be able to
input a generic engine fuel map for each stringency step in the proposed regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1891-A1 p.4]
Response:
We have provided adequate notice on the GEM features and detailed source code with multiple power
user pre-NODA and post NODA releases, allowing users to understand how the engine fuel maps are
interacted with vehicles. Please see the agencies' responses to the GEM releases in RTC Section 15.5.
Providing generic engine fuel maps would not help the manufacturers to understand how the engine
would contribute the total vehicle performance for the primary vocational vehicle and tractor programs.
Rather, users can use their own engine fuel maps to achieve the same goal. In addition, releasing 2021,
2024 and 2027 maps to public means that we will release the engine standards for the final rule before
the rule is signed. For the vehicle-level custom chassis vocational vehicle, we provided the default
engine fuel maps.
Organization: Volvo Group
Engine Mapping
The engine fuel and torque map used in GEM is truncated above the maximum mapping test speed as
shown in the plot below. To properly evaluate urban vehicles that are gear bound below 65 MPH, the
torque and fuel map should be extended linearly to zero at the high idle point for each engine. Otherwise
vehicle speed for a gear-bound driveline is truncated and will not run on the governor droop under light
-------
load conditions (such as moderate down-hill) as is the case in actual operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.52-53]
Alternative Engine Certification via Cycle Average Method
EPA has been working with a number of manufacturers (not including Volvo Group) for more than a
year on an alternative process to conventional engine mapping. A conventional engine fuel map has
been used for many years by all manufacturers for vehicle simulation. This is the method proposed in
NPRM section 1036.535. Given our long experience with vehicle simulation using this type of fuel map,
we are confident that we understand how the method works and its limitations. One such limitation is
variation between transient fuel consumption and the steady state consumption measured in the mapping
process. We had previously discussed the possibility to run a typical engine transient test which could
be the FTP or a test based on a typical vehicle set-up using the GEM ARB cycle output (engine torque
and speed vs. time) to establish the engine's transient efficiency that could be compared to the output
using the steady state map to establish a transient correction factor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.53]
Further extension of these ideas led to the concept of eliminating the steady state fuel map and
establishing a new concept wherein the engine is tested over a number of cycles based on GEM output
for a range of vehicle load factors, driveline set-ups, and each of the regulatory duty cycles (ARB, 55
MPH, 65 MPH). The result is a matrix of 27 engine test cycles (3 load factors x 3 drivelines x 3 duty
cycles). This output is used to create a 3 dimensional map plotting cycle work, cycle average engine fuel
consumption, and N/V (average ratio of engine speed to vehicle speed based on GEM output for each
cycle). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.53]
Volvo Group recently began investigating this proposal because EPA stated that they are seriously
considering this method or possibly a "hybrid method" where cycle average is used for the ARB
transient cycle and conventional fuel mapping is used for highway cycles with constant speed targets.
Our efforts have been hampered because the method is not clearly documented in any one place in
EPA's proposal that allows for complete analysis and comment. There is no test description with
regulatory details. Instead, limited discussion is found in the RIA and certain technical papers. We also
have received some limited information from discussions with various regulatory staff. Based on this
information, we have attempted to glean what we believe is a somewhat representative picture of the
intended process. From this, we provide some preliminary comments on our observations. We note,
however, that Volvo Group has not been provided sufficient information to comment fully or adequately
on this provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.53-54]
It is unclear how the "parent" rating within an engine family should be defined when using this process.
Whereas a maximum torque rating would typically produce the best brake specific fuel consumption
(BSFC) on an engine emissions test cycle, it may well result in the highest fuel consumption on a
vehicle cycle based test. Also, we question how various transmission types might impact the results. We
can envision a vehicle with a transmission with many gears or even a continuously variable transmission
that would operate an engine over a very narrow operating speed range. We could also envision a
similar vehicle with a transmission with few gears that required the engine to operate over a wide speed
range but with an axle ratio that resulted in the same N/V as the first vehicle. These two vehicles would
have similar cycle work and similar N/V but significantly different engine operation and efficiency. Yet
this method would simulate both with the same efficiency. We do not believe the testing has adequately
addressed the range of possible drivetrains and efficiency outcomes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.54]
-------
Because GEM does not include an engine torque response function, torque changes in the GEM output
are instantaneous. But real engines have a torque lag due to the need to develop boost from the
turbocharger and to manage emissions. Hence the engines cannot actually follow the engine cycle
output from GEM. This means that the engine test results in somewhat lower cycle work than the GEM
output. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.54]
GEM shift management resulted in the engine running at speeds well below low idle where the engine
would stall out. The Agency recommended that we ignore these test areas and run at the closest speed
and load that the engine could sustain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.54]
Using the vehicle configurations prescribed to develop the engine test cycles resulted in GEM
downshifting (appropriately) at low axle ratio on the 55 MPH cycle. This resulted in an N/V that
essentially overlaid the 65 MPH cycle with a higher axle ratio which (appropriately) ran in top gear.
This, in turn, resulted in the software being forced to extrapolate into an N/V and cycle work range that
was never tested resulting in inaccurate results when tested against a vehicle driveline that was not part
of the mapping matrix. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.54]
All these results were shared with EPA and quite possibly corrections can be devised. Nonetheless, we
have little doubt that additional issues will surface as the full range of transmissions, axles, engines and
vehicle configurations are run through this method. Our conclusion is that the method is not adequately
developed to be used as the test method in the final rule. We note in particular that EPA has failed to
provide adequate notice of the method, and an adequate description of what it is proposing, sufficient to
allow for meaningful comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.54]
If the agencies intend to pursue this approach, it must be done as a revision to the final rule or perhaps
as a technical amendment, when and if it is thoroughly tested and demonstrated to be effective and
robust. In addition, any change of this magnitude will have a significant effect on the GEM outcomes.
Regulatory standards must be adjusted if such a change is promulgated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.54-55]
Response:
The full torque curves for all the engine fuel maps includes zero torque point at the highest possible
engine speed. We added transient torque response to the engine model in GEM. The torque response is
determine from the engine's displacement and the torque curve of the parent engine rating of the engine
family. We also significantly improved GEM's shifting strategy when operating at low idle speed. We
improve our test procedure to mitigate N/V overlap issues in 40 CFR part 1036.540.
Regarding cycle average engine map, we initiated this approach in the fall of 2014. Since then, we have
received strong support from most of the major engine and HD vehicle manufacturers. More
importantly, significant progresses have been made in both the engine dynamometer tests and the test
procedure development35. Six different engine platforms including Cummins ISX, ISB, ISL engines,
Navistar N13 engines, Volvo D13 engines and a Ford gasoline engine, some of which were conducted at
the manufacturer's site. Parent and child ratings were also extensively tested. More information on
cycle average approach related to parent/child rating, N/V overlap issues, and the accuracy of the
regression models can be seen in details from the SAE paper 2016-01-801834. All the results point to the
same direction - cycle average approach is more accurate than the steady state map approach,
specifically in the transient cycle even with a transient correction factor. Regarding test burden, we have
reduced numbers of the engine test points to determine the steady state fuel map used with the two
cruise cycles in GEM from 143 in the NPRM to 100 points in the final rule, thus reducing significantly
-------
the test burden. According to our assessment, we expect that the cycle average approach testing time
plus the steady state engine fuel map testing time based on the procedures adopted for the final rule to
be similar in the time that would have been required to conduct the steady state fuel mapping process
included in the NPRM. In summary, we believe that use of cycle average approach is the best approach
with respect to evaluating performance on the transient cycle, and a reasonable alternative for evaluating
steady state cycle performance. With this change, we removed the transient correction factor proposed
in NPRM.
Please see the agencies' responses related to GEM notice and comment in RTC Section 15.5
-------
3 Test Procedures and Engine
3.1 General Comments
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
The draft proposal calls for a whole vehicle and separate engine standard. The final regulations should
not include an engine standard that OEMs will have a difficult time complying with. It is a consolidated
market place and an overly stringent standard could lead to monopoly pricing. An overly stringent
engine standard could also lead to the very boom bust cycle we are seeking to avoid. There is nothing in
this regulation to prevent OEMs from investing in more efficient engines and gaining credits that could
be applied to meet stringency requirements. OEMs should be free to meet the stringency standards in
the way that best suits their business model. These regulations rightfully should offer pathways on how
to meet the standard but should not dictate the path a given company takes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1248-A2 p.9-10]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 1 (email) - (23)
Specifically, I ask for stronger engine standards to further reduce climate pollution and protect our
children and families. Please finalize engine standards several times stronger than the weak standards
proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1341-A1 p.l]
With stronger engine standards that take effect no later than model year 2024, our communities will be
better protected from the harmful pollution emitted by big freight trucks and buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1341-A1 p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Sierra Club (email) - (26,917)
It is critical that the agencies strengthen these standards, particularly the engine standard, to ensure
efficiency improvements throughout freight trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0814-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Maintain Existing Regulatory Framework [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.2]
Provide More Flexibilities to Ensure Engine Technologies are Utilized [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1274-A1 p.4]
There may be some opportunities to further drive innovation and technology for engines that are still
achievable in the Phase 2 timeframe. Under different aspects of the NPRM, the agencies did propose
various ways to try and better represent real-world service applications and MEMA commends these
revisions to the Phase 2 program. For example, under the engine component of the proposed rule, the
agencies did make some adjustments to the Phase 2 SET cycle weighting. The agencies acknowledge
that the task to represent all real-world applications is difficult and they seek feedback from
stakeholders on ways to achieve as broad a representation as possible, while still allowing for the
recognition of real-world service and the beneficial impacts from various technologies and systems.
With regards to the SET cycle, MEMA believes the agencies' revisions are generally tracking in the
right direction and we do not take issue with the test procedures themselves. As an example, real world
-------
engines operate at a lower operating RPM levels than what the proposed test cycle emphasizes (with a
lower operating RPM range, the result is a gap between real world operations and test settings). MEMA
encourages the agencies to identify potential gaps and make them as small as possible. Bringing the gap
closer to real-world operating conditions will help the agencies avoid either unintentionally
disincentivizing operational improvements that could have real impact on optimizing engine efficiencies
or, conversely, potentially drive technologies that do not result in C02 reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1274-A1 p.5]
MEMA anticipates that some of our member companies will address these issues more specifically in
their comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.5]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar feels the following are key areas the agencies must address: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
• Engine standards must be adjusted to account for the cumulative impact of the various requirements,
including N20, and their feasibility is also predicated on the stability of other emission requirements,
such as NOx. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
Organization: Robert Bosch LLC
Bosch also opposes the proposed rule's uneven handling of vocational vehicle engines. Just as there
should be technology neutrality in the HD pickup truck and van sector, so, too, should there be
neutrality under Phase 2 for vocational vehicle engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p.8]
Response:
As reflected later in the context of more detailed comments, the agencies recognize the need to balance
the benefits of establishing stringent engine standards against the risks of setting standards that are too
stringent. This is true both in the context of the diesel engine standards by themselves and in the context
of the SI engine standards relative to the diesel engine standards.
3.2 Regulatory Structure - Separate Engine Standards
Organization: Achates Power, Inc.
We recognize the importance of a separate engine efficiency standards, for a number of reasons:
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0049-A1 p.2]
• The EPA has a robust compliance program based on engine testing, making it straightforward to
hold engine manufacturers accountable. Without a separate engine standard, in-use compliance
becomes more subjective. Having clearly defined compliance responsibilities is important to
both the government agencies and market participants. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0049-A1 p.2]
• Engine standards for C02 require engine manufacturers to optimize engines for both efficiency
and for non-C02 emissions, particularly for NO, emissions given the strong counter-dependency
between engine-out NO, and fuel consumption. By requiring engine to meet both NO, and C02
standards, manufacturers will include technologies that optimize for both rather than alternative
-------
calibrations that would trade lower NO, emissions for higher C02 emissions depending on how
the engine and vehicle is tested. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0049-A1 p.2]
• Because engine fuel consumption can vary significantly between transient and steady-state
operations, only steady-state engine date is required for chassis certification. The separate
engine standard for vocational vehicles provides the only measure of engine fuel consumption
under transient conditions. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0049-A1 p.2]
• A separate engine standard enables the federal agencies to exempt certain vehicle classes from
some or all of the vehicle standards without foregoing efficiency improvements. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0049-A1 p.2]
To be effective in achieving these benefits, however, the separate engine standard must not only be
commercially acceptable and reasonable, but also meaningful. The new MDV and HDV standards are
designed to 'spur innovation, encouraging the development of and deployment of existing and advanced
cost-effective technologies for a new generation of cleaner, more fuel-efficient commercial trucks....'
The standard are meant to be set 'not only on currently available technologies but also on utilization of
technologies now under development or not yet widely deployed while providing significant lead time
to assure adequate time to develop, test, and phase in these [technologies].' [NHTSA-2014-0132-0049-
A1 p.2-3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420,
p.287.]]
Organization: Advanced Engine System Institute (AESI)
AESI is pleased that the Agency has proposed to retain the basic regulatory structure used in Phase 1,
including a separate engine standard and similar testing and certification procedures. Our industry has
invested heavily in research and systems to deliver cost-effective greenhouse gas reductions to meet the
Phase 1 schedule while meeting the 2010 standards for NOx and PM. Retaining a separate engine
standard with the appropriate compliance enforcement will help ensure the long term environmental
integrity of the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1 p. 1] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.289.]]
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Model Approach for Vocational Vehicles while AAPC has concerns about the technical details of the
proposed Phase 2 GEM model which will be detailed below, we believe that a model-based approach
that looks at the powertrain and chassis as a whole can be an effective way to drive C02 and fuel
consumption improvements through the vocational vehicle fleet. While engine standards should be
maintained as a "no-backsliding" provision (hold engine standards at 2017 levels), the inclusion of the
engine, transmission, and chassis as a system in a more sophisticated GEM model more accurately
reflects the ways in which manufacturers deliver on-road C02 and fuel consumption benefits to their
customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.31]
Conceptually, this could be an improvement over the Phase 1 approach in which only tire rolling
resistance was reflected in the model for vocational vehicles and key components such as transmissions
were not included at all. Assuming our concerns with the technical details of the model can be
addressed, an accurate GEM model-based approach will drive efficiency improvements to engines,
transmissions, and chassis technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.31
Organization: Association for the Work Truck Industry (NTEA)
-------
Regulatory Structure
The NTEA supports the Agencies' structural approach to the rules. It is logical to separate out the four
vehicle categories as they tend to be both built and utilized in different manners. Of the categories,
vocational trucks will be the most diverse vehicle population, as noted by the possible chassis, body and
equipment configurations available in the marketplace. This diversity also continues in the manufacture
process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.2]
Organization: Autocar, LLC
Autocar Supports Separate Engine and Vehicle Standards
Autocar supports the Agencies' proposal to maintain separate engine and vehicle standards in Phase 2
for vocational vehicles. For Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles in particular, the engine offers the
greatest potential for reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption. Such vehicles have no opportunity
for fuel consumption improvement though aerodynamics and other highway-speed technologies.
Maintaining standards at the engine level facilitates the Agencies' and Autocar's proposed exemptions
and exceptions for certain vehicle and manufacturer types without foregoing the engine improvements,
ensuring positive environmental impact across a broader range of applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1233-A1 p. 16]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Separate engine and vehicle standards
The NPRM requests comment on the choice to maintain separate engine and vehicle standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.29]
CARB staff strongly agrees with U.S. EPA andNHTSA's choice to maintain separate engine standards
for the following reasons.
-Engine standards directly address the source of GHG emissions and ensure some efficiency
improvements at the engine level will be achieved over the useful life of the vehicle. Without an engine
standard, some vehicle manufacturers could elect to rely more heavily on vehicle technologies to meet
emission standards. These technologies may prove to be less effective at reducing emissions as the
vehicles' vocation changes over time. For example, line-haul tractors with aerodynamic technologies
would see less of a benefit from the aerodynamic technologies if placed into local-haul service by a
second owner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.30]
-Separate engine standards based on the direct measurement of GHG emissions from engines can be
directly verified for compliance using existing engine test protocols: U.S. EPA's heavy-duty engine
ramped-modal Supplemental Emission Test (SET) and heavy-duty engine transient emissions test, i.e.,
the Federal Test procedure (FTP). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.30]
-The SET and FTP would continue to be used to certify heavy-duty engines to GHG emission
standards, as well as the criteria pollutant emission standards. This provides a direct link between the
-------
GHG emission measurement and NOx emission measurement methods for certification. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.30]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Full vehicle simulation approach (advantages and disadvantages)
The NPRM requests comment on the proposed approach for full vehicle simulation. CARB staff
generally supports the proposed full vehicle simulation approach, and is in favor of GEM including
additional subsystems to provide manufacturers greater design flexibility and incentivize the
development of vehicles that fully realize the GHG benefits of well-integrated systems. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 103]
Additionally, the NPRM requests comment on whether the Phase 2 full vehicle simulation proposal,
which potentially requires engine manufacturers to disclose proprietary engine performance information
to vehicle manufacturers long before production, would enable the "reverse engineering" of engine
manufacturers' intellectual property, and if so, what steps U.S. EPA and NHTSA could take to address
this issue. While CARB staff recognizes that this proposed approach will likely require engine
manufacturers to disclose more detailed engine design and performance information early in production
cycles, certainly earlier than currently occurs, CARB staff believes this will be a positive development
that will facilitate better engine, component, and vehicle integration necessary for achieving maximum,
cost-effective fuel efficiency improvements and GHG benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 103]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Chassis dynamometer test procedure
The NPRM requests comment on whether a chassis dynamometer test procedure should be required in
lieu of the proposed vehicle simulation approach. CARB staff supports chassis testing for vehicles that
are already emissions certified on chassis dynamometers and provisions for similar vehicles that can
also be tested using widely available chassis dynamometer testing resources, as proposed in the NPRM.
These are the lighter end of the heavy-duty vehicle range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 113]
The NPRM's proposed chassis dynamometer testing requirements will expand the data set of chassis
dynamometer emissions measurements, which will help provide data needed to evaluate vehicle
integration success. CARB staff believes chassis dynamometer testing is critical for assessing engine,
powertrain, and vehicle integration effects on GHG emission levels. For its own testing needs, CARB
staff is committed to developing a robust in-house test program by aggressively working to expand its
heavy-duty chassis dynamometer testing capacity for the comparison of chassis data with simulation,
PEMS, and engine/powertrain test data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 113]
20 See page 40195 of the NPRM for more details of the technology
21 See page 40195 to 40196 of the NPRM for more details of the technology
Organization: Caterpillar Inc.
-------
PROMOTE INNOVATION— FOCUS ON FULL VEHICLE OPTIMIZATION BY
ELIMINATING ENGINE-BASED STANDARDS
As we examine new, fuel-saving technologies for heavy-duty vehicles, Caterpillar believes vehicle
manufacturers must be allowed to focus design efforts on the complete vehicle in order to optimize fuel
economy, without the incremental constraint of engine-based standards. Based on our extensive
experiences with nonroad equipment, both the opportunities and magnitude of vehicle GHG reductions
significantly outweigh possible engine-based GHG reductions. A total systems perspective, considering
application variability and appropriately tailoring technologies, provides a broader landscape to advance
the optimization of fuel efficiency, productivity, and cost - factors which all lead to a win-win result for
both the environment and customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1189-A1 p.3]
As an efficiency and productivity proof point, this total systems approach has allowed Caterpillar to be
recognized as a major innovator of fuel-saving and GHG-reducing technologies in nonroad equipment.
For example, our Caterpillar model 336E H hydraulic hybrid excavator has been demonstrated through
a grant from the California Energy Commission to reduce fuel consumption by 30 percent on a per-ton
basis. Similarly, our Caterpillar D7E track-type tractor was awarded the 2008 EPA Clean Air
Excellence Award for reducing fuel consumption by 10 to 30 percent (depending on work load/cycle)
and increasing dozing efficiency by 25 percent (cubic yards moved/gallon of fuel) compared to previous
models. These are just two examples of where a system focus rather than an engine focus resulted in
substantial efficiency gains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1189-A1 p.3]
From a cost efficiency perspective, vehicle-based GHG reductions are expected to be lower cost than
engine-based reductions. Cost is a key customer buying criteria. The engine should not be treated
differently from a GHG perspective than any other vehicle component. There are many components and
design selections that must be made on a vehicle. If the EPA constrained each component to certain
parameters, (i.e. engine, transmissions, driveshaft, axles, differential, rims, tires, cab, HVAC, APU, etc.)
the likely result is that vehicle design would be tightly controlled using components that have essentially
been prescribed by EPA. Vehicle manufacturers would have to focus vehicle design efforts on ensuring
each individual component met EPA standards rather than spending development efforts on optimizing
the system as a whole. The cost of GHG reduction would be higher, and the amount of GHG reduction
achievable would be hindered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1189-A1 p.3]
We urge EPA to allow vehicle manufacturers to fully optimize the entire vehicle as this greatly
improves GHG opportunities, and decreases the cost of such reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1189-A1 p.3]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc., et al.
Engines are best evaluated based on how they operate in the vehicle, considering the engine size and
power output, the vehicle power demand, and the driveline characteristics - that is, by the full vehicle
approach. The engine's operating efficiency is fully accounted for in the complete vehicle evaluation,
rendering separate engine standards redundant. The Agencies, however, have proposed in the NPRM to
establish separate engine standards. It's absolutely essential that the Agencies avoid setting overly
stringent engine standards to avoid repeating the market disruptions the industry experienced when
introducing diesel particulate (DPF) technology in 2007. To this end, we are opposed to any decrease in
the engine standards as proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.4]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
-------
The Agencies recognize that separate engine standards have been successfully used to "achieve
emissions reductions from complete vehicles that operate on road," while providing a "well-established,
representative, and robust set of engine test procedures" for emissions compliance enforcement (80 FR
40147, 40181). Using the same protocols for criteria and GHG emissions ensures linkage between all
pollutants, forcing consideration of all constituents when optimizing engine performance and emissions.
With differing certification cycles, one could trade-off GHG improvement at the expense of nitrogen
oxides (NOx) increases. Such a situation would undermine regulatory integrity and environmental
benefits from criteria emission reductions achieved over the years. Furthermore, engine certification
captures both steady-state and transient behavior that is absent in the vehicle program. Advantages of
separate engine standards are identified in the Preamble (80 FR 40181-182) and detailed further in
Cummins oral arguments1 and comments to NHTSA3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.6]
For Phase 2, EPA and NHTSA are proposing to maintain dividing the commercial vehicle industry into
three categories (combination tractors, vocational vehicles and HD pickups and vans), while continuing
separate engine and vehicle standards for combination tractors and vocational vehicles. The Phase 2
regulatory proposal adds a fourth category for trailers to establish standards for this component of
tractor vehicles. Cummins fully supports this regulatory structure, especially the separate engine
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.6]
Engine standards also acknowledge the non-integrated nature of the commercial vehicle market and
allow for multiple suppliers of engines and powertrain options for a given vehicle original equipment
manufacturer (OEM). Customers can continue to buy a common certified engine and use it in a wide
range of vehicle applications, ensuring emissions reductions and economic and regulatory efficiencies
across the diversity of vehicles that exist in the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.6-
7]
Cummins opposes features of the proposed rule that undermine regulatory integrity [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p.7]
Regulatory integrity means that the intended improvements in emissions are assigned appropriately and
directly to the engine and vehicle, are realized in real-world use and can be physically verified and
enforced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.7]
The biggest threat to regulatory integrity is a disconnect between engine NOx and C02 regulations. This
can arise in several ways, including: (a) different test protocols for each pollutant; (b) significant engine
operation outside the criteria-emission4 Not-To-Exceed (NTE) zone; (c) implicit engine emissions
stringency at the vehicle level that is not recognized in engine testing; and (d) lack of robust means to
assure compliance in-use and to link NOx with C02 at the vehicle level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p.7]
[Figure 1 can be found onp.8 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
The 55 MPH cycle is outside the NTE zone, suggesting that future vehicles are expected to operate a
considerable amount of time outside of this emissions control zone. This means a vehicle could emit
higher NOx emissions which would not be assessed during the in-use enforcement program.
Furthermore, since the NTE region is tied to the engine torque curve, there is an incentive for engine
manufacturers to skew the torque curve to higher speeds to draw the NOx NTE zone farther away from
the cruising engine speed. This concern could be addressed in a future criteria emissions rulemaking by
expanding the NTE zone as defined in 40 CFR 86.1370(b) for engines with transmissions such as
Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVT). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.8-9]
-------
[Figure 2 can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
Cummins cautions the Agencies against this approach. First, implicit engine stringency in the vehicle
program decouples engine C02 improvements from compliance with standards for oxides of nitrogen
(NOf). This threatens the regulatory integrity of the rule by creating a structure in which in-use NOx
emissions can be increased by operation outside expected NOx regulatory limits while in-use C02
emissions are reduced. Second, it allows trading of directly measurable and enforceable improvements
at the engine level for less certain and unenforceable improvements at the vehicle level. Third, implied
standards lack the regulatory clarity required for focused and sustained innovation in engine
technology. For these reasons, required engine C02 reductions should be explicit in the engine
standard, and engine procedures should continue to link C02 with criteria emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p.10 and 12] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.47-48.]]
(d) The vehicle standard in Phase 2 employs computer simulation to calculate the integrated effect of all
component improvements. This is useful for all applications but also problematic for translating
apparent benefits for line-haul trucks into real-world effects. To be sure, there are "vehicle"-level
technologies that will convey real C02 benefit, but there are no existing integrated-vehicle test
protocols that can be used to validate real-world performance and assure in-use compliance. For this
reason, all C02 reduction that is expected and required from the engine should be assigned explicitly to
the engine in the engine standard. It can be physically verified and enforced with protocols that have
been honed by EPA and industry over three decades. And by using these established engine certification
protocols for both C02 and criteria emissions, regulators can also assure continued compliance with
current and future criteria emission standards as greenhouse gases are reduced. This is an especially
important point to protect against increases in NOx emissions as C02 is being reduced and to ensure
C02 reductions are protected as future reductions in NOx emissions are contemplated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 12-13]
In addition to enabling direct assurance of performance, assignment of all required engine C02
reductions explicitly in the engine standard also provides clear direction to engine manufacturers for
technology investment and innovation required to meet future GHG goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p. 13]
1 See Appendix A for the full text of the testimony, [p.44 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1]
3 See Appendix B. [p.48 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
4 Criteria emissions are HD exhaust emissions controlled under the Clean Air Act and include oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO).
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Basing vehicle and engine standards on the same technologies - EPA requests comment on whether
the engine and vehicle standards should be based on the same projected technologies. 80 FR 40191.
DTNA has maintained that the best approach to Phase 2 is for the standards to be based on complete
vehicle fuel efficiency wherein technologies that are applied to the engine are integral to complete
vehicle package. The separation of standards between the engine and the vehicle creates a number of
-------
problems. The most significant problem (which EPA has attempted to at least partially correct with their
proposed revisions to the SET test procedure) is the problem of defining an engine test cycle that truly
represents the engine operation across a range of powertrain configurations anticipated when Phase 2
takes effect and for powertrains beyond that time. Clearly, no such cycle exists since differing power
train designs will result in differing engine operating points. Consequently, the level of improvement
from a given technology that is projected onto a fixed engine test cycle will differ from the level of
improvement when the technology is projected in simulation across a range of vehicle configurations.
This leads to the problem that as powertrains diverge actual engine operation from the fixed test cycle,
and as the stringency of the engine certification standards increases, engine manufacturers become
driven to apply technologies to improve efficiency on the test cycle but which may derive little benefit
in real use. For these reasons and others that DTNA believes that complete vehicle certification where
the actual fuel map is included in the simulation is the strongly preferred path. DTNA agrees that engine
and vehicle standards should be based on the same technologies but that the magnitude of improvements
of each for a given technology need to consider where in the engines operating map the improvements
are realized and the differences in how the test cycles operate the engine within the operating map.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 15]
Mutual exclusivity of engine standard and GEM: EPA states that the use of a fuel map in GEM
should eliminate concerns that a separate engine standard and a full vehicle standard are mutually
exclusive. 80 FR 40180. While the inclusion of the engine map in GEM helps alleviate some concerns,
the existence of the separate engine standard still carries with it this concern. An engine improvement
can conflict with a vehicle improvement despite the engine being in GEM. For example, if an engine
manufacturer optimizes the engine around the A speed such that vehicles using that engine can be very
heavily downsped, the result will likely be lower fuel consumption on the road and in GEM~even if the
A-speed optimization harmed B and C speed fuel consumption to a greater extent. It is possible to see
technologies that show in-vehicle/real-world improvements that do not show up on the cycle. If this
means that the engine OEM with the better real-world performing engine does not meet the standard,
but then has to add significant technologies to either meet the engine test-cycle or that don't actually
provide the customer real-world benefit, then either way the cost of this engine has to increase which
means in reality a less expensive and less efficient engine becomes more attractive. The agencies should
recognize when an engine configuration results in improved on-road fuel efficiency but worse engine
dynamometer test results, and the agencies should exempt such engines from strict compliance with the
engine test standards-knowing that the ultimate concern is fuel consumption and GHG emissions on
real roads not in a test cell. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 15-16]
Preface - DTNA fundamentally disagrees that separate engine standards are needed in Phase 2 but
nonetheless provides comments in response to EPA's request for comment on engine-side stringency.
80 FR 40156. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 P.19]
Other Structures Considered: Chassis Dyno Testing - The agencies request comment on whether a
chassis dynamometer test procedure should be required in lieu of the vehicle simulation approach being
proposed. 80 FR 40178. EPA requests comment regarding the alternative of chassis dynamometer
testing in lieu of the simulation approach that is proposed (80 FR 40178). DTNA is strongly in favor of
the proposed simulation approach for multiple reasons many of which led EPA to the conclusion that a
simulation approach was most appropriate in Phase 1, and now again in Phase 2. Chassis dynamometer
testing as a path for vehicle certification is highly impractical considering the tremendous burden of
testing the large number of powertrain and vehicle variants as compared to the simulation approach.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.67]
-------
More on EPA Alternatives - The agencies have presented a sufficiently wide range of alternatives
representing various approaches to further regulating the heavy-duty industry, with the exception of one
alternative that was not presented and should be - namely not having a separate engine standard. The
agencies should add to their current discussions on the pros and cons of maintaining a separate engine
standard, and add an alternative that estimates the benefits and costs of not including a separate engine
standard. An additional alternative could be presented on including an anti-backsliding engine standard
as opposed to the technology-forcing standard proposed in Alternative 3/the preferred approach. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.73]
Technology neutral standards: The EPA proposes technology neutral standards. We agree that this is
the right approach. Prescribing technology to vehicle manufacturers is not the right role for the EPA.
That said, the agencies should recognize that—although they purport to create technology neutral
standards—in creating a separate engine standard alongside a vehicle standard, the agencies depart from
technology neutrality, forcing technology onto the engine even if the same net emissions impact on-road
could be achieved through vehicle-side technologies. We recommend that, upon a showing from a
manufacturer that a vehicle-side technology creates extra emission reductions beyond those necessary
for vehicle-side compliance, that the manufacturer be able to convert those extra emission reductions
into an engine-side credit (and vice versa). Only with such an allowance will the agencies truly achieve
the technology neutrality that they claim their regulations have. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p. 116]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America, Navistar Inc., Paccar Inc., and the Volvo Group
Recommendation
EPA and NHTSA should not increase the engine efficiency targets proposed in the NPRM. As a
fundamental principle, separate engine standards provide no environmental or energy efficiency benefit
because the GHG reduction benefits are calculated only with the engine incorporated into the vehicle.
Therefore increasing the stringency of a separate engine standard provides no direct environmental
benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.3
Consequently, the separate engine standards should be set at a level that avoids unintended
consequences. EPA and NHTSA should recognize the importance of considering the engine as an
integrated part of a complete vehicle. With this approach, the agencies can avoid forcing engine
optimization on fixed test cycles that do not, and cannot, replicate how the engine operates in each
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.3
The conflicting arguments in the subject paper demonstrate that overly stringent separate engine
standards are inappropriate, unnecessary, and counterproductive. As we have argued, it is fundamental
that the engine influence on the vehicle (size, weight, cooling demand, and cost) and the vehicle
influence on the engine (power demand, gearing, and controls) must be considered. Furthermore, from a
purely economic perspective, OEMs should be able to develop and choose the efficiency technologies
that best fit with their capabilities and expertise to meet regulatory GHG objectives and customer
requirements. This will increase competition and innovative approaches while providing
optimized products with greater market acceptance. EPA should support this and acknowledge that the
engine specific regulation is meant to ensure a level of improvement to be achieved with minimal
potential tradeoffs on other vehicle efficiency features, and to ensure some continued link to criteria
emissions testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.4-5]
Conclusion:
-------
Furthermore, there is no efficiency or GHG contribution from a separate engine standard that is not
already included in the complete vehicle standard. The logical and appropriate conclusion is that engine
improvements should be driven from the complete vehicle standard and any separate engine standard
should represent a level that can be achieved without compromise in vehicle efficiency or lowest total
cost of vehicle operation, not an aggressive limit that forces manufacturer to focus on the engine over
other potential efficiencies. EPA and NHTSA have accomplished this in their phase 2 proposal. These
engine targets should not be made more stringent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.20]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 38-39.]
Eaton believes that the separate engine and vehicle standards found in Phase 1 should be maintained in
Phase 2. The separate standards reflect the reality of the commercial vehicle market, drive adoption of
efficient technologies, and provide a structure that is proven and accepted in the U.S. market today.
Organization: Engine Research Center
I applaud the agencies in recognizing the importance of a separate engine efficiency standards, for a
number of reasons: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1141-A1 p.l]
• The EPA has a robust compliance program based on engine testing, making it straightforward to hold
engine manufacturers accountable. Without a separate engine standard, in-use compliance becomes
more subjective. Having clearly defined compliance responsibilities is important to both the government
agencies and market participants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1141-A1 p.l]
• Engine standards for C02 require engine manufacturers to optimize engines for both efficiency and for
non-C02 emissions, particularly for NOx emissions given the strong counter-dependency between
engine-out NOx and fuel consumption. By requiring engine to meet both NOx and C02 standards,
manufacturers will include technologies that optimize for both rather than alternative calibrations that
would trade lower NOx emissions for higher C02 emissions depending on how the engine and vehicle is
tested. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1141-A 1 p.2]
• Because engine fuel consumption can vary significantly between transient and steady state operations,
only steady-state engine date is required for chassis certification. The separate engine standard for
vocational vehicles provides the only measure of engine fuel consumption under transient conditions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1141-A1 p.2]
• A separate engine standard enables the federal agencies to exempt certain vehicle classes from some or
all of the vehicle standards without foregoing efficiency improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1141 -A 1 p.2]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
1. Strong engine standards are critical to a meaningful program
We reiterate our strong support for the Agencies' proposed structure of the rule - separate engine
standards are imperative to drive innovative engine technology and provide proven, measureable and
-------
durable real-world emissions reductions. However, these benefits can only be realized through robust
engine standards. Weak standards, as proposed by the Agencies, do not drive advanced technologies and
fall short of unlocking the full capabilities of existing technologies. Additionally, limited engine
standards do not take advantage of the robust in-use enforcement provisions of the engine program.
These provisions provide high confidence that GHG reductions demonstrated on new engines actually
occur in the real world. In order to secure the significant benefits afforded by separate engine standards,
the Agencies' must finalize far more meaningful standards that drive technology and allow for robust
enforcement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.3]
EDF supports a separate engine standard as a key element of a strong rule
EDF fully supports the proposed inclusion of a separate engine performance standard and full vehicle
performance standard. An engine performance standard for each vehicle class is an essential element of
a well-designed heavy-duty fuel efficiency program for several reasons. First, engine standards provide
proven, measureable and durable real-world emissions reductions. Engine standards also help to drive
development of advanced engine technologies, which can provide a significant proportion of total
vehicle fuel efficiency potential. An engine standard also allows EPA and manufacturers to
simultaneously evaluate oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon dioxide (C02) emissions, ensuring
efficiency improvements do not result in higher NOx emissions and vice versa. We encourage the
agencies to finalize a robust separate engine standard (see Section VI below). In addition to an engine
standard, EDF supports a rigorous full vehicle standard to drive technology advancements across the
rest of the vehicle, including the transmission, aerodynamic improvements, idle reduction, and more.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 15]
Organization: Honeywell Transportation System (HTS)
We strongly support the separate engine standard reflected in the current proposal, as we believe a
vehicle-only standard creates problems of sustainability and enforcement. For example, while tractor
aerodynamic solutions can provide a tangible benefit for applications that travel long distances at
sustained speeds, studies1 have shown that these require precise adjustment which can be adversely
affected in real world situations (aftermarket modifications, improper adjustment) and could negatively
impact payload capability due to the increased weight. This increases an operator's maintenance costs,
increases compliance complexity for Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), and creates
enforcement challenges for the agencies due to additional application-specific testing, diagnostic, and
inspection criteria. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1230-A1 p.2]
1 Ricardo. Reduction and Testing of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Heavy Duty Vehicles -
Lot 1: Strategy Final Report to the European Commission - DG Climate Action Ref: DG ENV.
070307/2009/548572/SER/C3
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA strongly supports EPA's decision to retain the Phase 2 regulatory structure based on separate
engine and vehicle standards that has been proven effective under the Phase 1 heavy-duty GHG
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.3] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1372, p.96.]] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, p.211.]]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
-------
Although we recognize that many vehicle manufacturers are recommending elimination of the separate
engine standard and removal of the alternative engine mapping approach, MEMA represents many
suppliers that provide technologies that will have a direct impact at achieving the NPRM targets by
having separate vehicle and engine requirements. Therefore, we support retaining separate vehicle and
engine requirements to provide continuity of the standards' regulatory structures and strike a balance
between compliance and market latitude. Additionally, the longer timeframe of the Phase 2 standards
provides the industry foresight to develop the technologies needed to continue to meet the standards,
particularly during the middle and latter stages of the rule. These approaches are vital to the long-term
success of the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 3] [[These comments can also be found
in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 193.]]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
We strongly endorse the continued inclusion of separate but complementary standards for engines and
whole vehicles - this is a fundamental aspect of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.2]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.51.]]
Separate engine standards are critical for the Phase 2 program because they directly address the source
of GHG emissions and ensure that engine manufacturers will incorporate some level of engine
efficiency improvements that will reduce GHG emissions over the useful life of the vehicle. Engine test
procedures and methods have been refined over decades of implementation and provide high certainty
that verifiable emission reductions will occur when engines are in use. Separate engine standards are
also important because engine GHG emission levels can be directly verified through the existing engine
certification test protocols: the Supplemental Emission Test (SET) and Federal Test Procedure (FTP).
The SET and FTP used to certify engines to GHG and criteria pollutant emission standards, such as for
oxides of nitrogen (NOx), provide a direct link between GHG and NOx emission measurement methods.
Further, separate engine standards prompt development of advanced engine technologies that, in turn,
can offer a substantial improvement in a vehicle's fuel efficiency. In the absence of separate engine
standards, some vehicle manufacturers may rely more heavily on vehicle improvements, such as
aerodynamic technologies, that are less effective at reducing fuel consumption and emissions,
particularly as vehicles change vocations, or functions, over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1
p.2]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
As with Phase 1, the Phase 2 proposal includes separate standards for tractor and vocational engines.
The goal of the diesel engine mandates is to reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption by some 4
percent over Phase 1. Consequently, 4.2 of the 24 percent improvement sought for large tractors and 4
of the 16 percent improvement for vocational vehicles must come from engine improvements by MY
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1309-A1 p. 10]
The Phase 2 proposal's long list of potential improvements for compression (CI) and spark ignition (SI)
engines generally fall into the categories of combustion optimization, improved air handling, reduced
friction, improved emissions after-treatment, and waste heat recovery.11 NADA/ATD recognizes that
most, if not all, OEMs will rely on engine performance improvements to achieve compliance with the
Phase 2 program. But, NADA/ATD is concerned that some of these strategies could involve
disproportionately high costs as measured on a unit of benefit realized basis. Consequently, ATD urges
EPA andNHTSAto: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 10]
-------
1. Not to include engine-only mandates in the final rule. Manufacturers should have the ability to choose
the most cost-effective compliance strategies from the basket of all available options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 10]
2. Alternatively, engine-specific mandates should be designed only to prevent back-sliding from the
Phase 1 MY 2018 standards. Moreover, manufacturers involved in both engine and vehicle
manufacturing should be free to apply credits generated by "over performing" with "non-engine"
strategies against their engine compliance obligations, and should be able to provide credits generated in
one vehicle class or category against their compliance obligations for another. Providing OEMs with
such flexibility will maximize compliance and economic efficiencies, bringing to market the most
affordable compliant vehicles and engines. Since a gallon of fuel is a gallon of fuel and a gram of GHGs
is a gram of GHGs, what matters most is the performance outcome, not how compliance is achieved.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 10]
11 Advanced technology strategies include: SI engines: cylinder deactivation, direct injection,
turbocharging/downsizing, and cooled exhaust gas recirculation. CI: automatic transmissions,
hybridization,
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
The Proposal Advances Improvements in the Structure of the Standards; The Agencies Should
Maintain the Separate Engine Standard [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.6]
NRDC also supports the agencies' proposal to maintain separate engine standards. NRDC believes that
the separate standard is necessary to ensure that all feasible and cost-effective advancements are made
in the engine to lower carbon pollution and fuel consumption. As we noted previously, there are
important opportunities for advancements in tractor engines and vocational gasoline engines. NRDC
agrees with the agencies that there are advantages with maintaining separate engine standards including
consistent testing with non-GHG emissions requirements that will prevent any trade-offs between
carbon dioxide and emissions such as nitrogen oxides. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.6]
Organization: Power Solutions International (PSI)
We applaud the agencies recognition for the need to have separate efficiency standards applicable to
engines. Engine manufacturers are required to meet criteria emission standards and imposing the GHG
emission standards on the engine allows manufacturers the opportunity to optimize the engine for fuel
efficiency while developing the engine to meet criteria emissions, specifically, NOx, NMHC and CO.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1161-A1 p.l]
1 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/eng-cert/on-hwv-2014e.xls. 2015 and 2016MY files posted
appear to be incomplete
Organization: Shahed, SM
I applaud the agencies in recognizing the importance of a separate engine efficiency standards, for a
number of reasons: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0033-A1 p.l]
-------
• The EPA has a robust compliance program based on engine testing, making it straightforward to hold
engine manufacturers accountable. Without a separate engine standard, in-use compliance becomes
more subjective. Having clearly defined compliance responsibilities is important to both the government
agencies and market participants. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0033-A1 p.l]
• Engine standards for C02 require engine manufacturers to optimize engines for both efficiency and for
non-C02 emissions, particularly for NOx emissions given the strong counter-dependency between
engine-out NOx and fuel consumption. By requiring engine to meet both NOx and C02 standards,
manufacturers will include technologies that optimize for both rather than alternative calibrations that
would trade lower NOx emissions for higher C02 emissions depending on how the engine and vehicle
is tested. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0033-A1 p. 1-2]
• Because engine fuel consumption can vary significantly between transient and steady-state operations,
only steady-state engine date is required for chassis certification. The separate engine standard for
vocational vehicles provides the only measure of engine fuel consumption under transient conditions.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0033-A1 p.2]
• A separate engine standard enables the federal agencies to exempt certain vehicle classes from some or
all of the vehicle standards without foregoing efficiency improvements. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0033-A1
p.2]
To be effective in achieving these benefits, however, the separate engine standard must not only be
commercially acceptable and reasonable, but also meaningful. The new MDV and HDV standards are
designed to "spur innovation, encouraging the development of and deployment of existing and advanced
cost-effective technologies for a new generation of cleaner, more fuel-efficient commercial trucks...."
The standard are meant to be set "not only on currently available technologies but also on utilization of
technologies now under development or not yet widely deployed while providing significant lead time
to assure adequate time to develop, test, and phase in these [technologies]." [NHTSA-2014-0132-0033-
A1 p.2]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
U.S. EPA and NHTSA Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards
In addition, we strongly support having separate emissions standards for engines and full vehicles.
Without separate standards, there are no guarantees that even modest enhancements that will provide
engine efficiency improvements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicle
are made. As an example, with the recent certification of a 8.9 liter natural gas engine (see Attachment 2
and discussion below), the engine manufacturer implemented a modest enhancement of having closed
crankcase ventilation system, which resulted in lower methane emissions. Other technology
enhancements that can potentially result in lowering greenhouse gas emissions including improvements
in combustion efficiencies, can lead to lowered greenhouse gas emissions directly from the engine.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181 -A 1 p.2]
[Attachment 2 can be found on p. 15 of this docket]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
THE NEED FOR SEPARATE ENGINE STANDARD
-------
We agree with the agencies' proposed structure of the rule, with separate standards for both heavy-duty
engines and the vehicles that use these engines, for three reasons: 1) verifiable emissions; 2)
compatibility with criteria emissions regulations; and 3) ensured investment in efficiency technologies.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.5]
While ultimately the emissions of use occur at the vehicle level, the current regulations are measured by
simulation with the GEM model, not a true full vehicle test. Therefore, the engine standard provides the
closest measure of true real world emissions reductions. Furthermore, unlike many other technologies
which may not last the lifetime of the vehicle, such as low-rolling resistance tires or some aerodynamic
add-ons, the engine cannot be tampered with nor replaced without meeting a similar level of efficiency.
This helps set a guaranteed threshold of fuel savings and global warming emissions reductions
throughout the entire vehicle lifetime without relying solely upon the agencies' ability to enforce the
regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1329-A2 p.5]
Currently, manufacturers must already perform a separate engine test to certify compliance with existing
criteria pollution standards. Therefore, an engine test adds no additional test burden. Furthermore, this
helps to ensure that vehicles are achieving reductions in global warming emissions without
compromising criteria pollution standards. In addition to the engine standard test procedure, in the
agencies' proposed vehicle standard, engines used in GEM must already go through an additional
engine map certification—we therefore recommend that the agencies collect this additional data on the
criteria emissions during this engine mapping procedure to inform future pollution standards and further
ensure that vehicles continue to achieve reductions in both criteria and global warming emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.5]
The structure of the tractor market also lends itself to a separate engine standard. The largest supplier of
tractor engines is independent of the four vehicle manufacturers because of the long-standing desire for
vehicle purchasers to fully customize vehicles down to the precise engine, transmission, and axles
offered by all suppliers. Currently, the vehicle manufacturers are split between those who are more
vertically integrated and those who continue to operate in the way that the market has traditionally
behaved. Given this heterogeneous network of suppliers, a separate standard for engines helps ensure
that all vehicle manufacturers will be able to rely on technology innovation from individual suppliers by
providing the overall certainty that a distributed marketplace cannot. This is exceptionally important in
the case of engines, which have significant complexity and heightened research costs compared to many
other aspects of the vehicle. This will help ensure that vehicle purchasers will continue to have a wide
assortment of compliant, customizable vehicles from all makes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
p.5-6]
Organization: Volvo Group
We fully agree that evaluating vehicle technology as an integrated package is the only effective way to
approximate real world results. The Agencies' proposal provides appropriate credits to promote
development and deployment of many important efficiency technologies. Since the engine is fully
included in the vehicle evaluation, there is no need for, or benefit from, setting separate engine
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.9]
Complete Vehicle Regulation
Volvo Group greatly appreciates that the proposed rule incorporates a complete vehicle approach
utilizing a vehicle simulation (GEM) that incorporates the engine, driveline, and other key inputs that
impact efficiency. GEM determines the fuel consumption and GHG emissions over an assigned road
-------
cycle for each vehicle type. The customer's choice of aero fairings, tire type, engine, powertrain, and
other details are entered as inputs to the tool, and the output is compared to the regulated target for that
vehicle category for the purpose of credit tracking and averaging. This type of modeling has been done
successfully by all major heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers, by Argonne National Lab, and in the
regulatory vehicle model (GEM) proposed for the Phase 2 rule. It is a proven technique that correlates
well with on-road testing. In fact, modeling is a much more accurate approach than in-use or chassis
dyno testing to measure efficiency differences between vehicles because test variables, such as driver
differences, traffic, wind, and weather, are eliminated. Even in chassis dyno testing, driver variability is
significant, key load factors (rolling resistance and aerodynamics) must be measured and simulated, and
testers must compensate for tires interacting with dyno rollers. Simulation offers the most efficient,
accurate, robust and repeatable means for assessing vehicle efficiency, and is therefore the ideal tool for
certification to efficiency and GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.13-14]
Engines should not be Separately Regulated
In the Phase 1 rule, the engine is separately regulated and not included in the vehicle evaluation. Engine
efficiency is measured on the test cycles developed some 30 years ago for criteria emissions evaluation,
cycles that no longer reflect how engines operate in today's vehicles. These tests do not consider the
size and power output of the engine relative to the vehicle's power demand, the installation impact of
the engine system, or the impact of the powertrain on how the engine operates. Instead, each engine's
test points are based on its power and torque capability. A larger engine is tested at higher power and
torque, regardless of the actual power needed for vehicles in which it will be installed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 14]
In recent years, Class 8 tractors (the vehicles that consume most of the commercial fleet fuel) are
increasingly using automated manual transmissions or AMTs. These transmissions retain the high
efficiency of a manual gearbox but use computer control to precisely and automatically shift gears
without the driver operating a clutch or shift lever. Some of these, including the Volvo I-shift and Mack
M-drive, sense vehicle load and road grade to optimize shifts points for maximum efficiency. Because
shifting is fully automatic, drivers are no longer troubled if a downshift is required on a road grade. This
has allowed the industry to increase fuel efficiency by running a lower overall gear ratio, thereby
slowing the engine down at typical highway speeds. Engines have been re-optimized to increase low
speed torque and to maximize efficiency at these lower speeds. This is one example of vehicle
technology changing how engines operate that is reflected in a complete vehicle regulation but not in a
separate engine test. The regulatory engine test cycles, even considering the reweighted RMC, would
reward optimizing the engine for higher speeds where it rarely even operates in today's trucks. An
engine optimized for the regulatory cycles gets higher efficiency in the regulatory test but potentially
worse efficiency on the road in service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 14]
In addition, as improvements are made to the aerodynamic of tractors and trailers, as tire rolling
resistance is reduced, and as accessory loads are reduced, the cruise power demand of vehicles is
reduced. This reduced power demand could allow for use of smaller engines or further down-speeding
the engine. But bigger engines tend to be more efficient on separate engine tests due to fundamental
engine thermodynamics while smaller engines tend to do better on vehicle efficiency because they
operate closer to their peak efficiency torque and speed, in addition to the advantages they offer in
weight and limiting inefficient driving habits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 14]
Perhaps the most significant problem with separately regulating an engine is the failure to consider the
installation impacts of the engine and related technology. Bigger engines obviously take up more space
and demand more cooling capacity that can only be efficiently provided by forcing ram air through the
-------
radiator and charge air cooler. One of the proposed engine efficiency technologies is known as Rankine
waste heat recovery. This system is much like a steam engine, using a working fluid that is pumped
under pressure through a heat exchanger (or boiler) in the exhaust gas to boil the fluid. The pressurized
gas is expanded through a turbine or other mechanical device to produce power that must be delivered
back to the vehicle's powertrain either mechanically through a complex gear train or electrically via a
generator-motor system. The expanded gas must then be cooled back to liquid state using a condenser
prior to re-entering the pumping stage. Beyond the obvious complexity, the whole system adds weight
and requires space on the vehicle. Both space requirements and weight distribution can force tractor
manufacturers to extend the wheel base, which may increase the trailer gap (particularly for day cabs
and short sleepers) resulting in increased aerodynamic drag. Equally concerning is the substantial
increase in cooling required by the condenser, resulting in further increase in aerodynamic drag that can
negate any benefits of the engine efficiency. Another issue with this type system is the substantial lag
time between increased power demand and power availability due to the thermal inertia of the system.
In sum, the system can deliver measurable efficiency in an engine test, but may not deliver in the
vehicle. The whole industry is evaluating the merits of waste heat recovery, but a lot of research is still
needed to determine if this technology is worthy of industrialization. Only then should manufacturers
commit to the intensive effort to make this technology reliable, durable, and cost-effective. Even so, it
will only work well when it is fully developed and when it is applied with the appropriate engine and
vehicle combinations to maximize its efficiency and minimize negative vehicle impacts. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 14-15]
Engines should only be evaluated based on how they operate in vehicles, not on a fixed cycle in a test
cell. Proponents of engine efficiency regulation argue that such testing is more accurate and verifiable
than a complete vehicle approach. They fail to consider, however, that, the correlation between these
engine tests and the desired in-use fuel efficiency is tenuous at best and may even be inverted. There is
little value to highly accurate measurement of a parameter that does not correlate well with the desired
goal. When the engine is measured as part of the full vehicle approach, its efficiency is mapped at more
than 100 points (compared to only 13 test points in the tractor engine test) that feed into a vehicle model
that exercises the engine at the speed and load points dictated by the vehicle's power demand and
drivetrain running on an appropriate road cycle, i.e. like it actually runs in the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 15]
Some have argued that it is important to include a separate engine standard so that manufacturers don't
neglect enhancement opportunities from the component that actually burns the fuel. The problem is that
engineers have been squeezing blood from this stone for decades; this is precisely why the next level of
research is aimed at evaluating technologies as exotic as waste heat recovery to eke out a few more
percent from a highly mature technology. The fact that OEMs are doing this is strong evidence that
OEMs are not neglecting and would not neglect engine technology without the specter of an engine
standard. Furthermore, technologies integrated into the engine itself have to operate in the harshest
environment found on the vehicle; if such measures are unnecessary, it does not make sense for EPA to
insist that manufacturers integrate new technology into this environment. This is especially true in this
rulemaking, where other opportunities for efficiency improvement exist elsewhere on the vehicle. In
fact, any competitive manufacturer must look at all efficiency technologies and select those that deliver
the highest customer value and meet regulatory requirements for the complete vehicle. This is amply
demonstrated in the automobile market, where engine improvements are a huge part of the technology
deployed to meet regulated efficiency without any requirement specifically regulating engines. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 15]
Aside from the technical issues related to engine efficiency regulation, we note the typically high cost
associated with complex engine system development and deployment. These costs include engineering
-------
development, product cost, and manufacturing costs. More concerning however, are on-going costs and
operational impacts associated with maintenance and down-time. Such costs and impacts have typically
been grossly underestimated by regulators, yet they are the primary reasons customers have been
reluctant to purchase such technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 15-16]
We note that there is no benefit accrued from regulating engine efficiency once the engine has been
fully accounted for in the vehicle efficiency evaluation. Unlike the current (Phase 1) rule, wherein the
engine is isolated from the vehicle, all benefits accrued under the Phase 2 proposal are based on
reductions in fuel used and GHGs emitted from complete vehicles. There is no basis or justification for
continued engine regulation. The Agencies have failed to do any assessment of the cost of engine
efficiency regulation considering the loss of vehicle design flexibility, on-going testing and reporting
requirements, and increased total cost of operation for vehicles. However, since there is no assignable
benefit to regulating engines, any cost cannot be justified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 16]
Engine Efficiency
Recognizing that the Agencies have chosen to include a separate engine efficiency regulation, we
encourage them not to increase stringency beyond the proposed levels. Maintaining engine stringency at
these levels pushes the envelope of engine technology without forcing the many negative consequences
we have outlined in these comments. Furthermore, we are very concerned that an engine manufacturer
could generate significant credits (for example by selling alternatively fueled engines) so that they could
avoid selling undesirable, complex, expensive engine technology, while competitors, lacking such
credits, would be pushed out of the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 19-20]
Response:
Separate Engine Standards
The agencies receive many comments on the proposed regulatory structure, primarily related to the need
for separate engine standards. Those supporting the separate engine standards largely agreed with the
agencies' reasons given in the NPRM (80 FR 40181), that they would:
• Enhance the agencies' compliance efforts
• Maintain a connection between GHGs and criteria pollutants (such as NOx)
• Measure transient fuel consumption control
• Enable simpler vehicle requirements for small volume and specialty vehicles
With respect to the compliance advantages, we also see a benefit to having a compliance program that is
not entirely dependent upon computer simulations. ACEEE also supported separate engine standards
"to set out direct, multiyear targets for engine performance sufficient to promote substantial, sustained
investment in engine efficiency." They argued that if "the only signal to improve engine efficiency is
filtered through the lens of whole vehicle efficiency, there will remain uncertainly about how much of
the improvement will fall to the engine."
Those opposing separate engine standards did not dispute these advantages. Instead they expressed
concerns similar to those the agencies discussed in the NPRM. However, commenters opposing
separate engine standards appear to actually oppose separate engine standards that are too stringent
rather than separate engine standards per se. Volvo acknowledged that the proposed stringency would
not cause the adverse consequences. We addressed this issue in the NPRM (80 FR 40182):
-------
Note that commenters opposing separate engine standards should also be careful distinguish
between concerns related to the stringency of the proposed engine standards, from concerns
inherent to any separate engine standards whatsoever. When meeting with manufacturers prior to
this proposal, the agencies heard many concerns about the potential problems with separate
engines standards that were actually concerns about separate engine standards that are too
stringent. However, we see these as two different issues. The agencies do recognize that setting
engine standards at a high stringency could increase the cost to comply with the vehicle standard,
if lower-cost vehicle technologies are available. Additionally, the agencies recognize that setting
engine standards at a high stringency may promote the use of large-displacement engines, which
have inherent heat transfer and efficiency advantages over smaller displacement engines over the
engine test cycles, though a smaller engine may be more efficient for a given vehicle application.
Thus we encourage commenters supporting the separate engine standards to address the
possibility of unintended consequences such as these.
In addition, the agencies pointed out that:
In the past there has been some confusion about the Phase 1 separate engine standards
somehow preventing the recognition of engine-vehicle optimization that vehicle manufacturers
perform to minimize a vehicle's overall fuel consumption. It was not the existence of separate
engine standards that prevented recognition of this optimization. Rather it was that the
agencies did not allow manufacturers to enter input into GEM that characterized unique engine
performance. For Phase 2 we are proposing to require that manufacturers input such data
because we intend GEM to recognize this engine-vehicle optimization. The continuation of
separate engine standards in Phase 2 does not undermine in any way the recognition of this
optimization in GEM.
To address these opposing comments, it is helpful to consider them in the context of three relative
engine stringency scenarios. For each scenario, the engine stringency is compared to levels vehicle
manufacturers would choose if there were no separate engine standards.
1. For the first case, assume the engine standards were low enough that they required less
technology than vehicle manufacturers would choose to apply to meet the vehicle standards. In
this scenario, the concerns raised in the opposing comments would not apply. However, the
benefits of having separate engine standards would occur.
2. For the second case, assume the engine standards were set so they required the same technology
that vehicle manufacturers would choose to apply to meet the vehicle standards. Like the first
scenario, the concerns raised in the opposing comments would not apply, but the benefits of
having separate engine standards would occur.
3. For the third case, assume the engine standards were set stringent enough that they required
more technology than vehicle manufacturers would choose to apply to meet the vehicle
standards. Only in this scenario, would the concerns raised in the opposing comments would
apply. However, since the benefits of having separate engine standards would also occur, the
agencies would need to balance these against one another.
In neither the first case nor the second case would the concerns raised in the comments apply at all, so
they clearly could not justify sacrificing the benefits of having separate engine standards (benefits which
commenters did not dispute) under those scenarios. Thus, only under the third scenario would the
-------
opposing comments be relevant. This is the concern raised by the vehicle OEMs. However, the
agencies do not believe the standards being set are too stringent. As described elsewhere, the tractor
and vocational vehicle standards are stringent, technology-forcing standards that will require vehicle
manufacturers to make extensive use of available engine and vehicle technologies, including integration
of the two. Although the feasibility analyses for those vehicle standards project some technological
flexibility for vehicle manufacturers, we believe it to be very unlikely that manufacturers would be able
to achieve the final vehicle standards with engines that significantly exceed the engine standards.
It is important to also note that we project the engine standards to be both feasible and very cost-
effective. Caterpillar claimed that engine-based controls are expected to be more expensive than
vehicle-based controls. We disagree. For example, we project the 2027 heavy heavy-duty tractor
standards to cost $1,579 per engine to achieve a 5.1% reduction, which is comparable to the cost-
effectiveness of other projected vehicle standards. Thus, if a vehicle manufacturer were to identify
some less expensive vehicle technologies, it is not clear that the vehicle manufacturer's preferred path
would be to scale back these cost-effective engine reductions.
Volvo overstates the risks associated with the regulatory engine test cycles, when they argue that the
reweighted RMCSET would reward optimizing tractor engines for higher speeds than are common in
today's trucks. This ignores the full range of the impacts of engine speeds, including those associated
with the shape of the torque curve. We do not believe manufacturers will intentionally sacrifice in-use
fuel efficiency to gain a false benefit on the engine test cycle.
Finally, even if having separate engine standards resulted in marginally higher costs than would have
occurred without engine standards, the benefits of having the separate standards would still justify the
costs. Therefore, the agencies are finalizing separate engine standards.
Including Engines in GEM
The agencies are finalizing the regulatory structure that includes both separate engine standards and a
recognition of engine fuel maps in GEM. Some commenters expressed explicit support for including
engine fuel maps in GEM to achieve full vehicle simulation. In addition, other commenters who
focused their structural comments on the need for separate engine standards generally did not oppose
the inclusion of engine fuel maps in GEM.
Some of the arguments raised in opposition to separate engines standards seemed to assume that having
separate engine standards precluded including engine technologies in GEM. However, the final
structure accomplishes both.
Chassis Testing
We are finalizing the proposed chassis testing requirements, which will:
• Continue to require chassis-testing for certification of complete HD pickups and vans.
• Add a new requirement for tractor manufacturers to perform demonstration chassis testing on a
small sample of production tractors.
CARB supported expanded use of chassis testing. However, Daimler commented that chassis
dynamometer is highly impractical. While we understand the potential benefits of expanded chassis
testing, we also recognize the practical obstacles to widespread chassis testing. We believe the
requirements being finalized strike the proper balance.
-------
Other Regulatory Structure Issues
It is worth noting that the agencies regard the standards for pickups and vans, vocational vehicles,
tractors, trailers and engines as independent of each other, functioning sensibly on their own. Thus, for
example, the standard for tractors is not dependent on the engine standards (engine standards are
separately implemented by engine dynamometer testing, whereas the tractor standards are implemented
via GEM);37 the trailer standard has no relation to the vocational vehicle standard (these are separate
averaging sets even after ABT is available for trailers). Also, the NHTSA fuel consumption standards
are independent of the EPA greenhouse gas standards and vice versa. Each standard implements, and is
justified by, each agency's respective and distinct statutory authority. See preamble Section I.E. and
Delta Construction Co. v. EPA, 783 F. 3d 1291, 1297-98 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The agencies therefore
regard each of these standards as legally severable.
Although the FRM generally discusses these components separately by category, many if not all the
subcategories are also legally severable. Certainly, anything separated by an averaging set would be
equally severable. For example, standards for heavy heavy-duty engines and vehicles are independent
of the standards for smaller engines and vehicles.
EPA has also issued engine standards for greenhouse gases other than C02, namely N20 and CH4.
These standards are independent of the engine C02 standards. Those C02 standards function identically
whether or not there were the standards for N20 and CH4, and vice versa.
Finally, EPA has taken certain final actions which are exclusive to EPA programs. These include
actions relating to rebuilt engines used in new chassis (i.e. glider vehicles) and certain additional actions
described in Section XIII of the Preamble to the final rule. These actions are independent of the
greenhouse gas standards. (The final rule indicates that glider vehicles must meet greenhouse gas
standards, but the rules are structured so this requirement functions independently of the requirements
providing allowances for usage of engines not meeting criteria pollutant standards for the model year
the glider vehicle is assembled.)
3.3 Proposed Engine Standards for C02 and Fuel Consumption
EPA and NHTSA project that C02 emissions and fuel consumption reductions can be feasibly and cost-
effectively met through technological improvements to diesel engines. The agencies also discussed
several alternatives in the proposal. When considering alternatives, it is necessary to evaluate the
impact of a regulation in terms of C02 emission reductions, fuel consumption reductions, technical
feasibility and technology costs. However, it is also necessary to consider other aspects related to
feasibility and cost, such as manufacturers' research and development resources, the impact on purchase
price, and the impact on purchasers. Manufacturers are limited in their ability to develop and implement
new technologies due to their human resources and budget constraints. This has a direct impact on the
amount of lead time that is required to meet any new standards.
The agencies received some general comments on the overall stringency of the proposed Phase 2 diesel
engine standards. Several entities encouraged the agencies to adopt more stringent standards, while
other commenters cautioned the agencies from adopting final standards that are more stringent than
those proposed. The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the proposed
37 GEM requires a measured engine fuel map, which would also be collected using an engine dynamometer; the
mapping procedure is independent of the engine standards.
-------
engine standards and the more detailed comments. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed
comments and these are discussed in detail below. Instead of merely choosing from among the
proposed alternatives, the agencies have developed a set of final engine standards that reflect our
reevaluation of the technologies, as well as the test procedures. Readers are encouraged to see Chapter
2 of the RIA (especially Chapters 2.6 and 2.7) which includes more detailed discussions of each
technology, updated to reflect new information provided in the comments.
As can be seen from the comments, there is uncertainty and a wide range of opinions regarding the
extent to which these technologies can be applied to heavy-duty engines. Vehicle manufacturers tended
to take the conservative position for each technology and argue that the agencies should not project
effectiveness or adoption rates beyond that which is certain. Many other commenters took a more
optimistic view and argued for the agencies to assume that each potential technology will be highly
effective. However the agencies believe the most likely outcome will be that some technologies will
work out better than expected while others will be slightly more challenging than projected. Thus, the
agencies have tended to make balanced projections for the various technologies, although some may be
slightly optimistic while others are somewhat conservative. We believe the overall effect of this
approach will be standards that achieve large reductions with minimal reliability risks to the industry.
Although the standards are stringent and technology-forcing (since they are based in part on
technologies not fully commercialized at this moment), the agencies project manufacturers will have
some technological flexibility. However, it is important to emphasize that we expect this flexibility to
be constrained by manufacturers' financial abilities to invest in the new technologies. The choice is less
likely to be between doing more or less, and more likely to be between how heavily to invest in each
technology. Manufacturers will probably also need to make choices between developing technologies
themselves, and purchasing technologies developed by suppliers.
The individual comments on the engine standards and responses are presented below. These responses
to the individual comments must be read in the context of the preceding paragraphs, which explains that
the agencies balanced the feasibility, costs, benefits, and risks for the various technologies. For
example, without this context, responses to comments arguing for more stringent standards could be
misread to question the feasibility of the standards. Such responses necessarily focus on the challenges
that engine manufacturers will face in improving their engines, and may not emphasize that the
standards are nevertheless feasible.
Because so many of these comments address the "stringency" of the engine standards, it is also worth
noting the three different ways in which the term "stringency" can be used. It can refer to the level of
technology required to meet the standards. It can also refer to the percent reduction form the baseline.
When used in this context, it is critical to also consider the baseline from which the reductions are
measured. Finally, it can refer to the numerical levels of the standards. When used in this numerical
context, it is critical to also consider the test procedures associated with the numerical standards. As is
discussed the responses below, changes to the baselines and the test procedures being made for the FRM
have resulted in numerically lower emission standards. However, the agencies generally do not
consider these changes to be true changes in stringency because they are independent of the projected
technology. Nevertheless, we are also projecting the feasibility of increasing technological
effectiveness and adoption, which represents a true increase in the stringency of the standards.
Organization: Achates Power, et al.
The proposal issued jointly by EPA and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
("the Agencies") in June 2015 failed to adequately take into account existing and emerging technologies
from suppliers like us. The proposed 4.1% heavy-duty engine efficiency improvement does not reflect
-------
the full potential of available technologies on the shelf today, nor does it take into account the current
state of advanced engine technology development. Indeed, it falls below the historical competitive pace
of improvement achieved in the absence of regulation. The Agencies are proposing a standard that is
less than half the improvement required under Phase 1, with more than twice the lead time to comply.
Manufacturers have already demonstrated, with on the road trucks, the potential to reduce fuel
consumption and C02 emissions from engines used in heavy-haul and line-haul applications by more
than 15 percent. Consequently, the standards as proposed are missing a unique opportunity to promote
the further development and encourage the deployment of promising advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1762-A2 p.l]
More stringent engine standards are imperative to scale the fuel-saving solutions our companies are
creating today. This rulemaking should set the regulatory landscape to drive American innovation
further, not just to maintain the status quo. If the agencies choose to push innovation, our companies and
others will be able to bring new, cost-effective solutions to market. We urge the Agencies to adopt
increased engine stringency standards consistent with the demonstrated capabilities of emerging
technologies. Such standards should be set for vocational vehicles and for heavy-duty trucks and vans
while providing for adequate incentives and averaging, banking, and trading flexibility. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1762-A2 p.l]
Compared to Phase 1, the proposed Phase 2 standards only require a 4% reduction in fuel consumption
and C02 emissions of engines through 2027. This 4% requirement may be met with technology that has
already been demonstrated. If the standard is set too low, it presents a risk that the agencies' goal of
spurring development and deployment of advanced technology may not be met, and it may render the
separate engine requirement largely meaningless. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0049-A1 p.3]
We respectfully recommend the Phase 2 engine standard require a greater reduction in fuel
consumption. Enough promising technologies and time exist to provide compliance at a cost increase
that meets the payback scenarios outlined in the proposed standard. A more stringent standard will spur
more earnest evaluation and development of promising new technologies that provide the required
efficiency improvement in a cost-effective manner to spur even faster adoption of the new generation of
commercial vehicle technology. Based on extensive testing and measured results, we estimate that the
heavy duty version of our opposed piston engine will have 15% lower cycle average fuel consumption
that the Phase 1 standards. Nearly all the advanced engine technologies being developed in the
Department of Energy's SuperTruck program and independently by leading OEMs and suppliers can be
applied to the opposed piston engine for further efficiency improvement. As a result, we propose that at
least a 15% decrease in cycle average fuel consumption compared to the Phase 1 standard be required
for Phase 2. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0049-A1 p.3]
Response:
-------
In response to comment, the agencies have made a number of changes from the proposal. On the
vocational side, we changed the baseline engine to reflect the most recent certification data, making
vocational engine standards more stringent numerically than proposed, while relying on performance of
similar technologies to those proposed to develop the stringency of the final standard. The detailed
vocational engine standard stringency and the baseline to which that stringency is applied is described
fully in Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA. The final tractor engine standards likewise reflect some changes from
proposal. We increased the dis-synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9, and, for the final MY 2027 standard,
increased the projected market penetration for WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15% to 25%, and
included down speed benefits on the engine. As a result, the projected improvements over the baseline for
the 2027 tractor engine standards increased from 4.2% estimated at proposal to 5.1%. Chapters 2.3 and
2.7 of the RIA provide detailed justification of these changes from the proposal. With respect to
comments referring to even greater engine improvements under the DOE SuperTruck program, those
technology demonstrations only focus on a single operating point in an R/D environment. However, since
these engines do not operate at a single operating point in use, we necessarily considered 13 composite
modes in deriving standard stringency. This stringency, not surprisingly, is less than that based on a
single, optimized operating point.
Organization: Advanced Engine System Institute (AESI)
There appears to be ample evidence to indicate that, of the options considered by the agencies, Alternative
4's timeline comes closest to striking the right balance though it does appear greater reductions than the
4.2% in the proposal could well be feasible now and still be quite cost-effective. There are now a
multitude of technologies, including waste heat recovery, turbo-compounding, advanced downspeeding,
hybridization, etc. that can be ready to deploy in the Alternative 4 timeframe or sooner at still reasonable
cost, provided the right policy or market signal and some combination of incentives or credits. EPA may
want to consider whether such incentives or credits, particularly in an era of low fuel prices, might
expedite the development and commercialization of these technologies and promote earlier and more
cost-effective achievement of the program goals. If the Agency chooses not to adopt a technology-
driving engine standard in this rulemaking cycle, it may make sense to incorporate a Mid-term Review or
evaluation of engine related technologies in the not too distant4 future so the standards can be adjusted
and updated to keep pace with innovation and the growing need to reduce carbon emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1 p.2 [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, pp.290-291.]]
Our members have been working with the Department of Energy's Super Truck program to demonstrate
the magnitude of carbon dioxide reductions that engine and vehicle technologies can deliver while
improving criteria pollution control systems. From this advanced research and development program as
well as the independent investment our companies are making with EPA and the California Air Resources
Board at the Southwest Research Institute, we are increasingly confident that there is a fuel
economy/greenhouse gas optimization 'bonus' to be realized from integrating rapidly emerging and cost-
effective NOx control strategies into heavy-duty manufacturers' engines and powertrain designs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1 p.] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.291.]]
There no longer needs to be the once evident tradeoff between engine efficiency and tailpipe NOx
emissions. The presentation attached (attachment 1) illustrates many of the newest NOx and GHG
reducing technologies and the continually declining NOx emissions rates of the more recent and more
efficient engine certifications. Basically, as engine manufacturers have been, with the able assistance of
AESI companies, certifying their engines to tighter criteria pollutant standards and simultaneously
-------
integrating carbon emissions reduction as a design priority, both categories of pollution have been
dropping. However, without the appropriate policy signal, the newest and most promising NOx control
technologies may not manifest on the right timescale to comport with the Phase 2 proposal and thus could
leave significant fuel economy gains until a future time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1 p.2]
Because California, as well as other states, continues and will continue to have very serious ozone
nonattainment problems due mainly to NOx pollution from vehicles, that state is seriously considering an
additional 90% reduction in NOx emissions beyond the 2010 standards for medium and heavy duty
vehicles. Should that state, states in the Ozone Transport Commission region or the Northeast, or EPA,
choose to formally adopt that standard, AESI members will work very hard with our customers to ensure
that that standard can be achieved and to realize the optimization 'bonus' that would make fuel
economy/greenhouse gas targets easier to achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1 p.2-3] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.291-292.]]
Response:
In response to comment, the agencies have made a number of changes from the proposal. On the
vocational side, we changed the baseline engine to reflect the most recent certification data, making
vocational engine standards more stringent numerically than those proposed, and then determining
standard stringency to reflect performance of technologies similar to those on which the proposed
standard was predicated. See RIA chapter 2.7.4. As noted in the previous response, we also made certain
changes in the tractor engine standard following proposal, with the result that the projected improvements
over the baseline for the 2027 tractor engine standards increased from 4.2% estimated at proposal to
5.1%. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 ofthe RIA provide detailed justification ofthese changes from proposal. We
have responded in the previous comment to arguments that standard stringency should reflect the results
ofthe SuperTruck program, and why such stringency is not fully representative of in use drive cycles or
performance.
We envision that future NOx reduction will be possible with minimal to no effect on fuel consumption,
especially if the reductions in NOx are achieved via optimizations of NOx aftertreatment that improve
overall NOx reduction efficiency across all operating ranges. See e.g. RTC Response 15.8.1.
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers
While we support implementation of consistent IRAF procedures and methodologies, we do not support
the inclusion of C02 into IRAF emissions calculations and reporting for any vehicle or engine segment.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271 -A 1 p. 10]
Response:
Please see Response 3.3.4 for a more detailed discussion of infrequent regeneration adjustment factors
(IRAFs). As there stated, we do not believe inclusion of IRAF C02 emissions significantly impact the
stringency of these standards because manufacturers have already made great progress in reducing the
frequency and impact of regeneration emissions since 2007. Rather, the agencies are including IRAF
C02 emissions for Phase 2 to prevent these emissions from increasing in the future to the point where
they would otherwise become significant. In their comments on the NPRM, manufacturers qualitatively
acknowledged the likely already small and decreasing magnitude of IRAF C02 emissions in their
comments. For example, EMA stated, "the rates of infrequent regenerations have been going down since
the adoption of the Phase 1 standards" and that IRAF "contributions are minor." Nevertheless, we believe
it is prudent to begin accounting for regeneration emissions to discourage manufacturers from adopting
-------
criteria emissions compliance strategies that could reverse this trend. Manufacturers expressed concern
about the additional test burden, but the only additional requirement would be to measure and report C02
emissions for the same tests they are already performing to determine IRAFs for other pollutants.
At the time of the proposal, we did not specifically adjust baseline levels to include additional IRAF
emissions because we believed them to be negligible and decreasing. Commenters opposing this
proposed provision provided no data to dispute this belief. We continue to believe that regeneration
strategies can be engineered to maintain these negligible rates. Note, however, the agencies did consider
potential IRAF impacts when establishing the final FTP and SET baselines. Highway operation includes
enough high temperature operation to make active regenerations unnecessary. Furthermore, recent
improvements in exhaust after-treatment catalyst formulations and exhaust temperature thermal
management strategies, such as intake air throttling, minimize C02 IRAF impacts during non-highway
operation, where active regeneration might be required, k
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA Should Not Incentivize Larger Engines
EPA and NHTSA have expressed concern that setting engine standards at high stringency could produce
counterproductive results, e.g., that such standards "may promote the use of large displacement engines,
which have inherent heat transfer and efficiency advantages over smaller displacement engines over the
engine test cycles, though a smaller engine may be more efficient for a given vehicle application." In
general, Allison supports the proposal to maintain separate engine standards. However, Allison shares the
agencies' concerns that if standards are too stringent then incentives could be created to use larger engines
in order to pass certification tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 16]
Specifically, we would note that power shifting Allison ATs actively enable the use of smaller engines ~
in place of larger engines for AMT/MT equipped powertrains ~ while achieving the same amount of
work in the same amount of time. A documented customer fleet test over a 1 year period of time
comparing an 11L engine/AMT vs 7L engine/Allison AT on same daily route, indicates the same level of
performance at GVW and 22% better fuel economy for the 7L engine/Allison powertrain. The parameters
and results of this testing are submitted below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 16]
- Two 42,000 lb GVW pickup and delivery trucks, identical except for power pack and rear axle [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 16]
- AT vehicle: 7L engine, 320 HP with Allison 3000 Series and 4th Gen predecessor of FuelSense® Plus
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A 1 p. 16]
- AMT Vehicle: 11L engine, 379 HP with 12-speed AMT [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p. 16]
- Same daily route over 1 year period in service [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 16]
- AT vehicle with smaller engine achieved 28% better fuel economy (equivalent to 22% reduction in fuel
consumption) with equivalent performance to AMT vehicle with larger engine [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.17]
[Table, 'Results of Performance Testing Between Smaller and Larger Engines', can be found on p. 17 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1]
-------
Response:
We understand Allison's concern. We do not believe that the current engine standards would incentivize
large displacement engines. As a matter of fact, the engine technology road map we are adopting as a
potential compliance pathway includes a path for the engine downsizing together with down speeding.
See RIA Chapter 2.3.9 and Table 2-11 in that chapter. In addition, we believe including the fuel map in
GEM provides a strong incentive to not oversize engines.
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Separate engine standards
ACEEE has supported maintaining standards for tractor and vocational truck engines in Phase 2. The
primary reason for such standards in our view is to set out direct, multiyear targets for engine
performance sufficient to promote substantial, sustained investment in engine efficiency. So long as the
only signal to improve engine efficiency is filtered through the lens of whole vehicle efficiency, there will
remain uncertainly about how much of the improvement will fall to the engine. This is especially
problematic for engines not produced by vehicle OEMs, which play a prominent role in the U.S. market.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.8]
The 4.2% engine efficiency improvement over the 2017 standard proposed by the agencies for 2027
represents such a modest gain as to undermine the argument for the engine standard. An engine standard
that achieves 10% fuel consumption reduction by 2027, which we recommend in these comments, has a
much clearer justification. Other rationales cited for engine standards include ensuring that criteria
pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions for engines remain linked, so that these two types of emissions
can be brought down in tandem. However, given the proposed changes to the weighting of the test point
in the supplemental emissions test (SET) cycle for engines and the possibility that engine certification
will move to a drive-cycle-based approach, the link between GHG and criteria pollutant testing may be in
jeopardy even assuming the separate engine standard is maintained. EPA should consider adjustments to
the criteria emissions program at the earliest opportunity to address this issue and ensure that reductions
in one set of pollutant emissions do not come at the expense of reductions in the other. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1 p.8-9]
Recommendations: Separate engine standards
• Maintain separate engine standards in Phase 2, as proposed, but require substantially greater
improvements in fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.9]
• Adjust the criteria pollutant emissions program for engines as needed to ensure that both these
emissions and GHG emissions decline in tandem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.9]
Engine standards for tractor trucks
Revised weighting of SET cycle test points; baseline engine efficiency [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-
A1 p.9]
The agencies propose to change the weighting of the SET cycle test points in the Phase 2. The re-
weighting would result in a higher percent (33% higher) of time spent at low engine speed points (A and
B speeds) than is reflected in the current SET (p. 40192). This increase in the weights of A and B speeds
means greater weight to points of low brake-specific fuel consumption and consequently show lower
-------
overall cycle fuel consumption than results from current SET weightings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p.9]
ACEEE supports this revised weighting for SET, because it better represents the real-world operation of
today's long-haul trucks. In a presentation in 2014, the Daimler Truck North America (DTNA) shared
data on the operating points of a 2010 model year DDI5 heavy-duty diesel engine in on-road testing. The
majority of the data points for that truck were clustered around A and B speeds and rarely reached C
speeds in its operation. Volvo Group, in another presentation, presented the on-road engine operation of
about 600 line-haul trucks covering 82 million miles, where these trucks spent most of their time under
1500 rpm engine speed. Note that most of these trucks are rated at1800 rpm or more.2 Therefore,
increasing the weighting of A and B points of the SET cycle and reducing the weighting of C points in the
Phase 2 certification protocol is appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.9]
The engines that operate at lower speeds in the real world typically will be more efficient as a result. To
the extent that these engines become prevalent prior to the start of Phase 2, however, these are gains
achieved in Phase 1 or before, and they should be reflected in the Phase 2 baseline. With this baseline
adjustment, it will be clear that the proposed Phase 2 tractor engine standard would achieve even less than
the stated 4% fuel consumption reduction, clearly not an adequate improvement for the decade
from 2017 to 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.9]
Recommendation: Revision of tractor engine baseline [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.9]
• Adjust the 2017 tractor engine baselines to reflect the reweighting of SET points. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.9]
Stringency of the tractor engine standard
The Phase 2 proposal calls for only 4.2% efficiency gains for tractor truck engines by 2027 (p. 40197). In
fact, given that the Phase 2 baseline efficiency level does not reflect the engine cycle test points' new
weighting, as discussed above, the actual improvement the proposal represents is even less than 4%. In
terms both of the importance of greater engine efficiency and the technologies available to increase that
efficiency, the proposal is far too timid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.9-10]
Both the overall and the annual rate of improvement for medium and heavy heavy-duty engines in Phase
2 are lower than those in Phase 1, as shown in table 1. Phase 1 is being implemented in six years, from
2011-2017, while Phase 2 would be implemented over ten years, from 2017-2027. The Phase 1 rule,
adopted in 2011, mandates some improvement from its pre-Phase 1 baseline in 2014, the first year of
compliance. The Phase 2 rule also mandates some improvement in 2021, the first year of compliance,
from the 2017 baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 10]
[Table 1 can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
Improved combustion, engine airflow improvement, friction and parasitic loss reduction, and waste heat
recovery are the major technologies in the agencies' Phase 2 package. The agencies understate the
benefits of these technologies in three ways: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 10]
1. the effectiveness numbers for some of the technologies are low; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p. 10]
-------
2. the penetration levels for some technologies, especially waste heat recovery, are low; [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1280-A1 p. 10]
3. the agencies apply an unexplained discounting of the benefits of engine technologies when they
are combined, which lowers the effectiveness of the package. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-
Alp.10]
Consequently, the increase in tractor engine efficiency called for in the proposal is much too small. These
issues will be discussed in the following paragraphs, leading to our recommendations regarding the
stringency of Phase 2 standards for heavy-duty diesel engines used in tractor trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1 p.10]
Recommendation: Stringency of engine standard for tractor trucks [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
p. 12]
• Any discounting of the benefits of technology packages to account for overlapping benefits
should be based on the specifics of the technologies in the packages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p. 12]
• The standards for tractor track engines should require reductions of at least 9% in 2024 and 10%
in 2027, rather than the much lower levels called for in the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p. 12]
Recommendations: Standards for vocational vehicle engines [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 14]
• Require at least 6% reduction in fuel consumption for gasoline engines in vocational applications
in 2027 to reflect the availability of further friction reduction, turbo downsizing, and variable
valve lift/actuation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 14]
• Strengthen the proposed standards for diesel engines used in vocational vehicles by 3% in 2024
and 4% in 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 14]
Response:
This comment contains constructive suggestions. However, as detailed in the RIA, we believe a 10%
increase in 2027 is beyond what will be feasible in this time frame industry-wide. Data cited by the
commenter mainly relies on the literature, including DOE Supertruck programs, which are not directly
applicable. The values from the literature are single optimal operating points, not operation over the
entire engine map. Further, those values were demonstrated in an R/D environment. In contrast, we must
consider stringency over the 13 modes of the SET, where the reduction over the composite is not as great
as the reduction over the single, most efficient, operating point. Technology effectiveness is also not
additive. Chapter 2.7.5 of the RIA details justifications of the dis-synergy factor used in the rule. These
justifications were also supported by many industry comments, such as the reports made by four major
vehicle OEMs (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894) as well as other comments made by individual vehicle
OEMs (Daimler Truck North America and Navistar). The technology effectiveness of WHR in Rankine
cycle, which we project to be less effective than what this (and other) commenters recommended, were
directly obtained from credible, but CBI information, and also reflect the recommendation from a leading
engine manufacturer. It is critical to derive the standards based on the agencies' weighting factors over 13
modes, vehicle weight, and three vehicle certification cycles. Thus, the adjusted values for stringency are
typically much smaller than the values seen in the literature. Having said that, we have made changes to
increase the stringency of the standards from those proposed. In the final rule, we also readjusted the
-------
baseline of the tractor engine standards to reflect the reweighting impact. See Response 3.3.3 below.
Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA discusses the change in the baseline. We made a few other key changes to
engine standard analysis. For tractor engines, we increased the dis-synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in
2027, and increased the market penetration rate for WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15% to 25% in
2027, and include down speed benefits for engines. As a result of this, the 2027 tractor engine standards'
projected stringency over the baseline increased from 4.2% to 5.1%. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA
detail the justification of this increase. We also readjusted the baseline for the vocational engine
standards, and strengthened the vocational engine standards to reflect certain differences in estimated
technology effectiveness and projection rates from proposal. See RIA Chapter 2.7.9 for projected
compliance pathway for the final standard.
2 2013 Diesel Truck Index
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
Vocational engine certification
Since the public comment closed on the proposal, certification data for a number of new heavy-duty
engines have been made public. Conventional diesel engines from Cummins,18 Detroit Diesel,19 Hino,20
and PACCAR21 in medium- and heavy-duty vocational applications could all be certified in 2016 to the
proposed 2027 standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.6]
Impact on proposal
That an assortment of engine families certified for the 2016 model year from a breadth of manufacturers
already achieve the 2027 fleet-average standard in their respective classes indicates that the agencies have
set far too weak a standard for vocational engines. This, in turn, leads to weakened vocational vehicle
standards, since these engines are incorporated into GEM for compliance. We expect based on careful
examination of recent engine certification data that the agencies will adjust greenhouse gas emission and
fuel consumption targets downward in 2027 to more appropriately account for where the technology is
today and what it can achieve more than a decade hence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.6]
18 Cummins 2016 8.9L MHDD diesel engine (GCEXH05040LAV): FCL = 553 g/bhp-hr, compared to a
proposed 2027 MHDD standard of 553 g/bhp-hr. Certified to vocational applications (ISL9).
19 Detroit Diesel 2016 14.8L HHDD diesel engine (GDDXH14.8EAD): FCL = 517 g/bhp-hr, compared
to a 2027 HHDD standard of 533 g/bhp-hr. Certified to vocational and tractor applications (DD15).
20 Hino 2016 7.7L MHDD diesel engine (GHMXH07.7JWU): FCL = 538 g/bhp-hr, compared to a
proposed 2027 standard of 553 g/bhp-hr. Certified to vocational applications (J08E-WU).
21 PACCAR 2016 10.8L HHDD diesel engine (GPCRH10.8M01): FCL = 509 g/bhp-hr, compared to a
proposed 2027 standard of 533 g/bhp-hr. Certified to vocational and tractor applications (MX-11).
-------
Response:
We have significantly adjusted the FTP baseline C02 emission levels taking into account the new
certification data. Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA details the methodology of how these baseline changes reflect
the certification data referenced by the commenter. See also Response 3.3.3 below.
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
We Strongly Support Preserving the Compliance Pathway Flexibility
In the HD Phase 1 Rule,2 the agencies adopted provisions that allowed original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) to offset any nitrous oxide (N20) and methane emissions above the standard with carbon dioxide
(C02) emissions below the standard. Under this approach, an OEM would convert measured N20 and
methane emissions levels generated on the engine certification test cycle into a C02-equivalent credit.3
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223 -A 1 p.2
We strongly support the maintenance of this provision in the Phase 2 Proposal. Doing so preserves the
valuable compliance pathway flexibility for cross-pollutant trading of methane, N20, and C02. We
further note that this flexibility is not only beneficial to the OEMs in the natural gas sector that use it to
offset methane emissions with C02-equivalent credits, but it is also a necessity for some diesel engine
OEMs who use the provision to offset high N20 emissions with C02-equivalent credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1223-A1 p.2]
We Support the Maintenance of a Common Regulatory Structure for all Fuel Types
We support the common regulatory structure for all fuel types and support the continuation of separate
standards for spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines, as was established in the HD Phase 1
Rule.23 We raise concerns with any proposal to modify the regulatory structure to distinguish among the
fuels used in those categories, and commend the agencies on not doing so in the Phase 2 Proposal. With
respect to the proposed changes to the certification of natural gas engines, we agree with agencies in their
assessment that these changes are merely clarifications that ratify the status quo. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1223-A1 p.5]
2 "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles; Final Rule." Federal Register, September 15, 2011.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2011-09-15/pdf/201 l-20740.pdf. (Hereafter cited as the "HD Phase 1
Rule")
3 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40341.
23 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40193.
Response:
We appreciate your support on the compliance pathway flexibility and the maintenance of a common
regulatory structure for all fuel types.
-------
Organization: American Power Group Inc. (APG)
As the proposed C02 standards Heavy-Heavy Duty-Tractor/Vocational reflect Fuel Economy (FE)
increases manifested through both engine efficiency and vehicle efficiency improvements (tires, aero,
etc.), and as the C02 exhaust emission values are determined by engine dynamometer tests (RMC13:
HHD-line haul Tractor or FTP-HDT: HHD-Vocational), how is the EPA proposing to reflect the vehicle
efficiency improvements within the respective M.Y. engine dyna test procedures? Will there be a
modification to the test parameters and/or a correction factor applied ? The previous answer (6 Aug,
2015) was 'EPA did not propose to reflect vehicle efficiency improvements in the engine dynamometer
test procedures'. Although we understand the given answer, the question remains, if vehicle efficiency
improvements are to be employed to increase FE and reduce C02 emissions, how can this be accounted
for in the results of a dynamometer emission test? To not correct for vehicle efficiency affects effectively
places the burden of all F.E. increase on the engine alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p.4]
Response:
We did not propose to reflect vehicle efficiency improvements in the engine dynamometer test procedures
or adopt any such provisions in the final rule. Any vehicle related technologies that can have an impact on
the vehicle will be recognized and accounted for exclusively by the vehicle standards.
Organization: American Trucking Association (ATA)
The actual stringency in the proposed rule is much greater than what EPA has indicated due to errors in
EPA's baselines and testing protocols, such as: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 13]
• Compliance margins are not provided for engine fuel map audits requiring OEMs to over-design
(if plausible) beyond their certification levels to ensure passing routine audits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1243-A1 p.13]
In summary, these issues create impossible hurdles that could not be met within the framework of the rule
and the agencies must work with OEMs to rectify these matters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1
P-13]
Response:
As described elsewhere in the final rule, each of these factors been considered in the final analysis. First,
although the agencies revised both the SET and FTP baselines, these changes had no impact on standard
stringency. The changes reflect only the baseline from which stringency is calculated. See Response
3.3.3. Second, the final standards do account for a compliance margin. See Section 1.4.3 of this RTC.
Organization: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
The proposed EPA/DOT Phase 2 rule-making can help us pursue both our air quality and GHG emission
reduction goals. To ensure the maximum benefits are achieved from this joint-rule-making effort, we
would like to offer the following suggestions.
Consider more stringent engine emissions standards that reflect the technologies currently available in the
mass market and those that are now being developed and tested. The current proposal improves engine
-------
GHG emissions by 4% compared to the final Phase 1 standards, but we believe more stringent standards
are technically feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1136-A1 p.2]
Response:
In the final rule, we readjusted the baseline of the tractor engine standards to reflect the reweighting
impact of the SET. Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA and Response 3.3.3 detail the change in the SET baseline.
We made a few key changes on engine standards. For tractor engines, we increased the dis-synergy
factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in 2027, and increased the market penetration rate for WHR Rankine cycle
technology from 15% to 25% in 2027, and include down speed benefits for engines. As a result of this,
the 2027 tractor engine standards' projected stringency over the baseline increased from 4.2% to 5.1%.
Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA detail the justification of this increase. We also strengthened the
vocational engine standards.
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
II. Vehicle Simulation, Engine Standards and Test Procedures, B. Phase 2 Proposed Regulatory
Structure [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.2]
We request comment on whether or not a chassis dynamometer test procedure should be required in lieu
of the vehicle simulation approach we are proposing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241 -A 1 p.2]
Bendix does not believe that the agencies should require chassis dynamometer testing in lieu of the
vehicle simulation approach being proposed. At the time of this rule making, there simply aren't enough
chassis dynamometers available to make it a requirement and it is our belief that the associated costs of
making it a requirement are not understood well enough to assess the financial impact. However, we do
believe that the use of chassis dynamometer testing will increase to assess the vehicle benefits of many
new technologies and the resulting data should be able to be used as input to GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1241-A1 p.2]
Response:
We are not requiring chassis dynamometer certification.
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
Engine Standards
There is clearly large potential for greater engine improvements than those currently proposed. Engine
standards are particularly important because these are the most verifiable reductions and central to
achieving overall vehicle efficiency. Diesel engines are more efficient than gas engines, and currently
separate standards are applied to gas and diesel engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.7]
Response:
In the final rule, we readjusted the baseline of the engine standards to reflect the SET reweighting impact.
Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA details the change in the tractor engine baseline. We made a few key changes to
the final engine standards. For tractor engines, we increased the dis-synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in
2027, and increased the market penetration rate for WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15% to 25% in
-------
2027, and include down speed benefits for engines. As a result of this, the tractor engine standards'
projected stringency over the baseline increased from 4.2% to 5.1%. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA
detail the justification of this increase. We also strengthened the vocational engine standards from
proposal.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
There is a discrepancy between the proposed engine standards and the Agencies' projection of engine
capability as implemented in the engine maps used in GEM. Figure 2 shows results of an analysis of the
HD tractor engine maps. When these maps are used with the Agencies' expected class 8 high roof sleeper
cab vehicle technology packages for 2021, 2024 and 2027, the engine map performance on the GEM
cycles is better than the engine standard. This result is an implied engine stringency where engine C02
reduction is driven by the vehicle program with no accompanying NOx control. The Agencies should set
the engine standard at the expected performance of the engine as represented by the engine maps which
define the engine capability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.9]
[Figure 2 can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
Also, the Agencies have assumed engine downspeeding in the vehicle program technology packages.
However, no downspeeding has been assumed in the engine program. An engine optimized for
downspeeding usually has a lower rated speed, plus the peak torque is higher and occurs at a lower speed.
These changes have not been considered by the Agencies. Figures 3-6 from the Draft RIA show that the
torque curves have not been changed for any of the future expected engines. The RMCSET points
therefore have not changed, so no expectation of downspeeding performance is considered in the engine
standard setting. As stated in our oral comments: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p. 10]
[Figures 3-6, 4, 5 and 6 can be found on p. 10-12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
Cummins supports the proposed alternative fuel source categorization [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-
A1 p.27]
The Agencies are proposing that all engines, that are not gasoline-fueled and are intended for MHD or
HHD service classes, must meet the compression-ignition ("diesel") emission standards. This designation
applies regardless of whether an engine is normally considered a spark-ignited engine. Cummins supports
this provision as it provides a fuel neutral assessment and consistent certification requirements relative to
emission standards, including NTE, and certification cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.27]
The Preamble (80 FR 40158, 40207) further indicates that this new designation for alternative-fueled
MHD and HHD engines also applies for criteria emissions. Cummins agrees with this clarification as it
maintains alignment between criteria emission and GHG certification for engines. The Agencies should
clearly define this within the standard setting parts for criteria emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p.27]
Cummins opposes IRAF requirements for C02 emissions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.27]
For reasons outlined in EMA's comments, Cummins opposes IRAF requirements for C02 emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.27]
Cummins requests that the Agencies more clearly explain the methodology for setting the engine
standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.35]
-------
Additional clarification from the Agencies is needed for the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-
A1 p.35]
(a) It appears the reweighted RMCSET was not correctly accounted for in determining the engine
standard levels. Table 4 shows results from an analysis of the engine maps created by the Agencies to
represent future engine technology. The new RMCSET weightings reduce C02 by 1.8%. This impact is
not accounted for in the standard values which appear to assume the Phase 1 RMCSET weightings.
Cummins asks for clarification on this discrepancy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.35]
[Table 4 can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
Response:
At proposal, there was indeed an incorrect discrepancy between the proposed engine standards and the
agencies' projection of engine capability as used in the GEM. This was an error that has been corrected.
The final engine standards for MY 2021 and 2024 use estimates of technology efficiency which are
identical to those used in GEM, and which reflect downspeeding of engines. As the commenter suggests,
the engine standard is set at the expected performance of the engine as represented by the engine maps
which define the engine capability. See Chapter 2.8.4.1 of the RIA. However, as discussed in Section
II.D.(2)(e) of the Preamble, vehicle manufacturers can use a broader mix of engine designs to achieve an
average engine performance significantly better than what is required by the engine standards, and the
MY 2027 vehicle standards reflect engine platform improvements (which are amenable to measurement
in GEM), without forcing each manufacturer to achieve these additional reductions for the engine
standards.
We appreciate Cummins' support for the proposed alternative fuel source categorization.
With regard to Cummins' comment endorsing the EMA position that inclusion of C02 in IRAFs changes
standard stringency, we do not believe this will significantly impact the stringency of these standards
because manufacturers have already made great progress in reducing the frequency and impact of
regeneration emissions since 2007. Rather, the agencies are including IRAF C02 emissions for Phase 2 to
prevent these emissions from increasing in the future to the point where they would otherwise become
significant. In their comments on the NPRM, manufacturers qualitatively acknowledged the likely
already small and decreasing magnitude of IRAF C02 emissions in their comments. For example, EMA
stated, "the rates of infrequent regenerations have been going down since the adoption of the Phase 1
standards" and that IRAF "contributions are minor." Nevertheless, we believe it is prudent to begin
accounting for regeneration emissions to discourage manufacturers from adopting criteria emissions
compliance strategies that could reverse this trend. Manufacturers expressed concern about the additional
test burden, but the only additional requirement would be to measure and report C02 emissions for the
same tests they are already performing to determine IRAFs for other pollutants.
At the time of the proposal, we did not specifically adjust baseline levels to include additional IRAF
emissions because we believed them to be negligible and decreasing. Commenters opposing this
proposed provision provided no data to dispute this belief. We continue to believe that regeneration
strategies can be engineered to maintain these negligible rates. Note, however, the agencies did consider
potential IRAF impacts when establishing the final FTP and SET baselines. Highway operation includes
enough high temperature operation to make active regenerations unnecessary. Furthermore, recent
improvements in exhaust after-treatment catalyst formulations and exhaust temperature thermal
management strategies, such as intake air throttling, minimize C02 IRAF impacts during non-highway
operation, where active regeneration might be required. Finally, as is discussed in Section II.D(2), recent
-------
significant efficiency improvements over the FTP cycle suggest that FTP emissions may actually be even
lower than we have estimated in our updated FTP baselines, which would provide additional margin for
manufacturers to manage any minor C02IRAF impacts that may occur. See also Response 3.3.4.
We have considerably expand the explanation on the methodology for setting engine standards described
in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. This commenter, as well as commenters from the NGO community, noted the
error in not accounting for the Phase 2 reweighted of SET modes in the baseline. Consequently, we
adjusted the baseline engine standards based on the new weighting factors of 13 SET modes. See
Response 3.3.3.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America and Detroit Diesel Company
• And two additional documents posted to the docket, Feasibility Assessment of Future Efficiency
Improvement for Class 8 Diesel Tractor Engines, by Michael P. Walsh and Stephen J. Charlton, plus its
Addendum:
Daimler would like to reiterate that engine standards are unnecessary, given the stringent full vehicle
standards. But if there are going to be standards, then 1) the agencies are correct to reweight the RMC test
conditions as proposed in the NPRM and 2) the agencies' proposed stringencies (in the NPRM) are
essentially at the limit of what is achievable on an engine test. In particular, the paper by Messrs. Walsh
and Charlton dramatically mischaracterizes what is possible and errs in important details about the current
state of technology. Moreover, in the Addendum, when Walsh and Charlton state 1) that Super Truck is
"an important source of data [from which] a technology assessment could be made" and 2) that the SwRI
report "was found to be overly conservative in its assessment of the available technologies," the authors
are stating as fact what are really opinions not consistent with the actual state of technology. We tested
DTNA's Super Truck on the road, on test tracks, and in simulation enough to know this: Walsh and
Charlton inaccurately conclude that Super Truck demonstrates a suite of technologies ready for series
production. Rather, through our extensive expertise in demonstrating the most efficient truck on the road,
we learned that many of the technologies simply are not feasible for series production; they are suited to a
lab and no more. For more details, we refer the agencies to our detailed comments about this paper,
jointly submitted through an additional memo to the docket by Daimler, Navistar, Paccar, and Volvo.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.9]
As previously stated, DTNA has invested heavily in its engine, transmission, aftertreatment and controls
technologies to maintain a fuel efficiency leadership position in the marketplace while at the same time
meeting or exceeding mandated C02 emissions reductions. It is important to note that many of the
technology improvements included in EPA's analysis (in its preamble and regulatory impact analysis) of
potential improvements beyond the 2017 model year have already been implemented in order to meet
reductions required to meet 2017 requirements. EPA should not be projecting improvements for Phase 2
based on improvements that had already been implemented to meet Phase 1. The reason behind this flaw
in EPAs analysis is brought to light in the regulatory impact analysis where EPA makes note on many
occasions that its projected improvements (used to derive the improvements noted in the above tables)
were based on improvements that manufacturers projected in its Super Truck programs. For example,
improvements projected in DTNA's program were estimates based on a 2009 model year engine baseline.
Multiple improvements to DTNA engine injection systems, turbochargers and aftertreatment have since
been made in order to achieve C02 certification levels at or marginally below 2017 SET standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.20]
[Large portion of below text is redacted]
-------
Fuel Maps Developed by EPA for Stringency Assessment - EPA requested comment regarding the fuel
maps it had developed using projections of fuel efficiency improvements from various technologies.
DTNA has reviewed fuel maps EPA had developed for the 2021, 2024 and 2027 model years and
formulated recommendations regarding modifications that EPA should consider when finalizing the
Phase 2 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.49]
As described elsewhere in DTNA's comments, EPA's projections of fuel efficiency improvements are
very aggressive compared to levels that DTNA expects to be achievable in the Phase 2 timeframe. As
DTNA has explained to the agency, the EPA had based its projected efficiency improvements from
estimates that used a baseline case that preceded the 2017 model year baseline used for the Phase 2 fuel
map analysis. Consequently, it appears that EPA has overestimated the how much improvement remains
available since a portion of the improvements from the older baseline engine were already applied in
order to reach 2017 required levels. DTNA recommends that EPA revisit its estimate improvements to
make sure that they had not overestimated remaining improvements which would appear to be the case
given the very low 174 g/kW-hr levels in the 1100 RPM / 1600 N-M region of the fuel map. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.49]
[redacted]
This observation stresses the importance of allowing, as proposed in Phase 2, that as manufacturers
design drivetrains to operate engines in their most efficient speed and torque regions, manufacturers be
able to input to GEM their actual torque curves and actual fuel efficiency characteristics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p.49-50]
Response:
Although we disagree with DTNA and DDC's comments on separate engine standards, we largely agree
with many of their comments on the reports by Michael P. Walsh and Stephen J. Charlton, plus its
Addendum further addressing the Walsh and Charlton reports. As noted in other responses, the
SuperTruck program tests under a single mode, and under what Daimler properly characterizes as 'lab
conditions' for many of these results.
While we appreciate DTNA's comments on various technologies EPA proposed as a basis for the engine
standard, we believe that much of the data and emission values quoted by DTNA are overly conservative.
Our values were based on many data sources, not just from public data sources, but also many CBI
sources from OEMs. On the other hand, our technology effectiveness is still below what many other
stakeholders have urged, including one major engine OEM that recommended a much higher reduction
rate. The 174 g/kw-hr BSFC mentioned by DTNA is the peak efficiency and is only equivalent to 48%
BTE, which is far lower than what DOE SuperTruck programs, which have already demonstrated 50-51%
peak BTE under some conditions. (Although the agencies do not consider the SuperTruck program to be
a sufficient basis for determining overall standard stringency due to its unrepresentativeness, the program
is a valid basis for demonstrating peak technology efficiency.) We believe that the engine standards we
are adopting represent the most achievable reductions for the given time frame on an industry-wide basis
at reasonable cost.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
2. Engine C02 Test
i. Establishing separate standards for child ratings or only for parents
-------
The agencies should not set Phase 2 C02 and fuel consumption standards for the other ratings
(often called the child ratings) within an engine family. EPA requests comment from manufacturers
regarding continuation of the Phase 1 approach to GHG certification of an engine family wherein the
GHG certification of the parent and child ratings was based on emissions results from testing of the parent
rating. 80 FR 40206. DTNA supports the continuation of this Phase 1 approach for certification of parent
and child ratings and the Phase 1 requirement that a minimum percentage of the family actual sales
volume be below certified levels. DTNA agrees that by including the actual fuel map and rating specific
full load curve in the GEM simulation, the range of engine ratings are appropriately represented in the
vehicle certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 16]
ii. IRAF
IRAF - The agencies propose to include C02 emissions and fuel consumption due to regeneration
over the FTP and RMC as cycles as determined in the infrequently regenerating aftertreatment devices
(IRAF) provisions in 40 CFR 1065.680. 80 FR 40193. EPA also requests comment regarding its proposed
Phase 2 modification to include emissions contribution from infrequently regenerating aftertreatment
devices (IRAF) in calculation of final C02 emissions over the SET and FTP test cycles. In Phase 1 EPA
excluded IRAF contribution based on its correct understanding that (in the context of Phase 1 stringency)
such contributions are minor, and that competitive pressures would drive manufacturers to continue to
seek ways to minimize frequency of regeneration and its associated fuel efficiency penalty. DTNA
believes that the rationale for excluding IRAF in Phase 1 is equally valid for Phase 2. DTNA does not
foresee circumstances in which manufacturers would seek to increase IRAF associated fuel consumption
penalties. In fact, the proposed fuel efficiency improvements are more than likely to pressure
manufacturers towards developing engines at higher in cylinder NOx levels which are beneficial to
passive regeneration of diesel particulate filters, and lower particulate emissions levels due to the natural
tradeoff between NOx and particulates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 16]
Consequently the need for active regenerations and the associated IRAF impact on fuel consumption can
be expected to decrease. DTNA recommends that for the above reasons and in light of both mitigating the
vastly increased burden of Phase 2 regulations, that EPA maintains the Phase 1 approach of excluding
IRAF effects in the testing and data processing for Phase 2. Should EPA choose to move forward on its
proposed path of including IRAFs in its Phase 2 regulation, DTNA suggests that in light of the
demanding stringency of Phase 2 regulations, the associated effective increase in stringency due to
inclusion of IRAFs be accounted for and avoided by raising the 2017 baseline C02 levels and Phase 2
engine standards by an appropriate amount. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 16-17]
iii. DF
DF - EPA requests comments regarding the appropriateness of continuing the practice of engine
manufacturers adopting assigned DFs for C02 emissions. 80 FR 40206. During Phase 1 discussions
DTNA shared data from laboratory and field tests with EPA to demonstrate the in-use fuel efficiency
performance of its products. These data illustrated that fuel efficiency remains stable over the course of
high mileage testing and thereby support EPA's rationale of allowing manufacturers to adopt a 0.0 g/bhp-
h additive deterioration factor for C02 emissions. DTNA agrees that it is prudent for EPA to consider,
subject to good engineering judgement, allowing the same assigned DF for advance or off-cycle
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 17]
iv. Reweighting of RMC
-------
RMC reweighting and engine stringency. EPA requests comments regarding proposed changes
to the test methodology for determining C02 emissions levels for engines certified to proposed tractor
standards. 80 FR 40192. DTNA, as is stated elsewhere in these comments, strongly recommends
elimination of both FTP and SET engine standards in the GHG Phase 2 program for many reasons, one of
which is that fixed engine cycles currently and in the future will inadequately reflect actual engine
operation across a range of applications, and over time as drivetrain designs evolve. Both of these
shortfalls can be addressed by using a complete vehicle approach. That said, DTNA applauds EPA's
effort to improve the alignment between the tractor certification SET test cycle and engine operating
conditions so that the test cycle is more reflective of how engines operate in line haul tractor operation.
DTNA has gone on record on numerous occasions, and has presented data to the regulators, informing
that the weighting scheme currently applied in the SET protocol is inappropriate as a measure of C02
emissions for GHG regulations. A mismatch between operating points of the certification test cycle and
the operating points in actual operation is problematic because it can cause engine manufacturers to
develop technologies for the purpose of meeting regulatory requirements that do not provide the benefit in
the real world that regulators intended and that end users will nonetheless end up paying for. Regulators
must seek to correctly align regulatory requirements to actual operation so as to avoid such unintended
consequences and the associated waste of manufacturers engineering efforts and cost to end users for
technologies that provide little real world benefit. The example provided below illustrates that the
operation at "C-speed" in the current SET protocol grossly overemphasizes the negligible operation that
occurs in actual operation at high engine speeds. Over the past decade, vehicle and engine
manufacturers,in their drive for improved efficiencies, have developed their products and educated end
users to operate their products at lower engine speeds to improve fuel efficiency and reduce operating
costs. This has resulted, as depicted in the example, in dominant operation in the A-speed and B-speed
regions. Clearly, the proposed changes to increase weighting of the lower A-speed and B-speed points are
appropriate and necessary for the GHG Phase 2 test cycle to better reflect actual operation of today's
vehicles. Further, in shifting emphasis away from C-speed operation, EPA proposes to shift weighting to
the lower A-speed of the SET. DTNA agrees that moving the weighting in this manner, as opposed for
example to B-speed operation, is appropriate consideration of the likely continued trend towards more
efficient drivetrain designs that encourage operation at lower engine speeds in its NAFTA line-haul
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 18-19]
[The graphics, plots of the RMC and actual measured engine operation, showing very little C-speed
operation, can be found on p. 19 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
Reduced Parasitics - Variable Speed Coolant Pumps - DTNA has realized parasitic load
reduction through the development and introduction of variable speed coolant pumps on its production
DD13 and DD15 engine families. The benefits of this technology are dependent on the application but are
realized when cooling demands require less than full flow capacity of the coolant pump, which in most
applications is a considerable percentage of operating time. High duty cycle applications, such as those
for which the DDI6 engine is targeted, do not benefit as much since cooling system demands are greater.
Consequently the DD16 family does not include this feature. This technology is already implemented and
cannot be included in projections for the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.21]
Aftertreatment - EPA estimates potential benefit of 0.5% due to future aftertreatment design
improvements to reduce backpressure in conjunction with improved aftertreatment NOx reduction
performance to handle higher engine out NOx levels that are a natural outcome of retiming for improved
combustion. DTNA has completed a redesign of its aftertreatment system for its 2016 model year
products with consideration for improved backpressure by introducing improved substrates. However,
requirements for improved NOx reduction performance via improved DEF mixing directionally work
against backpressure reduction resulting in negligible difference in final backpressure performance. As
-------
development is pressed to further combustion improvements for C02 reduction it will be a challenge to
maintain or avoid further increases in backpressure in the future. It may be anticipated that in order to
achieve fuel efficiency improvements proposed by EPA, aftertreatment system redesign may be required
to convert even higher NOx flux from engines that are tuned to higher NOx levels to achieve fuel
efficiency goals while at the same time meeting packaging and weight design constraints driven by needs
for improved vehicle efficiency. Substrate manufacturers continue to develop improved materials
intended to improve pressure drop characteristics which may help to avoid additional backpressure
increases, [redacted], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.21-22]
Downsizing - DTNA offers heavy-heavy duty engine products that span a range of displacements
from 12.8L to 15.6L and has considerable experience in developing these products for maximum
efficiency across a range of applications. Our experience supports that within this product range, the
optimum displacement for in-use fuel efficiency for fleet applications (which because of their high
volume, account for a significant fraction of Class 8 fuel consumed) is the DDI5 (14.8L displacement).
DTNA expects that trends in current and future drivetrain designs will continue to highlight the DDI5
displacement as the fuel economy leader. It is well known and discussed elsewhere that drivetrain design
trends are evolving towards ever decreasing engine operating speeds. At higher engine speeds and
moderate-light loads, there is a theoretical efficiency advantage of a smaller displacement engine since a
smaller fraction of the fuel burned is lost to overcoming parasitic losses to smaller contact surfaces of
rotating and sliding components. However, with downspeeding, as engine operating speeds are reduced,
overall friction losses are reduced and the friction advantage of the smaller engine diminishes. In concert
with reduced operating speeds, the engine torque capacity must increase to achieve required power levels
demanded of the vehicle so as to avoid loss in gradeability and the operator's over the road performance
(route time). As a result, since the smaller displacement engine has less capability to produce the
necessary high torque levels it is less capable of downspeeding without compromising either durability or
performance. Consequently DTNA suggests that downsized engines not be considered to provide a fuel
efficiency benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.22]
Model Based Control (MBC) - EPA projects a very significant 2% efficiency improvement due
to implementation of MBC when operating over transient conditions. DTNA has expended considerable
effort to successfully apply the principles of model based controls to multiple systems. MBC approaches
are or have been used to control engine coolant temperature, turbocharger inlet temperature, peak firing
pressure and EGR systems amongst others. Extensive research has also been applied to combustion and
emissions control using MBC approaches, seeking improvements over transient operation to reach steady
state efficiency levels. Extensive work to generate data has shown that controls system improvements can
only compensate for a fraction of the negative efficiency impacts of hardware dependent turbo lag, gas
transport delays and thermal inertias. We have found that small efficiency improvements during transients
may be reached, once again, at the cost of increased NOx levels. DTNA has learned that implementation
of Neural Network approaches and on-line optimization carries computational demands that far exceed
existing and foreseeable system capacity. While fuel efficiency gains from MBC are anticipated to be
[redacted] we believe that continued MBC refinement can lead to improved transient torque response,
thermal protection and transient particulate control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.22-23]
General Engine Compliance Margins - EPA requests comment from manufacturers regarding
continued declaration of FCLs above the measured levels during certification of engines to future GHG
standards as was the case for DTNA's Phase 1 heavy-heavy duty engines. 80 FR 40195. DTNA's FCLs
included compliance margin for measurement variability to ensure compliance during possible EPA
confirmatory testing. DTNA is likely to continue to include compliance margin in the future and
recommends that EPA considers, in setting its future standards that manufacturers will need to set FCLs
above measured levels for this reason. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.23]
-------
5. C02 from Urea SCR Systems
C02 from Urea SCR Systems - Comments are requested by (80 FR 40193) regarding its Phase 2
proposal to allow manufacturers to downward adjust its gaseous emission measurement based engine fuel
map points by the amount of C02 that is generated by the consumption of urea. The consumption of urea
would be averaged during each sampling period to calculate the correction. EPA estimates that up to 1%
of an engine's C02 emissions may be derived from the consumption of urea. The agencies further
explained that it would apply this correction with any engines for which the engine manufacturer applied
the correction for its fuel maps during certification. DTNA supports that manufacturers should be
allowed to downward correct its Carbon mass balance based fuel consumption measurements by the
amount contributed by DEF consumption on the condition that EPA and manufacturers work together to
define measurement procedures for urea consumption that reliably and repeatedly produce satisfactorily
accurate results. It is appropriate that EPA would apply the same adjustments when assessing a
manufacturers fuel maps in an audit or confirmatory test scenario. Although EPA states that it does not
propose a urea contribution correction to engine C02 emissions that are measured over the SET or FTP
for certification purposes, it requests comment (80 FR 40193) regarding both doing so, and regarding the
magnitude of such an adjustment. EPA suggests that commensurate with a downward adjustment of
reported C02 levels, the C02 standards themselves should also be reduced by a fixed amount of 1 - 2
g/bhp-h. DTNA does not support either the offset of manufacturer's certified C02 levels or the downward
adjustment of standards for C02 contribution related to urea consumption. Manufacturers will vary in
their approaches to NOx control strategies and consequently the urea contributions to C02 emissions will
vary. It would be inappropriate for EPA to assume a given downward adjustment in standards when any
given magnitude of adjustment would not be appropriate given that there is likely to be a range depending
on manufacturers DEF based control strategies. DTNA recommends no change to the Phase 1 practice of
including C02 from all sources in the certified C02 levels for an engine, thus making the manufacturer
accountable for its design philosophy for NOx control, DEF injection and its consequences to C02
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.24]
7. NOx
Forcing decreased tailpipe NOx comes with the tradeoff of increased GHG emissions - Reduction in
tailpipe brake specific NOx emissions has classically been achieved at the cost of degraded engine
efficiency and higher C02 emissions. Even with the addition of highly effective NOx aftertreatment, this
tradeoff continues to exist as is evidenced by industry efforts to improve NOx aftertreatment performance
in order to optimize combustion for higher efficiency at higher engine out NOx levels. A Continued push
for reduced engine out NOx emissions should be avoided in consideration of basic fuel efficiency
compromises. Since ultimately the emissions level of a vehicle travelling over the road is a function of
both the brake specific emissions of the engine and the road load required of the vehicle, a highly
effective approach to reducing emissions of both C02 and NOx is to improve the efficiency of the vehicle
so that less power is required of the engine. Improvements in tire rolling resistance, cab aerodynamics,
trailer aerodynamics all contribute to reductions in required road load and should be carefully accounted
for in evaluating GHG Phase 2 positive contribution to NOx emissions reductions. In summary, the EPA
should work with us to understand the tradeoffs—and likely increase in GHG emissions—that would
occur if the agency decided to seek lower engine-out NOx; and the EPA should recognize the decreased
NOx benefit from improved vehicle drag. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.28]
Alternate C02 Standards - The agencies ask whether the alternate C02 allowance, used for non-SCR
engines in Phase 1, should be eliminated. We think that the standard is no longer needed, as it
was primarily intended to help [redacted] prior to its adoption of SCR. Now, the agencies should
eliminate the option. 80 FR 40206. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.30]
-------
Response:
We will use the same approach as Phase 1 for certification between parent and child ratings as the
commenter suggests. We do not believe inclusion of C02 into IRAF will significantly impact the
stringency of these standards because manufacturers have already made great progress in reducing the
impact of regeneration emissions since 2007. Nevertheless, we believe it is prudent to begin accounting
for regeneration emissions to discourage manufacturers from adopting compliance strategies that could
reverse this trend. See Response 3.3.4.
We appreciate DNTA's positive comments on DF and SET reweighting. While we also appreciate
DTNA's comments on various technologies EPA proposed for the engine standard setting, we believe
that much of the data and emission values quoted by DTNA are overly conservative. Our values were
based on many data sources, not just from public data sources, but also many CBI sources from OEMs.
On the other hand, our technology effectiveness is still below what many other stakeholders have
proposed, including one major engine OEM that recommended a much higher reduction rate. We believe
that the engine standards we are adopting represent the most achieveable reductions for the given time
frame on an industry-wide basis. For diesel engines utilizing urea SCR emission control systems for NOx
reduction, the agencies will allow, but not require, correction of the final engine (and powertrain) fuel
maps to account for the contribution of C02 from the urea injected into the exhaust. We understand
DTNA's concerns on NOx trade-off with C02 and we will take into consideration any effect on C02
emissions when developing any future NOx standards.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America, Navistar Inc., Paccar Inc., and the Volvo Group
Reasons for Additional Comment Submission
Since the close of the formal comment period on October 1, 2015, there continues to be important
discussion and reaction to the proposed greenhouse gas emissions stringency for engines separate from
the complete vehicle requirements. In particular, a paper by Steven Charlton and Michael Walsh1 (the
"Charlton/Walsh Paper") submitted to the docket calls for a sizable increase in engine stringency citing
various sources to support its contentions. The arguments in that paper are highly speculative,
unsubstantiated, misleading and/or inaccurate, and must not form the basis for increased stringency.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.2]
The purpose of this document, submitted by the commercial vehicle OEMs, is to provide the Agencies
with the best technical data and assessments as input to the GHG and Fuel Efficiency Phase 2 regulations.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.2]
Background Statement
The major heavy-duty truck manufacturers have invested heavily in fuel efficiency for many years, driven
by the competitive demand for lowest commercial vehicle operating cost. We are fully supportive of
sensible heavy duty GHG and efficiency regulations that reduce fuel consumption in real-world
operations while meeting market requirements including adequate payback, durability, and reliability.
Furthermore, regulations should invite open competition to deliver maximum benefits to vehicle
purchasers at least cost, thereby incentivizing purchase of the most efficient vehicles and maximizing
benefits to society. Regulations should not favor one vehicle manufacturer or supplier over another, nor
should they focus on one vehicle subsystem over another, recognizing that manufacturers and suppliers
may have differing levels of focus and expertise. While one manufacturer may choose to focus on highly
advanced engine technology, others may choose to focus on vehicle aerodynamics, powertrain
-------
integration, advanced vehicle controls, or any combination of these and other technologies. EPA has
consistently recognized the importance preserving competition and encouraging innovative efforts for
meeting stringent emissions standards, rather than forcing all manufacturers into using the same
technological path. Setting separate engine standards based on the upper limits of advanced research
would force all manufacturers to dedicate their limited resources on this with no assurance of success.
Conversely, allowing manufacturers to focus on a wider variety of technologies will drive broader
innovation and ultimately identify new opportunities for efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1
p.2-3]
Recommendation
EPA and NHTSA should not increase the engine efficiency targets proposed in the NPRM. As a
fundamental principle, separate engine standards provide no environmental or energy efficiency benefit
because the GHG reduction benefits are calculated only with the engine incorporated into the vehicle.
Therefore increasing the stringency of a separate engine standard provides no direct environmental
benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.3]
Consequently, the separate engine standards should be set at a level that avoids unintended consequences.
EPA and NHTSA should recognize the importance of considering the engine as an integrated part of a
complete vehicle. With this approach, the agencies can avoid forcing engine optimization on fixed test
cycles that do not, and cannot, replicate how the engine operates in each vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1894-A1 p.3]
By driving engine efficiency as part of the complete vehicle, manufacturers must optimize the engine for
the actual engine operation, dictated by the vehicle power demand, powertrain, and controls. At the same
time, manufacturers will be able to consider the impact of engine size, weight, and cooling demand on the
vehicle efficiency when making optimal design tradeoffs, while avoiding the negative consequences of
far-reaching engine standards as proposed in the Charlton/Walsh Paper and that the Agencies identified in
the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.3]
A vehicle has many different subsystems and components that a vehicle OEM can innovate, design and
integrate to optimize overall vehicle fuel economy. Vehicle efficiency obtained through system
integration is far more significant than any single subsystem or component efficiency. In fact, two
components that each have lower efficiency than their baseline counterparts can be combined and
integrated to produce higher overall system efficiency through vehicle integration. We can illustrate this
by considering just two components from a vehicle as an example, the engine and the transmission. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.3]
While continuously variable transmissions (CVT) have not been demonstrated as viable technology for
the HD highway market, the concept can be helpful in this illustrative example. From a component
perspective, a CVT has lower average mechanical efficiency than a traditional, discrete ratio, counter-
rotating transmission. However the CVT eliminates the existing fixed relationship between vehicle and
engine speed. This enables the engine to be operated at its peak efficiency point for a requested power
demand. Combine this with an engine that is designed and tuned specifically to be integrated to the CVT,
and the result is a more efficient vehicle. This same engine would be optimized for operation with a CVT
rather than the standard FTP cycle. As such, this same engine would however have lower overall
efficiency when measured over the standardized test cycles than a typical engine, when compared on a
component basis. However, the integration of these two so-called "less-efficient" components yields a
vehicle that is more efficient than the combination of the two standard, baseline components.
Furthermore, in addition to fuel economy improvements, the CVT with a compatibly optimized engine
-------
could potentially reduce criteria emissions through engine/aftertreatment performance improvements. The
flexibility of decoupling engine speed from vehicle speed enables the vehicle to avoid areas of the engine
speed-torque map that have poor aftertreatment efficiency during real-world operation. This improves
overall aftertreatment performance, further reducing real-world vehicle emissions in addition to C02
reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.3-4]
EPA must allow manufacturers to innovate solutions that optimize vehicle efficiency for real-world
situations rather than forcing manufacturers to optimize components under lab environments.
Constraining vehicle design by mandating the use of certain components is extremely counter-productive
for fuel efficiency. While such constraints may benefit a subset of component manufacturers, there would
be an unintended detrimental cost in fuel economy and environmental impact. Furthermore vehicle
purchasers would ultimately and unfairly bear the higher financial costs. There is no technical,
environmental, or financial common sense in driving small improvements in engine efficiency standards
when they will potentially limit the ability to achieve vehicle efficiency improvements. Vehicle
manufacturers must be allowed broad choices of solutions in order to encourage innovation and thus
produce the most efficient vehicles possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.4]
As mentioned in the subject paper, the 21 CTP report on US Department of Energy commercial vehicle
programs states, "The engine systems Goal 1 of a 50% BTE for an emissions compliant engine has been
achieved. Two of the four SuperTruck teams have successfully demonstrated BTE greater than 50% in
on-road tests using commercial, ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel." This statement is misleading for a number
or reasons: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 13-14]
• The 50% BTE is achieved at a single operating point, not on a test cycle that reflects the engine's
operating range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p. 14]
• NOx emissions are demonstrated at 0.2 g/bhp-hr only on a new, single engine. No margin is provided
for variability, deterioration, OBD, or in-use requirements. It is incorrect to characterize these engines as
being emissions compliant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 14]
• These engines are designed for optimum fuel efficiency with compromises made to life expectancy and
reliability, and were intended only for short-term demonstration, and without commercially acceptable
constraints on cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p. 14]
Note that in SuperTruck 2 (a follow-up initiative launched by DOE for manufacturers to further
demonstrate efficiency technologies), DOE has proposed only lab demonstration of the target 55% BTE.
DOE clearly recognizes that the proposed pathways are extremely tenuous, do not account for in-vehicle
operation, and have never even been laboratory demonstrated with a complete engine (vs. a single
cylinder approximation). The technologies discussed in this section of the paper are simply an overview
of the menu of approaches, none of which are proven feasible. The only engines that have ever
approached 55% BTE are huge ship engines running with unlimited cooling water, unlimited NOx, and
controlled steady state duty cycles. These engines deploy multiple waste heat recovery systems to
generate electricity that is counted into the BTE, even though not converted back to mechanical
propulsion. It is not reasonable to expect a truck engine to achieve this level of efficiency, given the many
constraints and requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 14]
Conclusion:
Furthermore, there is no efficiency or GHG contribution from a separate engine standard that is not
already included in the complete vehicle standard. The logical and appropriate conclusion is that engine
-------
improvements should be driven from the complete vehicle standard and any separate engine standard
should represent a level that can be achieved without compromise in vehicle efficiency or lowest total
cost of vehicle operation, not an aggressive limit that forces manufacturer to focus on the engine over
other potential efficiencies. EPA and NHTSA have accomplished this in their phase 2 proposal. These
engine targets should not be made more stringent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.20]
1 htto://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1237
Response:
We understand the principle behind the comments made by these four major vehicle OEMs. While we
believe that the separate engine standard is necessary, we agree they should not be set in way that would
prevent optimization of the engines for the vehicles. However, we believe they overstated the significance
of this issue. Certain technologies may perform better in the vehicle than over the engine test cycle, but
these marginal differences do not equate to actually preventing manufacturers from optimizing either
engine or vehicle efficiencies for in-use emissions. The commenters also ignore the role emission
averaging can play in this process by allowing different degrees of optimization across engines.
In regard to the comments on component-by-component optimization, we also understand the principles
behind these comments. Our vehicle standards promote total vehicle optimization, which is realized by
our certification tool - GEM. GEM allows all individual components, such as advanced engine
technologies that can be measured through the engine dynamometer, advanced aero-dynamic technology,
tire rolling resistance, and efficient transmission and axle design into a seamless package that is modeled
and certified in a systematic manner. The only component that is required to comply with an individual
standard is the engine component, which is recognized by separate engine standards. Section II.B.2.b of
Preamble details the justifications surrounding why we need the separate engine standards. As can be
seen, we fully recognize the pros and cons of having separate engine standards, and we believe that this
level of component optimization is appropriate and reasonable.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Engine standards must be strengthened
As stated above, engine standards provide proven, measureable and durable real-world emissions
reductions. Engine technologies can also provide a significant portion of total vehicle fuel efficiency
potential. And because combination tractors and vocational trucks account for about 85 percent of fuel
use in the medium and heavy-duty sector, establishing a robust engine standard to drive technologies in
those classes is critical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.27]
Unfortunately, the Agencies have proposed a 4.1 percent engine efficiency improvement over Phase 1 for
diesel engines, which falls far short of what is technologically feasible. These proposed standards are not
technology forcing considering the current state of advanced engine technology development, nor do they
reflect the full potential of available technologies on the shelf today. It is clear that the proposed engine
standards do not meet the Agencies' statutory requirements for appropriate and maximum feasible
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.27]
The administrative record does not support the Agencies conclusion in the Preamble that they have taken
"a more technology-forcing approach than in Phase 1, predicated on use of both off-the-shelf technologies
-------
and emerging technologies that are not yet in widespread use." The proposed standards can be met with
today's technologies - manufacturers need not rely on any advanced technologies;130by definition, they
are not technology forcing. The Agencies finalized a 9 percent engine improvement in the Phase 1 rule to
be implemented between 2014 and 2018. In comparison, the proposed 4.1 percent improvement is less
than half of the improvement required under Phase 1, and the Agencies are proposing to give
manufacturers more than twice as long. And because the proposed standards will not be fully
implemented until 2027, they preclude the opportunity to set more meaningful standards until 2030 under
NHTSA's statutory requirements for lead-time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.28]
A recent report by Walsh et. al. performed an exhaustive literature review, and critiqued the methodology
and assumptions used by the Agencies in their determination of stringency.131 The study found "the
Agencies to be overly conservative in their assessment of technology effectiveness, cost/retail price and
adoption rates, which is reflected in the relaxed HD tractor engine standards proposed."132 Based on the
recommendations of the report, EDF requests that the Agencies set significantly more stringent Phase 2
engine standards that are consistent with the Clean Air Act's 202(a) technology forcing authority. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.28]
Proposed engine standards are weaker in the real-world than rulemaking documents claim
Although the proposed engine standards will nominally achieve a 4.1 percent emission and fuel
consumption reduction, in reality they are equivalent to a 2.1 to 3.1 percent reduction because of the
effects of the proposed test procedure changes.133 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.28]
The Supplemental Engine Test (SET) was adopted as the sole test cycle for GHG compliance
determinations in EPA's medium- and heavy-duty Phase 1 GHG rule finalized in September 2011. In
Phase 2, the Agencies are proposing to revise the cycle weighting for C02 compliance testing purposes,
based on the belief that the revised weighting would make the SET more representative. The proposed
cycle re-weighting is shown in Figure 1 below.134 The Agencies increased the weighting of the A speed
from 23% to 45% and reduced the C speed from 23% to 5%. The B speed weighting remained essentially
unchanged. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.28]
[Figure 1 can be found onp.29 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1]
The fuel consumption of a heavy-duty tractor engine would usually be lower at the A speed than the B or
C speeds. Consequently, an engine tested on the re-weighted cycle would have approximately 1 to 2%
lower C02 emissions as compared to levels measured on the existing cycle.136 The proposed cycle re-
weighting therefore relaxes the standards, and the Agencies should account for this effect in the setting of
the engine standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 P.29]
Proposed engine standards do not reflect the compliance potential of existing and emerging technologies
In summary, the Walsh et. al. study found that EPA and NHTSA's proposed standards do not reflect the
current state of existing and emerging engine technology development. The analysis found that significant
progress in improving engine fuel efficiency has already been demonstrated by all manufacturers
participating in the DOE SuperTruck Program. In fact, manufacturers have demonstrated with on-the-road
trucks the potential to reduce C02 emissions from the engine by 15 to 20%.137 A wide range of heavy-
duty engine technologies have been improved upon or developed, and applied successfully to
demonstration trucks in the SuperTruck Program. These technologies include combustion/closed cycle
efficiency improvements, air handling/open cycle efficiency improvements, friction and parasitic loss
reduction, downspeeding, and waste heat recovery. And both Volvo and Cummins have already
-------
demonstrated at least 48% BTE on their demonstration vehicles without advanced technologies like waste
heat recovery ("WHR"),138 compared to the proposed standard of 44.6% BTE (441gC02/bhp-hr). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.29-30]
Furthermore, the most recent NAS report,139 which conducted an in-depth progress assessment of the
SuperTruck program, concluded "the engine systems Goal 1 of a 50% brake thermal efficiency (BTE) for
an emissions compliant engine has been achieved."140 A 50% BTE level implies an engine C02 standard
of 390 g/bhp-hr or a 15% emissions reduction compared to 2017 levels. NAS also concluded "a pathway
to achieve 55% is being developed."141 Figure 2 below graphically shows the Phase 1 and proposed Phase
2 emission standards (expressed as BTE) and, for reference, the assessments of NAS, SwRI, and the
results of the SuperTruck program.142 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.30]
[Figure 2 can be found onp.30 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1]
As can be seen from Figure 1, the proposed engine standards fall significantly short of what is projected
as possible by NAS and is already being demonstrated within the SuperTruck program. Data from the
SuperTruck teams from Daimler, Navistar, Volvo, and Cummins/Peterbilt is highly relevant to the
development of the engine standard and the Agencies must appropriately consider this information in
developing final engine standards.144 The DOE program has resulted in more than $375 million dollars
being invested in research, development, and demonstration vehicles, and was specifically designed to
integrate emerging advanced technologies into over-the-road line-haul trucks, in order to demonstrate
significant reductions in GHG and fuel consumption in real-world freight operations.145'146 The freight
efficiency results obtained to date over mixed drive cycles clearly indicate that a significantly stronger
engine standard is feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.30-31]
Technology feasibility assessment is overly conservative
As discussed above, the proposed standards will not facilitate development of advanced technologies. The
weak standards proposed by the Agencies are the result of an analysis that is overly conservative in its
assessment of technology effectiveness, technology penetration rates, cost projections, and the application
of a "dis-synergy" factor to discount technology effectiveness. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1
P-31]
Nearly all of the engine technology effectiveness values used by the Agencies were underestimated. In
some cases, the Agencies used lower effectiveness estimates than SwRI's research study projected. (The
SwRI study was funded by NHTSA and was a key technical support reference for the proposal). In other
cases, the effectiveness values assigned were lower than publically available industry estimates. For
example, the Agencies estimated that friction and parasitic loss reductions would result in a 1.4%
efficiency improvement. In contrast, the SwRI study estimates more than a 4% improvement and some
industry estimates are even higher. As another example, the Agencies projected a 3.6% efficiency
improvement for WHR, whereas the latest information reported by Cummins shows that an improvement
of 5 to 6.5% is possible.147 The Agencies fail to adequately justify the use of lower estimates in the
rulemaking record. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.31-32]
The Agencies also assumed constant effectiveness for all of the individual technologies between 2021 and
2030. This assumption means that no performance improvements are projected during the 9-year period
over which the standards are being phased in. In contrast, real world experience would suggest that
manufacturers and suppliers would continue developing and refining their engine technologies and
therefore effectiveness would improve. We recommend that the Agencies properly account for these
-------
expected real-world effectiveness improvements in their feasibility assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.32]
The Agencies' technology penetration assumptions are also problematic. As mentioned above and
demonstrated in Table II-6 below from the Preamble, the Agencies are relying substantially on existing
engine technologies. Because many of these technologies are already on the road and have proven to be
cost effective, the Agencies should accelerate the penetration of existing technologies earlier than 2024.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.32]
[Table II-6 can be found on p.32 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1]
The last column in the table shows the very small penetration rates assigned for more advanced
technologies, such as WHR and turbo compounding. These minimal penetration rates combined with
weak standards do not drive the technologies. Moreover, other advanced combustion technologies are not
included on the list. Between 2024 and 2027, the Agencies are only requiring an additional 5%
penetration for existing technologies, no additional penetration for turbo compounding, and a 10%
increase for WHR. As a consequence, a negligible increase of only 0.5% in stringency is added in 2027. It
is critical that the Agencies assume a much more realistic deployment of advanced technologies to
finalize a rule that is truly technology forcing. Beyond 2024, there is a tremendous opportunity for the
Agencies to set transformational standards that will result in significant additional C02 reductions
compared to those projected for the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.32]
Another example of the conservative nature of the Agencies' analysis is the derivation of cost for WHR
systems. NHTSA hired Tetra Tech, Inc. ("TTI") to work with SwRI to study the cost of the key
technologies for reducing C02 and fuel consumption. TTI relied on existing literature for cost
information: a 2009 NESCAFF/ICCT study148 and a 2009 TIAX study.149 Other secondary sources (NAS
and NHTSA) were referenced. However, these sources also heavily relied on the NESCAFF/ICCT and
TIAX studies. Not only are the data sources dated, the costs were created for a 2009 WHR system that
has little in common with the state-of-the-art systems demonstrated today by the SuperTruck program.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.33]
In addition, the Agencies assumed that WHR was on the flat portion of the cost learning curve, an
inappropriate assumption for this emerging technology. The Agencies' explanation for this assumption is
as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.33]
"We consider this technology to be on the flat portion of the learning curve (curve 12) because although
waste heat recovery is a new technology and in the 2015 to 2017 timeframe remains, perhaps, on the
steeper portion of the learning curve, applying such rapid learning effects to the cost estimate we have
would result in costs too low in the MY2024 to 2027 timeframe. "150 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1
p.33]
The agencies have not provided a reasonable explanation for declining to apply the cost curve in the way
that they themselves recognized was appropriate. As a consequence, EPA and NHTSA's technology cost
estimates are biased on the high side, reducing the stringency of the standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.33]
The agencies use of a "dis-synergy" factor is likewise not well supported. Theoretically, a dis-synergy
factor is intended to account for the fact that some technologies may negatively impact the performance
of other technologies. However, a positive - or synergistic - effect can also occur. And for some
technologies such as friction reduction and turbo efficiency improvements, one would expect no effect.
-------
Therefore, it is not appropriate to apply a dis-synergistic value across the board. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.33]
When determining synergistic and dis-synergistic effects, it is important to account for the specific
combination of technologies under consideration, and apply values for each situation. Instead, the
Agencies applied a uniform 25% discount in 2021 and a 15% discount in 2024 and 2027 across all
technologies. This fails to credit efficiency benefits of some technology combinations. Furthermore, the
Agencies provide no explanation for the derivation or justification for the use of the dis-synergy factors in
the rulemaking record. Nor do they provide any evidence to support their proposed approach, which EDF
considers inappropriate given that many of the technologies on EPA's list may not even have dis-
synergistic effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.33-34]
In summary, EPA and NHTSA made overly conservative assumptions on almost every critical input that
went into the derivation of the proposed engine standards. This results in standards that provide minor
incremental improvement over 2017 engine designs despite cost-effective available technologies and
more than 12 years of lead time. We respectfully urge the Agencies to correct these deficiencies in their
analysis, which would more that double the stringency of the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.34]
Recommended engine standards
Based on the literature review and analysis performed by Walsh et. al., and the extensive technology
analyses performed by ACEEE,151 UCS152 and ICCT,153 we are strongly recommending that the Agencies
consider the following performance-based standards for line-haul and heavy-haul applications, which
consume the majority of the fuel in the medium- and heavy-duty truck category: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.34]
a) Engine standards
• Model Year 2027 and beyond HD Tractor Engines 390 gC02/bhp-hr (50.4% BTE)
. Model Year 2024-26 HD Tractor Engines 405 gC02/bhp-hr (48.5% BTE)
. Model Year 2021-23 HD Tractor Engines 435 gC02/bhp-hr (45.1% BTE) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.34]
Robust engine standards are needed to drive emissions and fuel consumption reductions across the entire
vehicle. The technology is clearly available to meet these standards in the time frames suggested. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.34]
The 12-year lead-time the Agencies are providing for compliance is more than sufficient for
manufacturers to develop and successfully deploy the advanced engine technologies needed to meet more
stringent standards. In fact, the lead-time is extraordinarily long when compared to most past Agency
actions over the last 40 years. At minimum, the Agencies could consider conducting a biennial review as
was done for the 2007/2010 HD criteria pollutant rule.154 These reviews were conducted biennially, and
reviewed the development status of the advanced technologies that were in question, specifically diesel
NOx adsorbers. At the end of each review cycle, EPA publically released a report that discussed the status
of the technology development and any implications concerning rule implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.34-35]
-------
130 See comments submitted to this docket by ACEEE and UCS; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
131 Walsh and Charlton, Feasibility Assessment of Future Efficiency Improvement for Class 8 Diesel
Tractor Engines, Consultant Report, (September 2015).
132 Walsh and Charlton (2015) at 10.
133 Id.
134 Id.
135 Id.
136 Id.
137 Id. ; Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership: Third Report; The National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, (September 11, 2015).
138 Amar, P., "Volvo SuperTruck - Powertrain Technologies for Efficiency Improvement, 2015 Annual
Merit Review, Washington, DC, (June 12, 2015); Koeberlein, D., Cummins SuperTruck Program
Technology and System Level Demonstration of Highly Efficient and Clean, Diesel Powered Class 8
Trucks, DOE Merit Review, (May 16, 2013), Project ID: ACE057.
139 Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership: Third Report; The National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, (September 11, 2015).
140 Id. atS-2.
141 Id. atS-2.
142 Walsh and Charlton, Feasibility Assessment of Future Efficiency Improvement for Class 8 Diesel
Tractor Engines, Consultant Report, (September 2015).
143 Id.
144 Koeberlein, D., Cummins SuperTruck Program Technology and System Level Demonstration of
Highly Efficient and Clean, Diesel Powered Class 8 Trucks, DOE Merit Review, (16 May, 2013), Project
ID: ACE057; Koeberlein, D., Cummins SuperTruck Program Technology and System Level
Demonstration of Highly Efficient and Clean, Diesel Powered Class 8 Trucks, DOE Merit Review, (12
June, 2015), Project ID: ACE057; Rotz and Ziegler, Daimler SuperTruck - Recovery Act -Class 8 Truck
Freight Efficiency Improvement Project, Super Truck Program: Vehicle Project Review, DOE Merit
Review, (11 June, 2015), Project ID: ARRAVT080; Singh, S., SuperTruck Program: Engine Project
Review, Recovery Act - Class 8 Truck Freight Efficiency Improvement Project, Detroit Diesel
Corporation, Project: ACE 058, (June 12, 2015); Amar, P., Volvo SuperTruck - Powertrain Technologies
for Efficiency Improvement, 2015 Annual Merit Review, Washington, DC, (June 12, 2015); Zukouski, R.,
Navistar SuperTruck - Development and Demonstration of a Fuel-Efficient Class 8 Tractor & Trailer -
Engine Systems, DOE Merit Review, (12 June, 2015), Project ID: ACE05; Reinhart, T. E., Commercial
medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study - Report #1, (ReportNo. DOT HS 812
-------
146), Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (June 2015); Reinhart, T.,
Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency Technology Study - Report #2, Washington,
DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (June 2015).
145 "DOE SuperTruck Program Benefits Analysis," Final Report, prepared for U.S, Department of
Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies and Argonne National Laboratory, (December 20, 2012).
146 Gravel, R., SuperTruck: An opportunity to reduce GHG emissions while meeting service demands,
Asilomar Conference, (August, 2013), available at www.ils.ucdavis.edu/rics/acncral/pdiy2013-08-
21 Asilomar-2013-Gravel.pdf.
147 Koeberlein, D., Cummins SuperTruck Program Technology and System Level Demonstration of
Highly Efficient and Clean, Diesel Powered Class 8 Trucks, DOE Merit Review, (June 12, 2015), Project
ID: ACE057.
148 Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future (NESCCAF), ICCT International Council on Clean
Transportation, Southwest Research Institute, and TIAX, LLC, Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul
Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and C02 Emissions, Final Report (October, 2009).
149 TIAX, Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy Duty Vehicles - Final
Report, Case D0506, (November 19, 2009).
150 RIA at 2-221.
151 See ACEEE comments submitted to this docket; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
152 See UCS comments submitted to this docket; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
153 See ICCT comments submitted to this docket; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4
154 66 Fed. Reg. "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements," (January 18, 2001).
1. Strong engine standards are critical to a meaningful program
We reiterate our strong support for the Agencies' proposed structure of the rule - separate engine
standards are imperative to drive innovative engine technology and provide proven, measureable and
durable real-world emissions reductions. However, these benefits can only be realized through robust
engine standards. Weak standards, as proposed by the Agencies, do not drive advanced technologies and
fall short of unlocking the full capabilities of existing technologies. Additionally, limited engine standards
do not take advantage of the robust in-use enforcement provisions of the engine program. These
provisions provide high confidence that GHG reductions demonstrated on new engines actually occur in
the real world. In order to secure the significant benefits afforded by separate engine standards, the
Agencies' must finalize far more meaningful standards that drive technology and allow for robust
enforcement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.3]
a. Proposed engine standards are clearly not technology forcing and should be significantly strengthened
in the final rule
-------
The NODA states that the proposal "intended to" base standards "not only on currently available
technologies but also on utilization of technologies now under development or not yet widely deployed."7
However, this is clearly not the case. The Agencies proposed a meager 4.1 percent engine efficiency
improvement over Phase 1 for Class 8 diesel engines. (In-use they are equivalent to only a 2.1 to 3.1
percent reduction because of proposed updates to the test procedure.8) The proposed standards are not
technology forcing because they do not reflect the full potential of available technologies on the shelf
today, nor do they fully consider the current state of advanced engine technology development, as shown
below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.3]
i. Numerous model year 2016 medium-heavy-duty and heavy-heavy-duty vocational truck engines are
already in compliance with EPA 's proposed 2027 CO2 standards
Recent heavy-duty certification data posted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)9 on their
website show that at least four medium-heavy-duty and heavy-heavy-duty vocational truck engines from
four different manufacturers (Detroit Diesel, PACCAR, Hino, and Cummins) already meet the proposed
2027 engine standards. The data made publically available by CARB are certificates of compliance
(Executive Orders) for the 2016 model year. Table 1 below compares the certified levels of these engines
to the proposed 2027 C02 standards for vocational truck engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-18 86-A1
p.3-4]
[Table 1 can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1]
The table clearly shows that these 2016 engines are already in compliance with the 2027 standards - more
than a decade before they are required. And several of the current engines are significantly cleaner than
the proposed levels. This is compelling evidence that the agencies have proposed extraordinarily weak
standards for vocational engines, and the standards are not consistent with the CAA's technology-forcing
mandate. In fact, the 2016 certification data demonstrates that the 2027 standards will not require
technologies beyond those already being applied to today's production engines. It is critical that the
Agencies more accurately reflect the true capabilities of today's engines into their analysis and set
meaningful 2027 engine standards that drive the adoption of more advanced technologies. Given that
more than a decade lead-time is being provided, the standards must go well beyond what were proposed
in order to be reconciled with EPA's technology-forcing authority and NHTSA's maximum feasible
mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.4]
//. More recent assessments of Waste Heat Recovery should be considered by the Agencies
In our comments, submitted to the docket on October 1, 2015, we highlighted our concerns with the
Agencies' conservative analysis of the potential of waste heat recovery (WHR) - an engine technology
that can provide a step-change reduction in C02 emissions. The data sources that the Agencies relied
upon to project WHR costs were dated, the system design assumed had little in common with the latest
designs planned for production,10 and cost learning curve assumptions were flawed. Taken together, these
factors bias WHR cost on the high side, which in turn resulted in very low proposed penetration rates of
the technology and therefore reduced stringency of the program. A recent white paper analysis performed
by John Wall, recently retired Chief Technology Officer for Cummins Engine Company, reinforces this
view11 (attached as Appendix A). [Appendix A can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1886-A2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.4-5]
Wall's paper describes WHR as "a significant enabling technology to drive C02 reductions." His analysis
found that "new WHR architectures reduce the projected cost of WHR to less than half the cost numbers
presented in the Phase 2 NPRM." This result was achieved even without applying a learning curve to the
-------
cost projections. The white paper further concludes, "this substantially lower cost estimate should allow
EPA to consider a more significant penetration of WHR technology with acceptable cost effectiveness."12
It is critically important that the Agencies' final rule stringency determinations take into account the latest
and most relevant data and analysis related to WHR and other technologies, and in doing so, significantly
increase the stringency of the tractor engine standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.5]
///. Additional data provided in NODA does not change need for more robust engine standards
In a 2015 report, (submitted to the docket during the initial comment period) leading engine experts
Walsh and Charlton performed an exhaustive literature review of engine technology, and critiqued the
methodology and assumptions used by the Agencies in their determination of stringency.13 The study
concluded that the "agencies have underestimated the potential of key technologies when setting the GHG
emission and fuel consumption standard for HD tractor engines," and therefore "the standards set for HD
tractor engines fall well short of being "technology advancing." Walsh et. al. made specific
recommendations for stronger and more appropriate standards, which EDF cited in our 2015 comments to
the docket.14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.5]
As part of the NODA, the agencies are seeking comment on a Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)
Report titled "Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Technology Study - Report #2."
According to the agencies, an independent peer review of the initial report identified errors that were
corrected and a final report was released as part of the NODA. After reviewing the final SwRI peer-
reviewed report, Walsh and Charlton found that 1) the report was "overly conservative in its assessment
of the available technologies, especially waste heat recovery (WHR)," 2) the report contained "non-data
based speculation and opinion for technologies in question that have been demonstrated in both the test
cell and in over-the-road trucks," and 3) "the final report from SWRI, containing only minor corrections,
does not alter the recommendations made by [us]." Based on their review and the above conclusions, the
authors "continue to recommend the adoption of more challenging limit standards for C02 in the Phase 2
rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1 p.5-6]
MY 2027 and beyond HD Tractor Engines 390 gC02/HP-hr (50.4% BTE)
MY 2024-2026 HD Tractor Engines 405 gC02/HP-hr (48.5% BTE)
MY 2021-2023 HD Tractor Engines 435 gC02/HP-hr (45.1% BTE)"15
Again, EDF supports the conclusions and recommendations made by Walsh and Charlton - two of the
nation's leading experts on heavy-duty truck engine technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1886-A1
p.6]
b. Robust final engine standards are needed to provide enforcement
As recently exemplified by Volkswagen, in-use testing requirements and enforcement are critical to
achieving real-world emissions reductions. One of the most cost-effective ways to safeguard emissions
reductions is through the use of robust engine standards. The existing heavy-duty engine testing and in-
use compliance requirements have evolved over decades, making them very rigorous and providing
verifiable proof that in-use engine emission reductions are real. Despite the assurances afforded by engine
standards, the Agencies have instead allocated most of the Phase 2 stringency to model-based vehicle
standards that do not currently include in-use compliance and enforcement requirements. The agencies
should instead finalize far stronger engine standards to capitalize on the existing strong engine
compliance and enforcement provisions, which will provide high assurance that emission reductions
-------
required by the standards are achieved in-use. Since the real world benefits of engine fuel economy
improvements can readily be monitored and enforced, those improvements should be of the highest
priority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1886-A1 p.6]
7 81 Fed. Reg. at 10825 (March 2, 2016).
8 Walsh and Charlton, Feasibility Assessment of Future Efficiency Improvement for Class 8 Diesel
Tractor Engines, Consultant Report, (September 2015).
9 See CARB certification data for each manufacturer at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2016/hino_mhdd_a0310085_7d684_0d20-
0d01.pdf;
http://www.arb.ca.gOv/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2016/cummins_mhdd_a0210637rl_8d9_0d20-
0d01.pdf;
http://www.arb.ca.gOv/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2016/paccar_hhdd_a3840022_10d8_0d20-
0d01.pdf;
http://www.arb.ca.gOv/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2016/detroitdiesel_hhdd_a2900156_14d8_0d20-
0d01.pdf (last accessed March 30,2016)
10 Comments submitted to docket by Cummins on October 1, 2014, Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298; Page 15.
11 John Wall, "A Perspective on Waste Heat Recovery for Consideration for the Phase 2 GHG Rule,"
(February 11, 2016).
12 John Wall, "A Perspective on Waste Heat Recovery for Consideration for the Phase 2 GHG Rule,"
(February 11, 2016) at 4.
13 Walsh and Charlton, Feasibility Assessment of Future Efficiency Improvement for Class 8 Diesel
Tractor Engines, Consultant Report, (September 2015).
14 Comments of EDF, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Proposed Rule, (October 1, 2015). Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312.
15 Walsh, Michael P. and Charlton, Stephen J., "Addendum: Feasibility Assessment of Future Efficiency
Improvement for Class 8 Diesel Tractor Engines," (March 28,2016).
Response:
We appreciate EDF's constructive comments. The commenter is correct that the SET baseline at proposal
failed to account for the reweighted SET modes in Phase 2 (One OEM pointed out this same error). The
agencies have corrected this error in developing the SET baseline for the final rule. See Response 3.3.3.
We also made a significant adjustment to the FTP vocational baseline engine emission values based on
the latest certification data (initially brought to the agencies' attention by this commenter). We also
have reassessed the costs of WHR and have revised the cost downward from that estimated at proposal.
These reductions largely reflect the agencies' judgment that the WHR system considered at proposal had
-------
certain components and aspects not actually needed. This judgment is consistent with CBI information
from one of the engine manufacturers as well as information from other credible sources. The detailed
process of the adjustment of the baseline values can be found in Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA and RTC
Response 3.3.3, and the cost related to WHR is in Chapters 2.7.6,2.7.8, 2.7.10, and 2.11.2.15 of the RIA.
We have made certain other changes from proposal which have the effect of increasing the stringency of
the engine standards including: increasing the dis-synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in 2027, increasing the
market penetration for WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15% to 25% for a tractor engine in 2027,
and including down speed benefits as part of the projected compliance pathway. This resulted in an
increase from 4.2% to 5.1% for the tractor engine standards in 2027 compared to the proposed rule. .
Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA detail the justification for these changes.
We respectfully disagree with many of EDF's arguments for even more aggressive engine stringency
standards for the final rule. Their argument is largely based on the report from Walsh/Charlton. We have
reviewed the responsive report from four major vehicle OEMs (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894) as well
as other comments made by individual vehicle OEMs (Daimler Truck North America and Navistar). In
these reports, they rebut all points made by EDF, specifically as they pertain to the Walsh/Charlton report.
When taking the vehicle OEMs' comments into consideration:
• We disagree with EDF's comments that our standards are not technology forcing. We believe
that implying that the standards we were proposing were too low and stating that a 9 percent
reduction from Phase 1 is achievable, is simply misleading. The driving forces behind this is that
improvements in technology effectiveness cannot be extrapolated in a linear way as it is
constrained by the law of thermodynamics. A good summary report that highlights the limitation
of engine efficiency improvement can be found at:
http: //www 1. eere. energy. gov/vehiclesandfiiels/pdfs/deer_2011 /wednesday/presentations/deer 11 _
edwards.pdf. Any further incremental improvements will require tremendous engineering efforts
with high cost and unreliability. Furthermore, NOx emissions always act as one of major
constraints for further improvement in engine efficiency. In our final rule, the peak thermal
efficiency of the tractor engine is approaching 50%, which is in the range of the DOE SuperTruck
program. DOE acknowledged (Roland Gravel, 2016 SAE Government/Industry Meeting,
January 21, 2016) that there were significant differences between the technologies developed by
DOE through the SuperTruck program and technologies used to comply with regulations, and
many of technologies developed under the SuperTruck program still have a long way to reach
production level. Despite these challenges, we have significantly adjusted our standards for both
tractor and vocational engines to make this rule even more stringent compared to the NPRM, as
explained in the initial part of this response.
• We disagree with the approach taken by EDF regarding the technology effectiveness derived
from DOE's Supertruck program and NAS's report. It appears that EDF took a single value out
of the literature, which was primarily based on peak values. In contrast, we considered the
stringency over 13 composite modes (i.e. accounted for actual in-use driving patterns), where the
reduction achievable is (not surprisingly) much lower than from the single most efficient point.
• We believe that the technology effectiveness used in our rule is consistent with the SwRI report,
specifically with respect to friction when making an apples-to-apples comparison. In order to
make such a comparison, the certification cycle weighting and certification vehicle weight must
be used for this evaluation.
-------
• We do not believe that the effectiveness we set for WHR is conservative. As a matter of fact, the
effectiveness used in our rulemaking was directly from the same engine manufacturer that EDF
and Walsh/Charlton quoted, and is consistent with this engine manufacturer's expectations in
terms of reductions. In addition, we did consider recent technology information obtained from
one of the engine manufacturers. Consequently, we increased the estimated market penetration
from 15% to 25% in 2027, thus increasing the estimated contribution from WHR used to set
standard stringency in the final rule.
• We do not think that there is any positive synergy effect when putting all technologies into one
package, while the dis-synergy effect is always present. Please see the detailed explanation and
justifications regarding this matter in Chapter 2.7.5 of the RIA. We have significantly expanded
the explanation of the dis-synergy effect in this final rule and we did increase the dis-synergy
factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in 2027.
• We do not believe that the SwRI reports are too conservative, specifically as they pertain to their
estimate on WHR effectiveness. The projections from these reports is in line with what EDF
mentioned in their comments, which is about 4%. Although SwRI's evaluation of the technology
is not entirely based on test data, the methodology used is defensible because it incorporates the
use of a state-of-the-art simulation tool box to model the technology effectiveness. This
modeling approach is even more important as it is not possible for the agencies to evaluate all
possible technologies under test cell or real-world driving conditions. Therefore, the assumptions
used in running simulations must be largely based on literature values in conjunction with limited
testing data.
Organization: Honeywell Transportation System (HTS)
Technology Available for Greater GHG Reduction with Strong Payback
While the new SET cycle weighting factors introduced in the proposal more accurately reflect real-world
use of heavy duty long haul truck engines, they also result in a "calculated" fuel consumption reduction of
between one half and one percent. This "baseline shift" is not reflected in the current proposal, which
means that the "actual" required engine efficiency improvement from 2017 to 2027 (a period marked by
no planned changes in NOx or particulate matter (PM) emissions) is between 3.2 percent and 3.7 percent,
resulting in an annualized reduction rate of only 0.35 percent per year. According to industry sources2 in
the period between 1980 and 1999 (a period with relatively few new NOx and PM rules), heavy duty
engine OEMs were reducing fuel consumption at an annualized rate of 0.8 percent. This rate of
development was not driven by regulatory pressures, but rather was motivated by the desire of engine
OEMs to offer reduced operating costs to their customers in a highly competitive truck sales
environment. Based on this precedent, and discussions with our OEM customers, HTS believes that in a
stable NOx and PM regulatory environment, competitive pressure will drive engine OEMs to reduce fuel
consumption at a rate that is higher than is reflected in the current engine-level proposal and more in line
with historical performance. We therefore believe that a more stringent regulation could be met without
being overly burdensome on engine manufacturers, the trucking industry and consumers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1230-A1 p.2-3]
Therefore, HTS recommends that the engine-level standard be moved to Alternative 4, with a 4.2 percent
improvement over the 2017 baseline effective in 2024, and a 7 to 10 percent improvement over the 2017
baseline by 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1230-A1 p.3]
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp 2547-258.]
We appreciate that revised weighting factors for the SET cycle C02 emissions for the heavy-duty tractor
engine standards have been included in the proposal. These revised weighting factors better represent
real- world operating conditions of long-haul trucks with minimal additional complexity. However, the
new weighting factors effectively represent a regulatory downspeeding of engines, and we estimate this
will result in a cycle-weighted fuel consumption improvement of approximately 1 percent, with no
changes made to the actual engine. This essentially means that 2021 model year engines only need to be
.5 percent more efficient than the 2017 baseline, a . 12 percent per year improvement over a 4-year time
period. This is well below the industry's historical continuous improvement rate of change in efficiency.
The new weighting factors have a similar impact on subsequent emissions reduction levels.
For this reason, we believe there is room to make the engine-level C02 reduction larger than is reflected
in the current proposal, without the need for widespread adoption of advanced technologies like Rankine
Cycle waste heat recovery. Honeywell can help provide data and work with the EPA to refine the inputs
to models to better reflect the improvements that air systems technology can provide in order to enable
this.
2 Greszler, Anthony. Heavy Duty Diesel Engine and Powertrains for 2010 and Beyond. Presentation to
SAE http://www.sae.org/events/gim/presentations/2009/anthonygreszler.pdf
Response:
The agencies have corrected the tractor engine baseline for the final rule to reflect the reweighting of the
13 modes of the SET. The agencies have also increased the stringency of the engine standard over that
proposed. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA detail the justification of this increase. The agencies have
calculated stringency from revised baselines which (particularly for the FTP baseline) reflect historic
improvements in engine performance consistent with the commenter's suggestion.
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Toward this end, we believe the proposed engine standards must be strengthened. Others -including the
California Air Resources Board (CARB),3 engine makers4 and independent non-governmental
organizations5 - have suggested engine efficiency can be improved significantly more than the modest 4.2
percent proposed by EPA. Recent work by the Southwest Research Institute, West Virginia University,
the U.S. Department of Energy's SuperTruck teams and Cummins, the largest manufacturer of heavy-
duty truck engines, all indicates the feasibility of engine GHG reductions in the Phase 2 timeframe at
levels more than twice that included in the proposal. Further, these analyses, as well as those of EPA,
indicate that technologies to achieve this degree of improvement are currently available and highly cost
effective. In conjunction with increasing engine standards, we also recommend that EPA increase the
corresponding whole-vehicle standards to capitalize on the full emission reduction potential of efficiency-
improving technologies. We believe it is imperative that EPA strengthen the engine and vehicle standards
in the final rule to reflect this. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.3] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.53.]]
-------
3 California Air Resources Board, Draft Technology Assessment: Engine/Powerplant and Drivetrain
Optimization and Vehicle Efficiency (June 2015),
http: //www. arb. ca. gov/msprog/tech/techreport/epdo_ve_tech_report. pdf.
4 Cummins, Engine Technologies for GHG and Low NOx (April 2015),
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/caphase2ghg/presentations/2_7_wayne_e_cummins.pdf.
5 International Council on Clean Transportation, Advanced Tractor-Trailer Efficiency Technology
Potential in the 2020-2030 Timeframe (April 2015),
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/Dublications/ICCT ATTEST 20150420.pdf.
Response:
We have made the standards more stringent from those proposed. See earlier comment responses and
Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA, which detail the justification for this increase.
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Setting strong, long-term national limits on motor vehicle global warming pollution and fuel efficiency
standards is a necessary and important action for the U.S. to meet nation targets for reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions.1 It is appropriate and necessary that President Obama has made medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle GHG and fuel consumption standards an integral part of his Climate Action Plan.2
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.3]
Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle performance standards are an essential component of a comprehensive
strategy to cut U.S. global warming pollution and oil consumption. The transportation sector is
responsible for approximately a third of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and 70 percent of total oil
demand. Highway medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are second only to light-duty vehicles in total fuel
consumption and global warming pollution within the transportation sector. According to the agencies,
medium and heavy trucks consume 20 percent of the oil used in the transportation sector and emit about
20 percent of transportation sector global warming pollution.3 Yet these trucks represent only about 5
percent of the vehicles on the roads.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.3]
The process of setting the Phase 2 medium- and heavy-duty vehicle standards extends a record of success
that started with the model year 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG and fuel economy standards. The
Phase 2 truck standards address both the need for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
set fuel efficiency standards under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the
requirement for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases under
the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1220-A1 p.3]
The Phase 2 proposed rule is a very important step forward but it should be strengthened to maximize the
environmental, security and economic benefits. Below, we recommend actions the agencies should take to
improve the proposal to better meet the Administration's overall energy and climate security goals and
address the imperative that we dramatically reduce carbon pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-
Alp.3]
1 On March 31, 2015, the U.S. submitted its target to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change to reduce GHG emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.
-------
2 Climate Action Plan available
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
3 EPA and NHTSA, "EPA and NHTSA Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles: By the Numbers," EPA-420-F-15-903, June 2015. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaa/climate/regs-heaw-dutv.htm.
4 Ibid.
Response:
We appreciate your comments, and we believe that our final rule will indeed meet the Administration's
overall energy and climate security goals and address the imperative that we dramatically reduce carbon
pollution.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
We believe the inclusion of C02 emissions from IRAF's as part of the existing certification test
procedure would be both non representative of the in-service activity and increase the aggregate
certification burden. In addition the inclusion of C02 IRAFs may actually increase C02 emissions in
service as manufacturers balance the certification penalties against reduced DPF backpressure between
regenerations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.22]
The agencies' acknowledged that"manufacturers have already made great progress in reducing the
impact of regeneration emissions since 2007" Since the onset of use of regenerative DPFs emission
increases have been practically nil. Currently regeneration rates are driven more by timer based
algorithms for soot removal and desulfurization rather than demand based DPF loading. Many in-service
line haul fleets have reported intervals of thousands of miles between regenerations due in large part to
passive regeneration. By including the fuel consumed during regeneration there will be a natural tendency
for manufacturers to reduce the frequency and duration of regenerations to avoid the implications of
regeneration fuel penalty. However this approach can have the unintended consequence of increasing
DPF backpressure and pumping losses absent increased passive regeneration, which can have a direct and
negative impact on fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.22]
As engine out NOx levels increase in order to improve base engine fuel economy there will be an
associated increase in passive regeneration, which will only further reduce regeneration frequency. As
aftertreatment systems improve with each generation, they become more operationally efficient.
Manufacturers need the flexibility to size and operate their systems to maximize the aggregate fuel
economy without increasing the regulatory burden, not to mention the risks to component durability or to
customer fuel economy. We would therefore recommend that Phase 1 requirements be extended to Phase
2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.22-23]
VI. Response to Comments on Engine Standards
In light of discussions with EPA for a realistic rule, Navistar feels that it must comment additionally on
comments by other commenters as well as other documents recently placed in the docket, specifically a
document by a Mr. Walsh and Mr. Charlton.11 While EPA chose not to seek further comment as part of
the NODA, Navistar feels that the issues raised in those materials are important enough to highlight in
these additional comments. Primarily, we feel it is important to respond to comments that we find are
technically inaccurate and misleading. Walsh and Charlton based their recommendations of increased
-------
engine stringency on the achievements of participants of the Department of Energy ("DOE") - funded
SuperTruck program, of which Navistar is an awardee. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 8-9]
The basic premise of the SuperTruck initiative was to demonstrate 50% freight efficiency improvement at
65 mph and to demonstrate 50% engine BTE at the vehicle's cruise point. The participants demonstrated
a wide range of technologies in order to achieve these objectives. However, it is a technology
development program and by definition limited to a specific operating condition or cycle. Furthermore,
the technologies are highly experimental, have not been vetted for commercialization, and thus, are not all
likely to be ready for production in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we want to give the EPA as much
information as possible to develop a realistic and successful implementation of the Phase 2 regulations.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.9]
Walsh and Charlton's claims and recommendations were summarized as 11 major findings and are
focused on tractor engines. In the proposed Phase 2 regulations, these engines are certified in the ramp
modal cycle (RMC) for C02 and the FTP for the other GHG constituents. The NPRM also proposed a
reweighing of the modes in this cycle that departs from that used for criteria pollutants, but that aim to
align the engine standard to the real world or in-vehicle usage of these engines. In the following, Navistar
highlights the major concerns with the authors' findings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.9]
Finding 1 & 2 & 7: The authors erroneously attempt to use the achievement of SuperTruck as evidence
for further stringency on the engine standard. SuperTruck achievement of 50% or greater BTE for the
engine is a single point demonstration, as opposed to the cycle demonstration (RMC) required for GHG
certification of an engine. This is very clearly shown in Figure 5 of their paper, where the authors
highlight the region that is used in the SuperTruck demonstration overlaid with the RMC modes: this is a
very small subset of the test cycles used in the regulatory framework. Furthermore, systems on the
demonstrator engines are not all production feasible. These SuperTruck programs are unconstrained to the
limitations of production feasible solutions. SuperTruck programs are not required to deliver production
requirements of full tailpipe compliance (deterioration factors, NTE), On-Board Diagnostics as well as all
other regulatory requirements of other constituents (NOx, N20, and CH4) or with the level of robustness
necessary for production feasible systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.9]
Figure 1 shows a typical tractor engine map. This is the 2018MY representative tractor map available in
the EPA Phase II GEM model that is used to set the baseline for the GHG Phase 2 regulations. The modes
for the RMC are overlaid and show the weighting (by size) as proposed in the NPRM. From this figure it
is clear that the authors have extrapolated the achievements of SuperTruck in their recommendation of
50% BTE in the RMC cycle. At the A-speed, which is the highest weighted speed, the BTE of a typical
engine that meets 2017MY GHG will range from 39% at the lower torque to a maximum of 46% at the
75% load point. In order for such an engine to meet a composite number of 50% with the assumption of a
flat map, the part load points would need to improve over 11% efficiency points and this is without the
appropriate engineering margins. Furthermore, the assumption of a flat map is counter to the physics and
the optimization of the systems that support the function of the engine as is demonstrated by what EPA
considers state-of-the-art today. Within the space of the RMC cycle, excluding the idle point, BTE ranges
from 34% to the maximum already stated of 46%. Hence, in the event that a manufacturer had to design
for the 50% BTE, the engine would have to significantly exceed the achievements of the SuperTruck
program by having the cruise point be well above 50% BTE and even exceeding the secondary objective
of a pathway to 55% BTE as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 is a hypothetical map using the realistic shape
of the engine map that mathematically results in 50.5% BTE for the RMC with GHG Phase 2 weighting.
Production margins, hence, would dictate a peak efficiency of 60% to achieve Charlton and Walsh
proposed stringency. In Navistar's opinion, the recommendation by Charlton and Walsh is based on
misleading premises and not physically possible.12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.9-10]
-------
[Figure 1 can be found onp.10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2]
[Figure 2 can be found onp.ll of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2]
Finding 3: Unlike the claim by Charlton and Walsh, significant improvements in both engine and
aftertreatment technologies will have to be implemented in order to achieve the currently proposed engine
targets included in the GHG Phase 2 NPRM. The authors only focus on the stringency of C02 in this
claim, and throughout the paper, and treat the engine standard as a standalone requirement in the rule.
They fail to account for the implications of the rule as a whole: consideration of the implication of the
other regulated GHG constituents, known future pressures to reduce NOx for which the NPRM protects
(inclusion of IRAF, etc) and the engine in the context of the vehicle regulation. Per our comments
submitted to the NPRM docket, the rule in its full context represents 10% efficiency improvement over
the MY2017 engines, which have yet to make it to the marketplace and themselves represent over 3%
improvement over the MY2014 engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 11]
The addition of the manufacturer specified fuel maps to the vehicle standards in Phase 2 and expanded
selective enforcement audit (SEA) programs will drive additional stringency on the engine to account for
compliance and production margin (shown in Figure 3 as a dotted green line). The reweighting of the
RMC cycle is critical and without it the engine, as a standalone component, and its technologies would
not align with the vehicle standard (or GEM). Again, as shown in the author's Figure 5, the reweighting is
closer to real world operation (NESCAUM cycle) and will drive technologies that will have significant
impact on the real world C02 as opposed to just meeting a generic standard on a dynamometer. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 11 ]
The combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules in essence result in over 10% improvement in engine efficiency
in the span of 13 years. However, when other components of the GHG Phase 2 regulation are taken into
account, the full impact of this rule is about 17% improvement in that span even with the reweighting of
the RMC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 12]
Slide 16 from the authors' presentation to the EPA represents their perception of a typical engine
development program. We believe it is flawed. The first issue is that it fails to acknowledge the gap
between engine and vehicle model years. An engine is not a standalone component and needs to be
finalized well in advance of a vehicle program to ensure that it meets the requirements for the vehicle,
such as GHG, and further to ensure that all of the many interactions between the vehicle components and
the engine are appropriately designed and validated. The second issue is that they assume a 3-year
development program. Modern engines have requirements beyond the basic dyno certification cycles-
FTP and RMC. As of 2013, all heavy duty engines are required to also meet OBD requirements. In
essence this requires the base engine and aftertreament design and calibration to be finalized before
starting the work and preparation for certification. A heavy-duty tractor engine with significant redesign
needs a longer development cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 12]
Finding 10: Charlton and Walsh argue against the reweighting of the RMC because it breaks the linkage
with criteria pollutant cycles. They contradict themselves with such an argument. The intent of the rule is
to address climate change and they recommend increased stringency without the reweighting of the RMC
cycle to achieve this change. However, numerous studies and databases exist that document the usage of
engines in the tractor applications in the line-haul sector, and these were the basis of the reweight. Though
heavy-duty vehicles only represent 4% of the vehicles on the road, they consume about 18% of the fuel in
the US and the line-haul sector represents over 60% of that. Therefore, in order to enact the necessary
climate change the improvements need to be realized in real-world representative cycles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 14]
-------
The authors site the unintended consequences to criteria pollutants as a counter argument, not
acknowledging that current regulations already tightly control the engines emission of criteria pollutants.
Beyond the dynamometer cycle demonstration, there are Not-To-Exceed requirements. The NTE
requirement, added in 2007, regulates the pollutant output of an engine at a maximum of, for example, 1.5
times the standard for 2010, for a wide range of ambient conditions and altitude. There are also the On-
Board Diagnostic (OBD) requirements introduced for all HD diesel engine in 2013. This requires that the
engine's control systems detect malfunctioning components of the emission control systems (EGR valves,
injectors, etc.) throughout the useful life for the engine. In addition, the C02 regulatory impact for the
Phase 2 regulation is only captured from the Vehicle standards which operate closer to real world with the
GEM cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 14]
In conclusion, Navistar supports the implementation of a realistic, impactful and commercially feasible
rule. The Proposed Rule is of such complexity, and carries such widespread ramifications for the industry
that commenting on the inaccuracies represented in the paper by Charlton and Walsh is critical. They fail
to acknowledge and explain that the achievements of the SuperTruck program are limited to a very small
subset of an engine map and are not representative of the certification RMC cycle. The stringency that
they recommend is not physically possible and requires engine peak efficiencies > 58% BTE, something
that was not demonstrated in the SuperTruck program or in the pathways. Downspeeding is correctly
accounted for in the vehicle portion of the standard as it requires the full powertrain definition in order to
achieve the gains. WHR systems are in the infancy of development with no commercially feasible
implementation at the current time and has dis-synergy with the rule itself. The agencies have adequately
account for its penetration in the lifetime of this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 15]
To create the hypothetical engine that forms the baseline for the vocational engine in GEM, the agencies
constructed a hypothetical engine map. This was not derived from an actual in-use engine. Our current
analysis of this hypothetical map shows a shift in the baseline from actual, real-world engines. That is, the
theoretical starting point, the MY 17 standards, has changed. The baseline engine maps within GEM for
the vocational vehicle are not aligned with current 2017MY compliant engines and hence, set up an
unrealistic baseline for the vocational vehicle standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.32]
Navistar took one of its MY2017 C02 compliant engine families and created an engine map for use in the
Phase 2 version of GEM. Comparing the tested engine map to the 2018MY baseline maps the tested
engines showed differences ranging between 1 to 5% in the cruise part of the map and around 10% in the
"acceleration" part of the map for the 345hp engine map to 10% to 15% differences for the 350hp engine
map. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.32]
The problematic areas of the hypothetical vocation baseline engine include the following: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.32]
• The EPA 345 hp HD generic engine map has an uncharacteristic shape where the minimum
BSFC points is at 9% of maximum power. Other hypothetical engines show 80% of maximum
power. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.32]
• The 270 hp MD hypothetical engine is flawed as well. Comparison with actual compliant
MY2017 engines show that the hypothetical engines were 10% higher in fuel consumption than
the real-world engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.32]
Ultimately, this discrepancy must be corrected. Navistar will separately provide proprietary information
to EPA showing this concern in greater detail. All manufacturers should begin from the same starting line,
the actual MY2017 emission performance of the engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.32]
-------
11 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1237. EPA also placed a powerpoint presentation delivered to EPA by the
same authors in the docket.
12 Participants at the Transportation Combustion Engine Efficiency Colloquium found that, with money
as no object, 60% BTE is the maximum efficiency possible for current engine configurations. See K.
Edwards, et al., Defining Engine Efficiency Limits, presentation at 17th DEER Conference 3-6 October
2011. Available athttp://energv.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f8/deerl 1 edwards.pdf
Response:
We do not believe inclusion of C02 into IRAF will significantly impact the stringency of these standards
because manufacturers have already made great progress in reducing the impact of regeneration emissions
since 2007. Nevertheless, we believe it is prudent to begin accounting for regeneration emissions to
discourage manufacturers from adopting compliance strategies that could reverse this trend. See
Response 3.3.4.
We appreciate Navistar's comments on a document by Mr. Walsh and Mr. Charlton. We largely agree
with these arguments. Specifically, we agree that the peak thermal efficiency deduced by the
Walsh/Charlton reports would not be realistic. We agree that use of the SuperTruck program data can be
misleading because data sources are limited to a very small subset of the engine map and are not
representative of the certification RMC cycle. The technology path for downspeeding proposed by the
Walsh/Charlton report is not practical, because while the peak torque of the engine moves down to an
engine speed of around 800 rpm, the required high boost pressure cannot be maintained due to the
engine's low speed. We agree that there may be a trade-off between some of the technologies used for
NOx reduction and those used for fuel economy improvements (although we do not believe the NOx
control and fuel consumption improvements are mutually exclusive (see, e.g. RTC Section 15.8.1)).
All the agencies' baseline engines are developed based on real life in-use engines. In the final rule, we
have combined a 345hp engine with a 350hp engine as one engine, which will be applied to both tractor
and vocational vehicles. In combining these two engines the minimum brake specific fuel consumption
point is now in line with the other baseline engines and is located at approximately 70% of peak engine
power. We also made changes to the 270hp baseline engine fuel map. However, it should be pointed out
that the engine for the baseline 270hp rating engine was 7 liter based, and is much smaller than the
Navistar 9 liter engine. As a result, the engine sweet spot and the rated speed are also appreciably
different. On the other hand, the 350hp engine used by the agencies is 11 liter based, and is bigger than
Navistar's N10 engine. Depending on the vehicle configurations, such as transmission, and axle ratio, the
engine operating points in terms of engine speed and load can be so different between two different
engines, resulting in different values of C02 g/hp-hr. Although we did not provide the baseline values,
we made the best efforts to supply those vocational vehicle baseline values in the later power user release
version provided for comment.
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
The engine standard should be stronger.
The proposal would reduce fuel consumption from engines by 4.2 percent, which is far short of what is
achievable over the coming decade. We note that at least one engine manufacturer has indicated potential
engine efficiency improvements of 15 percent or more even with advanced NOx controls. Moreover,
-------
EPA's estimates for both the effectiveness and likely market penetration of engine efficiency technology
improvements are far too conservative, according to analyses performed by CARB3 and ICCT.4 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 138.]]
3 California Air Resources Board, Engine/Powerplant and Drivetrain Optimization: Vehicle/Trailer
Efficiency Technology Assessment, presented at the Air Resources Board Symposium on California's
Development of its Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles
(April 22,2015). Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/caphase2ghg/presentations/2_l_alex_s_arb.pdf.
4 International Council on Clean Transportation, United States Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission
Regulations for Model Year 2018-2027 Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Engines, and Trailers (July 2015).
Available at: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT-update_US-HDV-Ph2-
NPRMJun2015_v2.pdf.
Response:
See response to EDF above noting both the increased stringency in the final engine standards from those
proposed, and explanation of why more stringent standards are either not feasible or unreasonable.
Organization: Shahed, SM
The proposed Phase 2 standards only require a 4% reduction in fuel consumption and C02 emissions of
engines, compared to Phase 1, through 2027, a requirement that may well be met with already
demonstrated technology. If the standard is set too low, it presents a risk that the agencies' goal of
spurring development and deployment of advanced technology may not be met, and it may render the
separate engine requirement largely meaningless. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0033-A1 p.2]
The EPA has a long and successful history of setting technology forcing standards. I respectfully suggest
the Phase 2 engine standard can require a larger reduction in fuel consumption to become at least
"technology encouraging" if not "technology forcing." Enough promising technologies and time exist to
provide compliance at a cost increase that meets the payback scenarios outlined in the proposed standard.
Based on my experience and judgment, I support anywhere between 10% and 15% fuel consumption
reduction for Phase 2 heavy engine standards, depending on how ambitious the regulators want to be.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0033-A1 p.2]
Response:
We made a few key changes on engine standards. For tractor engines, we increased the dis-synergy
factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in 2027, and increased the projected market penetration rate for WHR Rankine
cycle technology from 15% to 25% in 2027, and include down speed benefits for engines. As a result of
this, the tractor engine standards' projected stringency over the baseline increased from 4.2% to 5.1%.
Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA detail the justification of this increase.
It should be pointed out that while the literature, specifically from the DOE SuperTruck program,
demonstrates more reduction on the engine side, the technology demonstrations only focus on a single
-------
operating point. In contrast, we consider stringency over the 13 modes of the SET, where the reduction
over the composite is not as great as the reduction over the single, most efficient, operating point.
Organization: Sierra Club
Strengthen the engine standard
The engine standards finalized in this rule will influence the engine technologies adopted over the next 15
years. Unfortunately, the proposed standards only require roughly a 4 percent improvement in engine
efficiency, far short of what can be achieved. Organizations such as the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy have noted that a 10 percent increase in engine efficiency is possible over the
timeframe of the rule. We urge you to strengthen the engine standard to ensure continued gains in engine
efficiency in the years to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 189]]
Response:
As detailed in the RIA, we believe the 10% increase in 2027 is beyond what is feasible in this time frame
industry-wide. Data cited by the commenter mainly relies on the literature, including DOE SuperTruck
programs, which are not directly applicable. The values from the literature are single optimal operating
points and not operation over the entire engine map. Further, those values were demonstrated in an R/D
environment. In contrast, we must consider stringency over the 13 modes of the SET, where the
reduction over the composite is not as great as the reduction over the single, most efficient, operating
point. Technology effectiveness is also not additive. Chapter 2.7.5 of the RIA details justifications of
dis-synergy used in the rule. These justifications were also supported by many industry comments, such
as the reports made by four major vehicle OEMs (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894) as well as other
comments made by individual vehicle OEMs (Daimler Truck North America and Navistar). The
technology effectiveness of WHR in Rankine cycle used by the agencies, which we project to be less
effective than what commenters recommended, were directly obtained from credible, but CBI
information, based on the recommendation from a leading engine manufacturer. It is critical to derive the
standards based on the agencies' weighting factors over 13 modes, vehicle weight, and three vehicle
certification cycles. Thus, the adjusted values for stringency are typically much smaller than the values
seen in the literature. Having said that, we have made changes to strengthen the standards from those
proposed. In the final rule, we did readjust the baseline of the tractor engine standards to reflect the SET
reweighting impact. Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA and Response 3.3.3 discuss the change in the baseline. We
made a few other key changes to engine standard analysis. For tractor engines, we increased the dis-
synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in 2027, and increased the market penetration rate for WHR Rankine
cycle technology from 15% to 25% in 2027, and include down speed benefits for engines. As a result of
this, the 2027 tractor engine standards' projected stringency over the baseline increased from 4.2% to
5.1%. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 ofthe RIA detail the justification of this increase. We also strengthened the
vocational engine standards after readjustment of the baseline values of the engines.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Accounting for IRAFs
The Agencies are proposing to require the inclusion of the emissions from any infrequent regeneration
events into the various Phase 2 test cycles. (See Proposed sections 1065.680, 1036.501(d) and
1036.530(a)). There is no basis for this change from Phase 1. The rates of infrequent regenerations have
-------
been going down since the adoption of the Phase 1 standards, not up. Thus, there is no factual predicate
for the proposed change from the Phase 1 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.39]
In Phase 1, the Agencies excluded IRAF contributions based on their correct understanding that such
contributions are minor, and that competitive pressures drive manufacturers to continue to seek ways to
minimize the frequency of regeneration and its associated fuel efficiency penalty. The rationale for
excluding IRAF in Phase 1 is equally valid for Phase 2. There are no reasonably anticipated
circumstances under which manufacturers would seek to increase IRAF-associated fuel consumption
penalties. In fact, the proposed fuel efficiency improvements are more than likely to pressure
manufacturers towards developing engines at higher in-cylinder NOx levels, which are beneficial to
passive regeneration of diesel particulate filters, and lower particulate emissions levels due to the natural
tradeoff between NOx and particulates. Consequently, the need for active regenerations and the
associated IRAF impact on fuel consumption can be expected to decrease. For these reasons, and in
recognition of the vastly increased burden of the Phase 2 regulations, EPA should maintain the Phase 1
approach of excluding IRAF effects in the testing and data processing for Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.39]
Response:
We do not believe that the inclusion of C02 into IRAF will significantly impact the stringency of these
standards because manufacturers have already made great progress in reducing the impact of regeneration
emissions since 2007. Nevertheless, we believe it is prudent to begin accounting for regeneration
emissions to discourage manufacturers from adopting compliance strategies that could reverse this trend.
See Response 3.3.4.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
TRACTOR ENGINE STANDARDS
The largest single area of verifiable fuel consumption reduction over the lifetime of the vehicle comes
from improvements to the engine. Therefore, it is critical that the regulations measure these improvements
and push manufacturers to invest in technologies that will reduce fuel consumption from the engine
without compromising further reductions in criteria pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.5]
Adjustment to the engine test cycle. Based on data from manufacturers, the agencies revised the SET
engine test cycle. This revision for greenhouse gas emissions shifts much of the weighting of the highest
test speed (C) to the lowest speed (A), reflecting the industry move towards downspeeding. We support
the agencies' revision and believe that this helps ensure that the standards reflect on-road behavior as
much as possible and encourage investment in technologies that will provide real world benefits. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.8]
Future regulation of criteria pollutants should correct the disparity the Phase 2 regulation has created
between the SET test weightings for fuel consumption regulations and those for criteria pollutants. This
correction is necessary both to better assess the real world pollution from these engines and to ensure that
manufacturers cannot try to game the system by reducing NOx emissions more in the zone more heavily
weighted in the criteria test while increasing NOx and reducing fuel consumption at the lower speeds
where the vehicle is more likely to run. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.8]
In assessing the impact of this procedural adjustment, however, the agencies did not seem to appropriately
consider how this revision would affect the baseline for improvement. The agencies have presented two
-------
engine maps that are compliant with 2017 model year standards: the 2017 map from Phase 1 and the 2018
baseline map for Phase 2. In the Draft RIA (p. 2-82), the agencies note that the 2018 baseline reflects two
changes: 1) the "sweet spot" has been broadened, and 2) the engine is designed to be increasingly
downsped. However, the resultant 2018 map shows an increase in fuel consumption at lower engine
speeds, which is the exact opposite of what one would expect (Table 1). In fact, while the two engines
would have similar scores under the Phase 1 SET weightings, our analysis shows that the agency's
revised engine results in a 0.6-percent increase in emissions from the 2018 engine on the Phase 2
weighting compared to the 2017 engine. This change effectively lowers the bar for manufacturers for
Phase 2 without making any changes to their 2018 engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.8]
[Table 1, 'Comparison of Calculated Engine Performance and Regulatory Values', can be found on p.8 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2]
The fact that both engines showed a reduction in fuel usage on the SET(2) weighting compared to SET(l)
the same value as the 2017 HHD tractor engine standard, which is based the SET(l). We thus further
calculated the SET(l) and SET(2) results of all the engine maps that the agencies have used to set the
stringency of the heavy duty engine regulations. Our analysis indicates that while the calculated values
well-replicate the SET(l) values, the stringency in Phase 2 set according to the SET(2) weighting does
not accurately reflect the engine maps provided. In fact, according to our analysis, the agencies' engines
maps significantly outperform the Phase 2 engine standard, by as much as 1.6 percent in 2027. It is
difficult to assess the reason for this disparity—one possibility is that the agencies did not adjust the
engine standard to reflect the new SET(2) weighting, since our calculated values for each engine's
performance on the SET(l) more closely mirror the standard. What is clear, however, is that the agency's
own engine maps achieve a 434 g C02/bhp-hr level on the reweighted test cycle is an improvement of 5.
7 percent over the agencies' baseline value of 460 g C02/bhp -hr, not 4.2 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p.8-9]
The agencies' proposal must be 'technology-forcing' and achieve the 'maximum feasible' reductions in the
timeframe of the rule. To do this, the agencies must strengthen Alternative 4 by: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p.27]
• Increasing the stringency of the engine standard in 2024 to at least 9 percent from the current
baseline to ensure real-world reductions over the lifetime of the vehicles; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p.27][This comment can also be found in section 1.5 and 1.7 of this comment
summary]
Diesel engines. While most of the technologies assessed by SwRI on the diesel engine were considered by
the agencies in setting the vocational engine standard, SwRI noted much greater potential in friction
reduction than the agencies, achieving 1.9-percent improvement at 65-mph and 6.2 percent on the
transient cycle compared to the baseline engine. After factoring in the improvements already captured by
the agencies in Phase 1 and 2, this led to additional improvements to diesel-powered vocational vehicles
of between 1.7 and 2.9 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.21]
Response:
We have made all necessary changes on the baseline tractor standards to reflect the new SET weighting
factors. We also made a few key changes to the engine standards. See earlier responses and Chapters 2.3
and 2.7 of the RIA.
-------
It should be pointed out that while the literature, specifically from the DOE SuperTurck program,
demonstrates more reduction on the engine side, the technology demonstrations only focus on a single
operating point. In contrast, we consider stringency over the 13 modes of the SET, where the reduction
over the composite is not as great as the reduction over the single, most efficient, operating point.
Using the same principle as in the SwRI final report together with the agencies' vehicle certification
weights and certification cycle weighting factors over 55mph, 65mph, and ARB cycles; SwRI's findings
largely support the agencies' final standards, including friction reduction.
Organization: Volvo Group
Fortunately, technologies aimed at reducing vehicle power demand, such as improving aerodynamics and
reducing rolling resistance, result in less total work needed from the engine to complete the mission of
moving cargo from point A to point B, and therefore proportionately less total NOx is emitted. This is not
the case, however, when it comes to technologies focused on improving engine efficiency. Here, the
NOx/efficiency trade-off typically results in precisely the opposite effect. The most logical thing EPA and
NHTSA could do to avoid forcing this trade-off is to eliminate the separate engine standards in the
proposal. At minimum, they should maintain the proposed engine stringency levels to mitigate undue risk
of unintended consequences. This would permit manufacturers to focus their development efforts on
efficiency technologies that capitalize on synergistic GHG-NOx reduction opportunities, rather than those
engine technologies that complicate and frustrate future NOx reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.60]
While not referenced in the NODA, a paper had been submitted to the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1237) which presented arguments encouraging the Agencies to increase the stringency of the engine
standards proposed in the NPRM. The Volvo Group joined with Daimler Trucks North America,
Navistar, Inc., and PACCAR Inc. to prepare comments refuting many of the arguments posed in the
paper. These joint comments, which stress the importance that the Agencies avoid unintended
consequences by maintaining the standards as proposed, were submitted to the docket. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1928-A1 p.3]
Response:
We understand Volvo's concerns on engine NOx trade-off with C02. We will work with Volvo closely
on this matter of and when the time comes. We also appreciate Volvo's comments submitted to the
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1237).
Organization: Walsh, Michael and Charlton, Stephen
The literature related to control of GHGs from medium- and heavy-duty commercial vehicles is
extensive. Every attempt has been made to include the most relevant, high quality and influential reports,
presentations and reviews on the subject. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 16]
5.1 NAS GHG Phase 1, Final Report [37]
Section 108 of EISA required that NHTSA contract with NAS to undertake a study and develop a report
that evaluated medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel economy. This study was carried out between 2008 and
2010 and resulted in the publication of a 250 page report outlining possible regulatory structures, metrics,
certification methods and available vehicle and engine technologies that could be applied to reduce GHG
emissions and improve fuel efficiency. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.16]
-------
In addition to seeking input from a broad range of stakeholders, NAS contracted with TIAX [36] to carry
out an in-depth analysis of available technologies and the related unit and capital costs. The TIAX study
informed NAS significantly on the state of existing and emerging technologies across all vehicle classes
from Class 2b through Class 8. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 16]
Key findings included:
• The major enabling technologies necessary to achieve significant reductions in fuel consumption
are hybridization, advanced diesel engines, and aerodynamics.
• Diesel engine advancements are helpful in all applications and will include continuing
improvements to fuel injection systems, emissions control, and air handling systems, in addition
to commercialization of waste heat recovery systems.
• Diesel engines have the potential for 15-21% reduction of fuel consumption in the 2015-2020
time frame, relative to a 2008 baseline. This was by far the most significant area of improvement
for Class 8 tractor-trailers identified in the study. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 16]
By this estimate, the NAS committee indicated a potential for diesel engine BTE to reach somewhere
between 47.2% and 50.8%. (416 - 387 gC02/HP-hr) given a 2008 baseline of 40.1%, which became the
baseline for the Phase 1 regulation. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p. 16]
A summary of the results from this study are included in Appendix D [see p.39] for reference. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0102-A1 p.16]
5.2 NAS GHG Phase 2. First Report. 2014 f 381
NAS published a further report to inform EPA and NHTSA as they prepared the proposed Phase 2 GHG
rule [38], This report is in effect an interim report, to be followed by a final report expected in 2016. The
EISA anticipates that the NAS will update its report at 5-year intervals through 2025. The committee was
formed in January 2013 and published their interim report in early 2014 by agreement with NHTSA. At
the time of publishing the interim report the committee was unable to complete their assessment of
available technologies to support the Phase 2 rule: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p. 16]
"Owing to time constraints for preparation of this report, the committee has not been able to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of new technologies that would supplement those identified in the National
Research Council (NRC) Phase One Report. " [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.16]
The committee observed that the Phase I Rule was informed by off-the-shelf technologies included in the
NAS Phase One Report, and that the Phase 2 regulations would be informed by the NAS Phase Two
Report on future and advanced technologies. To this end, NHTSA contracted with the Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI) to conduct a multiyear study of fuel-efficiency technologies for medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles (Classes 2b-8) in the years before and during the Phase 2 regulations' time frame.
The SWRI reports are reviewed in this study [42, 43], [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 16]
36 "Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and HeavyDuty Vehicles - Final Report,"
TIAX Case D0506, November 19,2009.
-------
37 "Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles - Phase 1," Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles; National Research Council; Transportation Research Board, March 31, 2010
38 "Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Phase Two: First Report," Committee on Assessment of Technologies and Approaches for
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two, Board on Energy
and Environmental Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, 2014
42 Reinhart, T. E., "Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study - Report
#1. (Report No. DOT HS 812 146). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
June 2015.
43 Reinhart, T., "Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency Technology Study -
Report #2." (Report No. DOT HS xxx xxx). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, June 2015.
The focus here is on the stringency of GHG emission and fuel consumption standards for HD tractor
engines used in line-haul and heavy-haul applications, since these trucks have the highest vehicle miles
travelled, burn the most fuel and emit the most C02. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p.5]
Finding 1
The most recent NAS report published September 11, 2015 [41], which followed an in-depth study
carried out over several months with multiple on-site visits, for the DOE SuperTruck program found that:
"The engine systems Goal 1 of a 50% BTE for an emissions compliant engine has been achieved. Two of
the four SuperTruck teams have successfully demonstrated BTE greater than 50% in on-road tests using
commercial, ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel" NAS [41],
This significant milestone should be compared with the proposed limit standard for HD tractor engines
contained in the NPRM of 441 gC02/HP-hr, which is equivalent to a BTE of only 44.6%. INHTSA-
2014-0132-0102-A1 p.6]
Finding 2
Having validated that the SuperTruck program had met Goal 1 (50% BTE in highway cruise operations)
the NAS committee has shifted their focus to defining the pathways to a HD engine attaining 55% BTE.
The NAS committee observed that all of the programs are pursuing improved friction and pumping, more
effective air boosting systems, smaller auxiliary and accessory loads, and improvements in WHR, and
that all teams are investigating advanced low-temperature combustion (LTC) approaches.
While industry has its sights set on delivering commercially viable HD tractor engines capable of 55%
BTE, this should be compared with the proposed limit standard for HD tractor engines contained in the
NPRM of 441 gC02/HP-hr, which is equivalent to a BTE of only 44.6%. INHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
p.6]
Finding 3
-------
The proposed rule contains very modest standards for HD tractor engines equivalent to a 2.1% to 3.1%
reduction in GHG emissions and fuel consumption for 2027 and beyond. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
p.6]
2027 Standard 441 gC02/HP-hr is a 4.13% reduction from the 2017 Phase 1 standard of 460
gC02/HP-hr. Relaxation of 1-2% by re-weighting the SET test cycle.
Net reduction of CQ2 is only 2.13% to 3.13%.
Given the 12 year lead time to 2027 and the weak engine standards contained in the NPRM; if this rule
moves forward in its current form it will stall investment in the advanced engine technologies already
demonstrated in the SuperTruck Program as providing a 15-20% reduction in GHG emissions and fuel
consumption. R&D funds are a scarce resource that will be withdrawn or reallocated to other priorities.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.6]
The agencies have recognized the emergence of downspeeding by their proposed changes to the SET
engine test cycle, as discussed in section 3.2.1 of this paper. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.7]
"One of the key technology trends is to down speed, moving the predominant engine speed from the range
of1300-1400 rpm to the range of1150-1200 rpm at vehicle speed of 65mph. " Draft RIA section 2.7.3
[15]
"It can be argued that, if the current SET weighting factors were retained in Phase 2, the test would even
more poorly reflect real-world driving operations. " Draft RIA section 2.7.3 [15]. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p.7]
While the agencies have acknowledged that engine downspeeding is a key technology trend and have
modified the engine test cycle to reflect this trend, they have failed to include the C02 and fuel
consumption savings in the stringency of the engine limit standards. In fact quite the opposite - by
changing the test cycle the agencies have relaxed the stringency by 1-2% (section 3.2.1). By not including
downspeeding in setting limit standards for engines, they have in effect further relaxed the standards - by
as much as 2-4% per SWRI report #1 [42], The combined relaxation is 3%-6%, which exceeds the overall
reduction proposed in the NPRM [14], Even by the agencies estimate of 1.8% reduction due to
downspeeding, the combined relaxation is 2.8%-3.8%. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.7-8]
The agencies having wrongly included downspeeding as a vehicle technology and allocated the C02
reduction to the vehicle via the GEM simulation. By so doing they have relaxed the stringency of the
engine limit standards, which is a significant oversight by the agencies. This issue can be corrected by
including downspeeding in the derivation of the proposed engine standards, Draft RIA section 2.7.4,
Table 2-8 [15], [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.8]
Finding 7
Even with effective exclusion of WHR, advanced combustion and downspeeding, the agencies failed to
set aggressive technology forcing standards for the technologies it did include in its preferred package:
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.8]
• Combustion / fuel injection optimization • Exhaust aftertreatment (Lower DP)
• Engine friction and other parasitic losses • Engine breathing system
-------
• Turbocharging system
Engine downsizing
For example, Volvo demonstrated 48% BTE without WHR [34] compared with the proposed standard for
HD tractor engines of 44.6% BTE (441 g/C02/HP-hr). Cummins demonstrated 48.3% BTE without
WHR [30], [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.8]
The standards proposed assume only very minor incremental improvements to current engine designs, and
fall short of being technology-advancing. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.8]
Finding 9
It is evident that only scant attention was paid to the progress being made by the SuperTruck teams from
Cummins / Peterbilt, Daimler, Navistar and Volvo to improve HD tractor engine GHG emissions and fuel
consumption. There is little evidence in the published reports from SWRI and the agencies of seeking
data from the SuperTruck program - beyond citing the annual merit reviews as references. SWRI chose
instead to rely on a cycle simulation model based on a 2011 engine and an Excel spreadsheet model of
WHR. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.9]
SuperTruck achievements were largely dismissed by both SWRI and the agencies: [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A 1 p.9]
"All of these results shown in this paragraph are demonstrated through the DOE SuperTruck program at
single operating point on the engine map, and therefore the overall expected reduction of these
technologies is less than the single point result. " [14] NPRMpage 186. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
p.9]
"Note that the SuperTruck program engine goal focuses on achieving 50% brake thermal efficiency
(BTE) at a single operating point, and that many of the technologies used in this program may not be
commercially viable in the 2015 timeframe. " [43] SWRI Report #2, June 2015 [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-
A1 p.9]
"This package borders on that of a SuperTruck, and it provides benefits approaching what are being
reported in the SuperTruck program. This package would demand a large increase in cost and
complexity. Fuel savings benefits for this package range from 16% on the GARB urban cycle at 100%
payload, to 35% at 65MPH. " [42] SWRI Report #1, June 2015 [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.9]
The SuperTruck program was specifically designed to integrate emerging advanced technologies into
over-the-road line-haul trucks, in order to demonstrate significant reductions in GHG and fuel
consumption in real-world freight operations [21,24,26], The freight efficiency results obtained over
mixed drive cycles are compelling: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 10]
"One truck has achieved a freight efficiency of over 175 ton-miles per gallon, compared to a 2009 model
baseline efficiency of 99 ton-miles per gallon. In terms of fuel economy, the truck achieved 10.7 miles per
gallon (mpg), compared to the baseline truck at 6.45 mpg" [41] NAS 21CTP Report #3, September 11,
2015. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 10]
"A second truck has doubled fuel economy from a 2009 baseline of 6.1 mpg to 12.2 mpg over one long-
haul route, with a 120 percent increase in freight efficiency in ton-miles per gallon from a 2009 baseline
-------
of 94 ton-miles per gallon to 206 ton-miles per gallon. " [41] NAS 21CTP Report #3, September 11, 2015.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 10]
This performance was achieved through both vehicle power demand reductions and engine BTE
improvements: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.10]
"The SuperTruck projects incorporated a number of vehicle power demand technologies that accounted
for about 56 to 74 percent of the total fuel consumption reductions, with 26 to 44 percent coming from
engine efficiency improvements. " [41] NAS 21CTP Report #3, September 11, 2015. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p.10]
NAS [41] found that the engines developed for the SuperTruck program contributed significantly to the
in-use real-world freight efficiency improvements demonstrated. These engines, which demonstrated 50%
or greater BTE at a highway cruise condition, were operated over complete duty cycles in-vehicle, which
included idle operation, and transient operations such as: acceleration, highway cruise and deceleration.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.10]
No attempt is reported by SWRI or the agencies to seek data, present data, or evaluate in any other way,
the true performance of a SuperTruck engine. This is a significant miss by the agencies. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0102-A1 p.10]
Finding 10
By modifying the HD engine SET test cycle for GHG emissions and fuel consumption certification, the
direct linkage between criteria pollutants and GHGs has been broken, since NOx and PM would continue
to be measured on the current cycle. This loss of linkage between criteria pollutants and GHG emissions
could lead to unintended consequences, for example with regard to in-use emissions. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0102-A1 p.10]
Recommendations
Figure 2 shows both Phase 1 and proposed Phase 2 GHG emission and fuel consumption standards,
expressed as HD tractor engine BTE%. Also shown for reference are the assessments of NAS, SWRI and
the results of the SuperTruck program. The determination of BTE% from brake specific C02 emission is
described in Appendix B. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.10]
[Figure 2 can be found on p.10 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1]
1. The agencies should revise and strengthen the standards for HD tractor engines used in line-haul
and heavy-haul applications. These engines have the highest annual mileage, consume the most
fuel and emit the most C02. The following limit standards and schedule were found to be feasible
in the time scale under discussion, and are recommended for consideration:
MY 2027 and beyond HD Tractor Engines 390 gC02/HP-hr (50.4% BTE)
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.10]
The proposed change of weighting factors illustrated in Figure 4, reduces the stringency of the HD tractor
engine GHG and fuel consumption standards. Increasing the weighting of the A speed from 23% to 45%,
and reducing the C speed weighting from 23% to 5% has more or less the same effect as downspeeding.
-------
The fuel consumption of a HD tractor engine is typically lower at the A speed than the B or C speeds. If
the same engine were tested on both cycles, the new proposed cycle would deliver approximately 1-2%
lower C022. The proposed weighting factors relax the stringency of the HD engine standards significantly
and should be taken into account when setting limit standards for C02. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1
p. 12]
Proposed reduction of C02 and fuel consumption, 2027 and beyond 4.13%
Relaxation of SET Test Cycle 1-2%
Net reduction of C02 and fuel consumption, 2027 and beyond 2.13-3.13%
[Figure 4 can be found onp.12 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1]
5.5.1 Derivation of the Proposed Engine Standards
As described in Section II.D(a) of the HD Phase 2 NPRM [15], the agencies derived the proposed engine
standards based on their projections of the effectiveness of various technologies over the proposed engine
test cycles (i.e., percent reduction) and the extent to which such technologies could be adopted by
industry by 2021, 2024, and 2027. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.20]
Figure 9 shows the agencies derivation of the 2027 GHG emission standard with 4.2% reduction versus
the 2017 Phase 1 baseline. According to the agencies, the maximum available GHG reduction relative to
the 2017 Phase 1 base line is 8.1 %, or equivalent to a BTE of 46.4%. However, this reduction is
discounted by the agencies assessment of technology effectiveness (Dis-Synergy Factor) and market
penetration. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.20]
[Figure 9 can be found on p.20 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1]
The data supporting this determination of HD engine stringency is clouded by at least three factors:
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.20]
• "The agencies would not be able to release the more detailed numbers along each mode of 13
SET modes to justify the stringency proposal due to the nature of CBI." [15]
• No explanation is given for the Dis-Synergy Factors (75% and 85%) used to discount the SET
weighted reductions.
• The market penetration percentages are the result of a confusion by the agencies between the
forces of regulation and the forces of the free market. The market penetration should be limited
only by the exclusion of vehicle applications for which the technology is not applicable - i.e. it
would not produce the desired reductions or would prevent safe operation of the vehicle.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.20]
Figure 16 tabulates the Phase 1 and proposed Phase 2 standards for HD tractor engines in terms of BTE%.
Also shown in Figure 16 are the recommendations of NAS [37] and SWRI [42, 43] and the results of the
SuperTruck Program [31-35], Figure 2 shows the same data as Figure 16 in graphical form. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0102-A1 p.24]
The Phase 2 2027 limit standard for HD tractor engines is 441 gC02/HP-hr, equivalent to a BTE of
44.6%, and a reduction from the Phase 1 2017 HD tractor engine standard of 460 gC02/HP-hr, of only
4.13%. In fact, the relaxation of stringency of the SET test cycle for HD tractor engines proposed in the
-------
Phase 2 rule, described earlier (section 3.2.1), reduces the stringency further by between 1% and 2%.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.24]
The proposed rule is therefore equivalent to only a 2.1% to 3.1% reduction in GHG emissions and fuel
consumption, commencing in 2027. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p.24]
When considering the lead time available through 2027, and the progress demonstrated by the
SuperTruck projects in both engine testing and vehicle testing, there is a compelling case for more
stringent HD tractor engine standards than contained in the NPRM. This study finds that the following
standards are technologically and commercially feasible and meet the president's expectation for utilizing
advanced technology: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.25]
MV 2027 and beyond HD Tractor Engines 390 gC02/HP-hr (50.4% BTE) [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0102-A1 p.25]
2 Based on analysis of fuel maps used in HD Phase 2 version of GEM to set 2021, 2024 and 2027MY
Standards. Draft RIA - Figures 2-12, 2-13 and 2-14 [15],
5 The loss of alignment between criteria pollutant emissions with GHG emissions caused by proposed
changes
to the weighting factors for GHG emissions, should be remedied by either reverting back to the SET test
cycle used for NOx and PM for GHG certification, or by adopting the new test cycle for NOx and PM
certification. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 11]
15 Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium - and
Heavy - Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis. Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation - EPA-420-D-15-900, June 2015
21 "DOE SuperTruck Program Benefits Analysis," Final Report,- prepared for U.S, Department of
Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies and Argonne National Laboratory, December 20,2012
24 "Roadmap and Technical White Papers," 21st Century Truck Program, U.S. Department of Energy,
21CTP-0003, Final - February 27,
2013. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/Q2/f8/21ctp roadmap white papers 2013.pdf
26 Gravel, R., "SuperTruck: An opportunity to reduce GHG emissions while meeting service demands."
Asilomar Conference, Augfust, 2013 www.its.ucdavis.edu/fies/general/pdf/2013-08-21 Asilomar-2013-
Gravel.pdf.
30 Koeberlein, D., "Cummins SuperTruck Program Technology and System Level Demonstration of
Highly Efficient and Clean, Diesel Powered Class 8 Trucks," DOE Merit Review, 16 May, 2013, Project
ID: ACE057
34 Amar, P., "Volvo SuperTruck - Powertrain Technologies for Efficiency Improvement," 2015 Annual
Merit Review, Washington, DC, June 12, 2015
-------
41 "Review Of The 21st Century Truck Partnership: Third Report," Committee to Review the 21st
Century Truck Partnership, Phase 3; Board on Energy and Environmental Systems; Division on
Engineering and Physical Sciences; The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
September 11, 2015.
42 Reinhart, T. E., "Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study - Report
#1. (Report No. DOT HS 812 146). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
June 2015.
43 Reinhart, T., "Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency Technology Study -
Report #2." (Report No. DOT HS xxx xxx). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, June 2015.
Response:
We appreciate the commenter's constructive comments. In the final rule, we do readjust the baseline of
the tractor engine standards to reflect the SET reweighting impact. Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA and
Response 3.3.3 detail the reasons for the change in the baseline. We respectfully disagree with many of
arguments that pertain to a more aggressive engine standard. See Response to EDF in this section above.
We have reviewed the reports from four major vehicle OEMs (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894) as well
as other comments made by individual vehicle OEMs (Daimler Truck North America and Navistar),
which rebut the points made by the commenter. Specifically, we disagree with the approach taken by the
commenter regarding the technology effectiveness from DOE's Supertruck program and NAS's report. It
appears that the commenter took single values out of the literature, primarily reflecting peak values, such
as their findings 1 and 2 related to 50% and 55% BTE. The values from the literature are single optimal
operating points and not operation over the entire engine map. Further, those values were demonstrated
in an R/D environment. In contrast, we consider stringency over the 13 modes of the SET, where the
reduction over the composite is (necessarily) not as great as the reduction over the single, most efficient,
operating point. The technology path for downspeeding proposed by the commenter is not practical,
because while the peak torque of the engine moves down to an engine speed of around 800 rpm, the
required high boost pressure cannot be maintained due to the engine's low speed. While we disagree with
many of the comments, we agree with some. We have made the standards more stringent than proposed.
We increase the dis-synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9, and increase the projected market penetration for
WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15% to 25% in 2027, and included down speed benefits on engines.
As a result of that, the tractor engine 2027 MY standards increased from 4.2% (proposal) to 5.1% in the
final rule. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA detail the justification for this increase. For vocational engines,
we have adjusted the vocational engine baseline C02 emission level based on the new certification data,
strengthening the standards relative to the NPRM. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA detail the justification
for this increase.
3.3.1 Diesel (Compression-Ignition) Engine Standards
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
§ 1065.680 Adjusting emission levels to Account for Infrequently Regenerating Aftertreatment
Devices
Proposed changes to 1065.680 require that manufacturers develop regeneration emission rate and
frequency factors to account for GHGs emitted during a regeneration event. Furthermore, EPA opines that
these changes would not significantly impact the stringency of the proposed standards without providing
-------
supporting data. AAPC testing, the results of which are presented below, indicates that the proposed
changes increase the stringency by 4 - 5 %. Additionally the technology and associated costs needed to
recover the proposed IRAF application towards GHGs does not appear to be incorporated into the draft
RIA nor any of the supporting cost benefit analysis. AAPC recommends that the Agencies withdraw the
proposed IRAF requirement relative to GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.29]
[Table of medium duty diesel emissions can be found on p.29 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1]
Response:
We do not believe inclusion of C02 into IRAF will significantly impact the stringency of these standards
because manufacturers have already made great progress in reducing the impact of regeneration emissions
since 2007. Nevertheless, we believe it is prudent to begin accounting for regeneration emissions to
discourage manufacturers from adopting compliance strategies that could reverse this trend. See
Response 3.3.4.
Specifically, the data given by AAPC in their comments is for one diesel engine model that appears to be
poorly optimized. It does not represent all of the diesel engine makes and models manufactured, and
more importantly does represent what can be achieved with proper design and calibration. IRAF is
already required for criteria pollutants for engines that utilize aftertreatment that requires infrequent
regeneration. Therefore there should be no cost associated with adding a requirement to measure C02 to
the IRAF provisions, as most test cell typically have C02 measurement capability.
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Standards for vocational vehicle engines
Diesel engines
The agencies' Phase 2 technology package for diesel engines used in vocational applications is similar to
that of diesel engines used in tractor trucks, except that the WHR technologies are not included. This is
appropriate, considering that these technologies are suitable for steady-state operation, whereas vocational
vehicles mostly operate in a transient duty cycle. However, the agencies' estimates of effectiveness and
penetration of other technologies are conservative in our estimation. SwRI estimates that friction
reduction can provide almost 4% fuel savings while combustion improvements can provide at least 2%
fuel savings, as we have discussed in the previous section. Model-based control is a promising
technology, especially for the transient engine operation typical in vocational vehicles. Improvements in
computing power and speed would make it possible to use much more sophisticated algorithms that are
more predictive than today's controls (p. 40195). We used the agencies' penetration in our estimate, even
though their estimate was very low. This technology has a cost of less than $100 but provides at least 2%
fuel saving benefits, so its penetration would be expected to exceed the agencies' estimate of 40% in 2027
timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 13]
The agencies also appear to assume an overlapping of benefits for vocational engine technologies,
without providing a justification. We did not include such a factor. In our calculation, diesel engines for
vocational vehicles can attain 7% and 8% fuel savings beyond Phase 1 levels in 2024 and 2027,
respectively. Table 3 outlines the agency package and our estimate for vocational vehicles in 2024 and
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 13]
-------
[Table 3 can be found on p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
The revised benefit from friction reduction in the final SwRI report ranges from 1% to 2.9% for highway
cruising, dependent upon vehicle loading and speed. The SET-weighted average of these friction
reduction estimates is 2.1%, which is 50 percent higher than the agencies' estimate of friction reduction
potential in the proposal (Appendix 1), indicating that friction reduction can contribute more efficiency
benefit than the proposal indicates. [Appendix 1 can be found on p. 8 of this docket] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1896-A1 p.2]
Furthermore, the final SwRI report4 confirms the significant benefit of downspeeding on the engine side,
even taking into account the accompanying loss in friction reduction potential. Downspeeding benefits are
not reflected in the proposed engine standards, despite the fact that manufacturers have repeatedly
acknowledged moving engine operation to even lower speeds.5 The agencies also have noted the benefits
of downspeeding when combined with downsizing, which they did refer to in setting the standard:
"engine downsizing could be more effective if it is combined with downspeeding" (NPRM p. 40217). The
SwRI report estimates savings ranging from 3% to 8% after lowering the engine speed from 1368 to 1051
rpm. This estimate includes the 50 percent discounting of friction reduction potential for the downsped
engine. An SET-weighted average of downspeeding combined with friction reduction results in 3.3
percent improvement in 2027. As noted in other comments to the docket, the agencies should consider
downspeeding improvements on the tractor engine test because of how it affects engine design.6 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.2]
The agencies also should fiirther consider their assessment of the penetration of advanced technologies
like waste heat recovery (WHR). The SwRI report clearly illustrates the benefits of WHR, and a
consultant report recently uploaded to the docket outlines how it is making its way into the fleet ahead of
the rate of penetration that underlies the agencies' proposed targets.7 The report also makes clear that
current research into even more efficient engines indicates the potential for a durable, reliable 50-percent
brake thermal efficiency engine in the timeframe of this rule. Further evidence of the significant
penetration possible for WHR can be found in a recent white paper that illustrates that the agencies have
significantly overestimated the costs of WHR and therefore underestimated its cost-effectiveness and
potential rate of penetration in the market.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.2]
The finalized report from the Southwest Research Institute indicates that tractor engines are capable of
achieving an 8 to 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption from the 2018 baseline when considering the
agencies' technology penetration rates; further analysis shows that a 15 percent reduction is possible
(Appendix 1). [Appendix 1 can be found on p.8 of this docket][EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-Al p.2]
Impact on proposal
The tractor truck engine stringency should be significantly strengthened in the final rule to reflect the
most up-to-date data, which indicates that tractor engines can easily exceed the proposed 2027 target of
4.2 percent improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.2]
Southwest Research Institute Report24
SET-weighted improvement
Improvements in efficiency measured on the drive cycles simulated in the SwRI report do not directly
correspond to the improvements these technologies would achieve on the engine cycle. To estimate the
improvements that would be achieved on the SET cycle, we have utilized specific drive cycles to
represent the A, B, C, and idle points, weighting the improvements achieved on these cycles in
accordance with the SET regulatory weighting (Table 1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A 1 p.8]
[Table 1 can be found on p. 8 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1]
-------
The A speed and B speed are most similar to 55 mph and 65 mph, respectively. This can be confirmed
with the drive ratio assumed in the SwRI report. However, the C speed represents an engine speed that is
not easily represented by any of the drive cycles measured. Because we are primarily concerned with
friction reduction, which we know will show diminished improvement at high speed, we have chosen to
halve the improvement of the 65 mph cycle to represent a stand-in. The idle cycle is represented by the
unloaded ARB transient cycle. Because the engine test is run at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent loading, we
have averaged the 0 and 50 percent loaded cycles to represent 25 percent loading, and the 50 and 100
percent loading to represent 75. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1896-A1 p.8]
Comparison of SwRI report and the NPRM: engine friction reduction
After assessing how to model the engine technologies in the SwRI report, we can compare these results to
those of the NPRM (Table 2). Here, the fiiel consumption reduction of each individual technology is
shown as well as the agencies' assumed penetration of this technology in 2027, yielding a weighted
reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.8]
The revised effectiveness represents the SwRI SET-weighted value. In combining the technologies, the
final value reflects some assumption about how the technologies interact, which we refer to as dis-
synergy. Such interaction should be based on considerations specific to the technologies being
combined—for example, the effectiveness of a waste heat recovery will be lower in combination with
technologies that reduce the amount of waste heat available. However, we are unaware of other
overlapping benefits among the particular technologies in the agency engine package. Therefore, while
the agencies used a representative value of 15 percent for the dissynergy factor, we have reduced this
value to 4 percent to reflect only the 25 percent of the fleet for which this the agencies applied this
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.8]
[Table 2 can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1]
Comparison of SwRI report and the NPRM: downspeeding
Downspeeding offers additional gains that are not included in Table 2. Higher brake mean effective
pressure that results from downspeeding does interact with engine friction reduction; however, the SwRI
report clearly showed that benefits from downspeeding were achieved beyond the levels outlined in Table
2. Table 3 outlines the additional benefits that are achievable when including downsizing on the engine
standard, based upon the SwRI report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.9]
[Table 3 can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1]
Feasibility Assessment ofFuture Efficiency Improvement for Class 8 Diesel Tractor Engines25
In addition to the SwRI report, a presentation was uploaded to the docket from Dr. Stephen J. Charlton
that outlines a path forward for the heavy-duty truck industry over the timeframe of the rule, taking into
account ongoing research, product development cycles, and the breadth of technologies that could be
available in the timeframe of this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 10
Table 4 summarizes the findings of this report, illustrating a path to an engine standard in 2027 that would
achieve a 15 percent reduction from the current 2018 baseline engine on the SET test. Notable differences
between the agencies' proposed targets are: 1) greater penetration of WHR; 2) recognition that
downspeeding will lead to efficiency improvements on the SET cycle as well as on the vehicle; 3) greater
potential improvements from model-based controls; and 4) increased stringency of the 2018 baseline
itself to reflect the updated SET weighting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 10]
[Table 4 can be found on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1]
24 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1623/NHTSA-2014-0132-0185.
25 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1472.
-------
Response:
The findings from SwRI's report on friction are consistent with the agencies' estimate if exactly the same
certification cycle weighting factors for tractors and the certification vehicle weights are used. Using the
same principle for overall technology effectiveness reported by SwRI, specifically from their revised
report, their findings again support the agencies' findings. We appreciated many of the constructive
comments related to down speeding, and dis-synergy effect. Accordingly, we have made many changes
on engine standards. On the vocational side, we changed the baseline engine to reflect the most recent
certification data. The detailed vocational engine stringency and its baseline engine standards explanation
can be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. For tractor engines, we increased the dis-synergy factor from
0.85 to 0.9 in 2027, increased the market penetration rate for WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15%
to 25% in 2027, and include down speed benefits for engines. As a result of this, the 2027 MY tractor
engine standards' projected stringency over the baseline increased from 4.2% (proposed) to 5.1%.
Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA detail the justification of this increase.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Stringency of the engine standards for heavy-duty tractors
The NPRM requests comment on the proposal to increase the stringency of the compression ignition
tractor engine standards. CARB staff strongly supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA's decision to increase the
stringency of the compression ignition engine standards. The Phase 1 regulation established engine
standards that were easily achieved using "off-the-shelf' technologies. With the Phase 2 regulation, U.S.
EPA and NHTSA committed to establish more stringent engine standards that force the introduction of
new and advanced cost-effective engine technologies. CARB staff supports that effort, and in fact
believes the engine standards should be made more stringent than either the preferred Alternative 3
standards or the Alternative 4 standards. As discussed further below, CARB staff recommends that when
fully implemented, the tractor engine standard stringency should be increased from 4.2 percent to 7.1
percent, and that full implementation should happen by MY 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.30-31]
As shown in Table II-6 of the NPRM (included below), U.S. EPA and NHTSA's preferred Alternative 3
would result in standards for MY 2027 diesel engines that require a 4.2 percent reduction in C02
emissions versus a 2017 baseline engine. Also proposed are interim standards for MY 2021 and MY
2024, requiring reductions in C02 emissions of 1.5 to 3.7 percent better than a 2017 baseline. The
proposed standards were determined by taking the SET weighted reduction for each technology,
weighting it by the estimated market penetration, calculating a weighted average for the entire suite of
technologies, and then applying a "dis-synergy factor" to the weighted average. Dis-synergy factors were
used to make adjustments accounting for the potential that some combinations of technologies may result
in C02 reductions less than that indicated by the calculated weighted average. The dis-synergy factor
applied to the 2021 weighted average was 0.75. The dis-synergy factor applied to the 2024 and 2027
weighted averages was 0.85. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.31]
[The table, Table II-6 from the proposed rulemaking, can be found on p.31 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
CARB staff urges U.S. EPA and NHTSA to increase the stringency of the standards in consideration of
the following concerns:
-------
The estimated emission reductions used as the basis of Alternative 3 are overly conservative. A number of
sources lead CARB to conclude that the SET weighted reductions that serve as the basis of the preferred
Alternative 3 standards should be made more stringent, as listed below:[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p.31]
• The estimated emission benefits of the Phase 2 engine standards from a 2010 baseline engine are
significantly less than the potential cited in a number of published technical assessments. There
are a number of published studies that estimated the potential reduction from the application of
engine technologies on_2010 and pre-2010 engine technologies, and the estimated emission
benefits of the Phase 2 engine standards from a 2010 baseline engine are significantly less than
the potential cited in these assessments. The GHG emission rate of a 2010 baseline engine, 490
g/bhp-hr, was defined by U.S. EPA and NHTSA when developing the Phase 1 tractor engine
standard. The proposed Phase 2 tractor engine standard for 2027 is 441 g/bhp-hr and represents a
10 percent reduction from a 2010 baseline engine, which is much less than what has been
estimated as technically feasible in the following reports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.31-32]
• CARB's recently released technology assessment for engine and vehicle efficiency estimates that
tractor engines can achieve up to 34 percent reduction in fuel use/GHG emissions from a 2010
baseline through the application of fuel saving technologies within the Phase 2 timeframe.14
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 32]
• U.S. Department of Energy's Supertruck Program demonstrated engine efficiency improvements
up to 22 percent from a 2009 baseline engine. Technologies demonstrated included waste heat
recovery (WHR) systems using the Rankine cycle.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.32]
• At the 2013 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress,
Donald W. Stanton, Cummins Inc., presented a lecture entitled, "Systematic Development of
Highly Efficient and Clean Engines to Meet Future Commercial Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Regulations." Dr. Stanton estimated that over 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions is possible
through the application of engine technologies in the Phase 2 timeframe.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.32]
• The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) research study on advanced tractor-
trailer efficiency technologies estimated that up to 21.5 percent fuel consumption reduction from
a 2010 baseline engine is possible in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe with the application of advanced
engine technologies and WHR (Rankine).17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.32]
• The SET weighted reductions are overly conservative. Cummins and SwRI, have conducted
independent technical analyses assessing the potential reductions resulting from the application of
engine technologies. Both analyses assumed the baseline engine was a Phase 1 compliant engine.
The Cummins analysis was over the SET certification cycle; the SwRI analysis was over the
drive cycles used by GEM.
o Cummins has indicated that tractor engines can achieve a 9 to 15 percent fuel savings
from a 2017 baseline engine in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe,
o Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) completed a study for NHTSA to inform the
development of the Phase 2 standards that concluded that tractor engine fuel consumption
-------
could be reduced 4 to 10 percent from a baseline 2019 engine compliant with the Phase 1
standards.18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.33]
Two of the above referenced sources, Cummins and SwRI, provided specific information relating the
potential reductions from a Phase 1 compliant engine over either the SET certification cycle or the drive
cycles used by GEM. The information they provided and how it compares to the proposed tractor engine
standard is discussed in further detail below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.33]
Cummins
At the April 22, 2015, CARB Symposium on Phase 2 GHG Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Dr. Wayne Eckerle, Vice President of Corporate Research and Technology for Cummins Inc.,
presented Cummins' perspective on the potential for reduction of C02 from tractor engines in the 2020 to
2030 timeframe. Dr. Eckerle stated that C02 emission reductions of 9 to 15 percent from a 2017 baseline
engine are achievable through improvements in combustion and air handling, friction and parasitics, heat
transfer management, and WHR (Rankine cycle). These reductions were estimated over the SET
certification cycle using the current mode weightings. The SET weighted reductions from Table II-6 for a
tractor engine that employs WHR in the 2020 to 2027 timeframe are presented in Table 1. The total
reduction of C02 emissions from the application of the suite of technologies is 6.7 percent. This includes
the application of a dis-synergy factor of 0.85. WHR (Rankine cycle) was included since the Cummins
engine employs that technology. Turbo compounding was not included since it is unlikely that a
manufacturer would install two WHR technologies on the same engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.33-34]
[Table 1 can be found on p.34 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
The 6.7 percent reduction represents the projected emission reduction from a single tractor engine that
uses WHR (Rankine cycle) and not turbo compounding. The 4.2 percent reduction for MY 2027 (Table
II-6 in the NPRM) represents the percent emission reduction from a fleet of tractor engines taking into
account the projected market penetration of each technology. CARB staff believes comparing the 6.7
percent reduction to the 9 to 15 percent reduction represents an "apples-to-apples" comparison of what
U.S EPA and NHTSA, and Cummins believe is achievable in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. So it is clear
that U.S. EPA and NHTSA's 6.7 percent is much lower than what Cummins has publicly stated is
achievable in the Phase 2 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.22]
Outside of WHR (Rankine cycle), Cummins has not published any information regarding the percent
reduction potential associated with the individual engine technologies that contribute to the total 9 to 15
percent reduction estimate. Regarding WHR (Rankine cycle), Cummins estimates that a 4 to 5 percent
emission reduction is achievable in the 2020 timeframe. Cummins is currently in its fourth generation
WHR (Rankine cycle) system design and plans to implement end-user testing by late 2015, and has stated
that production of a WHR (Rankine cycle) is possible by 2020. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.34]
Given the information provided by Cummins regarding the potential for C02 emission reductions, CARB
staff strongly urges U.S. EPA and NHTSA to reevaluate the projected SET weighted reductions it used to
determine the proposed tractor engine standards. Comparing the 3.6 percent reduction U.S. EPA and
NHTSA projected for WHR (Rankine cycle) to the Cummins estimate of 4 to 5 percent, and U.S. EPA's
overall percent reduction of 6.7 percent to the Cummins estimate of 9 to 15 percent, suggests that the
proposed SET weighted reductions in the 2020-2027 timeframe are overly conservative and should be
made more stringent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.35]
-------
SwRI Report
To inform the development of the Phase 2 standard, the SwRI conducted research assessing the
effectiveness of potential GHG emission reducing technologies for the Phase 2 timeframe. Engine models
were created and calibrated using available experimental data. Each engine model was exercised over five
cycles that included the three Phase 1 GEM cycles, i.e., 55 miles per hour (mph) steady-state cruise, 65
mph steady-state cruise, and the CARB urban cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.35]
Based on the technologies studied, SwRI concluded that there is the potential to improve long-haul truck
engine fuel consumption and GHG emissions by 8 to 10 percent over the Phase 1 baseline. This would
require the use of WHR (Rankine cycle). The study also indicated that fuel savings and GHG emissions
using friction reduction and down speeding could result in reductions in the 4 to 7 percent range. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.35]
To more directly compare the results of the SwRI study to the proposed Phase 2 engine standards, staff
compared the SET weighted reductions assumed by U.S. EPA and NHTSA in setting the engine standard
(as shown in Table 1), to the SwRI simulation results from the drive cycles used in GEM. Staff believes
directly comparing the percent reduction from the SET to the percent reduction from the weighted GEM
cycles is appropriate since U.S. EPA and NHTSA concluded that tractor engine technologies will improve
engines and tractors proportionally, even though the separate engine and vehicle certification test
procedures have different duty cycles (page 40199 of the NPRM). Table 2 shows the simulation results
for two technology packages modeled in the SwRI study. Technology package 1 (referred to as "DDI5
Technology Package 2" in the SwRI report) includes aggressive friction reduction and downspeeding, but
does not include WHR (Rankine cycle). Technology package 2 (referred to as DD15 Technology Package
3f in the SwRI report) includes technology package 1 with WHR (Rankine cycle). These simulation
results were estimated using the same three test cycles used in GEM. Staff then weighted the results in
accordance with the GEM drive cycle weightings for sleeper-cab tractor trailers and day-cab tractor-
trailers, as shown in Table 3. The percent reductions represent the reductions from a Phase 1 compliant
baseline engine at 100 percent payload (46,040 lbs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.35-36]
[Table 2 can be found on p.36 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
[Table 3 can be found on p.36 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
As shown in Table 3, based on the SwRI study, the percent reduction in GHG emissions is estimated to
range from 10.0 to 10.7 percent with WHR (Rankine cycle) and 4.9 to 5.1 percent without it. Comparing
this to U.S. EPA and NHTSA's overall percent reduction of 6.7 percent with WHR (Rankine cycle) and
3.8 percent without WHR (Rankine cycle) suggests that the proposed SET weighted reductions in the
2020-2027 timeframe are overly conservative and should be made more stringent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.36]
The dis-synergy factors used to establish the final standards are unnecessary given the conservative nature
of the proposed standards.
U.S. EPA and NHTSA applied dis-synergy factors of 0.75 for MY 2021 and 0.85 for MYs judgment and
are meant to account for the potential dis-synergy of engine technologies. For example, friction reduction
technologies reduce waste heat produced by the engine. This, in turn, could reduce the effectiveness of
WHR (Rankine cycle) to some degree. The dis-synergy factor is intended account for this loss of
effectiveness. CARB staff understands the rationale behind the application of dis-synergy factors, but
believes they are unnecessary given 1) the conservativeness of the SET weighted reductions that serve as
-------
the basis for preferred Alternative 3 standards and 2) the equation19 used to calculate the benefit of
multiple combined technologies does not simply add the percent effectiveness of each technology, but
accounts for the interaction between technologies and potential loss of effectiveness, as technologies are
combined. As noted previously, Cummins stated that C02 emission reductions of 9 to 15 percent from a
2017 baseline engine are achievable. The 9 to 15 percent estimate incorporates the anticipated dis-synergy
when combining engine technologies. Removing the application 0.85 dis-synergy factor from U.S. EPA
and NHTSA's calculation of the 2027 standard would raise the percent reduction of the standard from 4.2
percent to 4.8 percent. This is much less then what CARB believes is achievable, but would be a step in
the right direction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.36-37]
Suggested Tractor Engine Stringency
In consideration of the information presented above and additional information as noted below, CARB
recommends U.S. EPA and NHTSA reevaluate the stringency of the tractor engine standards for preferred
Alternative 3. Specifically, CARB suggests U.S. EPA and NHTSA make the following changes to the
assumptions used in setting the standards: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.37]
• Increase the percent reduction associated with "Parasitic/friction, lubrication" from 1.4 percent to
3.3 percent. Parasitic/friction, lubrication improvements were included in the technology package
1 discussed above. The SwRI study also evaluated the benefit of these improvements separately
(referred to as DD15 Technology Package 1 in the SwRI report). The GEM drive cycle weighted
average of the SwRI results ranged from 3.2 percent benefit for sleeper-cab tractor trailers to 3.4
for day-cab tractor-trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.37]
• Remove the dis-synergy factor from standard setting calculation. rEPA-HQ-QAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.37]
• Increase the 2024 penetration rate assumptions to those proposed in 2027. This more aggressive
implementation schedule is consistent with our recommendation to adopt the Alternative 4
implementation schedule for all engine and vehicle categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p.37-38]
• Combine the WHR turbo compounding and Rankine cycle categories into one WHR category
and increase the percent reduction associated with WHR to 4.5 percent. CARB staff is
suggesting that for standard setting purposes the WHR SET reduction should reflect the percent
reduction potential from the most effective technology, which would be 4.5 percent from WHR
(Rankine cycle). The market penetration values used to set the standard would be the combined
existing Alternative 3 percentages for turbo compounding and Rankine cycle technologies. Thus
the market penetration for the engines that are projected to utilize WHR systems (either turbo
compounding or Rankine cycle) remains unchanged from the original U.S. EPA proposal. But,
the higher SET reduction associated with WHR would drive more to install WHR Rankine cycle
systems. CARB is confident that manufacturers will have WHR Rankine cycle systems tested and
production-ready to meet the MY 2024 standard. WHR Rankine cycle technology was developed
and implemented as part of the Supertruck program. A fourth generation design of this
technology is currently being developed for tractor applications by Cummins. End-user testing of
this system is planned for late 2015. Production is possible as early as 2020. This should be
sufficient leadtime to develop reliable and compliant engines for MY 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.38]
-------
Table 4 below illustrates the impact the suggested changes would have on the stringency of the proposed
tractor engine standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.38]
[Table 4 can be found on p. 38-39 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
To summarize, as shown in Table 4, CARB recommends that when fully implemented, the tractor engine
standard stringency should be increased from 4.2 percent to 7.1 percent, and that full implementation
should happen three years earlier than indicated in the preferred Alternative 3, moved from 2027 to 2024.
This more aggressive implementation schedule is consistent with our recommendation to adopt the
Alternative 4 implementation schedule for all engine and vehicle categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.39]
Impact of More Stringent Tractor Engine Standards on Alternative 4 Tractor Vehicle Standards
If U.S. EPA and NHTSA adopt more stringent tractor engine standards, the corresponding tractor vehicle
standards should also be made more stringent. Table 5 shows the fuel consumption reductions for the
tractor engine and vehicle standards fully implemented by MY 2024. As discussed above we are
suggesting that U.S. EPA and NHTSA adopt the Alternative 4 implementation schedule for tractor engine
standards; the same holds true for tractor vehicle standards. Therefore, full implementation is shown as
occurring by MY 2024 and not 2027 as prescribed by U.S. EPA and NHTSA's preferred Alternative 3.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 3 9]
[Table 5 can be found on p.39 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
As shown, CARB is suggesting that U.S. EPA and NHTSA adopt more stringent tractor engine standards
that would result in an additional 3 percent reduction when fully implemented by MY 2024. This would
result in a corresponding additional 3 percent reduction in the tractor vehicle standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.40]
14 (CARB, 2015c) California Air Resources Board, "Draft Technology Assessment: Engine/Powerplant
and Drivetrain Optimization and Vehicle Efficiency," June 2015,
.
15 (Delgado and Lutsey, 2014) Delgado, O., Lutsey, N., The U.S. SuperTruck Program: Expediting the
development of advanced heavy-duty efficiency technologies, June 2014. .
16 (Stanton, 2013) Donald W. Stanton, "Systematic Development of Highly Efficient and Clean Engines
to Meet Future Commercial Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulations," Cummins Inc., 2013 Society
Automotive Engineers Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress, 2013.
17 (Delgado and Lutsey, 2015) Delgado, O., Lutsey, N., Advanced Tractor-Trailer Efficiency Technology
Potential in the 2020 2030 Timeframe, April 2015.
18 (Reinhart, 2015) Reinhart, T., Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency
Technology Study - Report #2. Draft. .
-------
19 %GHG reduction package=100[l-(l-{%GHG tech 1 /100})(1-{%GHG tech 2 /100})...(1-{%GHG tech N
/100})]
Comment - Feasibility of vocational vehicle engine standards
CARB staff strongly recommends strengthening the proposed vocational engine standard from the
proposed 4.0 percent reduction in C02 emissions beyond Phase 1 to 4.3 percent. For compression
ignition engines fitted into vocational vehicles, the NPRM proposes an engine standard that achieves 4.0
percent reduction in C02 emissions beyond the Phase 1 standard. This proposed engine standard was
derived assuming certain SET weighted reductions for applicable technologies, along with a certain
penetration for each technology. Table 6 shows the projected emission reductions from the SET weighted
reductions for vocational engine technologies listed in the NPRM. Without accounting for penetration, the
vocational engine reductions amount to a 6.0 percent improvement for MY 2027 (in other words, 6.0
percent reduction could be achieved if the described technologies had penetration of 100 percent; with the
technology penetrations assumed, the technologies' 6.0 percent potential improvement achieves an
overall 4.0 percent reduction for vocational compression-ignition engines in total). Cummins, the largest
manufacturer of heavy-duty truck engines, has publically stated a vocational engine emission
improvement of 5 to 11 percent in the Phase 2 timeframe is feasible. U.S. EPA and NHTSA are currently
proposing a vocational engine standard consistent with the lowest end of Cummins' projections. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.40]
In addition, in deriving the proposed standard, U.S. EPA and NHTSA applied a dis-synergy factor of
0.85. CARB staff does not believe that the dis-synergy factor adjustment is necessary for two reasons.
One, manufacturers already account for dis-synergistic effects between various technologies when
predicting future engine improvements. Therefore, U.S. EPA is, in essence, double discounting when
applying in their own dis-synergy factor. Two, the proposed vocational engine standard for vocational
engines is already conservative; therefore, CARB staff believes the application of a dis-synergy factor is
unnecessary. CARB staff strongly urges U.S. EPA and NHTSA to improve the vocational engine
standard. Overall, CARB staff believes that the proposed Phase 2 emission standard for vocational
vehicles under both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 is overly conservative and leaves emission benefits
"on the table." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.40-41]
[Table 6 can be found on p.41 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
Response:
We appreciate many of constructive comments made by CARB. We recognized that CARB's comments
are largely based on the DOE SuperTruck programs, SwRI reports, and some of Cummins's public
reports. The values from the DOE SuperTruck program are single optimal operating points and not
operation over the entire engine map. Further, those values were demonstrated in an R/D environment.
In contrast, we consider stringency over the 13 modes of the SET, where the reduction over the composite
is not as great as the reduction over the single, most efficient, operating point. The findings from SwRI's
report on friction is consistent with the agencies estimate if exactly the same certification cycle weighting
factors for tractors and the certification vehicle weights are used. Using the same principle for overall
technology effectiveness reported by SwRI, specifically from their revised report, their findings again
support the agencies' findings. We noticed that Cummins's proposal on engine efficiency reduction is
more aggressive than the agencies'. It should be clear that their proposed timing is out to 2030 and not
2027. Many technology adoption rates, such as WHR and other emerging technolgoies, would follow the
S-shape curve as explained in Chapter 2.3.8 of the RIA, meaning that it will be adopted more slowly at
the beginning, and then rapidly after a certain period of time. It can be expected that their reduction plan
-------
should potentially include a new engine platform, which can significantly increase the chance to meet
more aggressive reduction goals. On the other hand, we don't believe that developing a new engine
platform is possible for all OEMs in the given timeframe. Consequently, we can't develop more stringent
standards predicated on all OEMs developing a new engine platform in the timeframe of Phase 2.
We disagree with CARB's comments with respect to dis-synergy. The full justification regarding this
matter can be found in Chapter 2.7.5 of the RIA. We also disagree with CARB's recommendation on
friction reduction, where their conclusion was mainly based on SwRI reports. The finding from SwRI's
report on friction is consistent with the agencies' estimates if exactly the same certification cycle
weighting factors for tractors and the certification vehicle weights are used. In addition, SwRI revised
their finding due to errors found in the baseline modeling. The modified engine standards for the final
rule are based on many comments received and our further investigation into emerging engine
technologies. We do not believe that a WHR effectiveness of 4.5% is feasible. Furthermore, WHR with
Rankine cycle and turbo-compound conflict with each other, and they would not be combined as a single
technology package because they compete for the same energy source. Our WHR effectiveness is directly
obtained from and consistent with data from one of the engine manufacturers.
After taking all constructive comments, including CARB's, into consideration, we have made many
changes to the proposed engine standards. These changes are described in previous responses.
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
The Proposed Rule would require a 4.2 percent increase in diesel-engine efficiency between 2017 and
2027, yet efficiency gains of at least double this amount have been demonstrated. Furthermore, most
diesel engines will improve efficiency at a much higher rate in the near future (about 6 percent between
2010 and 2017 alone).24 It is unfathomable that a smaller total improvement in engine efficiency is
proposed for decades from now than is currently required under Phase 1 standards. A variety of studies25
indicates that diesel engine improvements of at least 10 percent below 2017 emission levels - and often
more - are achievable within the timeframe of the Proposed Rule. In this instance, there is no reasoned
basis that the NHTSA and EPA could find that an efficiency standard set at less than half of what is
technologically feasible fulfills the technology-forcing requirements of the EISA and the Clean Air Act,
rendering the rulemaking subject to legal challenge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.7]
24 International Council on Clean Transportation ("ICCT"), POLICY UPDATE: UNITED STATES
EFFICIENCY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REGULATIONS FOR MODEL YEAR 2018-
2027 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES, ENGINES AND TRAILERS 3 (June 2015) ("ICCT Phase 2 Policy
Analysis"), available at http://theicct.org/us-phase2-hdv-efficiency-ghg-regulations-policv-update.
25 Nic Lutsey, The ever-improving efficiency of the diesel engine, International Council on Clean
Transportation, Aug. 14. 2015. http://theicct.org/blogs/staff7ever-improving-efficiencv-diesel-engine;
ICCT Phase 2 Policy Analysis, supra note 24 at 3 (see collected references therein).
Response:
On the vocational side, we changed the baseline engine to reflect the most recent certification data. The
detailed vocational engine stringency and its baseline engine standards can be found in Chapter 2.7 of the
RIA. For tractor engines, we increased the dis-synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in 2027, and increased the
market penetration rate for WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15% to 25% in 2027, and include down
speed benefits for engines. As a result of this, the tractor engine standards' projected stringency over the
baseline increased from 4.2% to 5.1%. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA detail the justification of this
-------
increase. It should be pointed out that while the literature, including the DOE SuperTruck program,
demonstrate more reduction on the engine side, the technology demonstration only focused on a single
operating point. In contrast, we consider stringency over the 13 modes of the SET, where the reduction
over the composite is not as great as the reduction over the single, most efficient, operating point.
Organization: Engine Research Center
To be effective in achieving these benefits, however, the separate engine standard must not only be
commercially acceptable and reasonable, but also meaningful. The new MDV and HDV standards are
designed to 'spur innovation, encouraging the development of and deployment of existing and advanced
cost-effective technologies for a new generation of cleaner, more fuel efficient commercial trucks ....'
The standard are meant to be set 'not only on currently available technologies but also on utilization of
technologies now under development or not yet widely deployed while providing significant lead time to
assure adequate time to develop, test, and phase in these [technologies]. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1141-A1 p.2]
'The proposed Phase 2 standards only require a 4% reduction in fuel consumption and C02 emissions of
engines, compared to Phase 1, through 2027, a requirement that may well be met with already
demonstrated technology. If the standard is set too low, it presents a risk that the agencies' goal of
spurring development and deployment of advanced technology may not be met, and it may render the
separate engine requirement largely meaningless. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1141-A 1 p.2]
I respectfully suggest the Phase 2 engine standard can require a larger reduction in fuel consumption.
Enough promising technologies and time exist to provide compliance at a cost increase that meets the
payback scenarios outlined in the proposed standard. Based on my experience and judgment, I support a
10% fuel consumption reduction for Phase 2 heavy engine standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1141-
A1 p.2]
Response:
We have made many changes on engine standards as detailed in previous responses and in RIA Chapters
2.3 and 2.7.
Organization: Environmental Law and Policy Center
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 217.]
Analysis from EPA, California, and manufacturers demonstrate that cost-effective technologies are
currently available to achieve at least a 15 percent improvement in engine efficiency, more than three
times greater than that which is reflected in EPA's current proposal. Similarly, the proposal ~ the
proposed regulation ignores fuel efficiencies that could be achieved through aerodynamic improvements
to trailers.
Response:
We have made many changes on engine standards. See previous responses and RIA Chapters 2.3 and 2.7.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
-------
• Diesel engines - The engine standards are based on modest incremental improvements including
engine friction, air handling, and combustion/controls, which are part of every engine/vehicle
manufacturers existing technology portfolio and therefore allow for accelerated deployment
before 2024. For context, the agencies proposed standards require less than half of the known
technology potential for diesel tractor engines (e.g., see Eckerle, 2015; Thiruvengadam et al,
2014; Reinhart, 2015). The proposed standards (Phase 1 and 2 together from a 2010 baseline)
also fall well short of SuperTrucks' engine technologies (i.e., 10% versus SuperTrucks' 15%,
over the SET cycle) that have already been physically demonstrated in Peterbilt and Daimler
tractors (Lutsey, 2015a). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.4]
Overall diesel tractor engine efficiency: Based on the above data and rationale, including the more up-to-
date data would result in technology potential for new diesel tractor engines that would achieve fuel use
reductions of up to 8% in 2024, and 10% in 2027, from a 2017 baseline. This is based on penetration of
just 15% WHR technology by model year 2027, as assumed by the agencies. Based on the above studies,
we believe this is still a conservative interpretation of the data and is significantly short of the
technologies being demonstrated in the SuperTruck program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.9]
SETReweighting. We support the agencies proposed decision to re-weight the SET test points more
toward lower speeds to better reflect real-world driving characteristics. However, we note that while the
engine stringency was developed based on the new proposed re-weighting (new SET), the baseline used
as a starting point to develop such stringency levels was based on the original SET weighing (old SET).
We recommend that the agencies reflect the average shift that this re-weighting causes by re-setting the
baseline Phase 2 (i.e., model year 2017) engine fuel consumption. Based on ICCT analysis of multiple
engine maps (including GEM Phase 1 2010, GEM Phase 1 2017, GEM Phase 2 2017, a 2010 compliant
engine tested by Thiruvengadam et al, 2014, and a projected 2017 engine by Thiruvengadam et al, 2014),
it appears as though by not re-setting the baseline that the agencies give, on average, 1.5% (with a range
of 0.4% up to 2.9%). Our analysis of the specific Phase 2 GEM engine maps shows that the Phase 2
baseline engine C02 emission levels over the new SET is reduced by 1.5% when compared to the old
SET. By providing a 1.5% fuel consumption benefit for the re-weighting, the agencies effectively "give
away" more than one third of the proposed Phase 2 engine benefit for no new shift in technology. Stated
another way, the actual stringency of the agencies proposed tractor engine standard is 2.5% rather than
4.0%. Moreover, the Phase 1 compliant engines in 2017 would be already compliant with the Phase 2
2021 engine standard. To appropriately adjust for this, the reference 2017 engine and the Phase 2 tractor
engine standards would be reduced downward by approximately 1.5%. For example, the tractor engine
standard for 2027, currently at 441 g/bhp-hr would be updated to 434 g/bhp-hr. An additional
consideration is that this SET reweighting partially de-couples the GHG and criteria pollutant engine
standards. The agencies should take steps to ensure that this action does not result in increased real world
criteria pollutant emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1180-A4 p.12-13]
Response:
We have made many changes on the tractor engine standards as described in previous responses.
We appreciate the commenter's comments on SET reweighting (an error likewise pointed out by several
other commenters) which indicate that there was an error in calculating reweighting impact on the engine
standards in NPRM. Consequently, we adjusted reweighting impacts on the baseline values in the FRM.
See Response 3.3.3.
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
-------
Increase the stringency of the standards. NRDC believes standards that achieve fuel consumption and
emissions reductions of at least 24 percent by 2024 and at least 31 percent by 2027 relative to Phase 1
would meet the agency obligations for setting standards that are maximum feasible (for NHTSA) and
appropriate (for EPA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.2]
• Important areas where the Phase 2 program stringency can be improved significantly include the
standards for tractor diesel engines and for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-
A1 p.2]
Increase Stringency of the Tractor Engine Standards
The stringency of the engine standard should be increased. As proposed, engines are projected to decrease
fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions by 4.2 percent from 2017 to 2027. In reality, the standard
is even weaker—and close to 3 percent—because the proposed re-weighting the Supplemental Emission
Test (SET) toward lower engine speeds results in better performance on the test without any new
technology addition. NRDC believes that the engine stringency should be strengthened to achieve
reductions of at least 8 percent in 2024 and at least 10 percent in 2027 from 2017 levels. These stringency
levels should be relative to a 2017 baseline that is adjusted to account for the reweighting of the SET.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.4]
Analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) of the U.S. SuperTruck program
shows that demonstrated technology can achieve reductions of 12-17 percent.6 Additional research shows
the technology potential of tractor engine reductions of 10 percent even without the application of more
advanced technologies such as waste heat recovery.7 Using the agencies' proposal assumption of a 15
percent penetration of waste heat recovery could justify a 2027 engine standard that achieves more than a
10 percent reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.4]
Engine advancements that contribute reductions beyond those of the proposal are found in technical
analysis performed for NHTSA by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). For example, technologies
that reduce friction and parasitic losses are found to reduce fuel consumption by 2 to 5
percent8'9' compared to 1.4 percent assumed by the agencies. The SwRI assessment of reduced friction and
parasitic losses are reinforced by the introduction of advanced lubricants that alone are projected to
reduce fuel consumption by 1.5 to 2.0 percent and are projected to be available by the beginning of the
Phase 2 regulator period.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A 1 p.4-5]
Additional analysis demonstrates the potential to more than double the agency assessments of reduction
potential from improvements in intake and exhaust air handling, turbocharging efficiency, and exhaust
gas recirculation (assumed by agencies at 1.1 percent)11 and from combustion and controls optimization
(assumed by agencies at 1.1 percent).12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1220-A1 p.5]
6 Delgado, O., Lutsey, N., "The U.S. Supertruck Program: Expediting the Development Of Advanced
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Efficiency Technologies," June 2014. Available
at http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT SuperTruck-program 20140610.pdf.
7 Thiruvengadam, A., Pradhan, S., Thiruvengadam, P., Besch, M., Carder, D., Delgado, O., "Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Diesel Engine Efficiency Evaluation and Energy Audit," October 2014. Available at
http://www.theicct.org/heavv-dutv-vehicle-diesel-engine-efficiencv-evaluation-and-energy-audit.
-------
8 Reinhart, T. E., Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study - Report #1,
(Report No. DOT HS 812 146), Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, June
2015.
9 Reinhart, T. E., Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency Technology Study -
Report #2, Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, June 2015. (Currently
undergoing peer review).
10 See Fitzpatrick, A., Sutton, M., Meekins, K. and Tennorio, A., Novel fluids for use in off-highway
applications to enhance vehicle fuel and operational efficiency, UNITI Conference, April 2015; Graham,
S., Dewey, M., Browne, D., Sutton, M. and Nai, P., Fuels and Lubricants Improving Vehicle Efficiency:
Real Life Power Gains, Asia F&L Conference, March 2015; Browne, D., Dewey, M., Graham, S., Sutton,
M., Munday, M., Blackshaw, J., Clegg, A., and Timmis, P. "Novel Fuel Efficiency Engine Lubricants for
Urban Transit Applications,' SAE Technical Paper 2014-012793; Sutton, M. and Rose, A., The role of
additive chemistry in delivering maximum engine oil fuel economy, 19th International Colloquium
Tribology, Esslingen Conference 2014;Moore, W., Finch, T., and Sutton, M., 'Development of Heavy
Duty Diesel Real World Drive Cycles for Fuel Economy Measurements,' SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-
2568; Moore, W., Sutton, M., and Donnelly, K., 'Development of Long Haul Heavy Duty Vehicle Real
World Fuel Economy Measurement Technique,' SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-0330.
11 See Chebli, E., Muller, M., Leweux, J. & Gorbach, A., "Development of an exhaust-gas Turbocharger
for HD Daimler CV Engines," MTZ Worldwide, 74, 24-29, February 2013 and Roberts, C., Stovell, C.,
Rothbauer, R. & Mehta, D., "Advancements in Diesel Combustion System Design to Improve Smoke-
BSFC Tradeoff," International Journal of Automotive Engineering, 2, 55-60, 2011.
12 See Delgado and Lutsey, op. cit. and Stanton, D.W., 'Systematic development of highly efficient and
clean engines to meet future commercial vehicle greenhouse gas regulations', SAE Technical Paper 2013-
01-2421,2013.
Response:
We have made many changes to the proposed tractor engine standards. See earlier responses and RIA
Chapters 2.3 and 2.7.
3.3.2 Spark-lqnited Engine Standard
The agencies received many comments suggesting that technologies be applied to increase the stringency
of the SI engine standard, which technologies in fact are already presumed to be adopted at 100 percent to
meet the MY 2016 engine standard. See RIA Chapter 2.6. The commenters did not identify any
additional engine technologies that are not already fully considered by the agencies in setting the MY
2016 engine standard, that could be recognized over the HD SI Engine FTP test cycle. The agencies have
identified certain improvements in friction reduction and increased use of cylinder deactivation which are
reflected in the stringency of the vocational vehicle standard. See RIA Chapter 2.9.1.2.1.
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Optional 621 g C02/ hp-hr Phase 2 Standard
The Agencies request comment (80 Federal Register 40160) on alternative Phase 1 standards for Heavy
Duty Gasoline Engines of 621 g/hp-hr in 2027MY predicated in part on the use of advanced friction
-------
reduction technology and lubricants yielding benefits of about one percent on the GEM cycles. The
Agencies also request comment on whether proposing more stringent standards for gasoline engines
would create an incentive for purchasers who would have otherwise chosen a diesel vehicle to instead
choose a gasoline vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.30]
Given the 1/7 cold and 6/7 hot weight factors for the HDGE test cycle and that Phase 2 GEM fuel
mapping will be conducted under hot conditions, AAPC contends it will be nearly impossible to measure
the impact of these low friction lubricants over the proposed cycles. Furthermore the infrastructure to
produce and distribute such low friction engine lubricants is currently not available in the U.S. If the
Agencies wish to incentivize early introduction and adoption of such low friction lubricants in the U.S.,
AAPC recommends that low friction engine lubricant credits be included in Phase 2 GEM per the table
below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.30]
[Table of low friction lubricant incentives can be found on p. 31 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1]
AAPC further contends that the increase in stringency of the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty SI standard to 621 g
C02/hp-hr has not been thoroughly studied. Given the present stringency impacts of removing idle work
for the HDGE calculation changing to low energy ethanol containing test fuel, additional standard
reductions are not warranted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.31]
Response:
We recognize that most gasoline engines still have high brake-specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr).
Although low sales volume & low engine power (low hp), coupled with a number of low VMT vehicle
applications (e.g., RVs), moderates the adverse inventory impacts from these engines, low sale volume
with low market share eliminate ABT program flexibility. In addition, the cost for new SI engine
platforms would be high and not cost effective, given the limited volumes of engines produced. At this
time, only one manufacturer certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated speed
and power for an RV application. To provide more flexibility but still recognize the possibility of
feasible engine improvements, the final standards include increased stringency of the vocational vehicle
standard to reflect feasible SI engine improvements.
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Gasoline engines
The gasoline engines used in vocational vehicles are developed for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
primarily, but are also sold for use in vocational vehicles (p. 57180). For this reason, the agencies
evaluated these engines in parallel with heavy-duty gasoline pickup engines in Phase 1 and based their
estimate of improvement potential on technologies such as gasoline direct injection, friction reduction,
and variable valve timing.10 Under the Phase 1 program, fuel consumption of the HD gasoline pickups
and vans will decline by 10.8%, of which the agencies estimates almost half could come from engine
technologies. Therefore, the 5% fuel consumption reduction required of vocational gasoline engines in
Phase 1 was reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 13]
In the Phase 2 proposal, fuel consumption of HD gasoline pickups and vans would decline by 16.2%, of
which 6-7% would be contributed by engine technologies, including further friction reduction, variable
valve lift/actuation, cylinder deactivation, and turbo downsizing. It is highly likely that these technologies
will also be used in vocational engines, since they use the same design platform. Using these engine
-------
technologies, vocational gasoline engines can achieve at least 6% reductions in Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 14]
10 p. 57171, Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 179/September 15,2011
Gasoline engines
Both boosted and naturally aspirated gasoline engines for vocational vehicles show considerable
improvement potential in the revised SwRI report. Valve and EGR technologies were found to offer
substantial benefit in gasoline engines, especially at high load. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.6]
Impact on proposal
The Phase 2 proposal did not call for improvement of the gasoline engines used in vocational vehicles.
The benefits of valve and EGR technologies for these engines, especially at higher loads, as found in the
revised SwRI report22, make a strong case for strengthening the standards for these engines. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.7]
Response:
We recognize that most gasoline engines still have high brake-specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr).
Although low sales volume & low engine power (low hp), coupled with a number of low VMT vehicle
applications (e.g., RVs), moderates the adverse inventory impacts from these engines, low sale volume
with low market share eliminate ABT program flexibility. In addition, the cost for new SI engine
platforms would be high and not cost effective, given the limited volumes of engines produced. At this
time, only one manufacturer certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated speed
and power for an RV application. To provide more flexibility but still recognize the possibility of feasible
engine improvements, the final standards include increased stringency of the vocational vehicle standard
to reflect feasible SI engine improvements.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/ Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Proposed GHG emission standards for spark-ignited engines
Under these paragraphs in 40 CFR1036.108 a)(l)(i) and (ii), C02 standards for 2016 and later spark-
ignited engines remain at the Phase 1 levels of 627 grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr), while
compression ignition (and others deemed to be compression ignition in this section) have allowable C02
limits that decline over time. U.S. EPA and NHTSA's reasoning is that the volume of gasoline engines is
relatively low in these vehicle classes, so reduction requirements will have few benefits to offset the
research investment costs. CARB staff believes that some of the technology developed to reduce GHG
emissions in the light-duty sector should be transferable to the medium- and heavy-duty sectors and
recommends that declining GHG standards for spark-ignited engines be set based on these technologies.
CARB staff believes that such GHG reductions for Phase 2 spark-ignited engines are cost-effective. The
NPRM does request comment on reducing the Phase 1 C02 standard for spark-ignited gasoline engines
by 1 percent to 621 g/hp-hr, based on the use of advanced friction reduction technology. CARB staff
supports requiring more stringent standards for gasoline engines, and, at a minimum, supports the
proposal in the NPRM to limit C02 emissions for Phase 2 spark-ignited gasoline engines to no more than
621 g/hp-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.29-30]
-------
The NPRM further requests comment on whether not requiring more stringent standards for gasoline
engines would create an incentive for purchasers who would otherwise choose a diesel engine to instead
choose a gasoline engine. CARB staff believes that, all other things being equal, such a switch could well
occur. To avoid unintended incentives, CARB staff suggests that Phase 2 gasoline engines be required to
meet reduced emission standards beyond the 621 g/hp-hr previously mentioned, the compliance with
which would require similar investments and/or have a similar compliance cost as is anticipated for the
compression ignition engines and vehicles. Because gasoline vehicles are currently cheaper than diesel, it
is particularly important to avoid further incentives for buyers to choose less efficient, gasoline vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 3 0]
Response:
As noted in previous responses, there are persuasive reasons not to adopt more stringent SI engine
standards, but rather to recognize SI engine improvements in the stringency of the vehicle standard. By
doing so, the agencies believe that there will not be the inappropriate incentive to manufacture SI engines
rather than diesel engines for vocational applications.
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
The Proposed Rule also entirely exempts spark-ignition (gasoline) engines from any requirements to
improve efficiency. Yet, as acknowledged in the Proposed Rule, there are feasible technologies that could
result in fuel savings. There is a significantly wider range of technologies available for gasoline engines
than was included in the Proposed Rule. An analysis by the ICCT indicates that up to a 23.5 percent
improvement in gasoline engine efficiency is possible.27 Likewise, the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy ("ACEEE") also found that gasoline engines for heavy-duty pickups and vans could
improve by nearly 19 percent from 2010 levels.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.7]
The decision to omit gasoline engines is related to the Agencies' decision to avoid standards that would
require use of every available technology. As discussed above, the very purpose of technology-forcing
statutes is to require maximal reductions. The Agencies' concern regarding hardship to manufacturers
should some technologies not perform as expected is addressed through the existence of the averaging,
banking and trading ("ABT"), early credits and banking/trading safety net. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1460-A1 p.7-8]
27 International Council on Clean Transportation, REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS FOR
ADVANCING COMMERCIAL PICKUP AND VAN EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGY IN THE UNITED
STATES, 21, Table 3 (Apr. 2015), available at http://theicct.org/us-commercial-pickups-vans-efficiencv-
technology.
28 AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY, FUEL EFFICIENCY AND
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HEAVY-DUTY PICKUPS AND VANS:
PHASE 2 at 8 (May 2015) ("Pickup Report"), available at
http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/tl501.pdf.
Response:
As noted in previous responses, certain improvements in SI engine performance are reflected in the
stringency of the vocational vehicle standard. The agencies do not believe that any further increase in the
-------
SI engine standard to be warranted. We recognize that most gasoline engines still have high brake-
specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr). Although low sales volume & low engine power (low hp), coupled
with a number of low VMT vehicle applications (e.g., RVs), moderates the adverse inventory impacts
from these engines, low sale volume with low market share eliminate ABT program flexibility. In
addition, unfavorable cost proposition for investment in new engine platforms is not easily to be justified.
At this time, only one manufacturer certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated
speed and power for an RV application. See generally RIA Chapters 2.6 and 2.9.1.2.1.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins opposes no increase in stringency of gasoline engine standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p.20]
Fuel neutral standards are required to ensure this rulemaking achieves the goals set forth by the Agencies.
Data (see Figure 10) from recent years has shown gasoline engines displacing diesel in class 3 thru 5. The
current proposal keeps gasoline engine standards the same as Phase 1 (see Figure 11), which will
encourage essentially no investment and therefore no C02 reduction. Conversely, there will be added
technology required for diesels to comply, so low cost, low technology, low efficiency and high emitting
gasoline engines are more attractive from an initial purchase price standpoint. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298-A1 p.20]
[Figure 10 and 11 can be found on p.20 and 21 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
The Agencies request comment on reducing the gasoline standards by 1% in Phase 2. Even if the
Agencies were to implement this reduction, the significant disparity between gasoline and other HD
engines would still exist. Continued lack of improvement on gasoline engines could push a larger fraction
of the market to move toward these less efficient engines, thereby emitting more C02 emissions than
envisioned by the regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.20-21]
In studies conducted by SwRI's High Efficiency Durable Gasoline Engine (HEDGE)18 program, several
production-available technologies have been used to demonstrate fuel consumption reductions well
beyond what is being called for in this proposal. Similarly, through projects with the U.S. Department of
19 20 21
Energy (DOE), manufacturers ' ' have demonstrated fuel economy improvements for gasoline engines
beyond the Phase 2 standards. Technologies such as turbocharging, direct injection, variable valve timing
and cooled EGR are all available in lighter duty products and have been the staples for improved fuel
economy in light cars and truck for several years. These same technologies can be engineered for the
higher loaded application in order to be durable while providing a fuel economy benefit. In Phase 1 of the
rule, the regulation established an offset in gasoline and diesel efficiency that was explained as being
needed due to the short timeframe versus the need for development and testing. Phase 2 has ample time
for suppliers and manufacturers to develop the technologies in order to meet customer expectations for
durability and reliability. By the end of Phase 2, diesel and gasoline engine C02 standards should be the
same. In fact, the Agencies themselves indicate (80 FR 40519) that gaseous-fueled engines competing
with diesel engines should be required to meet the same standards. A similar argument holds for gasoline-
fueled engines competing with diesel engines. Cummins agrees with this principle of fuel neutral
standards and urges the Agencies to implement such an approach throughout the Phase 2 program,
including on gasoline engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.21-22]
Cummins supports elimination of loose engine provision (40 CFR 1037.50(m)) for spark-ignited (SI)
engines [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.30]
-------
In the Phase 1 program, 40 CFR 1037.150(m) allows engines from spark-ignited (SI) chassis-certified
vehicles to be sold separately for use in vocational vehicles, such as incomplete vehicles. For Phase 2, the
Agencies indicated that engines intended for vocational vehicles should follow the primary certification
path of separately certifying the engine on the FTP cycle and the vehicle using GEM (80 FR 40331). For
this reason, the Agencies are proposing to eliminate the interim provision in 1037.150(m). Cummins
supports this change as it ensures a fair and consistent evaluation of engines used in these HD vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.30]
18 http://www.swri.org/4org/ae/hedge/default.htm
19 Confer, Keith, "Ultra Efficient Light Duty Powertrain with Gasoline Low Temperature Combustion,"
Delphi DOE Annual Merit Review, June 2015
20 Sczomak, David P., "Lean Miller Cycle System Development for Light-Duty Vehicles," General
Motors DOE Annual Merit Review, June, 2015
21 Weaver, Corey E., "Advanced Gasoline Turbocharged Direct Injection (GTDI) Engine Development,"
Ford DOE Annual Merit Review, June, 2015
Response:
We recognize that most gasoline engines still have high brake-specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr).
Although low sales volume & low engine power (low hp), coupled with a number of low VMT vehicle
applications (e.g., RVs), moderates the adverse inventory impacts from these engines, low sales volume
with low market share eliminate ABT program flexibility. In addition, the cost for new SI engine
platforms would be high and not cost effective, given the limited volumes of engines produced. At this
time, only one manufacturer certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated speed
and power for an RV application. We recognized that significant progress has been made by SwRI
HEDGE program as well as some of the DOE sponsored gasoline engine programs. However, one of the
key issues that has not been addressed is the reliability. Since the operating zones are different between
light-duty vehicles and the vehicles in Class 4-7, the heavier vehicles in latter would force the engine to
run more frequently in the higher speed and higher load zones than the case with light-duty vehicles, and
therefore the reliability would become more of an issue. As a result, the technologies developed under
light-duty vehicles would not be straightforward to migrate to those used in Class 4-7 vehicles. All of
these reports have not provided a clear path toward production in the timeframe of Phase 2. To provide
more flexibility but still recognize the possibility of feasible engine improvements, the final standards
include increased stringency of the vocational vehicle standard to reflect feasible SI engine
improvements.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
SI Engine Technologies Considered in Vehicle Standard-Setting - The agencies requested comment
on the merits of setting a Si-based vocational vehicle standard predicated on adoption of SI engine
technologies. 80 FR 40303. We are concerned that the lack of a forcing engine standard will leave the
small volume gasoline engine suppliers, on which we depend for our small volume gasoline-powered
vocational vehicles, without impetus to improve the engines. This could make it more difficult for those
vehicles to meet the vehicle standards, even with credits. That said, the cost of upgrading small volume
gasoline engines to advanced standards could be prohibitive. We think that [redacted]~assuming the
-------
agencies fix the core problems with the vocational vehicle standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p.75]
Response:
We recognize that most gasoline engines still have high brake-specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr).
Although low sales volume & low engine power (low hp), coupled with a number of low VMT vehicle
applications (e.g., RVs), moderates the adverse inventory impacts from these engines, low sale volume
with low market share eliminate ABT program flexibility. In addition, the cost for new SI engine
platforms would be high and not cost effective, given the limited volumes of engines produced. At this
time, only one manufacturer certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated speed
and power for an RV application. To provide more flexibility but still recognize the possibility of feasible
engine improvements, the final standards include increased stringency of the vocational vehicle standard
to reflect feasible SI engine improvements. We agree that higher-emitting SI engines (that don't meet the
SI engine standard) if installed in vocational vehicles will require additional vehicle-level technology to
meet the final SI vocational vehicle standards. See further information on this topic in the Preamble at
Section V.C.I b, and in the RIA Chapter 2.9.1.2.1.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Gasoline vocational engine standard should be more robust
The Agencies decided not to propose new more stringent standards for gasoline engines used in
vocational vehicles because of concerns that the manufacturers do not have capital to invest in this
segment of the heavy-duty sector. Yet, Navistar and General Motors just announced a joint venture to
develop more class 4 and 5 trucks, many powered with gasoline engines.157 The Agencies go on to
conclude that some reduction will occur anyway because the engines used in this application are derived
from engines used in pickups and vans. We do not support this rationale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.36]
The assertion that multi-billion dollar manufacturers can not make these investments is not supported by
the rulemaking record. Furthermore, these gas engines compete - albeit in small numbers - with diesel
engines. By allowing weaker standards for gasoline engines, the Agencies are giving them a competitive
advantage and incentivizing a shift to gasoline. Indeed, recent data shows there has been a significant
increase gasoline engines in medium-duty trucks.158 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.36]
Historically, EPA has preferred setting fuel neutral standards to maintain a level playing field - and we
believe the Agencies should do so here. We recommend that the Agencies set the most feasible, fuel
neutral standard based on the capabilities of the technological leader - in this case the diesel engine. If the
Agencies decide not to do this, they should at the very least set a standard based on the most advanced
gasoline engine technologies deployable in the timeframe the standards take effect. It is reasonable to
expect that efficiency improvements made to gasoline engines used in heavy-duty pickups and vans will
migrate to those used in vocational vehicles, and that shift should be encouraged by robust standards. A
recent SwRI study funded by NHTSA projects that gasoline engines could improve fuel efficiency by up
to 8%.159 We urge the Agencies to set more rigorous standards for gasoline vocational engines based on
this and other relevant analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.37]
-------
157 Straight, B., "Navistar's Kozek: Deal strengthens International, expands GM portfolio," Fleet Owner,
(September 30, 2015), available at http://fleetowner.com/equipment/navistars-kozek-deal-strengthens-
international-expands-gm-portfolio.
158 Berg, T., "Medium-Duty Update: Winners, Losers and Overall Steady Growth," HDT Truckinginfo,
(August 2013), available at http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/story/2013/08/medium-duty-
update.aspx?prestitial=l; NTEA_IHS Automotive Polk 2nd QTR CV Report_2014, (2014), available at
http://www.ntea. com/Search/index. aspx?searchtext=automotive%20polk%202nd%20qtr.
159 Reinhart, T., Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency Technology Study -
Report #2, Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (June 2015).
Response:
We recognize that most gasoline engines still have high brake-specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr).
Although low sales volume & low engine power (low hp), coupled with a number of low VMT vehicle
applications (e.g., RVs), moderates the adverse inventory impacts from these engines, low sale volume
with low market share eliminate ABT program flexibility. In addition, the cost for new SI engine
platforms would be high and not cost effective, given the limited volumes of engines produced. At this
time, only one manufacturer certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated speed
and power for an RV application. We recognized the findings made by SwRI reports. However, one of
the key issues that have not been addressed is the reliability of the technology. Since the operating zones
are different between heavy duty pickups/vans in Class 2b-3 and the vehicles in Class 4-7, the heavier
vehicles would force the engine to run more frequently in the higher speed and higher load zones than the
case with Class 2b-3 vehicles, and therefore the reliability would become more of an issue. As a result,
the technologies developed under pickups and vans would not be straightforward to migrate to those used
in Class 4-7 vehicles. All of these behaviors would make it harder to stay fuel neutral. In order to provide
more flexibility but still recognize the possibility of feasible engine improvements, the final standards
include increased stringency of the vocational vehicle standard to reflect feasible SI engine
improvements.
Organization: Honeywell Transportation System (HTS)
In addition to the fuel neutrality concerns on heavy duty pickup trucks and vans, HTS is also concerned
that the current proposal excludes gasoline engines from the MD/HD Vocational portion of the Phase 2
regulation. While we appreciate that the proposed rule will apply vehicle-level fuel efficiency standards to
gasoline powered vocational vehicles that are essentially the same as those applied to diesel vehicles, the
lack of a gasoline engine-level standard is counter to the goals of the rule. The cost differential between
diesel and gasoline engines has increased substantially over the past 10 years, as diesel engines have
adopted technologies to comply with NOx and PM regulations. This has made diesel engines less
competitive on initial cost, and the industry has seen a steady increase in the market share of gasoline
engines in class 3-5 applications. We believe that the proposal as written will further increase the initial
cost of diesel engines while allowing gasoline engines a "free pass" on C02. This will likely result in a
much larger share for gasoline in these markets and has the potential to create a double negative effect:
higher operating cost for vehicle users and higher C02 emissions for the fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1230-A1 p.4] These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1420, pp.259-260.]]
-------
Response:
We recognize that most gasoline engines still have high brake-specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr).
Although low sales volume & low engine power (low hp), coupled with a number of low VMT vehicle
applications (e.g., RVs), moderates the adverse inventory impacts from these engines, low sale volume
with low market share eliminate ABT program flexibility. In addition, the cost for new SI engine
platforms would be high and not cost effective, given the limited volumes of engines produced. Because
of these reasons, we don't believe that the rule would result in a much larger share for gasoline engines.
At this time, only one manufacturer certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated
speed and power for an RV application. To provide more flexibility but still recognize the possibility of
feasible engine improvements, the final standards include increased stringency of the vocational vehicle
standard to reflect feasible SI engine improvements. We disagree with the commenter that SI engine
manufacturers are getting a "free pass." We believe that many have reached a point in development where
any cost-effective incremental changes may already be made, and platform redesigns may only be chosen
for models with forecasted high production volumes. More particularly, as shown in RIA chapter 2.6, the
improvements to SI engines suggested by many commenters are already shown to be adopted at 100
percent to meet the MY 2016 engine standard. See RIA Chapter 2.6.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
• Gasoline engines - The proposed gasoline standards for Phase 2 indicate no new requirements.
Gasoline efficiency technology tends to migrate upward from the heavy-duty pickup and van
technologies that are manufactured at higher volume. In addition, a government-funded
Southwest Research Institute study indicates that they can reduce fuel use by up to 8% (Reinhart,
2015b). Installing gasoline engine standards and advancing their technology penetration at the
similar pace with diesel engine efficiency, as well as at a similar pace with the agencies'
assessment of pickup and van gasoline engine efficiency, would meet our assessment of
technology availability and help to minimize unintended shifts in the market to higher fuel
consumption gasoline products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.5]
Overall gasoline engine efficiency: Based on the above data, the agencies would include new increasingly
stringent gasoline engine standards to reflect the existing technology potential and to ensure that the
Phase 2 regulation does not perversely bias the market toward gasoline engines that have higher fuel
consumption and higher C02 emissions for the same or lesser functionality. We recommend that the
agencies require a reduction of fuel consumption for gasoline engines up to 8% in 2024 from baseline
2017 engines, based on Reinhart (2015b). In addition, it is widely recognized that gasoline efficiency
technology migrates up from high-volume gasoline heavy light-duty trucks. As acknowledged directly by
the agencies, vocational gasoline engines typically are the same engines as those in the pickups and vans.
Ford/Ram/GM use much of the same engine technology in their high-workload light- and heavy-duty
products, and these companies will likely be deploying 15%+ engine efficiency improvements in the
2020-2025 light-duty context (Lutsey, 2015 a). Once these are being deployed at large volume in light-
duty there is little reason that many of those same technologies could not be deployed in class 2b/3
pickup/vans, as well as in the vocational gasoline engines. As a result, implementing gasoline engine
standards with similar stringency and timing with diesel engine efficiency, as well as at a similar pace
with the agencies' assessment of pickup and van gasoline engine efficiency, would match the availability
of technology in the rulemaking timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 9-10]
-------
Response:
We recognize that most gasoline engines still have high brake-specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr).
Although low sales volume & low engine power (low hp), coupled with a number of low VMT vehicle
applications (e.g., RVs), moderates the adverse inventory impacts from these engines, low sale volume
with low market share eliminate ABT program flexibility. In addition, the cost for new SI engine
platforms would be high and not cost effective, given the limited volumes of engines produced. At this
time, only one manufacturer certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated speed
and power for an RV application. We recognized the findings made by SwRI reports. However, one of
the key issues that have not been addressed is the reliability. Since the operating zones are different
between heavy duty pickups/vans in Class 2b-3 and the vehicles in Class 4-7, the heavier vehicles in latter
would force the engine to run more frequently in the higher speed and higher load zones than the case
with Class 2b-3 vehicles, and therefore the reliability would become more of an issue. As a result, the
technologies developed under pickups and vans would not be straightforward to migrate to those used in
Class 4-7 vehicles. To provide more flexibility but still recognize the possibility of feasible engine
improvements, the final standards include increased stringency of the vocational vehicle standard to
reflect feasible SI engine improvements. See also introductory response to this RTC Section 3.3.2.
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Ensure Technology-Neutral, Performance-Based Standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.3]
As for the vocational vehicle category, MEMA is concerned with the agencies' proposals and the
potential market impact it may have. Specifically, MEMA objects to the proposal to leave the spark
ignition engine standards unchanged in 40 CFR 1036.108(a)(l)(i) and 49 CFR 535.5(d)(3). Regulations
that continue to increase the technical complexity of diesel engines relative to gasoline engines will
"create an incentive for purchasers who would have otherwise chosen a diesel vehicle to instead choose a
gasoline vehicle," and thus may result in a much larger market share for gasoline in this particular space.
MEMA urges the agencies to adopt more stringent standards for spark-ignition engines over the MY
2021-2027 timeframe, standards that are harmonized with those for light and medium heavy-duty diesel
engines and thereby ensure technology neutrality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.4]
Response:
We recognize that most gasoline engines still have high brake-specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr).
Although low sales volume & low engine power (low hp), coupled with a number of low VMT vehicle
applications (e.g., RVs), moderates the adverse inventory impacts from these engines, low sale volume
with low market share eliminate ABT program flexibility. In addition, the cost for new SI engine
platforms would be high and not cost effective, given the limited volumes of engines produced. We thus
do not accept the comment that a separate SI engine standard, or one not reflecting the commenter's
preferred level of stringency, will create a perverse incentive to replace CI engines with SI engines. At
this time, only one manufacturer certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated
speed and power for an RV application. To provide more flexibility but still recognize the possibility of
feasible engine improvements, the final standards include increased stringency of the vocational vehicle
standard to reflect feasible SI engine improvements.
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Increase Stringency of Gasoline Engine Standards
-------
NRDC recommends that the agencies set a gasoline engine standard that tightens over the period of the
Phase 2 standards to reach the 8 percent technology potential found by SwRI. The agencies' proposal
requires no improvement to gasoline engine fuel consumption. SwRI shows improvements that can
reduce fuel consumption by 8 percent in medium-duty and vocational gasoline engines.13 In the timeframe
of the Phase 2 requirements, NRDC expects light-duty truck gasoline engine technologies to improve
meet the 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards. It is
reasonable to expect that many of these advancements will migrate to gasoline engines used in heavier
vehicle classes.14 Additionally, the lack of tighter gasoline engine standards could encourage a market
shift to gasoline engines that achieve no reductions in carbon pollution from diesel engines that must
incur the cost of meeting tighter standards. The result would be more overall carbon pollution when cost-
effective technologies are available to avoid those emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.5]
13 Reinhart, Report #2, op. cit.
14 Lutsey, N., "Regulatory Considerations for Advancing Commercial Pickup And Van Efficiency
Technology in the United States," April 2015. Available at htto://www.theicct.org/us-commercial-
pickups-vans-efficiencv-technology.
Response:
See introductory response above. In addition, as noted in other responses, we recognize that most
gasoline engines still have high brake-specific C02 emissions (g/hp-hr). Although low sales volume &
low engine power (low hp), coupled with a number of low VMT vehicle applications (e.g., RVs),
moderates the adverse inventory impacts from these engines, low sale volume with low market share
eliminate ABT program flexibility. In addition, the cost for new SI engine platforms would be high and
not cost effective, given the limited volumes of engines produced. At this time, only one manufacturer
certified its gasoline engine, but it must rely on significantly de-rated speed and power for an RV
application. We recognized the findings made by SwRI reports. However, one of the key issues that
have not been addressed is the reliability. Since the operating zones are different between heavy duty
pickups/vans in Class 2b-3 and the vehicles in Class 4-7, the heavier vehicles in latter would force the
engine to run more frequently in the higher speed and higher load zones than the case with Class 2b-3
vehicles, and therefore the reliability would become more of an issue. As a result, the technologies
developed under pickups and vans would not be straightforward to migrate to those used in Class 4-7
vehicles. To provide more flexibility but still recognize the possibility of feasible engine improvements,
the final standards include increased stringency of the vocational vehicle standard to reflect feasible SI
engine improvements.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
Gasoline engines. In Phase 2, the agencies have not set a separate gasoline engine standard for vocational
engines due to market considerations surrounding the engines' use in the pick-up and van market.
However, they did note that engine improvements for vocational engines beyond Phase 1 would still be
considered in setting the vocational vehicle stringency, and the agencies did apply additional friction
reduction of 1 percent to the 60 percent of gasoline-powered vehicles that would not yet achieve this level
as part of the MY2016 spark-ignited engine package. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.21]
Engine friction reduction does not capture all of the potential for gasoline engines, however. SwRI noted
a number of other technologies: improvements to variable valve lift and timing, stoichiometric exhaust
gas recirculation (which could also be compounded with downspeeding on turbocharged engines), direct
-------
injection (for naturally-aspirated vehicles) or turbocharger efficiency improvements (for turbocharged
engines), and lean-burn operation. Due to timeline considerations and concerns raised in the first SwRI
report (Reinhart 2015a), we did not include lean-burn GDI as part of the technology package for
vocational vehicles. Similarly, because of concerns with the downsped EGR package raised around high
idle duty cycles, we considered only the stoichiometric EGR package. Finally, we excluded cylinder
deactivation as well for the V8 engine, focusing instead on engine friction reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2 p.21-22]
Both diesel and gasoline engines have additional improvement opportunities beyond the NPRM based on
analysis by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). These improvements are characterized by drive
cycle. To translate those to duty cycle, they have been reduced by idle fraction (10 percent for regional
vehicles, 15 percent for multipurpose, and 20 percent for urban). While some technologies like
downspeeding may increase idle fuel usage, generally this assumption should result in a conservative
approach to assessing the certifiable stringency of these vehicles because most technologies that reduce
fuel use under load will reduce it at idle as well. In all comparisons to SwRI data, we have taken the 100-
percent payload value, which is most consistent with the agencies' vehicle payload in GEM (8,860
pounds for the T-270, compared to the agencies' value of 11,200 pounds for MHD vocational vehicles).
This generally results in the most conservative application of the SwRI results, particularly on engine
friction reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1329-A2]
The SwRI analysis used two different baseline engines in its assessment of gasoline-powered vehicles, a
turbocharged V6 and a naturally-aspirated V8 (Table 6). While the V6 is not currently in production for
vocational vehicles, it is designed to be comparable to a 6L V8 and is extensively used in Class 2a pick-
up trucks. Furthermore, we have heard from some fleets who were disappointed when V6 gasoline
engines went off the market due to a platform redesign because it forced them to move to V8 engines that
were overpowered for their needs (and therefore wasted fuel relative to the V6). Therefore, we believe
that there is opportunity for turbodownsizing in the gasoline market in the right application, and so we
have additionally considered a V8>V6 package based on the relative difference in efficiency between the
two SwRI engines. It should be noted that this would result in some differences in performance, and
therefore we have only conservatively applied this technology, to just 10 percent of the gasoline-powered
vocational fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.22]
In assessing the overall effectiveness for future gasoline engines, we turn to SwRI Package #16 for the
3.5L V6 (VVA+EGR) and SwRI Package #22 for the 6.2L V8 (GDI+EGR+EFR+dual cam phasers).
Taken altogether, the gasoline package would achieve an average 7.4 percent improvement for spark-
ignited vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.22]
[Table 6, 'Effectiveness of vocational gasoline engine packages', can be found on p.22 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2]
Response:
Because none of the technical data referenced by commenters who asked for more stringent SI engine
standards provided information on how these technologies perform over the HD gasoline engine FTP test
procedure, the agencies are considering these to be comments on the GEM-based vocational vehicle
standards, not comments on the separate FTP-based SI engine standard.
The final SI vocational vehicle standards are calculated using an engine that meets the MY 2016 standard.
In response to comments and with careful consideration of the SwRI data as well as information on
-------
technologies for HD pickup and vans, the final vehicle-level standards for vocational vehicles powered by
SI engines include additional reductions we believe can be achieved by additional engine technologies
over the GEM vehicle cycles amounting to 0.8 percent beginning in MY 2021. See RIA Chapter
2.9.1.2.1. This is more stringent than the 0.6 percent of engine improvements on the vehicles proposed by
the agencies that would have begun in MY 2027. We disagree with commenters asking for as much as 8
percent improvement. All of the referenced SwRI packages compare the future vehicle performance to a
pre-Phase 1 baseline, thus counting all the improvements already presumed in the MY 2016 engine
standard, so the delta between what the commenters seek and what the agencies proposed is considerably
less than initially appears (and less than the commenter appeared to believe). We agree that higher-
emitting SI engines (that do not meet the SI engine standard) if installed in vocational vehicles will
require additional vehicle-level technology to meet the final SI vocational vehicle standards. See further
information on this topic in the Preamble at Section V.C. 1 b, and in the RIA Chapter 2.6 and Chapter
2.9.1.2.1.
3.3.3 Additional Discussion of Baseline Engines
Response:
Background
Phase 1 applied different test cycles depending on whether the engine is used for tractors, vocational
vehicles, or both, and we are continuing this approach. Tractor engines are subject to standards over the
SET (EPA's steady-state heavy-duty test cycle), while vocational engines are subject to standards over
the FTP (EPA's transient heavy-duty test cycle).
The SET cycle was adopted by EPA in 2000 and modified in 2005 from a discrete-mode test to a ramped-
modal cycle (RMC) to broadly cover the most significant part of the speed and torque map for heavy-duty
engines, defined by three non-idle speeds and three relative torques. The low speed is called the "A
speed," the intermediate speed is called the "B speed," and the high speed is called the "C speed." As is
shown in the below, the SET cumulatively weights these three speeds at 23 percent, 39 percent, and 23
percent.
SET Modes Weighting Factor in Phase 1
Speed, % Load
Weighting factor in Phase 1 (%)
Idle
15
A, 100
8
B, 50
10
B, 75
10
A, 50
5
A, 75
5
A, 25
5
B, 100
9
B, 25
10
C, 100
8
C, 25
5
C, 75
5
C, 50
5
Total
100
-------
Cumulative A Speed
23
Cumulative B Speed
39
Cumulative C Speed
23
The C speed is typically in the range of 1800 rpm for current heavy heavy-duty engine designs.
However, it is becoming much less common for engines to operate at such a high speeds in real-world
driving conditions, and especially not during cruise vehicle speeds in the 55 to 65 mph vehicle speed
range. This trend has been corroborated by engine manufacturers' in-use data that has been submitted to
the agencies in comments and presented at technical conferences.38 Thus, although the current SET
represents highway operation better than the FTP cycle, it could be improved by adjusting its weighting
factors to better reflect modern trends in in-use engine operation. Furthermore, the most recent trends
indicate that manufacturers are configuring drivetrains to operate engines at speeds down to a range of
1050-1200 rpm at a vehicle speed of 65mph.
To address this trend toward in-use engine down-speeding, the agencies are finalizing as proposed refined
SET weighting factors for the Phase 2 C02 emission and fuel consumption standards. The new SET
mode weightings move most of the C weighting to "A" speed, as shown in the table below. To better
align with in-use data, these changes also include a reduction of the idle speed weighting factor. These
new mode weightings do not apply to criteria pollutants or to the Phase 1 C02 emission and fuel
consumption standards.
New SET Modes Weighting Factor in Phase 2
Speed/% Load
Weighting factor in Phase 2 (%)
Idle
12
A, 100
9
B, 50
10
B, 75
10
A, 50
12
A, 75
12
A, 25
12
B, 100
9
B, 25
9
C, 100
2
C, 25
1
C, 75
1
C, 50
1
Total
100
Total A Speed
45
Total B Speed
38
Total C Speed
5
38 "OEM perspective - Meeting EPA/NHTSA GHG/Efficiency Standards", 7th Integer Emissions Summit USA
2014, Volvo Group North America.
-------
NPRM Baselines
In the Phase 2 proposal we assumed that the numeric values of the Phase 1 standards were the baselines
for Phase 2. The Table below shows the Phase 1 standards for diesel engines.
Phase 1 MY 2017 Diesel Engine C02 and Fuel Consumption Standards
UNITS
HHDSET
MHD SET
HHD FTP
MHD FTP
LHD FTP
g/bhp-hr
460
487
555
576
576
gal/100
bhp-hr
4.5187
4.7839
5.4519
5.6582
5.6582
We applied our technology assessments to these baselines to arrive at the Phase 2 standards for MY 2021,
MY 2024 and MY 2027. In other words, for the Phase 2 proposal we projected that starting in MY 2017
engines would, on average, just meet the Phase 1 standards and not over-comply. However, based on
comments we received on how to consistently apply our new SET weighting factors in our analysis and
based on recent MY 2016 engine certification data, we realized the change in test procedures caused in a
change in measured results that impacts the appropriate level of the standards. We also realized that the
proposed FTP baseline misrepresented baseline performance for vocational engines. As described below,
we are updating our Phase 2 baseline assumptions for both the SET and FTP.
Revision to the SET Baseline
With respect to the SET, in the proposal we compared our proposed Phase 2 standards, which are based
on these new Phase 2 weighting factors, to the Phase 1 numeric standards, which are based on the current
Phase 1 weighting factors. Because we continue to use the same 13-mode brake specific C02 and fuel
consumption numeric values we used for the proposal to represent the performance of a MY 2017
baseline engine, we are not projecting a different technology level in the baseline. Rather, this is simply
correcting an "apples-to-oranges" comparison from the proposal by applying the Phase 2 weighting
factors to the MY 2017 baseline engine. While this did not impact our technology effectiveness or cost
analyses, it did impact the numeric value of our baseline to which we reference the effectiveness of
applying technologies to the 13 individual modes of the SET. Because the revised SET weighting factors
result in somewhat lower brake specific C02 and fuel consumption numeric results for the composite
baseline SET value, this correction, in turn, lowers the numerical values of the final Phase 2 SET
standards. Making this particular update did not result in a change to the relative stringency of the final
Phase 2 numeric engine standards (relative to MY 2017 baseline performance), but our updated feasibility
analysis did; see Section II.D.(2)(a) of the FRM preamble.
This issue was raised by several commenters on the NPRM (in particular UCS, Cummins, ICCT and EDF
in their public comments) who generally noted that the impact of not accounting for the different SET
weightings would be to make the standards less stringent in actual effect. In other words, by
over-estimating the emissions of MY 2017 engines when measured using the new SET weighting factors,
we would enable manufacturers to comply with the standards using less technology than projected and,
consequently, achieve less improvement in actual use. Several manufacturers addressed this issue in
supplemental comments and in comments on the NODA.
Each of the tractor engine manufacturers provided supplemental information to us including 13-mode test
results for their engines. All of this information was claimed as CBI. These data showed some variation,
-------
but most showed the new weighting factors to reduce cycle-average emissions by slightly more than one
percent.
The agencies have updated our analysis of SET baselines to be consistent with these data, and applied our
projected per cent reductions to the revised SET baseline to obtain revised the numerical values of the
standards. See Section 3.3.4 below (as well as certain responses in Section 3.3.1) for a discussion of how
we considered the potential impacts of IRAFs on the baselines and the standards.
Revision to the FTP Baseline
The agencies also made adjustments to the FTP baselines, but these adjustments were not made because
of test procedure changes. Rather, MY 2016 FTP certification data showed an unexpected step-change
improvement in engine fuel consumption and C02 emissions. These data were not available at the time of
proposal, so the agencies relied upon the MY 2017 Phase 1 standard as a baseline. EDF publicly
commented in response to the NODA that the more recent certification data revealed this new step-
change. MY 2016 certification data submitted to the agencies39 as well as to ARB40 show that many
engines from many manufacturers already not only achieve the Phase 1 FTP standards, but some were
also below the MY 2027 standards proposed for Phase 2. This was not the case for the SET, where most
manufacturers are still not yet complying with the MY 2017 Phase 1 SET standards. In view of this
situation for the FTP, the agencies are adjusting the Phase 2 FTP baseline to reflect this shift.
The underlying reasons for this shift are mostly related to manufacturers optimizing their SCR thermal
management strategy over the FTP in ways that we (mistakenly) thought had already occurred in MY
2010 (i.e., the Phase 1 baseline). As background, the FTP includes a cold-start, a hot-start and significant
time spent at engine idle. During these starting and idling portions of the FTP, the NOx SCR system can
cool down and lose NOx reducing efficiency. One simplistic strategy to maintain SCR temperature is to
inefficiently consume additional fuel, such that the fuel energy is lost to the exhaust system in the form of
heat. There are more sophisticated strategies to maintain SCR temperature, however, but these apparently
required additional time from MY 2010 for research, development and refinement. (As discussed in
Section 3.3.4 below, in updating these baseline values, the agencies did consider the concerns raised by
manufacturers about the potential baseline impacts of IRAFs, which can also be related to thermal
management.)
At the time of Phase 1 we had not realized that these improvements were not already in the Phase 1
baseline. These include optimizing the use of an intake throttle to decrease excess intake air at idle and
SCR catalyst reformulation to maintain SCR efficiency at lower temperatures. Based on this information,
which was provided to the agencies by engine manufacturers, but only after the agencies' specifically
requested it, the agencies concluded that in Phase 1 we did not account for how much further these kinds
of improvements could impact fuel consumption over the FTP. Conversely, only by reviewing the new
MY 2016 certification data did we realize how little SCR thermal management optimization actually
occurred for the engine model years that we used to establish the Phase 1 baseline - namely MY 2009 and
MY 2010 engines.
Like the change to the SET baseline, this change to the FTP baseline does not impact the agencies'
projections of potential compliance pathway, cost, and stringency. This is because we never accounted
for this kind of improvement in our Phase 2 proposal's stringency analysis for meeting the Phase 2
39 https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm#oh.
40 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2016/2016.php.
-------
proposed FTP standards. Therefore, we continue to apply the same improvements that we proposed, but
we apply them to the updated FTP baseline.
FRMBaseline SET and FTP Values
The table belowError! Reference source not found, shows the Phase 2 diesel engine final C02 baseline
emissions. The gasoline engine C02 baseline for Phase 2, which is not shown, is the same as the Phase 1
HD gasoline FTP standard, 627 g/bhp-hr. More detailed analyses on these Phase 2 baseline values of
tractor and vocational vehicles can be found in Chapter 2.7.4 of RIA.
Phase 2 Diesel Engine Final C02 and Fuel Consumption Baseline Emissions
UNITS
HHDSET
MHD SET
HHD FTP
MHD FTP
LHD FTP
g/bhp-hr
455
481
525
558
576
gal/100
bhp-hr
4.4695
4.7250
5.1572
5.4813
5.6582
Some manufacturers argue that these changes represent increases in the "stringency" of the engine
standards. As already noted, there are different ways in which the term "stringency" can be used. We
recognize that the changes to the baselines and the test procedures being made for the FRM have resulted
in numerically lower emission standards. However, the agencies do not consider these changes to be true
changes in stringency because they are independent of the projected technology. Nevertheless, rather
than engaging in the semantic debate of whether or not these changes represent a change in "stringency",
we note that the greatest significance of these changes is that they make the numerical standards
consistent with the projected costs and in-use benefits of the proposed and FRM analyses. Thus, the final
technological cost and feasibility analyses fully support the final engine standards.
Baseline Maps
In addition to estimating baseline SET and FTP values, the agencies also developed complete baseline
maps to use as GEM inputs. For the NPRM, we started with the maps used in Phase 1 to represent
engines compliant with the 2017 engine standards. Based the best available information, we modified
these maps to better represent actual engine technology. In some ways these modified engine maps
reflected more efficient engines than were used in Phase 1. However, based on comments, including
confidential data from manufacturers we revised the NPRM maps to be more representative of MY
2017/2018 engines.
Navistar referred to these maps as hypothetical, but we find that term to be misleading. Although these
maps do not reflect any single engine, they each are derived from real engine maps. The agencies
developed these maps to represent the average performance of multiple real maps. Nevertheless, as
already noted, we did agree that the NPRM maps could be improved and have done so for the FRM.
3.3.4 Additional Discussion of IRAFs
Response:
The current engine test procedures also require the development of regeneration emission rates and
frequency factors to determine infrequent regeneration adjustment factors (IRAFs) that account for the
emission changes for criteria pollutants during an exhaust emissions control system regeneration event.
-------
In the 2011 Phase 1 final rule, the agencies adopted provisions to exclude C02 emissions and fuel
consumption due to regeneration. In large part, this was because manufacturers had just begun using SCR
on their engines and they had not yet optimized regeneration strategies.
However, for Phase 2, we are requiring the inclusion of C02 emissions and fuel consumption due to
regeneration over the FTP and SET cycles, as determined using the IRAF provisions in 40 CFR 1065.680.
While some commenters opposed this because of its potential impact on stringency, we do not believe
this will significantly impact the stringency of these standards because manufacturers have already made
great progress in reducing the frequency and impact of regeneration emissions since 2007. Rather, the
agencies are including IRAF C02 emissions for Phase 2 to prevent these emissions from increasing in the
future to the point where they would otherwise become significant. While some manufacturer comments
on the NPRM opposed the inclusion of IRAFs, some qualitatively acknowledged the likely already small
and decreasing magnitude of IRAF C02 emissions in their comments. For example, EMA stated, "the
rates of infrequent regenerations have been going down since the adoption of the Phase 1 standards" and
that IRAF "contributions are minor." Nevertheless, we believe it is prudent to begin accounting for
regeneration emissions to discourage manufacturers from adopting criteria emissions compliance
strategies that could reverse this trend. Manufacturers expressed concern about the additional test burden,
but the only additional requirement would be to measure and report C02 emissions for the same tests
manufacturers are already performing to determine IRAFs for other pollutants.
At the time of the proposal, we did not specifically adjust baseline levels to include additional IRAF
emissions because we believed them to be negligible and decreasing. Commenters opposing this
proposed provision provided no data to dispute this belief in their comments on the NPRM (and, as just
quoted, EMA's comments corroborate the agencies' approach at proposal). More recently, a few
manufacturers have raised the possibility that IRAFs may be more significant than we believed -
especially for the FTP. However, at least one manufacturer has provided CBI data to show that their
IRAFs for C02 would be very small for both the SET and FTP. After considering this more recent
information, we continue to believe that regeneration strategies can be engineered to maintain these
negligible rates. Thus, we do not believe the regeneration emissions are of fundamental significance for
our baselines in the FRM. Highway operation includes enough high temperature operation to make active
regenerations unnecessary. Furthermore, recent improvements in exhaust after-treatment catalyst
formulations and exhaust temperature thermal management strategies, such as intake air throttling,
minimize C02 IRAF impacts during non-highway operation, where active regeneration might be required.
Finally, as discussed in Section 3.3.3 above, recent significant efficiency improvements over the FTP
cycle show that FTP emissions can be even lower than we have estimated in our updated FTP baselines,
which would provide additional margin for manufacturers to manage any minor C02 IRAF impacts that
may occur.
In summary, we believe that with proper design, regeneration event can be very infrequent and the
emissions can be very low so that the impact of applying an IRAF should be less than 0.1 percent. We
have considered this impact in our analysis of baseline emission rates, along with other marginal factors.
Although manufacturers have recently given us some CBI data on their current engines that inform our
estimated baseline values, this data set is still limited and leaves some uncertainty. To be prudent, we
addressed this uncertainty by being somewhat conservative in the extent to which we adjusted the
baselines downward.
For any manufacturers that currently have non-negligible IRAFs, we believe market forces would drive
them to reduce fuel consumption during regenerations. Thus, we do not believe any costs to control fuel
consumption during regenerations would be attributable to the Phase 2 program. Nevertheless, we note
that the cost for such control would be limited to the cost of recalibration work, which should be low.
-------
Even if that cost occurs and should have been attributed to Phase 2 (a premise with which we do not
agree), including such costs would not have altered any decisions about the Phase 2 engine standards.
Throughout the rulemaking, we did not find costs or cost-effectiveness to be a significantly limiting factor
in determining the stringency of the standards.
-------
3.4 Projected Engine Technologies, Effectiveness, and Cost
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Engine technology effectiveness
The Phase 2 engine package draws on research done by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI).3 However,
the agencies sometimes use lower effectiveness values than SwRI finds, without offering a justification.
First and foremost is the case of engine friction reduction. The SwRI study considered potential friction
reduction from any component needed for engine operation, including engine piston, ring, liners,
bearings, valve train, and gear train. It also considered reduced friction from variable speed oil and water
pumps, from reduced-power fuel pumps, and by using low viscosity engine oil. While the SwRI study
estimated more than 4% fuel consumption reduction from friction reduction, the agencies estimated 1.4%
reduction from engine friction and parasitic reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 10]
Improvement in combustion and control is another area where the agencies underestimated effectiveness.
The agencies estimated 1% improvement from combustion and control, while Cummins Inc. has
estimated 4% thermal efficiency improvement, or almost 8% fuel efficiency improvement, beyond Phase
1 from combustion, air-handling, and after-treatment improvement.4 Similarly, industry sources have
indicated 2% and 1% minimum fuel savings from combustion and engine controls, respectively.5 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 10-11]
Additional fuel consumption reduction is possible from waste heat recovery (WHR) in the form of either
turbo compounding or Rankine cycle. Volvo reported 2 to 4% fuel savings from turbo compounding in
line haul applications (p. 40196), yet the agencies assumed only 1.8%.6 In Phase 1 the agencies reported
2.5% to 5% fuel savings from mechanical turbocompounding7. Similarly, while the agencies assume
3.6% fuel savings for Rankine Cycle over the SET, the SwRI study estimated 4.4% fuel savings over a
weighted average of transient, 55 mph and 65 mph cycles. The benefits of Rankine cycle would not
accrue on the transient cycle, so one would not expect the fuel savings on the SET to be lower than the
weighted SwRI results. Furthermore, Cummins Inc., in a recent presentation to the Air Resources Board,
claimed 4.5% average fuel savings from Rankine cycle in their SuperTruck project.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1 p.11]
Engine technology penetration
The Phase 2 proposal estimates 100% penetration of all engine technologies in the 2027 timeframe except
engine downsizing, turbo compounding and Rankine cycle. More than 40 percent of all energy loss in an
engine is lost as heat to the exhaust and engine coolant (p. 40196). Therefore, manufacturers are actively
pursuing WHR in at least one form. Hence we believe the agencies' estimate of 15% penetration for
Rankine cycle and 10% penetration for turbo compounding in Phase 2 are far too low. Both turbo
compounding and Rankine cycle are suitable for the steady-speed operation that is typical in line haul
operation. Furthermore, turbo compounding is part of the Phase 1 package for 2017 model year engines,
so 10% penetration in next ten years is an overly conservative estimate. Two major manufacturers,
Daimler Truck North America and Volvo, are likely to use this technology before 2020 (p. 40196).
Cummins Inc., another major engine manufacturer, has invested in Rankine cycle and used it in their
SuperTruck program. Therefore, we believe it is more appropriate to expect all line haul tractor trucks
(62% of all tractor trucks) to take advantage of one of these two WHR technologies in the Phase 2
timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 11]
Overlapping benefits
-------
After calculating the combined benefits of engine technologies using a multiplicative approach, the
agencies appear to have applied a further 15% discount to the benefits to account for overlapping benefits
of the technologies. We agree that the percent fuel savings realized by a given technology may be lower
when the technology is used with another technology, and this issue should be addressed in estimating
combined benefits. However, no explanation is offered for how the 15% figure was arrived at, and this
value does not appear to be justified in this case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 11]
Any attempt to quantify such overlaps in benefits should be based on considerations specific to the
technologies to be combined. For example, the effectiveness of a waste heat recovery will be lower in
combination with technologies that reduce the amount of waste heat available. However, we are unaware
of other overlapping benefits among the particular technologies in the agency engine package. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1280-A1 p. 12]
Using the above-mentioned effectiveness and penetration of these technologies, we estimate that the fuel
consumption of tractor track engines can be reduced by 9% and 10% in 2024 and 2027, respectively.
Table 2 summarizes the potential engine efficiency improvements for 2027 model year and compares
with the proposed standards. Table A1 in the Appendix shows the corresponding comparison for model
year 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 12]
[Table 2 can be found on p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1, and Table A1 can
be found in Appendix A on p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
3 Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency Technology Study - Report #1 NHTSA
report no. DOT HS 812 146, June 2015, Submitted to the Phase 2 rule docket
4 http://aceee.org/files/pdf/conferences/workshop/heaw-dutv/salemme-cummins.pdf
5 Stakeholder workshop report on tractor trailer efficiency technologies, 2015-2030,
http://aceee.org/files/pdf/conferences/workshop/heaw-dutv/hdv-workshop-report.pdf
6 Test cycles may not be comparable.
7 p. 57205, Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 179/September 15, 2011
8 http://www.arb.ca.gOv/msprog/onroad/caphase2ghg/presentations/2 7 wavne e cummins.pdf
Response:
The finding from SwRI's report on friction is consistent with agencies estimate if the exactly same
certification cycle weighting factors on tractors and the certification vehicle weights are used. Using the
same principle for overall technology effectiveness reported by SwRI, specifically from their revised
report, their findings again support the agencies' findings. We do not believe that 4% reduction on
combustion is feasible for Phase 2 using an existing engine platform over 13 composite SET modes.
Based on discussions with OEMs and consideration of CBI, the agencies believe that the type of
reduction posited by the commenter could be achieved only by a new engine platform with significant
capability of sustaining extremely high peak cylinder pressure. Most of the heavy duty engines currently
marketed are relatively new; new engine platforms are not generally being contemplated. The cost of
-------
designing a new engine platform outside the normal redesign cycle is enormous, and has not been
considered by the commenter. Our effectiveness of WHR Rankine cycle technology is based on the
credible information directly from one of the OEMs. Volvo's finding on WHR turbo-compound benefits
is from an on-highway operations. In contrast, we have to evaluate any technology benefits over the 13
modes of the SET cycle, where turbo-compound actually has negative benefits in the low loads and low
speed regions. We are confident that the WHR effectiveness used represents the state-of-the-art values.
Based on many constructive comments and the agencies' further investigation on dis-synergy effect or
overlapping effect, these values were adjusted for the final rule. An example if this is with the 2027
tractor engines, where we increased the dis-synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Specific technology MPRs under the Phase 2 Rule appear to be overly aggressive and must be adjusted
downward for fleets to afford flexibility in spec'ing equipment, avoid excessive downtime due to
unforeseen maintenance requirements, and maintain equipment affordability. The specific market
penetration rates of concern are as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.6]
Waste Heat Recovery (15% in 2027)
Waste heat recovery ("WHR") was explored as a potential fuel efficiency technology under the U.S.
Department of Energy's SuperTruck initiative - a program developed to advance the fuel efficiency of
tractor-trailers by 50% over baseline models. The SuperTrucks equipped with WHR were developed and
unveiled by heavy-duty manufacturers in project demonstration vehicles funded through federal and
private sector sources. However, these prototype trucks are currently not production-ready and therefore
have not been thoroughly tested across the challenging and widely varied duty-cycles that exist within our
industry. ATA member fleets have clearly expressed their desire to only purchase technologies that are
thoroughly tested, verified, affordable, and proven to be both durable and affordable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1243-A1 p.6]
Waste Heat Recovery
The agencies assume Waste Heat Recovery ("WHR") technology will cost $10,523 in 2021. Figures
derived from the DOE SuperTruck program ranged from $7,200 - $15,000. Because WHR is not currently
in the market, the actual costs remain unknown. Some OEMs state that the agencies' costs are actually
higher than this figure while another OEM says it is overinflated. This wide-ranging pricing uncertainty
should raise a cautionary flag to the agencies. WHR is the highest cost menu item under the current heavy
heavy-duty engine technology listings. The agencies must be more transparent in how they derived such
cost figures given they are being so widely contested by all the OEMs. As you can imagine, these cost
uncertainties have only escalated fleet concerns over the future pricing of equipment under Phase 2.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243 -A 1 p. 11]
Response:
We understand ATA's concerns on the projected WHR market penetration. On the other hand, we
received data and credible CBI information from one of the engine manufacturers as well as their public
comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298) that their WHR system could be put into production in the
2021 timeframe. In addition to our response in RTC Section 3.4.1 below, Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA
detail the justification of WHR as one of the technologies used in our stringency development. We have
reconsidered our WHR costs in the final rule and provide more detail for how it was derived. Please refer
to RIA Chapter 2.11.2.15 for more detail on our final WHR cost estimates.
-------
Organization: Caterpillar Inc, et al.
Waste Heat Recovery: 15% - Waste heat recovery technology is not currently in the market, has technical
challenges for which production-viable solutions have not been identified, and is therefore not proven.
Customers are concerned with the complexity of the system as well as likely maintenance and downtime
increases, which will prevent uptake of this non-proven technology. EPA should not assume any
penetration of waste heat recovery technology by 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.6]
Response:
We received data and credible CBI information as well as public comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298) from one the engine manufacturers that their WHR system could be put into production in the 2021
timeframe. With a technology effectiveness of 3.6% used in engine standards, it only translated to a total
of reduction about 0.9% in 2027. Considering that the technology path proposed by the agencies is only
one of many paths that can achieve the standards, this 0.9% reduction can be made up by many other
means. In addition to our response in RTC Section 3.4.1 below, Chapter 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA for
detailed justification.
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
We continue to find that achieving a 40% improvement in oil consumption in 2025 (over 2010 levels) is
feasible and cost-effective. Further, there are some areas where the new data support our initial
recommendations for strengthening. The report from Southwest Research Institute shows that heavy-duty
engines for tractors, pick-ups, and vocational vehicles can all be much more efficient than the proposed
targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1925-A1 p. 1-2]
Response:
See earlier responses. Also, the commenter's suggested improvement is over the 2010 baseline whereas
the more germane comparison is over a 2017 MY baseline.
Organization: Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO)
Opportunities improving truck fuel efficiency are also great (and growing) based on already-existing
technologies and others in the R&D pipeline that show future promise: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1192-
Alp.l]
Response:
See earlier responses.
Organization: Controlled Power Technologies, Inc.
I am writing to inform the EPA and the public about C02 reduction-enabling technologies from
Controlled Power Technologies (CPT). Simulink performance models are available and may be suitable
for inclusion in GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1307 p.l]
COBRA stands for Controlled Boosting for Rapid response Applications. It is a fully integrated electric
supercharger including all control and power electronics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1307 p.l] By
supplying instantaneous on demand air COBRA is an enabling technology which can support a number of
-------
C02 and emission reducing solutions. COBRA compliments engine downsizing by supporting the low
end torque gap allowing for the same drivability as a larger powertrain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1307
p.l]
COBRA's on demand over boost enables the use of down speeding, longer gearing and a simplified
transmission to provide the same fuel cost benefits. The increased airflow delivered by COBRA not only
improves acceleration and response times it also provides the ability to maintain the correct Air-Fuel ratio
at key points to avoid transient smoke limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1307 p.1-2]
Additional information is contained in the attachment: CPT COBRA_4pp_APR2014_4print.pdf [See
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1307-A1]
SpeedStart/SpeedTorq motor-generator from Controlled Power Technologies [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1310 p.l]
The SpeedStart/SpeedTorq e-motor/generator is capable for providing idle-reduction (stop-start)
functionality, additional torque assist to the engine. It can be used to drive auxiliary devices such as air
conditioning compressors, while also providing a means of energy recuperation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1310 p.l]
The key CPT SR e-Motor, aka SpeedStart and SpeedTorq, advantages are: No rare earth permanent
magnets - price volatility and special recycling requirements are not a factor Design simplicity enables
commonality of components across variants; 95%of the CPT SR e-Motor content is common across 12V,
24V and 48V variants. Provides the OEM with an option for multi-variants based on a common core
motor design (e.g. P0, P4 hybrid in automotive applications) High efficiency (>80%) over a broad speed
range Low inductance design and independent phase control allows quick response timesto change in
torque request. 0 - 100% Torque is possible in 1 electrical cycle Low rotating inertia reduces mechanical
load on engine Zero generation capability, the ability to generate no electricity when the rotor is turning is
a key safety characteristic which is important for ASIL C/D applications (e.g. electrified rear axle or
transmission applications) High thermal efficiency - delivers peak performance over extended events
independent of engine bay temperatures Advanced flexible control system enables the following
programmable features Belt pre-tensioning for comfort stop-start Faster change-of-mind Electric
driveTorque profiling 4 quadrant control for hybrid driveline applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1310 p.1-2]
additional information is contained in the attachment: Speedstart_05.15 [See docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1310-A1]
WASTE EXHAUST ENERGY RECOVER TECHNOLOGY (AKA 'TIGERS') FROM CONTROLLED
POWER TECHNOLOGIES [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1313 p.l]
TIGERS
Waste to Watts - Powering the Planet with TIGERS TIGERS (Turbo-generator Integrated Gas Energy
RecoverySystem) is a liquid cooled switched reluctance generator coupled to an exhaust driven turbine.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1313 p.l]
It is capable of operating in exhaust temperatures up to 750C, at speeds up to 45,000rpm, delivering a
peak power of 2kW-4kW. The TIGERS system includes an electronically controlled full flow external
by-pass that ensures the desired proportion of exhaust gas is delivered to the turbo-generator as
-------
determined by the control system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1313[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1313
p.1-2]
Applications and Benefits [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1313 p.2]
* Waste exhaust heat energy is converted into useful electrical power
* More efficient electrical power generation compared with a conventional alternator at medium to high
engine load
* Compact machine (240mm x210mm x 175mm) delivering high power (0.5 - 2kW @ 12v)
* Can be packaged any wherein the exhaust system* Integrated power & control electronics
* Internally controlled bypass valve system
* Able to control pressurelimit, voltage limit and current limit commands over CAN
* Utilizes a be spoke low pressure turbine to extract power from exhaust flow with a minimal impact on
backpressure [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1313 p.2]
additional information is contained in the attachment: CPT TIGERS 8 13_4print.pdf [See docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1313 -A 1 ]
Response:
We appreciate the commenter's willingness to share their model with the agencies. However, GEM relies
on the engine fuel map to represent all of the engine technologies that are quantified by the engine
dynamometer tests. We will not model individual components that are part of the engine.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins expects market demand to drive performance that meets or exceeds the proposed engine
standards, and the technologies will be available
The SuperTruck programs have demonstrated the capability of new engine technologies to increase
efficiency and reduce fuel consumption and C02 emissions. The Cummins-Peterbilt program5
demonstrated almost a 20% C02 reduction from a 2009 baseline engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p. 13]
Potential technologies for C02 reduction on engines are found in Table 1. HHD tractor engine
technologies are evaluated over the RMCSET certification cycle while MHD vocational engine
technologies are evaluated over the FTP certification cycle. By using an engine system-level evaluation
for the technologies in Table 1, the total cycle improvement numbers account for any inherent dis-
synergies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 13]
[Table 1 can be found on p. 14 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
-------
As noted in Cummins' comments to NHTSA3, key areas of improved engine efficiency for tractor
applications are combustion, air handling, friction and parasitic reduction, and WHR technology. Higher
compression ratios, injection pressures and engine structural capability such as higher peak cylinder
pressures are also showing benefits in engine efficiency. Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) WHR technology
has the capability to provide 4 to 5% improvement in fuel consumption on tractor drive cycles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p. 13]
Many of the technologies that can reduce tractor engine C02 can also reduce vocational engine C02.
Combustion and air handling improvements will exist in the same form as for tractors; however, C02
improvements differ between the two markets due to the lower average cycle power of the vocational
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 13]
Cummins expects market demand to drive performance that meets or exceeds the proposed engine
standards. Given that the time span of this rule covers approximately three typical engine development
cycles, we expect that the engine technologies listed will be reliably and cost effectively introduced to
production engines within the Phase 2 timeframe. In fact, the engine standard changes of 0.5 to 0.6% in
2027 are within the C02 measurement variability and compliance margin, so it can be expected that this
final step will not drive meaningful additional technology adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1
p. 14]
WHR will be a viable technology to comply with the Phase 2 GHG/FE standards for tractor engines
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 15]
The Agencies have identified WHR as a potential Phase 2 technology for tractor engines, and Cummins
agrees with this assessment. However, we believe the Agencies underestimate the commercial viability of
the technology and overstate the development challenges and timing in the Draft RIA. Cummins expects
WHR systems to be commercially viable and available in production as early as 2020 and will exceed the
Agencies' estimates for market penetration over the period ofthe rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-
A1 p.15]
The Agencies have estimated 3.6% SET weighted C02 reduction with WHR in tractor engines
(Preamble, Table II-6). This is generally in line with Cummins experience of 4 to 5% improvement in fuel
consumption on tractor drive cycles, as demonstrated in our SuperTruck program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298-A1 p.15]
The Agencies have stated that Waste Heat Recovery technology is "on the flat portion of the learning
curve" (Draft RIA 2.12.2.15), particularly relating to cost reduction potential. This is incorrect. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 15]
The WHR estimate in the NHTSA report referenced in the Draft RIA is based on references6,7'8'9 that are
five or more years old. Table 3 shows the development progression of WHR technology at Cummins.
With each generation, improvements have addressed system cost, packaging (weight and size) and
reliability. Figure 7 shows the Generation 3 system integrated in the Cummins-Peterbilt SuperTruck,
which includes significantly enhanced tractor aerodynamics with WHR compared to today's truck
designs. As we have continued WHR development, we have focused on a smaller system footprint,
improved integration with the engine and vehicle and low-GWP working fluid, resulting in the much
more compact and integrated Generation 4 system shown in Figure 8. This latest design will begin
evaluation in extended customer testing by the end of 2015, and results of that experience will inform
further technology development and product engineering leading to expected commercial product
availability in the 2020 timeframe. Furthermore, given that the time period of the proposed rule
-------
encompasses multiple typical product development cycles, the opportunities for further development for
reduced cost and improved performance and reliability during this time period are significant. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p. 15-16]
[Table 3 can be found on p. 16 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 and figure 7 and 8
can be found on p. 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
The Agencies should also consider how duty cycles are evolving for regional haul as well as long haul
applications. Increased focus on asset utilization by regional haul fleets is significantly increasing the
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of individual vehicles in those applications, which will extend the
economic viability and market potential of WHR technology beyond typical long haul applications.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 16]
Other manufacturers are investigating WHR systems as well. In 2015, three SuperTruck programs13'14'15
had WHR systems running on trucks. In 2012, Cummins Turbo Technologies16 announced the
development of WHR turbine expanders (Figure 9) for the HD automotive market "for specific
applications on behalf of a number of customers." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.18]
[Figure 9 can be found onp.18 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
WHR has significant potential for fuel saving and C02 reduction to the benefit of truck operators and the
environment. By not recognizing the evolution of design integration and component simplification at the
engine and vehicle level subsequent to the cited studies, the Agencies have overestimated the cost of
WHR technology in the timeframe of the Phase 2 rule compared to other available technologies and
underestimated its market potential. We encourage the Agencies to apply a learning curve calculation that
is more consistent with the continuing evolution of WHR system design and integration as they assess
WHR relative to other technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.18]
(b) In setting the engine standards, the Agencies applied a dis-synergy factor (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0712 Docket Memo) in their assessment of various technologies. However, the dis-synergy factor's
derivation is not described in any detail by the Agencies. Considering the importance of this factor to the
engine standards, the Agencies should provide more reference data for the origin of the values used.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.36]
Cummins uses an engine system-level modeling approach to evaluate the benefits of C02-reduction
technologies, such as those tabulated in Table 1. This inherently takes into account any synergies or dis-
synergies across the individual technologies. Cummins urges the Agencies to take a similar system-level
approach when evaluating engine technologies and setting engine standards to make standard-setting
more explicit and to avoid the need for a separate dis-synergy discount factor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298-A1 p.36]
With respect to the proposed Phase 2 engine standards, Cummins is confident we have the engine
technologies necessary to meet or exceed the required GHG/FE improvements. In fact, we expect our
customers will demand even more improvement than the standards, and we are prepared to meet their
demands with cost-effective and reliable products. Specifically with regard to WHR, based on recent
progress we believe it can be available as a product as early as 2020. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-
A1 p. 42]
-------
5 Koeberlein, David "Cummins SuperTruck Program, Technology and System Level Demonstration of
Highly Efficient and Clean, Diesel Powered Class 8 Trucks," Cummins DOE AMR 2014
6 "Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and C02 Emissions.'
Washington, D.C.: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). October 2009.
7 National Research Council. "Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles." 2010.
8 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 'Factors and Considerations for Establishing a Fuel
Efficiency Regulatory Program for Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.' October 2010.
9 'Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy- Duty Vehicles', TIAX report to
National Academy of Sciences, November 2009
13 Gibble, John, "Volvo SuperTruck - Powertrain Technologies for Efficiency Improvement," Volvo
DOE Annual Merit Review, June 2015
14 Zukouski, Russ, "SuperTruck - Development and Demonstration of a Fuel-Efficient Class 8 Tractor &
Trailer Engine Systems," Navistar DOE Annual Merit Review, June 2015
15 Singh, Sandeep," SuperTruck Program: Engine Project Review," Detroit Diesel Corporation DOE
Annual Merit Review, June 2015
''hUD://www. cumminslurbolcchnoloaics.com/CTT/CTTConlcnl/CTTUS/SilcConlcnl/cn/BinarvAsscl/
PDF s/Downloads/HT iEdition 17.pdf
Response:
The final standards are largely consistent with this persuasive comment. In particular, the effectiveness,
projected penetration rate, and estimated cost of WHR technology are informed by, and consistent with
this comment. In addition, for tractor engines, we increased the dis-synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in
2027, and increased the market penetration rate for WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15% to 25% in
2027, and include down speed benefits for engines. As a result of this, the tractor engine standards'
projected stringency over the baseline increased from 4.2% to 5.1% in 2027. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the
RIA detail the justification of this increase. Largely based on the CBI information the commenter
provided together with other sources, we made changes on the cost related to WHR as indicated by
Chapter 2.11.2.15 of the RIA. We agree with Cummins that an engine system-level modeling approach
would be the best approach to evaluate the benefits of C02-reduction technologies, which takes dis-
synergy and synergy among all available energy into consideration. However, the agencies have added
considerable detail to explain why we cannot take this approach while showing the reasonableness of our
single dis-synergy factor approach. In addition to our response in RTC Section 3.4.3 below, see Chapter
2.7.5 of the RIA.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Thermodynamic Improvements - DTNA's heavy duty diesel engine products have maintained a long
standing status of industry leading fuel efficiency stemming from its expertise in developing engine
designs utilizing leading edge combustion and controls designs. For example, today's engine utilize
-------
unique second generation advanced Amplified Pressure Common Rail fuel injection systems and
proprietary asymmetric turbocharger / EGR control systems. Higher performing combustion systems than
those currently in production have been explored in research programs supported by the Department of
Energy. These programs aid in Daimlers understanding of the limitations and tradeoffs of stretch
technologies between improved efficiency and both design constrains of today's materials and criteria
pollutant emissions, [redacted] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.21]
Alternative 4 is Too Stringent and Too Fast - Although the agencies premise their engine stringencies,
including Alternative 4, on the idea of individual technologies being incorporated into engines, which is
not the case. Rather, even individual changes like changing the piston bowl shape or larger changes like
combustion improvements, friction reduction, or aftertreatment improvements require complete engine
redesign. Unlike vehicle-side standards which may change simply because of increased penetration rates
of technologies, engines require much more of a binary change—we cannot just adopt a few more new
aftertreatment technologies or changes to meet the next set of standards. Rather, not until the whole
engine family can change over can we radically change any one engine over. Further, any change can
affect criteria pollutant emissions and must continue to deliver near zero NOx and PM emissions, plus
meet the new N20 standards. Additionally, the significant time requirements to develop OBD diagnostics
must be considered. On the development timeline, validation of stringent OBD diagnostics can only begin
after final emissions calibrations are finalized. The consequence is that whereas prior to OBD
implementation calibration changes could be refined and finalized near to production dates, now, with
OBD time additional time is required after calibrations are finalized and final emissions control
calibrations may have to be revisited depending on results of OBD testing. And the systems must often be
tested for DFs. So, in short, we have individual changes requiring major engine redesign, drawing in the
need for many other certifications and tests. Plus, we have the need to premise stringency steps on
technologies that can be adopted across an entire engine family, not merely on a portion, so these
constraints limit the pace at which engine standards can be tightened. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p.23]
g. Waste Heat Recovery (WHR)
WHR Is Not Yet Feasible For Production - DTNA in its Super Truck program has expended
considerable development effort on its waste heat recovery technology and has identified a number of
areas in need of significant additional development effort or invention to reach a production viable design.
These developments needs have been explained in its updates to DOE program management and to the
regulators. Additional design and development effort continues to be needed relative to reducing cost,
improving packaging / space claim, reducing weight, developing controls, selecting an appropriate
working fluid, developing working fluid seals of sufficient reliability and durability, implementing OBD
diagnostics that can be expected to be required, and achieving the necessary reliability and durability
goals of its customers. The available energy and therefor the utility of WHR systems may diminish in the
future. Fuel efficiency improvements from WHR are a function of available heat for recovery. Available
heat for recovery is in turn a function of the engine duty cycle in its actual application and the engine's
efficiency since combustion heat that is not converted to work is rejected in the form of heat to the
cooling or exhaust systems. As engines are tuned for increased fuel efficiency, less heat is lost to exhaust
gases, and the temperature of exhaust gas decreases. Consequently, both the heat flux to the WHR system
decreases and the recoverability decreases due to the reduced exhaust gas temperature. Additionally, as
aftertreatment performance is improves, EGR rates may be able to be reduced, once again reducing
available heat for the WRH system. It is interesting to note that EPA proposes that benefit is available
from both clutched turbocharging and from WHR. However, both technologies seek to recoup energy
from the same exhaust heat source. Since these technologies compete for recovery of the same wasted
heat they cannot be considered to be additive towards fuel efficiency improvement. Also countering the
-------
efficacy of WRH technology is and will continue to be the trend towards improved vehicle efficiency. As
tractor and trailer aerodynamics improve, rolling resistance of tires decreases and as drivelines become
more efficient, the power demanded of the engines will also decrease. As power demand decreases so too
will the available recoverable waste energy. For these reasons and others, DTNA estimates a potential
of [redacted] fuel efficiency improvement in tractor applications from WHR technology. Packaging and
heat rejection impacts on vehicle efficiency must be considered in assessment of WHR fuel efficiency
gains from a vehicle perspective. Tractor cab under hood design must accommodate the space claim
needed by additional heat exchangers integral to the WHR system and at the same time minimize the
compromise to aerodynamic efficiency. EPA aggressively projects penetration of 1/5/15% in
MY2021/2024/2027. DTNA at this time considers the development maturity of the technology to be
inadequate to base market penetration projections with any level of confidence, and considers even a 5%
penetration in MY2027 to be overly aggressive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.94-95]
WHR's Cost And Other Concerns Make the Technology Not Yet Feasible - In section 2.7.4 of
the RIA, the agencies state several concerns about WHR, including high technology cost, a need for
extensive field testing to ensure reliability before the product is ready for market, and a need to gain
commercial acceptance for the technology. We agree that these are concerns with the technology that
suggest it should not be the basis of stringency calculations. 2.7.4 of the RIA [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p.95]
WHR Creates Large Cooling Load That Must Be Overcome - The agencies discussed the
ability of the WHR system decreasing the cooling load on the vehicle (80 FR 40197). We disagree with
the agencies position on this matter. Through testing and running a WHR system in Super Truck we have
concluded that there would be a net increase in cooling burden due to the WHR system of about 30 to
40% compared to a vehicle without WHR. This is essentially because the primary waste heat source to be
recovered, with reasonable heat recovery efficiency, is that of exhaust and EGR. Exhaust energy simply
escapes the tail pipe on today's truck. However, with the WHR system a small portion of that exhaust
energy is recovered as useful work, but at the same time a larger portion of that energy has to be rejected
under hood at low temperatures through additional radiators and condensers. (See Figure 1). Our vehicles
cooling packages are optimized to run with the fan off as it draws a large amount of energy. With the
addition of the WHR the fan on time will increase in several drive cycle scenarios and compromise some
of the recovered energy from WHR. The agencies on 80 FR 40197 also refer to recovering energy
available in the coolant. This may be possible in principle, but extremely challenging and possibly
impractical in reality. The low temperatures of the coolant make the heat recovery efficiency extremely
low and will require unpractically large heat exchangers. In summary, approaches to recover waste heat
other than exhaust and EGR may prove to be very complex, impractical with low performance, and not
cost effective for automotive and truck applications. The only reasonable waste heat recovery from
exhaust and EGR will increase the vehicle cooling burden by 30 to 40% as describe above, has
performance potential in the range of [redacted] FE improvement, and requires further R&D in several
areas including reliability, durability, sealing, working fluid choice, cost effectiveness etc. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.95]
Response:
Regarding the comments on WHR, we understand DTNA's concerns. We appreciate DTNA's detailed
physics explanations on WHR through the law of thermodynamics and the impacts on packaging, cooling
and potential high cost. We also understand that some WHR systems can have a negative impact on the
cooling. On the other hand, we received data and CBI information from one engine manufacturer as well
as public comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298) that shows that their WHR system could be put
into production in 2021 timeframe. In addition, most of publicly available data is mainly from the DOE
-------
SuperTruck program and indicates that WHR efficiency should be in the range of 4 to 5%, which is much
higher than what we used, 3.6%. Thus, our 3.6% WHR effectiveness takes into consideration the
negative impact on packaging and cooling. With the technology effectiveness of 3.6% used in the engine
standards, this only translates to a total vehicle reduction of about 0.9% in 2027. Considering that the
technology path proposed by the agencies is only one of many paths that can achieve the standards, this
0.9% reduction can be done by many other means. In addition to our response in RTC Section 3.4.1
below, Chapter 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA details the justification.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America, Navistar Inc., Paccar Inc., and the Volvo Group
Engine Test Process Considerations
The Charlton/Walsh Paper proposes two conflicting approaches. First that down-speeding (and down-
sizing) should be considered as engine technologies (recommendation 4). Second that alignment between
criteria emissions and GHG emissions must be maintained (recommendation 5). The former approach
requires that engine test cycles be adjusted based on the installed driveline and power demand of the
vehicle. The second approach requires fixed engine cycles not connected to the vehicle application,
barring a complete new approach to criteria emissions testing. In fact, vehicle OEMs fully agree that
down-speeding should be an important part of the GHG regulation, and both down-speeding and down-
sizing are incorporated into the complete vehicle assessment, the only feasible way to do so. We note that
down-speeding, in addition to extensive transmission design and control development, requires integrated
engine-transmission controls, along with engine design and optimization for low-speed torque, efficiency,
emissions, and vibration. The effectiveness of down-speeding is also linked to reductions in vehicle road
load, facilitated by reduced aerodynamic drag, efficient tires, and other features such as predictive cruise
control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.4]
The conflicting arguments in the subject paper demonstrate that overly stringent separate engine standards
are inappropriate, unnecessary, and counterproductive. As we have argued, it is fundamental that the
engine influence on the vehicle (size, weight, cooling demand, and cost) and the vehicle influence on the
engine (power demand, gearing, and controls) must be considered. Furthermore, from a purely economic
perspective, OEMs should be able to develop and choose the efficiency technologies that best fit with
their capabilities and expertise to meet regulatory GHG objectives and customer requirements. This will
increase competition and innovative approaches while providing optimized products with greater market
acceptance. EPA should support this and acknowledge that the engine specific regulation is meant to
ensure a level of improvement to be achieved with minimal potential tradeoffs on other vehicle efficiency
features, and to ensure some continued link to criteria emissions testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1894-A1 p.4-5]
Demonstration vs. Commercial Feasibility
Most of the technologies discussed in the subject paper have only been demonstrated (or partially
demonstrated) in the lab or in one-off vehicles. Such demonstrations over the years have frequently met
major obstacles that prevent commercialization. These include operation under all necessary duty cycles
and ambient conditions, full emissions control, real time dynamic control capability, durability and
reliability limitations, and costs (including development, material, labor, amortization of development and
tooling, operation, maintenance, and down time). In light duty, the most efficient production passenger
cars have efficiencies from 58-88 mpg for PHEVs. The hybrid MY 2000 Honda Insight was rated at 53
mpg, Toyota Prius at 50 mpg, and the 1986 Chevrolet Sprint (1 liter, 3 cylinder, 5 speed manual) at 48
mpg. Yet the 2025 light duty standard was set at an average level of 54.5 mpg, clearly in consideration of
-------
commercial feasibility and customer acceptance, not simply technical feasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1894-A1 p.5]
Funding and Resource Allocation
The Charlton/Walsh paper states "if this rule moves forward in its current form it will stall investment in
the advanced engine technologies already demonstrated in the SuperTruck Program as providing a 15-
20% reduction in GHG emissions and fuel consumption. R&D funds are a scarce resource that will be
withdrawn or reallocated to other priorities." And later, "Given the 12 year lead time to product launch in
2027 and the relaxed engine standards proposed; if this rule moves forward in its current form it will
make it impossible for truck and engine OEMs and tier 1 suppliers to continue to make investments in
advanced engine technologies at the levels we have seen during the past 5-10 years." The inherent
assumption here is that engine efficiency development will occur only if forced by specific engine
regulation. This flies in the face of many years of intense heavy duty engine efficiency development that
had occurred despite the lack of fuel efficiency regulations2. Additionally, and despite fuel efficiency
being a lesser priority for light duty customers, the experience in that market has been that engine
efficiency has played an important role in the vehicle efficiency portfolio, even without any engine
efficiency regulations. OEMs and suppliers will allocate efficiency resources to the most productive and
effective vehicle efficiency technologies (including the engine) in response to vehicle efficiency
regulation and competitive pressures. Engine efficiencies with adequate payback will be developed and
deployed as soon as possible, considering reliability, durability, and all the other aforementioned
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.5-6]
If OEMS and suppliers choose not to invest in engine efficiency, it can only be because such investment
is judged as inadequate to meet customer and competitive expectations, or inferior to other efficiency
investments to meet vehicle efficiency regulated targets. If technologies were proven and cost-effective,
as the subject paper declares, these investment decisions would easily be supported. If not, then society is
well ahead because better alternative investments were chosen to achieve target objectives. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.6]
Dis-synergies
Slide 8 of the presentation3 related to the subject paper provides a breakdown of the supposed technology
mix to support a recommended standard of 390 g C02/hp-hr and claims this accounts for dis-synergies.
Though recognizing a few minor dis-synergies, the paper fails to recognize the broad range of dis-
synergies that exist within the engine alone, and within the vehicle-engine interaction. The "minor
offsetting effect" from Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) is noted, when, in fact, the offset from aerodynamic
impact of the cooling system (if designed for larger engines) can consume around half the efficiency
benefit of the WHR system. Furthermore, since OEMs cannot afford multiple cab designs, the
aerodynamic penalty is carried by all cabs, whether the installed engine is the larger available engine or
not, and whether that engine is using WHR or not. This impact is not necessarily seen when packaging
WHR into existing cabs, but becomes clear when comparing future optimized aero cabs with and without
provision for WHR. Volvo has done this and finds about a 2% loss of fuel efficiency (4% drag increase)
associated with cabs designed to accommodate a larger engine with WHR both due to the frontal area
required and the impact on air flow through the cooling package and engine compartment. The negative
aerodynamic impact is greatly increased for day cabs if packaging requires extension of the wheel base
resulting in an increased trailer gap (already an issue due to packaging emissions equipment and for
natural gas fuels systems). In the end, this means that for vehicles produced using a cab/hood designed to
be WHR capable, the C02 reductions achieved by those actually equipped with WHR are likely to be
-------
negated by the population sold where WHR is not inappropriate for the application, yet the vehicle is
bearing the efficiency penalty of being WHR capable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 6-7]
There are many other significant dis-synergies:
• Down-speeding or down-sizing greatly reduces friction and pumping losses, and therefore the potential
benefits to be gained from additional friction and pumping reduction technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1894-A1 p.7]
• Down-speeding below what is already applied in certain down-sped production drivetrains provides
minimal additional efficiency and compromises available exhaust backpressure required to drive EGR
needed to control NOx. Correcting this will drive up pumping losses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-
A1 p.7]
• Continuous improvement in combustion efficiency, vehicle aerodynamic drag, driveline efficiency, tire
rolling resistance, and more will diminish available exhaust energy for WHR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1894-A1 p.7]
• Use of turbo-compounding reduces exhaust temperature for Rankine waste heat recovery and for
effective NOx catalysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.7]
• Improvements in combustion efficiency via increased cylinder pressure will increase bearing and piston
ring loads which results in increased friction losses which counteract benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1894-A1 p.7]
• Conventional combustion efficiency improvements drive up flame temperature and NOx formation.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.7]
• Higher injection pressure for combustion improvement significantly increases pumping power losses to
the injection system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.7]
• Low temperature combustion (homogenous, premixed, partially premixed) requires massive EGR to
control ignition timing and to avoid excessive rates of heat release such that the combustion efficiency
benefits are largely consumed by the pumping losses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.7]
• Down-speeding and down-sizing cannot be measured on fixed engine test cycles, so must be considered
in the vehicle simulation, not a separate engine test. In fact, down-sizing has a small negative impact on
efficiency when measured on a cycle that is proportional to the engine's power output (rather than vehicle
power demand) due to well-established physics that heat transfer losses are proportionally reduced in
larger engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.7]
• It is incorrect to compare best point BTE (brake thermal efficiency) to cycle efficiency since the
effectiveness of many technologies is significantly lower on the actual operating cycle than at the best
operating point. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.7]
SwRI Study and Proposed Engine Efficiency Target
Due to these dis-synergies, single technology engine efficiency gains cannot be added together, but must
be considered as a system including the vehicle impacts, control of criteria emissions, and all other
-------
requirements. The SwRI study referenced in the subject paper took this approach, although the authors
could not fully account for the impacts of many requirements. Relative to this, the Charlton/Walsh paper
notes first: "The study included a literature review to identify potential fuel saving technologies and to
assess the state of the art. A large number of engine and vehicle technologies were selected for analysis,
and their fuel saving performance was simulated to assess the fuel savings potential of each technology
over a wide range of duty cycles." But later the paper says: "The study is simply exploring the parametric
design space, and makes little attempt to assess or extrapolate the state of the art between 2015 and 2027."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.7-8]
In fact, the charter given to SwRI includes "... assessing the effectiveness and cost of potential fuel
efficiency/GHG improving technologies for the Phase 2 timeframe (post MY 2018 for vehicles and
engines). When considering potential fuel efficiency/GHG-reducing technologies, NHTSA directed SwRI
to include a range of factors: design, functionality, duty cycle, use (type of work done by the vehicle), and
factors that can influence the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost. Vehicle safety, utility, and performance
are also to be considered."4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.8]
SwRI fully considered both the available literature on engine efficiency research as well as their own
extensive internal research programs in developing their recommendations. However, these were
tempered by the requirements to consider effectiveness, feasibility, cost, safety, utility, and performance,
all areas that the Charlton/Walsh paper chooses to ignore. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.8]
The SwRI study concludes that a reasonable goal of 44.6-45.9 cycle brake thermal efficiency (BTE) is
achievable with known technology, but includes down-speeding to 1051 rpm at cruise speed. Although
the reweighted RMC does provide some impact from down-speeding, it is nowhere near this aggressive.
Hence the regulated limit for 2027 of 44.6 BTE (with a reweighted RMC that does not fully account for
down-speeding to the extent considered by SwRI) is entirely justified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-
Alp.8]
The revised version of the SwRI report5 notes that an error was made in the first report relative to the
baseline version of the engine. Quoting from the revised report: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.8]
"The results presented in this section have been revised since the original draft version of the report.
Three errors were discovered during the independent peer review and public release of the draft report
that have been corrected in this final version. The first error was the use of the wrong fuel map to
represent the model year 2019 DDI5 engine baseline. The fuel map inadvertently used was a model year
2011 baseline turbocompound engine with a 1% benefit from combustion duration, but otherwise
unchanged. The analysis for this section should have used a fuel map representative of the more efficient
2013 DD15 engine as the baseline to allow exploration of improvements beyond the Phase 1 standards."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.8]
The revised report further notes:
"The revised results included in this version of the report show the following effects: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1894-A1 p.9]
• There is now a larger difference between the 2011 and 2019 DDI5 baseline engine results, particularly
on the CARB and WHVC cycles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.9]
• The fuel savings benefits of all the DDI5 technology combination packages are reduced by up to 3.3%
depending on the technology packages and driving cycles compared to the original draft, primarily
-------
because the post-Phase 1 2019 DDI5 baseline now has lower fuel consumption [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1894-A1 p.9]
• The relative benefit of waste heat recovery is essentially unchanged." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-
A1 p.9]
Although this revision does not affect the SwRI recommended engine BSFC capability, it does
significantly reduce the relative benefit of further engine improvements beyond the 2019 baseline engine.
This further supports our contention that efficiency expectations should be focused on the integrated
vehicle, not the engine alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.9]
History of Long-range, Technology Forcing Regulation
The Charlton/Walsh Paper points to the promulgation of the 2010 emissions standards in 2001: "This
very successful program is an outstanding example of technology forcing standards combined with
adequate lead time, and the commitment of industry. " The reality is that the industry was so concerned
about the weakness of the technology feasibility demonstration EPA performed to support this rule that
Cummins, the largest supplier of diesel engines to the US heavy-duty market at the time of that
rulemaking, challenged that 2007/2010 rule in court, arguing according to court documents that".. .no
NOx control system will be capable of meeting the EPA's 2007 standards."6 And later, Cummins argues
".. .the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that engine manufacturers will be able to
develop emissions-control systems satisfying the new rule." We would argue that today's level of
development of waste heat recovery and stop-start technologies is no further advanced for the typical
manufacturer of heavy-duty engines to the US highway vehicle market than EPA's proposed Lean NOx
Trap technology was at the time that it served as the basis of the 2007/2010 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1894-A1 p.9]
In the end, this "very successful program" involved the deployment of completely different NOx control
technology than the Final Rule envisioned (SCR rather than LNT). In the end, when coupled with the
2007 product cost increases, the full scope of the EPA "clean diesel" program drove up class 8 vehicle
purchase and maintenance cost by as much as 40%, more than doubled engine system cost, increased
lifetime operating cost (including downtime) around $20K, and resulted in customers purchasing a high
volume of trucks prior to 2007 to avoid the new technologies and cost increases associated with the 2007
engines. This no-buy in 2007 resulted in large-scale layoffs of manufacturing workers. This is an example
that should temper any viewpoint that we can accurately forecast long-range technology, costs, or market
reaction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.9-10]
In Table 1, we can see the impact of the 2007 engine launch that introduced diesel particulate filters to
meet a 90% reduction in the PM standard. Among the consequences was an almost 50% reduction in the
heavy-duty OEM labor force, with corresponding impacts on suppliers, and a cascading effect on the
overall economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.10]
[Table 1 can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1]
Rankine Waste Heat Recovery
The Charlton/Walsh Paper states "WHR technology is an important component of the technology
package that can deliver a 15% or greater reduction of GHG emissions and fuel consumption by 2027, as
recognized by NAS 21CTP Report #3, September 11, 2015 [41]." Aside from the fact that the NAS report
does not say WHR can deliver 15%, most reports on WHR systems that exploit all available heat sources
-------
show between 3 and 6% efficiency gain on optimal vehicle duty cycles, not considering the negative
impacts to vehicle weight, cooling and aerodynamics already discussed in the section above on dis-
synergies. WHR efficiencies are highly dependent on operating conditions ~ load, speed, terrain, and
ambient temperature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p. 10-11]
The paper states: . .the only valid meaning of 'adoption rate' is in determining which real world
applications should logically be included and excluded on the basis of effectiveness. In the case of WHR
there is broad agreement that line-haul tractor trailer applications and heavy-haul applications (at least)
will benefit from adoption of WHR. These applications form a high percentage of the Class 7-8 fleet
(greater than 65%)." In fact EPA has correctly recognized that WHR effectiveness and therefore adoption
rate depends on a large number of factors, including the installed engine size (impacting BMEP, exhaust
temperature, and cooling demand), vehicle load factors, terrain (less effective in rolling hills), ambient
temperature (avoid excessive radiator temperatures), and customer acceptance (if forced into the market,
customers may delay purchases). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 11]
The SwRI study notes that:
"Some of key technologies, such as waste heat recovery, would not be effective for a day cab engine, and
therefore the overall benefits over the agencies' certification categories would be further reduced." [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.ll]
"Because bottoming cycles have very slow transient response, there is a large drop-off in fuel savings
between a steady-state test cell evaluation and real, on-road performance under transient conditions. The
model does not include the effects of transient response, so the bottoming cycles were not run on the more
transient drive cycles (CARB and WHVC). Real world performance of the bottoming cycles will be hurt
by transient response issues, even at steady speed operation. Steady speed rarely involves steady load."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.ll]
Furthermore, all indications are that long-haul trucking will be reduced as a fraction of total US road
freight, as more marine shipments are delivered to ports on the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast and
more long-haul freight is delivered by rail. The growing regional road freight hauls are more constrained
by traffic and rolling terrain, which is less conducive to effective deployment of WHR. Packaging of
WHR systems in day cabs may also introduce further aerodynamic losses if extended wheelbases result in
larger trailer gaps. These factors must be considered in establishing penetration expectations. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.ll]
Without firm designs, cost estimates for WHR systems are likely to be significantly under-estimated, as is
typical for any early design estimate. Costs almost always inflate as the complexity of real world
requirements drive up need for more robust designs, sensors, controls, control hardware, and complete
vehicle integration. Development costs will be huge and must be amortized with limited volumes.
Furthermore, the industry experience with such complex systems is that maintenance, repair, and down-
time cost can be much greater than the initial purchase cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 11]
Combustion Efficiencies
The subject paper quotes the RIA: "Alternative combustion processes such as homogeneous charge
compression ignition (HCCI), premixed charge compression ignition (PCCI), low-temperature
combustion (LTI), and reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) technologies were not included
in the feasibility analysis for Phase 2." It then goes on to criticize: "Given the significant research efforts
on advanced combustion (Appendix A, Figure 17) and the progress being demonstrated [27, 28, 31], it is
-------
to be expected that some level of improvement in combustion technology will bleed through into product
development programs over the next 12 years, providing reductions of GHG emissions and fuel
consumption" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.11-12]
The reality is that, despite many years of heavy research within industry and academia, the promise of
low temperature combustion (including HCCI, PCCI, LTC, and RCCI) has not materialized. The
fundamental problem with these technologies is that ignition timing and rate of combustion are no longer
managed by fuel injection timing and rate. Instead, combustion control must be managed by control of the
intake charge mixture and temperature, typically by managing EGR rate, carefully timed multiple fuel
injections, and/or mixtures of various fuels, all of which must react to rapid changes in load, varying
ambient conditions, and varying fuel properties. There is no assurance that this will ever be effectively
managed outside of controlled lab conditions, much less within some assumed time frame. Furthermore,
as previously mentioned, the required high rate of EGR increases pumping losses, negating much of the
claimed benefit, barring some new breakthrough in turbocharger efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1894-A1 p. 12]
SuperTruck and the National Academy Sciences Report on 21st Century Truck Program
In comparing what SuperTruck has accomplished, it is necessary to separate what is accomplished by
engine, tractor, and trailer technology from simply carefully controlling the vehicle's operation. In fact,
there are reports of production trucks in commercial operation today that achieve an average between 9
and 11 mpg with loads above 60,000 lbs.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 12]
Furthermore, SuperTruck had no requirement for commercial feasibility or full regulatory compliance
such as deterioration or OBD. Cost, maintenance, reliability, and durability were not considered, though
they are key factors for market readiness and customer acceptance. SuperTruck vehicles were not
developed to be driven in the same manner as a production vehicle and, indeed, these prototype designs
are not representative of production-level components capable of full service life. SuperTruck sets the bar
for future R&D toward potential commercialization of some technologies, but certainly does not
demonstrate commercial feasibility to meet customer product longevity expectations. SuperTruck
technologies were focused on specific long-haul duty cycles that showcased the best possible efficiency
gains. Furthermore, the 50% BTE target was required only at a single operating point, not over the
engine's typical operating range or certification test cycles. In reality, the truck market has widely
differing application requirements. SuperTruck should be viewed as creating a menu of potential
technologies, not a formula for the majority of trucking applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-
A1 p.12-13]
Figure 1 shows a typical tractor engine map. This is a representative 2018MY tractor map available in the
EPA GEM simulation model that is used to set the baseline for the GHG Phase 2 regulations. The modes
for the RMC are overlaid and show the weighting as proposed in the NPRM. From this figure it is clear
that the authors have extrapolated the achievements of SuperTruck in their recommendation of 50% BTE
in the RMC cycle. At the A-speed, which is the highest weighted speed, the BTE of a typical engine that
meets 2017MY GHG will range from 39% at the lower torque to a maximum of 46% at the 75% load
point. In order for such an engine to meet a composite number of 50% with the assumption of a flat map
the part load points would need to improve over 11% efficiency points and this is without the appropriate
engineering margins. Furthermore, the assumption of a flat map is counter to the physics and the
optimization of the systems that support the function of the engine as is demonstrated by what EPA
considers state-of-the-art today. Within the space of the RMC cycle, excluding the idle point, BTE ranges
from 34% to the maximum already stated of 46%. Hence, in the event that a manufacturer had to design
for the 50% BTE, the engine would have to significantly exceed the achievements of the SuperTruck
-------
program by having the cruise point be well above 55% BTE in order to achieve the composite number
given the typical shape ofthe map. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.13]
[Figure 1 can be found onp.13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1]
Stringency
The Charlton/Walsh paper recommends engine stringency stretching to 50.4% brake thermal efficiency
(BTE) over the test cycle by 2027. As already discussed, the regulated GHG emissions and efficiency
targets are based on the engine cycle average, not at a single operating point at or near the best BTE.
Since the cycle average includes operation at light load and higher speeds, the best point BTE would
likely need to be about 54-55% to achieve 50.4% cycle average BTE. Such a level has never been
demonstrated by a multi-cylinder heavy-duty on-highway diesel engine, even in a controlled lab setting.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 14]
According to the paper:
"To achieve these technology forcing standards it will be necessary for the following technologies to be
developed:" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p. 14]
• Waste Heat Recovery / Organic Rankine Cycle
Comment: This technology is already included at appropriate penetration in the NPRM targets. Negative
impacts on aero design and application limits must be considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1
p. 14]
• Advanced Combustion
Comment: Presumably this refers to Low Temperature Combustion. See previous comments on this
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 15]
• Reduced Frictional Losses
Comment: This will be part of the package to achieve standards. Note that down-speeding and down-
sizing reduce effectiveness. Increased cylinder pressure and injection pressure increases frictional losses.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 15]
• Reduced Accessory Losses
Comment: This is not part of the engine test cycle and should be considered at vehicle level. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1894-A 1 p. 15]
• Reduced Open Cycle Losses
Comment: There is no explanation of what this is. It seems to be another name for combustion
improvement and reduced pumping. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 15]
• Engine Design for Down-speeding
-------
Comment: Down-speeding impact is already included within the vehicle GHG standard and cannot be
measured on fixed engine cycles. Down-speeding efficiency impact, as shown on the plot, is
approximately 2% when lowering cruise RPM from 1400 to 1100. Further down-speeding provide little
additional efficiency based on known engine technology, but does drive up NOx due to operation below
levels at which EGR can be pumped. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 15]
[Figure 2 can be found onp.15 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1]
Figure 3 shows the substantial increase in engine out NOx as engine speed is lowered and torque is
increased. To operate at speeds below 1000 rpm requires significantly increased SCR efficiency and urea
consumption that more than offsets any added fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 16]
[Figure 3 can be found onp.16 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1]
Relative to down-speeding the subject paper states: "While the agencies have acknowledged that engine
downspeeding is a key technology trend and have modified the engine test cycle to reflect this trend, they
have failed to include the C02 and fuel consumption savings in the stringency of the engine limit
standards. In fact quite the opposite - by changing the test cycle the agencies have relaxed the stringency
by 1-2% (section 3.2.1). By not including downspeeding in setting limit standards for engines, they have
in effect further relaxed the standards - by as much as 2-4% per SWRI report #1 [42], The combined
relaxation is 3%-6%, which exceeds the overall reduction proposed in the NPRM [14], Even by the
agencies estimate of 1.8% reduction due to downspeeding, the combined relaxation is 2.8%-3.8%." [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.16]
It is illogical to say that the engine standard has somehow been relaxed because down-speeding is not
included in the engine standard limits, especially since the engine test cycle cannot measure the impact of
down-speeding. Down-speeding is correctly included in setting the vehicle standards, where it is
measured within the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1
p.16-17]
The subject paper cites a master's thesis from Chalmers University8 to support claims that down-speeding
can provide up to 3.38% improvement in efficiency. There are serious problems with the methodology in
this paper. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p.17]
First, this work is done only via simulation, and much of the efficiency improvement results from reduced
in-cylinder heat transfer that supposedly results from reduced gas velocities at lower engine speed. What
this fails to account for is the increased time for heat transfer or to effectively account for impacts of
swirl. In-cylinder heat transfer is notoriously difficult to model, and improved models (proprietary within
Volvo Group) since the Chalmers paper do not support the claim of reduced heat transfer. An engine
efficiency expert within Volvo stated "this model response is seriously wrong when looking at rpm
changes." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p. 17]
Much of the improved efficiency in the Chalmers paper comes from additional technologies, not just
down-speeding. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p. 17]
• Peak cylinder pressure is increased by 25%. This can improve combustion efficiency, but requires total
redesign of the cylinder head, head gasket, piston, rings, rod bearing, main bearing, crankshaft, and block.
In short, this requires a complete engine redesign that is problematic and unproven. Furthermore, without
some break-through in bearing technology, the increased size of the bearings will increase friction. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.17]
-------
• Turbochargers (two stage turbos are used in this study) are re-matched to low speed operation. This
would greatly reduce power and efficiency at higher speeds and loads that are still required when hauling
heavy loads or on steep hills. Without this re-matching, it would not be feasible to drive the EGR
necessary to control in-cylinder NOx at such low engine speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1
p. 17]
• Torque response is greatly compromised due to reduced mass flow. This will further exaggerate the
drivability problem associated with lack of power at higher engine speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1894-A1 p. 17]
• Torque is increased to 3250 Nm at engine speed down to 850 rpm (compared to current engine at 2500
Nm at 1050 rpm). Aside from the problems with cylinder pressure already noted, this will create
unresolved issues with engine and driveline vibration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 17]
In short, the design of this ultra-down-sped engine requires infeasible design trade-offs, unproven
technologies, and double counts combustion improvements already accounted for. Even so, the model
greatly overstates the benefits and is not backed up by any testing. In fact, the current level of down-
speeding in US trucking is already near the optimum level with little more to be gained, barring new
technology breakthroughs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.17-18]
• Advanced NOx and PM Aftertreatment
Comment: Expect any advances in this area to be consumed by future lower NOx expectations [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 18]
• Advanced Adaptive Controls
Comment: It is unclear how these might be factored into any test process, especially until it is clear what
these might be. Adaptive control cannot be considered within fixed engine test cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1894-A1 p.18]
• Advanced Sensors
Comment: Sensors contribute nothing to FE unless utilized for advanced combustion and control.
Advanced sensors (and actuators) will be necessary, but lack of these is a barrier to commercialization.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 18]
• Increased Turbocharger Efficiency
Comment: Although more efficient turbochargers can be built (at significant cost), it is unclear that they
can maintain high levels of efficiency due to abrasion of blades and carbon build up. In order to be
effective, high turbo efficiency must be coupled with turbo-compounding or new EGR systems.
Otherwise, there is likely insufficient exhaust back pressure to drive EGR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1894-A1 p. 18]
Input from DOE Efficiency Symposium presented at DEER, Oct. 2011
Although there are countless publications on combustion engine efficiency, one study is particularly
significant. On March 3-4, 2010, the US Department of Energy gathered top engine efficiency experts
-------
from around the world with the express purpose of establishing the maximum potential efficiency that
might ultimately be achieved.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 18]
On page 11 the symposium presentation states: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.18]
"Increasing engine efficiency involves a Whack-a-mole (or Gopher) approach."
"Reduction of one loss term tends to result in an increase of another, for example,... Reducing in-cylinder
heat loss tends to increase exhaust energy rather than piston work Lean operation increases piston work
but increases combustion irreversibility and decreases exhaust energy" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-
A1 p.18]
This is clearly stating that the dis-synergies are critical considerations in increasing efficiency. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 18]
Although the consensus was that 60% best-point BTE might be the upper limit for a conventional crank-
slider engine, it was fully acknowledged that this is a theoretical limit with many practical constraints.
Each further incremental step toward this limit requires tremendous engineering effort and potentially
complex systems with high cost and unreliability. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that larger engines
are inherently more efficient, while power density and an engine optimally sized for vehicle power
demand create constraints on engines for on-road operation. Also, NOx emissions were not considered in
these discussions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1894-A1 p. 18-19]
Some key conclusions are noted on page 25 of the presentation, reproduced here: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1894-A1 p.19]
[Figure can be found on p. 19 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1]
Earlier in the presentation on slide 15 in a discussion about the irreversible nature of the internal
combustion process, the presenter concludes: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 19]
"Significant reductions (in fuel consumption) will require radical changes in how combustion occurs in
engines: Thermochemical recuperation, staged reactions (chemical looping), etc." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1894-A1 p.19]
These viewpoints from this group of global internal combustion engine experts highlight the level of
complexity, dis-synergy, and unsolved technical challenges that stand in the way of achieving extreme
levels of brake thermal efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p. 19]
Conclusion:
Although there is tremendous speculation about the potential for heavy duty diesel engine efficiency
improvement, this is accompanied by a huge number of unsolved issues, including whether any
technology can reliably and effectively manage the full range of requirements while avoiding offsetting
efficiency penalties in the vehicles. Impacts on reliability, cost, downtime, and maintenance must be
considered. The ability of the engine to meet criteria emissions limits and related requirements, including
certification, in-use requirements, OBD, and deterioration, must be taken into account. The effectiveness
of each technology must be considered in setting target penetration levels. Many engine technologies are
only possible when combined with the vehicle drivetrain and all should be evaluated against the steadily
-------
reducing power demand dictated by the Phase 2 proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1
P-20]
2 For a more complete analysis of advantages offered by vehicle simulation approach, see SAE 2015-01-
2772, Kopin and Musselman, "Complete Vehicle Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucking: Optimizing
Freight Efficiency Benefits to Meet U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards."
3 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1472 Note that this
document appears to contain additional detail to the Charlton/Walsh Paper, and was posted to the docket
on February 1, 2016.
4 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0554
5 Final Southwest Research Institute Report to NHTSA: Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck
Fuel Efficiency Technology Study - Report #2 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1623
6 National Petrochemical Refiners Ass'n. v. EPA, 287 F.3d 1130, 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
7 http://www.overdriveonline.com/topping-10-mpg-former-trucker-of-the-year-blends-driving-strategy-
equipment/
8 http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/147782.pdf
9 A summary report from this work can be found at:
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer 2011/wednesdav/presentations/deerl 1 edwards.
pdf
Response:
We appreciate the comments made by these four major vehicle OEMs. While we believe that the separate
engine standard is necessary, we do agree significantly with most of the points that the four major vehicle
OEMs have made. We agree with their assessment of the SwRI report. More importantly, the SwRI
findings, specifically their revised report, supports the agencies' stringency when taking the agencies'
certification procedure including vehicle weight, and cycle weighting factors, and WHR market
penetration, into consideration. We also largely agree with this report's statements on DOE's SuperTruck
program, which are solely used for technology demonstration in an R&D environment. We also
appreciate their comments on many items, including the sections on demonstration vs. commercial
feasibility, funding resource and allocation, and dis-synergy. We agree in principle with the commenter's
comments on down-speeding, specifically that the Walsh/Charlton report on down speeding is
impractical. We also found that many technical comments on various technologies, such as WHR,
combustion with HCCI and PCCI concepts, friction, adaptive control, and advanced NOx and PM control
are extremely helpful. These comments have further helped us to justify why we cannot use the
Charlton/Walsh report as our base to increase the stringency to the level they recommend. See also
response to EDF in Section 3.3.1 above.
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
-------
1. NEW CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGY WILL CONTRIBUTE TO FURTHER EFFICIENCY
GAINS AND CONTINUE TO BE THE PRIMARY POWERTRAIN FOR COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES.
More than 95 percent of all heavy duty trucks on the road today are diesel-powered as are a majority of
medium duty trucks. Advances in diesel engine technology will continue to contribute to the overall
efficiency gains of vehicles under the proposed rule, and as a result we expect diesel technology to remain
the primary power-plant for commercial trucks into the foreseeable future. Diesel will continue to be the
technology of choice because it offers an unmatched combination of power, increasing energy efficiency,
work capability, reliability and now near-zero emissions environmental performance, along with an
ability to utilize a variety of low-carbon renewable diesel fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p. 1-
2] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp.120-121.]] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.108-109.]]
Since 2000, the leaders in clean diesel technology and the EPA worked together in establishing a
regulatory pathway that brought about the introduction of an entire new generation of clean diesel engines
for both on- and off-road applications. Manufacturers have met the challenge to virtually eliminate both
NOx and particulate emissions from diesel engines, reducing emissions by as much as 98 percent from
previous levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.2] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 121.]] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 109.]]
In fact, last year the American Lung Association, in it annual State of the Air Report identified cleaner
diesel fleets as one of the two main contributors to helping the nation achieve cleaner air and meet the
national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-
A2 p.2] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 121.]]
[Image, 'Clean Diesel', can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2]
These new technology clean diesel engines are being widely embraced by customers as evidenced by the
increasing penetration into the vehicle population. According to state vehicle registration data for 2014,
of the roughly 9.2 million Class 3-8 heavy-duty vehicles on the road nationwide, about 37 percent, or 3.4
million vehicles are deployed with a 2007 or newer model year engine. Of these, almost 21 percent or
roughly 1.9 million vehicles on the road meet the 2010 emissions milestone that requires near zero levels
of both particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions.1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.2-3]
[[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 121.]] [[These comments can
also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 109-110.]]
Illinois is a leader in adoption of new clean diesel technology: 40 percent of class 3-8 trucks on the road
are 2007 and newer making Illinois number 4 in the country for the largest population of heavy duty
diesel trucks model year 2007 and newer (130,432). Twenty-one percent (58,157) are 2010 and newer
making it 5th in the nation for registration of 2010 and newer commercial trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1171-A2 p.3] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 121.]]
Last year (2014) was a very strong year for new truck sales across the industry, with over 186,000 new
medium duty trucks sold (Class 4-7) along with over 230,000 heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks sold. The
overwhelming majority of these vehicles are powered by clean diesel technology with just a few thousand
units powered by other fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.3] [[This comment can also be
found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 122.]] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 109.]]
-------
According to the Fuels Institute, as of 2013, diesel represents about 98 percent of the engines founds in
medium and heavy-duty vehicles including those that are covered by the proposed rule. By 2023, the
Fuels Institute estimates that diesel engines will power between 95 and 97 percent of these vehicles
despite the introduction of alternative fuels and powertrains including all-electric, fuel cell and continued
introduction of natural gas powered vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p. 3] [[This comment
can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 122.]]
2. CLIMATE, FUEL SAVINGS AND CLEAN AIR BENEFITS FROM NEW TECHNOLOGY
DIESEL ENGINES IN COMMERCIAL TRUCKS IN OPERATION TODAY ARE SIGNIFICANT
AND GROWING
New diesel technology on the road today is delivering real world benefits in the form of fuel savings and
reducing carbon emissions. According to research commissioned by the Diesel Technology Forum, in
just the last four years—between 2010 and 2014- technologies developed to meet strict emissions
standards beginning for model year 2010 engines have generated substantial fuel savings and emission
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.3] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 122.]][[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, pp. 110-111.]]
Now 18 months into the first ever fuel economy and greenhouse gas reduction rules for these medium and
heavy-duty vehicles - the so called Phase 1 rules - are expected to save 530 million barrels of crude oil
and eliminate 270 million tons of carbon emissions between 2014 and 2018 according to EPA and
NHTSA. In this population of vehicles, diesel is the predominant powertrain found in about 98% of
trucks. Industry estimates have diesel maintaining over 90 percent of this market over the lifetime of the
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.3]
1 http://www.dieselforum.org/index cfm?ohiectid=090207D5-01F9-llE4-91B7000C296BA163\
Response:
We appreciate Diesel Technology Forum's comments.
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
Advanced truck and engine designs that reduce emissions provide significant fuel savings for their owners
and clean air benefits for everyone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.6]
Now achieving near zero emissions, clean diesel technology powers the overwhelming majority of
medium and commercial trucks today and thanks to these improvements, is poised to continue as the
prime powertrain technology for commercial vehicles in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2
p.6]
The engine may look and perform somewhat differently, and may be burning different kinds of low
carbon fuels. But in the end, it will still be a diesel engine and an integral component of meeting the
needs of a growing economy and a cleaner and more sustainable future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1171-A2 p.7]
-------
Response:
We appreciate Diesel Technology Forum's comments.
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
California Clean Diesel Adoption and Benefits
With one of the largest medium and heavy duty fleets in the country, California stands to benefit the most
from these proposed Phase 2 rules. Already, model year 2010 and newer engines that are found in Class
3-8 vehicles in the state have eliminated 120,000 tons of NOx and 580,000 tons of carbon dioxide and
saved 1.4 billion barrels of crude oil between 2010 and 2014, according to our most recent
research. According to the Air Resources Board, the further adoption of new and newer diesel engines in
heavy-duty applications in California is expected to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen by fifty
percent between 2012 and 2020. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.5]
We believe these are also important considerations for EPA in developing a final Phase 2 rules, as
follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.5]
• The program must consider the longstanding trade-off between NOx and C02. The rule
should avoid driving technologies that realize gains in fuel efficiency at the expense of NOx,
reversing the huge achievements of clean diesel technology in recent years and limiting the
potential for further reductions in the future. As we have stated previously, technologies
developed to meet the current emission standard established for model year 2010 maximize
reductions in NOx and C02. The maximization of this trade-off may become jeopardized if
pushed too far. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.6]
Response:
We appreciate Diesel Technology Forum's comments. We will work with all stakeholders to explore the
trade-off between NOx and C02. See also response in RTC Section 15.8.
Organization: First Industries Corporation
The following EPA-proposed penetration rates are too aggressive and in our estimation must be adjusted
downward: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.2]
Waste Heat Recovery: 15% - Waste heat recovery technology is not currently in the market, has technical
challenges for which production-viable solutions have not been identified, and is therefore not proven.
Customers are concerned with the complexity of the system as well as likely downtime, which will
prevent uptake of this non-proven technology. This is the type of technology that is likely to cause a pre-
buy/no-buy scenario. EPA should not assume any penetration of waste heat recovery technology by 2027.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.2-3]
The estimated costs of the following technologies as presented in the proposed rule are too low: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.4]
Waste Heat Recovery — EPA assumes this technology will cost up to $11,000. Because waste heat
recovery is not currently in the market, the actual costs are unknown. However, step changes in
-------
technology typically cost more. Moreover, the additional costs for maintenance and downtime need to be
accounted for in the rule. With the phase-in implementation of new emission standards in 2007, fleets saw
substantial extra costs in terms of missed loads, late loads, etc. Fleet owners also risk losing drivers if they
are operating with new, unproven technology, and other fleets are operating with proven technology. This
is a major reason fleets will pre-buy to avoid such technology. It is also a major cost that must be
accounted for in the rule. EPA must also recognize that the potential benefits of waste heat recovery vary
substantially depending on the duty cycle and powertrain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.4]
Response:
We recognize the WHR concerns of First Industries Corporation. Downtime and cost are two of the many
key concerns, specifically for an emerging technology that has not been extensively tested on the market.
We explain in RIA Chapter 2.3.9 how these challenges can be successfully met in the lead time provided
by the Phase 2 rule. We received data and CBI information from one engine manufacturer as well as
public comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298) that shows that their WHR system could be put into
production in 2021 timeframe. Given their large market share in the class 8 engine sector, a 25% market
share utilizing WHR by 2027 is certainly possible. In addition to our response in RTC Section 3.4.1
below, Chapter 2.3.9 and 2.7 of the RIA details the justification.
Organization: He, Leard, McConnell
2 Sources of Improvements in Fuel Economy
2.1 Engine Efficiency and Vehicle Design
Some technologies improve fuel economy through helping the engine operate more efficiently. For
example, in a turbocharger, the radial exhaust-driven turbine drives the radial compressor to increase the
air density going into the engine, therefore improving the efficiency of the compressor or turbine.
Alternative combustion cycles are available to improve the efficiency, such as low-temperature
combustion, homogeneous charge compression ignition, and premix charge compression ignition.
Variable valve actuation is designed to facilitate the use of nonconventional combustion modes during the
power stroke, allowing the valve actuation to be adjusted independently from the crankshaft angle.
Another technology, low-temperature exhaust gas recirculation, increases engine efficiency by reducing
peak combustion temperatures and thus cooling the exhaust gas before it returns to the engine intake
manifold. Thermal insulation reduces heat rejection to the engine coolant (from exhaust ports) or to the
ambient air (from manifolds), therefore reduces energy loss during operation. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-
A1 p.2]
We do not directly measure the adoption of these technologies and vehicle design characteristics over
time. Instead, the effects of these advances are absorbed by model year fixed effects in our estimation.
Therefore, the time period fixed effects potentially reflect the adoption of a combination of these
technologies. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p.3]
2.2 Trade-off Factors
Some truck attributes have a negative correlation with fuel economy, ceteris paribus. We examine closely
two ofthese trade-off attributes, engine displacement and vehicle weight. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1
p.3]
-------
While engine performance is usually measured by its horsepower and torque at the wheels, we argue that
engine displacement serves as a good indicator of engine power. Engine displacement, by definition,
measures the size of explosion inside the cylinders, which largely determines the power of the engine.
The rotational force generated is torque at the engine. Horsepower is a man-made number, and it is
defined as the product of torque at the engine and revolutions per minute (RPM), divided by 5,252.
Torque at the wheels is the combination of torque at the engine with the torque magnification given by the
transmission through gearing. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p.3]
3 Data and Graphical Evidence
The Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey was conducted by the Census Bureau from 1963 to 2002. We use
data collected every five years from 1982 to 2002. Random samples are generated for every state, with
surveys asking for detailed information about trucks' physical and operational characteristics. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0115-Alp.4]
The trade-off relationship between MPG and vehicle weight (including cargo), as well as between MPG
and engine displacement, for combination trucks can be illustrated in the two graphs below. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0115-Alp.4]
[Figure 2, 'Trade-off between MPG and vehicle weight for class 7, 8 combination trucks', and 3, 'Trade-
off between MPG and engine displacement for class 7, 8 combination trucks', can be found on p.5 of
docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A 1 ]
Response:
We appreciate your comments, specifically on the trade-off between vehicle weight and engine
displacement. The empirical correlation (equation 1) used in the report is also interesting.
Organization: Honeywell Transportation System (HTS)
Additionally, HTS' internal reviews, based on test results and on-engine simulation, show that air systems
currently available for performance demonstration can reduce engine fuel consumption by nearly 2
percent relative to the current proposal's 2017 baseline. Some of this technology, like ball bearing-
equipped turbochargers, is available today and the rest can be in production by 2021, all with an end-user
payback that is substantially less than the agencies' proposed two-year threshold. An advanced
turbocharger concept, including turbo-compounding, is under development, with series production
planned before 2025. This advanced air system architecture is projected to reduce fuel consumption by
nearly 3 percent over the 2017 baseline engine. Given that HTS can account for the majority of the
regulated fuel economy reduction with only air systems changes, we believe that there is room for a
stronger engine-level standard, given significant advancements in engine efficiency building
blocks under development by engine OEM's and other component suppliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1230-A1 p.3]
Beyond air systems, waste heat recovery technology like Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) has shown the
capability to improve engine fuel efficiency by 5 percent or more in laboratory and over-the-road
trials. At the current time, being on the early end of the cost curve, ORC does not yet have a proven 2
year end-user payback. However, industry has repeatedly shown that technology costs can be reduced
dramatically given sustained demand and market competitiveness. We are confident that if there is long-
term regulatory certainty, industry will develop reliable technologies that can cost-effectively meet a more
stringent standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1230-A1 p.3]
-------
HTS appreciates the agencies' continued recognition that turbochargers can contribute significantly to the
reduction of GHG, NOx and PM emissions from the transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1230-A1 p.5]
Response:
We appreciate HTS's comments on the technologies related to air systems and WHR with ORC. All of
these technologies are part of our technology road map and were taken into consideration by the agencies
when developing the standard. We have made many changes to the engine standards to increase the
stringency from that proposed. See responses in Section 3.3.1 above.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Technology potential
This section provides ICCT's comments on the agencies' determination of the stringency of the standards.
It is emphasized, per our Section II comments above, that the agencies' proposed 2027 standards can be
moved forward by three years due to the maturity of the necessary technologies to achieve compliance
with those proposed efficiency levels. Generally, the development of long-lead time regulations allow
greater time to reduce technology investment risk, sustain long-term capital investments, and allow more
widespread deployment of advanced technologies in the marketplace (See Lutsey, 2012). Based on the
ICCT's latest research, as well as the research literature, there are several areas where the agencies do not
fully incorporate available technology that is applicable in the 2027 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1180-A4p.6]
Engine efficiency
One area where the proposed standards diverge from the available technology potential is in the engine
area, where the agencies proposed to reduce the tractor diesel engine fuel use by 4% from 2017 to 2027.
The engine standards would likely remain in effect for three additional years, so the standards would
apply until 2029 or 2030. This would mean engine C02 emissions would be reduced on average by 0.3%
to 0.4% per year from 2017 through 2030. Moreover, our analysis of the specific Phase 2 GEM engine
maps shows that the Phase 2 baseline engine C02 emission levels over the re-weighted SET cycle is
reduced by 1.5% when compared to the results over the originally weighted SET. By providing a 1.5%
fuel consumption benefit for the re-weighting, the stringency of the agencies proposed tractor engine
standard in 2027 is actually 2.5%, not 4.0%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.6] [[These comments
can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.39.]]
Based on our own recent technical analysis and the research literature - much of which was not yet
referenced or acknowledged in the rulemaking analysis - the agencies could include greater application of
known technologies in their stringency determination for diesel tractor engines. With the exception of the
Reinert (2015a, 2015b) studies, the referenced literature below [see p. 19-22 for list of referenced
literature] all appears to be new data to the agencies' analysis. A recent engine audit and analysis
indicates that tractor-trailer diesel engines can improve by over 10% from a 2017 baseline in the 2020-
and-beyond timeframe (Thiruvengadam et al, 2014). The ICCT follow-on analysis that includes real-
world synergies indicates that the same tractor engine technologies can achieve a 7% fuel consumption
benefit without waste heat recovery (WHR) and 10-12% with more advanced WHR technologies - and
also offer attractive payback periods that are comfortably less than 2 years (Delgado and Lutsey, 2015;
Meszler et al, 2015). Work by the Southwest Research Institute for NHTSA indicates that diesel tractor
engines can see reduced fuel consumption of 7%—and up to 10% with waste heat recovery—from a 2019
-------
baseline within the Phase 2 timeframe (Reinhart, 2015). In addition, the highest-volume tractor engine
manufacturer, Cummins, indicates that engines can achieve a 9%—15% fuel use reduction from 2017,
within the 2020-2030 timeframe (Eckerle, 2015). With higher technology penetration rates for U.S. DOE
SuperTruck technologies, the standards could go further yet. Teams led by Cummins, Daimler, Navistar,
and Volvo have already physically demonstrated engine improvements of 12%—17% from a 2010
baseline (Delgado and Lutsey, 2014). The SuperTruck programs follow-on goal would go further, with a
brake thermal efficiency of 55% in peak conditions (Wall, 2014). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4
p.6]
Lutsey (2015a) assessed the above references and analyzed the prospects to increase the penetration of the
above technology levels and compare to the proposed stringency levels. Based on the latest research,
there is sufficient technology availability to reduce tractor engine fuel consumption by at least 7% from
incremental efficiency technology (i.e., from improvements from friction reduction, parasitics, air
handling, aftertreatment, combustion optimization, and advanced controls), about double what the
agencies included in the proposed rule for 2027. With greater penetration of the incremental technologies
and 15% penetration of organic Rankine cycle WHR system (as assumed by the agencies), a fleet-wide
C02 improvement of up to 10% in 2027 is feasible. With greater penetration of WHR and U.S. DOE
SuperTruck technologies, the technology potential is higher still. The particular underlying data
assumptions that appear to drive the agencies' unduly conservative engine stringency analysis would
ideally be modified to reflect the recent state-of-the art technical work in the following areas: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.6-7] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 39-40.]]
Engine friction reduction: To reflect the most recent data, we recommend the agencies increase
technology effectiveness in this area from 1.4% to 3%. The recent data on this from Reinhart (2014a)
indicates that a 24% improvement is feasible in this area. In addition, engine friction reduction from
technologies including electrified variable-speed oil and water pumps delivered an absolute improvement
of about +1% brake thermal efficiency (BTE) for at least a 2% fuel consumption reduction in the Navistar
and Cummins/Peterbilt SuperTruck demonstrations (Delgado and Lutsey, 2014). Koeberlein (2012)
indicates a 3% improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1180-A4 p.7]
Aftertreatment. We recommend the agencies increase technology effectiveness in this area from 0.6% to
1%. Advances in substrates to reduce back pressure and SCR system improvements to better optimize
engine controls are already being commercialized. Stanton (2013) indicates that aftertreatment
improvements could deliver a 2% fuel consumption benefit. Similarly, the Cummins/Peterbilt SuperTruck
project delivered a +0.5% BTE gain or at least a 1% fuel consumption benefit (Delgado and Lutsey,
2014). Sisken and Rotz (2012) indicated a 2% improvement. In addition, expert stakeholder workshop
findings pointed to the potential for 2-4% improvements in efficiency that are enabled from improved
aftertreatment systems in the Phase 2 timeframe (Lutsey et al, 2014). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-
A4 p.7]
Intake and exhaust air handling, turbocharging, andEGR improvements. We recommend the agencies
increase technology effectiveness in this area from 1.1% to 3%. Reinhart (2014a) indicates that 1.6% fuel
consumption reduction is feasible from a more advanced turbocharger. Stanton (2013) found that 3% fuel
consumption reduction is feasible from EGR, ports, and turbomachinery efficiency enhancements. In
addition, another study indicates a 4% improvement just from an advanced asymmetric turbocharger
system (Chebli, et al, 2014). Advanced piston design and injector geometry contribute to a peak
improvement of 5% and overall improvements of about 3% (Roberts et al, 2011; Thiruvengadam et al,
2014). Jadin (2012) indicates about a 4% improvement from air handling technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4 p.7]
-------
Combustion, control optimization: We recommend the agencies increase technology effectiveness in this
area from 1.1% to 3%. The Navistar SuperTruck program demonstrated a 3% BTE improvement from
increased compression ratio pressure and in-cylinder pressure (Delgado and Lutsey, 2015), equivalent to
an approximate 6% fuel consumption improvement. Stanton (2013) indicates that 2.5% fuel consumption
improvement is feasible from improved heat transfer and compression ratio-related improvements. A
stakeholder workshop of industry experts indicated that up to 4% improvement is available from
combustion optimization and up to 4% from model-based engine controls (Lutsey et al, 2014). The
National Research Council (NRC) (2014) indicates that increased fuel injection pressures with
piezoelectric nozzle use could make 6% fuel consumption reduction realizable in real operating
conditions. Finally, real-time combustion control, advanced fuel injection concepts, and alternative
combustion strategies can contribute to an additional 1 to 4 percent reduction in fuel consumption (NRC,
2014) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.7]
Turbocomvoundim: We recommend that the agencies increase tractor turbo compounding penetration to
at least 15% in 2024, and to over 25% in 2027, and also increase the technology's fuel consumption
effectiveness from 1.8% to 3%. Navistar's SuperTruck project achieved a 1.5% brake thermal efficiency
improvement (Delgado and Lutsey, 2014), which in turn offers a 3-4% fuel consumption improvement,
from its electric turbo compounding system. Thiruvengadam et al (2014) indicates that a 3.5% benefit is
achievable from turbo compounding. This could be an alternative for companies that do not find waste
heat recovery as attractive for their particular operations or technology preferences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4 p.7]
Waste heat recovery. We recommend that the agencies increase the waste heat recovery effectiveness
from 3.6% to 5% fuel consumption reduction to better match the available research on the technology.
Salemme (2013) indicates the technology could result in 5-7% fuel use reduction. Similarly, Stanton
(2013) found a 5% benefit. The recent SwRI study indicated the technology could deliver a 3-6% benefit
(Reinhart, 2015 a), and we believe that over the long timeframe of this rule the upper bounds of this
technology are likely to be most appropriate, especially if the technology is only limited to 15% of the
tractor market, which presumably would be the tractors for which the duty cycles are matched to where
the technologies' benefit is greatest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.7-8]
Dis-svnersv factors: We recommend the agencies increase their synergy adjustment factor from 0.85 to
0.9 in 2024, and 0.85 to 0.95 in 2027. The agencies appear to be incorporating an engineering assumption
that is not validated and cuts across all the technologies above, thus greatly reducing the stringency
determination for tractor engines. The multiplicative accounting between the various engine efficiency
factors is already intended to account for the interaction effects whereby the multiple technologies
together results in less benefit than the simple sum of the technologies' effectiveness. Reinhart (2015a, b)
results appear to indicate greater overall engine improvements than the agencies determined, and the
agencies' dis-synergy factors appear to substantially diverge from the government-contracted work.
Model-based control is an enabling technology that reduces such losses from interactions between the
technologies. In addition, the extensive co-development of engines and engine components among
suppliers and vehicle manufacturers - as a general practice, and demonstrated in the SuperTruck projects
(Delgado and Lutsey, 2014) - all go directly toward minimizing such losses. In addition, the long lead-
time of the standards, through model year 2027, provides the appropriate timeframe for minimizing
undesirable negative synergies and maximizing positive synergies. The dis-synergy factors should ideally
be based on supported data. Engine simulation tools can prove useful to account for such interactions
(e.g., the Reinhart 2015a, b analysis). If such adjustment factors are continued, we recommend their
impact be reduced over time, to 0.9 in 2024 and 0.95 in 2027 (from 0.85 as proposed). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4p.8]
-------
Table 1 summarizes the technology effectiveness values assumed in the Phase 2 proposal, along with
comparable technology values in the research literature. Whether looked at from the perspective of
overall engine improvements on studies that incorporated multiple technologies or from the perspective of
each of the individual technology areas, the agencies were conservative across the board based on best
available data on directly applicable tractor efficiency technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4
p.8]
[Table 1 can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4]
Response:
We have received many constructive comments on the engine standards with many differing views. We
have made many changes to the engine standards which increased the stringency of the standard from that
proposed. See responses in Section 3.3.1 above.
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
The report is consistent with our views that waste heat recovery technology at this high cost and level of
complexity is not ready for the road. At various points, waste heat recovery is described as: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1 p.3]
• Complex and expensive technologies that are not fully developed
• High cost and uncertainty of reliability and warranty
• Exotic and untried
The UAW recognizes and supports the high level of communication and collaboration between
regulators, the industry, and other stakeholders in crafting a very complex standard. We urge all parties to
continue working together to solve outstanding issues before regulations are finalized. To take one
example, the proposed standard's prohibition of the conversion of on-road motor vehicles to dedicated
racing vehicles is problematic and the final regulations must arrive at a workable solution. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1 p.3]
Response:
Many commenters share the same concerns on WHR with UAW. Downtime and cost are two of the key
concerns, specifically for an emerging technology that has not been extensively tested in the market.
These concerns are addressed in Chapter 2.3.9 of the RIA where the agencies indicate how current
challenges can be successfully addressed in the lead time provided by the rule. We received data and CBI
information from one engine manufacturer as well as public comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298)
that shows that their WHR system could be put into production in 2021 timeframe. Given their large
market share in the class 8 engine sector, a 25% market penetration of WHR by 2027 is certainly possible.
In addition to our response in RTC Section 3.4.1 below, Chapter 2.3 and 2.7.5 of the RIA details the
justification.
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation
The Phase 2 Proposal estimates that shifting to today's higher-performing engine lubricants will result in
increased fuel economy and C02 benefits of 2.4-3.4 percent in 2027, compared with 2010 engines. Low-
viscosity axle lubricants are estimated to add another 0.5 percent improvement. According to Shell, every
1 percent increase in fuel economy will reduce C02 emissions by 4,000 tons per year and will reduce fuel
consumption by one million gallons per day, which is roughly comparable to removing 23,000 trucks
-------
from the road and saving fleets and owner-operators roughly $3 million per day.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1325-A1 p.3-4]
The benefits in 2027 should be even higher. Starting in 2017, the lubricants in the market will be far
superior from the perspectives of fuel economy, emissions reduction, engine performance, and engine
durability than the CJ-4 lubricants that are the basis for the estimates in the Phase 2 Proposal. These
benefits will only increase in later years, as even better formulations enter the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1325-A1 p.4]
To meet the objectives of the Phase 2 Rule without compromising engine performance and durability, the
American Petroleum Institute (API), at the request of the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), is
developing a new industry standard for HPLs that will be used in the trucks covered by the Phase 2 Rule.8
This specification, currently designated as PC-11, will bring a new generation of HPLs to the market by
2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A 1 p.4]
As will be discussed further below, the benefits of the new specification will be significant. Today's
lubricants, which meet API's CJ-4 specification, will be replaced by PC-11 lubricants that will combine
lower viscosity for improved fuel economy and lower emissions with advanced additives for improved
durability and engine performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.4]
For the first time, consumers of lubricants will have a choice of two different specifications. PC-11A
lubricants will replace today's CJ-4 lubricants, and will be compatible with all trucks on the road. They
will be suitable for use in today's existing trucks and in future trucks. PC-1 IB lubricants will be designed
for new engines. Both will enter the market by 2017. PC-1 IB lubricants will be specially designed to
contribute to greater fuel economy and C02 emissions benefits while maintaining engine protection and
durability. The two categories will largely be distinguished by their High Temperature High Shear
(HTHS) viscosity rates. (Simply put, HTHS provides a better way to measure the impacts of a lubricant
on fuel economy). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.4]
The benefits of PC-1 IB lubricants are expected to be comparable to, or greater than, the benefits of using
low rolling resistance tires. As with low rolling resistance tires, however, it will be important to take steps
to help ensure that they penetrate the truck market, and that they are used throughout the useful life of the
trucks that are initially certified with them. To reap the full, real-world environmental benefits of the
Phase 2 Rule, EPA should consider provisions in the final Phase 2 Rule to help ensure that PC-1 IB
lubricants are used throughout the useful life of future trucks and engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1325-A1 p.4]
Engine Oils and Lubricants
A Primer on Engine Lubricants
The choice of lubricants impacts nearly every part of the energy conversion process that occurs in a
commercial vehicle. Until recently, high viscosity lubricants were typically used to lubricate and protect
automotive engines.11 However, their high viscosity required more energy to pump the lubricant
throughout the inner walls of the engine, which resulted in reduced engine efficiency. In order to achieve
higher engine efficiency, better fuel economy, and lower emissions, OEMs increasingly desire lower
viscosity synthetic and semi-synthetic lubricants for their engines, as well as for their transmission and
drivetrain lubricants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.6]
-------
Shifting to low viscosity engine lubricants reduces pumping losses associated with moving the lubricant
around the engine to maintain sufficient lubrication. While low viscosity increases efficiency because less
pumping work is required, the low viscosity lubricant must still provide sufficient wear protection. Not
only must they provide wear protection that is comparable with the protection provided by higher
viscosity lubricants, but they must be able to achieve this performance at the higher temperatures and
pressures experienced by today's advanced engine technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1
p.6]
Higher temperatures further complicate the switch to low viscosity lubricants. As temperature increases,
viscosity decreases. Because today's engines experience a wide range of operating temperatures,
lubricants are required to maintain ideal viscosity across these conditions. Balancing the lowest viscosity
lubricant capable of providing sufficient film thickness across a wide range of operating conditions is the
key to improving efficiency while also ensuring engine components are adequately protected. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.6]
As OEMs push efficiency to new heights in the coming decade, ensuring robustness and durability will
become increasingly important. Improved lubricants will be required to protect engine integrity under
increasingly harsh environments, and they will have to deliver this performance at lower viscosities in
order to provide additional efficiency improvements. In order to provide improved performance under
more demanding conditions, new higher-performing lubricants that are tailored to specific operating
conditions, engine strategies, and advanced technologies will need to be developed and commercialized.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.6]
In sum, HPLs provide OEMs with two opportunities:
As an enabler of advanced engine strategies and technologies: HPLs will provide the viscosity, frictional,
and durability characteristics that allow advanced engine strategies and technologies to be used without
concerns over premature product failures, engine and driving performance, and durability over the oil
drain interval or throughout the engine's useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A 1 p.6]
As a strategy that delivers improved fuel economy: HPLs have been demonstrated to increase fuel
economy by 1-3 percent.12 Because OEMs will need to consider every available tool to meet their 2027
requirements in the most cost-effective manner, HPLs should play an increasingly important role in
OEM's compliance strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.7]
To address this challenge, additive packages are being formulated that can be blended into low viscosity
base oils to maintain their performance characteristics across a range of operating conditions, while
improving efficiency and reducing emissions. Some of the most common additives that will be blended
with base oils will include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.7]
• Viscosity modifiers: polymers that help control the viscosity of a lubricant over a specified
temperature range;13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.7]
• Friction modifiers: organic (carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen) and metal-containing friction
modifiers that reduce sliding and rolling friction between metal components;14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1325-A1 p.7]
• Antioxidants and detergents: blended with base oils to reduce sludge formation, reduce deposit
formation on pistons, and prevent against the effects of poor fuel quality;15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1325-A1 p.7]
-------
• Dispersants: solubilizes sludge that can otherwise form blockages in an engine's inner walls;16
and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A 1 p.7]
• Anti-wear additives: protect key engine parts from excessive wear which can degrade engine
performance.17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A 1 p.7]
In sum, HPLs can play an important role in each manufacturer's compliance strategy, whether by
enabling other strategies, by directly improving fuel economy, or both. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-
A1 p.7]
A New Generation of PC-11 Engine Oils Are Being Developed to Meet the C02, Fuel Consumption,
and Performance Needs of the Phase 2 Rule's Engines
Truck engine design and combustion technology are already undergoing a period of significant change,
driven by the need to meet the requirements of the Phase 1 Rule and other EPA emission standards, as
well as industry demands for better driving performance, durability, and reliability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1325-A1 p.7]
These changes include, without limitation: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.7]
• Engine downsizing;
• Downspeeding;
• Active oil temperature control;
• Advanced combustion design;
• Higher oil temperatures;
• Start/Stop technology; and
• Variable valve timing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.8]
Each of these changes require improved engine lubricants that will enable the new technologies and
hardware designs to work properly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.8]
As noted above, today's truck lubricants are designed to meet API's CJ-4 specification. While CJ-4 is not
a "fuel economy" specification per se, EPA SmartWay data shows that current, low-viscosity CJ-4
lubricants provide fuel consumption and C02 benefits that are comparable to low rolling resistant tires.
According to SmartWay and as shown in Figure 2 below, the typical combination truck will reduce its
fuel consumption by roughly 500 gallons per year by using low rolling resistance tires, while typical
combination trucks that use low-viscosity lubricants will reduce their fuel consumption by an average of
485 gallons per year. In other words, SmartWay estimates that both strategies will cut fuel savings by
roughly 3 percent. Similarly, the typical combination truck will reduce C02 emissions by 4.93 metric
tons in a typical year, while using low-viscosity lubricants will reduce C02 emissions by 5.08 metric
tons.18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325 -A 1 p.8]
[Figure 2 can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1]
Going forward, API will soon finalize a new set of lubricant specifications that will provide even greater
fuel economy and C02 benefits. These specifications are the result of a consensus-based process that
involves the oil and additives industries and the engine manufacturers, as well as millions of dollars of
research and development and millions of miles of field testing over a period of years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1325-A1 p.9]
-------
To develop the new specifications, currently designated as PC-11, at least five different categories of
work are involved, including: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.9]
• Test development, which is typically conducted by OEMs working in conjunction with oil and/or
additive companies; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.9]
• Test validation, which is typically done on an industry-wide, collective basis; [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1325-A1 p.9]
• Formulation development, which is the process by which additive companies conduct tests to
determine the impact of formulation changes;[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-Al p.9]
• Customer programs, which includes conducting specific tests for oil companies and on the
specific products that they are considering selling; and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.9]
• Field testing, which includes tests of the various formulations being considered [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1325-A1 p.9]
Lubrizol's own PC-11 field testing demonstrates the rigor and seriousness of the investments to create the
new PC-11 lubricants. Since 2010, in anticipation of PC-11 lubricants being introduced, Lubrizol has
accumulated in excess of 35 million miles of field testing on prototype PC-11 lubricants. This testing has
been conducted across more than 140 vehicles representing a cross section of OEMs products. This
investment alone will amount to in excess of $2 million, which will be dwarfed by the full extent of
testing required to prove out products to meet the PC-11 specification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-
Alp.10]
PC-11 lubricants are being designed to address the following needs: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A 1
p. 10]
• Increased fuel economy and reduced C02 emissions;
• Improved oxidative stability;
• Increased resistance to aeration;
• Increased wear protection;
• Increased shear stability; and
• Full compatibility with all existing and new vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 10]
First licensing of PC-11 lubricants is expected by the end of 2016. The new PC-11 specifications will, for
the first time, divide the market into two categories that are distinguished by their High Temperature High
Shear (HTHS) viscosity. Most pertinent to the Phase 2 Rule, distinguishing lubricants by their HTHS
performance and viscosities will allow truck users to improve their fuel economy by using the right oils.
PC-11A oils will be higher viscosity HTHS fluids, and will replace the current CJ-4 oils with new
formulations that offer higher levels of protection and performance. These oils will be backwards
compatible, and will be suitable for all engines. PC-1 IB oils will be designed for new engines only—
engines that are designed for thinner lubricants with better HTHS performance (i.e., lower HTHS
viscosity rates) to maximize engine performance, durability, fuel economy, and emissions reduction.20
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325 -A 1 p. 10]
Table 1 summarizes some basic distinctions between PC-11-A and PC-1 IB: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1325-A1 p. 10]
[Table 1 can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1]
-------
It is worth noting that the PC-11 process is part of a broader move towards low HTHS lubricants that is
occurring in both the U.S. and Europe. In both cases, OEMs are demanding cleaner and thinner lubricants
that enable engines to deliver higher efficiency and lower emissions while maintaining or improving
engine performance and durability. In the U.S., EMA initiated the drive to create PC-11 with its initial
request to API in 2011.23 In Europe, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) is
planning to update its current ACEA E6/E9 specifications in 2018 with F6-18 specifications to meet the
demand for engines that deliver high efficiencies. It is reasonable to assume that these specifications may
be updated again by 2027, providing the potential for even greater benefits in years to come. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 11]
It is worth noting that EPA and EU Euro emissions standards have been the catalyst for lubricant
reformulations for many years. EPA's 1998 heavy-duty engine standards and Euro II led to turbocharged
engines that introduced higher temperatures and pressures that required improved thermal and oxidative
stability. Euro III, Euro IV, and the EPA 2004 standards introduced retarded injection and exhaust gas
recirculation, which created a demand for lubricants that delivered improved acid and corrosion control,
as well as improved soot handling. Euro V and the EPA 2007/2010 standards led to the widespread use of
selective catalytic reduction and diesel particulate filters, which set the stage for the current CJ-4
specification and its restrictions on sulfur, sulfated ash, and phosphorus. Today, API and its members are
working together to develop PC-11 to help the OEMs meet the expected requirements of the Phase 2
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 11]
Summary of Comments Related to Engine Oils and Lubricants
As currently drafted, the Phase 2 Proposal does not mention the development of PC-11 for post-2017
engine oils and does not appear to anticipate its implementation and benefits. This has two ramifications:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 11]
• Assumptions of fuel economy and C02 emissions reductions from the use of HPLs are based on
CJ-4 lubricants in the market today, rather than PC-11 oils that will be in the market in 2017 and
thereafter; and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.ll]
• The Proposal does not include provisions to help encourage the use of PC-1 IB lubricants beyond
the first use (the so-called "factory fill"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 12]
As noted above, we expect that the proper use of PC-1 IB lubricants will improve fuel economy and
reduce C02 emissions by 1.5-2.0 percent in real world applications, compared to the baseline CJ-4
lubricants available today. As EPA and NHTSA consider the feasibility of the various alternatives
proposed for the Phase 2 program, correctly assessing the benefits of the lubricants that will actually be in
the market in 2017 and thereafter will be critical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.12]
In addition, while it is to be hoped that OEMs will use PC-1 IB lubricants in their certification testing and
factory fills, the Phase 2 Proposal does not take any steps to help ensure or encourage that these lubricants
are used in certification testing, factory fills, or so-called "service fills" that happen throughout an
engine's useful life. It may be reasonable to assume that OEMs are adequately incentivized to use PC-
1 IB lubricants in their certification testing and factory fills by the performance advantages of doing so.
Because using PC-1 IB lubricants in service fills will maximize lubricant-related fuel economy and C02
benefits, and will help ensure that no emissions degradation will occur over the oil drain interval and
throughout the engine's useful life, EPA and NHTSA should consider strategies to help ensure or
encourage that PC-1 IB HPLs are properly used throughout an engine's useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1325-A1 p.12]
-------
There are many strategies that can be taken to help ensure or encourage that PC-1 IB HPLs are properly
used throughout an engine's useful life. Indeed, prior EPA emissions rules and other programs have used
an array of strategies to help ensure the widespread use of emissions-cutting components in other
contexts, including credits and other incentives, labeling, warranty requirements, sensors, onboard
diagnostics (OBD) approaches, and even engine derating (e.g., when urea is not present in SCR systems).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325 -A 1 p. 12]
As EPA and NHTSA consider these comments and develop the final Phase 2 Rule, we would be very
interested in discussing the range of possible strategies that might be appropriate to encourage or ensure
that PC-1 IB lubricants are used throughout the useful life of Phase 2 engines. Selecting the right
strategies will help ensure that the public reaps the full environment and health benefits of the Phase 2
program, and that truck fleets and users maximize the durability and performance of their engines. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p. 12]
7 Shell, "PC-11: What is it all about," June 10, 2015, slides 4 and 5.
8 "Beyond CJ-4: Introducing PC-11, the New HDDEO Performance Category." HDDEO, Lubrizol.
http://www.hddeo.com/IntroducingPC-11 .html.
11 A lubricant's viscosity is defined as the fluid's internal resistance to flow at a given temperature.
12 Canter, N. "Fuel Economy - The role of friction modifiers and VI improvers." TechBeat, 2013.
http://www.dow.com/ucon/pdfs/tlttechbeat.pdf. (Hereafter cited as "Canter, N. (2013)")
13 "Passenger Car Engine Oils, Part 1 - Understanding The Fundamentals Of Viscosity Modifiers For
Automotive Engine Oils." Passenger Car Engine Oils, The Lubrizol Corporation.
http: //pceo. com/ViscositvModifierPart 1 .html.
14 TechBeat, 2013.
15 Howard, K. "Turbocharged Direct-injection Is Engine Oil's Next Big Hurdle." Lubes 'N' Greases
Magazine, January 2013. http://gf-
6.com/sites/default/files/Turbocharged%20Direct%20Iniection%20Is%20Engine%200ils%20Next%20Bi
g%20Hurdle.pdf. (Hereafter cited as "Howard, K. (2013)")
16 Howard, K. (2013)
17 Howard, K. (2013)
18 See http ://epa. gov/smartwav/about/outreach.htm. Data is based on a typical combination truck at
highway speeds. See http://www.epa.gov/smartwav/forpartners/documents/trucks/techsheets-
truck/420f12076.pdf for lubricants and http ://epa. gov/smartwav/forpartners/documents/trucks/techsheets-
truck/420f10041 .pdf for low-rolling resistance tires.
19 See http ://epa. gov/smartwav/about/outreach.htm. Data is based on a typical combination truck at
highway speeds. See http://www.epa.gov/smartwav/forpartners/documents/trucks/techsheets-
truck/420f12076.pdf for lubricants and http ://epa. gov/smartwav/forpartners/documents/trucks/techsheets-
truck/420f10041 .pdf for low-rolling resistance tires.
-------
20 Along with new performance criteria, new tests will be introduced, including for oil oxidation, shear
stability, and aeration.
23 "Beyond CJ-4: Introducing PC-11, the New HDDEO Performance Category." HDDEO, Lubrizol.
http://www.hddeo.com/IntroducingPC-11 .html.
Response:
We appreciate Lubrizol's comprehensive comments on lubricants. Although PC-11 has not been
specifically mentioned in our rulemaking, any new technologies that can be measured and recognized
during an engine dynamometer test will be accounted for in the engine's GHG emission result. The
reason is that the Phase 2 GHG rule allows OEMs to provide their own engine fuel maps that are
measured by testing the engine on an engine dynamometer, which means that any technology, such as
advanced lubricant, that can be accounted for by the engine fuel map test procedure would be accounted
for while conducting vehicle certification using GEM. We also are finalizing the use of an axle test
procedure to quantify the power loss; thus, the actual efficiency of the axle can be used to replace the
default power loss specified by the agencies. Thus, the overall benefits to the vehicle will be recognized
by the certification using GEM.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Our industry and the regulatory agencies have invested significant resources to insure that the current
structure delivers cost-effective and durable emission reductions. Manufacturers have made significant
investments in developing engine-based technologies under the first phase of heavy-duty GHG standards
that will continue to deliver environmental benefits under this second set of GHG regulations. Engine and
powertrain C02 reductions are verifiable and future OBD systems can be used to insure reductions over
the life of the vehicle. The proposal includes a number of engine and vehicle technologies that
demonstrate significant reductions but may not remain on the vehicle over its lifetime. These include, low
friction lubricants, aerodynamic fairings, low rolling resistance tires among others. To achieve the goals
of this regulation, we urge EPA to develop methodologies and policies that insure that the real emission
reduction benefits from all technologies remain through the end of life and multiple owners of the vehicle.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.3]
There is a large set of technologies that can significantly reduce, either directly or indirectly, mobile
source emissions of C02, N20 (as well as other NOx emissions), CH4, and black carbon. A range of
powertrain technologies can be applied to both heavy-duty gasoline and diesel powertrains to help
improve overall vehicle efficiencies, reduce fuel consumption, both of which can result in lower C02
exhaust emissions. In many cases, the application and optimization of advanced emission control
technologies on advanced heavy-duty powertrains can be achieved in a manner that lowers overall fuel
consumption while reducing criteria emissions. Our comments focus on available engine efficiency and
exhaust emission control technologies and the impacts these technologies can have on greenhouse gas and
criteria emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.3]
Control of Black Carbon with Particulate Filters
Black carbon is a major component of particulate matter emissions from mobile sources and is believed to
have a significant net atmospheric warming effect by enhancing the absorption of sunlight. Black carbon
is a mix of elemental and organic carbon, in the form of soot, emitted by fossil fuel combustion, bio-mass
burning, and bio-fuel cooking. Black carbon is a dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the
atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon are transported over long distances and are most
-------
concentrated in the tropics where solar irradiance is highest. Because of the combination of high
absorption, a regional distribution roughly aligned with solar irradiance, and the capacity to form
widespread atmospheric brown clouds in a mixture with other aerosols, emissions of black carbon are
thought to be the second strongest contribution to current climate change, after C02 emissions. The
glacier retreat has accelerated since the 1970s and several scientists have speculated that solar heating by
soot in atmospheric brown clouds and deposition of dark soot over bright snow surfaces may be an
important contributing factor for the acceleration of glacier retreat. A study published in a 2009 issue of
Nature Geoscience (vol. 2, 2009) by researchers from the NASA Goddard Institute and Columbia
University found that black carbon is responsible for 50% of the total Arctic warming observed from
1890 to 2007 (most of the observed Arctic warming over this timeframe occurred from 1976 to 2007).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 10]
It is estimated that 70% of the black carbon emissions from mobile sources are from diesel-fueled
vehicles, with the assumption that 40% of gasoline PM is black carbon and 60% of diesel PM is black
carbon. The black carbon concentration and its global heating will decrease almost immediately after
reduction of its emission. Black carbon from diesel vehicles can be significantly reduced through
emission control technology that has been required on every U.S. heavy-duty diesel truck manufactured
since 2007. The basis for the design of wall-flow particulate filters is a ceramic honeycomb structure with
alternate channels plugged at opposite ends. As the gases pass into the open end of a channel, the plug at
the opposite end forces the gases through the porous wall of the honeycomb channel and out through the
neighboring channel. The porous wall and the filter cake of particulate matter that forms within and on the
surface of the wall serve as the filter media for particulates. Since the filter can fill up over time by
developing a layer of retained particles on the inside surface of the porous wall, the accumulated particles
must be burned off or removed to regenerate the filter. This regeneration process can be accomplished
with a variety of methods including both active strategies that rely on generating external sources of heat
(e.g., fuel burners, fuel dosing strategies that utilize fuel combustion over a catalyst, electrical elements,
intake air throttling) and passive strategies that utilize catalysts that are displayed directly on the filter
element or upstream of the filter. During the regeneration of DPFs, captured carbon is oxidized to C02
but this filter regeneration still results in a net climate change benefit since the global warming potential
of black carbon has been estimated to be as high as 2,200 times higher than that of C02 on a per gram of
emission basis. It is estimated that the installation of DPFs has reduced PM emissions from U.S. heavy-
duty diesel vehicles by 110,000 tons per year. The ACES Phase 2 study that evaluated the PM emissions
from 2010 technology heavy-duty engines showed that DPF equipped engines emit PM at one to two
orders of magnitude below the current standard of 0.01 g/bhp-hr and deliver over 99% PM capture
efficiency over their lifetime. MECA encourages EPA to develop policies and/or incentives that reward
vehicle and engine manufacturers for employing technologies such as particulate filters that provide
significant reductions in mobile source black carbon emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3
p.10-11]
Looking ahead, transportation greenhouse gas emissions are forecast to continue increasing rapidly,
reflecting the anticipated impact of factors such as economic growth, increased movement of freight by
trucks, ships, and rail, and continued growth in personal travel. The transportation sector is the largest
source of domestic C02 emissions, representing 33% of the nation's total in 2006. There are significant
opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector through the design of fuel
efficient powertrains that include advanced exhaust emission controls for meeting even the most stringent
criteria pollutant standards being discussed today in California. These emission control technologies
allow all high efficiency powertrains to compete in the marketplace by enabling these powertrains to meet
current and future criteria pollutant standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 14]
-------
Response:
We appreciate MECA's comments on control of black carbon with a DPF. We will work with MECA in
the future to evaluate technologies such as particulate filters that provide significant reductions in mobile
source black carbon emissions.
Organization: NAFA Fleet Management Association
Fleets are concerned about the incremental investment and operating costs of complex new engine
technology. Putting excessive emphasis on the engine as a stand-alone component can result in costly
engine technology that would bring little or no benefit in many real world applications. Fleets have
already seen significant increases in vehicle costs and more expensive maintenance associated with
increasingly complex engine and after treatment systems. Engines are best evaluated based on how they
operate in the vehicle, considering the engine size and power output, the vehicle power demand, and the
driveline characteristics - that is, by the full vehicle approach [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p. 1-2]
Response:
We understand that the NAFA comment is more or less related to a separate engine standard that could
result in costly engine technology that would bring little or no benefit in many real world applications.
We have extensively evaluated the benefits of all certification options, including with and without
separate engine standards. We also received a large number of comments on certification options,
specifically on whether a separate engine standard should be adopted. As one can imagine, opinions and
recommendations are split. After taking all factors into consideration, we believe that a separate engine
standard would be the best option. Section II of Preamble details our justification on why we are moving
forward with a separate engine standard.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
Waste Heat Recovery
The Phase 2 proposal assumes that 15 percent of MY 2027 tractors will utilize waste heat recovery. This
is a very aggressive assumption given that the technology is very costly, has only been used in
demonstration projects, and is nowhere near production-ready. Given the cost, reliability, and design
constraints associated with this technology, ATD suggests that the proposal's MY 2027 tractor MPR for
be revised downward to 2 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.7]
These technology uptake concerns should be taken seriously since, as mentioned above, real or perceived
reductions in vehicle choice or increases in vehicle costs associated with questionable compliance
technologies will cause commercial customers to avoid new tractors to the detriment of OEMs, suppliers,
dealerships, and the Phase 2 public policy objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.7]
Response:
Downtime and cost are two of the many key concerns, specifically for an emerging technology that has
not been extensively tested in the market. At the same time, others are pushing for a lot more aggressive
market penetration. We received data and CBI information from one engine manufacturer as well as
public comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298) that shows that their WHR system could be put into
production in 2021 timeframe. Given their large market share in the class 8 engine sector, a 25% market
-------
share utilizing WHR by 2027 is certainly possible. In addition to our response in RTC Section 3.4.1
below, Chapter 2.3 and 2.7.5 of the RIA details the justification.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
• Lubricants, though efficient, have long lead times for development and adoption; usage of certain
lubricants can bring lifetime cost impacts and can require changes to hardware to support newer
lubricants
Response:
We recognize the issue associated with lubricant, specifically on its reliability and cost that can result in a
long lead time. Because of this reason, we carefully lump this technology together with friction and
parasitic loss reduction into one technology package, where the effectiveness is only 1.4%. See also
response to Lubrizol in this section.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Walsh and Charlton's claims and recommendations were summarized as 11 major findings and are
focused on tractor engines. In the proposed Phase 2 regulations, these engines are certified in the ramp
modal cycle (RMC) for C02 and the FTP for the other GHG constituents. The NPRM also proposed a
reweighing of the modes in this cycle that departs from that used for criteria pollutants, but that aim to
align the engine standard to the real world or in-vehicle usage of these engines. In the following, Navistar
highlights the major concerns with the authors' findings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.9]
Finding 4: In as much as the rule is intended to be technology-forcing, it cannot also be technology-
selecting. The premise of SuperTruck, for example, was to result in a wide breadth of technologies that
would then be evaluated for production and commercial feasibility in order to achieve engine and vehicle
efficiency improvements. The authors specifically challenge the EPA's adoption rates for waste heat
recovery ("WHR"). In WHR systems efficiency is tied to sourcing the highest ?T or ?P from the engine
systems. With the expected increases in the engines' base BTE over the lifetime of this rule, there will be
a resulting reduction in available "waste" pressure and temperature or potential for waste heat recovery.
The rule itself becomes a dis-synergy to this technology. This is further compounded by the proposed
reweighting of the RMC, which reduces the weighting in the rated speeds and loads where the WHR has
the highest potential, but reflects the integration of the engine with the vehicle drive cycle. Furthermore,
the agencies have found it is critical to include adoption rate, based on experience from previous
rulemaking and the need to truly have an environmental impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2
p. 12]
Beyond the benefit being significantly less than originally proposed, the cost is still prohibitively high.
Additional concerns for the vehicle manufacturers include the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1919-A2 p. 12]
• WHR working fluids have a significant GHG impact based on their high GWP
• Packaging and weight penalty will negatively impact the aggregate freight efficiency
Unlike SCR technology, which was deployed in Europe prior to adoption in the US, there are no
commercially available systems of this technology in production at this time in mobile source application.
-------
Given the size and complexity of the system, its application in a mobile platform is not ideal. The
agencies' assumed penetration rates acknowledge that there are still major developments needed to make
this a commercially viable solution, but are encouraging the continued investigation for a longer term
objective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 12]
Finding 5: The technology path proposed to achieve the GHG Phase 2 NPRM targets for engine already
includes technology improvements in combustion. However, the advanced combustion processes such as
HCCI, PCCI, low-temperature combustion and RCCI (reaction controlled compression ignition) were
excluded as these are not commercially feasible now or in the Phase 2 timeframe. Though these processes
have been demonstrated in laboratory environments, in the case of HCCI for over 20 years, production
feasibility has yet to be demonstrated due to the breath of conditions and variability in the real world.
Moving these technologies from the laboratory to the production environment requires advances in
control strategies, sensor sets and manufacturing processes in order to ensure robustness and reliability.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 13]
In addition, although some of the different combustion regimes show strength in certain areas of an
engine operating map they are not applicable to the entire map. This will translate into limited
improvement with no payback. In Navistar's experience, some of these processes (e.g., PCCI and low-
temperature combustion) have been demonstrated to be effective in criteria pollutant control, but have
been demonstrated to increase the C02 emissions in key areas of the operating regions of the engine map.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 13]
Finding 6: The authors argue that this downspeeding technology should be accounted for in the engine
standard rather than on the vehicle standard. Downspeeding is when the vehicle powertrain matched in
such a way that the engine operates at a lower engine speed, but higher torque. This results in a net
improvement in fuel consumption due to lower parasitic losses and higher BMEP operation for the
engine. Without the adequate powertrain match, the gains cannot be achieved. Thus, it is appropriate to
have downspeeding as currently included in the proposed Phase 2 NPRM in the vehicle standards, as it is
a technology that requires the integration with vehicle and is not possible with just an engine.
Demonstration of the benefits of downspeeding requires the definition of entire drivetrain and how it
operates over the prescribed vehicle drive cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 13]
Finding 8: Costs included in Phase 2 RIA from the agencies are underestimated for the technology
selection, deployment and validation of a fully US compliant IMillion-mile vehicle. The DOE sponsored
SuperTruck program has definitely been instrumental to OEMs in understanding the possibilities in
bridging the gap between today's products and the product needs of the future as driven by the GHG
regulations. However, the majority of the technologies are in their infancy and have not been assessed to
the full extend that is needed for commercialization and real world operation. The technologies
demonstrated in the SuperTruck program need to be vetted for full tailpipe compliance, OBD compliance,
real world robustness, customer acceptance/satisfaction, and reliability/warranty impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1919-A2 p.13]
With any technology-forcing standard, selection of the enabling technology for commercialization has
many facets including: customer acceptance, cost/affordability, technology maturity, packing and weight,
manufacturability, reliability and supporting infrastructure. Supporting infrastructure for the technologies
is one of the first hurdles. For example, it was clear that to enable PM control to the regulatory-required
level, the Sulphur content of diesel fuel needed to be reduced. Beyond being a significant cost to the
petrochemical companies to change the production of fuel, there were unintended and unaccounted
consequences to this change. Sealing technologies that were tried-and-true in engines had to be
-------
redeveloped for the new fuel. These costs are difficult to estimate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2
p.13-14]
Also, as technologies are developed toward production, the commercial aspects start to weigh more and
can change the course of technology adoption. For example, as the 2007/2010 tailpipe rules were being
finalized, the NOx control technologies were less understood and Lean NOx Trap (LNT) was envisioned
as the primary technology. SCR, which was the prevalent, in-production NOx control strategy in Europe,
was not the envisioned technology. This was primarily because catalyst durability along with perceived
issues with DEF (cost, availability or infrastructure, freezing/thawing issues, additional need for on-board
fluid, etc.). In the end, PGM (platinum group metal) costs associated with the technology and its
complexity and durability of the LNT for the HD market quickly let to reconsideration of SCR. However,
the deployment of SCR into the US market still had its own significant challenges given the extent of US
regulations, which have lower NOx standard, wider ambient condition NTE requirements and the EPA's
concerns with the substrate technology in Europe. Hence, this case shows that even a technology already
in production in another market still poses unknown or unaccounted risks in the commercialization. Cost
estimates in the rulemaking stage are typically under predicted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2
p. 14]
Finding 11. Charlton and Walsh argue that the agency arbitrarily assigned a dis-synergy factor to the
composite benefit of the technologies identified in the roadmap. They almost seem to argue that dis-
synergies do not exist. The dis-synergies do exist and it is unrealistic to definitively assign values without
prescribing the design and system functions of all individual engines. The implementation of 2014
compliant engines is extremely varied across all OEM's. Although the technologies are all the same -
combustion improvement, EGR and SCR - the implementations are highly varied from fuel systems with
different characteristics, fixed to variable geometry turbo chargers and even the displacement selections
of the engines. In such a case, it is difficult to precisely estimate the dis-synergies of a set of technologies
without detailed understanding of a given engine's system design. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2
P-15]
A strong example of dis-synergy is the implementation of WHR as discussed earlier. As the engine
becomes more efficient to meet the proposed rule, there will, by definition, be less waste heat available to
extract from these systems. Increased cylinder pressure and fuel injection pressures are also counter to
friction reduction assumptions and again very specific to the particular design and architecture of a given
engine. The dis-synergy factor is an appropriate acknowledgement by the agencies that the technologies
are not simply additive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p. 15]
Response:
We appreciate Navistar's comments together with other reports, such as the one from four major vehicle
OEMs - Daimler Trucks North America, Navistar Inc., Paccar Inc., and the Volvo Group. We largely
agree with the assessment on DOE's SuperTruck program. We also appreciate Navistar's comments on
many items, including WHR, HCCI, PCCI related combustion, downspeeding, and dis-synergy. This
report has helped us to justify why we cannot use the Charlton/Walsh report as the basis to increase the
stringency of the standard to the level they recommended. See the response to EDF in Section 3.3.1
above.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Among the technologies listed under Alternative 3, where the agencies believe C02 emissions and fuel
consumption could be improved, were: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 11]
-------
- Combustion optimization [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.11]
- Turbocharging system [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 12]
- Engine friction and other parasitic losses [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 12]
- Exhaust aftertreatment [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 12]
- Engine breathing system [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 12]
- Engine downsizing [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 12]
- Waste heat recovery [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 12]
- Transient control for vocational engines only [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 12]
Waste Heat Recovery
The agencies proposed phase-in standards from 2021 through 2027 for OEMs to gradually introduce
various technologies, one of which is waste heat recovery (WHR). EPA assumes that WHR will cost up
to $11,000, but because this technology is not currently available in any production form, the actual costs
are unknown and more than likely much higher than EPA has estimated. Though the technology has
some promise, its potential benefits are dependent upon many confounding variables. According to the
researchers at the Southwest Research Institute, no all duty cycles can expect to benefit from
WHR. Again, this speaks to the diversity of the trucking industry, while also demonstrating the
unsuitability of forcing technology. It is important for the agencies to remember that while OEMs may
utilize WHR to receive credits, the customers will more than likely never actually benefit from this
technology. This is especially likely with Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1
P-30]
Ultimately, with multiple fluid pumps, additional hoses, and heat exchangers, the WHR system has a
great potential for failure. Until more is known and understood about WHR and until more real-world
data is collected, OOIDA suggests that WHR not even be considered as part of Phase II. With an
estimated 200 parts, this technology is certain to be expensive to purchase and maintain, and will add a
notable amount of weight to the vehicle, thus WHR would be counter-productive to the agencies proposal
to reduce weight. This as-yet-developed technology is so far from even being tested to determine if it
actually will work in a class 8 truck environment those who are testing it continue to drastically alter the
very method in which they propose to capture the waste heat. It is doubtful that any owner-operator would
risk purchasing a truck with such a technology, which will once again prime the market for a pre-buy or
no-buy situation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.30-31]
Response:
Downtime and cost are two of the key concerns, specifically for an emerging technology that has not been
extensively tested in the market. As explained in RIA Chapter 2.3.9, the agencies have outlined a path
forward to resolve technical issues within the lead time provided by the final rule. In addition please see
our response in RTC Section 3.4.1 below. With respect to issues related to cost of the technology, see
RIA Chapter 2.11.2.15.
-------
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Meeting Alternative 3 Engine Stringency will Require Use of New Technologies
EPA and NHTSA set stringency levels for vocational and tractor engines at 4% and 4.2%, respectively.
These standards, when viewed against PACCAR's current engine performance and the available existing
technologies that can improve the engine's performance, will require the development and
implementation of new technologies. Some of the technologies envisioned by the Agencies for meeting
the stringency, such as waste heat recovery, turbo compounding, low delta pressure aftertreatment system,
and model-based controls, are not at the prototype level for PACCAR and other OEMs. Technologies like
waste heat recovery are technically sophisticated and will require a longer lead time for development,
OEM testing, field reliability growth to ensure a robust product for the customer. PACCAR anticipates
that meeting these standards will be possible, but doing so will be challenging and will require all of the
lead-time provided in Alternative 3. As discussed below, meeting the same standards within the more
accelerated timeframe of Alternative 4 would be infeasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.3-4]
As a result of this assessment, PACCAR recommends that the Agencies finalize the Alternative 3 engine
standards as they are proposed in the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.4]
Response:
We have received a large number of comments from the public as well as CBI from individual companies
in response to the NPRM. As one can imagine, opinions and recommendations are split in terms of the
stringency of engine standards. Taking all factors into consideration, we have made many changes to the
engine standards that were proposed. On the vocational side, we changed the baseline engine to reflect
the most recent certification data. The detailed vocational engine stringency and its baseline engine
standards can be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA; see also RTC Section 3.3.3. For tractor engines, new
information allowed us to increase the dis-synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.9 in 2027, and increase the
market projected penetration rate for WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15% to 25% in 2027, and
included down speed benefits for engines. As a result of this, the 2027 MY tractor engine standards'
projected stringency over the baseline increased from 4.2% (proposal) to 5.1% in 2027. We have also
identified ways in which greater reductions would be feasible in 2024. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA
detail the justification of these increases. Thus, we do not agree with Paccar that meeting the 4.2%
standard within the more accelerated timeframe of Alternative 4 would be infeasible, and are adopting
2024 standards that are equivalent to the Alternative 4 engine standards for MY 2024.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
TRACTOR ENGINE STRINGENCY
There are four key issues in the agencies' analysis that lead to an engine standard that is far more
conservative than can be achieved in the timeframe of this rule: the use of a dissynergy factor, an
underestimate of the effectiveness of technologies applied, discounting the benefit of a revised test cycle,
and the exclusion of downspeeding. Accounting for these four factors would raise the effective engine
standard in the preferred alternative from 3.7 percent in 2024 up to 9.0 percent compared to the baseline
performance given in the NPRM. Using the agencies' assumed technology penetration rates, these factors
would raise the engine standard up to 10.3 percent relative to the assumed baseline in 2027; however, the
agencies are likely underestimating the potential uptake for waste heat recovery in this timeframe. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.6]
-------
Dissynergy. Because the agencies cannot model every possible engine configuration for every
manufacturer, they have utilized a generic baseline engine map and then applied, via multiplication, the
effectiveness of different technologies on this map: %FEtotal =1- 1-dxfx %FE , where fi represents
the fraction of engines with technology i and d is the dissynergy factor. The agencies' dissynergy factor is
equal to 25 percent in the earliest years and 15 percent in the later years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1329-A2 p.6]
The dissynergy factor is meant to discount the effects of combining different separate technologies, since
some technologies may be trying to reduce the same type of energy losses and therefore will not simply
add. However, it is rarely applied in the technology-independent manner that the agencies have used in
assessing the potential for engine reductions, since many technologies may be unaffected by the
application of an additional technology—for example, the effectiveness of improving the efficiency of the
turbocharger is unlikely to be affected by the effectiveness of reducing engine friction. In fact, in some
cases the application of two technologies can even have a synergistic effect, where the complementary
fuel reductions result in an overall effectiveness beyond the individual technologies—this is often the case
when considering technologies applied to both the engine and vehicle, like cylinder deactivation and load
reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.6]
Because synergy/dissynergy is dependent upon specific technology interactions, it is preferable to
consider modeling the technology packages separately. Recent research by the Southwest Research
Institute (SwRI), commissioned by NHTSA for the express purpose of informing these regulations, helps
shed light on whether the agencies' use of a dissynergy factor is appropriate. In the first report issued by
SwRI, the effectiveness of 20 different tractor engine technologies was examined (Reinhart 2015 a). In the
second report, these different technologies were combined into 11 different engine packages (Reinhart
2015b). By comparing the multiplicative model noted in the formula above and the modeled package
results, we can assess what dissynergy is present, if any, in these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p.6]
It should be noted that not all technologies applied in the packages were analyzed separately in the first
report, so we have trimmed the selection to six specific packages: 2019 Baseline DDI5, Package #1 (2019
DD15 + friction reduction), Package #2 (2019 DD15 + Downspeeding B + 50% friction reduction),
Package #3 (Package #2 + H20 bottoming cycle), Package #3a (Package #2 + R-245 bottoming cycle),
Package #4 (2019 DD15 -EGR, - turbo compounding, with fixed geometry high-efficiency
turbocharger), and Package #5 (2011 DD15 + optimized turbo compounding + Downspeeding B + 50%
friction reduction + optimized combustion + air handling). In the case of the 50% friction reduction, we
have modeled the effectiveness of this as 1 - (1 - %FEFR) Al/2, which when applied twice would thus
equal %FEFR. We have modeled the 1% combustion improvement of the 2019 DD15 engine and
Package #5 as a simple 1-percent improvement in fuel consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-
A2 p.6-7]
[Figure 1, 'Comparison of Package Effectiveness', can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2]
The results of the multiplicative method compared to the fully simulated packages are shown in Figure 1.
Here we have used the results on all five drive cycles modeled (CARB Transient, 55 MPH steady state,
65 MPH steady state, World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle, and the Northeast States Center for a Clean Air
Future cycle) under three different load conditions (0-, 50-, and 100-percent load) to assess fifteen
different datapoints for each of the six packages. As is evident from the data, the majority of the data falls
below the x=y line—this actually means that, on average, we find evidence for a net synergy, in stark
contrast to the agencies' assessment. Fitting to the data, we find that the simplified multiplicative
-------
approach underestimated the fully simulated package model results by 6 percent, on average—this is in
direct contrast with the agencies' use of a blanket dissynergy factor. Furthermore, the few datapoints that
show some dissynergy are almost exclusively either the 2019 DD15 baseline or Package #5, run over
either the CARB Transient or NESCCAF cycles—this suggests that rather than a dissynergy, it is much
more likely that our simplistic assessment of the 1% combustion improvement is invalid under heavy
transient operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.7]
Based on the data in Figure 1, we find no supporting evidence for the agencies' use of a dissynergy factor
in combining engine technologies. Removing the broad application of the dissynergy factor would raise
the value of the proposed engine stringency in 2027 to 4.9 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
p.7]
Technology effectiveness. In addition to the synergy between technologies, the agencies have not
appropriately considered the effectiveness of the technologies themselves. Despite the thorough work by
Southwest Research Institute commissioned by NHTSA, the agencies have assumed levels below this
work in nearly every technology examined. 1 In many cases, this effectiveness is also inconsistent with
public data from the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.7]
Friction reduction was noted as an exceptionally effective technology in the SwRI analysis initially
(Reinhart 2015a), and the conventional engine package in the follow-on study yielded an improvement of
3.3 percent over the 2018 baseline engine. This is significantly beyond the agencies' 1.4-percent
improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.7]
Combustion controls are expected to advance considerably over the timeframe of the rule, with industry
estimating possible improvements of between 1 and 4 percent, with an industry average of 2.5 percent
(Lutsey et al. 2014). The agency's assessment of 1.1 percent is obviously again at the low end of this
scale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.7]
The effectiveness of turbo compounding varies widely by engine manufacturer, as some companies may
be implementing this already in engines today, while others may not see this as part of their product plan;
estimates range from 0.5 to 5 percent, with an average of about 2.3 percent. SwRI analysis finds that an
optimized turbo compounding engine package could achieve a 5.8 perecnt improvement over the 2018
baseline, 2.6 percent better than improvements to combustion and friction reduction alone and higher than
the agencies' assumption of 1.8 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.7]
Organic waste heat recovery is challenging to assess because only one manufacturer is currently planning
on deploying these engines ahead of the 2021 rule, while others are still at the demonstration stage.
However, the SuperTruck program has shown great promise, and industry assessment estimates that it
holds the potential for between 2- and 8-percent improvement, with an average of 5-percent improvement
(Lutsey et al. 2014). The package that is furthest along in development involves a recuperator and uses a
refrigerant as the working fluid— SwRI modeling of this package yields a total improvement of 9.2
percent for the engine package, or 4.4 percent from the waste heat recovery system alone. This again
exceeds the 3.6-percent improvement estimated by the agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
p.7-8]
Even while maintaining the agencies' dissynergy factor and penetration rates, these adjusted technology
effectiveness values would raise the engine standard from 4.2 percent to 6.1 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2 p.8]
-------
Downspeeding. Downspeeding is a strategy used by manufacturers to reduce fuel usage from the engine
by operating at a lower speed, which reduces parasitic and friction related losses. This recent trend has
been enabled by a move by the industry towards more automated manual transmissions, which can help
keep a narrower gear spread at the highest gears without having to worry about issues like driver fatigue.
It also requires axles designed to handle a greater torque at low speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-
A2 p.9]
While the agencies acknowledge the benefits of downspeeding on the vehicle side, they have not
considered the benefits of downspeeding at the engine level. This is at odds with the actual design
process— engines are designed to operate within a specific range of speeds, especially at high load.
Downspeeding typically results in an engine that operates with higher torque at low speeds to generate the
same power, often operating in a narrower range of speeds at peak power (Figure 2). This changes the
torque curve, resulting from the manufacturer's desire to maintain the level of performance for its users
while shifting the cruise speeds lower. Shifting the torque curve would also shift the A, B, and C speeds
of the SET cycle, which is used for both greenhouse gas and criteria emissions testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2 p.9]
[Figure 2, 'Comparison of Downspeed Engines', can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2]
The agencies' engine maps for 2018, 2021, 2024, and 2027 all maintain the same torque curve and
therefore the same SET A, B, and C speeds. Despite assuming the engine will be run at lower speeds over
time, the agencies have not chosen to adjust the torque curve accordingly— this may be allowable
because the power demands of the regulatory cycle are not particularly severe, but it is not reflective of
real world engine design. This is problematic because on the vehicle side, they alter the drive axle ratio to
shift the cruise speed by 16 percent, down from 1500 rpm to 1300 rpm at 65 mph. For reference, we
calculate the SET cycle speeds for the EPA engine to be A = 1233 rpm, B = 1515 rpm, and C = 1797 rpm,
with the "not-to-exceed" (NTE) zone thus starting at 1120 rpm. With the 2027 axle ratio and default
transmission gearing, the 55mph cruise speed is at 1100 rpm in overdrive—at this speed, the vehicle
would actually be operating outside the NTE zone used for criteria emissions. This is true only because of
the way in which the agencies have treated downspeeding. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.9-10]
It should also be noted that the agencies' 2018 cruise speed of 1500 rpm is exceptionally high compared
to the performance of even today's powertrains (Table 2). The agencies' torque curve for 2018-2027
matches that of the Detroit Diesel DDI 5 engine, yet the 2014 model of that engine already is meant to
operate today at speeds lower than the agency is targeting in assessing stringency. This is even more
drastic when compared to other popular Class 8 engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 10]
[Table 2, 'Comparison of Tractor Engine Speed', can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2]
Downspeeding ultimately is linked to engine design and must be reflected in engine stringency to ensure
that there is no gaming occurring between criteria emissions and greenhouse gas emissions testing. The
SwRI modeling identified an additional 1.8-percent improvement in efficiency for the downsped engine
package compared to friction and combustion improvements alone (Reinhart 2015b). This would revise
the engine standard up to 6.0 percent from 4.2 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 10]
Advanced technology penetration. The agencies have estimated a 15-percent penetration rate for Rankine
cycle waste heat recovery and a 10-percent adoption rate for turbo compounding (NPRM p. 40197)—
higher adoption rates are feasible by 2027. Both turbo compounding and Rankine cycle waste heat
-------
recovery are designed to capture energy from the exhaust and are most effective in highway operation.
However, Cummins has presented data indicating nearly the same levels of performance for a regional-
haul cycle as line-haul operation (Salemme 2014), which means this technology could see application
beyond the long-haul sleeper cabs assumed in the agencies' analysis. Furthermore, a 25-percent
application represents just half of all line-haul trucks, assuming no application in regional haul, yet a
significant number of vehicles are already on the road with mechanical turbo compounding offered by
both Detroit Diesel and Volvo, and Cummins is expected to roll out small numbers of Rankine cycle-
powered vehicles before the rule even begins (Lockwood 2015). Therefore, the agencies' assumed
penetration rates do not correspond to a "technology-forcing" standard, and adjusting these to reflect what
the market is already primed to do on its own would result in a much more stringent standard, by as much
as 3 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 10]
1 While the SwRI modeling study did not directly model the effects on the SET cycle, we are considering
technology effectiveness as represented by a 50/50 split of the regulatory cycles for day and sleeper cabs,
since the ARB transient and 55-mph and 65-mph cruise cycles were all modeled by SwRI.
Reinhart, T.E. 2015a. Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study -
report #1. (Report no. DOT HS 812 146). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Online athttp://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/812146-
CommercialMDHD-TruckFuelEfficiencvTechStudv%E2%80%93Reportl.pdf.
Reinhart, T.E. 2015b. Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study -
report #2. (Draft report) Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Online at
h ftp ://www. nh tsa. sov/staticfiles/rulemakin s/pdf/cafe/Draft-SwRI-MDHD-FE-
TechReport2 DocketVersion.pdf.
Lutsey, N., T. Langer, and S. Khan. 2014. Stakeholder workshop report on tractor-trailer efficiency
technology in the 2015-2030 timeframe. Online at http://www.theicct.org/stakeholder-workshop-report-
tractor- trailer-efficiencv-techn ol o gv-2015-203 0.
Response:
We appreciated the commenter's constructive comments, specifically on down speeding. However, we
do not believe that 10.3% increase in 2027 per commenter's recommendation is feasible. Also, we do not
believe that the commenter properly used SwRI's data to deduce the dis-synergy factor, because SwRI
made a correction to the 2019 baseline engine results, which changes all of the conclusions the
commenter made. First of all, the data quote from the commenter mainly relies on the literature,
including DOE SuperTruck programs. The values from the literature are single optimal operating points
and not operation over the entire engine map. Further, those values were demonstrated in an R/D
environment. In contrast, we consider stringency over the 13 modes of the SET, where the reduction over
the composite is not as great as the reduction over the single, most efficient, operating point. Technology
effectiveness is also not additive. Chapter 2.7.5 of the RIA details justifications of dis-synergy used in
the rule. These justifications were also supported by many industry comments, such as the reports made
by four major vehicle OEMs (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894) as well as other comments made by
individual vehicle OEMs (Daimler Truck North America and Navistar). See response to EDF in Section
3.3.1 above. The technology effectiveness of WHR in Rankine cycle used by the agencies, which is less
effective than what commenters (including this commenter) recommended, were directly obtained from
credible, but CBI information, based on the recommendation from a leading engine manufacturer. It is
critical to derive the standards based on the agencies' weighting factors over 13 modes, vehicle weight,
-------
and three vehicle certification cycles. Thus, the adjusted values for stringency are typically much smaller
than the values seen in the literature. Having said that, we have made changes to make the standards
more stringent than those proposed. In the final rule, we readjusted the baseline of the engine standards to
reflect the reweighting impact. Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA details the change in the baseline. We made a
few key changes on engine standards. For tractor engines, we increased the dis-synergy factor from 0.85
to 0.9 in 2027, and increased the market penetration rate for WHR Rankine cycle technology from 15% to
25% in 2027, and include down speed benefits for engines. As a result of this, the 2027 MY tractor
engine standards' projected stringency over the baseline increased from 4.2% to 5.1%. Chapters 2.3 and
2.7 of the RIA detail the justification of this increase. We also increased the stringency of the vocational
vehicle standards from those proposed.
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
The specific market penetration rates that concern UPS, given our particular fleet, are listed below and
UPS strongly recommends reduction of these MPRs: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.4]
Waste Heat Recovery (projected 15% in 2027)
UPS agrees generally with the comments of the American Trucking Association on this issue.
Specifically, UPS favors a successful rulemaking for Phase II, but urges that the technologies offered in
compliant trucks are fully tested, verified, and affordable before adoption. UPS keeps its class 8 tractors
for 10-12 years, unlike many in our industry, and so durability is a major factor for us. So is maintenance.
Our engineers' review of the current state of WHR technology gives us little basis for confidence in the
WHR approach at this point, especially given the magnitude of the improvement in efficiency that the
proposed rule hopes to achieve relative to other technologies. Note that UPS is very familiar with the
SuperTruck program and its prototype usage of WHR. Reliance on WHR in the final rule will necessitate
compliance margins that the proposed rule does not contain now. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1
p.4]
Waste Heat Recovery
UPS agrees with the ATA on their following comments: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.7]
'The agencies assume that Waste Heat Recovery ('WHR') technology will cost $10,523 in 2021. The only
WHR system of which we are aware is a prototype in the SuperTruck. Because waste heat recovery is not
currently in the market, the actual costs remain unknown. Some OEMs state the cost is actually higher
than this figure, while another OEM says it is over-inflated. Perhaps these differences reflect varying
perceptions as to prospective business opportunities. This wide-ranging pricing uncertainty should raise a
cautionary flag to the agencies. WHR is the highest cost menu item under the current heavy-heavy duty
engine technology listings. The agencies must be more transparent in how they derived such cost figures
given how some OEMs are contesting these projections. As you can imagine, these cost uncertainties
have only escalated fleet concerns over future pricing of equipment under Phase 2.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1262-A1 p.7]
UPS is also concerned about the heavy reliance the agencies place on the penetration of this technology in
the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.7]
-------
Response:
As already acknowledged, downtime and cost are two important concerns, specifically for an emerging
technology that has not been extensively tested in the market. In addition to our response in RTC Section
3.4.1 below, see RIA Chapter 2.3.9 (and especially RIA at p. 2-17) indicating how WHR can be brought
to market reliably within the lead time provided by the final rule.
Organization: Volvo Group
Future Technology
If we consider the example of waste heat recovery, full scale development is estimated at $ 130 Million
from proof of concept to market launch, with an expected development project period of 6 years.
Volumes can be determined from Volvo Group's expected Sleeper Tractor production and taking the
expected penetration rates of from Table II-6 and fitting a curve to interpolate volume growth between
stringency steps and extrapolate to MY2030. Assuming the project costs are spread evenly over the
project period and series production starts in engine MY 2021, Volvo Group would need to charge nearly
$21,700 per unit over the ten year regulatory period just to recover the R&D investment and cost of
capital. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.36]
The Agencies' estimate that WHR will provide a 3.6% SET weighted improvement (Table II-6 of the
Preamble). In a typical line haul application of 125,000 miles per year and a $3.98 fuel cost a 3.6%
improvement is worth ~$2,520 per year with a customer expected payback period of no more than 18
months, thus the market price for the 3.6% fuel economy improvement would be no more than $3,780.
Given the estimated $21,700 per unit cost, Volvo Group would lose $17,920 per unit on R&D alone,
without regard to material costs, sales and administrative expense, production costs, or even considering
Volvo Group expects payback and profit within 5 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.36]
The Agencies, however, determined a cost for WHR of $10,500 in 2012 dollars in MY2021 (Preamble
Table II-8), which is inclusive of all direct and indirect costs and markup. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.36]
Response:
Given our adoption rates for WHR and our estimated costs along with projected sales, we estimate total
costs of WHR ranging from $10.3 million in MY2021 up through $188 million in MY2027 and then $166
million in MY2030 (the slight reduction in costs being attributable to learning). The cumulative total
costs would be roughly $850 million. Using our ICMs, and the RPEs upon which they are based as a
guide, then the cumulative total R&D would be $30 million to $40 million. This amount is below the
$130 million suggested by the commenter. This could mean one or more of the following: we have
underestimated costs; we have underestimated adoption rates; Volvo should not enter the market with a
WHR system. We believe that our WHR cost estimate is sound, and would have preferred that the
commenter provide an estimated technology cost for WHR rather than a development estimate since that
development estimate, presumably, would pay dividends in other areas not fully attributable to WHR
and/or this final rule. If development costs are truly that high, then perhaps other technologies will be
chosen to meet the demands of the new standards. Importantly, we have put forward what we believe to
be a reasonable path to compliance but do not mean to suggest that it is the only path or that Volvo must
choose that path. In 2015, Volvo reported R&D of roughly 15 billion Swedish Krona (SEK, or $1.8
billion). (15 billion SEK from "The Volvo Group Annual And Sustainability Report 2015, page 80;
conversion to USD using factor of 0.12 USD to 1 SEK via google.com on 6/23/2016) If we simply use
-------
that value, we could estimate Volvo's R&D at roughly $17 billion over the years 2021 through 2030. For
WHR, $130 million would represent less than 1 percent of R&D.
Organization: Walsh, Michael and Charlton, Stephen
The standards set for HD tractor engines fall well short of being "technology advancing" - the original
stated goals of the rulemaking: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p.6]
"This technology-advancing program would phase in over the long-term, beginning in the 2018 model
year and culminating in standards for model year 2027, responding to the President's directive on
February 18, 2014, to develop new standards that will take us well into the next decade. " [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0102-A1 p.6]
The agencies have underestimated the potential of key technologies when setting the GHG emission and
fuel consumption standard for HD tractor engines, in particular: waste heat recovery (WHR), advanced
combustion and engine downspeeding. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.6]
Finding 4
WHR technology is an important component of the technology package that can deliver a 15% or greater
reduction of GHG emissions and fuel consumption by 2027, as recognized by NAS 21CTP Report #3,
September 11, 2015 [41]: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.6]
"The 21CTP has successfully met Goal 1, to develop and demonstrate an emissions compliant diesel
engine system for Class 7 and 8 highway trucks that achieves 50 percent brake thermal efficiency in an
over-the-road cruise condition. The engine uses a waste heat recovery system. " rNHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p.7]
In the Draft RIA WHR was effectively eliminated by the agencies because of assumed adoption rates and
outdated and illogical cost assumptions: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p.6]
"We consider this technology to be on the flat portion of the learning curve (curve 12) because although
waste heat recovery is a new technology and in the 2015 to 2017 timeframe remains, perhaps, on the
steeper portion of the learning curve, applying such rapid learning effects to the cost estimate we have
would result in costs too low in the MY2024 to 2027 timeframe. " Draft RIA section 2.12.2.15 [15]
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.7]
The agencies used cost data from 2009 developed by TIAX [36] and reported by Tetra Tech. Inc. [44],
thereby penalizing the technology with unrealistically high costs. WHR was then effectively eliminated
from consideration when the assumed adoption rate was set at only 15% in 2027. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p.7]
The role of 'adoption rate' in this rulemaking should be questioned. Since the regulation is intended to
drive the introduction of technology beyond that which normal market forces would achieve, the only
valid meaning of 'adoption rate' is in determining which real world applications should logically be
included and excluded on the basis of effectiveness. In the case of WHR there is broad agreement that
line-haul tractor trailer applications and heavy-haul applications (at least) will benefit from adoption of
-------
WHR. These applications form a high percentage of the Class 7-8 fleet (greater than 65%). [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0102-A1 p.7]
Finding 5
Advanced combustion was eliminated from consideration - "since the agencies do not anticipate these
technologies will be commercially available by 2027" [15] Draft RIA section 2.3.2. Given the significant
research effort on advanced combustion (Appendix A) and the progress being demonstrated [27,28,31],
the agencies should at the very least allow for incremental improvements being transferred from this work
into products released in 2021, 2024 and 2027. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.7]
Finding 6
Downspeeding results from SWRI report #1 [42] shown in section 5.3, Figure 6 of this paper, present
results from a GT-Power cycle simulation of a HD tractor. Through overall gearing, the highway cruise
speed of the engine was reduced from 1368 rpm to 1209 rpm at 65 mph (Downspeed A) and reduced
further to 1051 rpm (Downspeed B). Figure 6 shows that downspeeding can reduce fuel consumption by
2%-4% with engine speeds as low as 1051 r/min at 65 mph. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p.7]
Downspeeding should be seen primarily as an engine technology, since the engine has to be significantly
redesigned to allow downspeeding to 1000-1050 rpm to deliver fuel savings, while continuing to meet
road load demands. The redesign involves increased peak cylinder pressure to allow higher BMEP at low
engine speeds, increased wrist pin, journal and main bearing performance to protect oil film thickness,
increased air handling performance at low engine speeds and re-optimized combustion. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0102-A1 p.7]
Vehicle design changes include changing the overall gear ratio between engine (rpm) and tires (rev/mile)
by selecting an appropriate rear axle ratio and transmission top gear ratio, and adopting either an AMT or
DCT transmission integrated with the engine controller. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.7]
Finding 8
The cost and retail price data used by the agencies in the development of this rule [44] for key engine
technologies are outdated, being taken from sources published in 2009. The cost and retail price data took
no account of the advances made by the SuperTruck Program which ran from 2010 through 2015 at a cost
to the U.S. government and industry of $375M [30-35], [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.8]
The agencies should consider developing more accurate and current cost and retail price estimates based
on a dialog with the SuperTruck OEMs and tier 1 supply base. Progress has been made between 2010 and
2015 both in simplifying designs for cost and reliability, and in better understanding manufacturing
processes. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.8]
Finding 11
A synergy or dis-synergy factor is intended to account for the fact that some technologies may positively
or negatively impact the performance of other technologies. For some technologies, such as combustion
optimization, friction reduction and turbocharger efficiency improvements, one would expect only a
positive effect. For some other technologies there can be a minor offsetting effect - for example by
adding weight or increasing heat rejection - WHR and EGR are examples of this. Yet in 2021 the
-------
agencies applied a 25% dis-synergy factor with only a 1% adoption of WHR, and knowing that the 2017
baseline engines already contained EGR. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p.9]
Synergistic and dis-synergistic effects need to be accounted for with the specific combinations of
technology in mind. The agencies did not do this. Instead, they crudely applied a 25% discount in 2021
and a 15% discount in 2024 and 2027 across all technologies. Furthermore, there is no explanation for the
agencies' derivation or justification of its use in the rulemaking record. The agencies' use of a dis-synergy
factor is inappropriate and many of the technologies in EPA's preferred package may not have any dis-
synergistic effects. This step in the agencies' analysis further contributes to setting weak engine standards.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.9]
4. The agencies having wrongly included downspeeding as a vehicle technology and allocated the C02
reduction to the vehicle via the GEM simulation. By so doing they have relaxed the stringency of the
engine limit standards, which is a significant oversight by the agencies. This issue can be corrected by
including downspeeding in the derivation of the proposed engine standards, Draft RIA section 2.7.4,
Table 2-8 [15], [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.10-11]
3.3 Technology Roadmavs
The most accessible and relevant Technology Roadmaps, related to improvements in HD diesel engine
efficiency and emissions are the government funded, industry cost-shared initiatives which fall under the
21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP). These initiatives, which culminated in the SuperTruck Program,
have been significant in the development of clean and efficient HD diesel engines which meet both the
EPA/NHTSA Phase 1 GHG standards and the near-zero EPA on-highway criteria pollutant standards.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 14]
3.3.1 21st Century Truck Partnership [22]
The 21st Century Truck Partnership was formally launched on April 21, 2000. The 21CTP is a cooperative
research and development (R&D) partnership including four federal agencies—the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—and 15 industrial partners. The management of specific
projects under the 21CTP umbrella rests with the individual federal agencies that have funded the work.
These agencies use the 21CTP information-sharing infrastructure to coordinate efforts and ensure that
valuable research results are communicated and that any overlap of activities is reduced. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0102-A1 p.14]
The purpose of this partnership is to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, increase heavy-duty vehicle
safety, and support research, development and demonstration to initiate commercially viable products and
systems. DOE released 21CTP Roadmap and Technical White Papers in 2006 [23] and in 2013 [24]
which outline the goals and objectives of the partnership. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p. 14]
3.3.2 U.S. DOE Programs in Support of HD Diesel Engine Technology Development
In addition to being a member of the 21CTP partnership, DOE has initiated programs in Advanced
Combustion R&D, Materials and Vehicle Systems for example, which have engaged the National
Laboratories and industry in collaborative cost-shared projects. A listing of these projects from NAS
21CTP Report Phase 3 [41] is provided in Appendix A [see p.36 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-Al], Figure 17. These projects have provided enabling technologies and knowledge which has been
-------
integrated into programs such as SuperTruck, a program launched under the 21CTP umbrella with the
intention of demonstrating complete truck systems. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A 1 p. 14]
3.3.3 U.S. DOE SuperTruck program 121.261
The SuperTruck Program was launched on January 11, 2010 when the Department of Energy (DOE)
announced the selection of nine projects, totaling more than $187 million, to improve the fuel efficiency
of heavy-duty trucks. The funding included more than $100 million from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The projects required that private industry contribute at least 50% of
the project cost, and so a total of more than $375 million was provided for research, development, and
demonstration projects. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 15]
The goal of SuperTruck is to develop and demonstrate by 2015, a 50% improvement in freight efficiency
(ton-miles per gallon) for Class 8 long-haul trucks compared with a 2010 base line. At least 20% is
expected to be achieved through heavy-duty engine improvements, and the remainder from reductions in
aerodynamic losses, rolling resistance, vehicle weight and auxiliary loads, and other approaches such as
hybridization. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 15]
3.4 Criteria Pollutant Regulation - Progress through Technology Forcing Standards
The 2010 standards for control of NOx and PM from HD engines was published as a final rule in January,
2001 [19], These standards were introduced over a phase-in period 2007 through 2010, and required the
availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel as an enabler for PM and NOx aftertreatment. This very
successful program is an outstanding example of technology forcing standards combined with adequate
lead time, and the commitment of industry. The aggressive limit standards for NOx (0.2 g/HP-hr) and PM
(0.01 g/HP-hr) were considered to be at the limits, if not beyond the limits of technology understood in
2001. The candidate technologies (DPF, NAC, AMOX and SCR) had existed in research labs for several
years prior to the rule. However, component and system level refinement and demonstration had not taken
place. Given the research foundation, industry was able to step up to the challenge and develop products
that met or exceeded the near-zero standards [58, 59], Additionally, the DEF infrastructure was also
developed to support the launch of SCR systems across the fleet by 2010. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
P-15]
By contrast, most of the engine technologies needed for the Phase 2 program, are known and the
development is evolutionary in nature. Even in the case of WHR, its development is advanced when
compared to some of the criteria pollutant technologies when EPA set the 2007/2010 standards - such as
Urea SCR or NOx adsorber catalysts. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 15]
5.4 SWRIReport #2 Commissioned bvNHTSA, June 2015 [43]
This SWRI report is the second of two reports commissioned by NHTSA. The report evaluates the
effectiveness of packages ("Combo Packages") of the individual technologies studied in Report #1 [42],
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 18]
The conclusions reached regarding HD tractor engine fuel savings are shown in Figure 8. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0102-A1 p.19]
[Figure 8 can be found onp.19 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1]
-------
Waste heat recovery was modeled separately as a stand-alone Rankine cycle - with water, R245fa,
ethanol and methanol working fluid options. The R245 WHR system was claimed to provide
benefits of 3 to 3.5% over Combo Package 2, described in Figure 8. Adding a recuperator to the
R245 system increased the fuel savings to well over 4%. Comparing the Combo Package 3 systems
to the 2019 baseline, the overall benefits at 55 and 65 mph and on the NESCCAF cycle reach and
sometimes exceed 10%. The results for all technology combinations included in the study are shown
in Appendix G [see p.42]. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 19]
Given the nature of this second study, where technology packages are created from semi-arbitrary
parametric value ranges, it would be difficult if not impossible to make a forecast for the future
performance of these technologies. However, the report attempted to draw quantitative conclusions
nonetheless: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 19]
"One surprise that came out of this project is the relatively large benefit from engine friction reduction in
long haul applications "
"Assuming a reduction in FMEP ranging from 10% at high speed and load, to 35% at low speed and
light load, significant benefits were found"
"An aggressive reduction in Cd (25%) and Crr (30%) provides nearly a 20%) fuel consumption reduction
on the long haul NESCCAF cycle" [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 19]
The SuperTruck projects [30-35] were nearing completion as this report [43] and its partner report
[42] were being written, yet no attempt to obtain data for comparative purposes is reported, and no
comparisons are made in order give a point of reference for the conclusions. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p. 19]
5.5 Draft RIA [151
The draft RIA reviews available technologies for HD diesel engines in Section 2-3: [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0102-A1 p.19]
• Low Temperature Exhaust Gas Recirculation • Engine Parasitic and Friction
• Engine Breathing System
Relative to WHR, the Draft RIA states that: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 19]
"... at a single optimal engine operating point, Cummins reports potential efficiency gains from WHR on
the order of 2.8 percent points from the engine without WHR. "
Important qualifiers are necessary: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 19]
Reduction
• Model Based Control
Integrated Aftertreatment
System
• Combustion System Optimization
• Turbocharging System
• Engine Downsizing
Waste Heat Recovery
-------
• This data is over 2 years out of date, having been presented at the 2013 DOE Annual Merit
Review [30];
• The 2.8% efficiency gain in question is Brake Thermal Efficiency - which when converted to
C02 or fuel savings is a 4-5% reduction; and
• More recent data from Cummins showed potential for a 3.6% BTE improvement [31], which is a
5-6.5% reduction of C02 and fuel consumption.
The agencies expressed their concern with WHR technology readiness, citing complexity, reliability,
durability, weight, heat rejection and other concerns. However, while the agencies' recognized
the challenges that would need to be overcome, they also stated that they - "believe with enough time
and development effort, this can be done" f151. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 19-20]
The agencies took a similarly conservative view of potential combustion system improvements to reduce
C02 and fuel consumption, Page 2-8 Draft RIA [15]: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.20]
"Alternative combustion processes such as homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI), premixed
charge compression ignition (PCCI), low-temperature combustion (LTI), and reactivity controlled
compression ignition (RCCI) technologies were not included in the feasibility analysis for Phase 2 "
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.20]
Given the significant research efforts on advanced combustion (Appendix A, Figure 17) and the progress
being demonstrated [27, 28, 31], it is to be expected that some level of improvement in combustion
technology will bleed through into product development programs over the next 12 years, providing
reductions of GHG emissions and foel consumption. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.20]
5.6 Cummins SuperTruck Program [31]
Key engine technologies used by each of the four projects are listed in Appendix H [see p.43], for
reference. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.21]
The Cummins SuperTruck project is a consortium of industry partners, with Peterbilt providing vehicle
integration expertise. Other partners include Modine, Oakridge National Lab and Purdue University.
Cummins closed out the project in Q2 2015 having met all of the objectives. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-
A1 p.21]
5.7 Daimler SuperTruck Program [32, 33]
The Daimler SuperTruck program is a consortium of industry partners including: Detroit Diesel,
Schneider National, Walmart, National Renewable Energy Lab, Oregon State University, Strick Trailer
and Michelin. This project was completed successfully and closed March 2015. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p.21]
[Figure 10 and 11 can be found on p.21 and figure 12 and 13 can be found on p.22 of docket number
NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 ]
5.8 Volvo SuperTruck Program [341
The Volvo SuperTruck consortium members are: Penn State, Grote, Freight Wing and Ridge Corporation.
This project continues and is expected to complete by June 2016. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.22]
-------
5.9 Navistar SuperTruck Program [35/
The Navistar SuperTruck consortium consists of: Bosch, Wabash, ANL and LLNL. This project is
expected to close September 2016. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.22]
5.10 NAS Review of the 21CTP: Third Report - September 11, 2015 [411
This report is the third review of 21CTP by NAS. They found a number of important accomplishments,
most notably by the projects that form the DOE SuperTruck Program: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
p.22]
• "The engine systems Goal 1 of a 50% BTE for an emissions compliant engine has been achieved.
Two of the four SuperTruck teams have successfully demonstrated BTE greater than 50% in on-
road tests using commercial, ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel" NAS [41],
• "It is anticipated that by the end of each of the respective SuperTruck programs, the teams will
have developed a technology pathway for achieving 55% BTE" NAS [41],
• "The SuperTruck projects incorporated a number of vehicle power demand technologies that
accounted for about 56 to 74 percent of the total fuel consumption reductions, with 26% to 44%
coming from engine efficiency improvements" NAS [41], [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.22]
The NAS committee has moved their focus from attaining HD engine technology for 50% BTE to
defining the pathways to a HD engine attaining 55% BTE. While the NAS committee see 55% BTE as
extremely challenging, they observed that all of the programs are pursuing improved friction and
pumping, more effective air boosting systems, smaller auxiliary and accessory loads, and improvements
in WHR, and that all teams are investigating advanced low-temperature combustion (LTC) approaches.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.22]
5.11 Technology Cost Estimates
Tetra Tech, Inc. (TTI) was retained by NHTSA to work in conjunction with SWRI [42, 43] to study the
cost of implementation of the key technologies for reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption [44],
Due to the limited timeframe and funding available for the study, this analysis relied on existing MD/HD
literature for price inputs. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.22]
The TTI study [44] assessed the incremental retail prices for the implementation of the key technologies
in constant 2011 U.S. dollars. The list of technologies and configurations identified by SwRI and included
in the TTI study are shown in Figure 14. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.22]
[Figure 14 can be found on p.23 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1]
5.11.1 WHR Cost / Retail Price Assessment T441
TTI obtained their cost data from the open literature, and for WHR they relied upon two main sources -
the NESCCAF/ICCT 2009 study [48] and TIAX 2009 report [36], While these studies were the primary
sources of the data, they also referenced secondary sources - NAS [37] and NHTSA [18], which in fact
had relied upon the primary NESCCAF/ICCT and TIAX sources. Therefore all of the data used to project
costs for the Phase 2 rulemaking process, for WHR, have their origins in two studies published in 2009,
pre-dating the SuperTruck program. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.23]
-------
The NESCCAF/ICCT study, supported by TIAX and SWRI, based their WHR cost assessment on a
steam cycle, with a multiple-stage turbine expander driving an electric generator with associated battery
storage. The study found up to 8% fuel consumption and GHG reduction, at a cost of $15,100 ($30,200
retail price equivalent) and payback of 5.2 years. In this study, the WHR was sized for the full rated
power of the engine. Later analysis by TIAX [36] found that most of the benefits could be realized using a
smaller, lower cost system with fuel consumption savings and retail price equivalents of: [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0102-A1 p.23]
32 kW system - 8 percent reduction in fuel use, $15,100
12 kW system - 6 percent reduction in fuel use, $8,400
According to TIAX [36], manufacturers could not provide firm costing information on these systems, as
they were still in the development stage. However, they expected to be able to achieve payback in 18 to
24 months if development proceeds as projected. For a line-haul truck, this would suggest a low-end
system cost of $7,200 to $8,400 for a system that gives 6 percent reduction of GHG emissions and fuel
consumption [36], [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.23]
The agencies used the TTI analysis as the basis for the cost / price assessments included in the Draft RIA
[15], In the case of WHR, the source data was created in 2009 for a system that has little in common with
the state of the art demonstrated by the SuperTruck Program between 2010 and 2015 [30, 35], [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0102-A1 p.23]
The agencies estimated the cost of WHR at $12,000 (retail, 2013$) [15], based on the estimate from TTI
[44], From this data the agencies were able to use their models to estimate a Direct Material Cost of
$8,692. The agencies also attempted to place technologies on a 'learning curve' to project costs as
experience is gained. This leads to the odd conclusion below, which seems to say that the agencies don't
want to consider a learning curve for WHR, because that would result in the projected costs being "too
low." [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.23]
"We consider this technology to be on the flat portion of the learning curve (curve 12) because although
waste heat recovery is a new technology and in the 2015 to 2017 timeframe remains, perhaps, on the
steeper portion of the learning curve, applying such rapid learning effects to the cost estimate we have
would result in costs too low in the MY2024 to 2027 timeframe. " Draft RIA section 2.12.2.15 [15],
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.23]
Other engine technology costs and retail price equivalents used by the agencies as input to the
determination of HD tractor engine stringency were also largely based on data that pre-dated the 2010 to
2015 SuperTruck Program - mainly the NESCCAF/ICCT 2009 study [48] and TIAX 2009 report [36],
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.24]
To achieve these technology forcing standards it will be necessary for the following technologies to be
developed: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.25]
• Waste Heat Recovery / Organic Rankine Cycle • Engine Design for Downspeeding
• Advanced Combustion • Advanced NOx and PM Aftertreatment
• Reduced Frictional Losses • Advanced Adaptive Controls
• Reduced Accessory Losses • Advanced Sensors
• Reduced Open Cycle Losses • Increased Turbocharger Efficiency
-------
Although the agencies have expressed concern that WHR is costly and complex - they also recognize that
industry is capable of resolving these concerns given adequate lead time: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1
p.25]
"The agencies believe manufacturers will improve these systems [WHR] over time just as they have for
other advanced technologies that initially had high cost and complexity at a comparable stage of
development" DraftRIA 2.3.9 [15]. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.25]
It is important that the agencies elevate their support for WHR, advanced combustion and downspeeding,
since these are key enablers for the technology forcing standards proposed above. Furthermore, this study
finds that there is a high probability of successfully implementing these technologies by the time the
standards are phased in. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.25]
Given the 12 year lead time to product launch in 2027 and the relaxed engine standards proposed; if this
rule moves forward in its current form it will make it impossible for truck and engine OEMs and tier 1
suppliers to continue to make investments in advanced engine technologies at the levels we have seen
during the past 5-10 years. R&D funds are a scarce resource that will be withdrawn or reallocated to other
priorities. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.25]
15 Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium - and
Heavy - Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis. Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation - EPA-420-D-15-900, June 2015
18 "Factors and Considerations for Establishing a Fuel Effiiency Regulatory Program for Commercial
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles," NHTSA Report DOT HS 811 XXX, October 2010.
19 "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements," EPA 40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86, Federal Register /
Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001.
21 "DOE SuperTruck Program Benefits Analysis," Final Report,- prepared for U.S, Department of
Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies and Argonne National Laboratory, December 20,2012
22 "21st Century Truck Partnership - Pursuing technologies that lead to sustainable commercial truck
transportation," ACEEE Workshop on Emerging Technologies for Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Ken Howden - Director, 21st Century Truck Partnership Vehicle Technologies Office - Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy, July 22, 2014
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/Ken%20Howden DOE.pdf
23 "Roadmap and Technical White Papers," 21st Century Truck Program, U.S. Department of Energy,
21CTP-0003, December 2006.
24 "Roadmap and Technical White Papers," 21st Century Truck Program, U.S. Department of Energy,
21CTP-0003,Final - February 27,
2013. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/Q2/f8/21ctp roadmap white papers 2013.pdf
-------
26 Gravel, R., "SuperTruck: An opportunity to reduce GHG emissions while meeting service demands."
Asilomar Conference, Augfust, 2013 www.its.ucdavis.edu/fies/general/pdf/2013-08-21 Asilomar-2013-
Gravel.pdf.
27 Singh, G., "Overview of the VTO Advanced Combustion Engine R&D Program," Vehicle
Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, June 8, 2015
28 Musculus M.P.B, "Heavy-Duty Low-Temperature and Diesel Combustion and Heavy-Duty
Combustion Modeling," Combustion Research Facility, Sandia National Laboratories - Advanced
Combustion Engine R&D, DOE Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review, June 9, 2015
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/06/f23/ace032 partridge 2015 o.pdf
30 Koeberlein, D., "Cummins SuperTruck Program Technology and System Level Demonstration of
Highly Efficient and Clean, Diesel Powered Class 8 Trucks," DOE Merit Review, 16 May, 2013, Project
ID: ACE057
31 Koeberlein, D., "Cummins SuperTruck Program Technology and System Level Demonstration of
Highly Efficient and Clean, Diesel Powered Class 8 Trucks," DOE Merit Review, 12 June, 2015, Project
ID: ACE057
32 Rotz, D., Ziegler, M., "Daimler SuperTruck - Recovery Act -Class 8 Truck Freight Efficiency
Improvement Project," Super Truck Program: Vehicle Project Review, DOE Merit Review, 11 June,
2015, Project ID: ARRAVT080
33 Singh, S., "SuperTruck Program: Engine Project Review, Recovery Act - Class 8 Truck Freight
Efficiency Improvement Project," Detroit Diesel Corporation. Project: ACE 058, June 12,2015
34 Amar, P., "Volvo SuperTruck - Powertrain Technologies for Efficiency Improvement," 2015 Annual
Merit Review, Washington, DC, June 12, 2015
35 Zukouski, R., "Navistar SuperTruck - Development and Demonstration of a Fuel-Efficient Class 8
Tractor & Trailer - Engine Systems," DOE Merit Review, 12 June, 2015, Project ID: ACE059
36 "Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and HeavyDuty Vehicles - Final Report,"
TIAX Case D0506, November 19,2009.
37 "Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles - Phase 1," Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles; National Research Council; Transportation Research Board, March 31, 2010
41 "Review Of The 21st Century Truck Partnership: Third Report," Committee to Review the 21st
Century Truck Partnership, Phase 3; Board on Energy and Environmental Systems; Division on
Engineering and Physical Sciences; The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
September 11, 2015.
42 Reinhart, T. E., "Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study - Report
#1.(Report No. DOT HS 812 146). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
June 2015.
-------
43 Reinhart, T., "Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency Technology Study -
Report #2." (Report No. DOT HS xxx xxx). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, June 2015.
44 Schubert, R., Chan, M., and Law, K., "Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency
technology cost study." (Report No. DOT HS 812 177). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, June 2015.
48 "Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and C02 Emissions,"
NESCCAF Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, ICCT International Council on Clean
Transportation, Southwest Research Institute, TIAX, LLC , Final Report October, 2009
58.Charlton, S.J. et al, "Meeting the US 2007 Heavy-Duty Diesel Emission Standards - Designing for the
Customer," SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-4170, 2007
59 Charlton, S.J. et al, "Meeting the US Heavy-Duty EPA 2010 Standards and Providing Increased Value
for the Customer," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 3(1): 101-110, 2010.
Response:
We respectfully disagree with many of arguments that pertain to a more aggressive engine standard
stringency. We have reviewed the reports from four major vehicle OEMs (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1894) as well as other comments made by individual vehicle OEMs (Daimler Truck North America and
Navistar), which rebut the points made by the commenter. Specifically, we disagree with the approach
taken by the commenter regarding the technology effectiveness from DOE's SuperTruck program and
NAS's report. It appears that the commenter took single value out of these literatures, primarily based on
peak values, such as their findings 1 and 2 related to 50% and 55% BTE. The values from the literature
are single optimal operating points and not operation over the entire engine map. Further, those values
were demonstrated in an R/D environment. In contrast, we consider stringency over the 13 modes of the
SET, where the reduction over the composite is not as great as the reduction over the single, most
efficient, operating point. The technology path for downspeeding proposed by the commenter is not
practical, because while the peak torque of the engine moves down to an engine speed of around 800 rpm,
the required high boost pressure cannot be maintained due to the engine's low speed. We disagree with
the commenter statements that we did not consider combustion technology. We do consider advanced
combustion as one of the technologies as indicated in Chapter 2.7.5 of the RIA. We also disagree with
the commenter's comments on dis-synergy and synergy. We have updated our justification on the dis-
synergy we used for our rulemaking, which can be found in Chapter 2.7.5 of the RIA and discussed below
in RTC Section 3.4.3. While we disagree with many of the comments, we have responded to some in a
positive manner. We have updated the cost tables associated with technologies, such as WHR, as shown
in Chapter 2.11.2.15 of the RIA. We have made the standards more stringent. We increase the dis-synergy
factor from 0.85 to 0.9, and increase the market penetration for WHR Rankine cycle technology from
15% to 25% in 2027, and included down speed benefits on engines. As a result of that, the tractor engine
standards increase from 4.2% to 5.1% in 2027. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA detail the justification for
this increase. For vocational engines, we have adjusted the vocational engine baseline C02 emission level
based on the new certification data, strengthening the standards relative to the NPRM. Chapters 2.3 and
2.7 of the RIA detail the justification for this increase.
3.4.1 Additional Discussion of Rankine Cycle Waste Heat Recovery
-------
Response:
As noted above, the agencies received numerous comments on the proposed engine stringencies and the
agencies' assumed application rates of WHR.
More than 40 percent of all energy loss in an engine is lost as heat to the exhaust and engine coolant. For
many years, manufacturers have been using turbochargers to convert some of this waste heat in the
exhaust into usable mechanical power that is then used to compress the intake air. Manufacturers have
also been developing a Rankine cycle-based system to extract additional heat energy from the engine.
Such systems are often called waste heat recovery (WHR) systems. The possible sources of waste heat
energy include the exhaust, recirculated exhaust gases, compressed charge air, and engine coolant. The
basic approach with WHR is to use waste heat from one or more of these sources to evaporate a working
fluid, which is passed through a turbine or equivalent expander to create mechanical or electrical power,
then re-condensed.
For the proposal, the agencies projected that by 2027, 15 percent of tractor engines would employ WHR
systems with an effectiveness of better than three percent. Some of the comments included confidential
data related to systems not yet on the market. (As CBI, these comments are not fully addressed above).
After carefully considering all of these comments, we have revised our projections to increase the
effectiveness, decrease costs, and project higher adoption rates than we proposed.
Prior to the Phase 1 Final Rule, the NAS estimated the potential for WHR to reduce fuel consumption by
up to 10 percent.41 However, the agencies do not believe such levels will be achievable within the Phase
2 time frame. There currently are no commercially available WHR systems for diesel engines, although
research prototype systems are being tested by some manufacturers. American Trucking Association,
Navistar, DTNA, OOIDA, Volvo, and UPS commented that because WHR is still in the prototype stage,
it should not be assumed for setting the stringency of the tractor engine standards. Many of these
commenters pointed to the additional design and development efforts that will be needed to reduce cost,
improve packaging, reduce weight, develop controls, select an appropriate working fluid, implement
expected OBD diagnostics, and achieve the necessary reliability and durability. Some stated that the
technology has not been thoroughly tested or asked that more real-world data be collected before setting
standards based on WHR. Some of these commenters provided confidential business information
pertaining to their analysis of WHR system component costs, failure modes, and projected warranty cost
information.
Alternatively, a number of commenters including Cummins, ICCT, CARB, ACEEE, EDF, Honeywell,
ARB and others stated that the agencies should increase the assumed application rate of WHR in the final
rule and the overall stringency of the engine standards. They argued the agencies' WHR technology
assessment was outdated and too conservative, the fuel savings and GHG reduction estimation for WHR
were too low, and the agencies' cost estimates were based on older WHR systems where costs were
confounded with hybrid component costs and that these have since been improved upon. In addition, the
agencies received CBI information supporting the arguments of some of these commenters.
Cummins stated the agencies underestimated the commercial viability of WHR and that we overstated the
development challenges and timing in the NPRM. They said WHR can provide a 4 to 5 percent
improvement in fuel consumption on tractor drive cycles and that WHR would be commercially viable
and available in production as early as 2020 and will exceed the agencies' estimates for market
penetration over the period of the rule. According to Cummins, the reliability of their WHR system has
41 See 2010 NAS Report, page 57.
-------
improved with each generation of the technology and they have developed a smaller system footprint,
improved integration with the engine and vehicle and a low-GWP working fluid, resulting in a much
more compact and integrated system. They added that their system would be evaluated in extended
customer testing by the end of 2015, and that results of that experience will inform further technology
development and product engineering leading to expected commercial product availability in the 2020
timeframe. Furthermore, they said multiple product development cycles over the implementation
timeframe of the rule would provide opportunities for further development for reduced cost and improved
performance and reliability.
Some commenters, including EDF, said the agencies' assumed design had little in common with the latest
designs planned for production. They cited several publications, including the NAS 21st Century Truck
Program report #3 and stated WHR effectiveness is much higher than the agencies estimated. Gentherm
cited an ICCT study saying that up to a 12 percent fuel consumption reduction from a 2010 baseline
engine is possible with the application of advanced engine technologies and WHR.
The agencies recognize that much work remains to be done, but we are providing significant lead time to
bring WHR to market. Based on our assessment of each manufacturer's work to date, we are confident
that a commercially-viable WHR capable of reducing fuel consumption by over three percent will be
available in the 2021 to 2024 time frame. Concerns about the system's cost and complexity may remain
high enough to limit the use of such systems in this time frame. Moreover, packaging constraints and
lower effectiveness under transient conditions will likely limit the application of WHR systems to line-
haul tractors. See RIA Chapter 2.3.9 for a detailed description of these systems and their applicability.
For our analysis of the engine standards, the agencies project that WHR with the Rankine technology
could be used on 1 percent of tractor engines by 2021, on 5 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027, with
nearly all being used on sleeper cabs. We project this sharper increase in market adoption in the 2027
timeframe because we have noted that most technology adoption rate curves follow an S-shape: slow
initial adoption, then more rapid adoption, and then a leveling off as the market saturates (not always at
100 percent). We assumed an S-shape curve for WHR adoption, where we project a steeper rise in
market adoption in and around the 2027 timeframe. Given our averaging, banking and trading program
flexibilities and that manufacturers may choose from a range of other technologies, we believe that
manufacturers will be able to meet the 2027 standards, which we based on a 25 percent WHR adoption in
tractor engines. Although we project these as steps, it is more likely that manufacturers will try to
gradually increase the WHR adoption in MY 2025 and MY 2026 from the 5 percent in 2024 to generate
emission credits to smooth the transition to the 2027 standards. As shown in the figure below
manufacturers that gradually increase the adoption rate after 2021 could achieve the standards with 17
percent adoption of WHR in 2025, and would not need to reach 25 percent adoption until 2029.
-------
WHR Reductions and ABT
30%
i
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Commenters opposing the agencies' WHR projections argued that the real-world GHG and fuel
consumption savings will be less than in prototype systems. DTNA said a heat rejection increase of 30
percent to 40 percent with WHR systems will require larger radiators, resulting in more aerodynamic drag
and lower fuel savings from WHR systems. DTNA cited a Volvo study showing a 2 percent loss of
efficiency with the larger frontal areas needed to accommodate heat rejection from WHR systems.
Daimler stated effectiveness may be lower than expected since there is large drop off in fuel savings when
the tractor is not operating on a steady state cycle and the real world performance of WHR systems will
be hurt by transient response issues. Daimler and ACEEE said the energy available from exhaust and
other waste heat sources could diminish as tractor aerodynamics improve, thus lowering the expected fuel
savings from WHR. Daimler said because of this, WHR estimated fuel savings was overestimated by the
agencies. Navistar said WHR working fluids will have a significant GHG impact based on tlieir high
global warming potential. They commented that fuel and GHG reductions will be lower in the real world
with the re-weighting of the RMC which results in lower engine load, and thus lower available waste
heat. However, none of these commenters have access to the full range of data available to the agencies,
which includes CBI.
Daimler said that with increased freight movement by ship, barge, and rail, some steady-state long haul
truck VMT would be replaced with more regional truck VMT over time. This Daimler said, would further
reduce the effectiveness of WHR as an approach to lower GHG emissions and fuel consumption.
However, this is very speculative.
It is important to note that the net cost and effectiveness of future WHR systems depends on the sources
of waste heat. Systems that extract heat from EGR gases may provide the side benefit of reducing the
size of EGR coolers or eliminating them altogether. To the extent that WHR systems use exhaust heat,
they increase the overall cooling system heat rejection requirement and likely require larger radiators.
This could have negative impacts on cooling fan power needs and vehicle aerodynamics. Limited engine
compartment space under the hood could leave insufficient room for additional radiator size increasing.
WHR Use Projected to Meet
the Standards
> ABT Path Equivalent to the
Standards
-------
Many of these issues disappear if exhaust waste heat is not recovered from the tailpipe and brought under
the hood for conversion to mechanical work. In fact, it is projected that if a WHR system only utilizes
heat that was originally within the engine compartment (e.g., EGR cooler heat, coolant heat, oil heat,
etc.), then any conversion of that heat to mechanical heat actually reduces the heat rejection demand
under the hood; potentially leading to smaller radiators and lower frontal area, which would actually lead
toward improved aerodynamic performance. Refer to RIA Chapter 2.3.9 for more discussion, and in
particular RIA at 2-17 describing how these engineering challenges can be successfully addressed.
Several commenters stated that costs are highly uncertain for WHR technology, both for manufacturers
and for fleets. OOIDA, Volvo, ATA and UPS stated costs for WHR systems are uncertain yet somehow
argued that the agencies' assumption of a $10,523 cost in 2027 are likely significantly lower than
reality. Volvo estimated a cost of $21,700 for WHR systems. Volvo said that in addition to hardware
cost being underestimated, the agencies had not properly accounted for other costs such as the R&D
needed to bring the technology into production within a vehicle. Volvo said they would lose $17,920 per
unit R&D alone, excluding other costs such as materials and administrative expenses. Daimler said that
costs almost always inflate as the complexity of real world requirements drive up need for more robust
designs, sensors, controls, control hardware, and complete vehicle integration. They added that
development costs will be large and must be amortized over limited volumes. Furthermore, OOIDA said
the industry experience with such complex systems is that maintenance, repair, and down-time cost can
be much greater than the initial purchase cost. ATA and OOIDA said that potential downtime associated
with an unproven technology is a significant concern for the industry. They said if a truck goes out of
service, the fleet must dispatch a tow truck to recover it and this could result in penalties for missed
delivery times, added costs for the use of an additional truck, repair parts, and other related expenses. We
agree that in-service failures can be costly, but the commenters overstate the risks of such failures. We
are providing many years of lead time before WHR system would be widely needed to meet the standards
(and potential alternative compliance pathways exist as well). This extended lead time includes the time
needed for extensive field testing. See RIA Chapter 2.3.9 at 2-16 and 2-17 and Figure 2-1. Our
conversations with manufacturers since they began implementing the 2007/2010 standards indicate that
they learned important lessons about how to implement new technologies and have all developed internal
processes to ensure that reliability problems are fully addressed before new technologies are widely
introduced into the market.
On the other hand, some commenters argued that the agencies had actually overestimated WHR costs in
the proposal. These commenters generally argued that engineering improvements to the WHR systems
that will go into production in the Phase 2 time frame would lower costs, in particular by reducing
components. For example, they cited the possibility of low-GWP working fluids that could result in
much more compact and integrated systems. They added such a system would be evaluated in extended
customer testing by the end of 2015, and results of that experience will inform further technology
development and product engineering leading to expected commercial product availability in the 2020
timeframe.
EDF cited several publications such as Walsh/Charlton and John Wall stating the agencies' effectiveness
assessment for WHR was overly conservative and based on outdated assumptions. Wall, EDF, and
Walsh/Carlton said the agencies' assumed design had little in common with the latest designs planned for
production. Wall, CARB, and others also stated the agencies underestimated the effectiveness of WHR
systems.
The costs developed by the agencies were challenged by Cummins, Wall, ACEEE, EDF, and others.
Cummins said costs developed in a report from Tetra Tech for NHTSA and referenced in the Draft RIA is
based on references that pre-date the SuperTruck program. They added that improvements have
-------
significantly lowered system cost since that study was published. John Wall commented that the
agencies' assumption of cost was based in part on the 2009 NESCCAF study which used an electrical
system with full hybridization. Wall said the WHR system included a 30 kW system and a full hybrid
whereas a 10 kW system is used in more current designs. He added that current systems do not need an
exhaust heat exchanger and other components assumed in the TIAX report and that a retail price
equivalent of a 10 kW system would be $4,760, less than half the agencies' cost estimate.
Wall said this substantially lower cost estimate should allow the agencies to consider a more significant
penetration of WHR technology with acceptable cost effectiveness and a higher overall engine stringency.
Similarly, Walsh/Charlton said the agencies' costs were based in part on a steam system with multiple
expanders which is very different from today's designs.
The agencies largely agree with these commenters' estimates of costs (in particular, that the system
evaluated at proposal contained certain elements which are unnecessary for the type of system and
effectiveness projected for the final rule) and we have revised our analysis to reflect these lower costs.
See RIA Chapter 2.11.2.15 for additional discussion.
A number of commenters took issue with the assumption made by the agencies that WHR is on the flat
portion of the learning curve with regard to cost reduction potential, saying this overstates the costs of the
technology over the long term. Cummins encouraged the agencies to apply a learning curve calculation
that is more consistent with the continuing evolution of WHR system design and integration. In the final
rule, we estimate that WHR is on the steep portion of the learning curve. See RIA Chapter 2.11.2.15.
The agencies have carefully evaluated comments submitted on the NPRM and information submitted on
cost, technology effectiveness, and system design since the publication of the NPRM. As stated above,
some of this information was submitted publicly in comments or attachments to comments and other
information was provided as confidential business information. Taken together, these comments provide
significant technical, cost, and manufacturing information, as well as other information that leads us to
believe a higher application rate of WHR is possible in the 2027 timeframe. The agencies are not
assuming any changes in the 2021 or 2024 introduction rates for WHR to allow manufacturers adequate
research and development and testing time to bring the technology into production. Assuming low
application rates of WHR in the early years of the Phase 2 program will allow manufacturers to integrate
the technology over normal product development cycles. The agencies are, however, assuming a WHR
adoption rate of 25 percent in 2027. As we have explained in RIA Chapter 2.3.9, some technological
challenges remain, but we have outlined means of resolving these challenges successfully and provided
manufacturers sufficient lead time to do so. We believe the significant information provided to the
agencies in the public comments and CBI information after the publication of the NPRM further supports
this approach for the 2027 timeframe.
In summary, while we understand the concerns raised by commenters opposing the agencies' assessment
of WHR, we believe these concerns arise primarily form a lack of information. None of these
commenters have access to the full range of data available to the agencies. In large part, this is because
much of the most compelling information supporting the agencies' projection is considered to be CBI,
and thus is not widely available. While the projections can be justified based on the public information,
the CBI gives the agencies even greater confidence that these projections are reasonable. In addition, by
projecting a maximum adoption rate of only 25 percent (with an effectiveness of about 4 percent), we
limit the overall impact of this analysis to an average reduction of about one percent. While we project
WHR to be an important engine technology, we do not base the standards completely on this one
technology. Given the ten years of lead time before manufacturers must meet the 2027 engine standards,
it is possible that some other engine technology may arise that would provide this one percent reduction
without WHR. For example, manufacturers choosing to not invest in WHR, could potentially invest
-------
instead in expanded use of other technologies such as model-based controls, turbo-compound, and
downspeeding.
3.4.2 Additional Discussion of Confidential Business Information
Response:
Given the competitive nature of the heavy-duty industry, manufacturers of components, engines, and
vehicles very often consider information on technologies they are developing to be confidential business
information (CBI). It is also true that manufacturer CBI is often the best information available when
evaluating technological feasibility. In the interest of transparency and public participation, the agencies
have tried to rely as much as possible on publicly available information, including our own research.
Nevertheless, in establishing standards that are appropriate and achieve the maximum feasible reductions,
we cannot avoid some reliance on CBI.
When using CBI, the agencies have applied the same standards of analysis as we have the publicly
available information. We have given more weight to more detailed information that was fully
documented; and less weight to less rigorous information. In general, the CBI supported the more public
statements of these manufacturers. However, in some rare cases, cases, we found the public statements to
be more optimistic and or more pessimistic than the data truly supported.
Overall, CBI played a limited but significant rule in our feasibility analysis. The agencies were generally
able to find public information to support our conclusions. For these technologies, the CBI was more
corroborative than determinative. For example, as discussed in Section 3.4.1 above, CBI was very helpful
to corroborate our analysis of WHR. However, even there, the impact on overall program was small. We
project WHR to provide a roughly one-percent reduction for the tractor and tractor engine standards,
which represents a small part of the overall program.
-------
3.4.3 Additional Discussion of Dis-Svnerqy
While many effective technologies are considered for this rulemaking, it is important to point out that the
benefits of these technologies are not additive. For example, when multiple technologies are applied to an
engine, it is incorrect to simply sum the individual technologies' effectiveness to arrive at an overall
combined effectiveness of the technologies. We have received a number of public comments regarding
this non-additive effect. Most of them focus on the agencies' projections of our so-called "dis-synergy"
effect and our use of a dis-synergy factor to account for this effect. This effect could also be called a
negative synergy because it is a decrease in technology effectiveness as a result of multiple technologies
being applied to an engine. As used here, a factor less than one indicates a net dis-synergy, and a smaller
factor indicates more dis-synergy and lower overall effectiveness.
As discussed in RIA Chapter 2.7.4, the agencies applied dis-synergy factors to our effectiveness estimates
to reflect the degree to which combining multiple technologies reduces slightly the effectiveness of each
individual technology. First, the weighted reductions of individual technologies were combined using the
"II-formula," which was then augmented to account for technology dis-synergies that occur when
combining multiple technologies. RIA Chapter 2.7.4 provides details on the "Fl-formula" and an
explanation for how the dis-synergy factors were determined. Some commenters recommended that we
adopt lower numeric values of our dis-synergy factors, but a few commenters recommended higher dis-
synergy factors than what we proposed (i.e., less dis-synergy).
We also note that the degree of dis-synergy is sufficiently small to make the impact of any errors on the
resulting standards negligible. For example, even a 0.05 difference in the dis-synergy factor would
change the percent reduction of the 2027 engine standard only by about one-quarter of a percent.
Causes of Dis-Synergy
As background, it is helpful to first review how engine fuel efficiency technologies interact with one
another. One example is the interaction between WHR and other technologies, such as combustion,
friction reduction, and fuel injection system improvements. WHR effectiveness is directly proportional to
the amount of thermodynamic available energy (i.e., energy available for conversion into mechanical
work) provided from an engine's sources of waste heat. In a modern internal combustion engine, these
sources include exhaust gas energy available from the EGR cooler and tailpipe, and from the coolant and
lubricating oil systems. Therefore, decreasing the amount of available energy from these sources reduces
the effectiveness of WHR. Some of the fuel efficiency technologies we identify in our stringency analysis
decrease the amount of available energy from these sources. For example, advancing fuel injection timing
will improve efficiency to a certain point, but it will also decrease available exhaust energy by lowering
exhaust temperature, and thus exhaust WHR effectiveness would decrease. To a lesser extent, reducing
bearing friction or piston ring-wall friction improves fuel efficiency, but this also leads to less heat
transfer to the coolant; and hence lower available energy for WHR. As another example, increasing
compression ratio can improve combustion thermal efficiency (until the peak cylinder pressure rises past
a given mechanical limit), but this in turn increases friction losses at piston rings and bearings. As another
example increasing fuel injection pressure provides more opportunity for fuel injection optimization (e.g.,
enabling more multiple injection events), which can improve fuel efficiency, but this will in turn increase
fuel pump parasitic energy losses. In another example, increasing turbocharger efficiency can improve
fuel efficiency, but this will also reduce EGR flow due to lower back pressure, thus potentially increasing
NOx, and also reducing the exhaust gas energy that can be utilized by waste heat recovery devices, such
as turbo-compound and Rankine cycle systems. Increasing NOx would also put more demand on the
after-treatment system or force less fuel efficient fuel injection timing. There are more examples, but in
conclusion, there are numerous complex interactions between fuel efficiency technologies.
-------
Use of a Single Dis-Synergy Factor
Fully evaluating all of the potential engine technology fuel efficiency dis-synergies would likely require a
multi-million dollar multi-year effort. Such an analysis was not available to the agencies. However, it
would not be appropriate to ignore such dis-synergies. Therefore, the agencies developed a single set of
empirical constants to account for these known dis-synergies, based on the best information available.
The agencies' experience dealing with engine technologies strongly supports the likelihood that these
interactions between technologies will have a net dis-synergy, and we thus we expect the factor to be less
than one. And practically speaking, it is highly unlikely that adding a technology to an engine that leads
to a dis-synergy factor on the order of 0.5 would even be considered a fuel efficiency improving
technology. Therefore, the agencies focused on determining where within the range of 0.5-1.0 we should
project this dis-synergy factor to be. We sought the most probable single dis-synergy factor that matches
the diverse set of data that we collected. We determined a range of dis-synergy factors and the value of
the factor depended in part on the selection of technology packages. We found that this constant varies in
the range of 0.75 - 0.90. Some commenters recommended using a dis-synergy factor of 0.95, however,
our analysis shows this would be inappropriately high and likely not achievable.
Based on our analysis, we have reduced our projection of dis-synergy compared to the NPRM analysis,
but are still applying a dis-synergy factor that is less than one. More specifically, we applied dis-synergy
factors of 0.85 for MY 2021 and 0.90 for MY 2024 and MY 2027. We project these improvements to
result from manufacturers increasing their research and development efforts to optimize engine
technologies together as a package, in order to comply with the HD Phase 2 engine standards. The
agencies have accounted for our projected increased investment in research and design by including
respective incremental vehicle cost increases in our cost analysis. In other words, by increasing the dis-
synergy factor from 0.85 to 0.90, our MY 2024 and MY 2027 engine standards reflect projections of
increased technology package optimization.
3.5 Proposed EPA Engine Standards for N20
Organization: Advanced Engine System Institute (AESI)
AESI supports the Agency's efforts to tighten the nitrous oxide (N20) cap to ensure that efficiency
enhancements made by engine manufacturers to reduce carbon dioxide pollution do not lead to
unintended increases of this other potent greenhouse gas. The changes in engine technology to meet
Phase 2 overall, particularly the great likelihood that the new more efficient engines will produce a higher
volume of nitrogen oxides, will make meeting that new N20 cap challenging. Our members are working
now on the cutting edge materials necessary to limit N20 formation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-
A1 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420,
p.292.]]
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
We Strongly Support Preserving the Compliance Pathway Flexibility
In the HD Phase 1 Rule,2 the agencies adopted provisions that allowed original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) to offset any nitrous oxide (N20) and methane emissions above the standard with carbon dioxide
(C02) emissions below the standard. Under this approach, an OEM would convert measured N20 and
methane emissions levels generated on the engine certification test cycle into a C02-equivalent
credit.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.2]
-------
We strongly support the maintenance of this provision in the Phase 2 Proposal. Doing so preserves the
valuable compliance pathway flexibility for cross-pollutant trading of methane, N20, and C02. We
further note that this flexibility is not only beneficial to the OEMs in the natural gas sector that use it to
offset methane emissions with C02-equivalent credits, but it is also a necessity for some diesel engine
OEMs who use the provision to offset high N20 emissions with C02-equivalent credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1223-A1 p.2]
We Support the Proposed Deterioration Factors for Natural Gas Tailpipe Emissions
Westport and Cummins Westport Inc. (CWI) have reviewed the proposed deterioration factors (DFs) for
natural gas tailpipe emissions and do not have sufficient data or a strong rationale to propose alternate
DFs at this time. Accordingly, we support the agencies' proposed DFs of 0.0 g/hp-hr for C02, 0.020
g/hp-hr for N20 (0.010 g/hp-hr for model year 2021 engines and later), and 0.020 g/hp-hr for methane.29
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223 -A 1 p. 8]
2 "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles; Final Rule." Federal Register, September 15,
201 l.http://www. gDO.gov/fdsvs/Dkg/FR-201 l-09-15/pdf/201 l-20740.pdf. (Hereafter cited as the "HD
Phase 1 Rule")
3 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40341.
29 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40587.
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Deterioration Factors (DFs) - AAPC suggests that DFs for CH4, N20, and C02 can be both positive
and negative. Testing at 4,000 miles is sometimes worst case and future rules need to allow for negative
DFs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 12]
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
2021 MY N20 stringency increase on dyno-tested engines
AAPC is concerned that the long term costs and benefits attributed to lowering the heavy-duty N20
standard to 0.05 g / hp-hr may not be properly reflected in the RIA. We note that EPA included a simple
graph of reported N20 vs the Phase 1 requirement of 0.100 g / bhp-hr as supporting rationale to lower the
standard to 0.05 g/hp-hr. However, the data appears to be incomplete. Furthermore, EPA only recently
finalized N20 measurement equipment requirements, and AAPC is concerned that the reported data in
EPA's database may be underestimating actual N20 emissions. Quantum Cascade Laser (QCL)
equipment is more sensitive to N20 than the historical data which was most likely collected using Fourier
Transfer Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) type equipment. Merely switching to more sensitive measurement
equipment may cause a large fraction of N20 measurements to increase beyond the 50 mg/bhp-hr
threshold and thus incur an effective increase in stringency of 3 - 6 g/bhp-hr not properly reflected in the
RIA. See data on the next page comparing N20 results using FTIR and new QCL equipment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.27]
[Chart, comparison of N20 emissions, can be found on p.28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1]
-------
Adjusting for changes in measurement from FTIR to QCL suggest that the standard would be more
appropriately set at a value of 0.06 g/hp-hr N20 in lieu of the proposed 0.05 g/hp-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1238-A1 p.28]
Organization: American Power Group Inc (APG)
As the Proposed Phase II regulations allow C02 reported results to be taken from the FTP-HDT HHDD
test for vocational vehicle engines and from the RMC13 HHDD test for line haul vehicle engines, but all
HHDD vehicle engine CH4 and N20 reported emissions come from the FTP-HDT HHDD tests, would
the EPA consider allowing the CH4 and N20 emission reported results for come from the RMC13
HHDD test for line haul vehicle engines? The RMC13 test results are more representative of the line haul
vehicle duty cycle.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197 p.2]
The current GHG regulations have HHDDE reportable C02 results from the FTP-Heavy Duty Transient
test cycle for vocational HHDDE vehicles and Ramped Modal Cycle 13 test for line-haul HHDDE
vehicles. All N20 and CH4 reportable HHDDE values come only for the FTP-HDT test results. As the
APG Mixed-Fuel system is utilized by line haul HHDDE vehicles we would respectfully request that
EPA allow all GHG emission values for HHDDE vehicle line haul applications be taken from the RMC
13 test results as the RMC 13 test more represents our customers duty-cycle. Is there some reason the
CH4 and N20 reportable results are only used from the FTP-HDT cycle test? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1197-Alp.4]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports use of assigned deterioration factors (DFs) for GHG emissions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298-A1 p.28]
For reasons outlined in EMA's comments, Cummins supports the use of assigned DFs for C02 emissions.
Furthermore, it is also appropriate to apply assigned DFs for CH4 and N20 emissions. In the Preamble,
the Agencies indicated the same assigned DFs used for diesel engines are appropriate for natural gas
engines. Cummins agrees with this assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.28]
Cummins opposes reducing theN20 standard to 0.05 g/hp-hr [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 19]
For reasons outlined in EMA's comments, Cummins opposes reducing the N20 standard to 0.05 g/hp-hr.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 19]
Additionally, the Agencies are requesting comment on changing the GWP for CH4 and N20 for Phase 2.
Changes should only be made if they are Agency-wide, consistent across all GHG programs (for example,
light-duty, GHG inventories, reporting rules, etc.). Also, to the extent that Phase 1 credits are carrying
over and can be used for CH4 and N20 compliance in Phase 2, maintaining the same Phase 1 GWP
values is appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.31]]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
The agencies must revise the N20 proposal, as the agencies improperly analyzed N20 data and failed to
take account for the fact the increased stringency of the currently-proposed C02 standards will result in
greater difficulty to meet even existing N20 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.6]
-------
6.N20
EPA proposes to set an N20 standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr which based on their assessment of model
year 2015 engines. (80 FR 40203). EPA's certification data base shows that the N20 emissions standard
of 0.10 g/hp-hr is stringent for the majority current diesel fueled heavy-heavy duty engine- ATS
technologies (Figures 1 -3). Due to fundamental tradeoffs of SCR and engine technology, the increased
stringency of proposed C02 standards will result in greater difficulty to meet the existing 0.10 g/bhp-hr
N20 standards, thereby the standard will maintain its intended purpose of being anti-backsliding at this
level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.24] We agree with the N20 formation and the reduction
mechanism (80 FR 40204) as discussed in EPA's literature review of research studies. However, it is also
important to note, that there is a tradeoff to consider when lowering the C02 standards concurrently with
lowering the N20 standards. This trade-off does not go hand-in-hand with each other. C02 emissions
standards that are proposed for Phase 2 demand the most fuel efficient in-cylinder technologies, while
keeping the extremely low tailpipe NOx emissions. The demand for increasingly efficient in-cylinder
combustion technologies will by driven by the proposed decrease in C02 emissions standards and will
drive manufacturers to develop engines with higher engine-out NOx levels. On a given SCR based
technology, N20 formation over the SCR based catalyst increases proportionally with increased engine
out NOx levels as has been discussed in the N20 formation section by EPA in the literature review. This
is true even for the most advanced SCR catalyst technologies in the market today. Consequently engine
manufacturers will be extremely challenged to maintain current N20 limits while pursuing combustion
based fuel efficiency improvements at the same time as maintaining compliant NOx levels. C02
emissions and tail pipe N20 emissions trends for a SCR based catalyst technology are shown in Figures
4,5. As depicted in Figure 5, maximum N20 formation occurs in the mid-temperature range. Although in
theory, N20 formation could be reduced by elevating temperatures above this range, it is not possible to
push temperatures upwards by using the engine thermal management without greatly sacrificing fuel
economy and C02 emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.24-25]
We disagree with EPA comment that "We are proposing this change at no additional cost and no
additional benefit because manufacturers are generally meeting the proposed standard today." EPA's data
base upon which it determined its proposed N20 formation level (Figures 1-3) of 0.05 g/bhp-hr shows
that the anti-backsliding standards are not being met by most of the manufacturers today. In fact, only two
of fifteen heavy-heavy duty engine families were certified at levels that would suggest the possibility of
complying with a 0.05 g/bhp-hr standard for engines that are certified to 2014 model year N20 formation
levels. As discussed above, pressures to develop to 2017 model year's lower C02 levels can be expected
to further increase N20 emissions, as will any additional increases in Phase 2 C02 stringency. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.25]
Due to increased engine efficiencies demanded of in-cylinder technologies for GHG Phase 2 and the
increased upcoming demands from ATS for commensurately increased NOx conversion efficiencies, the
tailpipe N20 emissions must be kept at the current 0.10 g/bhp-hr with the current default deterioration
factor of 0.02 g/bhp-hr. DTNA recommends that to meet EPA's intent of setting a standard that allows
adequate compliance margin, the N20 standard be set no lower than 0.10 g/bhp-hr. [EPA- HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p.25]
Although EPA has stated that it proposes no changes to criteria pollutant emission standards within the
Phase 2 regulation, DTNA is aware that the California Air Resources Board has strong interest in
lowering heavy duty diesel NOx standards to mitigate ambient Ozone concerns in certain regions of their
state. As was described above, there is an adverse relationship between improving in cylinder efficiency
and the SCR systems ability in reducing engine out NOx to meet tailpipe emissions standards while at the
same time controlling N20 emissions. Any reduction in tailpipe NOx standards will commensurately
-------
increase the difficulty of meeting N20 standards especially while under simultaneous pressure to meet
more stringent C02 standards. DTNA therefore recommends that in order to maintain a reasonable
balance between these various tradeoffs, and in order to ensure that N20 targets remain feasible, the EPA
should not tighten the current NOx limits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.25]
[Figures 1-3, which show that the N20 emissions standard of 0.10 g/hp-hr is stringent for the majority of
current diesel field heavy-duty engine ATS technologies, and Figures 4 and 5, which show C02
emissions and tail pipe N20 emissions trends for a SCR based catalyst technology, can be found on p. 26-
27 and p.27-28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Nitrous Oxide (N20)
While total N20 emissions are much lower than C02 emissions, N20 is approximately 298 times more
powerful than C02 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. One of the anthropogenic activities producing
N20 in the U.S. is fuel combustion in motor vehicles. In 2006, N20 emissions from mobile source
combustion were approximately 9% of total U.S. N20 emissions. N20 is emitted directly from motor
vehicles and its formation is highly dependent on temperature, N02 to NOx ratio entering the SCR
catalyst, ammonia to NOx ratio, the SCR catalyst formulation and the temperature of the catalyst over the
test cycle. Temperatures favorable for N20 formation (approximately 250o C) are achieved inside
catalytic converter systems, especially during cold-start conditions when engine exhaust temperatures are
lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.8]
EPA is proposing to tighten the N20 cap and deterioration factor by 50% from 100 mg/bhp-hr to 50
mg/bhp-hr and 20 mg/bhp-hr to 10 mg/bhp-hr, respectively. This is to ensure that climate change impacts
of this potent greenhouse gas are minimized on future medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Furthermore
because 75% of engine families certified in 2014 already meet a 50 mg/bhp-hr N20 level, the agency is
concerned that engine manufacturers may emit higher levels in the future as they optimize the overall
C02 emissions of engines. EPA estimates that a 40 mg/bhp-hr N20 emission reduction has the C02
equivalent climate impact of a 2.6% improvement in engine efficiency. Although MECA members
believe that meeting the proposed N20 levels will be achievable, it will be challenging given the types of
engine developments that we expect to see in the future. In particular we expect that future engines will
have higher engine-out NOx levels in the exhaust as a way of achieving lower C02 levels. Furthermore,
overall cooler exhaust temperatures may be expected as a result of efficiency technologies such as turbo-
compounding being deployed upstream of the exhaust emission control system. Furthermore, it is
important to consider N20 emissions in-light of future regulations such as the 0.02 g/bhp-hr heavy-duty
NOx standard under consideration by California. Below, we discuss the primary formation mechanisms
for N20 and some approaches that may be used in the future to achieve lower levels of N20 emissions on
future diesel engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.8-9] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.211-212.]]
At low temperatures, around 250o C, the predominant mechanism for N20 formation is by the
decomposition of ammonium nitrate, whereas at high temperatures, above 5000 C, the primary
mechanism is ammonia oxidation. Nitrous oxide can form at intermediate temperatures (300-3500 C) if
the N02 to NOx ratio exceeds 50%. Excess ammonia injection across the SCR catalyst can also lead to an
increase in N20 formation if the ammonia to NOx ratio exceeds 1.0. A recent study published by the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE Technical Paper 201301-2463) concluded that the test cycle,
cycle exhaust temperature, system design and urea injection calibration all play a role in the formation of
-------
N20 on the SCR catalyst. The authors observed that the inlet conditions of the SCR catalyst had the
greatest effect on the formation of nitrous oxide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 9]
Another SAE technical paper (2015-01-0997) studied the effect of SCR catalyst type on the formation of
N20. The authors observed that the lowest N20 emissions were observed from a vanadia/titania SCR and
Cu-zeolite SCR systems. Furthermore the Cu-zeolite SCR exhibited little deactivation after aging. The
authors found that the system design, linear versus muffler, can impact the overall NOx performance and
N20 emissions as a result of the average temperature of the SCR catalyst in each configuration relative to
the optimal temperature for N20 formation. Upstream components such as the DOC and DPF can also
impact the N20 levels based on their relative activity to form higher N02/N0x ratio feedgas to the SCR.
The authors of this paper discuss ways to formulate the precious metal composition and loading on the
DOC and DPF to minimize their contribution to N20 formation while still maintaining high NOx
conversion efficiency. For all SCR systems, the N20 emissions could be reduced by tighter urea dosing
control to limit excess ammonia, by targeting an optimal amount of ammonia storage in the SCR catalyst
and reducing engine-out NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.9]
In another recent paper published at the 2015 SAE Congress (SAE paper Number 201501-1030), the
authors looked at ways to design the SCR catalyst architecture to target lower N20 emissions from the
system. Because the front part of the SCR catalyst is more prone to form N20, the authors looked at
coating the front of the SCR substrate with a vanadia-SCR formulation and the rear of the substrate with a
standard Cu-zeolite SCR. Further optimization may be possible through the use of modeling tools to
identify the SCR formulation and coating volume combinations that minimize N20 emissions and
maximize NOx conversion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.9]
Advanced gasoline and diesel powertrains for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in conjunction with
advanced emission control technologies can be optimized to minimize N20 emissions. Catalyst
manufactures can utilize a number of approaches to reduce N20 emissions from the exhaust emission
control components and therefore MECA believes that the proposed N20 emission cap is achievable with
the use of appropriately designed emission controls on today's medium- and heavy-duty powertrain
options. The proposal further provides manufacturers with the flexibility of meeting emission caps or
factoring in emissions ofN20 or CH4 into the C02-equivalent emissions calculation of the overall
vehicle. MECA supports continuing this proposed flexibility introduced under Phase 1 of this regulation.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.9-10]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
In order to meet the proposed N20 standard, manufacturers would have to introduce technologies that
will not be available prior to 2020. The alternative would be to trade C02 for reduced engine out NOx in
order to control N20 for current aftertreatment technologies, effectively reducing the emission standard.
In addition, the expected margin that is to be built into fuel maps actually will result in an additional
estimated 3% of stringency to the engine standard, now requiring a 4.5% improvement between2017 and
the first step of Phase 2, which is again a technology forcing step in stringency. On the other hand, with
this added margin the final phase will represent a greater than 10% improvement over the engines
currently on the road today with less than 10 years for technology development and implementation.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.21]
The major concerns with the technology projections and penetrations for both vocational and tractor
engine standards include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.21]
-------
• Insufficient technologies have been identified, particularly considering the proposed changes in
N20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.22]
Changes to engine breathing systems, such as improved EGR systems, may run counter to the N20
requirement and impact the reliability of the system [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.22]
Navistar has substantial concerns regarding the proposed 50% reduction in the N20 standard. The NPRM
and RIA both assume no technology changes are necessary to meet the standard. On the contrary,
Navistar believes that some technology will be necessary, likely a redesigned catalyst or catalyst with new
materials. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.23]
The NPRM requested comments based on the assumption that there would be no costs associated with a
reduction of the engine N20 standard from 0.10 g/bhp-hr with an assigned DF of 0.02 g/bhp-hr to a
proposed standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr with a DF of 0.01 g/bhp-hr. We believe this is incorrect and that there
will be costs associated with this change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.23]
As part of the EPA evaluation for the proposed standard EPA presented an evaluation of the Model Year
2014 EPA certification database. Based on a review of the data presented and the current EPA database,
here are several observations: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.23]
• The DF is not included in the data presented by the EPA. Figure 1 (Attachment A) shows the
sample of engines used in the NPRM shown with and without the manufacturer declared DF
(unless the family has a zero DF in the database). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.23]
• Two of the 24 families EPA included in their discussion of N20 test data are non-2SCR equipped
engine families (blue-green bars in Figure 1). It is not anticipated that any non-SCR diesel
engines will be used in the HD on-highway segment by the time the Proposed Regulations are to
take effect. Therefore, these families are not relevant to the proposed N20 standard. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.23]
• Two of the 24 data points EPA included in their analysis are natural gas fueled engines and
another is a gasoline engine. These engines are also not SCR equipped engines and therefore are
not relevant to the proposed N20 standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.23]
• An evaluation of the remaining 19 engine families shows the following, assuming a 0.01 g/bhp-hr
DF (Figure 1): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.24]
o 6 families have test data below the 0.05 g/bhp-hr
o 5 families have test data approximately at 0.05 g/bhp-hr
o 9 families have test data above 0.05 g/bhp-hr.
• The evaluation of the 2014 engines also shows that these EPA tested engines are not all at the
C02 standard. The range of engines spans both Vocational and Tractor applications and are
shown in Figure 2 and 3, respectively, against the Medium Vocational and the Tractor standard.
The same engines are separated between Vocational Medium, Vocational Heavy and Tractor
based on displacement and shown in a N20 vs C02 trade-off in Figures 4-6. All tractor engines
fall outside the Phase IIN20-C02 box. Similarly, a large population of heavy and medium
vocational vehicles does not fall within the box. A trade-off trend is observed across the
population of engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.24]
-------
Based on the certification data at least half of the currently certified engine families would need to make
significant reductions in N20 emissions in order to meet the proposed standard. Furthermore, bringing
these engines into C02 compliance could drive increases in N20 if not mitigated by system
improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.24]
Some of the projected technologies (see attached Table 2) do not have an impact on N20 such as friction
reductions, WHR and turbo compound. The other technologies can actually have an adverse effect, for
example, reductions in EGR and higher compression ratio combustion systems. Therefore, to meet the
proposed N20 standard most of the certified engines would require technology development in
aftertreatment, such as SCRF (SCR combined with DPF in one unit). Hence, an assumption of no
additional cost is not accurate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.24]
[Table 2 can be found on p.44 of the docket]
As far as the interaction between N20 and NOx emissions, it is not appropriate or justified to assume any
unknown, future new regulations in the analysis of this proposed regulation. The costs and technical
feasibility of the proposed regulation is based on existing engines and regulations. Any future rulemaking
must account for the technological limitations and regulations in existence at the time of the proposed
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.24]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Similarly, the Agency should not lower the Phase 1 N20 standard. In the NPRM, the Agencies have
proposed reducing the N20 standard for heavy-duty engines from 0.10 g/hp-hr (with an assigned DF of
0.02 g/hp-hr) to 0.05 g/hp-hr (with a DF of 0.01 g/hp-hr). The Agencies claim that they "are proposing
this change at no additional cost and no additional benefit because manufacturers are generally meeting
the proposed standard today." (See 80 FR at 40203). As part of the underlying rationale for the proposed
standard, the Agencies have presented an evaluation of the Model Year 2014 EPA certification database.
(See 80 FR at 40205). EMA has the following comments based on its review of the data that the Agencies
have presented: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.64]
a. The proposed DF is not included in the N20 emissions data that the Agencies have cited in the NPRM.
Figure 1 (below) shows the sample of engines referenced in the NPRM with and without the proposed DF
of 0.01 (unless the family had a zero DF in the database). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.65]
b. Two of the 24 engine families that the Agencies included in their discussion of the N20 test data are
non-SCR equipped engine families (the blue-green bars in Figure 1 below). However, it is not anticipated
that any non-SCR diesel engines will be used in the heavy-duty on-highway segment by the start of the
proposed Phase 2 program. Therefore, those engine families are not relevant to the proposed N20
standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.65]
c. Two of the 24 data points that the Agencies have included in their supporting analysis are natural gas-
fueled engines and another is a gasoline engine. Those engines also are not SCR-equipped engines and
therefore are not relevant to the proposed N20 standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.65]
d. An evaluation of the remaining 19 engine families, assuming the proposed DF of 0.01 g/hp-hr, shows
the following (see Figure 1 below): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.65]
1. 6 engine families have test data below the proposed 0.05 g/hp-hr standard;
-------
ii. 4 engine families have test data approximating the proposed 0.05 g/hp-hr standard; and
iii. 9 engine families (almost half) have test data above the proposed 0.05 g/hp-hr standard.
e. EMA's evaluation of the 2014 engine data shows that not all of those engines meet the applicable C02
standards. Some engines are credit-users. The C02 emission from the range of engines that the Agencies
referenced in the NPRM, which span both Vocational and Tractor applications, are shown in Figure 2 and
3 below, respectively, as compared against the applicable Medium Vocational and the Tractor C02
standards. The referenced engines are separated between Vocational Medium, Vocational Heavy, and
Tractor, based on displacement, and are shown in N20 versus C02 trade-off charts in Figures 4 through 6
below. All of the tractor engines fall outside the Phase 2 N20-C02 box. Similarly, a large population of
heavy and medium vocational vehicles fall outside the box as well. A trade-off trend can be clearly
observed across the entire population of engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 65]
Accordingly, based on the Agencies' referenced certification data, roughly half of the currently certified
engine families would need to make significant reductions in N20 emissions to meet the proposed
standard. Furthermore, bringing those engines into C02 compliance could drive increases in N20 if not
mitigated by system improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.65]
While some of the projected Phase 2 engine technologies (see Figure 7 below) do not have an impact on
N20, such as friction reduction, Rankine cycle operation and turbo compounding, other technologies can
have an adverse effect, for example, reductions in EGR and higher compression-ratio combustion
systems. Therefore, most of the referenced certified engines would need to incorporate technology
development in aftertreatment solutions, which to this point have not been identified, in order to meet the
proposed N20 standard. Consequently, the Agencies' assumption of "no additional cost" is simply not
accurate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.65-66]
With respect to the Agencies' discussion of the interaction between N20 and NOx emissions (see 80 FR
at 40205), it is not appropriate for the Agencies to assume any future low-NOx regulations in the analysis
of this proposed regulation. The costs and technical feasibility of the proposed regulation is based on
existing engines and regulations. Any future rulemaking must account for the technological limitations
and regulations in existence at the time of the proposed regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.66]
In sum, EMA objects to the Agencies' proposal to reduce N20 emissions as a component of the pending
rulemaking. The Agencies are simply incorrect in their assumption that the proposed lower N20 standard
could be implemented "with no additional cost or lead time." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.66]
[Figures 1-7 can be found on p.66-69 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1]
3. The Proposed N2Q Standards
The NODA does not provide any supplemental data regarding N20 emissions, and so falls well short of
justifying the Agencies' proposed new N20 standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr. To the contrary, the most current
relevant emissions data, including those being developed by the Southwest Research Institute ("SwRI")
under its pending low-NOx research program, establish that prevailing N20 emission rates from HDOH
engines are higher than the Agencies' assumptions and are likely to trend up as lower NOx emissions
requirements are phased-in. Thus, the premise for this aspect of the Agencies' proposal - that the
proposed reduced N20 standard can be met without the need for any additional engine improvements,
design changes, or costs - is simply incorrect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1891-A1 p.3-4]
-------
Organization: Volvo Group
N2Q Emissions Reduction
Volvo Group supports the comments made by EMA that N20 emissions cannot be lowered with existing
technology. In addition we note that N20 is generated on the diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) and the
diesel particulate filter (DPF) during warm-up and on the selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) and
ammonia slip catalyst (ASC). One method to reduce N20 is to reduce precious group metal (PGM)
loading on the DOC in order to reduce N20 production. EPA states that N20 should be reduced simply
by recalibration, but this is not the case. Although it may be barely possible, at the current NOX standard,
to meet the proposed 0.04 g/bhp-hr N20 standard (plus .01 DF), if NOX standards are lowered it will
drive higher diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) dosing rates and more than likely require increased DOC PGM
loading. Both of these will increase N20 production (beyond the proposed standard). In addition, some
N20 reduction strategies may make some of the OBD monitors difficult (or impossible) to achieve.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 16]
Response:
EPA has evaluated the deterioration factors for C02, CH4, and N20. These deterioration factors will not
change from the Phase 1 values. We have no intention of allowing negative DFs as that is counter to the
purpose of DFs, which is to account for deterioration of the emission control systems over the full useful
life of the vehicle. Historically, DFs reflected the trend of increasing emissions, so some manufacturers
have come to think of them as a way to predict end-of-life emissions. However, they are actually
intended to represent the highest emissions during the useful life, relative to the low-hour test data. That
is why EPA has never allowed additive DFs less than zero or multiplicative DFs less than one.
In the NPRM, we proposed reducing both the standard and deterioration factor for N20 to 0.05 and 0.01
g/bhp-hr respectively because engines certified in model year 2014 were generally meeting the proposed
standard. We also explained the process behind N20 formation in urea-SCR aftertreatment systems and
how that process could be optimized to elicit additional N20 reductions. 80 FR 40203. While we have
seen some reductions and a few increases in engine family certified N20 levels across the 2014, 2015, and
2016 model years, the majority have remained unchanged.
While we still believe that further optimization of SCR systems is possible to reduce N20 emissions, as
demonstrated for some engine families, we do not know to what extent further optimization can be
achieved given the tradeoffs required to meet the Phase 2 C02 standards. These tradeoffs potentially
include advancing fuel injection timing to reduce C02 emissions resulting in an increase in NOx emissions
at the engine outlet before the aftertreatment, increasing the needed NOx reduction efficiency of the SCR
system. We will continue to assess N20 emissions as SCR technology evolves and C02 emission
reductions phase in, and we will revisit the standard at a later date to further control N20 emission. This
would likely be included in any upcoming rule to consider more stringent NOx standards.
Finally, with respect to test cycles, we note that these standards were adopted as anti-backsliding or cap
standards. Thus, we believe a simple broad test method is appropriate. The FTP covers a broader range
of test conditions than the RMC, including engine starting and low temperature operation, which makes it
an appropriate test cycle.
3.6 EPA Engine Standards for Methane
Organization: American Power Group Inc (APG)
-------
We believe the proposed CH4 exhaust emission standard, while not a challenge for gasoline and diesel
fueled engines/vehicles, will present a significant challenge for converted HHDD Mixed-Fuel engines
even with the option to trade off C02 GWP ratio'd 'credits'. These concerns are further explained within
the attached document [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197 p.l]
APG also would like to understand how the EPA will credit C02 reductions enabled by vehicle efficiency
improvements (tires, Aero, drive-train friction reduction, etc) as the reported C02 results only come from
the FTP or RMC13 engine dynamometer tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197 p.l]
As the Proposed Phase II regulations allow C02 reported results to be taken from the FTP-HDT HHDD
test for vocational vehicle engines and from the RMC13 HHDD test for line haul vehicle engines, but all
HHDD vehicle engine CH4 and N20 reported emissions come from the FTP-HDT HHDD tests, would
the EPA consider allowing the CH4 and N20 emission reported results for come from the RMC13
HHDD test for line haul vehicle engines? The RMC13 test results are more representative of the line haul
vehicle duty cycle.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197 p.2]
Challenges to meet the proposed CH4 exhaust emission standard of 0.1 g/bhp-hr for a Dual Fuel (EPA -
Mixed-Fuel, ARB - Bi-Fuel, simultaneous diesel and NG fuel) Small Volume Manufacturer: The HHDD
diesel engine system configuration should have little to no challenge meeting the proposed Phase II GHG
CH4 standard of 0.1 g/bhp-h as there is no CH4 being induced or injected during diesel fueled engine
operation. In a Mixed-Fuel conversion, the OEM HHDD engine, engine control systems and after-
treatment systems (2010 and newer) are typically unchanged. This can present significant challenges to
the Mixed-Fuel system to meet the proposed GHG CH4 0.1 g/bhp-h emission standard. The reasons are
two-fold: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p.l]
2) After-treatment oxidation temperatures during the FTP Heavy Duty Transient Cycle
EPA/CARB certification test: In researching possible after-treatment alternatives to help oxidize the
'quench volume' induced CH4 exhaust emissions, after-treatment/Diesel Oxidation Catalyst suppliers
have investigated significantly higher precious metal loading (Pt) of current DOC configurations, but the
exhaust gas temperatures needed to oxidized 80% + of the exhaust CH4 (585oC) are not realized during
the EPA test used to determine CH4 emissions, the FTP~Heavy Duty Transient cycle emission tests,
(Please see Figures 1-2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1197-A1 p.l]
Conversely, conventional DOC's have a NMHC oxidation effectiveness of 80%+ at 300oC exhaust gas
temperature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p.l]
The cost increase associated with the increased Pt loading would more than double the DOC cost, but
would not provide for CH4 oxidation at a high enough effectiveness to significantly reduce CH4
emissions during the FTP Heavy Duty Transient cycle test. Furthermore changing the DOC within the
OEM DOC/DPF after-treatment system would void the OEM after-treatment system warranty. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p.l]
[Figure 1 can be found on p.2 and figure 2 can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1197-A1]
The current GHG regulations have HHDDE reportable C02 results from the FTP-Heavy Duty Transient
test cycle for vocational HHDDE vehicles and Ramped Modal Cycle 13 test for line-haul HHDDE
vehicles. All N20 and CH4 reportable HHDDE values come only for the FTP-HDT test results. As the
APG Mixed-Fuel system is utilized by line haul HHDDE vehicles we would respectfully request that
EPA allow all GHG emission values for HHDDE vehicle line haul applications be taken from the RMC
-------
13 test results as the RMC 13 test more represents our customers duty-cycle. Is there some reason the
CH4 and N20 reportable results are only used from the FTP-HDT cycle test? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1197-Alp.4]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports maintaining the Phase 1 CH4 standard of 0.10 g/hp-hr [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p. 19]
Cummins agrees with maintaining the Phase 1 CH4 standard. It is set at an appropriate, fuel neutral level
that constrains CH4 emissions while allowing natural gas engines to comply though the use of C02-
equivalent credits if necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.19]
Additionally, the Agencies are requesting comment on changing the GWP for CH4 and N20 for Phase 2.
Changes should only be made if they are Agency-wide, consistent across all GHG programs (for example,
light-duty, GHG inventories, reporting rules, etc.). Also, to the extent that Phase 1 credits are carrying
over and can be used for CH4 and N20 compliance in Phase 2, maintaining the same Phase 1 GWP
values is appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.31]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
CH4 Standards - EPA proposed to keep the methane standard at 0.10 g/bhp-hr with a 0.02 DF. We agree
that this is [redacted]. Therefore we agree with retaining the Phase 1 CH4 standard. 80 FR 40205. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.30]
Organization: NGVAmerica
I. Methane Emissions Cap & Averaging [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.8]
The phase 1 heavy-duty vehicle rulemaking, establishing greenhouse gas emission standards, included a
compliance alternative allowing heavy-duty manufacturers and conversion companies to comply with the
respective methane or nitrous oxide standards by means of over-complying with C02 standards. For
Phase 2, EPA proposes to extend this compliance flexibility. NGVAmerica commends EPA for again
extending this compliance option. Given that the ability to offset methane (and also nitrous oxide)
emissions with C02 credits is critical for new natural gas engines and vehicles, we strongly support this
provision. With respect to aftermarket conversions, we respectfully request that EPA consider the
comments in the previous section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.8]
Response:
EPA will continue to apply the Phase 1 methane engine standards to the Phase 2 program. EPA adopted
the cap standards for CH4 (along with N20 standards) as engine-based standards because the agency
believes that emissions of this GHG are technologically related solely to the engine, fuel, and emissions
after-treatment systems, and the agency is not aware of any influence of vehicle-based technologies on
these emissions. We are applying these cap standards against the FTP duty-cycle because the FTP cycle
is the most stringent with respect to emissions of these pollutants and we do not believe that a reduction is
stringency from the current Phase 1 standards is warranted. We also note that these standards were
adopted as anti-backsliding standards. Thus, we believe a simple broad test method is appropriate. The
FTP covers a broader range of test conditions than the RMC, including engine starting and low
temperature operation, which makes it an appropriate test cycle.
-------
EPA continues to believe that manufacturers of most engine technologies will be able to comply with the
Phase 1 CH4 standard with no technological improvements. We note that we are not aware of any new
cost-effective technologies that would have allowed us to adopt more stringent standards at this time.
Nevertheless, EPA will continue to monitor both emissions and the development of emission controls,
and may revisit these standards in a future action.
3.7 Compliance Provisions and Flexibilities for Engine Standards
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA Should Adopt and Improve Alternative Certification Approach
The agencies have requested comment on an alternative certification approach that would allow both
vehicles and engines to use the same drive cycles for certification. Allison supports this concept. One
benefit of adopting the alternative certification approach would be to alleviate the concerns of engine
manufacturers in providing detailed fuel consumption maps (containing proprietary information) for use
in GEM. In addition, it is reasonable to protect that the alternate approach will reduce testing burdens,
result in more meaningful and realistic fuel maps, result intransient fuel maps and better protect engine
and transmission intellectual property. Finally, the alternative certification approach would allow for and
realistically result in additional engine and transmission integration efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p.38]
There are several caveats, however, that are important to consider for adoption of the alternative approach
in the final rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.38]
(1) Further testing will be required to determine the accuracy of this approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.38]
(2) The approach will not address several real world fuel-economy improvement features that do not
receive credit in the proposed GEM - or in powertrain testing.62 Specifically, EPA and NHTSA should
improve the alternative certification approach to give credits to: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.38]
(a) Transmission elements that adjust shift points based on mass and grade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p.38]
(b) Transmission elements that manage vehicle acceleration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.38]
(3) EPA has included a preliminary comparison between the primary and alternative approaches, but this
comparison lacks cost estimates.63 While raising several key questions in terms of the credibility and
accuracy of the approach, another consideration must be the economic impact of adopting the alternative
approach and what entities would likely bear this cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.39]
Transmission elements and features such as those outlined above can make a substantial difference in
GHG emissions and fuel efficiency, resulting in a 5 to 15% reduction in GHG emissions and
improvement in fuel efficiency. EPA and NHTSA should therefore make efforts prior to finalization of
this rule to expand the alternative approach and incorporate additional currently "non-creditable"
features.64 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.39]
-------
62 See additional comments in Section IV.
63 RIA at 3-101.
64 Depending on the scope of this effort, additional regulatory process may be required.
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
In-Use Compliance and Useful Life - AAPC agrees with continuing the 3 percent adjustment factor
applied to the full useful-life certification standards for the purpose of determining in-use emissions and
fuel consumption standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.3]
Loose engine provision - AAPC recommends the continued allowance for "loose engine" sales to be
counted in the sales of the manufacturer's complete pickup and van products for greenhouse gases. Our
primary market continues to be complete heavy-duty vehicles in the 2b/3 classes with a relatively small
number of engines being sold to outside vehicle manufacturers. To continue to support this business
model, the AAPC members request the continued use of this provision to allow continuity in our business
practice. This continued flexibility will allow the individual manufacturers to accurately report
compliance of the "loose engine" sales. AAPC considers the Phase 1 final rule statement of reason to be
valid and required to comply with the complex Phase 2 greenhouse gas regulations - "...we are adopting a
related special provision involving chassis certification aimed at simplifying compliance for
manufacturers of complete heavy-duty pickups and vans that also sell a relatively small number of
engines..." (76 Federal Register 57260) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 11-12]
The Agencies requested comment (80 Federal Register 40206) on the appropriateness of continuing the 3
percent adjustment factor applied to the full useful-life certification standards for the purpose of
determining in-use emissions and fuel consumption standards. This adjustment factor was applied in
Phase 1 based on the Agencies' assessment of testing variability inherent in comparing results among
different laboratories and different engines. AAPC supports the continuance of this allowance for in-use
testing. No material advances have occurred that would result in the variability factors relevant in Phase 2
being significantly different than they were in Phase 1. Furthermore, the appropriateness of the 3%
allowance has not yet been assessed against actual in-use data on 2014 MY or later vehicles and engines
near their full useful lives. Absent such data, a thorough assessment of the appropriateness of this
allowance cannot be made. AAPC further notes that in-use verification program limits in Light-Duty are
10% to account for in-use variations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 16]
§ 1036.535 Determining engine fuel maps and fuel consumption at idle. Section 1036.535 requires the
OEM measure and record fuel flow and NOx emission rates at -143 points during the GEM fuel mapping
process. The NOx (g/s) measurement proposed standards potentially implicate and imply new criteria
pollutants requirements that where not discussed or evaluated in the RIA. Additionally, the provisions of
CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) seem to apply, notably the requirement of four years lead time and three years
stability. Given these considerations AAPC recommend removing the NOx (g/s) reporting requirement
from 1036.535 or making it voluntary until a subsequent heavy-duty on-road emission rule making.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.33]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
-------
Comment - Appropriateness of useful life adjustment factor
The NPRM requests comment on the useful life adjustment factor allowance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.158]
Consistent with Section 202(a)(1) and 202(d) of the CAA, for Phase 1, U.S. EPA established in-use
standards for heavy-duty engines. Based on their assessment of testing variability and other relevant
factors, U.S. EPA established in-use standards by adding a 3 percent adjustment factor to the full useful
life emissions and fuel consumption results measured in U.S. EPA certification process to address
measurement variability inherent in comparing results among different laboratories and different engines.
See 40 CFR part 1036. U.S. EPA and NHTSA are not proposing to change this for Phase 2, but request
comment on whether this allowance is still necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 158]
CARB staff believes that the current 3 percent adjustment factor should be removed. An emission
standard inherently already accounts for measurement variability due to different laboratories and engines
being tested. While the 3 percent in-use factor was allowed for Phase 1 vehicles since the Phase 1
standards were new, this in-use factor should not be necessary for Phase 2 vehicles. Historically, CARB
typically does allow an in-use factor when phasing in new standards that force new technology. Many
manufacturers have already implemented the technologies that will be required to meet the proposed
Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 159]
In conclusion, CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to not apply the proposed 3 percent
adjustment factor to the in-use emission standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 159]
Neutral/Provide Additional Info Comment
Comment - Not-to-Exceed (NTE) Standards
There may be opportunities to fold in-use compliance testing for C02 and N20 into the NTE protocol
currently in place for criteria pollutants. This could provide greater assurance of in-use compliance, and
provide manufacturers an efficient way to demonstrate in-use compliance for greenhouse gas and criteria
pollutants simultaneously. When U.S. EPA and NHTSA next consider changes to the NOx standards and
NTE requirements, CARB staff recommends considering adding in-use testing of C02 and N20. A
manufacturer could conduct NTE testing and determine in-use compliance for the entire suite of
pollutants (GHG as well as other criteria pollutants). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 159]
CARB staff also suggests that tracking of vehicle weight and speed with engine C02/N20 emissions
could be used as a tool to determine overall vehicle performance. This information could be used as a
GEM correction/correlation tool going forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 159]
Organization: Clean Energy
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 249.]
And, for the record, we are strongly supportive of closed crank systems for spark-ignited engines in our
space as they have successfully implemented this strategy in Europe.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
-------
Cummins opposes the exclusion of curb idle torque from the engine certification cycle work calculation
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p. 19]
In 40 CFR 1036.501(g)(1), the Agencies are proposing to exclude work generated during "any portion of
the duty cycle that has a zero reference value for normalized torque." This modification can increase the
brake specific C02 calculated on the certification cycle by up to 8% for engines being used with
automatic transmissions. The Agencies' belief that this change is insignificant is incorrect. The addition
of curb idle torque to a cycle does not always reduce the cycle's brake specific C02 emissions. More fuel
is burned to achieve that higher cycle work, so the impact of that extra work on the total cycle
performance depends on how efficiently that extra fuel is burned. Engine certification based on the engine
work performed is the appropriate measure. How efficiently that engine work is used to propel the vehicle
is accounted for in the vehicle regulation and does not need to be considered in the engine regulation.
Furthermore, exclusion of curb idle torque work for C02 certification yields an inconsistency between
criteria emissions and C02 evaluation, undermining regulatory integrity. Criteria emission and GHG
emission results must be consistently measured and calculated over the same test protocols. For these
reasons, 40 CFR 1036.501(g)(1) should not be finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.19]
Cummins supports continuation of a 3% compliance margin for engine C02 emissions rEPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p.22]
In Phase 1, a 3% compliance margin was provided for engine C02 emissions to be applied during
selective enforcement audit (SEA) and in-use testing. This margin accounts for measurement variations
between facilities and engines. The Agencies are proposing to maintain the 3% compliance margin for
engine standards in Phase 2, and Cummins supports this proposal. A similar 3% compliance margin
should be applied to GEM results from the engine fuel map used for the vehicle program for SEA testing,
as suggested in EMA's comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.22]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
The FCL to FEL allowance is still necessary - In Phase 1, the agencies created a 3 percent adjustment
factor to the FEL results measured in the certification process thereby accounting for lab to lab and engine
to engine variability (i.e., by applying a 1.03 multiplier to the C02 FCL to establish the FEL for C02
levels established during the engine certification process). The agencies request comment from
manufacturers regarding continuation of the Phase 1 approach. 80 FR 40206. DTNA supports the
agencies' proposal to continue to utilize this adjustment factor since one can expect that testing variability
and other factors considered by the agencies in establishing this approach will not change significantly in
the timeframe of Phase 2. DTNA also believes that a variability allowance is also applicable to a
manufacturers certified fuel map to account for the same sources of variability and strongly recommends
that EPA address the issue in Phase 2 in a similar manner as in Phase 1, for the same reasons (as
discussed in our comments above). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 12-13]
DF For Criteria Pollutants, C02, and N20 - The agencies discuss DF test procedures and request
comment, particularly for how to apply DFs on low level pollutant emissions for which test-to-test
variability may be larger than the actual deterioration rates being measured (e.g., N20). 80 FR 40206.
The current dynamometer medium-heavy and heavy-heavy duty diesel DF methodology is overly
burdensome and costly while yielding DF results that are driven as much by test-to-test variation as the
actual deterioration in emissions that the DF testing is designed to characterize. The cost to the
manufacture for a 50% unaccelerated useful life DF test, EPA's preferred method, is in excess of $1 M
and takes a minimum of 40 weeks to complete. Since DF's must be complete prior to the finalizing the
emissions calibration, DF testing must start, at the latest, 20 months prior to start of production. Since this
-------
leaves no time to start a new DF engine, in the event of a catastrophic failure of engine or aftertreatment
system, manufactures typically run multiple DF's in an effort to generate a DF that is driven by
measurement capability as much or more than the actual deterioration in emissions characteristics. As an
example, a measurement noise level of 0.02 g/hphr extrapolated within the calculation can result in a 20-
40% non-aging effect that is enough to influence the final result to be potentially non-representative.
Additionally, due to time, resource, and cost constraints, most manufacturers only conduct emissions at 3
points, beginning, middle, and end, and extrapolate the DF to full useful life via a straight line linear
regression, as required by EPA. This linear "curve fit" and extrapolation does not necessarily yield a DF
that is representative of an actual aged to full useful system. NOx standards below today's level, if
adopted, will only serve to exacerbate the influence of test to test variation as well as measurement error
on the actual emissions DF. DDC recommends EPA adopt an optional assigned DF for dynamometer
certified medium-heavy and heavy-heavy duty diesel engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 17-
18]
DF for Hybrids or Cases with High Measurement Variability - The agencies request comment on DF
procedures where deterioration is nonlinear, for example a saw-tooth as might happen with hybrids if the
batteries are replaced during a test. 80 FR 40206. We think that it is unlikely given the duration of hybrid
testing that a battery would be replaced for normal maintenance reasons, so a saw-tooth is unlikely. But if
it were, the DF paradigm would be incorrect. The Clean Air Act requires regulating emission standards
over the useful life, but it does not require the use of a DF. CAA § 202(a)(1). Where the tip of the saw-
tooth represents the worst-case emissions over the useful life, that is the emission level that must be lower
than the emission standard—not an extrapolation through that point. For this reason, we think that the
agencies' focus on saw-tooth patterns and extrapolation is improper. Similarly, the agencies pose
questions about basing the DF on the highest value measured. 80 FR 40206. The idea of taking the
highest point tested and extrapolating through that point is improper, as the highest point in any test—
especially as we get to low emission levels—could be confounded by measurement noise. Rather, the
agencies should stick with extrapolation unconstrained by the erroneous requirement to pass through the
highest point. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p. 18]
Potential Alternative Certification (Cycle Average Mapping) Approach - The agencies request
comment on an approach that could mitigate certain engine manufacturer concerns by allowing both
vehicle and engine to use the same driving cycle for certification. 80 FR 40193. In this proposal, GEM
generates engine torque and speed profiles for a subsequent engine dyno test of the engine family parent
rating, the results of which are then input back into GEM for vehicle compliance purposes for any engine
rating. This is a very complicated procedure, and we have not had time to evaluate it. But we have
concerns that testing the parent of a family on a drive cycle that involves gear shifts and high torque
operation will not characterize the results of the child ratings to the level of accuracy needed for this
regulation, and may in fact provide an easy pass for certain ratings. Further, we are concerned that to
resolve the inaccuracy the process will force manufacturers to test most or all child ratings, thereby
exacerbating the already increased burden of this process, rather than easing the burden as the agencies
suggest will happen. More accurately, we see little benefit in terms of accuracy and no benefit in terms of
protecting CBI (as we have stated elsewhere in our comments, the fuel map does not convey CBI), yet we
see much increased test burden. We recommend against adopting this alternative certification approach
or, at least, we recommend delaying making regulations on this procedure until there has been adequate
time to resolve the many outstanding issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.43]
Dual rating engines, remote changes to fuel map, etc - The EPA proposes that, for vehicles that have
multi-torque ratings or vehicles whose engine ratings might be reflashed, the vehicle manufacturer
certifies the vehicle using in GEM the worst-case rating that the vehicle might see in its lifetime. (This
was based on oral discussions with the agency and is not written in the NPRM. Nonetheless, we feel it
-------
important to respond). As a preface to our comments, it is important to explain certain aspects of our
industry just to make sure the agencies are aware. Heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers and their dealers
need the ability to reflash engine ratings, e.g., because many vehicles are sold as stock vehicles with a
generic rating that will be reflashed when the vehicle is configured to its particular customer and job
application, and because many vehicles change jobs during their lifetime such that they need power curve
changes to perform the new task. However, we do not know a priori which vehicles will need to be
reflashed. If the EPA required that we take a penalty—using the worst-case rating is a penalty—for a
practice inherent in the industry, then the EPA would need to factor such penalty into its standard setting
process and in turn loosen the emission standards. If the EPA is unwilling to do so, then the agency needs
to provide flexibility so as to avoid stifling an important industry practice. We propose that the EPA allow
us to reflash an engine's rating to another rating selected from the ratings certified within the subject
certified engine family and whose emissions control and fuel consumption characteristics are of common
design. We understand the EPA's concern that manufacturers might sell a vehicle with a "best-case"
rating (meaning the rating that gives the lowest fuel consumption in GEM) but, immediately upon sale of
the vehicle, reflash the rating to a higher emission one. We would not do that, however, because it is
prohibited tampering, prohibited under the CAA. But to give the EPA even more certainty that we are not
trying to game the system, we would agree to track the vehicles and report their actual rating at the end of
the 270 day reporting period after the close of the model year. (Note that we are using the 270 day
number because, as we mention elsewhere in our comments, the 90 day number is too short for the EPA
to get valuable information). Similarly, if in the future we have software that reflashes a rating on the fly,
then we propose that the EPA accept that the heavy-duty industry does so to facilitate vehicle operators'
business and thus treats this not as prohibited tampering but as an allowable act. This would be similar to
the allowance to change vehicle configurations currently in 1037.655, except that we should not be
hamstrung by the limitation on doing this before the regulatory useful life expires; optimizing fuel
efficiency should not wait until the end of the useful life. And this would not limit us to modifications that
only result in a decrease of fuel consumption, as it may be necessary for a vehicle to have higher torque
and higher fuel consumption than when it was built so that it can complete a task. In short, we
recommend that the EPA exercise its regulatory discretion to allow multi-torque ratings or reflashing
without penalizing manufacturers. (Concurrent with this change, the EPA should amend 1037.655 to
reflect the agency's intent to allow modifications that are necessary for vehicle owners to complete their
jobs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.47-48]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Engine mapping procedure
Regarding the agencies' consideration of an alternative mapping procedure, we offer several comments.
In principle, we support the agencies seeking to better estimate real-world transient effect of engines in
full-vehicle operational settings. We believe this alternative mapping approach does offer the potential for
improved fidelity regarding transient effects, to better promote transient operation efficiency and better
reflect real-world effects. However, such a dramatic change engine certification and the GEM process ~
without substantial data, and without a public understanding of the data comparing the methods for
multiple high volume engines by various companies, and without detailed assessment of the pros and
cons of the alternative approach ~ would be premature. We do not believe that the agencies have put
forward sufficient information to validate a shift to the alternative mapping method at this time. We also
believe that it is critical that the agencies' require engine manufacturers to submit all engine maps that
will be utilized in real-world driving to ensure the regulators can understand how the regulation connects
to the real world operation of the engines and vehicles. Especially for a regulation such as this that is
based fundamentally on the simulation of engines and based on limited data from a select few parent
engines, for regulators to not have detailed maps (e.g., 100 engine torque and speed points) would
-------
essentially provide no ability to monitor and ensure compliance and troubleshoot on any potential in-use
issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 14]
Organization: Isuzu Motors Limited
Isuzu also would like to the have the agencies extend the loose engine provision from the Phase I Rule.
Currently the loose engine provision is scheduled to end in 2020MY. Isuzu would like to see the rule
extended to at least through 2024MY. This provision allows us to continue to provide Class 3,4 and
above Spark Ignited products in limited quantities and also still allows us to produce alternative gaseous
fueled vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1263-A1 p.3]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Ensure Technology-Neutral, Performance-Based Standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.3]
Beginning with regulations for Class 7 and 8 engines and vehicles, we agree with classification of vehicle
technologies based on end-user expectations for useful life and emissions warranty. Although certain
criteria outlined in Table 11-17 do not logically apply to Heavy Duty SI engines, we agree with
classification of vehicle technologies based on end-user expectations for useful life and emissions
warranty. If left as proposed, it does not provide sufficient clarity for criteria emission requirements. The
agencies should take a technology-neutral, performance-based approach in order to provide a predictable,
consistent and level playing field for technologies and energy sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-
A1 p.3-4]
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA)
Classification of Alternative Fuel Engines
We disagree with the agencies' classification of spark-ignited alternative fuel engines under the same
emissions standards as diesel fuel engines for vehicles at and above 19,500 lbs GVWR.25 We find the
classification adverse to the overall objectives of the NPRM as well as an inaccurate assessment of
alternative fuel engines for heavier vehicles. The agencies determine that similar treatment of spark-
ignited alternative fuel engines to diesel for this weight range is logical because, in part, the likely
competition to alternative fuels in this weight range are diesel engines.26 Firstly, it is inaccurate to assume
that diesel fuel engines are the principle vehicle type at and above 19,500 lbs GVWR.27 There are many
vehicles at that weight that are fueled by gasoline. Moreover, autogas is an increasingly popular
alternative fuel for school buses, among other medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Therefore, the existence
of alternative and gasoline fueled vehicles above 19,500 lbs GVWR renders application of the standards
for diesel engines incongruous with the actual demographics of such weight range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1272-A1 p.3]
Secondly, the agencies' decision to apply the standards for diesel engines to alternative fuel engines
creates a disincentive for the expansion of alternative fuel. Over the years, diesel engines have been
subject to increasingly technical, discerning regulations implemented over a timeframe that facilitates
research, development and disbursement throughout the marketplace for gradual improvement. Unlike the
tactful, timely evolution of standards for diesel engines, the analogous approach in the NPRM proposes
immediate application of such evolved standards to alternative fuels that are in various stages of
development; to some degree, less advanced than diesel engines. If required to meet the same standards as
diesel engines, it is our concern that dissemination of alternative fuels, like autogas, to the public would
be delayed or precluded due to additional time in research and development, higher cost, etc. Therefore,
-------
the result of the proposed analogous treatment of diesel fuel engines and alternative fuel engines for
vehicles at and above 19,500 lbs GVWR may be a general disincentive for autogas, among other
alternative fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1272-A1 p.4]
25 Id. at 40208.
26 Id.
27 Id.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Engine Family/Subfamily Certification
Manufacturers need flexibility for engine GHG subfamilies within NOx certification families. A
requirement to certify with a new NOx family when differences in technologies only affect GHG/fuel
efficiency of the engine will add to certification burdens, costs, OBD demonstrations, certification fees,
etc. PACCAR requests the Agencies work with manufacturers to develop a reasonable resolution of this
issue. The subfamily approach used for vehicles may be a viable concept. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1204-A1 p.30]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Parent-Child Engine Ratings
One open question that the Agencies have raised is whether they should set additional Phase 2 C02 and
fuel consumption standards for the other engine ratings (often called the "child ratings") within an engine
family. EPA has requested comment from manufacturers regarding the continuation of the Phase 1
approach to GHG certification of an engine family, pursuant to which the certification of the parent and
child ratings is based on emissions results from testing the parent rating. (See 80 FR at 40206). EMA
supports the continuation of this Phase 1 approach for the certification of parent and child ratings, and
also supports the Phase 1 requirement that parent rating sales volumes achieve a minimum level. EMA
further agrees that by including the actual fuel map and rating-specific full load curve in the GEM
simulation, the range of engine ratings are appropriately represented in the vehicle certification. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.32]
Powertrain Compliance Responsibility
Proposed 1036.630 allows an engine manufacturer to choose to include engines used in powertrain
families in their engine families. However, under proposed section 1036.630(b), even if an engine
manufacturer chooses not to certify any engines in the family over the powertrain test cycles, EPA may
still require the engine manufacturer to participate in recalls associated with a powertrain-associated GHG
emissions exceedance when the powertrain has presumably been certified by some other manufacturer.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.43]
An engine manufacturer should not be held responsible for powertrain test results certified by a different
manufacturer, since the engine manufacturer may not have knowledge of the engine test cycles or the
-------
compliance margin used by the manufacturer certifying the powertrain test. In such a case, the engine
manufacturer should only be liable for the FTP/SET-based and the engine fuel map-based GHG emissions
for which the engine is certified. In that regard, EPA already has other means of ensuring engine
compliance, such as through engine SEAs and in-use testing of the engine family. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.43]
Alternative-Fuel Engines
As in Phase 1, alternative-fuel engines are included within the scope of the Phase 2 GHG/FE program.
EMA has no objection to that aspect of the Phase 2 program, nor to the Agencies' proposal for how
alternative-fuel engines are to be classified as either compression-ignition ("CI") or spark-ignited ("SI")
engines in the context of the proposed GHG emission standards. (See Proposed section 1036.140).
However, the Agencies should clarify that the proposal also applies to the manner in which engine
manufacturers categorize their alternative-fuel engines with respect to compliance with the emission
standards for criteria pollutants, as well as with respect to the categorization of vocational vehicles for
GHG/F
E purposes. (See, e.g., Proposed §1037.105 (Table 3).) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.45]
Measuring NOx During Fuel-Mapping
EMA objects to the Agencies' proposed requirement that manufacturers also measure NOx emissions
during the proposed engine and powertrain fuel-mapping processes. There is no need or reasonable
justification for that added testing burden on top of processes that already require the development of a
143-point engine map (plus 4 idle test points) and a 24-to-27 point powertrain map. Moreover, since
manufacturers still remain subject to NTE and SEA requirements, other regulatory mechanisms are
already in place to guard against any discernible backsliding with respect to the control of NOx
emissions. In sum, there is no basis for imposing an additional NOx-testing burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.48]
Deterioration Factor for C02 Emissions
EMA agrees with the Agencies that the Phase 2 deterioration factor for C02 emissions should remain at
0.0 g/hp-hr. Engine manufacturers do not foresee utilizing engine technologies that would increase C02
emissions as the engines age. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.63]
In the NPRM, the Agencies request comment on how to apply DFs to low-level emission measurements
where test-to-test variability may be larger than the actual deterioration rates measured. (See 80 FR at
40206). That challenging question arises when regulated emissions levels are approaching zero, as they
are now. EMA believes that the best way to address the Agencies' question is to analyze the emissions
data from the EMA DF Test Program that industry is currently conducting with oversight from both EPA
and CARB. Under the DF Test Program, a number of engines are being operated for thousands of hours
and are generating emissions data throughout that extensive testing. At the conclusion of that test
program, EMA will be in a much better position to address the Agencies' question regarding how best to
apply a DF to low-level emissions measurements. When the DF Test Program concludes next year, EMA
will analyze the available data together with EPA and CARB, and at that time will be able to provide
more informed input. Additionally, at that time, EMA, EPA and CARB can assess whether any potential
changes to the application of DFs to low-level emissions should be carried over to criteria pollutant
emissions to maintain consistency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.63-64]
Organization: Volvo Group
-------
En pine Families
Volvo Group also notes that there is an opportunity to simplify the certification burden by making
modifications to the definition of the engine family. As has been discussed in the past, there is a marked
difference in the engine family definition for On-Highway engines versus Non-Road engines. The method
utilized for On-Highway is based more on traditional convention where the defining parameters were
centered on the base engine (e.g. bore center-to-center dimensions). However, the Non-Road regulations
are more flexible and allow engines of the same architecture, but differing displacements to be grouped
into the same engine families. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.41]
The intention of the definition is to group engines of similar emissions characteristics. The current
definition has not been updated since the advent of modern aftertreatment systems and unduly segregates
engines of like nature based on parameters that no longer have a bearing on emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.41]
Volvo Group recommends a revision of the Engine Family definition, which would better align it with
modern emissions related families (e.g. Engine Families, Powertrain Families) that an OEM (and the
EPA) have to manage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.41]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
(a) Cummins agrees the reweighted Ramped-Modal Cycle Supplemental Emissions Test (RMCSET)
reflects the engine downspeeding trend of HD engines. However, the current criteria emissions protocol
has a different NOx weighting than the proposed C02 RMCSET. Different weighting factors may allow
C02 improvement at the expense of increased NOx emissions. Any future rulemaking on criteria
emissions should reestablish the link between NOx and C02 emission test cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298-A1 p.7]
(b) Separate credit for engine downspeeding at the vehicle level conveys C02 benefit in the vehicle
program which is not reflected in the engine standard and may be accomplished at the expense of in-use
NOx emissions, especially when downspeeding leads to operation outside the NOx NTE zone. Figure 1
shows a copy of Figure 2-14 from the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Overlaid on this figure is
the NTE zone for the criteria emissions regulation and the engine operating speeds for the vehicle on the
55 and 65 MPH GEM cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1298-A1 p.8]
Cummins opposes engine manufacturers being held liable for powertrain results submitted by another
manufacturer [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.40]
In 40 CFR 1036.630(b), the Agencies are proposing to require that engine manufacturers participate in
recalls associated with a powertrain GHG exceedance, even if the engine manufacturer did not generate
the powertrain results. For reasons outlined in EMA's comments, Cummins opposes engine
manufacturers being liable for powertrain results submitted by other manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p.40]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The requirement for NOx measurement during the 143 point fuel mapping exercise is unnecessary,
burdensome and redundant to the existing certification (FTP and RMC, AECD qualification) and
compliance testing (confirmatory, SEA and NTE). We believe there is no development, certification or
compliance value in collecting this data. Furthermore, for the purposes of modeling, manufacturers have
-------
sufficient second-by-second emissions data that can be designated as CBI and provided to the EPA upon
request. We agree with EMA comments on this topic as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.23]
10 42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(3)(C). Navistar believes this provision applies to this rulemaking since this rule
addresses heavy duty vehicles and engines. Even if it didn't, however, as the NPRM notes, EPA
acknowledges that four years of lead time is necessary and the four year lead time of EISA does apply.
NPRM at 40150.
Organization: Eaton Vehicle GroupEaton
Data acquired with powertrain testing
We do question the implications of the proposed retaining of NOx measured data. While we do
understand the concern that the engine and transmission controller might adversely impact the NOx
emissions, we believe that is an issue of all advanced powertrains certified through the powertrain test or
just through GEM simulation. Therefore, we do not see the added value of recording emission data on
select powertrains (not those certified under GEM only). Additionally, such data collection is an added
burden to the testing entity and it raises questions on the accuracy and cell calibration requirements.
Indeed, if the data is recorded for archival purposes only, the testing entity would have to maintain full
criteria emissions capabilities similar to an engine emissions certification test cell. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1194-A1 p.10]
Recommendation: the EPA should not require certification-grade NOx data, as there is no standard to
compare it to and it puts the burden on non-engine manufacturers to implement advanced engine
measurements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1194-A1 p. 10]
We expect the data provided from the powertrain test be treated as business confidential and competitive
intellectual property. We believe the amount of data should be limited to the minimum necessary for
certification, especially as powertrain manufacturers are both suppliers and competitors of the OEMs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 10]
Response:
Engine Classification
EPA emission standards have always applied differently for gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled engines.
The regulations in 40 CFR part 86 implement these distinctions by dividing engines into Otto-cycle and
Diesel-cycle technologies. This approach led EPA to categorize highway natural gas engines according
to their design history. A diesel engine converted to run on natural gas was classified as a diesel-cycle
engine; a gasoline engine converted to run on natural gas was classified as an Otto-cycle engine.
Under the existing EPA regulatory definitions of "compression-ignition" and "spark-ignition," a natural
gas engine would generally be considered compression-ignition if it operates with lean air-fuel mixtures
and uses a pilot injection of diesel fuel to initiate combustion, and would generally be considered spark-
ignition if it operates with stoichiometric air-fuel mixtures and uses a spark plug to initiate combustion.
As described in Section II.D.(5)(e), EPA proposed a change because we now believe this approach does
not fully reflect the reality that engines used in Class 8 vehicles compete directly with diesel engines.
-------
EPA's basic premise for the proposed change is that natural gas engines performing similar in-use
functions as diesel engines should be subject to similar regulatory requirements. The compression-
ignition emission standards and testing requirements reflect the operating characteristics for the full range
of heavy-duty vehicles, including substantial operation in long-haul service characteristic of tractors. The
spark-ignition emission standards and testing requirements do not include some of those provisions
related to use in long-haul service or other applications where diesel engines predominate, such as steady-
state testing, Not-to-Exceed standards, and extended useful life. We believe it would be inappropriate to
apply the spark-ignition standards and requirements to natural gas engines that are being used in
applications mostly served by diesel engines today. We therefore proposed to adopt a differentiated
approach to certification of natural gas engines across all of the EPA standards - for both GHGs and
criteria pollutants. 80 FR 40207.
We are finalizing this provision with modifications. We will require manufacturers to divide all their
natural gas engines into primary intended service classes, as we already require for compression-ignition
engines, whether or not the engine has features that otherwise could (in theory) result in classification as
SI under the current rules. We proposed that any natural gas engine qualifying as a medium heavy-duty
engine (19,500 to 33,000 lbs. GVWR) or a heavy heavy-duty engine (over 33,000 lbs. GVWR) would be
subject to all the emission standards and other requirements that apply to compression-ignition engines.
However, based on these comments, we are finalizing this change only for heavy heavy-duty engines.
Commenters identified medium heavy-duty applications in which SI alternative fuel engines compete
significantly with gasoline engines, which is not consistent with the premise of the proposal. Thus, we
are not finalizing the proposed change for medium heavy-duty engines.
We are not aware of any currently certified engines that will change from compression-ignition to spark-
ignition under this approach. Nonetheless, because these proposed changes could result in a change in
standards for engines currently under development, we believe it is appropriate to provide additional lead
time. We will therefore continue to apply the existing interim provision through model year 2020.42
Starting in model year 2021, all the provisions will apply as described above for heavy heavy-duty
engines. Manufacturers will not be permitted to certify any engine families using carryover emission data
if a particular engine model switched from compression-ignition to sparkk-ignition, or vice versa.
However, as noted above, in practice these vehicles are already being certified as CI engines, so we view
these changes as clarifications ratifying the current status quo.
These provisions will apply equally to engines fueled by any fuel other than gasoline or ethanol, should
such engines be produced in the future. Given the current and historic market for vehicles above 33,000
lbs. GVWR, the agencies believe any alternative-fueled vehicles in this weight range will be competing
primarily with diesel vehicles and should be subject to the same requirements as them.
Finally, beginning in 2021, we will limit the ability of these medium heavy-duty engines operating on
alternate fuels to generate credits relative to the SI standards. However, should we identify a more
precise way to differentiate between SI engines that compete primarily with gasoline engines from those
that compete significantly with diesel engines, we may reconsider this restriction.
42 Section 202 (a)(2), applicable to emissions of greenhouse gases, does not mandate a specific period of lead time,
but EPA sees no reason for a different compliance date here for GHGs and criteria pollutants. This is also true with
respect to the closed crankcase emissions discussed in the following subsection. Also, as explained in section
I.E.i.e, EPA interprets the phrase "classes or categories of heavy duty vehicles or engines" in CAA 202(a)(3)(C) to
refer to categories of vehicles established according to features such as their engine cycle (spark-ignition or
compression-ignition). 1.
-------
In-Use FEL Adjustment
In Phase 1, the agencies adopted a compliance structure using two related compliance levels: the "family
certification level" (FCL); and the "family emission limit" (FEL), which is specified in the regulations to
be equal to 1.03 times the FCL. This structure, which was adopted to address several areas of uncertainty,
applied the FCL for certification testing and the FEL for production-line and in-use testing. The agencies
proposed to continue this approach for Phase 2.
Manufacturers supported continuation of this approach while CARB opposed it, arguing that it is
inconsistent with past practices for other standards. The agencies understand CARB's goal of eliminating
the 3% in-use adjustment, but do not have enough information to do so at this time. Thus we will
continue to evaluate the need for this adjustment as we gather data from production-line and in-use
engines.
It is important to emphasize that, although we are including this in the final Phase 2 regulations, we do
not expect manufacturers to design their engines to have higher fuel consumption in-use than they have
during certification. Rather, we expect most engine families to meet their FCLs in actual use. Thus, if we
collect sufficient data in the future that allows us to determine the 3% is too large of even unnecessary, we
could revise of eliminate it without impacting the intended stringency of the standards.
Manufacturers argued that we should extend this approach to fuel maps. We did not propose this because
we believe the broader nature of the fuel maps further reduces the need for any in-use adjustments. This
is even more appropriate under the final regulations, which has revised the SEA test provisions to further
reduce variability.
In a related matter, CARB supported applying the not-to-exceed (NTE) approach to GHG emissions.
However, we have not determined how this could be applied, or if it would be appropriate to do so.
Nevertheless, we will continue to evaluate this and may reconsider such action in the future.
CITT
In an attempt to simplify the test procedures, the agencies proposed to exclude work generated during any
portion of the duty cycle that has a zero reference value for normalized torque. However, manufacturers
objected noting that the change would make the engine standards more stringent. Because this was not
our intent, we are not finalizing this change.
Deterioration Factors
The agencies are finalizing the deterioration factor provisions essentially as proposed, which
manufacturers generally supported. However, DDC objected to what it appears to believe to be the
agencies proposed approach for engines and vehicles with nonlinear deterioration patterns. DDC appears
to believe the agencies proposed or were considering an approach where deterioration would be
extrapolated in a way to overestimate emissions. This is not correct. The proposed deterioration factor
approach (which is being finalized) requires only that the final deteriorated emission level reflect the
highest level projected to occur within the useful life - whether it occurs at the beginning, the end, or
somewhere in between.
EPA also requested comment on how to apply DFs on low level pollutant emissions for which test-to-test
variability may be larger than the actual deterioration rates being measured. EPA generally agrees with
the type of approach suggested in EMA's comments. EMA believes that the best way to address the
-------
Agencies' question is to analyze the emissions data from the EMA DF Test Program that industry is
currently conducting with oversight from both EPA and CARB.
Reflashing Engine Controls
DDC objected to requirements/prohibitions related to reflashing engine controls in-use. Viewed from the
perspective of certification, this is a requirements for manufacturers to certify based on the worst case
ratings. Viewed from an in-use perspective, it is a prohibition against configuring the engine in a manner
that is inconsistent with the certificate. It is unclear to what aspect of this approach DDC is objecting
because it acknowledges and accepts the prohibition of tampering. Therefore, the agencies will continue
to work with manufacturers to clarify what is and is not permissible.
Alternative Cycle-Average Fuel Mapping
The agencies requested comment on an alternative mapping procedure based on engine testing over
the GEM duty cycles over a range of simulated vehicle configurations. This approach would use GEM to
generate engine duty cycles by simulating a range of transmissions and other vehicle variations. See 80
FR 40179. Comments received on this issue during the formal comment period that ended on September
11, 2015 were mixed. However, since then the agencies have met with manufacturers and other
interested stakeholders to improve this approach, which have led some who initially opposed this
approach to become more supportive.43 For additional discussion on the development of the cycle
average mapping procedure see RIA Chapter 3.1.2.6.
Engine Manufacturer Liability
EMA commented that engine manufacturers "should not be held responsible for powertrain test results
certified by a different manufacturer, since the engine manufacturer may not have knowledge of the
engine test cycles or the compliance margin used by the manufacturer certifying the powertrain test." It
added that "the engine manufacturer should only be liable for the FTP/SET-based and the engine fuel
map-based GHG emissions for which the engine is certified." We largely agree with these statements,
with an important clarification. Should we determine from powertrain testing that the engines are causing
vehicle noncompliance because the engines do not conform to their certificates of conformity, we may
require the engine manufacturer to participate in a recall to remedy the noncompliance.
Engine Families
The agencies did not propose to significantly change the engine family provisions. However, PACCAR
commented on engine families, apparently in reference to the provision in §1036.230 (d), which states:
Engine configurations within an engine family must use equivalent greenhouse gas emission
controls. Unless we approve it, you may not produce nontested configurations without the same
emission control hardware included on the tested configuration. We will only approve it if you
demonstrate that the exclusion of the hardware does not increase greenhouse gas emissions.
PACCAR suggested the agencies work with manufacturers to consider flexibility in applying this
provision, which is allowed under the existing language.
43 Memos to Docket, "Test Procedure Review with Cummins, Volvo, Navistar, Paccar, Daimler Eaton and Allison."
-------
Volvo suggested more fundamental changes. Given the broad nature of their suggestion, we believe it
would be more appropriate to consider it in a separate rulemaking with additional notice and comment.
Loose Engines
The agencies proposed to not continue beyond Phase 1 the interim "loose engine" allowance for engines
equivalent to engines in chassis-certified HD pickups and vans. AAPC and Isuzu both commented in
support of extending it into Phase 2. However, this provision was originally intended only as a
transitional provision as the agencies began regulating GHGs and fuel consumption for heavy-duty
engines. Thus, we do not believe it would be appropriate to continue it indefinitely. Nevertheless, we see
some value in extending it for an additional three years (through MY 2023), subject to a lower production
of 10,000 engines per engine manufacturer, per model year.
Measuring NOx Emissions
AAPC commented that NOx measurement could "imply new criteria pollutants requirements that [were]
not discussed or evaluated in the RIA." This is not the case. Rather, the NOx information would be
evaluated for compliance only in the context of existing requirements. EMA objects to the requirement to
measure NOx emissions during the engine fuel-mapping processes, based on their concerns about test
burden. EMA argues that "there is no basis for imposing an additional NOx-testing burden." However,
this ignores EPA's previously stated interest in ensuring NOx and C02 emissions are controlled
simultaneously. Nevertheless, we are finalizing some provisions to address the concerns about test
burden. In particular, we note that we will allow manufacturers to use field-grade NOx instruments,
which can be less expensive and easier to use. We also will not require manufacturers to invalidate fuel
maps if the NOx measurement fails during the mapping.
In addition, we believe requiring NOx measurements will address concerns such as those raised by
Cummins.
Crankcase Emissions
Spark-ignition engines are already required to have closed crankcases. See Section 12.7 of this RTC for a
discussion of crankcase emissions from natural gas-fueled engines and vehicles.
3.8 Engine Test Procedures
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Vocational Engines - AAPC details multiple concerns associated with idle work, infrequent regeneration
adjustment factors (IRAF), and test fuel changes and recommends approaches for addressing these
concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.3]
Heavy Duty Diesel Urea Decomposition Adjustment
AAPC believes it is inappropriate to downward adjust Heavy-Duty diesel C02 requirements by 2 g C02 /
bhp-hr to reflect urea decomposition without supporting data. To perform an accurate analysis,
AAPC recommends that the Agencies collect, analyze and report on feedgas NOx emission rates, urea
dosing rates, and resulting tailpipe NOx levels for a wide variety of diesel engines, power ratings, and
aftertreatment system configurations used today and in future years. The test program should collect data
-------
on the cold and hot Heavy-Duty FTP and RMC test cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.29-
30]
§ 1036.530 fuel adjustment impacts on C02
The planned change from Tier 2 to Tier 3 gasoline certification fuel by the end of 2022MY significantly
changes baseline 2017MY HDGE and GEM starting assumptions. Furthermore, the impact of test fuel
change was not discussed, documented, or analyzed in the draft RIA and or proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.28]
AAPC members conducted heavy-duty gasoline engine transient testing with four different fuels. The
results indicated that a change to Tier 3 E10 regular grade test fuel amounts to an additional 3% increase
in stringency relative to baseline assumptions for over 14,0001b GVWR gasoline products. AAPC
recommends that the specific Tier 3 E10 regular gasoline factor (BTU/lbm C) be developed for Tier 3
E10 certification fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.28-29]
[Table of fuel type testing results can be found on p.29 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1]
Changes to Engine Test Calculation Methods
Proposed changes in 1036.501(g)(1) would require manufacturers to exclude work during any portion of
the duty cycle with a zero reference value for normalized torque (i.e. idle work) from the total engine
work calculation. While not discussed in the initial RIA, subsequent materials submitted to the docket
indicate that the rationale for this change was to eliminate the effect of procedural differences between
engines intended to be equipped with manual and automatic transmissions. AAPC is not aware of any
heavy-duty spark ignition engines equipped with manual transmissions in the US market. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.26]
AAPC estimates that this calculation method change results in an effective stringency increase of 3-4%
for spark ignition engines and 5-8% for compression ignition engines intended to be equipped with
automatic transmissions (See table below and graph on next page for details). The technology needed to
make up for this difference is not incorporated into the existing RIA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-
A1 p.26]
[Table of engine and gasoline/diesel types can be found on p.26 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1]
Curb idle torque varies widely by application consistent with good engineering judgment which dictates
that applications requiring high curb idle torque will be worst case for emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.26]
[Chart, curb idle torque vs torque converter K-factor, can be found on p.27 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1]
AAPC recommends that the Agencies withdraw this proposed change to the total work calculation
method, keeping the existing method unchanged and harmonized between C02 and criteria emissions
calculations. Idle emission reductions are already being driven by GEM model idle inputs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.27]
-------
Proposed changes in 1036.501(g)(3) require that manufacturers use continuous sampling and prohibit
batch sampling to measure C02 emissions over the ramped modal cycle. To avoid potential facility
impacts to engine manufacturers, AAPC requests that manufactures be allowed to propose alternative
methods to collect emissions via batch sampling that are equivalent or more conservative compared to the
mode-weighted continuous sampling methodology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.27]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Reweighting operating points for tractor truck engine certification to reflect today's lower real-world
operating speeds is another positive step. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.5] [[This comment can
also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp.55-56.]]
Cycle-average approach to engine performance
For purposes of representing the engine in GEM, i.e. for certifying tractor and vocational vehicle fuel
consumption levels, manufacturers must provide a 140-point steady-state engine map showing fueling
rates. However, the agencies request comment on an alternative procedure for representing engine
performance, both for input to GEM and for engine certification, using "cycle average maps" (RIA p.3-
80). The agencies note that this alternative could be the procedure finalized in the Phase 2 rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.8]
The rationale for this alternative is two-fold. First, some engine manufacturers believe that the engine
fueling map constitutes confidential business information and would prefer not to divulge it to the OEMs,
as the proposal would require. Second, the alternative procedure can capture transient performance of the
engine, which is an important factor in engine fuel consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
p.8]
Given that some OEMs have indicated their willingness to provide engine maps, we are not sympathetic
to the concern regarding engine CBI. However, we strongly support the agencies' efforts to capture
engines' transient performance in testing, which will both improve the agreement between certified and
real-world performance and enable the standard to promote technologies that reduce fuel consumption in
transient operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.8]
Agency test data indicates that, when tested over a cycle that includes transient operation, engines
consume from 3 to 7% more fuel than would be calculated from modeling the engine based on a steady-
state fuel map. Cycle-based engine testing would create an incentive for the adoption of transient controls
that minimize this fuel consumption, especially if the standards were tightened to reflect this opportunity
for additional fuel consumption reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.8]
Recommendation : Cycle-average approach to engine performance [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
p.8]
• Continue to develop and refine the proposed cycle-average approach to engine testing. Should
this approach be adopted, greater efficiency should be required of engines to drive the adoption of
transient controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.8]
2 2013 Diesel Truck Index
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
-------
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Proposed reweighting of SET modes
The NPRM requests comment on the reweighting of SET modes. CARB staff agrees with U.S. EPA and
NHTSA that the current 23 percent weighting of "C Speed" in the SET Cycle will not adequately
represent typically real world driving conditions seen in future heavy-duty applications. Therefore, CARB
staff supports the reweighting of the SET cycle as proposed to increase the importance of the A Speed
engine applications, while decreasing the application of C Speed engine modes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.41]
Neutral/Provide Additional Information Comment
Comment - Engine-only testing over the GEM duty cycle approach
CARB staff generally supports the NPRM's proposal for vehicle simulation and engine testing and is
interested in the extent to which engine-only testing can help capture the transient behavior that is lost in a
steady state fueling map simulation approach. This capture of transient behavior could yield more robust
results for vocational applications that are characterized by hard acceleration and by stop-and-go driving
patterns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 114]
As has been noted, the simulation burden for correctly capturing transmission behavior is non-trivial even
with access to the proprietary control algorithms. CARB staff anticipates that engine/transmission
interactions will continue to develop in both sophistication and prevalence as powertrain development
groups seek to maximize efficiency and minimize GHG emissions. This increased complexity is likely to
make high fidelity transmission modelling increasingly difficult over time. The advantages of engine-only
testing to augment the GEM model inputs could be viewed as a partial step toward eventual use of
powertrain and powerpack testing inputs in the GEM model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 114]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America, Navistar Inc., Paccar Inc., and the Volvo Group
EPA has recognized that fixed engine test cycles are not as reflective of real world operation as vehicle-
based duty cycles. There is nothing new about optimization of engines and vehicles for on-road
performance while optimizing for criteria emissions on fixed test cycles. This has always occurred since
the dawn of emissions control. EPA has added significant and onerous in-use test and OBD requirements
that, in fact, largely dictate emissions control design more so than the fixed engine tests. The advent of
GHG emissions control has changed this only to the extent that it forces recognition that vehicle-engine
interactions must be recognized to optimize efficiency. EPA should propose to bring the criteria and GHG
control process into alignment, not by forcing an ineffective engine regulatory scheme, but by looking to
develop criteria emissions controls that account for the vehicle-engine interactions as a long-term
objective. Clearly this is not easy and will take quite some, but acknowledging this goal as a key objective
for future rulemakings could diffuse some of the pressure to adopt ineffective engine regulations just to
align with old criteria emissions processes. In fact, EPA has intimated that "cycle average" engine testing
as discussed as an alternative in the Phase 2 Regulatory Impact Analysis is attractive because it may have
potential to better align efficiency and criteria regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1894-A1 p.5]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
C. Agencies should restore the linkage between the GHG and criteria pollutant test cycles
-------
The Supplemental Engine Test (SET) steady-state cycle is one of two test cycles that EPA uses to
determine compliance with existing criteria pollutant emission standards. The SET was also adopted as
the sole test cycle for GHG compliance determinations in EPA's medium- and heavy-duty Phase 1 GHG
rule finalized in September 2011. By using the same SET cycle for both programs, manufacturers are
prevented from trading off criteria pollutant control for C02 control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-
A1 p.35]
As explained above, however, the Agencies are proposing to revise the cycle weighting for C02
compliance testing purposes only, based on the belief that the revised weighting would make the SET
more representative. But by proposing the SET re-weighting for C02 only, EPA breaks the linkage
between criteria pollutants and C02, because PM and NOx would continue to be measured on the
existing SET cycle. Setting aside the merits of the revisions, this de-linkage is of serious concern because
it creates a loophole in the regulations that could lead to increases in criteria pollutants. We strongly
recommend that EPA maintain the same test cycle for C02 and criteria pollutants in order to prevent
these unintended consequences. One possible way to do this, if EPA decides to finalize the C02 cycle re-
weighting, is to apply the same revisions to the criteria pollutant program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.35]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The proposed reweighting of the RMC appears to be appropriate and Navistar believes that it will
improve the functioning of that test. The re-weighting allows for technology developments to be aligned
with the usage of tractor applied engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.22]
Organization: Walsh, Michael and Charlton, Stephen
There is a large amount of information available in the published literature related to HD tractor engine
fuel consumption and BTE measurement. The metrics used vary widely - with the common goal of
representing the real-world fuel consumption of HD tractor-trailers in tests or in simulations. In the Phase
1 rule [17], EPA and NHTSA adopted the SET steady-state cycle with the weighting factors used in the
original European ESC cycle. These same weighting factors are used by EPA in the SET test for criteria
pollutants (NOx and PM) for HD on-highway engines. In the proposed Phase 2 rule [14], the agencies
have adjusted the weighting factors to favor lower engine operating speeds. The current and proposed
SET cycles with weighting factors are shown in Figure 4. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 11]
[Figure 4 can be found onp.12 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1]
In addition, by proposing a new cycle for GHG regulation, the linkage between criteria pollutants and
GHGs has been broken, since NOx and PM would continue to be measured on the current cycle. The loss
of direct linkage between NOx, PM and GHG emissions could lead to unintended consequences, for
example with regard to in-use emissions. This misalignment should be remedied by either reverting back
to the SET test cycle used for NOx and PM for GHG certification, or by adopting the new test cycle for
NOx and PM certification. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 12]
A further engine test of importance here is the SuperTruck 65mph cruise test cell test point. This test
point will vary between SuperTruck projects depending on the engine speed at 65 mph cruise (i.e. overall
gearing and tires assumed), and on the vehicle road load at 65mph. With reasonable assumptions, the test
point will likely fall between the A and B speeds at 50% to 75% load, see Figure 5. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0102-A1 p. 12]
-------
[Figure 5 can be found onp.14 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1]
17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 76 Thursday, No. 179 September 15, 2011,
Pages 57106- 57513. 49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535.
Response:
The agencies are not finalizing an allowance to adjust C02 emissions for FTP or SET testing to eliminate
C02 from urea (although we are finalizing a similar allowance for fuel maps). Thus, we will not adjust
heavy-duty FTP or SET C02 emission standards downward to account for C02 derived from urea
decomposition. As noted in the NPRM, we estimate that current engines produce about 2 g/hp-hr of C02
from urea. However, this is based on very limited data.
Regarding gasoline test fuels containing ethanol, the agencies have performed heavy-duty engine testing
at Southwest Research Institute utilizing both Tier 2 and Tier 3 certification test fuels. These results in g
C02/bhp-hr show that with post-test correction of the ev02 results back to the reference fuel as required in
40 CFR 1036.530, there does not appear to be a statistically significant difference between the Tier 2 and
Tier 3 fuel results. In other words, the specified correction adequately accounts for test fuel effects. In
addition, the agencies disagree with the commenter's conclusion based on their test data that the change
to Tier 3 cert fuel increases stringency. The change to Tier 3 certification fuel should not include an
engine's change in behavior due to octane. The correct comparison for regular-octane fueled engines is
low octane Tier 2 fuel to low octane Tier 3. The results of this comparison from the manufacturers' test
data show that there is not an increase in stringency due to the certification fuel change. Thus there is no
effect on the stringency of the heavy-duty SI engine standards and the agencies will not be developing a
Tier 3 E10 gasoline factor for Tier 3 certification fuels for heavy-duty engines.
The agencies have removed the proposed requirement to exclude work with zero reference value
normalized torque from the total engine work calculation, keeping the existing method unchanged.
The agencies have provided an optional alternate RMC cycle with different weightings for C02
measurement in 40 CFR 1036.505. This alternate cycle affords the use of bag C02 measurement in place
of the continuous measurement that would be required if using the current RMC in 40 CFR part 86.1362.
We believe this will provide equivalent results to the continuous measurement technique.
The agencies are finalizing the use of cycle average fuel mapping for transient operation and making it
optional for highway cruise cycles. Steady-state fuel mapping remains the default/reference method for
cruise and idle cycles. . The agencies will further consider the use of cycle average fuel mapping in the
future when it undertakes further criteria pollutant reductions.
The agencies appreciate the support for the reweighting of the SET cycle, and we agree that it should
largely reflect operation at 65 mph. At this time we are not in a position to align GHG and criteria
pollutants with respect to the use of this reweighted duty-cycle due to the effect of the reweighting on
criteria pollutant emission results. However, we do not agree that this causes a misalignment with NOx
because C02 and NOx will be measured at the same test points.
-------
4 Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
4.1 General Comments
All of the tractor comments are included in subsections 4.2 through 4.6.
4.2 Proposed Tractor Standards for C02 and Fuel Consumption
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - Approved low-GWP refrigerants for heavy-duty vehicles
The NPRM states that currently, there are no low-GWP refrigerants approved for the heavy-duty vehicle
sector. This appears to be a misstatement. Two low-GWP refrigerants, R-744 (C02) and HFC-152a have
been approved for motor vehicle air conditioning systems, including those for heavy-duty vehicles. (In
addition, HFO-1234yf is SNAP approved for light-duty use and Chemours is applying for SNAP approval
for this low-GWP refrigerant for heavy-duty use). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 141]
Response:
Section III of the FRM Preamble has been corrected. Additional discussion regarding alternative
refrigerants is included in Section I.F of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Climate 911
Several independent analyses by transportation energy experts concur that diesel consumption by heavy
duty trucks could be reduced to 40% of 2010 levels as early as 2025 using technology which is, for the
most part, commercially available. Economic analysis showed this could be accomplished at a reasonable
cost (payback from fuel savings within 12-24 months) with substantial long term savings. (NRC, 2010.
ACEEE, 2013). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1179-A1 p.l]
The proposed Phase 2 standards fall far short of what is possible, increasing the fuel economy of tractor
trailers from the current 5-6 mpg to 8-9 mpg in 2027. The Department of Energy's Super Truck Program
has already surmounted this low bar with a Cummins-Peterbuilt Class 8 tractor trailer which gets 10.7
mpg and another built by Daimler which gets 12.2 mpg. (USOEEREE, 2015) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1179-A1 p.l]
National Research Council; Transportation Research Board Technologies and Approaches to Reducing
the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Committee to Assess Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles; National Academies Press 2010
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), "Further Fuel Efficiency Gains for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles," September 25, 2013. http://aceee.org/fact-sheet/heavy-duty-fuel-efficiency.
US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. SuperTruck Team Achieves 115% Freight
Efficiency Improvement in Class 8 Long-Haul Truck April 2015.
htto://energv.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/supertruck-team-achieves-115-freight-efficiencv-improvement-
class-8-long-haul
-------
Response:
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the 40 percent reduction and the
SuperTruck program. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed technology comments received
and these are discussed in detail in Section III of the FRM Preamble. DOE has partnered with the heavy-
duty industry to demonstrate high roof sleeper cab tractor and box trailer combinations that achieve a 50
percent improvement in freight efficiency evaluated as a 65,000 pound vehicle operating on the highway.
This type of tractor represents only one of the ten subcategories of tractors where the agencies have set
new stringencies for Phase 2. In addition, these SuperTrucks are not necessarily designed to handle the
rigors of daily use over actual in-use roads. For example, they generally have very limited ground
clearance that would likely preclude operation in snow, and would be very susceptible to damage from
potholes or other road hazards. Thus, simply applying SuperTruck efficiencies would lead to infeasible
standards, since the SuperTruck program does not account for the range of operating conditions likely to
be experienced in use. Nor does the SuperTruck program account for cost of technology, or lead time
needed to reliably deploy the technology. Nevertheless, the SuperTruck program has led to significant
advancements in the efficiency of combination tractor-trailers. While the agencies cannot simply apply
the SuperTruck program achievements directly into the Phase 2 program because of the significant
differences in the purpose of SuperTruck and the plenary applicability of regulations with the force of
law, it is helpful (although not determinative) to assess the achievements and evaluate how the
technologies could be applied into mass production into a variety of real world applications and
maintaining performance throughout the full useful life of the vehicle.
Organization: Edison Solar Inc.
Finally, we know that improving truck fuel efficiency can is achievable and can be done affordably:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1176-A1 p.2]
• Through partnerships with the Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy
ratings of over 12 mpg are achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1176-A1 p.2]
Response:
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the 40 percent reduction and the
SuperTruck program. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed technology comments received
and these are discussed in detail in Section III of the FRM Preamble. DOE has partnered with the heavy-
duty industry to demonstrate high roof sleeper cab tractor and box trailer combinations that achieve a 50
percent improvement in freight efficiency evaluated as a 65,000 pound vehicle operating on the highway.
This type of tractor represents only one of the ten subcategories of tractors where the agencies have set
new stringencies for Phase 2. In addition, these SuperTrucks are not necessarily designed to handle the
rigors of daily use over actual in-use roads. For example, they generally have very limited ground
clearance that would likely preclude operation in snow, and would be very susceptible to damage from
potholes or other road hazards. Thus, simply applying SuperTruck efficiencies would lead to infeasible
standards, since the SuperTruck program does not account for the range of operating conditions likely to
be experienced in use. Nor does the SuperTruck program account for cost of technology, or lead time
needed to reliably deploy the technology. Nevertheless, the SuperTruck program has led to significant
advancements in the efficiency of combination tractor-trailers. While the agencies cannot simply apply
the SuperTruck program achievements directly into the Phase 2 program because of the significant
differences in the purpose of SuperTruck and the plenary applicability of regulations with the force of
law, it is helpful (although not determinative) to assess the achievements and evaluate how the
-------
technologies could be applied into mass production into a variety of real world applications and
maintaining performance throughout the full useful life of the vehicle.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Tractor-trailers - Overall for tractors, the technologies included in the stringency determination are far
short of the full technology potential. Applying the available incremental technologies for engines,
transmissions, and aerodynamics can achieve technology potential far greater than agencies' proposed 8
miles-per-gallon tractor-trailer standards before 2025 (See Delgado and Lutsey, 2015). SuperTruck teams
are achieving 10.7 mpg (Peterbilt) and 12.2 mpg (Daimler/Freightliner) in real-world testing (Buchholz,
2014; Daimler, 2015) with combinations of engine, tractor, and trailer technologies that greatly surpass
the proposed 2027 standard analysis. After correcting for test cycle differences, the SuperTruck
technologies demonstrated by manufacturers would achieve up to 10 miles per gallon (Lutsey, 2015b);
because the proposed 2027 stringency levels do not approach these stringency levels, the standards can be
advanced by at least several years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.5]
Response:
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the 40 percent reduction and the
SuperTruck program. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed technology comments received
and these are discussed in detail in Section III.D of the FRM Preamble. For example, the agencies
included the technology assessments in the ICCT tractor-trailer technology reports that were cited in the
ICCT comments.
DOE has partnered with the heavy-duty industry to demonstrate high roof sleeper cab tractor and box
trailer combinations that achieve a 50 percent improvement in freight efficiency evaluated as a 65,000
pound vehicle operating on the highway. This type of tractor represents only one of the ten subcategories
of tractors where the agencies have set new stringencies for Phase 2. In addition, these SuperTrucks are
not necessarily designed to handle the rigors of daily use over actual in-use roads. For example, they
generally have very limited ground clearance that would likely preclude operation in snow, and would be
very susceptible to damage from potholes or other road hazards. Thus, simply applying SuperTruck
efficiencies would lead to infeasible standards, since the SuperTruck program does not account for the
range of operating conditions likely to be experienced in use. Nor does the SuperTruck program account
for cost of technology, or lead time needed to reliably deploy the technology. Nevertheless, the
SuperTruck program has led to significant advancements in the efficiency of combination tractor-trailers.
While the agencies cannot simply apply the SuperTruck program achievements directly into the Phase 2
program because of the significant differences in the purpose of SuperTruck and the plenary applicability
of regulations with the force of law, it is helpful (although not determinative) to assess the achievements
and evaluate how the technologies could be applied into mass production into a variety of real world
applications and maintaining performance throughout the full useful life of the vehicle..
Organization: Quasar Energy Group
Finally, we know that improving truck fuel efficiency can is achievable and can be done affordably:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 35 -A 1 p.2]
Through partnerships with the Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy
ratings of over 12 mpg are achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1335-A1 p.2]
-------
Response:
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the 40 percent reduction and the
SuperTruck program. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed technology comments received
and these are discussed in detail in Section III of the FRM Preamble. DOE has partnered with the heavy-
duty industry to demonstrate high roof sleeper cab tractor and box trailer combinations that achieve a 50
percent improvement in freight efficiency evaluated as a 65,000 pound vehicle operating on the highway.
This type of tractor represents only one of the ten subcategories of tractors where the agencies have set
new stringencies for Phase 2. In addition, these SuperTrucks are not necessarily designed to handle the
rigors of daily use over actual in-use roads. For example, they generally have very limited ground
clearance that would likely preclude operation in snow, and would be very susceptible to damage from
potholes or other road hazards. Thus, simply applying SuperTruck efficiencies would lead to infeasible
standards, since the SuperTruck program does not account for the range of operating conditions likely to
be experienced in use. Nor does the SuperTruck program account for cost of technology, or lead time
needed to reliably deploy the technology. Nevertheless, the SuperTruck program has led to significant
advancements in the efficiency of combination tractor-trailers. While the agencies cannot simply apply
the SuperTruck program achievements directly into the Phase 2 program because of the significant
differences in the purpose of SuperTruck and the plenary applicability of regulations with the force of
law, it is helpful (although not determinative) to assess the achievements and evaluate how the
technologies could be applied into mass production into a variety of real world applications and
maintaining performance throughout the full useful life of the vehicle.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
The agencies' proposal must be 'technology-forcing' and achieve the 'maximum feasible' reductions in the
timeframe of the rule. To do this, the agencies must strengthen Alternative 4 by: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p.27]
• Increasing the stringency for tractors by 6 percent in 2024 to reflect the full range of
improvements to the powertrain; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.27]
Response:
First, UCS is mistaken that section 202 (a)(2) of the Clean Air Act mandates technology-forcing
standards, although it allows them. See generally 74 FR 49464-465 (Sept. 28, 2009). Second, the
agencies acknowledge UCS's comment about increasing the stringency of the tractor program due to the
opportunity to further improve powertrain optimization through powertrain testing. For the Phase 2 final
rule, we have made several changes since proposal that capture much of the improvement potential
highlighted by UCS. First, the agencies have used additional engine technologies in the technology
package used to determine the tractor standards for the final rule, as described in Section III.D. 1 of the
Preamble. In addition, the final rule requires the use of a cycle average fuel map in lieu of a steady state
fuel map for evaluating the transient cycle in GEM will recognize improvements to transient fuel control
of the engine. The agencies are including the impact of improved transient fuel control in the engine fuel
maps used to derive the final standards. Second, the optional transmission efficiency test will recognize
the benefits of improved gear efficiencies. Therefore, the agencies have built some improvements in
transmission gear efficiency into the technology package used to derive the final standards. This leaves
only the optimization of the transmission shift strategy, which would need to be captured on a powertrain
test. The agencies believe that the opportunity of shift strategy optimization is less for tractors than for
other types of vocational vehicles because a significant portion of the tractor drive cycles are at highway
speeds with limited transmission shifting. Therefore, we have not included the powertrain optimization
portion only recognized through powertrain testing into the standard setting for the final rule.
-------
4.3 Projected Tractor Technologies, Effectiveness, and Cost
Organization: A de F Limited
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 167-168, 171.]
And I want to applaud EPA on incentivizing small, incremental, innovative technologies that ultimately
add value in the big picture.
A lot of times, we underestimate the incremental. And when that incremental is scalable, we may very
well miss meaningful opportunities that move us to our ultimate goal, in this case C02 mitigation.
The market opportunities of aerodynamic wheel covers have gained momentum with many new entrants
salivating at the commercial prospects. An aerodynamic wheel cover is the only aerodynamic component
that is functional on both tractor and trailer. And, yet, because of this regulatory process that splits tractor
from trailer in testing, it is lost in the noise.
The addition of a single sentence to this regulation that would embrace testing of tractor-trailer
combinations for aerodynamic components found on both would be helpful to permit aerodynamic wheel
covers to scale in a marketplace that is worldwide.
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 169, 171.]
We applaud EPA's focus on vigilantly bumping efficiency of long-haul tractor-trailer combinations
through this new phase 2 as it will bring further fuel savings through trailer efficiency.
When measuring the increases in efficiency of wheel covers on trailers and tractors independent of each
other, the fuel savings get lost in the margin of error of the test methodology. With no enmity suggested,
it is our belief that a hugely scalable opportunity is being missed. We suggest a remedy that would permit
testing of both tractor and trailer in combination for the purposes of aerodynamic components that can be
fitted to both.
We believe current testing methodology is sufficient, albeit misapplied to either tractor or trailer and not
the combination.
Response:
The agencies considered technologies, including wheel covers, in establishing the more aerodynamic
bins, such as Bin V, in Phase 2.
Organization: Alliance of Idle Mitigation Technologies
The Alliance of Idle Mitigation Technologies was formed out of concern that Phase 2 will drastically and
unintentionally limit the options available for idle reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1311-A1 p. 1]
The Alliance consists of best in class companies, including Idle Smart, IdleAir, and Shorepower
Technologies, who offer high impact solutions to extended main engine idling of class 8 trucks. Common
-------
among member companies is the threat that a radical increase in adoption of Automatic Engine Shutdown
(AES) will have on member companies' viability. The threat varies from complete incompatibility, as in
the case of adjustable automatic shutdown, to frustration of relevance, as in the case of electrified parking
space providers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1311-A1 p.l]
Unlike the transition away from tire pressure monitoring systems towards a system that both monitors and
inflates the tires, the transition to AES is not a straightforward progression to greater efficiency. AES will
necessarily result in APU adoption. The costs and environmental effects of APU's are not fully
considered within the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1311-A1 p.l]
The Alliance recognizes that the AES scoring scheme is not new. However, in light of the ambitious
increase in the efficiency threshold, even after accounting for the inclusion of technologies that are
arguably not commercially feasible today, the effect of this scoring scheme is as different between Phase
1 and Phase 2 as the meaning of the word "lightening" after appending the word "bug." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1311-A1 p.l]
Response:
The agencies received a number of comments regarding "mandating APU" or "mandating AESS." There
is a misconception of the proposed Phase 2 program where stakeholders thought that the agencies were
mandating APUs (or mandating any technology for tractors, for that matter). This is incorrect. The
tractor standards are performance standards to be met by any means an OEM chooses. The agencies
merely projected an adoption rate of up to 90 percent for tamper-proof AESS in our analysis as one part
of one technology package for determining the stringency of the proposed standard. We did not propose
to differentiate between the various idle reduction technologies in terms of effectiveness and only used
the diesel powered APU in terms of estimating the cost and effectiveness of the proposed, or final
standard. For each standard, we developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the
feasibility of the standards, but manufacturers will be free to choose other paths and combinations of
technologies. They will not be required to apply all technologies to every tractor; nor will they be
required to apply any specific technology to any tractor.
The agencies have assessed the environmental impact of APUs in the NPRM and FRM. As noted in
Section III.C of the Preamble, EPA is adopting a new PM standard of 0.02 g/kW-hr that applies
exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2024 and later new tractors. EPA is also amending the Phase 1
GHG standards to provide that as of January 1, 2018 and through MY 2020, a tractor can receive credit
for use of an AESS with an APU installed only if the APU engine is certified under 40 CFR part 1039
with a deteriorated emission level for PM that is at or below 0.15 g/kW-hr.
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Several key projections with regard to technology penetration rates and cost estimates in the Proposed
Rule are flawed. The agencies are too optimistic with regard to the ability to incorporate hybrids into the
MD/HD sector; cost estimates with respect to different transmission architectures are understated; cost
estimates for Neutral-Idle and Stop-Start technology are below costs that have been reported. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.2]]
EPA and NHTSA lack a rational basis to provide more credits to automated manual ("AMT") and dual
clutch transmissions ("DCTs") than fully automatic transmissions. Allison's real world studies indicate
that automatic transmissions ("ATs") are as good as or better than AMT or DCTs in terms of greenhouse
-------
gas emissions and impact on fuel efficiency in most vocational applications and many tractor
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.2]
EPA and NHTSA's 2 Percent Credit for Advanced Transmissions is Reasonable
EPA and NHTSA have requested comment on "all aspects" of the feasibility analysis that underlies the
regulatory alternatives presented in the Proposed Rule. With respect to the projections of the relative
emission impact of various transmission technologies, the agencies are proposing a 2% technology input
for ATs, AMTs and DCTs for Class 7 and 8 vehicles. While Allison ATs can exceed this level (versus the
baseline contained in the Proposed Rule) we believe it is a reasonable level to apply based on the record
for this rulemaking for ATs and AMTs. Moreover, we do not believe that EPA and NHTSA have
articulated any basis in the Proposed Rule to differentiate between the technology inputs that should be
available to ATs and AMTs.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 16]
DCTs in Tractors
Mesilla Valley Transportation ("MVT") operates a fleet of 1345 trucks and over 5000 trailers and is
known as one of the largest locally owned, full service truck load carrier companies in the southwest. In
October 2014, EPA recognized MVT with the SmartWay® Excellence Award for their progress on
environmental performance and energy efficiency. As part of their on-going efforts to find more energy
efficient vehicles, MVT has done extensive evaluation of transmissions during 2015. 50 production-built
fully automatic TC10TM equipped trucks have been operating in normal fleet operations as a comparison
to the Eaton Fuller Advantage® Automated Transmission. The latest data from August 2015 shows the
TC10 having 4. 6% higher MPG than the fleet average with the AMT. Based on this significant level of
improvement, MVT plans to have over 400 AT's in their fleet of sleeper cab tractors by the end of 2016.
It is also notable that when combined with all of the other vehicle efficiency improvements, the TCI 0
equipped vehicles demonstrated 9.25 MPG in August 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 17-
18]
With respect to the Phase 2 proposal, the MVT experience is evidence of the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.18]
- AT's can be more fuel efficient than AMTs in real-world tractor duty cycles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.18]
- ATs penetration into tractors is feasible per EPA's assumptions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
P-18]
- ATs are viable in sleeper cabs (in addition to day cabs) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.18]
- Neutral at stop capability, 1st lockup operation, load-based and grade-based shift algorithms and
Acceleration Rate Management contribute to the overall fuel efficiency of ATs in tractors [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 18]
EPA and NHTSA must therefore apply the same or greater emission reduction factor to the AT. Not
doing so would create an unfair and unsupported disadvantage for ATs relative to the AMTs. This same
disadvantage would occur with respect to DCTs; however, as noted above, Allison believes that the
agencies lack technical information in the record for this rulemaking to support any credit for DCTs and
therefore also lack a rational basis to grant any emission reduction credit in the Final Rule. While DCTs
should logically perform better than the MT baseline, EPA and NHTSA must base crediting on adequate
-------
information placed into the docket; this does not currently exist. Indeed, Volvo has indicated that fuel
consumption with the I-Shift Dual Clutch is the same as the I-Shift AMT.31 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p. 18]
In addition, AMTs receive a 1.8% credit in GEM for heavy-haul tractors, yet there is no similar credit for
ATs. Although Allison is unaware of statements in the Proposed Rule with regard to the source of the
AMT credit, presumably it is for the GHG and fuel efficiency benefits of automation. Since ATs offer
similar, if not greater, benefits, they should also receive credit. In addition, neutral-idle recognition should
be available as previously discussed in Section III.E. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.38]
EPA and NHTSA Must Include Automatic Neutral At Stop Into GEM for Tractors
The Proposed Rule expands the incorporation of idle emission systems in GEM, such as Stop-Start
systems and AT Neutral-Idle systems. Allison generally supports the agencies' proposal to expand
incorporation of such systems in GEM; our own experience with such systems indicates that they result in
significant improvement in fuel efficiency and reduced emissions. The Proposed Rule, however, does not
include an idle cycle for tractors, but rather solicits comments as to whether idle systems should be
incorporated within GEM for certain tractor types. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.25]
There is no rational reason not to include automatic neutral in only vocational tractors, but all tractors.
Automatic neutral is standard with the Allison TC10 and is available with the Allison 3000 and 4000
Series transmissions; we believe that usage of the technology will be high by 2021. Thus, including
Neutral-Idle as a selectable option in GEM is fully justified; allowing its use as a selectable option would
both ensure that real world emission benefits would be recognized in GEM and that use of such
technology is incentivized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.25]
Conversely, there would not appear to be a basis for excluding such technology as a selectable option in
GEM, whether or not it is currently utilized in a tractor type of vehicle. Given the long timeframe of this
rulemaking, affecting vehicles through at least MY 2027, EPA and NHTSA must recognize and allow for
the broader incorporation of Neutral-Idle across many different fleets and vehicle types. There is no
technical reason why Neutral-Idle could not be implemented in all tractors and the agencies should allow
for its adoption by vehicle manufacturers where it makes commercial sense based on the vehicles'
intended uses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.25]
Allison has developed the TC10 transmission that was purpose-designed for the tractor market. The TC10
combines FuelSense® technologies with a blended architecture that combines a traditional AT planetary
with a countershaft that results in a very efficient 10-speed powershift automatic transmission. Fleets have
reported improvements in excess of 5% higher average fuel economy over their current fleet average with
the TC10 and Allison believes that the penetration of the TC10 will grow in tractors based on its
performance, reliability and fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.25]
Similar to the Allison transmissions for vocational vehicles, the TC10 includes the automatic neutral at
stop functionality. This capability must be recognized in all tractor sub-categories. While this benefit
would be expected primarily in vocational tractors and day cabs, Allison believes it is significant that over
40% of TCI 0 sales to date have been into sleeper cabs. This demonstrates market acceptance of the
technology due, at least in part, to features of the TC10 that reduce fuel use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p.25-26]
Although at a much lower penetration rate in tractors than vocational vehicles, Allison's 3000 and 4000
Series transmissions with automatic neutral at stop technology are also sold into tractors with annual
-------
volume of up to approximately 5000 units. EPA has predicted that the automatic transmission penetration
in tractors will grow to 30% in 2027. (RIA Table 2-28). Given this projected adoption - along with the
current volume of sales - automatic neutral at stop must be incorporated into GEM in order to ensure the
accuracy of the Final Rule, i.e., the ability of the certified emission levels to reflect actual, real world
operational emissions. The agencies cannot ignore the emissions and fuel efficiency benefits of a
technology which is projected to have sizeable market penetration within the regulatory timeframe of this
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.26]
EPA and NHTSA Are Correct Concerning Assessment of Hybrids in Tractor Categories
The agencies have cited to the high costs and "limited utility of hybrids" with regard to tractors for their
decision not to include hybrids as part of the standards that are applicable to such vehicles. We share in
this overall assessment. In many tractor categories, there is a preponderance of highway driving;
incorporating hybrids into most tractors would provide little incremental benefit in terms of reduced
emissions and fuel use - while having offsetting effects through the additional weight of hybrid systems.
Thus, based on the record before the agency, it is proper for EPA and NHTSA to conclude that hybrids
should not factor into the stringency of tractor categories. Investment dollars will yield greater GHG
reductions through implementation of other technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 51]
EPA and NHTSA Must Account For Weight of Different Transmission Architectures
The baseline technology for MD/HD automatic transmissions is a planetary gearset. Planetary
architectures typically weigh less than countershaft architectures. For vocational vehicles, Allison
recommends that a weight penalty be assessed for MT/AMT transmissions with countershaft
architectures. For this assessment, the clutch, clutch housing and transmission/clutch shift lever all need
to be considered to be part of the transmission to have a relevant comparison to a torque converter
automatic transmission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.63]
Table 111-35 Proposed Phase 2 Weight Reduction Technologies for Tractors includes weight reduction for
transmission case, clutch housing and transmission/clutch shift lever. As discussed above for vocational
vehicles, a planetary torque converter automatic will weigh less than a comparable manual transmission.
Allison recommends that a weight reduction be assigned for planetary automatic transmissions such as the
Allison 3000 and 4000 Series in tractors. Our data would suggest a 50 lb savings in Class 8 and much
more for Class 7 would be appropriate. Allison expects sales up to approximately 5000 transmissions in
tractors this year so there is volume associated with this technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.63]
Allison also suggests a 200 lb penalty for a HHD DCT should be applied given the architecture of this
system." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.64]
28 This is not the position we take with respect to DCTs, however. EPA and NHTSA lack technical
information in the record to support crediting DCTs within GEM. See Sections II-A, III-B, infra.
31 See "Unique gearbox for heavy vehicles on the Volvo FH." Attachment 2
82 See comments above in Section I.C.
99 See Attachment 1.
-------
Response:
The agencies' assessment of the comments is that Allison and Volvo support the proposed two percent
effectiveness as an input to GEM for AT and AMT transmission types. The agencies have refined the
treatment of transmissions in GEM in the final standards. Using the default transmission input files for
AMT and MT, the GEM results for manual transmissions are 2 percent worse than those for an
equivalently spec'd automated manual transmission. The agencies have conducted powertrain testing
comparing an AMT to Allison's TC10 automatic transmission (see RIA Chapter 2.8.2.5). Overall, the
C02 emissions and fuel consumption are equivalent between the two transmissions. However, the
agencies have selected default losses for automatic transmissions that are higher than the losses in a TCI0
because its efficiency is significantly greater than the average heavy-duty automatic transmission in the
market today. Therefore, vehicles that utilize the TC10 transmission will achieve similar C02 emissions
and fuel consumption as an AMT, and approximately 2 percent better than a manual transmission, by
either using the results of either the optional powertrain test (40 CFR 1037.550) or the optional
transmission efficiency test (40 CFR 1037.565).
For a vehicle that uses a DCT, the agencies treat it as an AMT in GEM because of the inherent design
similarities to AMTs. This is a conservative assumption because in addition to a DCT having mechanical
efficiencies similar to an AMT, it also could have lower emissions and fuel consumption due to power
shifting capabilities.
The agencies considered the comments, both supporting and raising concerns over idle reduction in day
cabs. The agencies determined that neutral idle for automatic transmissions is an appropriate technology
for use in tractors. Therefore, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 to recognize neutral-idle in
automatic transmissions as an input to GEM. Our analysis shows that neutral idle effectiveness is
approximately 0.8 to 1 percent over the composite day cab tractor cycles. The agencies will also include
neutral idle as a GEM input for sleeper cabs, though the effectiveness is very low, as shown in RIA
Chapter 2.4.8.3. The agencies are predicating the standards for day cabs based on a technology package
that includes neutral idle.
After considering the comments, the agencies are continuing the Phase 1 approach of not including hybrid
powertrains in our feasibility analysis for Phase 2. Because the technology is still under development for
tractors we cannot confidently assess the effectiveness of this technology at this point in time. In
addition, due to the high cost, limited benefit during highway driving, and lacking any existing systems or
manufacturing base, we cannot conclude with certainty that hybrid powertrains will be available for
tractors in the 2021-2027 timeframe. However, manufacturers will be able to use powertrain testing to
capture the performance of a hybrid system in GEM if systems are developed in the Phase 2 timeframe.
The agencies are not finalizing a weight penalty for any components since this would require detailed
information on conventional and light-weight tractor components to establish a baseline and the weight
reduction potential for each component.
The agencies also are not providing a default weight reduction value to transmission type due to the
variety of transmissions in the tractor market today. In addition, a 50 pound weight reduction leads to
only a 0.06% reduction in C02 emissions in sleeper cabs. The manufacturers have the option of
requesting off-cycle credits for weight reductions that are not included in 40 CFR 1037.520.
Organization: Aluminum Association
-------
The Aluminum Association is committed to producing high quality, accurate information for OEMs as
well as the EPA and other regulatory agencies on the benefits of aluminum lightweighting in the
transportation sector. Mass reduction using aluminum has emerged as a proven and cost effective
technology for achieving improved road vehicle fuel economy and C02 emissions performance and in the
past 40 years aluminum use in light and heavy-duty vehicles has increased steadily. In the truck and
trailer market specifically, aluminum use has nearly doubled since the recession of 2009 and is trending
back toward record levels last seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Growth in the use of aluminum in
the truck and trailer market has been accommodated utilizing existing production capacity, and where
needed, with the addition of new capacity, and the aluminum industry has consistently demonstrated the
ability to match supply with demand, including the previous growth of aluminum demand in the
aerospace, packaging, and auto transportation sectors. In the auto transportation sector for example, the
aluminum industry has publicly announced over 1.5 billion pounds of capacity expansion to come on line
by 2018 to support that industry's growth. The long lead times in the proposed rule that require ultimate
compliance in the 2027 model year also provide ample opportunity for the alignment of aluminum
product supply with any potential for increased demand due to the implementation of lightweighting
opportunities in the truck and trailer market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p. 1-2]
The weight and emission benefits that result from using aluminum in heavy-duty trucks are significant.
Research conducted by Ricardo Consulting Engineers has shown that an "aluminum-intensive" Class 8
commercial tractor trailer combination can reduce vehicle weight by 3,300 pounds and that for every 10
percent of weight reduction, up to a 5.5 percent improvement in fuel economy is possible. The study also
found that substituting the nation's fleet of Class 8 tractor-trailers with aluminum-intensive models would
save 9.3 million tons of C02 emissions annually. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.2]
The aluminum industry is also continuously improving its product offering to the heavy truck and trailer
transportation market to maximize the benefits of using aluminum in lightweighting applications.
Recently, these have included - [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.2]
• Alcoa's introduction of the 'ULTRAx Ultra-ONE' forged aluminum wheel - This wheel is 47%
lighter than a comparably sized steel wheel and weighs in at only 40 pounds, thus enabling its
potential to save over 1400 pounds in Class 8 service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.2]
• Alcoa's introduction of a new aluminum alloy, 'Magna-Force' which is up to 17% stronger than
the 6061 alloy it replaces in transportation applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1
p.3]
• Novelis' introduction of the 'Advanz' 7000 series next generation high strength aluminum alloy
designed to enhance vehicle lightweighting and safety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.3]
• Sapa's development and introduction of new aluminum extrusion applications in a variety of
tractor componentry including sleeper cabs, seat frames, entry steps/deck plates, and aerodynamic
fairings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1260-A1 p.3]
• Rio Tinto's commissioning of their enhanced state-of-the-art aluminum smelting facility in
Kitimat, BC operating solely on clean, renewable, hydropower and using efficient AP40 pot
technology to supply aluminum to transportation and other markets in North America and around
the world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1260-A1 p.3]
The industry is also pursuing new aluminum joining methods that will enable increased integration of
aluminum and non-aluminum components into next generation vocational and heavy-duty vehicles. All
the activities noted above continue the aluminum industry's long history of working with transportation
market manufacturers throughout the supply chain to develop vehicle efficiency improvement solutions
and that work will continue and become ever more important under the recently proposed Phase 2
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1260-A1 p.3]
-------
Lightweighting is well-recognized in the proposed rule as a means to increase trucking efficiency and
there are three primary ways that this occurs - [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.3]
1) It lowers rolling resistance, which means it takes less energy to start the vehicle moving and then
overcome the friction of its contact with the road, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.3]
2) It allows carriers to add more cargo to each truck, which reduces the number of trucks on the road
and/or trips that need to be made, and, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.3
3) It facilitates the adoption of other efficiency technologies, such as trailer tails and side skirting, as it
can negate the concerns about the added weight of those technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-
Alp.3]
Tractor Cab Assemblies
Table 8 of 1037.520 provides weight reduction credits for different individual cab components such as the
door, roof, rear wall, and floor. This is appropriate when these components are considered for substitution
on an individual basis. However, the Association is aware that in many instances the entire tractor cab is
substituted with aluminum and a typical weight reduction associated with this substitution is 500 lbs.
Therefore, the Association requests that an additional line item be added to Table 8 reflecting that the
"Entire Tractor Cab" be credited with a 500 lb weight reduction if it is switched from steel to aluminum
componentry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p. 7-8]
Response:
The agencies agree with the commenter that there are three primary ways that lightweighting improves
efficiency. Weight reductions in GEM are recognized in two ways. The first reduces the mass of the
overall vehicle, which in turn reduces the rolling resistance. The second increases the payload of the
vehicle in the certification process. In addition, as the commenter notes, lightweighting is a means to
offset added weight of other technologies for operators in weight-sensitive operations.
The agencies are not adopting the Aluminum Association's suggestion to include a weight reduction
value for the "Entire Tractor Cab" as an automatic GEM input because cabs come in a variety of sizes and
weights. This makes it difficult to assess whether 500 pounds is an appropriate value for both day and
sleeper cabs, which have significantly different roof, floor, and side panel areas. We think that the
replacement of the entire tractor cab with aluminum can be handled through either the individual
components listed in 40 CFR 1037.520 or requested through Off-Cycle credits.
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
The single most important shortcoming of the proposal is the weakness of the tractor truck engine
standard. However, standards for all engine and vehicle classes have room for improvement. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.6]
Tractor aerodynamics
In the agencies' compliance package for the 2027 tractor standard, the average CdA value for a high roof
sleeper cab (CdA=5.3) is 14.5% lower than the 2017 baseline value, a reduction of 1.6% per year from
-------
the 2017 baseline. This value falls between Bins IV and V, as shown below in figure 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1 p.14]
[Figure 1 can be found onp.15 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
The agencies note: "Since the development of the Phase 1 rules, the manufacturers have continued to
invest in aerodynamic improvements for tractors. This continued evolution of aerodynamic performance,
both in production and in the research stage as part of the SuperTruck program, has consequently led the
agencies to propose two additional aerodynamic technology bins (Bins VI and VII) for high roof tractors.
These two new bins would further segment the Phase 1 aerodynamic Bin V to recognize the difference in
advanced aerodynamic technologies and designs" (p.40246). It is therefore important that the standards
promote these advances by moving tractor aerodynamics well into the new bins. The 2027 compliance
package for a high roof sleeper cab assumes a 25% penetration of these higher aerodynamic bins, but an
average that falls short of achieving Bin V. This suggests that the aerodynamic package for the standards
is well within reach of the manufacturers over the next decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
P-15]
Tractor-trailers
Since the close of the public comment period, numerous new data on tractor-trailers have been submitted
to the docket, including a revised report on fuel efficiency technologies1 and additional information on
tractor aerodynamics.2'3 These data continue to show that the agencies have underestimated the
technology potential of tractor-trailers and, particularly, tractor engines. Based on this new data, the
agencies should tighten the fuel consumption and emissions targets for tractor-trailers and tractor engines.
Furthermore, the agencies should improve the aerodynamic testing procedures for tractors to ensure that
benefits of the rule are not eroded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1896-A1 p. 1]
Tractor aerodynamic performance
Some comments on the proposed rule stated that tractor aerodynamic drag levels assumed in the agencies'
2027 compliance package were not achievable, at least without a more aerodynamic standard trailer for
testing.9 We are not aware of new information referenced in the NODA that relates directly to this matter;
but given comments on the proposed rule, we note here that substantial, additional reductions in drag
could be achieved by 2027 through co-optimization and integration of tractor and trailer. These additional
drag reductions could be verified by using a more advanced trailer for testing and then correcting for the
benefits of the trailer alone, as discussed in greater detail in Appendix 2. [Appendix 2 can be found on
p. 12 of this docket] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.2]
Impact on proposal
There is no evidence provided in the NODA to support weakening of the 2027 aerodynamic targets for
tractors. In fact, increased stringency could be achieved by redefining the standard trailer in later years to
reflect future improvements to the average trailer and taking advantage of tractor/trailer co-optimization
in the compliance package. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A 1 p.3]
Appendix 2: Additional Savings from Tractor-Trailer Co-optimization and Integration
The agencies' compliance package for high roof sleeper cabs in the Phase 2 proposal includes
aerodynamic improvements that reduce drag by 14% and fuel consumption by 6% in 2027. Manufacturers
raised concerns about these levels of drag reductions in their comments, claiming that the expected tractor
-------
drag levels are not achievable using the prescribed "standard" trailer. We do not believe that this concern
provides a basis for weakening the aerodynamic performance of high-roof sleeper cabs assumed in the
agencies' compliance scenario. In fact, SuperTruck results indicate that greater aerodynamic
improvements than those assumed in the Phase 2 proposal are achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1896-A1 p. 12]
Aerodynamic drag (CdA) values and bin levels are shown below for reference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1896-A1 p.12]
[Figure, 'CdA values and bin levels', can be found on p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1896-A1]
Certainty of savings from matching tractor and trailer
The fuel savings benefits of co-optimization and integration of tractor and trailer will not be realized if the
equipment is not appropriately paired in real-world operation. Because tractors may tow a variety of
trailers, ensuring such pairings would be difficult. This raises a question of whether it is prudent to
provide credit for the benefits of tractor-trailer co-optimization and integration as recommended above.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.14]
Manufacturers and purchasers of co-optimized or integrated tractors and trailers presumably would seek
to ensure that the correct pairings were made as a matter of course. The agencies note (p.40245) that
"tractor-trailer pairings are almost always optimized." While this observation was made in the context of
roof height and trailer type, the same considerations should apply here. In the case of integration,
manufacturers and researchers are clearly working towards designs that would necessitate, or strongly
favor, appropriate pairings. Furthermore, it is important to weigh the potential for unearned credits for
tractor-trailer pairing against the value of the incentive to accelerate the aerodynamic integration of
tractors and trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 14]
In any case, the likelihood of reasonable agreement between compliance credit for tractor-trailer pairings
and the real-world benefits could be increased for example by: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1
P-15]
• Giving manufacturers credit only for vehicles sold to fleets with well-documented estimates of the
percentage of miles traveled with matched set. (Credit computed case by case) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1896-A1 p.15]
• Giving a fixed, partial credit to provide an incentive for co-optimization while recognizing the
possibility of mismatches. (Partial credit across the board, e.g. 50%) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-
A1 p.15]
• Certifying tractors to be used only with certain trailers; this requirement would be shown on the tractor
label. (100% credit) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 15]
• Awarding full credit to tractors having hardware to ensure pairing with appropriate trailers. (100%
credit) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 15]
The agencies could adopt a combination of these approaches. Most fleets at present may be unwilling to
accept the loss of flexibility required by the 3rd and 4th approaches, especially given the constraint this
may impose on resale of the tractor. However, acceptance should increase over time, as integrated designs
-------
demonstrate major fuel savings, and trailer fleets are managed and optimized in real time. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1896-A1 p. 15]
Tractor Engine Technology Effectiveness
The Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) completed a comprehensive analysis of fuel consumption
reduction technologies applicable to commercial medium- and heavy-duty trucks.1 Despite downward
revisions in technology potential between the draft version of the report available in the proposal and the
final report included in the NODA, this research indicates that tractor engines can improve their fuel
consumption by at least 8 percent in 2027, nearly double the agencies' proposed target. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1896-A1 p.1-2]
Tractor-trailers
Since the close of the public comment period, numerous new data on tractor-trailers have been submitted
to the docket, including a revised report on fuel efficiency technologies1 and additional information on
tractor aerodynamics.2,3 These data continue to show that the agencies have underestimated the
technology potential of tractor-trailers and, particularly, tractor engines. Based on this new data, the
agencies should tighten the fuel consumption and emissions targets for tractor-trailers and tractor engines.
Furthermore, the agencies should improve the aerodynamic testing procedures for tractors to ensure that
benefits of the rule are not eroded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 1]
1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1623/NHTS A-2014-0132-0185.
2 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1624/NHTSA-2014-0132-0186
3 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1625/NHTSA-2014-0132-0188.
9 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215.
Response:
The agencies disagree with the commenter's assessment on aerodynamic potential. The aerodynamic data
provided in the NODA demonstrates that the high roof tractors tested fall into Bins III and IV. This data
does not support increasing the stringency of the aerodynamic technology packages because the majority
of this test data was considered in the proposal and all of the tractors tested fell within the range of
performance of the vehicles tested prior to proposal. The agencies' assessment is that only Bins I through
V are achievable with known aerodynamic technologies, but that Bins VI and VII have less known
technology paths. Upon further analysis of simulation modeling of a SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2
reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the manufacturers that a SuperTruck tractor technology
package would only achieve the Bin V level of CdA. See RIA Chapter 2.8.2.2. These aerodynamic
improvements have been demonstrated within the program on two vehicles in 2015. In the final rule, the
agencies are projecting that truck manufacturers will be able to begin implementing these aerodynamic
technologies as early as 2021 MY on a limited scale. We adjusted the adoption rates for MY 2027 in the
technology package developed for the final rule to consist of 20 percent of Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and
50 percent Bin V reflecting our assessment of the fraction of high roof sleeper cab tractors in this segment
that we project could successfully apply these aerodynamic packages with this amount of lead time.
However, we are including Bins VI and VII in the Phase 2 regulations as a potential Phase 2 technology
to recognize the possibility that over the next ten years (until the full implementation of the Phase 2
-------
program) tractor manufacturers may advance their aerodynamic technologies beyond the Bin V levels
projected for the Phase 2 standards, and to provide a value to be input to GEM should they do so.
With respect to ACEEE's recommendation for the agencies to facilitate the transition to more integrated
tractor-trailers, such as those demonstrated with SuperTruck, the agencies believe this would require a
significant change in tractor-trailer logistics to encourage more matching of specific tractors to specific
trailers in operation. We believe that this would be most appropriately handled through the Off-Cycle
Credit program.
Engines
The Phase 2 engine standards will lead each manufacturer to achieve reductions of 5.1 percent in 2027
MY. For the final Phase 2 rule, we recognize that it could be possible to achieve greater reductions than
those included in the engine standard by designing entirely new engine platforms. Unlike existing
platforms, which are limited with respect to peak cylinder pressures (precluding certain efficiency
improvements), new platforms can be designed to have higher cylinder pressure than today's engines.
New designs are also better able to incorporate recent improvements in materials and manufacturing, as
well as other technological developments. Considered together, it is possible that a new engine platform
could be 6 percent more efficient without WHR than Phase 1 engines and 8 percent more efficient than
Phase 1 if 50 percent of these engines have WHR. We project that 50 percent of tractor engines in 2027
MY will be redesigned engines (i.e. engines reflecting redesigned engine platforms, again based on
existing engine platform redesign schedules within the industry) achieving a 6 percent reduction for day
cabs and an 8 percent reduction in fuel consumption in sleeper cabs beyond Phase 1. This means the
average 2027 MY tractor engine would be 5.4 and 6.4 percent better than Phase 1 for day and sleeper
cabs respectively. We have factored these levels into our analysis of the vehicle efficiency levels that will
be achievable in MY 2027. These additional engine improvements make more stringent vehicle standards
feasible, and the final standards are structured so that these improved engines are not able to generate
windfall credits, but rather that their projected performance is reflected in the stringency of the final
tractor vehicle standard. We project all vehicle manufacturers will be able to use new platform engines
for some of their vehicles. Nevertheless, some may choose not to for business reasons, even though it
may be the most cost-effective path. We project that manufacturers that do not achieve this level of
engine reduction would be able to make up the difference by applying one of the many other available
and cost-effective tractor technologies to a greater extent or more effectively, so that there are multiple
technology paths for meeting the final standards. In other words, a manufacturer that does not invest in
updating engine platforms in the Phase 2 time frame is likely to be able to invest in improving other
vehicle technologies. These reductions will show up in the fuel maps used in GEM to set the Phase 2
tractor stringencies.
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
In the Proposed Rule, EPA and NHTSA did not assume adoption rates for weight reduction measures and
did not consider it 'appropriate or fair across the industry to apply overall weight reductions for
compliance.' For different types of vehicles, however, EPA proposes to allow for the crediting of certain
identified weight reduction options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 15
Regarding tractors, EPA proposes to continue the GEM Phase 1 weight reduction criteria for using certain
lightweight materials. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 15-16]
All of these values serve a regulatory purpose by allowing a credit for different vehicle components,
based on the type of vehicle involved. They also implicitly apply a deficit to any materials or components
that are not listed, or listed incorrectly. Therefore, like the weight reduction options for trailers, EPA must
-------
supply a basis for these values in the record for this rulemaking or it cannot incorporate them within a
final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.16
If the agencies intend to pursue identification of specific weight reduction materials and components in a
final rule, such a system must be supported by adequate, verifiable data. To this end, we attach to our
comments several documents: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 16
(1) A/SP Lightweight Suspension, Hannes Fuchs. This report describes the development of lightweight
steel suspension front control arms. When contrasted to a baseline forged aluminum component, the study
showed that the lightweight steel arms were equivalent in mass.49 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1
p.l6](2) Lightweight Sealed Steel Fuel Tanks (ASP-400), United States Automotive Partnership. This
study examined carbon canisters used for fuel evaporative emissions control and compared steel-based
alternatives to a plastic tank used in current vehicles. A carbon steel tank for a Lexus vehicle achieved a
mass reduction of between 34 to 41%. A stainless steel tank for a Mercedes achieved mass reductions
from 25% to 38%.50 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 16]
(3) Lightweight Steel Wheel, Steel Market Development Institute Final Report. This project developed a
generic wheel design that was equivalent in style, structural performance and mass with an aluminum
baseline wheel.51 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 16]
(4) SMDI Lightweight Twist Beam Development, Scott Keefer, Multimatic Engineering, This study
developed a proof of concept steel twist beam that achieved a 30% mass reduction relative to an OEM
baseline assembly while meeting all structural and elastokinematic requirements.52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1275-A1 p.16-17]
(5) Abstract: Study Demonstrates Forged Steel Crankshafts are Stronger and More Durable than Cast Iron
Crankshafts. Description of a University of Toledo study to develop a forged steel crankshaft where the
redesigned shaft achieved an 18% weight reduction without any degradation in performance.53 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1275-A1 p. 17]
(6) Steel Intensive Engine Report, Steel Market Development Institute. Report concluded that there was
large potential for lighter weight optimized steel connecting rods, steel camshafts and steel
pistons.54 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A 1 p. 17]
(7) Fatigue Performance Evaluation of Forged versus Competing Manufacturing Process Technologies,
Prepared for Forging Industry Educational and Research Foundation and AISI by University of Toledo.
Determined that forged steel provided a factor of 3 to 5 longer lives compared with cast aluminum and
iron in additional to overall weight reduction of 12%. On a life cycle basis, the longer lifetime of a
component provides a substantial benefit.55 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 17]
(8) WorldAutoSteel FutureSteelVehicle project showed 39% weight reduction in a steel-intensive design
for electrified vehicles over the benchmarked vehicle and reduced total life cycle emissions by nearly 70
percent. This was accomplished while meeting a broad list of global crash and durability requirements,
enabling five-star safety ratings and avoiding high-cost penalties for mass reduction.56 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1275-A1 p.17]
In sum, EPA's currently proposed weight reduction values cannot be finalized given the lack of
supporting technical analysis regarding their calculation. In addition, EPA should review the research
material we have submitted for the docket with respect to the weight and performance benefits of
lightweight steel components. While much of this analysis involves components utilized in the LDV
-------
sector, we believe that comparable components and parts in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles would
demonstrate similar results. EPA should therefore utilize this information to substantially adjust upward
its estimates of the benefits of lightweight steel components in Table V-29 of the draft proposed
regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 17-18]
In the alternative, AISI would recommend that EPA and NHTSA eliminate all weight reduction
technology crediting for component parts. As described above, the component parts for which it is
proposed that GEM assign a weight reduction benefit lack a sufficient technical basis in the record for this
rulemaking. Values contained in Table V-29 are not representative of realistic mass reductions. Among
other deficiencies, the table values do not scale weight reduction to the actual size of the part making
them inherently arbitrary in a rulemaking that covers a wide range of truck sizes, uses and GVWR. Thus,
while we first believe that EPA and NHTSA should incorporate life cycle analysis and adjust weighting
accordingly, if this path is not taken by the agencies, the only reasonable result should be to eliminate the
weight reduction inputs in their entirety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.18]
49 Attachment C; see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A4
50 Attachment D; see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A5
51 Attachment E; see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A6
52 Attachment F; see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A7 & A8
53 Attachment G; see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A9
54 Attachment H; see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A10
55 Attachment I; see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A11
56 Attachment J.
Response:
The agencies are adopting revised weight reduction tables for Phase 2. The basis for the majority of these
technologies was documented in the HD Phase 1 rulemaking (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162). The
changes made between Phase 2 NPRM and the final rule were based on comments received. The
agencies appreciate the light-duty weight reduction attachments included in AISI's comments, but most
are not directly applicable to heavy-duty, especially when trying to extrapolate from light-duty vehicles to
heavy-duty tractors. In certain cases, the agencies did increase the weight reduction level of steel
components, such as brake drums and single piece drivelines, when additional reliable information was
provided by commenters. Manufacturers have the ability to request approval for lightweight components
not included in the Weight Reduction tables through the off-cycle credit program, as specifically stated in
40 CFR 1037.520 (although please note again that improvements in light duty performance cannot be
automatically extrapolated to heavy duty vehicles). Please see Chapter 1.4.1 of the RTC for responses to
the lifecycle comments.
-------
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Specific technology MPRs under the Phase 2 Rule appear to be overly aggressive and must be adjusted
downward for fleets to afford flexibility in spec'ing equipment, avoid excessive downtime due to
unforeseen maintenance requirements, and maintain equipment affordability. The specific market
penetration rates of concern are as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.6]
6x2 Axle Configurations (60% in 2024)
Single axle 6x2 drive tractors are widely used in European trucking operations and have been for some
time. For U.S. regional fleets that make a lot of deliveries, it is often not the best technology choice
because of curb cuts and other uneven terrain features that can expose the truck to traction issues. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.6]
ATA member fleets have not universally endorsed such technology. Recent surveys indicate current
market penetration rates of new line-haul 6x2 tractor sales are only in the range of 2%.3 According to
ATA member fleets, reasons for the current low level of adoption include limitations to highway
applications, less flexibility, lower residual rates when switching to vocational applications, traction
issues, driver dissatisfaction, tire wear and spec'ing, legality of their use, and driver acceptance. While
recent improvements in traction control systems can automatically shift weight for short periods of time
from the non-driving axle to the driving axle during low-traction events, concerns remain over the
impacts to highways caused by such shifting of weight between axles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-
A1 p.6]
"Non-liftable" 6x2 axles in the states of North Dakota, Kansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire are currently prohibited. "Liftable" 6x2 axles are legal across the
country with the possible exception of Utah. Utah had required that lift axles be steerable. However, it is
our understanding that state officials have agreed to revise their language to ensure their legality. Many
carriers also conduct cross-border operations with Canada. 6x2 axle configurations are illegal in the
province of British Columbia and face regulatory restrictions in other provinces as well. Fleet owners
must remain vigilant to deploying 6x2 technologies only to jurisdictions that permit their use. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.6]
6x2 axle configurations can restrict future resale markets by limiting the types of applications where these
types of configurations can be used. Residual values of equipment are critical for fleets in making their
purchasing decisions. Since resale values are not calculated into the overall estimated costs under Phase 2,
constricting after-market resale opportunities for initial purchasers of equipment will extend the payback
periods on 6x2s, making them less cost-effective in many applications. EPA and NHTSA should not
assume an overly optimistic 60% market penetration rate for 6x2s in the 2024-2027 timeframe nor, in our
opinion, will a 20% adoption rate in 2021 likely be recognized. EPA and NHTSA need to gather further
information and modify the anticipated purchase rates accordingly. In addition, both agencies should
jointly engage in additional study of any safety and regulatory challenges associated with 6x2 technology
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.6-7]
The agencies should include in its cost calculations the additional tire wear and negative residual values
associated with 6x2's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 11]
Auxiliary Power Units and Automatic Engine Shutdown Devices (90% in 2024The baseline assumes
30%, and up to 90%, of high-roof sleeper cabs will be equipped with non-programmable 5-minute
automatic engine shutdown devices when, in fact, very few fleets selected this option under Phase 1. This
-------
5% efficiency allocation is not likely to come to fruition when fleets are unwilling to spec' out equipment
with this option.
Fleets are aware that reduced engine idling results in fuel-savings, reduced engine-wear, and
environmental improvements. Fleets have a variety of choices available in providing driver power and
comfort in-lieu of idling including use of auxiliary power units ("APUs"), fuel-fired heaters, shore power,
battery stand-by, stand-alone anti-idling infrastructure establishments, and hotel accommodations, to
name a few. Not all operations require the use of APUs yet the agencies assume that 90% of tractors with
sleeper cabs will purchase APUs if an automatic engine shutdown device ("AESs") is installed. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.7]
Fleets that already limit idling either via slip-seat operations (where drivers take turns driving on a
rotational basis) or use fuel-fired heaters will not get adequate payback from installation of an APU.
Fleets may also see reduced load capacity due to the additional weight of an APU and possibly worse
aerodynamics from a larger trailer gap if the space for an APU requires a longer wheelbase. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.7]
Most fleets already purchase "programmable" idle shutdown timers to limit idling due to the national
patchwork of anti-idling laws currently in place. These timers are typically set for a given period of time
throughout the initial fleet's ownership period. As witnessed under Phase I, fleets are unwilling to
purchase hard-programmed, tamper-proof AESs given their need for flexibility regarding their resale of
used equipment on the secondary market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.7]
If forced into using AESs and APUs as the agencies propose, fleets will likely pre-purchase vehicles in
advance of such requirement. Mandatory AES use should not be considered part of the stringency
requirements under Phase 2. ATA supports efficiency credits for idling reduction options installed by
fleets (i.e., APUs, direct-fired heaters, etc.) either at the OEM point-of-sale or installed in the after-
market. For idling devices installed in the after-market, the agencies should allow OEMs appropriate
credit upon receipt of certified proof from fleets of such installations. The agencies' over-riding
assumption should be that a fleet expending capital on an anti-idling device has every intention to utilize
such equipment. Such fuel savings and carbon reductions must be recognized and accounted for. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A 1 p.7]
The assumption under the rule is that installation of an AES will result in the companion installation of an
APU. There are, however, numerous anti-idling alternatives to diesel-powered APUs specific to fleet
needs including direct-fueled heaters, electric APUs, shore power, battery power, and certain stationary
providers of power and driver comforts. Each of these technologies should be afforded recognition under
the rule and recognized in terms of their costs, efficiency attributes, and MPRs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1 p.11-12]
EPA estimates the cost of APU's in 2021 and 2027 as $4,899 and $4,327 respectively. APU costs are
substantially higher than this figure; being somewhere in the range of two to three times this estimate.
EPA needs to use actual APU costs in its calculations. Of further note, the California Air Resources
Board ("CARB") requires particulate filters on diesel APUs. According to suppliers, filtering an APU
increases the cost of such a device by up to 20%. Electric APUs are an alternative but such devices will
put a strain on deep-cell batteries and will likely require back-up battery power sources, adding additional
weight and cost to the tractor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 11]
Automatic Tire Inflation Systems (40% in 2024)
-------
Phase 2 provides credit only for the use of automatic tire inflation systems ("ATISs"). Tire pressure
monitoring systems ("TPMSs") provide similar benefits but at a lower cost. To the extent efficiency credit
is provided for tire pressure maintenance devices, TPMSs should be afforded the same amount of
efficiency credit as ATISs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.8]
A recent study on truck and tire inflation systems indicates that both ATISs and TPMSs are being utilized
in fleet operations. As of 2012, approximately 33% and 10% of surveyed fleets utilize ATISs and TPMSs
respectively on their trailers.4 Roughly 1% of tractors used ATISs. Operators are well aware of the
increased fuel consumption, maintenance costs, downtime, and safety concerns associated with operating
heavy-duty vehicle with under-inflated tires. These concerns over time have been significant given the
historic volatility of diesel prices, the competitive nature of the industry, shipper pressures to reduce costs,
and the rising costs of liability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.8]
The agencies do not acknowledge TPMSs as a viable menu option since they require user interaction to
inflate tires to appropriate pressures. A misguided assumption is that drivers "may" continue to operate a
vehicle with underinflated tires. However, in light of continual pressures on fleets to reduce total costs of
operation in order to remain competitive and profitable, the agencies should reconsider their rejection of
TPMSs as a viable technology option under the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.8]
Given the ability of fleets to monitor fuel consumption remotely, including the ability to identify causes
for increased fuel consumption, drivers are routinely held responsible for proper tire pressure levels on
TPMS-equipped vehicles. ATA therefore believes that the agencies should provide efficiency credit for
TPMS use under the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.8]
The cost estimates for tire inflation systems (and TPMS, where applicable) must include warranty
limitations, useful life, maintenance and replacement costs, as well as costs of false warnings. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 12]
Low Rolling-Resistance Tires
The tire market penetration rates projected in the outlying years are indeed technology-forcing. If tire
composite advancements and designs do not keep pace with the target years, OEMs will not be able to hit
their overall efficiency targets. In addition, since anti-tampering rules require retention of all original
features, fleets may likely choose tires with higher rolling resistance (less efficiency) to maintain more
flexibility in replacing tires in the field when needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.8]
The agencies err in their tire analysis by using the same rolling resistance for all types of day and sleeper
cabs. The need for and benefit of low rolling resistance tires ("LRRTs") on a high roof sleeper cab is very
different from the other tractor categories. The agencies should continue to examine fleet tire data and
adjust tire stringency levels to account for fleet and Class variations and different duty-cycle needs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.8]
Instead of using current cost data, EPA appears to have based the cost calculations for LRRTs on 1999
data indexed for inflation. Moreover, EPA's cost figures for LRRTs do not account for increases in
lifetime replacement costs due to reduced tire life resulting in fewer retreads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1243-A1 p. 12]
Research Must Confirm Safety of New-Generation LRRTs Before Market Entry
-------
The safety effects of LRRTs are not totally understood. While the ."..agencies analysis indicate that this
proposal should have no adverse impact on vehicle or engine safety," ATA remains leery of potential
unintended consequences resulting from new generation tires that have yet to be developed. This
especially holds true in terms of overall truck braking distances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1
p. 16]
The trucking industry takes safety very seriously. With projected application rates for widely varied
LRRTs for Class 7 and 8 trucks ranging from 10% to 60%, new truck purchasers will need to understand
which applications may, or may not, be appropriate for these tires. We support all efforts to help maintain
and advance our safety agenda. ATA is aware of Transport Canada's November 2012 study on the winter
traction performance of LRRTs on heavy-duty trucks. The analysis involved performance on packed
snow as opposed to non-packed snow or ice. The conclusion of that preliminary study indicated that the
then-current generation of SmartWay-verified LRRTs offered a similar level of snow traction
performance as non-SmartWay-verified tires. Our concern rests in the fact that both Phase 1 and Phase 2
are pushing the limits of rolling resistance to new heights. To our knowledge there has not been any
subsequent and comprehensive climatic testing on each new generation of LRRTs. Neither ATA nor your
agencies wish to create any unforeseen safety consequences resulting from implementation under either
Phase 1 or Phase 2. ATA requests testing and documentation of LRRTs under all weather conditions,
including snow and ice, in advance of their entry into the marketplace. ATA asks both agencies, and
NHTSA in particular, to ensure that each new generation of LRRTs and retreads not increase braking
distances under all weather conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 16]
Useful Life of LRRTs Must be Considered
LRRTs need to have improved wear rates such that our industry is not adversely impacting the
environment by putting more casings into landfills and increasing natural resource use in manufacturing
their replacements. The industry commonly sees a 40% reduction in useful life and a 20% reduction in
casing life resulting from LRRTs. For example, wide-base single tires have shown poor tread wear in the
tighter turning conditions of urban operations.11 This may result in higher wear-out rates if the rule
encourages the use of wide-base single tires in these types of operations. When measuring efficiency
improvements, it must be done with consideration of cradle-to-grave costs and consequences. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 16]
Few disciplines are as unforgiving as tire design. Engineer a tire for maximum grip and it may wear too
rapidly; specify rubber that will deliver the best fuel economy and it may impact traction. With about 25
million new truck tires sold in the U.S. every year, extending the useful life of LRRTs not only represents
a substantial savings of natural and synthetic rubber, but also reduces the fuel consumption and GHG
emissions associated with production of their replacements. Lost in the Phase 2 discussions is the fact that
it takes 23 gallons of oil to manufacture a new tire and only 8 gallons of oil to retread a tire. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 16]
Aerodynamic Devices
The actual stringency in the proposed rule is much greater than what EPA has indicated due to errors in
EPA's baselines and testing protocols, such as: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 13]
• The assumed 2017 aero baseline uses the best aero trucks available, not the average.
• Cab aerodynamic expectations (Bins V, VI, and VII) likely cannot be achieved with the specified
test trailer.
-------
• Compliance margins for aerodynamic audits have been removed. OEMs therefore must over-
design (if plausible) to offset this margin omission and pass routine audits.
In summary, these issues create impossible hurdles that could not be met within the framework of the rule
and the agencies must work with OEMs to rectify these matters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1
P-13]
Estimated costs of future aerodynamic devices appear low given the historical nature of the proposed
changes. The agencies should describe in detail the component packages they expect to satisfy each bin
level, cost breakdowns of these individual components, and how this technology will be modified over
time to maintain compliance with increasingly stringency levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1
p. 12]
Credit for Use of Vehicle Speed Limiters Needs to be Expanded
In addition to safety benefits, reducing speed is a proven way to decrease GHG emissions and fuel
consumption. To this end, ATA filed a petition with NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration ("FMCSA") in October 2006 requesting a rulemaking to require vehicle manufacturers to
limit the speed of trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds to no more than 68
mph. In response to this petition, a joint rulemaking has been initiated which will require the installation
of speed limiting devices on heavy trucks. This rulemaking is currently undergoing review at the Office
of Management and Budget. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.19]
While the details of this rulemaking have not been released, it appears that vehicle speed limiters
("VSLs") will be mandatory equipment on new trucks within the timeframe of the Phase 2 standards. This
rulemaking will likely establish new parameters for VSLs which should be accounted for in the final rule.
For example, the rulemaking is expected to establish a maximum limited speed. This speed should serve
as the baseline and may be different than the current baseline Greenhouse Gas Model ("GEM") input of
65 mph. Depending upon where the maximum is set, credits should be reflective of speed adjustments
below this level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.19]
The fact that VSLs are not being used as a compliance strategy despite being widely used among trucking
companies is concerning. It appears purchasers are not willing to accept the tamper-proof requirement
associated with this technology and instead opt to use them on their own terms. The agencies should
explore ways of incorporating the in-use benefits being derived from VSLs. To this end, a more workable
solution which provides credit for ordering a new tractor with VSL should be pursued. Possible
approaches could include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.20]
Allowing manufacturers to accept a purchaser's commitment to establish a maximum limited speed, as
opposed to the tamper-proof option, when acknowledged and affirmed on a vehicle's purchase agreement.
Allowing manufacturers to adjust VSLs at the end of a vehicle's lease or trade-in and allow the creation
of deficits or credits if such adjustments affect the initial credits which were generated. Allowing trucking
companies to adjust maximum speeds if company policies change during the ownership cycle with
corresponding adjustment to manufacturer credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.20] The
agencies should work with truck manufacturers and their customers to identify potential mechanism
which will allow the practice of using VSLs be more accurately quantified under the final rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.20]
-------
3 North American Council for Freight Efficiency, Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles
(January 13, 2014).
4 North American Council for Freight Efficiency, Tire Pressure Systems Confidence Report (August
2013).
11 Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, National
Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing Fuel
Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, p. 137 (2010).
Response:
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by the commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.44 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.45 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."46
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
The agencies considered the maintenance impact of 6x2 axles. As noted in the NACFE Confidence
Report on 6x2 axles, the industry expects an overall reduction in maintenance costs and labor for vehicles
with a 6x2 configuration as compared to a 6x4 configuration.47 Among other savings, the reduction in
number of parts, such as the interaxle drive shaft, will reduce the number of lubrication procedures
needed and reduce the overall quantity of differential fluid needed at change intervals. The agencies have
44 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
45 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
46 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
47 Ibid. Page 30.
-------
taken a conservative approach to the maintenance costs for the 6x2 technology where we believe that the
overall impact will be zero.
Idle Reduction Technologies
With respect to the baseline comments, the agencies reassessed the baseline idle reduction adoption rates.
The latest NACFE confidence report found that 9 percent of tractors had APUs and 96 percent were
equipped with an adjustable AESS.48 Therefore, the agencies have significantly reduced the number of
APUs assumed in the baseline in the final rule. The agencies are projecting for the baseline that 9 percent
of sleeper cabs will contain an adjustable AESS and APU, while the other 87 percent will only have an
adjustable AESS, and none will have tamper-proof AESS.
While the agencies do not necessarily believe that customer reluctance in the initial years of Phase 1
should be considered insurmountable, we do agree with commenters that the agencies should allow
adjustable AESS to be a technology input to GEM and should differentiate effectiveness based on the idle
reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-
proof and adjustable systems to qualify for some reduction. See RIA Chapter 2.4.8.1. After consideration
of the comments, the agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle reduction
technologies and only projected adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS.
EPA considered the comments and more closely evaluated NHTSA's contracted TetraTech cost report
found the retail price of a diesel-powered APU with a DPF to be $10,000. The agencies used a retail
price of a diesel-powered APU to be $8,000 without a DPF and $10,000 with a DPF in the cost analysis
for this final rulemaking.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). See Preamble Section III.D. l.b.iv.
This reflects a change from the Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The
agencies believe that sufficient incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions
if they are notified that they exist through a TPMS, however, we set the effectiveness value of TPMS
lower than ATIS to reflect the need for operator intervention.
With respect to costs, all of the agencies' technology cost analyses include both direct and indirect costs.
Indirect costs include items such as warranty. In terms of maintenance, the presence of tire inflation
management systems should serve to improve tire maintenance intervals and perhaps reduce vehicle
downtime due to tire issues; they may also carry with them some increased maintenance costs to ensure
that the tire inflation systems themselves remain in proper operation. For the analysis, we have
considered these two competing factors to cancel each other out.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
48 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Report: Idle Reduction Solutions. 2014. Page 13.
-------
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1
certification data.49 We found that high roof sleeper cabs are certified today with steer tire rolling
resistance levels that ranged between 4.9 and 7.6 kg/ton and with drive tires ranging between 5.1 and 9.8
kg/ton. In the same analysis, we found that high roof day cabs are certified with rolling resistance levels
ranging between 4.9 and 9.0 kg/ton for steer tires and between 5.1 and 9.8 kg/ton for drive tires. This
range spans the baseline through Level 3 rolling resistance performance levels. Therefore, for the final
rule we took an approach similar to the one taken in Phase 1 and proposed in Phase 2 that considers
adoption rates across a wide range of tire rolling resistance levels to recognize that operators may have
different needs. 76 FR 57211 and 80 FR 40227.
In our analysis of the Phase 1 certification data, we found that the drive tires on low and mid roof sleeper
cab tractors on average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling resistance than the high roof sleeper cabs. But
we found only a minor difference in rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor subcategories.
Based on comments received and further consideration of our own analysis of the difference in tire rolling
resistance levels that exist today in the certification data, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards
using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for low and mid roof tractors than
the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards. This is also consistent with the approach that we
took in setting the Phase 1 tractor standards. 76 FR 57211. In addition, the final rule reflects a reduction
in Level 3 adoption rates for low and mid roof tractors from 25 percent in MY 2027 used at proposal (80
FR 40227) to zero percent adoption rate. The technology packages developed for the low and mid roof
tractors used to determine the stringency of the MY 2027 standards in the final rule do not include any
adoption rate of Level 3 drive tires to recognize the special needs of these applications, consistent with the
comments noted above raising concerns about applications that limit the use of low rolling resistance
tires. We have estimated the cost of lower rolling resistance tires based on an estimate from TetraTech of
$30 (retail, 2013$). We also have applied a "medium" complexity markup value for the more advanced
low rolling resistance tires. We expect that, when replaced, the lower rolling resistance tires would be
replaced by equivalent performing tires throughout the vehicle lifetime. As such, the incremental
increases in costs for lower rolling resistance tires would be incurred throughout the vehicle lifetime at
intervals consistent with current tire replacement intervals. A recent study conducted by ATA's
Technology and Maintenance Council found through surveys of 51 fleets that low rolling resistance tires
and wide base single tires lasted longer than standard tractor tires.50 Due to the uncertainty regarding the
life expectancy of the LRR tires, we maintained the current tire replacement intervals in our cost analysis.
ATA stated it is concerned about the safety consequences of next generation low rolling resistance tires at
the adoption rates the agencies assume in the proposal. ATA noted that the agencies have not tested next
generation low rolling resistance tires for safety purposes.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, sets forth performance and
equipment requirements for trucks, buses, and trailers with GVWRs greater than 10,000 lb. and
establishes stopping distances for vehicles equipped with air brake systems.51 Although tires are not
specifically regulated as part of FMVSS No. 121, tires are part of the system that must meet the
performance requirements outlined in that standard. This ensures that new tractors with air brakes
compliant with FMVSS No. 121 are meeting safe stopping distances, regardless of tire configuration. In
addition, under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations, commercial vehicles are to have
49 Memo to Docket. Coefficient of Rolling Resistance and Coefficient of Drag Certification Data for Tractors.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
50 Truckinginfo. TMC Survey Reveals Misinformed View of Fuel-Efficient Tires. March 2015.
51 49 CFR 571.121.
-------
a service brake system that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 in effect on the date of
manufacture.52 These two regulations taken together ensure that new and in-use trucks meet safe stopping
distance requirements.
Additionally, in 2015, NHTSA and FMCSA conducted a safety study to evaluate stopping distances for
low rolling resistance tires.53 NHTSA and FMCSA chose representative tires to evaluate in that study,
and found that there was a negligible correlation between the coefficient of rolling resistance and the
stopping distance of the tires it tested. Moreover, the results showed that the low rolling resistance tires
tested in the study performed well within the stopping distances required by FMVSS No. 121. The
agencies believe that taken together, the above described research and the stopping distance requirements
FMVSS No. 121 and 49 CFR 393.40 will ensure next generation low rolling resistance meet safe
stopping distances for tractors.
Aerodynamics
While the agencies agree with the commenters that it is important to develop an accurate baseline so that
the appropriate aerodynamic technology package effectiveness and costs can be evaluated in determining
the final Phase 2 standards, there appears to be some confusion regarding the NPRM baseline
aerodynamic assessment. The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic
bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards. The baseline was not
determined by or declared to be the average results of the vehicles tested, as some commenters
maintained. The vehicles that were tested prior to the NPRM were used to develop the aerodynamic bin
structure for Phase 2. In both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins such
that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into
consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in Phase 2. The
Phase 2 bins were developed so that tractors that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as
Bin III tractors in Phase 2. The baseline aerodynamic value for the Phase 2 final rulemaking was
determined in the same manner as the NPRM, using the adoption rates of the bins used to determine the
Phase 1 standards, but reflect the final Phase 2 bin CdA values.
The agencies' assessment is that only Bins I through V are achievable with known aerodynamic
technologies, but that Bins VI and VII have less known technology paths. Upon further analysis of
simulation modeling of a SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the
manufacturers that a SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the Bin V level of CdA.
See RIA Chapter 2.8.2.2. These aerodynamic improvements have been demonstrated within the program
on two vehicles in 2015. In the final rule, the agencies are projecting that truck manufacturers will be
able to begin implementing these aerodynamic technologies as early as 2021 MY on a limited scale. We
adjusted the adoption rates for MY 2027 in the technology package developed for the final rule to consist
of 20 percent of Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V reflecting our assessment of the fraction
of high roof sleeper cab tractors in this segment that we project could successfully apply these
aerodynamic packages with this amount of lead time.
The agencies received comments from manufacturers arguing for the agencies to establish compliance
margins that would allow actual production vehicles to exceed the standards by some fixed amount.
52 49 CFR 393.40.
53 Lascurain, M. B. (2015, June). Effects of tire rolling resistance on Class 8 tractor-trailer stopping distance. (Report
No. DOT HS 812 176). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at
https://www.regulations. gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2014-0132-0009 (last accessed June 16, 2016).
-------
These comments included specific requests for an aerodynamic compliance margin. We also received
comments from UCS supporting the elimination of the aerodynamic compliance margin. As explained in
Section I.C. 1 of the Preamble, although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate
the initial implementation of new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an
appropriate long-term policy. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on
coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance
testing, in which test-to-test variability is normally expected to be small relative to production variability.
With coastdown testing, however, test-to-test variability is expected to be larger relative to production
variability. In response to comments addressing this difference, EPA developed a different structure for
conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor CdA s and solicited supplemental comments on it. See 81 FR 10825.
We believe the structure being finalized appropriately balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives
for manufacturers to act in good faith with manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on
inaccurate testing. Our current assessment is that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when
certifying and uses good engineering judgment54 throughout the process, false failures for individual
vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family would not occur.
The agencies included the technology cost of aerodynamic improvements, such as wheel covers and
active grill shutters, in RIA Chapter 2.11.
Vehicle Speed Limiters
The agencies considered DOT's upcoming actions with respect to mandatory vehicle speed limiters for
heavy-duty trucks, but could not take it into account in this Phase 2 rulemaking because that rule is not
final yet.
The existing VSL flexibilities provide opportunities for manufacturers to account for the impact of VSLs
on reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption, while still allowing the settings to change after an
"expiration" time determined by the manufacturer or to include a soft top. At this time, we believe that
the Phase 1 flexibilities sufficiently balance the desire to encourage technologies that reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption while ensuring the benefit in the real world and minimizing the
compliance burden of trying to accommodate changes throughout the useful life of the vehicle.
Therefore, the agencies are not adopting any new VSL provisions for Phase 2.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA) and NHTSA
The discussion topics included potential safety impacts of MDHD Phase 2 fuel efficiency technologies,
with specific questions on effects of further reductions in tire rolling resistance entire/vehicle traction and
handling. Mr. Kedzie communicated his questions on the subjects. Mr. Maclsaac referred him to two
NHTSA safety studies in the Phase 2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) docket, as well as recent
comments from Michelin North America in the related Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) docket. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0063-A1 p.l]
Response:
The agencies considered the safety impacts of the Phase 2 rule, as described in RIA Chapter 9.
54 See 40 CFR 1068.5 for a description of "good engineering judgment" and how EPA evaluates it.
-------
Organization: Aperia Technologies
We recommend that test methods for automatic tire inflation incorporate robustness to usage and
vibration over representative time frames. Different technologies employ different configuration and
component complexity such that in-use tire inflation performance is likely to vary by design. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0104 p.2]
We recommend that tractor and trailer solutions be treated differently. On a per-axle basis, tractors
account for disproportionately more miles driven and more GHG emitted than trailers. Drive axle tire
under-inflation can be solved by installation of Aperia's Halo Tire Inflator and likely other system
designs, including central tire inflation systems (CTIS), in the near future. Devices, which differ in their
capacity to serve steer, drive and trailer axles should be credited accordingly differently. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0104 p.2]
Response:
The regulations state that the emission standards apply for the full useful life of the vehicle (for example,
see 40 CFR 1037.106 and 1037.107).
The agencies treat the ATIS and TPMS installed on tractors and trailers separately. We have considered
the technologies mentioned in the comment while setting our adoption rates of ATIS and TPMS in our
technology packages.
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
Idle Reduction [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.6]
However, the agencies request comment on whether we should extend this vocational vehicle idle
reduction approach to day cab tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.6]
Bendix would like to see the vocational vehicle idle reduction approach extended to day cab tractors. Like
many companies that perform vehicle level engineering testing, Bendix does instrument vehicles that are
in commercial operation to collect particular data of interest. Among the data collected, engine speed,
vehicle speed, driver demand for acceleration and braking are typical. We see from this data that there are
many applications of day cab tractors that spend a significant portion of their day's drive time at idle. This
is true for most pick-up and delivery type applications and is also true for a growing number of fleets that
run hub and spoke type operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.6]
Automatic Tire Inflation Systems [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.6]
Tire pressure monitoring systems notify the operator of tire pressure, but require the operator to manually
inflate the tires to the optimum pressure. Because of the dependence on the operator's action, the agencies
are not proposing to provide a reduction value for tire pressure monitoring systems. We request comment
on this approach and seek data from those that support a reduction value be assigned to tire pressure
monitoring systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.6]
As noted in a previous section, Bendix does believe that TPMS should be included and an appropriate
reduction provided. Our previous comments also support arguments in this area, the key being that
drivers, when properly incented by the fleet, through such practices as incentives for improving fuel
-------
economy, data tracking and potential vehicle strategies, have a strong reason to ensure that they maintain
tire pressure. Fleets would not be interested in these systems if they were not providing the ROI, achieved
through improved tire wear and fuel economy, they need to justify the investment. With significant
growth over the past 5 years and expected continuation of growth into the future, TPMS deserves
consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241 -A 1 p.6]
More choices ensure flexibility to achieve goals [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.6]
Bendix by virtue of our comments does not want our position on TPMS to be viewed as advocating the
replacement of ATIS by TPMS, nor to discount the value of ATIS. We agree that ATIS can provide a
benefit in some select cases and situations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241 -A 1 p.6]
Along the same lines, the agencies do run the risk of hurting the market for TPMS, and reducing the
benefits that fleets could be receiving long ahead of implementation of the Phase 2 regulations. The
agencies should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in technology choice, but enabling
the market to offer the broadest possible package of possibilities to meet the agencies targets while not
inhibiting OEMs, fleets and owner/operators from choosing the best combination to fit their unique
operational needs. Therefore, both ATIS and TPMS should be available and receive appropriate credit to
help deliver on the expected benefits of the proposed regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1
p.7]
III. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors, D. Feasibility of the Proposed Tractor Standards, (2)
Projected Technology Effectiveness and Cost [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.7]
However, the agencies welcome comment from industry and others on their projected timeline for
deployment of hybrid powertrains for tractor applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241 -A 1 p.7]
The agencies state in the Phase 2 NPRM that "To date, hybrid systems for tractors have been primarily
focused on idle shutdown technologies and not on the broader energy storage and recovery systems
necessary to achieve reductions over typical vehicle drive cycles. The proposed standards reflect the
potential for idle shutdown technologies through GEM." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.7]
Bendix appreciates the potential for idle shutdown technologies through GEM and have commented to
this fact earlier in this document. While it is true that hybrid systems for tractors have not been focused on
broader energy storage and recovery systems, there is in fact further opportunity in this area. Based on
previous work, we believe that mild hybrid systems should be included in GEM for fuel consumption
reduction credit. This should include stop-start and electrification of accessories as most mild hybrid
systems incorporate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.7]
Response:
Day Cab Idle
The agencies considered the comments, both supporting and raising concerns over idle reduction in day
cabs. The agencies determined that neutral idle for automatic transmissions is an appropriate technology
for use in tractors. Therefore, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 to recognize neutral-idle in
automatic transmissions as an input to GEM. Our analysis shows that neutral idle effectiveness is
approximately 0.8 to 1 percent over the composite day cab tractor cycles. The agencies will also include
neutral idle as a GEM input for sleeper cabs, though the effectiveness is very low. The agencies are
predicating the standards for day cabs based a technology package that includes neutral idle.
-------
In terms of stop-start technologies in tractors, the agencies are not including it as a technology input to
GEM because we believe the technology needs further development before application to the tractor
sector. If this technology is developed in the future for tractors, then manufacturers may consider
applying for off-cycle technology credits. Consistent with the technology not being an input to GEM, the
agencies are not predicating the Phase 2 standards based on adoption of stop-start in tractors.
It is also worth noting that there are a set of day cab tractors that may qualify as "vocational tractors" and
be treated as vocational vehicles. This set of vehicles will be able to utilize the vocational approach to
idle reduction.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allow
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS, though we have set the effectiveness of TPMS lower than ATIS to reflect the need
for operator intervention.
With respect to costs, all of the agencies' technology cost analyses include both direct and indirect costs.
Indirect costs include items such as warranty. In terms of maintenance, the presence of tire inflation
management systems, should serve to improve tire maintenance intervals and perhaps reduce vehicle
downtime due to tire issues; they may also carry with them some increased maintenance costs to ensure
that the tire inflation systems themselves remain in proper operation. For the analysis, we have
considered these two competing factors to cancel each other out.
Hybrids in Tractors
After considering the comments, the agencies are continuing the Phase 1 approach of not including hybrid
powertrains in our feasibility analysis for Phase 2. Because the technology is still under development for
the tractor sector we cannot confidently assess the effectiveness of this technology for tractors at this
time. In addition, due to the high cost, limited benefit during highway driving, and lacking any existing
systems or manufacturing base, we cannot conclude with certainty that such technology will be available
for tractors in the 2021-2027 timeframe. However, manufacturers will be able to use powertrain testing to
capture the performance of a hybrid system in GEM if systems are developed in the Phase 2 timeframe.
In addition, the agencies are recognizing electrified accessories in GEM in Phase 2.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - CARB strongly prefers proposed Alternative 4 Phase 2 Heavy-Duty Combination
Tractor Emission Standards
The NPRM requests comments on the proposed alternatives, with special interest in Alternatives 3 and 4.
In total, the NPRM considers five alternatives as summarized in Table 11-22 of the NPRM, shown
below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.42]
[Table 11-22 can be found on p. 42 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
-------
For tractors as with all vehicle categories, Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Alternative 2 would
base the standards on the application of off-the-shelf technologies, which is the same approach taken in
Phase 1. Alternative 3 is U.S. EPA andNHTSA's preferred alternative. Alternative 4 is identical in
stringency to Alternative 3, but its implementation schedule is accelerated by three years (i.e., from 2027
to 2024). Alternative 5 is the most aggressive alternative, requiring the highest market adoption rate of
more advanced technologies amongst the five alternatives. CARB strongly prefers Alternative 4 standards
over Alternative 3 standards over all vehicle categories including tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.42]
For a compliant Phase 2 tractor, U.S. EPA and NHTSA estimate that Alternative 3 standards would
achieve up to 24 percent reduction in C02 emissions compared to a Phase 1 tractor at a cost of
approximately $13,000 per vehicle. Alternative 4 achieves the same percent reduction in C02 emissions
and fuel consumption compared to a Phase 1 tractor, but does it three years earlier, at a per vehicle cost of
approximately $14,000 per vehicle (i.e., $1,000 more per vehicle than Alternative 3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.42]
Alternative 4 is technologically feasible and will result in more emission and fuel consumption reductions
from heavy-duty tractors in MYs 2021 through 2026. The increased cost due to the accelerated
implementation is minimal - about $1,000 per vehicle as estimated by U.S. EPA and NHTSA. The
improved fuel efficiencies resulting from either alternative would decrease fuel use, which equates to fuel
savings that would eventually offset the upfront cost of the required technologies. U.S. EPA and NHTSA
estimate the payback period for tractor and trailers for both Alternative 3 and 4 is similar at about 2 years.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p.42-43]
When looking more broadly at not only tractors, but also tractor engines and the trailers they pull,
Alternative 4 achieves greater emission benefits and greater net societal benefits, than Alternative 3. As
summarized in Table 7, Alternative 4 for tractors, tractor engines, and trailers would cumulatively achieve
75.7 more MMT C02 reductions nationally than Alternative 3 for MYs 2018 through 2029 vehicles. This
additional reduction would occur with a $16.7 billion greater net benefit in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.43]
[Table 7 can be found on p.43 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
The tractor vehicle technologies used to set the tractor standards varied by class of tractor (class 7/8), type
of tractor cab (day cab or sleeper cab), and height of roof (low roof, mid roof or high roof). Table 9 shows
the Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 technology adoption rates for class 8 high roof sleeper cab tractors.
The conclusions drawn from comparing these adoption rates of these tractors can be applied to all tractor
types addressed by the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.44]
[Table 9 can be found on p.45-46 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
As shown in Table 9, there is no increase in market penetration between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4
for extended idle reduction, predictive cruise control, automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS), axle
lubricant technologies, 6x2 axle or 4x2 axle technologies, direct drive technologies, and dual clutch
transmissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.46]
The market penetration rates for aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance (LRR) tires show a
decrease in the penetration rates for technologies that are equivalent to SmartWay and SmartWay Elite
technologies and a higher penetration of more advanced aerodynamic treatments and LRR tire materials
and designs. Currently, aerodynamic technologies are dominated by existing, widely-used fairings and
-------
more aerodynamic shapes of the tractor body itself. Bin II represents currently available SmartWay
aerodynamic technologies. Bin V through VII tractors incorporate more advanced technologies which are
currently in the prototype stage of development, such as advanced gap reduction, rearview cameras to
replace mirrors, wheel system streamlining, and advanced body designs. To the extent that these
advanced designs use existing technologies in new and innovative ways (i.e., rearview cameras) concerns
over reliability are minimal. For the steer and drive tire technologies, level 1 represents rolling resistance
equivalent to today's SmartWay tires. Level 2 represents the best in class rolling resistance tires available
today. Level 3 represents a 25 percent improvement over level 2 which should be achievable in the 2024
timeframe. Should more complex systems or advanced materials require more reliability testing prior to
MY 2024 tractor production date deadlines, higher applications of one or more of the other proven
technologies from the other categories (i.e., level 2 LRR tires, predictive cruise, ATIS, etc.) can be used to
meet the 2024 Alternative 4 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.46]
For transmissions, the market penetrations decrease for manual transmissions and increase for automatic
transmissions when comparing Alternative 3 to Alternative 4. This change is reflected in the increase in
the application of downspeeding, since advanced transmissions enable downspeeding. With the exception
of dual clutch transmission technology, automated manual transmission and automatic transmission
technology is mature and should not result in reliability concerns associated with its application in MY
2024 tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p.46-47]
Comment - Extended idle reduction approach to day cab tractors
The NPRM requests comment on the applicability of the idle test cycle to day cab tractors. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.47]
Day cab tractors often idle while cargo is loaded or unloaded, as well as during the frequent stops that are
inherent with driving in urban traffic conditions near cargo destinations. To recognize idle reduction
technologies that reduce workday idling, U.S. EPA and NHTSA have developed a new idle-only duty
cycle that is proposed to be used in GEM for vocational vehicles only, because these types of vehicles
spend more time at idle than tractors. However, U.S. EPA and NHTSA request comment on whether they
should extend this vocational vehicle idle reduction approach to day cab tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.47]
CARB staff believes U.S. EPA and NHTSA should extend the idle provision to day cab tractors.
Currently, limited numbers of specific types of day-cab tractors (e.g., low-roof bottle delivery tractors)
may be reclassified as vocational tractors. These reclassified tractors can take advantage of the vocational
vehicle idle reduction approach. See 40 CFR 1037.630. By extending the workday idle provisions to all
day-cab tractors, manufacturers would have some incentive to install neutral idle or stop-start systems on
mid-roof and high roof day-cabs. Although the first user may not see significant emission reductions from
these technologies, many of the high roof and mid roof day cab tractors are used in port and drayage
applications in their second life - where start-stop and neutral idle technologies could result in significant
emission reductions as these trucks travel in and out of ports and rail yard facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.47]
Extending the idle provision to day cab tractors would require U.S. EPA and NHTSA to set a fixed GEM
composite cycle weighting factor at a value representative of the time spent at idle for a typical day cab
tractor. For vocational vehicles in the regional category, the idle cycle weighting factor is 10 percent. U.S.
EPA and NHTSA suggest 5 percent may be the appropriate value. Initial reaction is that the factor will
probably be between 5 and 10 percent. CARB staff would like to work with U.S. EPA and NHTSA staff
to determine the appropriate value for the day cab factor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.47-48]
-------
Comment - Tire pressure monitoring system
The NPRM requests comment on whether they should assign a fixed credit in fuel consumption and C02
emissions for tire pressure monitoring systems, and if so, what would be an appropriate assigned fixed
value. Maintaining properly inflated tires can extend tire life, save fuel, and improve safety, so CARB
staff generally supports the use of systems that assist in the maintenance of properly inflated tires.
However, CARB staff strongly supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA not providing credit for tire pressure
monitoring systems for heavy-duty tractors and trailers. Unlike ATISs, tire pressure monitoring systems
only monitor pressure and alert the driver regarding the variance between the recommended target
pressure and the actual measured pressure in the tire. Tire pressure monitoring systems require action
from the drivers to reinflate the affected tire(s), hence the benefit of such systems is dependent on driver
behavior. Because there is no guarantee what action, if any, drivers will take in response to tire pressure
monitoring systems, CARB staff recommends no credit for such systems in Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1]
In the Tire Pressure Systems - Confidence Report dated August 2013, the North American Council for
Freight Efficiency (NACFE) indicated that ATISs are more common than tire pressure monitoring
systems by a ratio of about four to one for trailers. The ATIS is designed to monitor and continually
adjust the level of pressurized air in tires, automatically keeping tires properly inflated even while the
vehicle is in motion. CARB staff concurs with U.S. EPA and NHTSA's proposal to provide credit in
GEM for the installation of ATISs on tractors and trailers. This system was included in CARB's
evaluation of vehicle efficiency technologies for heavy-duty vehicles that would result in improved fuel
consumption and reductions in GHG emissions. For more information on ATIS, please refer to CARB's
Draft Technology Assessment: Engine/Powerplant and Drivetrain Optimization and Vehicle Efficiency,
June 2015 at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/techreport/epdo ve tech report.pdf. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.138]
Comment - Solar control clarification
The RIA includes some incorrect statements, as described further below. First, the RIA states, "Solar
control glazing reflects some of the solar energy from the glass." The implication of this sentence is that
solar control glazing is synonymous with solar reflective glazing. However, in fact, solar control glazing
includes both solar absorbing glazing and solar reflective glazing. The RIA states, "CARB found that
most heavy-duty trucks today use solar absorbing glass." The Enhanced Protective Glass Automotive
Association (not CARB) has indicated that new trucks are typically provided with solar absorbing glazing
(total solar transmission of around 60 percent, compared to 88 percent for clear glass). Note also that the
statement applies to original glazing and may not be true for replacement glazing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.154]
U.S. EPA and NHTSA further note they are "not proposing [solar control paint and glazing] as part of
heavy-duty Phase 2, but these types of technologies could be considered under the innovative technology
program." CARB believes it is appropriate to retain the flexibility to consider solar control credits where
such controls are shown to reduce overall GHG emissions and agrees that it is appropriate to require
demonstration of quantified benefits before credit is granted for class 4-8 vehicles. See CARB docket
letter dated December 3,2014 for a thorough discussion of issues involved in determining appropriate
solar control credits for heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 154]
-------
59 See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0035 for our
comment regarding solar load.
Comment - VSL Benefit
According to the NPRM, VSLs were not considered when setting the proposed Phase 2 standards;
however, U.S. EPA and NHTSA propose to allow use of VSL as a technology to meet the proposed
standards. The NPRM proposes that manufacturers would receive credit for installing tamper-proof VSLs
with maximum drive cycle speeds set at 65 mph; the draft GEM appears to offer up to 22 percent credit
for use of VSL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 155]
CARB staff recommends not giving any credit for VSLs at this time because available data do not fully
support whether VSLs result in real-world fuel consumption and C02 reductions. In addition to the
concerns regarding possible tampering of VSLs when in use, which the NPRM mentions, the data are still
inconclusive as to whether VSLs can provide real-world fuel benefits, especially for modern trucks.60 In
fact, C02 emissions were shown to decrease as vehicles' speed increase (improved fuel economy at
higher speeds) in Oak Ridge National Laboratory's (ORNL) Transportation Energy Data Book (Table
5.11, Fuel Economy for Class 8 Trucks as a Function of Speed and Tractor-Trailer Tire Combination, and
Figure 5.3 (shown below - Figure 6), Class 8 Trucks Fuel Economy as a Function of Speed and Tractor-
Trailer Tire Combination and Percentage of Total Distance Traveled as a Function of Speed, available at
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter5.shtml). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 155]
[Figure 6 can be found on p. 156 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]61
The data presented above indicates there may be no benefit through use of VSLs or even possibly a dis-
benefit; hence, CARB staff recommends no credit in GEM for VSLs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p. 156]
The issue of whether and what credit to offer for VSLs is timely and important because tamper-proof
VSLs may soon be required in the U.S. by federal regulation. In 2006, the American Trucking
Association (ATA), Road Safe America and a group of motor carriers petitioned NHTSA to initiate
rulemaking to require vehicle manufacturers to install a device to limit the speed of trucks with a GVWR
greater than 26,000 lbs to no more than 68 mph. The petitions were based on a desire to reduce the
number and severity of crashes involving large trucks.62 NHTSA in 2011 agreed to consider a rule
requiring speed limiters and has stated they intend to propose such a rule later this year
(http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2007-26851-3854).—As a result, VSLs are
likely to be widely utilized in heavy-duty truck fleets in the near future; thus, the issue of understanding
whether or not VSLs have an emissions benefit and not offering too much credit for them in GEM is
imperative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 156-157]
Before offering any credit for VSLs, CARB staff suggests that U.S. EPA and NHTSA should thoroughly
evaluate whether they would result in real-world C02 and fuel consumption benefits. CARB staff is
willing to offer our help in this evaluation if needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 157]
If U.S. EPA and NHTSA decide to give credit in Phase 2 GEMs for VSLs, VSL benefit should also be
included in premising the proposed standards. If credit for use of VSLs is granted without considering
them when setting stringency, use of VSLs will only reduce use of other technologically feasible
technologies that were included when setting stringency, without providing further benefit. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 157]
-------
Comment - VSL credit in GEM
The NPRM proposes that manufacturers would receive credit for installing tamper-proof VSLs with
maximum drive cycle speed set at 65 mph or less (the minimum VSL value input in GEM is set at 45
mph). The draft GEM model appears to offer up to 22 percent credit for use of VSL,64 which is
unreasonably high. In addition, as mentioned in the above comment, whether or not use of VSL will
provide emissions benefit is still an open question. Thus, CARB staff strongly suggests U.S. EPA and
NHTSA remove the credit offered for use of VSL in GEM, pending confirmation of the actual fuel
consumption and C02 benefits VSLs achieve in the real world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.157-158]
Comment - Participation of owners in VSLs' emissions credit transactions
The NPRM requests comment on potential means by which truck owners that use VSLs could directly
participate in Phase 2 emission credit transactions. It is not clear what fleet owners would do with Phase 2
credits and allowing fleet owners to garner such credits would unnecessarily complicate implementation
and enforcement of the Phase 2 program. As a result, CARB staff recommends not including owners in
emission credit transactions for VSL installation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.158]
60 See Attachment 7 for California Air Resources Board's Portable Emissions Measurement System's
Data on 2010 Standard Trucks - Carbon Dioxide Emission Rate vs. Speed.
[Attachment 7 can be found on p.39 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1268-A1]
61 (ORNL, 2008) Capps, Gary, Oscar Franzese, Bill Knee, M.B. Lascurain, and Pedro Otaduy. "Class-8
Heavy Truck Duty Cycle Project Final Report," ORNL/TM-2008/122, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, TN, December 2008.
62 (NACFE, 2011) North American Council for Freight Efficiency, "Speed Limiters Save Money and Fuel
without Significant Productivity Loss," February, 2011. . accessed on July 9, 2015.
63 (NHTSA, 2011) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Engine Control Module Speed Limiter
Device, Federal Register Notice, January 3,
2011. . accessed on July
30, 2015.
64 This is estimated based on GEM results for sample GEM input file of tractor. The specified tractor
configuration (350 hp with AMT transmission) was run with four scenarios (no VSL - baseline, 45 mph
speed limit VSL, 55 mph speed limit VSL, and 65 mph speed limit VSL). Projected C02 emissions for
each scenario were used to calculate percent C02 reduction from baseline (no VSL use) (22%, 11%, and
0.01% C02 reduction for VSL set at 45 mph, 55 mph, and 65 mph, respectively).
Response:
Alternative 3 vs. 4
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the proposed Alternative 3 and
Alternative 4 tractor standards. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed comments received
-------
regarding technologies. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. Instead of merely
choosing from among the proposed alternatives, the agencies have developed a set of final tractor
standards that reflect our reevaluation of the ability to pull ahead certain technologies, the limitations in
adoption rates and/or effectiveness of other technologies, and consideration of additional technologies. In
general, the final Phase 2 tractor standards are similar in overall stringency as the levels proposed in
Alternative 3, but have been determined using new technology packages that reflect consideration of all
of the technology comments, and in several respects reflect greater stringency than the proposed
Alternative 3.
Day Cab Idle
The agencies considered the comments, both supporting and raising concerns over idle reduction in day
cabs. The agencies determined that neutral idle for automatic transmissions is an appropriate technology
for use in tractors, as discussed in Section III.D. l.b of the Preamble to the final rule. Therefore, the
agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 to recognize neutral-idle in automatic transmissions as an
input to GEM. Our analysis shows that neutral idle effectiveness is approximately 0.8 to 1 percent over
the composite day cab tractor cycles, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.8.2.6. The agencies will also include
neutral idle as a GEM input for sleeper cabs, though the effectiveness is very low. The agencies are
predicating the standards for day cabs based on a technology package that includes neutral idle.
In terms of stop-start technologies in tractors, the agencies are not including it as a technology input to
GEM because we believe the technology needs further development for tractors. Since the agencies are
not predicating the Phase 2 standards on adoption of start-stop technologies, the agencies are also not
including this technology as a GEM input. If this technology is developed in the future for tractors, then
manufacturers may consider applying for off-cycle technology credits.
Tire Pressure Systems
As noted in earlier responses in this unit, after consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting
provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allow manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel
consumption standards using various technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR
1037.520). This reflects a change from the Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM
input. The agencies believe that sufficient incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure
conditions if they are notified that they exist through a TPMS; however, we set the effectiveness of TPMS
slightly lower than ATIS to reflect that operators will be required to take some action to insure that the
proper inflation pressure is maintained.
Solar Control
The agencies received a letter from the California Air Resources Board prior to the proposal requesting
consideration of including technologies that reduce solar heating of the cab (to reduce air conditioning
loads) in setting the Phase 2 tractor standards. Solar reflective paints and solar control glazing
technologies are discussed in RIA Chapter 2.4.9.3. The agencies requested comment on the Air
Resources Board's letter and recommendations.55 The agencies received some clarifications from ARB
on our evaluation of solar technologies and some CBI from Daimler, but not a sufficient amount of
information to evaluate the baseline level of solar control that exists in the heavy-duty market today,
determine the effectiveness of each of the solar technologies, or to develop a definition of what qualifies
55 California Air Resources Board. Letter from Michael Carter to Matthew Spears dated December 3, 2014. Solar
Control: Heavy-Duty Vehicles White Paper. Docket EPA-HA-OAR-2014-0827.
-------
as a solar control technology that could be used in the regulations. Therefore, the agencies would
consider solar control to be a technology that manufacturers may consider pursuing through the off-cycle
credit program. As such, the agencies did not include solar load management technologies in the
technology packages used in setting the final Phase 2 tractor standard stringencies.
VSL
The agencies conducted in-use tractor testing at different speeds and in turn used this data to validate the
GEM simulations of VSL, as discussed in more detail in RIA Chapter 4.3.2. The agencies are confident
that GEM appropriately recognizes the impact of VSL on C02 emissions and fuel consumption. The
agencies have limited the range of inputs to the VSL in Phase 2 GEM to a minimum of 55 mph to align
with the regulations in 40 CFR 1037.631 that provide exemptions for vocational vehicles intended for off-
road use. A 55 mph VSL installed on a typical day cab tractor would reduce the composite grams of C02
emitted per ton-mile by 7 percent. Similarly, a 55 mph VSL on a sleeper cab would reduce the composite
grams of C02 per ton-mile emitted by 10 percent. Please see RIA Chapter 2.8.2.10 for additional details
of the technology impacts.
Organization: Caterpillar Inc., et al.
As proposed, the regulation will limit or eliminate our ability to meet the basic customer requirements for
many of the thousands of widely varying applications we support today. Based on our current analysis, it
is not clear that the proposed Alternative 3 targets - which include a number of unrealistic technology
penetration rates - can be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.7]
Aerodynamic: 60% in Bins V, VI, and VII - Given the proposed aerodynamic testing procedures, the
Phase 2 test trailer, and the lack of any audit margin for these highly variable test processes, it is
infeasible to design tractors that can achieve even bin V, much less bins VI and VII. In fact, none of the
vehicles developed within the Department of Energy's SuperTruck program are capable of meeting the
aerodynamic targets the agencies assumed when setting stringency levels. The agencies must eliminate
expected penetration in these higher bins unless they agree to wholesale changes to the aerodynamic
testing procedures and restore the audit margin available in the Phase 1 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1215-A1 p.5-6]
6x2's: 60% - 6x2's may not be used legally in all 50 U.S. states and in parts of Canada. In particular, six
state laws limit tire and axle loading in such a way that 6x2's cannot be used as intended, and many other
states have confusing regulations that effectively prevent usage of 6x2's. Most fleet owners must
purchase tractors that can operate in all 50 states, and many cross the border between the U.S. and
Canada. EPA and NHTSA should assume no more than a 5% penetration rate for 6x2's through 2027 and
should engage in additional study of the safety and regulatory challenges associated with 6x2's. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.6]
Tire Inflation Systems: 40% - Customers are more likely to purchase tire pressure monitoring systems,
which provide all of the benefits of tire inflation systems at a lower cost. In addition, a customer who
simply checks tire pressure daily can achieve all of the same benefits without purchasing either
technology and incurring its costs. Tire inflation systems should not be forced into the market by
assuming any penetration rate. To the extent credit is provided for these systems, both tire inflation
systems and tire pressure monitoring systems should receive the same amount of credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1215-A1 p.6]
-------
Idle Shutdown Timers CAES"): 90% - The agencies base stringency on an assumed 90% penetration rate
of tamper-resistant idle shut down timers. Notably, most fleets already purchase customer programmable
idle shutdown timers which limit idling. However, fleets do not purchase tamper-resistant versions of idle
shutdown timers because of the negative perception in the secondary market regarding such technology,
and the importance of considering resale value when purchasing a new vehicle. In practice, idle shutdown
timers are typically used for the useful life of the vehicle, whether they are customer programmable or
tamper-resistant. If forced to purchase mandatory shutdown timers, many fleets will pre-buy vehicles to
delay the negative costs associated with such technology. AES's should not be considered part of
stringency, unless the agencies choose to provide credit for programmable versions of AES's that provide
essentially the same environmental benefits as the non-programmable version. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1215-A1 p.6]
Low Rolling Resistance ("LRR") Tires - Tires must meet the most demanding needs of the customers.
LRR tires may suffice for many conditions, but they must meet the demands of all conditions. This
includes sloped loading docks, which frequently are no treated or plowed in winter conditions. Unpaved
and uneven trailer drop lots also create challenges for traction. In addition, tire casings must have
adequate durability to allow as many as 5 retread operations. Including widespread use of LRR tires when
determining a baseline from which to apply reductions will result in overly stringent standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.6-7]
In addition, many technologies in the proposal can have unaccounted negative impacts to vehicle fuel
economy and the corresponding greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. aerodynamic impact from increased
wheelbases due to APU installation, payload loss due to increased weight of hybrid systems, and weight
and aerodynamic impacts due to waste heat recovery installation). These losses decrease any expected
payback on the technology investment. Some of the assumed technologies also may drive increased cycle
times or vehicle trips due to decreased payload, requiring additional trucks and operators in the fleet to
perform the same quantity of work. Regardless of the specific technologies an OEM chooses to meet the
mandate, the compressed design cycles driven by the Phase 2 regulation's timing and unrealistic
stringencies will drive increases in total cost of ownership for vehicle owners. On top of this, for truck
OEMs to remain viable businesses, the billions of dollars in industry development cost must be amortized
over the relatively small volumes in the heavy-duty vehicle market, adding many thousands of dollars in
cost per vehicle that have not been adequately considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.7-8]]
As such, the Truck OEMs request the agencies take a total cost of ownership approach when considering
technology feasibility and penetrations, as well as stringency levels and their timing. Failure to do so will
result in an unrealistic cost and penetration rate assessment, severely impacting a truck OEM's ability to
meet the mandated fleet reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.8]
Response:
Aerodynamics
In consideration of these comments, the agencies have adjusted the aerodynamic adoption rate for Class 8
high roof sleeper cabs used to set the final standards in 2021, 2024, and 2027 MYs (/. e., the degree of
technology adoption on which the stringency of the standard is premised). The agencies' assessment for
the final rule is that only Bins I through V are achievable with known aerodynamic technologies, but that
Bins VI and VII have less known technology paths. Upon further analysis of simulation modeling of a
SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the manufacturers that a
SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the Bin V level of CdA. See RIA Chapter
2.8.2.2. These aerodynamic improvements have been demonstrated within the program on two vehicles in
-------
2015. In the final rule, the agencies are projecting that truck manufacturers will be able to begin
implementing these aerodynamic technologies as early as 2021 MY on a limited scale. We adjusted the
adoption rates for MY 2027 in the technology package developed for the final rule to consist of 20
percent of Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V reflecting our assessment of the fraction of
high roof sleeper cab tractors in this segment that we project could successfully apply these aerodynamic
packages with this amount of lead time. The agencies phased-in the aerodynamic technology adoption
rates within the technology packages used to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that
manufacturers can gradually introduce these technologies. For example, in the 2021 MY technology
package, the agencies have assumed that 10 percent of high roof sleeper cabs and 5 percent of high roof
day cabs will have Bin V aerodynamic performance. This phase-in structure is consistent with the normal
manner in which manufacturers introduce new technology to manage limited research and development
budgets as well as to allow them to work with fleets to fully evaluate in-use reliability before a technology
is applied fleet-wide. The agencies believe the phase-in schedule will allow manufacturers to complete
these normal processes. Overall, while the agencies are now projecting slightly less benefit from
aerodynamic improvements than we did in the NPRM, the actual aerodynamic technology being projected
is very similar to what was projected at the time of NPRM.
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.56 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.57 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."58
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
Tire Pressure Systems
56 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
57 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
58 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
-------
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS; however, we set the effectiveness of TPMS slightly lower than ATIS to reflect that
operators will be required to take some action to insure that the proper inflation pressure is maintained.
Idle Reduction Technologies
While the agencies do not necessarily believe that customer reluctance in the initial years of Phase 1
should be considered insurmountable, we do agree with commenters that the agencies should allow
adjustable AESS to be a technology input to GEM and should differentiate effectiveness based on the idle
reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-
proof and adjustable systems to qualify for some reduction. After consideration of the comments, the
agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle reduction technologies and only projected
adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1
certification data.59 We found that high roof sleeper cabs are certified today with steer tire rolling
resistance levels that ranged between 4.9 and 7.6 kg/ton and with drive tires ranging between 5.1 and 9.8
kg/ton. In the same analysis, we found that high roof day cabs are certified with rolling resistance levels
ranging between 4.9 and 9.0 kg/ton for steer tires and between 5.1 and 9.8 kg/ton for drive tires. This
range spans the baseline through Level 3 rolling resistance performance levels. Therefore, for the final
rule we took an approach similar to the one taken in Phase 1 and proposed in Phase 2 that considers
adoption rates across a wide range of tire rolling resistance levels to recognize that operators may have
different needs. 76 FR 57211 and 80 FR 40227.
In our analysis of the Phase 1 certification data, we found that the drive tires on low and mid roof sleeper
cab tractors on average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling resistance than the high roof sleeper cabs. But
we found only a minor difference in rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor subcategories.
Based on comments received and further consideration of our own analysis of the difference in tire rolling
resistance levels that exist today in the certification data, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards
using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for low and mid roof tractors than
the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards. This is also consistent with the approach that we
took in setting the Phase 1 tractor standards. 76 FR 57211. In addition, the final rule reflects a reduction
in Level 3 adoption rates for low and mid roof tractors from 25 percent in MY 2027 used at proposal (80
FR 40227) to zero percent adoption rate. The technology packages developed for the low and mid roof
tractors used to determine the stringency of the MY 2027 standards in the final rule do not include any
adoption rate of Level 3 drive tires to recognize the special needs of these applications, consistent with the
comments noted above raising concerns about applications that limit the use of low rolling resistance
tires.
59 Memo to Docket. Coefficient of Rolling Resistance and Coefficient of Drag Certification Data for Tractors.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
-------
The agencies phased-in the low rolling resistance tire adoption rates within the technology packages used
to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that manufacturers can gradually introduce these
technologies. In addition, the levels of rolling resistance used in all of the technology packages are
achievable with either dual or wide based single tires, so the agencies are not forcing one technology over
another.
Total Cost of Ownership
The agencies considered the total cost of ownership during the payback calculations, included in RIA
Chapter 7 of the final rule. The payback calculations include the hardware costs of the new technologies
and their associated fixed costs, increased insurance, taxes, and maintenance. The agencies found that for
each category of vehicle - tractor/trailers, vocational vehicles, and HD pickups and vans - included in the
Phase 2 rule that the fuel savings significantly exceed the costs associated with the technologies over the
lifetime of the vehicles.
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
Tractor-Trailers
Tractor-trailers consume approximately 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel and emit a similar
proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, combination tractor-trailers emit two-thirds of the
total greenhouse gases from commercial trucks. As such, maximizing efficiency for these vehicles will
both carry a significant environmental benefit and save the most fuel among the various classes of trucks
subject to the Proposed Rule. We support the agencies' decision to set standards for both tractors and
trailers in this second phase of truck efficiency standards: the Phase 1 standards did not apply to box
trailers. The Proposed Rule would result in approximately a 10.4 percent reduction in combined tractor-
trailer energy use between 2017 and 2027,43 but current and future technology would allow reductions of
25 to 27 percent over this same time frame.44 A stakeholder workshop on tractor-trailer efficiencies
generated an impressive suite of technologies that have both short term (before 2018) and longer term
(2020 to 2030) potential to reduce fuel use and emissions by up to 38 percent.45 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1460-A1 p.10]
A recent analysis46 indicates that the Proposed Rule does not even meet the potential that has already been
demonstrated through the Department of Energy's SuperTruck program - a clear indication that the
standards are not technology forcing. The SuperTruck public-private partnership aims to demonstrate a 50
percent increase in tractor-trailer efficiency and a 20 percent improvement in engine efficiency between
2010 and 2015.47 Impressive strides have been made reaching - and exceeding - these goals: the
Cummins-Peterbilt team achieved a 76 percent increase in tractor-trailer efficiency48 and more recently
the Daimler-Freightliner team achieved a 115 percent improvement in efficiency.49 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1460-A1 p.10-11]
Most importantly, when directly comparing the Proposed Rule 2027 standards and what SuperTruck
partners have already achieved, the proposed standards for tractors-trailers would achieve only about
three-quarters of the fuel savings that have been demonstrated by SuperTruck partners.50 The Proposed
Rule takes SuperTruck research and development into account when calculating the dynamic baseline, or
reference truck, but fails to properly employ the demonstrated improvements from the SuperTruck
program when determining what technology is maximally feasible. In fact, the Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis ("RIA") explicitly acknowledges that there are likely to be more advanced aerodynamics options
by 2027.52 Since the agencies already predict such advances, the technology-forcing nature of the
-------
governing statutes requires that they be included in the standards, especially when the proposed time
horizon is within the range of tractor redesign cycles.53 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 11]
Although the Proposed Rule assumes a wide range of technologies, the penetration rates assumed by the
agencies and potential improvements appear to be underestimated.54 The technology forcing nature of
Clean Air Act § 202 and EPCA/EISA requires more aggressive assumptions regarding technology
adoption. The agencies are proposing standards that are either already attained or easily attainable, and
then hoping that manufacturers will explore and continue to improve technologies of their free will.55 This
is contrary to the specific language, structure, and intent of the statutes: a clear regulatory signal is
necessary and intended to drive innovation, ensuring that technology improvements occur as rapidly as
possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p. 11]
In sum, the total reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and fuel usage could be significantly greater if
the agencies adopt standards that represent true maximum efficiency improvements, even while
remaining economically feasible and safe. The NHTSA may not adopt standards that undermine the
purpose of the EPCA/EISA - energy conservation. Yet, the proposed fuel use reductions for tractor-
trailers would provide only about one-third of the maximal feasible benefits. This constitutes an arbitrary
and capricious balancing of factors that significantly impedes the congressional mandate to promote
energy conservation. Likewise, these minimal reductions fail the Clean Air Act's technology-forcing
requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 11-12]
43 US EPA, Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2 Draft Regulatory Impacts Analysis 5-15 (June
2015) ("Draft RIA").
44 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, ADVANCED TRACTOR-
TRAILER EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGY POTENTIAL IN THE 2020-2030 TIMEFRAME 54 (Apr.
2015), available at http://theicct.org/us-tractor-trailer-efficiencv-technology.
45 Id. at 8.
46 Nic Lutsey, Will new U.S. truck standards bring "SuperTrucks" to the market?, International Council
on Clean Transportation, )Aug. 31, 2015) ("ICCT SuperTruck blog"). http://theicct.org/blogs/staff/will-
new-us-truck-standards-bring-supertrucks-to-market.
47 See http ://energy. gov/eere/articles/supertruck-making-leaps-fuel-efficiencv.
48 Id.
49 See http://energv.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/supertruck-team-achieves-115-freight-efficiencv-
improvement-class-8-long-haul.
50 ICCT SuperTruck blog, supra note 46.
52 Draft RIA at 2-18.
53 Id. at 2-16 ("tractor model lifecycle of up to 10 years").
-------
54 For example, dual clutch systems are assumed to provide only up to 2% improvement (Proposed Rule
at Table III-7), but the stakeholder workshop assigned this technology approximately 5.5 (+ 2) %
improvement (ICCT Tractor-Trailer report, supra note 44); the Proposed Rule omits weight reduction in
setting stringency assigning an improvement of 0.3 % (Proposed Rule at 40223), while the stakeholder
workshop found over 3 (+ 1) % improvements from weight reduction (ICCT Tractor-Trailer report, supra
note 44).
55 See, e.g., Draft RIA, supra note 43 at 2-16 ("we anticipate manufacturers would continue to apply these
techniques [sealing gaps] across their models and continue to explore refinements and re-designs in other
areas of the tractor"). But note that the agencies are also fully aware that a regulatory signal is necessary
to correct private market failures and "provide regulatory certainty and thus generate important economic
benefits in addition to reducing externalities." Id. at 8-5.
Response:
The proposed Phase 2 program would lead to up to 24% percent reduction in GHG emissions from high
roof sleeper cabs and up to 8% from box trailers for greater than 30% reduction in tractor-trailers when
compared to a baseline tractor-trailer meeting the Phase 1 standards, not the 10% stated by the
commenter. In addition, EPA conducted GEM simulations evaluating both the best projected tractor-
trailer in the 2027 timeframe that showed much greater reductions than the 10% stated by the commenter
(Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0050).
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the proposed Alternative 3 and
Alternative 4 tractor standards. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed technology comments
received and these are discussed in detail in the following sections. Instead of merely choosing from
among the proposed alternatives, the agencies have developed a set of final tractor standards that reflect
our reevaluation of the ability to pull ahead certain technologies, the limitations in adoption rates and/or
effectiveness of other technologies, and consideration of additional technologies. In general, the final
Phase 2 tractor standards are similar in overall stringency as the levels proposed in Alternative 3, but have
been determined using new technology packages that reflect consideration of all of the technology
comments, and in several respects reflect greater stringency than Alternative 3.
DOE has partnered with the heavy-duty industry to demonstrate high roof sleeper cab tractor and box
trailer combinations (only one of the ten tractor subcategories) that achieve a 50 percent improvement in
freight efficiency evaluated as a 65,000 pound vehicle operating on the highway under somewhat
controlled circumstances. However, these SuperTrucks are not necessarily designed to handle the rigors
of daily use over actual in-use roads. For example, they generally have very limited ground clearance that
would likely preclude operation in snow, and would be very susceptible to damage from potholes or other
road hazards. In addition, each manufacturer only produced a single high roof sleeper cab for
demonstration purposes at a cost of nearly $40-$80 million each. While the agencies cannot simply
apply the SuperTruck program achievements directly into the Phase 2 program because of the significant
differences in the limited purpose of SuperTruck and the plenary applicability of a regulation to all
operating conditions and duty cycles, it is helpful to assess the achievements and evaluate how the
technologies could be applied into mass production into a variety of real world applications while
maintaining performance throughout the full useful life of the vehicle.
Organization: Cline, C and J
-------
But, one technical problem exists that permeates throughout the transport industry, including the
regulators that reduces safety, damages driver health, and damages our world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0803-A2 p.l]
We should not be going backwards. Saving fuel to the detriment of other costs, safety, our health, or our
world is simply dumb. And the reason for this letter, is something that is so dumb, it simply amazes me
that we have let this practice continue for so long. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p. 1]
Incorrect Tire Pressures are used throughout the transport industry. Incorrect tire pressures are used in
regulations aimed at truck safety. Incorrect tire pressures are promoted as environmentally responsible,
yet they aren't. In fact, correct tire pressures are ignored almost totally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-
A2 p.l]
Every quality tire manufacturer, along with all Wheel and Tire Associations recommend that tire
pressures must be adjusted to suit the load. Truck Tire 'Load to Inflation' tables are easily available on
the web. Yet, these are ignored. In any other industry, anyone failing to follow the manufacturer's
recommendations would be liable for litigation, fines, and often imprisonment. Yet, the entire transport
industry, including the regulators, do just that. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.l]
Almost every class 8 steer tire is under inflated. All of the load carrying tires, drive tires, and trailer tires
are 30% over inflated, at least, even when fully legally laden. When empty, the load carrying tires can
easily be 300% over inflated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p. 1]
For instance, a class 8 tractor tandem or bogie axle set is typically limited to 34,000 pounds. The correct
cold tire pressure for this weight, running standard 11R22.5 tires, is only 75 psi. Hence the traditional
truck tire cold pressure of 100 to 110 psi is 30% over inflated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p. 1]
[Table, 'Radial Ply Tires for Trucks, Busses and Trailers used in Normal Highway Service', can be found
on p. 1 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2]
According to the Michelin USA site, running a 30% over inflated tire will reduce its life by 20% or more,
depending upon where it is placed, drive or trailer. Many trucks are not running maximum weights, so the
tires are over inflated even more, with more tire life lost. Again, Michelin states that over inflated tires
have less traction, suffer more punctures, and suffer uneven wear and tear. Hence over inflation results in
more accidents, more deaths, more blown tires, more damaged vehicles, and more pollution and waste to
dispose of. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.2]
[Figure, 'Pressure Effects on Tread Life', on drive axles and steer axles, can be found on p.2 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2]
Two years ago, tests in Australia overseen by Australian Road Research Board and Australian Road
Transport Suppliers Association did braking tests on a modern semi-trailer rig on a concrete skid pan. The
correct tire pressure decreased stopping distances by a whopping 15% on a lightly loaded rig. As empty
semi-trailers are considered the most dangerous condition, this amazing improvement in stopping ability
is simply that, amazing. It stopped short and straight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.2]
[Image of truck with explanatory text can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0803-A2]
-------
Many other tests have been done throughout the world, on the many benefits of optimizing tire pressures.
Many tests have been done by various US government departments. A little research will provide
numerous tests. Simply google 'Central Tire Inflation'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.2]
Central Tire Inflation is a simple bolt on attachment that makes on the fly tire changes easy. The driver
simply pushes a button on the dash mounted controller to raise or lower the tire pressure. CTI is used
extensively in logging and other off road/on road transport, throughout the world, especially where
traction, and or tire life is difficult. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.2]
Tire pressures on standard Load to Inflation tables typically show a limited range of loads and pressures.
The lowest pressure is often 65 or 70 psi. The reason is that, without CTI, the truck must be considered a
load carrying vehicle. With CTI, heavy truck tire pressures usually go to 25 psi as the lowest pressure at
light loads, or off road. For instance, at speeds of 50 mph or lower, 25 psi is recommended for a tire load
of up to 2,300 pounds per tire (USA Tire and Rim Association hand book). Another example is a
Michelin reference paper on 11R22.5 XTE1 tires, where a pressure of 50 psi is recommended at a weight
of 2,750 psi per tire, at highway speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.2]
[Figure, 'Design Guide, Reduced Inflation Pressure Limits for Truck Tires Used Off Highway at Reduced
Speed (For Single and Dual Applications, can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0803-A2]
But, it gets worse. Over inflated tires bounce off of every road irregularity. Just like a super ball, over
inflated tires will hammer the truck and the driver to an early grave. Whole Body Vibration is now a
proven health hazard. There are many reports on Whole Body Vibration. Conferences are held every year.
Damage starts at the brain ocular system, down through the skeletal and organs. Truck drivers suffer from
15 to 20 years shorter life expectancy. Average life expectancy is only 56 years! Over inflated tires are
killing our drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.3]
Yet more: Over inflated tires are killing our roads. Over inflated tires amplify any axle end out of balance,
causing excessive vibration that hammers our roads. Over inflated tires input higher loads into the road
surface, damaging our crumbling infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.3]
As truck tires consume large quantities of oil and energy to manufacture and transport, and are costly and
difficult to recycle or dispose of, wasted tires add significantly to our pollution and climate change levels.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.3]
To explain the problem further, consider a standard US automobile that weighs around 4,000 pounds
empty, or around 1,000 pounds per tire. Fairly typical tire pressures recommended by the manufacturer
will be around 32 to 35 psi. An empty tractor will weigh around 18,000 pounds. The weight on the steer
axles will be around 11,000 pounds, leaving 7,000 pounds on eight tires, or less than 1,000 pounds per
tire. Similarly, a flat top trailer will have even less weight on its 8 tires. Imagine running your Chev or
Ford with 100 psi in the tires.... It wouldn't handle, it wouldn't ride well, it wouldn't stop, and tire life
would be terrible. Yet this is exactly what we do to our trucks and drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0803-A2 p.3]
More explanation: My company has developed, refined, and manufactures the best Central Tire Inflation
for trucks for the last 17 years. We developed this product to serve the intensive logging industry in
Australia, which is a great testing ground. We have thousands of heavy class 8 trucks, from log truck, fuel
tankers, dump trucks, right through to road trains providing services to mining companies 500 miles from
the nearest town. In every case, running the correct tire pressures has reduced tire wear and costs by at
-------
least 30%. In some cases, tire life almost doubled. Many of our customers run 92 psi loaded at speed, 60
psi loaded on gravel roads, or empty on highway, and 30 psi empty on gravel. Note: these are hot
pressures that are actually used. These trucks carry slightly more weight than US trucks, and, when empty
have the trailers folded up on the back. My own class 6 tray truck runs pressures between 25 and 100,
depending upon load. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.3]
[Images of tires and explanatory text can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0803-A2]
We've witnessed identical trucks, one group operating highways only, with traditional tire pressures, and
one group hauling logs on mixed highway and gravel, with CTI and optimal pressures. The highway
traditional trucks were simply falling apart, with cracked axles, spring breakages, cabin mount problems,
cracked dashes, while the CTI equipped trucks operating in rougher conditions, had twice the miles, and
no failures. This single firm operated dozens of highway trucks and a dozen log trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0803-A2 p.3-4]
[Image of truck and explanatory text can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0803-A2]
Other operators reported doubling the life of transmissions and differentials with optimized tire pressures.
Another company did a vibration test at the driver's seat. The optimized tire pressure truck exceeded their
vibration limit 13 times. Three identical trucks, running traditional tire pressures, exceeded the vibration
limit by 531, 560, and 573 times! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.4]
To summarize, almost every truck in America is running the wrong tire pressures. The information is
readily available. Unfortunately, no one knows that cares. I believe that many are happy with the status
quo. Many of the tire salesmen can't be bothered to tell their customers, and put up with the arguments, or
risk 'losing face'. And why bother when everyone else is doing the same thing. Truck drivers are often
second or third generation. Many fleet operators are ex truck drivers. Traditionally, all trucks ran either
100 to 110 psi, depending upon their preference. This is left over from cross ply/bias ply tire needs. We
just haven't changed our mentality to radial truck tires. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.4]
Regulators should know better, should be well informed, yet, again, the traditional pressures are the law.
Even rules regarding road vehicle safety, use the same ridiculous pressures. For instance; 'a tire that is
inflated to a pressure 20 psi below the intended target is considered non serviceable'. In my nearly 20
years of researching tire pressures, I have never found any government in any country that mentions
optimizing tire pressures. In fact, I recently read an 'expert' report explaining that 'tire load to inflation
pressures' are the 'minimum' tire pressures. 'In fact, any pressure between this 'minimum' pressure and
the maximum pressure listed on the side wall is correct.' Unbelievable, and so wrong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0803-A2 p.4]
Incorrect tire pressures add other problems. Miss matched tires on a dual assembly are known to cause
problems, but Bridgestone proved that having just a 5 psi difference caused a 5/16 inch difference in
rolling circumference. In a typical tire life, this is equivalent to spinning the tire for 160 miles! Tires are
destroyed, rolling resistance increases, burning more fuel and energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-
A2 p.4]
Further:
-------
• Throwing away one tire out of three wastes a lot of C02, in manufacture, in materials, in energy, and in
transport. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.4]
• Rough roads increase transport accidents and deaths. Over inflation reduces traction, damages drivers,
fatigues drivers, and reduces vehicle control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.4]
• Whole Body Vibration is a proven cause of health problems, helping to kill our drivers. Optimizing tire
pressures lets them absorb road irregularities and vibration, improving driver health and helping to fight
fatigue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.4]
• High vibration damages trucks, drivers, and cargo, needlessly wasting money, energy, fuel, and C02.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.4]
• Worn out tires, uneven worn tires, damaged carcasses, damaged trucks, and damaged infrastructure add
to the cost of everything that our civilization uses. Waste just adds to our problems, with no benefit what
so ever. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.4]
• High vibration over inflated tires hammer our roads into an early grave. Pot holes, washboards, ruts, are
all minimized or eliminated with optimized tire pressures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.4-5]
• Damaged roads and infrastructure costs our country and world twice. Perfectly good roads and bridges
are damaged, and new roads and bridges cost millions and billions, adding to the Global
Warming/Climate change pollutants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
• Old roads, damaged tires, worn out trucks all cost money and energy to dispose of. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
• New roads, new tires, new trucks all cost money, and energy to manufacture and deliver. If trucks,
roads, and tires last longer, much energy and pollution is saved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2
p.5]
• Why is transport ignoring the manufacturer's recommendations?[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2
p.5]
• Why are the regulators/governments not following manufacturer's recommendations? [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
• Why are we ignoring the increased risk, the known health risks, and wasting billions of dollars? [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
Where should we go?
Fuel and pollution reduction is vitally important. Government incentives and requirements motivate
manufactures and the industry. But, we mustn't continue, and we mustn't allow bad practices to continue,
or be promoted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
Education and regulation is the first step.
-------
Then Tire Pressure Maintenance is the minimum that is must be fitted and regulated. The pressures must
be set to optimize the truck and trailer. Central Tire Inflation is required on trucks that travel empty
regularly, like dump trucks, bulk grain trucks, tankers, low loaders. When empty, semi-trailers are
currently dangerous. Brake balance, significant overly braked, and ridiculously over inflated tires create a
condition that jack knifes are probable. Any truck working off highways needs CTI too. Either will
eliminate almost every blow out and alligators that litter our highways, if we're lucky, or kill, if not.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
Over inflation is dangerous, costly, damages health, and damages our world. Over inflation is
unacceptable. In the 21st century, we have the ability to optimize our world. Any other option is simply a
death certificate for ourselves. The tire manufacturer's recommendations must be the law, and must be
enforced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
Additional thoughts:
Fitting Truck and Trailer Aerodynamics are common sense. I have been designing and advocating aero
for 40 years. Yet, almost no aero trucks exist. I was pleased in my latest 10,000 mile drive around the
states that side skirts are being fitted, and the design is reasonably good. There is so much more that can
be done. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
Why do proper aero trucks simply not exist on our highways? Where are they? Why do so many waste so
much pushing air? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
A problem exists in truck aero. Most of the manufacturers manufacture a product. They are not aero
enthusiasts or even experts. Most are fiberglass manufactures. Aero is just one of their products, along
with pots for planting flowers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.6]
I regularly see poorly designed aero, and even more often, poorly installed aero. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0803-A2 p.6]
Side skirts often have large gaps between the panel and the bottom of the body. A code of practice is
drastically needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.6]
I have had a lifelong obsession with optimizing motor vehicles of all types. Every component can be
improved, without costing a fortune. In my 45 years owning, driving, working on, and modifying trucks,
I've accumulated a lot of practical knowledge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.6]
My obsession means I've built actual vehicles to test my theories. This white truck was continuously
upgraded over the last 20 years. Notice the fit of the cab deflector, the large side skirts, the front spoiler
and the self-inflating boat tail, along with AIR CTI on all wheels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2
p.6]
As this truck is quite old, I've built a new test truck. See below. [Image can be found on p.6 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2] Front spoiler, that automatically deploys over 30 mph
(retracted in the picture), side skirts, small aero mirrors, and aero spats over rear wheels. The tapered tool
boxes before and after the rear wheels deflect air around the wheel, and acts like an integral boat tail
behind. The tray is aluminum for light weight. The tray is slides rearward and to the ground for loading
vehicles, and to swap for the box as shown above. Additionally, AIR CTI is being fitted front and rear.
Soon, speed sensitive automatic side skirts, tapered to the center of the truck immediately below the
transmission, will drop to 4 inches above the road surface, to drag the air from underneath out and around.
-------
A behind cab self-inflating tray boat tail is also designed. A new 6.7 liter Cummins B series engine and
overdrive road ranger transmission is fitted. A FASS fuel air separation system ensures the engine gets
pure fuel. We've seen 4 to 8% improvements in fuel economy with the FASS unit. Propane
supplementation is another add on that will be fitted soon. As propane is half the price of diesel, propane
makes good economic sense, and provides a cleaner running truck. We have seen some great results. We
look forward to continuous improvement to help show our industry how to optimize their truck. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.6]
AIR CTI is undoubtedly the best CTI available. AIR CTI is sold throughout Australia, by all Paccar
dealers, and other truck businesses. AIR CTI is operating in South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua
New Guinea, New Zealand, Canada, USA, Italy, and the Middle East. Working with my brother in Texas,
AIR CTI is starting its American debut, bringing me closer to my home country. The benefits of CTI are
simply amazing. The reports from customers, and my own experience, along with 50 years of off-roading,
from Missouri mud to the Canning Stock Route in outback Australia, CTI works. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0803-A2 p.7]
AIR CTI continues to grow at around 20% annually, our staff includes truck people with hundreds of
years of experience. We have electronic experts, welders, mechanics, truck parts specialists, and a
structural engineer as staff. I belong to ARTSA, Australian Road Transport Suppliers Association, with
members from Paccar to Michelin to Meritor and BPW. I also belong to the National Bulk Tankers
Association, and have spoken at several TMC's run by our ATA. In the states, we've joined several
logging associations, and concrete associations, as both are great potential users. We exhibited at the Mid
America Truck Show earlier this year with more coming up. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.7]
I have dedicated the rest of my life to improving transport. I will do whatever is necessary to make trucks
safer, greener, and more profitable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.7]
Response:
Tire Pressure Systems
The agencies agree with the commenter that maintenance of tire pressure is important. The agencies also
agree with the consequences discussed by the commenter of incorrect tire pressure - such as higher fuel
consumption for underinflated tires and higher tire wear and vibration for overinflated tires. Consistent
with the comment, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allow manufacturers to
show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various technologies, including
either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520) to help encourage the better management of tire pressure in
tractors, trailers, and vocational vehicles. The agencies also utilized tire pressure systems in the
technology packages developed to determine the Phase 2 standards. The agencies appreciate the
commenter's information on their AIR CTI system.
Aerodynamics
The technologies cited by the commenter, such as automatic front spoiler, trailer side skirts, small
aerodynamic mirrors, and aero spats over rear wheels, are some of the technologies that the agencies
considered in developing aerodynamic bins that reflect the performance of technologies like these.
Additional discussion on tractor-trailer aerodynamics can be found in RIA Chapter 2.4.1 and 2.8.2.2.
Organization: Convoy Solutions LLC
-------
I think I heard you mention that EPA hasn't put much emphasis on examining or projecting the EPS
segment because it didn't seem very significant and because it is 'off-board'. I think that you might have
mentioned that, 'a handful of independent truck stops may have invested in small amounts of EPS. But it
isn't very important overall in achieving major idle reduction metrics.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281-
Alp.l]
If this is your department's position, then I feel obliged to share my own biased opinion that in our current
form, IdleAir's version of EPS is at worst, an important bridge-technology to a day of more pervasive
adoption of various anti-idling technologies. This 'bridge' can extend for more than 10 years. Our
infrastructure is already in the process of morphing into a precursor to eTRU and EV infrastructure along
major transport corridors. We are in a growth spurt where it is a struggle to keep up with demand from
large fleets for dedicated IdleAir terminals on their private yards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281-A1
p.1-2]
To the extent that NACFE's 2014 Idle Alternative Confidence Report has had a significant role in
informing EPA of the status of off-board idle reduction technologies, then I think I need to clarify that
although we are a financial sponsor of NACFE, we have repeatedly asked NACFE to consider correcting
certain items in their report relating to EPS, but these corrections have not taken place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1281-A1 p.2]
Interesting Comparison toAPUs
Our cost per installed electrified parking space ranges from $5 - 10k, this is very similar to what we
believe APUs actually cost (though EPA's number seems to be a surprisingly low $4,800 figure). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281-A1 p.2]
Most of our hardware is rated to last for more than 25 years as compared to 5 years for the average APU,
thus our amortized marginal cost of ownership is much lower than an APU. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1281-A1 p.3]
EPS has comparatively low Carbon Intensity (lib C02 per gallon/hour of mitigation versus 41b C02 per
hour of APU usage). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281-A1 p.3]
EPS doesn't produce any local criterion pollutants (APUs do) and depending on who owns EPS it can
have very low marginal operating cost ($.25 - $.50/hour on a fleet terminal) versus $l/hour to operate
Diesel or Battery APUs at current fuel price. If APUs were required to have DPF technology, then the
$4,800/unit price seems even more unrealistic as an assumption from which to build life-time IRRs from.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281-A1 p.3]
These EPS metrics all rival the comparable metrics on APUs, yet I don't feel like we have been given a
fair chance to state our case in how we can cost-effectively help EPA and NHTSA meet their GHG goals.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281-A1 p.3]
Earlier this year, The American Carbon Registry recognized IdleAir with their Corporate Excellence
award for pioneering carbon finance in the long-haul trucking space:
https://www.idleair.com/news/idleair-wins-award-from-american-carbon-registry/ [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1281-A1 p.3]
I'm concerned that the regulations themselves might jeopardize our ability to provide that meaningful
transitional role for the 70% of class 8 trucks that don't have APUs of any sort today or the large audience
-------
of used trucks - especially those typically owned by Owner Operators who tend to be slower to adopt
efficiency technologies with a meaningful upfront cost. Market places try to adapt in anticipation of
pending regulation, so we fear that if non-adjustable AES is expected by carriers, they may start
transitioning away from impactful low GHG choices like EPS even though we are gaining momentum on
private fleet yards today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281-A1 p.3]
Since more than 80% of new fleet truck purchases do include a fuel fired bunkheater, I believe that the
relative window of idle-mitigating relevance for non-adjustable AES is potentially overstated in the
ROI/fuel savings calculations since bunkheaters should not be considered part of the incremental
cost/benefit of complying with Phase 2. Bunkheaters are essentially a standard option already. That means
APUs are primarily necessary for less than 6 months of the year (typically Air Conditioning months) and
thus the idle savings they bring should be calculated from less than 900 hours/year as a baseline rather
than the 1,800 - 2,000 hours/year that Argonne Labs (and EPA and DOT) estimate trucks idle to generate
overnight hotel loads for powering comfort and convenience. I believe that a large number of fleets can
achieve compelling GHG and PM reductions at a fraction of the true cost of APUs using a combination of
complimentary idle-mitigation solutions as follows: Bunkheater (40% of annual idle needs - cold
weather) + EPS (25% idle needs - stationary yard and some truck stop usage) + adjustable AES (25% of
idle during OTR activities). The combined upfront cost for users of these technologies is genuinely less
than the $4,800 attributed to pre-DPF APUs and the marginal carbon and PM intensity of these
technologies is comparable (if not superior) to APUs, but since the technologies can't address 100% of
idle elimination, truck buyers would have to get an APU if non-adjustable AES is mandated in order to
avoid unacceptable comfort and safety risks posed by not having an on-board summertime idle
alternative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281-A 1 p.3-4]
We are currently in an unexpectedly low diesel price environment which is making the financial ROI
calculation for many energy efficiency options more challenging. At the same time, services like IdleAir
that typically have no upfront investment requirement for users are on their way to becoming an important
idle-mitigation choice of many fleets in their private yards. Many fleets (and drivers) tell us sadly that
they think that idling today is cheaper than getting an APU. Fortunately, IdleAir typically prices its
dedicated fleet terminal product at an average of $1.35/hour which is arguably less than half the lifetime
cost of owning and using an APU and so we are increasingly able to convince fleets TODAY that
embracing EPS can immediately pay for itself and is therefore worth doing even if APUs have a more
challenging cost/benefit proposition. Since we use grid and renewable electricity as our fuel source, our
1.5kW/h service actually only costs us about $.25/hour, which is comparable to a bunkheater and much
lower than the $.75 - $1.00/hour that an APU costs in the current diesel price environment. As we gain
market share, fleets may decide to buy EPS outright and pay for their own electrical usage. In that
scenario, there is no question that we are much cheaper and cleaner than APUs in stationary applications
(like poor neighborhoods with non-attainment status that frequently encircle truck stops and large fleet
terminals). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281-A1 p.4]
In the end, I understand that EPA and NHTSA can only regulate a manufacturer and rewarding AES is
not a new concept. However, the ambitious efficiency goal of Phase 2 becomes a de facto mandate of
AES. Mandating AES will force the industry towards the only solution that can address 100% of the
instances where a truck might need to idle - APUs. An owner cannot risk driver (or pet) safety even one
night per year under AES. This is true even for truck owners who have been able to manage nearly all of
their idling with a combination of best-cost idle mitigation technologies. An APU might not be the right
choice for net GHG reduction for some buyers, but I fear that this rule makes that decision for them and it
risks rewarding OEMs for including APUs while neglecting alternative idle-reduction technologies.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1281 -A 1 p.4]
-------
Response:
The agencies made several changes to the treatment of AES and idle reduction technologies in the final
rule. We, however, did not specifically include EPS as one of the technologies on the menu of idle
reduction technologies included in GEM due to the lack of data supporting the amount of idle operation
that is reduced in the real world through the use of EPS on a given tractor. Tractors manufactured during
the Phase 2 timeframe with either the tamper-proof AES or adjustable AESS options would receive a C02
emissions and fuel consumption reduction in GEM. EPS paired with an AESS could receive the level of
reduction specified in GEM for an Adjustable AESS or Tamper-Proof AESS, depending on whether the
AESS is tamper-proof or not. We recognize that EPS could be an important idle reduction technology,
but believe the technology should be evaluated in the off-cycle credit program so that data on specific
vehicles can be considered.
It is also worth noting that the agencies are not mandating AES under the Phase 2 rulemaking. The
agencies have adopted C02 emissions and fuel consumption standards based on our analysis of om
technology pathway for each level of stringency, but manufacturers will be free to use any combination of
technology to meet the standards, as well as the flexibility of averaging, banking and trading, to meet the
standards on average.
In the final rule, EPA has started with an estimated APU price of $8,000 (retail price, 2013$). From there,
we have adjusted the cost to arrive at a direct manufacturing cost of $5882 (DMC, 2013$, applicable in
MY2014)). So the $4800 value mentioned by the commenter has been adjusted upward to $5882, and
should be understood to be a direct manufacturing cost which is not comparable to an installed cost of $5-
10K for an electrified parking space (which EPA interprets to be an installed price rather than cost). Our
total cost for the APU, with markups and in 2018 (i.e., roughly today), is $6248 (total cost, 2013$ in
2018, see Chapter 2.11.6.1 of the final RIA).
Organization: Corwin, Michael
On the issue of aerodynamics, the truck can be made aerodynamic, regardless of the trailer it is pulling, so
the regulations should be separate for the tractor and for the trailer. This would allow regulators to take
into account the different types of trailers regardless of the truck that is pulling it and no matter what truck
pulled it the aerodynamics would be good. The vast majority of companies pull one type of trailer vs
multiple types but one truck lease operators may switch companies several times in their careers and pull
a different type of trailer each time. By having the requirements separate the long term effects would be
better. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0730-A1 p.l]
Response:
The agencies are setting GHG emissions and fuel consumption standards separately for the tractor and
trailer. The commenter states one of the reasons it is appropriate for there to be separate standards.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins urges the Agencies to establish a more representative Phase 2 baseline gearing [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.36]
The Phase 2 proposal provides a 2018 baseline gearing that is substantially above typical fuel economy
recommendations for best efficiency. Figure 14 compares the Phase 2 baseline gearing to Cummins'
-------
recommendations for best FE performance. While Cummins' recommendation is a minimum value, there
is concern that the Phase 2 baseline may not be the appropriate representative gearing and may
inadvertently over-represent gearing improvements. Cummins urges the agencies to reevaluate the
baseline and establish a more representative gearing for 2018. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.36-
37]
[Figure 14 can be found on p. 36 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
Response:
The agencies re-evaluated the final drive ratio (gearing) used in the tractor baseline. We recognize that
there is a wide range of final drive ratios being offered in the market today for tractors. Several
companies offer fuel economy packages that would include gearing that takes advantage of
downspeeding. However, the baseline should represent the average tractor performance in 2018MY.
Meritor and Daimler provided CBI to assist us in developing the baseline. Our evaluation of this data
supported the final drive ratio of 2.7 (based on a rear axle ratio of 3.70 and top gear ratio of 0.73) used in
the NPRM and the baseline for the final rule reflects this ratio.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
8. Technology Penetration and Adoption Rate
• Introductory comment - Several assumptions are wrong about penetration rates of 6x2 axles,
regulatory idle shutdown timers, and tires. And these flawed assumptions result in unrealistically difficult
stringency. Based on our analysis of the agencies' assumptions regarding penetration rates of certain
technologies in order to meet the proposed standards we caution against a) sweeping assumptions across
multiple vehicle subcategories and b) against assuming unrealistically high penetrations, as described
below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.86]
HFC Refrigerant from Cabin Air Conditioning (A/C) Systems - The agencies request comment
on other possible improvements in the design of air conditioning systems that EPA could recognize for
the purposes of compliance with this proposed standard. The agencies propose to provide a credit of 0.5%
for tractors with a "high-efficiency air conditioning compressor" without thoroughly defining what that is.
(The agencies state that it "includes" the configurations in 40 CFR § 86.1868—12(h)(5) and electrical
compressors). Most importantly, [redacted]. Rather, an improvement factor more like [redacted]% is
closer to the benefits that the agencies should expect from the technologies they are proposing. Further,
we think that a manufacturer should get credit for other improvements to the system rather than simply
the compressor. For example, a blend air system, which minimizes pumping losses, should get credit even
if it uses a standard compressor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 110-111]
a. Aerodynamic Improvements
Erroneous Estimate of Time By Which Manufacturers Can Improve Tractor Aerodynamics - In
section 2.4.1 of the RIA, the agencies state that tractor model lifecycles are "up to 10 years." This is
approximately half of the correct number. The Freightliner Century, an industry benchmark for efficiency,
was sold from 1996 to 2009—23 years. The successor vehicle, the Cascadia has been sold for only eight
years, since 2007, so we should expect at minimum another fifteen years of production of that vehicle.
And more likely, this vehicle will be in production much longer, due to the larger costs of developing so
complex and advanced a vehicle. So while it is correct that radical changes to vehicle aerodynamics
"occur in a long-term timeframe," as the agencies state, we think that the statement of that timeframe
-------
being "10-15 years from today [the date of the RIA]" is too short to reflect the industry's actual patterns
and the long time required to amortize the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary for cab redesigns. In
short, the agencies need to base the penetration rate of improved aerodynamics on a much longer
timeframe for adoption; the aero improvements take much longer than the agencies expected. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.87]
Improvements Possible - In section 2.4.2.1.4 of the RIA, the agencies state that there are 206 to 460
counts of drag available for improvement on vehicles, based on National Research Council (NRC) of
Canada research. But of utmost importance is the baseline. While it may be the case that there were up to
460 counts of drag available on the vehicle that NRC used for its analysis, it is not necessarily the case
that the same opportunities exist on vehicle that meet the agencies' 2017 GHG/FE standards. In fact, as
we found in our Super Truck work at Daimler, there are diminishing opportunities on the tractor. Rather
we found most of the aerodynamic benefits of our work on the trailer. Moreover, even if all of the drag
improvements are theoretically possible, there may be impediments to implementing them all, such as
reliability concerns, limitations on accessing the back of cab, etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.88]
Preface: As discussed elsewhere in the EMA comments, the agencies' assumptions about 1) achievable
aero bins for various vehicles are impossibly aggressive and 2) the percent penetrations in each bin are
unrealistic. For example, Super Truck vehicles would be in Bins IV or V at best, as opposed to the
expected Bin VII, which means that the expectation of (e.g.) 5% penetration in Bin VII is unrealistic,
given that Super Truck vehicles are the best vehicles ever made and even then are mere prototype
vehicles. The basic idea behind both proposals is to correct the aero bins by approximately one bin width,
which rectifies the agencies' error. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.56]
For penetration rates used in standard setting, we propose to keep the same weighted-average for the
penetration rates in each bin as the agencies assumed in the NPRM. That said, we do not believe the
agencies' proposed penetration rates in each bin are realistic, given that we expect that there will always
be Bin I vehicles, because there are market needs (e.g., severe duty tractors that do not get classified as
"heavy-haul tractor" for whatever reason). If this is the case, then the agencies cannot just take the
penetration rates in Tables III-8, -9, and -10. The agencies may, however, keep the same average. One
should not be concerned about the actual penetration rates in any bin. Rather, one should be concerned
with the average. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.58]
This proposal is based on the expectations that 1) there will remain some small need for classic styled
vehicles in the future, for example for logging where large cooling packages are needed; 2) we cannot
shift all vehicles right away to (for example) Bin VI; 3) Bin VII may never be achievable, but remains an
aspirational target only, and thus should not contain a large penetration rate. The result is that in 2021, we
would need to average the middle of Bin V, 2024 the bottom of Bin V, and 2027 Bin VI. Clearly, given
that the agencies recognize it may not be possible to do better than Super Truck, it would be unreasonable
to have the whole target fleet average be below Super Truck level (meaning at 5.3 m2 on Cd*A basis,
after the inclusion of a safety margin, or approximately 5.0 m2 based on test data). Therefore, we think
that the above proposal shows the maximum possible achievable aero improvement, based on our
knowledge today.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.58]
Day cab high roof: for day cab, we expect that vehicles have different bin designations than sleeper
because (generally speaking) it is more difficult to make a short vehicle aerodynamic than it is a similar,
long vehicle. So we would adjust the bin definition so that 1) a classic vehicle is in Bin I, 2) the standard
setting vehicle in Phase 1 is in Bin III, and 3) future production vehicles would be in Bins IV, V, and VI,
and 4) Bin VII reserved for something that looks like Super Truck without a sleeper. But even if we
-------
properly aligned the bin definitions per #1-4 above, the day cab market might reasonably choose a
penetration rate with less aerodynamic vehicles, given the lower percentage of the time spent at highway
speeds. In other words, we would dispute the EPA's assumption of the exact same penetration rates in
each bin for day cabs as for sleepers. So 5) we should adjust the average of the penetration rates so that
the average is somewhat worse than the EPA's proposed average in Tables III-8, -9, and -10. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.59
Below are the landmarks that we used in setting our proposed aero bins for high roof Class 7/8 day cabs:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.59]
[Tables, listing Cd*A values for various vehicle types and giving BIN numbers for the EPA and DTNA
proposals, can be found on p. 59-60 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
Mid- and low-roof, day cab and sleeper - And we agree with the first step that the agencies took in
calculating the penetration rates for mid-/low-roof in 2021 and 2024: they carried over the high-roof
penetration rates and the high- to mid-/low- transition methodology. But the agencies missed the crucial
second step: adjusting the average bin down (meaning toward Bin I) in recognition of the fact that mid-
/low-roof vehicles should have lower penetration rates of aerodynamic vehicles to reflect market needs.
That is, for tractors more likely to be used in rough environments or hauling non-aerodynamic trailers, it
does not make sense to apply an equivalent aero bin penetration rate as for the high-roof, more
aerodynamic, more on-highway vehicles. Furthermore, when we look at 2027, Table III-10, we see an
additional problem: Bin VII in raised-roof gets a vehicle into mid-/low-roof Bin IV, and Bin VII is
supposed to be unattainable or attainable by only 5% of the market, yet the agencies propose 10% of the
mid-/low-roof vehicles be Bin IV (Super Truck equivalents). Considering how much less this portion of
the market is affected by aero, this assumption is the wrong direction. So 2027 penetration rates have to
be [redacted] using the general procedures described above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.60]
a. Tractor Stringency
Method of Setting Standards - The agencies propose to set standards for tractors (and vocational
vehicles) by estimating the Fuel Consumption Reductions (FCRs) for various technologies and
calculating the achievable penetration rates for each technology. We agree with this approach (although
as we discuss below, we do not agree with all of the FCRs or penetration rates). It does not make sense to
assume a 100% penetration rate of any technology, even aerodynamic features, given that vehicles have
different uses for which some FE technologies do not make sense. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.68]
The Agencies' FCRs and Penetration Rates Create Unrealistic Stringency Targets - DTNA
analyzed the agencies' assumptions based on the original aero numbers in the NPRM and our
understanding that the agencies would fix a one bin error in the aero binning. Our findings are that the
standards of even Alternative 3 are impracticably stringent. Below are several scenarios—none of which
we are certain we can achieve, and all of which would take years of major development work to
achieve—to demonstrate how unrealistically stringent the agencies' Alternative 3 proposal is. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.68]
[multiple bullet points redacted]
Below, for reference, we show the same analysis but with the NPRM's aero bin designations: [much of
following section is redacted] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.69]
-------
[redacted]
As can be seen, even our best vehicles with a host of unrealistic assumptions cannot achieve the
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.70]
[redacted]
Here we repeat the analysis for day cabs. We assume that the aero bin problems are solved so that
a current vehicle might be in Bin IV and future vehicles might get (on average) in Bin V—again a big
assumption as this requires 1) fixing the aero binning and 2) manufacturers being able to make further
aero improvements within the limitations of the Bridge Law and the weight constraints, which are much
more stringent for day cabs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.71]
Results if we do not assume that the agencies correct the aero bin numbers are shown below:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.71]
[redacted]
Result - Only by correcting the aero bin errors do we get close to compliance. And then, only by
making unrealistic assumptions of FE technology penetration rates can we see achieving the proposed
standards of Alternative 3. Therefore, we believe that Alternative 3 is beyond the "greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable" (quoting CAA § 202(a)(3)(A)). Note that this is the analysis for our best
vehicles; for the other RSCs that contain vehicles focused on more vocational tasks, such that FE is a
lower priority, the standards are even more difficult. Important note - We were unable to do such an
analysis for vocational vehicles because of the lack of clarity about the normalization and equalization
processes. We cannot understand how those regulations will affect us without the agencies clearing up
problems in those processes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.72]
Vehicle technologies, their FCRs, and achievable penetration rates for setting stringency - The
agencies omitted several very important fuel saving technologies (e.g., eCoast, TPMS). If the agencies
have concerns about these technologies, then we should address them and count them in Phase 2. For
example, if the agencies have concerns about TPMS, then we can document the actual fuel savings and
can perhaps agree upon a method of locking in TPMS improvements. Similarly, the aggressive
assumptions about tire Crr's are beyond our capabilities; we do not control tire design and development.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.74]
Achievable Improvements in Aerodynamics is Poorly Defined - In section 2.4.2.1.4 of the RIA, the
agencies state that there are 206 to 460 counts of drag available for improvement on vehicles, based on
National Research Council (NRC) of Canada research. But of utmost importance is the baseline. While it
may be the case that there were up to 460 counts of drag available on the vehicle that NRC used for its
analysis, it is not necessarily the case that the same opportunities exist on vehicle that meet the agencies'
2017 GHG/FE standards. In fact, as we found in our Super Truck work at DTNA, there are diminishing
opportunities on the tractor. Rather we found most of the aerodynamic benefits of our work on the trailer.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.61-62]
b. Tires
The agencies project unrealistically low Crr's and in turn come up with unrealistic stringency
values - We recommend that the agencies work with our end-of-year reports to see trends like are shown
-------
in the data below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.88] [The table 'Tire Crr's for MY 13 and 14
vehicles' can be found on p.88 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828-A1]
In short, the agencies made identical assumptions for tire rolling resistance targets across all tractor
subcategories despite the vehicles' differences. Specifically, based on our GHG vehicle data it is evident
that there are clear trends when comparing average CRRs of individual subcategories. There is a distinct
Crr increase going from high roof to low roof sleepers and there is also a noticeable difference from
sleeper cabs to their corresponding day cab categories. We believe that these real world trends need to be
taken into consideration when setting the Phase 2 standards; fleets have actual needs for wear-resistant
tires for their business. As we project toward the future, we see that in most RSCs, the agencies assumed
Crr's to decrease from today's actual values by unrealistically large amounts—up to 22%. It is not at all
clear that this is possible for tires that still allow work trucks to get into and out of worksites, to turn and
bump curbs, to run over obstacles, etc. as HDVs must. In short, we need to work extensively with the
agencies to define realistic Crr targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.88-89]
[redacted section]
c. 6x2's
Gross overestimate of the possible penetration rate of 6x2's (unless NHTSA and Canadian
provinces change the laws) - The agencies' assumptions of penetration targets of 6x2 tractors are
inconsistent with the laws in the US and Canada, and they will lead to tractors that are unusable in many
states and provinces during inclement weather. In our tractor population we can see a 6x2 penetration of
less than 5% and insurmountable barriers to increasing that value—which makes a 60% penetration for
Class 8 High Roof Tractors in 2027 unachievable. It is important to remember that going from a 6x4 to a
6x2 tractor is anything but a clear cut decision. There are many factors involved, for example concerns
about 1) the inherent rapid tire wear on the drive axle and 2) the practical inability to drive 6x2's in
several US states because of the traction issues and the limited ability to shift loads onto the drive axle
enough to get traction, 3) the inability to drive 6x2's in one province at all, given that 6x2's are prohibited
at weights at which heavy-duty vehicles often operate. Ultimately, there are a lot of issues to be resolved
before 6x2's can be used by any more than a niche portion of the heavy-duty fleet, and the agencies
should not premise regulations on a high penetration rate of a technology that faces such legal obstacles.
Until 1) the US agencies, in particular NHTSA, create an allowance to briefly overload a 6x2's drive axle
for traction purposes and 2) the Canadian government allows 6x2's in all provinces with temporarily
shifted weights, the agencies should not predicate a rule on such a high penetration rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-Alp.89]
[The table '6x2 & WBS Tire Compliance - Current Status' can be found on p.90 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0828-1164-A1]
For reference, below are our penetration rates for the various regulatory subcategories and
axle configurations. For example, 6x2 is [redacted] of the total population of RSC14 vehicles, Class 8
high-roof sleeper cab tractors. Included with these numbers are the percentages of total sales that each
RSC constitutes, so that the agencies can see that (for instance) [redacted] of sales in RSC09 is of little
importance given that that RCS constitutes only [redacted] of total sales. Even though our customer base
is extremely concerned with fuel efficiency and understands the benefit of 6x2 technology, we see that
approximately [redacted] of sleeper customers and less than [redacted] of vocational customers choose
6x2's - likely because of the difficulty in operating those vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
P-90]
-------
[redacted section]
EPA and NHTSA proposals for 6x2 penetration rates are inconsistent with many states'
laws: the EPA and NHTSA should only push such a high 6x2 penetration rate if the agencies can change
the laws such that 6x2's may be used legally [redacted] in all 50 states and in all Canadian provinces,
[redacted] Moreover, many Canadian provinces prohibit the axle loading [redacted], and British
Columbia prohibits 6x2's altogether. Because heavy-duty vehicles must be designed for cross-country
operation in all 50 states and in Canada, the EPA and NHTSA's use of 60% penetration of a technology is
inconsistent with the technology's being unusable or impractical to use in more than 10% of the states and
provinces. The agencies, particularly NHTSA, have the authority to affect US laws on 6x2 usages, but
until the agencies do so, they are mandating a high penetration rate of a technology that cannot actually be
used. We recommend no more than a 5% penetration rate until the laws change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p.86-87] Note that we are not discussing penetration rates in this table. So, for example,
we do not question 6x2 FCR of 2.5% although we think that the 60% penetration rate is impossibly high.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.86]
d. AES
FCR of APUs or Other Idle Reduction Devices - The agencies, recognizing that many idle-reduction
devices are installed in the aftermarket after a truck manufacturer has sold a vehicle, request comment on
other approaches that would appropriately quantify the reductions that would be experienced in the real
world besides requiring that the vehicle manufacturer install an idle-reduction device in order to get
credit. 80 FR 40224. We agree that manufacturers should get idle-reduction credit for vehicles that clearly
do not idle, whether because they have shutdown timers or because they have APUs and the like~in either
case, it is clear that the vehicle will not idle. Why would a vehicle owner spend more than thousands of
dollar on an APU or the like if he intended to idle frequently? Likely he intends to idle very rarely, thus
making the technology worth the cost. If he does happen to order no shutdown timer, there might be a
reason, like an occasional job where he needs to idle. But he still clearly intends to do so rarely and thus
should be credited accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.79]
Regulators Should Credit Normal AESs - Customers almost all take non-regulatory idle
shutdown timers of such short duration as to prevent overnight idling, yet none of them will take the
regulatory kind. Yet the EPA premises its standards on 80 to 90% penetration of APUs (which the agency
uses as equivalent to AESs). We think that this level is unrealistically high, given the agency's
experience. If, however, the agency insists on such a high penetration rate, then we have a proposal below
for making the AES requirements more realistic. Additionally, we think that the APU costs that the
agency used are an order of magnitude too low: APUs cost [redacted], and if the penetration rate is near
100%, then the average cost will be around [redacted]. Yet the agency assumes approximately $2,000
(see, e.g., Table 111-29). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.91]
[redacted table]
Table showing the take rate of non-regulatory AESs in each RSC and the sales percentage that each RSC
constitutes (the latter of which helps explain why a [redacted] take rate of AESs in RSC 10 is nearly
irrelevant, given the [redacted] sales percentage). As can be seen well over 90% of the primary sleeper
category, RSC 14, takes AESs—but the agencies do not recognize this in their regulations, either today or
in Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.91]
Proposal for Crediting Normal AESs - Based on an analysis of our database, looking for the
number of customers who chose a non-regulatory AES at or below 5 minutes and then subsequently
-------
disabled it, we find that nearly 99% had not done so. Approximately 1% of our EPA 10 engines
(manufactured in calendar years 2010/2011/2012) that were initially programmed with a shutdown timer
of 5 minutes or less were reprogrammed to a value above 5 minutes or for complete deactivation. This
low rate of reprogramming is understandable: why would a person voluntarily buy an item only to disable
it? The only AESs that we expected would be disabled would be the regulatory ones if customers were
forced into them. In light of the facts that most customers buy AESs, that the agencies would like to take
credit for AESs in the fuel or GHG savings, that manufacturers work hard to produce (non-regulatory)
AESs that function well and meet our customers' fuel saving needs while not interfering with their
operations, and that customers rarely disable the AESs, DTNA proposes that the agencies credit non-
regulatory AESs at 95% of the value of a regulatory one—a little less than the fraction of AESs that
remain functional today. We would agree that, in our 270 day end-of-year reports, we would report to the
agencies the AESs that remain active, so that the agencies can be sure we are not gaming the system by
enabling AESs as vehicles leave the manufacturing plants and disabling them shortly afterward.
Following this approach the agencies could claim the targeted savings while avoiding unintended market
disruptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.91-92]
e. APUs and Other Idle Reduction Technology
Credits for AESs, Regardless Whether a Vehicle Has an APU - The agencies discuss idle
reduction technology on 80 FR 40223. The goal of reducing fuel consumption during idle can be done
through different technologies such as APUs, diesel fired heaters, and battery powered units. The
agencies discuss as adopted in Phase 1 of only allowing idle emission reduction technologies which
include an automatic engine shutoff (AES). We believe that this is the correct approach. In other words,
we believe that that an AES should receive credit if it installed, regardless if there is an APU or battery-
powered idle reduction system on the vehicle. Therefore, we recommend the agencies clarify that they
recognize this technology as a stand-alone system and provide credit for an AES but no APU on a
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.92]
Cost of APUs With and Without DPFs - The agencies request comment on the cost estimates
associated with DPF systems for APUs. As a preface to this comment: the agencies far understated the
cost of APUs generally. First, APUs were estimated to cost on the order of $3,000 (which is the listed
figure, back-calculating for penetration rate). See 111-29 of the NPRM, 80 FR 40241. In reality, APUs are
approximately [redacted]. And the DPF-equipped APUs are [redacted] more expensive (depending on the
options selected) than the equivalent non-DPF equipped APU. The agencies should consider the accurate
final cost of the APU with DPF as in the end the heavy-duty vehicle owner will be forced to bear the price
difference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.92]
Second, some of the crucial assumptions in GEM are flawed. For example, the agencies assume a flawed
value for the effectiveness of an automatic engine shutdown timer (AES). Below are the values for
several configurations of AES and auxiliary power unit (APU): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.l-
2]
o Non-regulatory AES: 1%
o Non-regulatory AES plus APU: 3%
o Regulatory AES plus APU: 4%
o Non-regulatory AES plus battery APU: 5%
o Regulatory AES plus battery APU: 6%
As we have shown the agencies, data demonstrates that vehicle owners rarely disable even the non-
regulatory AESs, which means that the system will shut down the engine in five minutes or less
-------
(depending on the setting). So the non-regulatory AES will prove effective at shutting down an engine
and stopping emissions, unless the driver of a vehicle equipped with an AES stays awake throughout the
night to restart his engine or to reset the timer. In fact, to make it such that the non-regulatory AES were
(for example) only 1/5 as effective as a non-regulatory AES plus battery APU, the driver would have to
restart or reset such that the engine runs for an average of 48 minutes of every hour that the AES and
APU functions, meaning he restarts or resets more than nine times per hour for a whole night every night,
which is exceedingly unlikely. Rather, the non-regulatory AES is a relatively cheap and effective way to
ensure nearly all—if not all—of the emission reductions of all the other configurations listed above, so it
should get approximately the same credits; it certainly should not get so small a fraction as the agencies
have proposed to give it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.2]
f. VSLs
Vehicle Speed Limiters and Extended Idle Provisions - The agencies requested comment on
whether it is appropriate to allow vehicle owners to participate in the overall compliance process for
vehicle speed limiters and idle reduction. 80 FR 40250. First, we are glad that the agencies recognize the
difficulties that manufacturers such as ourselves have encountered trying to push regulatory-compliant
VSLs and AESs to a pull market. The agencies discussed the possibility of a means by which fleets could
participate in the credit transactions. If the agencies were to follow such a path, then we would need to
ensure that regulatory VSLs and AESs factor only into a program regulating fleets and not manufacturers.
In other words, if vehicle buyers can choose to buy regulatory VSLs or AESs, and they get the credit for
doing so, then manufacturers cannot be expected to accumulate credits for such VSL or AES sales.
Rather, in such a case, the vehicle standards would have to be calculated without such features included.
Because such a regulatory program is likely unwieldy (How would fleets be regulated? How would their
interaction with vehicle manufacturers be regulated?), and because the agencies do not have authority
over fleets within the scope of the CAA or EISA sections cited within the NPRM (given that those
sections authorize vehicle and engine regulation, not regulation of vehicle users), it is more likely that the
agencies will be limited to regulating vehicle features. In that respect, we applaud the agencies'
recognition that the Phase 1 AES and VSL standards failed to capture the usage of those two features. In
discussions with the agencies, we have presented the option of getting a partial credit for non-regulatory
AESs and VSLs based on the rate at which customers leave the features in their operational states. We
can show the agencies in a confidential setting that [redacted]. We work hard to make fuel saving features
like AESs and VSLs that fleets and vehicle operators will buy; we should get credit for such work. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.92-93]
Vehicle Speed Limiters and Extended Idle Provisions - The agencies discuss the difficulties of
getting heavy-duty vehicle owners to accept regulatory, tamper-resistant VSLs and AESs. 80 FR 40250.
The agencies request comments on suggestions how to close the gap between provisions that would be
acceptable to industry, which seeks to retain control over its vehicles' operations, and those that would be
acceptable to regulators, who seek to ensure that society gets the benefit of speed limiters and decreased
idling. Additionally, the agencies request comments on potential approaches which would enable
feedback mechanism between the vehicle owner/fleet that would provide the agencies the assurance that
the benefits of the VSLs and AESs will be seen in use but which also provides the vehicle owner/fleet the
flexibility they may need during in-use operation. As a preface to our comments, we note that our
customers overwhelmingly buy AESs and to a lesser extent VSLs. (See the statistics in the VSL and AES
table, above). Although we have a large portion of vehicles sold with VSLs that achieve emission
reductions and FE benefits, these VSLs do not get regulatory credit because they do not meet the
regulatory requirements. HDV owners and fleets want to limit speeds and idling, but they do not want to
be locked into a strategy. So our comments revolve around the fact that we wish to get credit for the
owners' and fleets' purchases, largely because we have developed AESs and VSLs that meet with a high
-------
level of customer approval, without locking our customers into the agencies' requirements. We
recommend that the agencies give partial credit for non-regulatory AESs and VSLs in proportion to the
fraction of non-regulatory ones that remained unaltered, based upon our study of our database. Since the
introduction of our latest generation of engines we are able to effectively track parameter changes in our
proprietary control modules (controllers for vehicle, engine and aftertreatment). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-Alp.93]
VSL - In section 2.8.3.5 of the RIA, the agencies note that there is such low take-rate of regulatory
VSLs that the technology should not be used for standard setting. We agree. We do think, however, that if
the agencies were to credit adjustable VSLs—recognizing heavy-duty vehicle operators' desire for speed
reductions but balancing the need to adjust the speeds from time to time—that the technology could factor
into standard setting. 2.8.3.5 of the RIA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.93-94]
Hybrid timeline for deployment - The agencies requested comment from industry on the
projected timeline for deployment of hybrid powertrains for tractor applications. DTNA is especially
situated to comment on hybrids as we had sold hybrid vehicles (mostly vocational vehicles), and we were
the sole Super Truck team to use a hybrid system, yet we dropped out of the hybrid market after our
hybrid transmission supplier stopped selling the systems. Our response to the agencies' request is that we
see no timeline for deploying hybrids in tractors or, for that matter, any heavy-duty vehicles. Quite the
opposite: the market for hybrids has fallen apart, as hybrids have proved not cost-effective. In Super
Truck, a tractor that was tested largely (but not entirely) on linehaul-type highway routes, the hybrid
system provided little benefit beyond what eCoast achieved. See the figure below. The reason for this is
that an eCoast system competes with hybrids for energy that might be lost on hills (given that linehaul
vehicles spend almost all of their time on highways, rather than in stop-and-go traffic). But eCoast does
not suffer the energy conversion loss that a hybrid does when the hybrid converts mechanical energy to
electrical and back. Moreover, the hybrid was limited in both the energy that could be stored in the
batteries and the power at which the batteries could be charged. When laden the vehicle inertia was so
large that braking events could return to much power to be stored in our Super Truck batteries. This was
with the Super Truck vehicle loaded to 65,000 lb. If the vehicle were at 80,000 lb., the problem would be
worse. In other words, eCoast proved a 'poor man's hybrid,' meaning a far more cost-effective hybrid,
optimizing energy transfers from potential to kinetic and vice versa much more efficiently and cheaply
than the hybrid system did. Plus eCoast is much cheaper and lighter, as it requires no batteries or motors.
So we expect no deployment—or more appropriately re-deployment—of hybrid vehicles in the
foreseeable future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.96]
[The table 'Energy Consumption on Highway Route' can be found on p.96 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0828-1164-A1]
Analysis of DTNA Super Truck performance demonstrating that predictive technologies such as
Predictive Cruise Control and eCoast, which help to minimize brake usage, provide essentially all of the
FCR benefits of hybridization, which requires much hardware, weight, and cost to regenerate brake
energy.
j. Stop-Start Functionality
Start-Stop Technologies (Engine Risks) - EPA requests information regarding whether or not
start-stop or auto-shutdown technologies are being developed for tractors; especially for Class 7 and 8 day
cabs that could experience more frequent stops and more time parked for deliveries. To date, DTNA has
not validated that stop-start strategies are viable for Class 7 and 8 applications and considers it premature
to for EPA to include in its assumptions that stop-start strategies are viable for this class of engines.
-------
Lubrication of critical bearing surfaces is lacking or severely compromised during engine start up due to
the lack of lubricating oil pressure. Lack of proper lubrication leads to metal to metal contact, wear, and
ultimately failure. In addition, firing pressures inherent to compression ignition engines further exacerbate
wear as compared to, for example, spark ignition engines where stop-start technology is being
increasingly applied. These known problems, coupled with the extremely long million mile plus service
life expectations for this heavier class of heavy-duty engines, together pose a development challenge that
is significantly more challenging than that posed to spark ignition engines in passenger cars. In addition to
bearing lubrication during startup being a critical function of engine lubricant, lubricant also plays an
important role in cooling of components. Heat soak of temperature critical parts and temporary disruption
of their lubrication/cooling systems (ex: turbochargers, engine valve train) will have to be understood and
possible degradations handled through modifications at either component or system basis, the extent of
which is not yet fully quantified. Similarly, on the turbocharger side, the larger speed swings
(theoretically all the way from engine 'off to normal over the road operation) will shorten turbocharger
wheel life, which is increasingly challenged in vocational applications that are characteristically more
transient as compared to the relatively steady operation nature of line haul. Lastly, the design life targets
(and associated costs) of today's starter systems fall far short of what may be to be required for ISS
systems. In short, there are a lot of significant hardware issues to be resolved before stop-start can be
considered "achievable" for use in setting standards. Even if stop-start is achievable, there remains
significant uncertainty about its achievable penetration rate. For example, vocational vehicles generally
have a significant need for launch capabilities, given how frequently they stop and start and the variety of
conditions under which they must do it (for instance, on hills). Meanwhile, although passenger car stop-
start system works quite well, rotational inertia inherent to heavy duty engines there are orders of
magnitude greater than passenger car engines and pressure (fuel, charge air) build-ups that must occur
before the vehicle can pull away from the curb differ significantly. The subsequent compromise to launch
capability may ultimately be unacceptable in many applications from a performance standpoint which
would lead to lower penetration either via disablement of the feature or rejection of the option. Lastly, it is
not uncharacteristic of vocational applications to be laden with equipment that requires idling of engines
to sustain system power draw and avoid excessive storage battery drain. The EPA should work with
DTNA to establish a clear understanding of actual application needs that justifiably may diminish
penetration rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.98]
9. Standards for niche vehicle types
i. Heavy-Haul Vehicles
Proposed Heavy-Haul Tractor Standards - The agencies request comment on the approach of
not considering the use of aerodynamic technologies in the development of the proposed Phase 2 heavy-
haul tractor standards. 80 FR 40233. We think that this is appropriate. These are vehicles that are already
quite heavy (by virtue of need), designed to meet high cooling need (thus having, for example, large
grilles), and generally not designed primarily for hauling standard trailers on highways. In addition, these
are often designed to be capable of operation off road or on difficult terrain. So mandating aerodynamic
values (which pushes manufacturers toward smaller grilles) or aerodynamic components (which are often
unsuitable for difficult terrain) could compromise the vehicles' work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p.99]
Proposed Heavy-Haul Tractor Standards - The agencies request comment on the heavy-haul
tractor technology path and standards proposed by the agencies (Tables III-19 and -20). 80 FR 40234.
First, we think that the agencies are correct not to require manufacturers input into GEM the heavy-haul
vehicle's Cd*A or aero bin. These vehicles are designed for hauling large and heavy loads, so they require
large radiators, which forces non-aerodynamic designs. Moreover, the loads may often be much larger
-------
than the vehicles, so that requiring aerodynamic measurements of a vehicle that will haul loads
dramatically interfering with those aerodynamics does not make sense. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p.99]
Second, we believe that the agencies have set overly aggressive tire Crr targets. Heavy-haul vehicles need
unusually high traction, given their loads. Moreover, they need unusually high stopping power. Assuming
such aggressive reductions in Crr's as the agencies do is not supported by what we currently know about
tire manufacturers' capabilities to minimize the Crr's of such heavy duty tires. Third, we think the
agencies are correct in assuming no weight reduction in these vehicles. These vehicles need strong
frames, axles, etc. in order to carry such heavy loads. Rather than reducing weight, it is consistent to
expect that manufacturers will reinforce components as much as is necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p. 100]
Weight reduction credits generally: Phase 2 should involve a better approach to calculating and
crediting vehicle weight than Phase 1. In Phase 1, GEM assumes a fixed vehicle weight then subtracts
weight for items made of low density materials (e.g., aluminum) to arrive at any given vehicle's
simulation weight. It may be possible to accurately correct for the amount of weight saved when 1) a low
density material is a direct replacement for a high density material and 2) both are of a known volume or
weight. However, in other cases the mere use of a low density material does not translate directly into, nor
necessarily even correlate with, a weight savings. For example, use of aluminum wheels in lieu of steel
ones results in a well-known weight savings. By contrast, use of aluminum in cross members or
suspension components does not necessarily result in known weight savings since, to achieve equivalent
strength aluminum components generally need to be larger such that weight may actually increase. More
generally, crediting individual components that are not one-for-one replacements for another, as EPA
proposed to do with a 300 lb. weight credit for engines below 14 liters, is inappropriate: by contrast to
aluminum wheels, which are nearly direct replacement for steel ones, swapping one engine for another
forces different engine mounts, transmissions, etc. which may or may not have weight advantages. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.52]
DTNA engineers have done benchmarking studies to identify any weight advantages of its products or
areas to investigate for future improvements. In one such case, DTNA compared three vehicles: vehicle
A, a 2014 Freightliner Cascadia with a 72 inch raised-roof sleeper, DD15 (15 liter) engine, and DT12
transmission; vehicle B, a concurrently sold competitor vehicle with 73" raised-roof sleeper, a 13 liter
engine, and a leading brand of transmission; and vehicle C, also a concurrently sold competitor vehicle
with 72" raised-roof sleeper, a 13 liter engine, and the same transmission as vehicle B. The vehicles were
configured to be as close as possible in specification given the different manufacturers. Despite the larger
displacement of vehicle A's engine, that vehicle was lighter than B and C by 1,004 and 644 lb.
respectively. The result of a program that rewards lightweighting credits based on certain specifications
such as engine displacement could be that heavier vehicles will receive lightweighting credits that may
not be warranted, which seems misaligned with the intent of the regulation. In addition, such an approach
would overlook a manufacturer's efforts to lightweight a particular engine platform (with the same
displacement). Until the EPA has developed a robust procedure for extrapolating from the weight of
individual components to a full vehicle, the EPA should seek to credit components only where they are
direct replacements of well-known weight savings, (e.g. wheels), but not others. If the rulemaking seeks
to truly credit and incentivize lightweighting, an integrated approach may the best solution. However,
such a solution comes with other tradeoffs, such as the effort of developing a robust measuring standard
and additional compliance burden to manufacturers. 80 FR 40249. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.52]
-------
Weight Reduction Items That Are Missing From The Agencies' Approach - The agencies
propose to credit vehicles with use of low density materials, regardless of the amount of material used,
but the agencies fail to credit vehicles for decreased use of material altogether. NACFE recently studied
weight-reduction options for HDVs and found that, for example, horizontal exhausts save 150 pounds
over vertical exhausts. We have encouraged our customers to choose these items for years because of the
weight savings. The agencies should similarly recognize the weight savings. Similarly, opting for a short
sleeper rather than a full one, smaller fuel tanks than were used in the past, a short Bumper to Back of
Cab (BBC) vehicle, etc., should get weight reduction credit. In short, we wish to work further with the
agencies to make sure that the agencies' lightweighting credits align with actual vehicle weights. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.53]
Weight reduction - In section 2.8.3.3 of the RIA, the agencies note that there is such high cost
and low benefit to weight reduction that weight reduction should not be used for standard setting. We
agree. RIA 2.8.3.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.53]
NGV weight penalty in GEM: DTNA analysis shows that for the most popular sizes of NG tanks, 120
and 160 diesel gallon equivalent, the NG system is between 1500 and 2100 lb. heavier than the diesel
systems. This analysis includes the weight of the diesel aftertreatment, which is not required with NG.
Therefore, the 800 lb weight penalty for NGV in GEM is too low. 1037.520(e)(4)(iv). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p.100]
Response:
A/C Systems
We are interpreting Daimler's comment related to HFC emissions in air conditioning systems to be
related to A/C system efficiency, not to an HFC issue. The agencies received several comments on the
potential efficiency improvements of accessories. We are adopting as proposed the definition of what
qualifies as a high efficiency A/C compressor. In terms of the level of effectiveness of compressors, we
are also adopting the 0.5% effectiveness in GEM. Effectiveness of other types of accessory technologies
may be demonstrated by manufacturers through the off-cycle provisions.
Aerodynamics
The agencies corrected the lifetime of tractors in RIA Chapter 2.
The agencies' assessment is that the best aerodynamic tractor tested by EPA in 2015 achieved Bin IV
performance. This vehicle did not include all of the possible aerodynamic technologies, such as wheel
covers or active aerodynamics like a grill shutter or front air dam. Thus, the agencies' assessment is that
Bin V is achievable with known aerodynamic technologies, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.8.2.2, but
agree with the manufacturers that Bins VI and VII have less known technology paths. However, we are
including Bins VI and VII in the Phase 2 regulations as a potential Phase 2 technology to recognize the
possibility that over the next ten years (until the full implementation of the Phase 2 program) tractor
manufacturers may advance their aerodynamic technologies beyond the Bin V levels projected for the
Phase 2 standards, and to provide a value to be input to GEM should they do so.
In Phase 1, the agencies determined the stringency of the tractor standards through the use of a mix of
aerodynamic bins in the technology packages. For example, we included 10 percent Bin II, 70 percent
Bin III, and 20 percent Bin IV in the high roof sleeper cab tractor standard. The weighted average
aerodynamic performance of this technology package is equivalent to Bin III. 76 FR 57211. In
-------
consideration of the comments, the agencies have adjusted the aerodynamic adoption rate for Class 8 high
roof sleeper cabs used to set the final standards in 2021, 2024, and 2027 MYs (i.e., the degree of
technology adoption on which the stringency of the standard is premised). Upon further analysis of
simulation modeling of a SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the
manufacturers that a SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the Bin V level of CdA,
as discussed above and in RIA Chapter 2.8.2.2. Consequently, the final standards are not premised on
any adoption of Bin VI and VII technologies. Accordingly, we determined the adoption rates in the
technology packages developed for the final rule using a similar approach as Phase 1 - spanning three
aerodynamic bins and not setting adoption rates in the most aerodynamic bin(s) - to reflect that there are
some vehicles whose operation limits the applicability of some aerodynamic technologies. We set the
MY 2027 high roof sleeper cab tractor standards using a technology package that included 20 percent of
Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V reflecting our assessment of the fraction of high roof
sleeper cab tractors that we project could successfully apply these aerodynamic packages with this
amount of lead time. The weighted average of this set of adoption rates is equivalent to a tractor
aerodynamic performance near the border between Bin IV and Bin V. We believe that there is sufficient
lead time to develop aerodynamic tractors that can move the entire high roof sleeper cab aerodynamic
performance to be as good as or better than today's SmartWay designated tractors.
The agencies phased-in the aerodynamic technology adoption rates within the technology packages used
to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that manufacturers can gradually introduce these
technologies. The changes required for Bin V performance reflect the kinds of improvements projected in
the Department of Energy's SuperTruck program. That program has demonstrated tractor-trailers in 2015
with significant aerodynamic technologies. For the final rule, the agencies are projecting that truck
manufacturers will be able to begin implementing some of these aerodynamic technologies on high roof
tractors as early as 2021 MY on a limited scale. For example, in the 2021 MY technology package, the
agencies have assumed that 10 percent of high roof sleeper cabs will have aerodynamics better than
today's best tractors. This phase-in structure is consistent with the normal manner in which
manufacturers introduce new technology to manage limited research and development budgets as well as
to allow them to work with fleets to fully evaluate in-use reliability before a technology is applied fleet-
wide. The agencies believe the phase-in schedule will allow manufacturers to complete these normal
processes. Overall, while the agencies are now projecting slightly less benefit from aerodynamic
improvements than we did in the NPRM, the actual aerodynamic technologies being projected are very
similar to what was projected at the time of NPRM (however, these vehicles fall into Bin V in the final
rule, instead of Bin VI and VII in the NPRM). Importantly, our averaging, banking and trading
provisions provide manufacturers with the flexibility (and incentive) to implement these technologies
over time even though the standard changes in a single step.
The agencies also received comment regarding our aerodynamic assessment of the other tractor
subcategories. The agencies recognize that there are tractor applications that require on/off-road
capability and other truck functions which restrict the type of aerodynamic equipment applicable. We
also recognize that these types of trucks spend less time at highway speeds where aerodynamic
technologies have the greatest benefit. The 2002 VIUS data ranks trucks by major use.60 The heavy
trucks usage indicates that up to 35 percent of the trucks may be used in on/off-road applications or
heavier applications. The uses include construction (16 percent), agriculture (12 percent), waste
management (5 percent), and mining (2 percent). Therefore, the agencies analyzed the technologies to
evaluate the potential restrictions that will prevent 100 percent adoption of more advanced aerodynamic
technologies for all of the tractor regulatory subcategories and developed standards with new penetration
rates reflecting that these vehicles spend less time at highway speeds. For the final rule, the agencies
60 U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 28-2009. Table 5.7.
-------
evaluated the certification data to assess how the aerodynamic performance of high roof day cabs
compare to high roof sleeper cabs. In 2014, the high roof day cabs on average are certified to one bin
lower than the high roof sleeper cabs.61 Consistent with the public comments, and the certification data,
the aerodynamic adoption rates used to develop the final Phase 2 standards for the high roof day cab
regulatory subcategories are less aggressive than for the Class 8 sleeper cab high roof tractors. In
addition, the agencies are also accordingly reducing the adoption rates in the highest bins for low and mid
roof tractors to follow the changes made to the high roof subcategories because we neither proposed nor
expect the aerodynamics of a low or mid roof tractor to be better than a high roof tractor.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1
certification data. We found steer tires with rolling resistance as low as 4.9 and drive tires with as low as
5.1 kg/ton. The average tire rolling resistance that we used in the technology packages to derive the final
rule standards are higher than the lowest rolling resistance tires made today, so the technology is feasible.
We also note that the certification data analysis shows that the drive tires on low and mid roof tractors on
average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling resistance than the drive tires on high roof sleeper cabs. We
found less of a difference in rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor subcategories. Based
on comments received and further consideration of our own analysis of the difference in tire rolling
resistance levels that exist today in the certification data, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards
using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for low and mid roof tractors than
the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards. The agencies phased-in the low rolling resistance
tire adoption rates within the technology packages used to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so
that manufacturers can gradually introduce these technologies.
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.62 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.63 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
61 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. Coefficient of Rolling Resistance and Coefficient of Drag Certification Data for
Tractors. See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
62 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
63 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
-------
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."64
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
Idle Reduction Technologies
While the agencies do not necessarily believe that customer reluctance in the initial years of Phase 1
should be considered insurmountable, we do agree with commenters that the agencies should allow
adjustable AESS to be a technology input to GEM and should differentiate effectiveness based on the idle
reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-
proof and adjustable systems to qualify for some reduction. After consideration of the comments, the
agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle reduction technologies and only projected
adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS.
As described in RIA Chapter 2.4.8.1.1, the agencies determined the effectiveness of adjustable AESS
through our determination of the split between idling hours using the main engine versus the idle
reduction technology. For example, the baseline idle emission rate was assumed to be determined by
100% of the 1800 hours of idling conducted each year was done using the main engine. For APU and
battery APU technologies with a tamper-proof AESS, the agencies assumed that these technologies would
be operating 100% of the idling time. For automatic start/stop systems with a tamper-proof AESS, the
agencies determined that the idling power would come from the battery half of the idling time and the
other half would require main engine idling. For fuel operated heaters with a tamper-proof AESS, the
agencies assumed that 800 of the idling hours would involve the use of the fuel operated heater and that
the main engine would idle for the other 1000 hours per year to supply cooling and other needs. For idle
reduction technologies with an adjustable AESS, the agencies discounted the number of hours operated
by the idle reduction technology by 20 percent to account for the fact that it is an adjustable (non tamper-
proof) system. For adjustable AESS without an additional idle reduction technology, the agencies set the
number of main engine operating hours at 25% of the total idle time to also reflect that it is adjustable and
that the agencies have less certainty in the continued use of this in the real world. The discount is greater
for an adjustable AESS without additional idle reduction technologies because we believe that there is a
potentially stronger incentive for vehicle owners to change the setting if they have not invested in the
additional technology. Similar to other technologies, manufacturers may demonstrate off-cycle credits to
account for additional effectiveness not shown in GEM.
In the final rule, EPA considered the APU cost comments and more closely evaluated NHTSA's
contracted TetraTech cost report which found the retail price of a diesel-powered APU with a DPF to be
$10,000. The agencies used a retail price of a diesel-powered APU to be $8,000 without a DPF and
$10,000 with a DPF in the cost analysis for this final rulemaking. From there, we have adjusted the cost
to arrive at a direct manufacturing cost of $5882 (DMC, 2013$, applicable in MY2014)). Our total cost
for the APU, with markups and in 2018 (i.e., roughly today), is $6248 (total cost, 2013$ in 2018, see
Chapter 2.11.6.1 of the final RIA). See also Responses in 4.6 below.
64 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
-------
Vehicle Speed Limiters
The agencies considered DOT's upcoming actions with respect to mandatory vehicle speed limiters for
heavy-duty trucks, but could not take it into account in this Phase 2 rulemaking because that rule is not
final yet. The existing Phase 1 VSL flexibilities provide opportunities for manufacturers to account for
the impact of VSLs on reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption, while still allowing the settings to
change after an "expiration" time determined by the manufacturer or to include a soft top. At this time,
we believe that the Phase 1 flexibilities sufficiently balance the desire to encourage technologies that
reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption while minimizing the compliance burden of trying to
accommodate changes throughout the useful life of the vehicle. Therefore, the agencies are not adopting
any new VSL provisions for Phase 2.
Hybrids
After considering the comments, the agencies are continuing the Phase 1 approach of not including hybrid
powertrains in our feasibility analysis for Phase 2 for tractors. Because the technology for tractor
applications is still under development we cannot confidently assess the effectiveness of this technology
at this point in time. In addition, due to the high cost, limited benefit during highway driving (see
Daimler's comment) and lack of any existing systems or manufacturing base, we cannot conclude that
such technology will be available for tractors in the 2021-2027 timeframe. However, manufacturers will
be able to use powertrain testing to capture the performance of a hybrid system in GEM if systems are
developed in the Phase 2 timeframe, so this technology remains a potential compliance option (without
requiring an off-cycle demonstration).
Stop-Start
The agencies are not including any technology inputs to GEM reflecting stop-start technology. We
believe the technology needs further development for tractor applications. If this technology is developed
in the future for tractors, then manufacturers may consider applying for off-cycle technology credits.
Since the agencies are not predicating the Phase 2 standards on adoption of start-stop technologies, the
agencies are also not including this technology as a GEM input.
Heavy-Haul Tractors
After considering the comments, the agencies are basing the stringency of the final standards on a
technology package that does not use aerodynamic improvements, as we proposed.
We received comments from stakeholders about the application of technologies other than aerodynamics
for heavy-haul tractors. After considering these comments and the information regarding the tire rolling
resistance improvement opportunities, discussed in Section III.D. l.b.iii of the Preamble, the agencies
have adjusted the adoption rate of low rolling resistance tires.
Weigh t Reduction
The agencies are maintaining the Phase 1 approach to weight reduction. A more complex approach
would require a significant amount of data to develop a baseline because there is a large variation in the
baseline weight among tractors that perform roughly similar functions with roughly similar
configurations. Therefore, we are limiting the weight reduction to specific components that can be
replaced with light weight components. The differences can then be readily quantifiable and well-
understood. 76 FR 57151. In addition, a more complex approach would require a significant increase in
test burden for the manufacturers because it would require the empty weight of the tractor be measured
-------
and input into GEM for each configuration built. The agencies at this time do not believe this added
burden is necessitated.
For the final rule, the agencies are only adopting weight reduction values that are reductions, not weight
penalties (such as natural gas). The agencies are adopting weight reductions in the powertrain (smaller
displacement engines and 6x2 axles) because Phase 2 includes the impact of the powertrain in the
vehicle's C02 emissions and fuel consumption values. Additional weight reduction, such as the items
mentioned by the commenter, may be evaluated as a potential off-cycle credit.
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
Vehicle Technologies Will Be Critical to Meet Proposed Phase 2 Benefits
Class 7 and 8 vehicles that today consume about 70 percent of all the fuel used in the medium- and heavy-
duty fleet, are expected to achieve a 24 percent improvement in fuel economy and reduction in carbon
emissions through the lifetime of the proposed rule relative to the existing Phase 1 standard.
Consideration of the Phase 2 proposal will include a suite of technologies from advanced engine designs
to lightweight and more aerodynamic materials, innovative and adaptive cruise controls, next generation
transmission designs and safety features and many more. All of these technologies build on the continued
gains in diesel engine efficiency to consume even less fuel and help to quickly achieve greater fuel
savings and greenhouse gas reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.4]
Technologies envisioned to meet these proposed Phase 2 standards may deliver significant additional fuel
economy benefits and greenhouse gas emission reductions on the order of 1.8 billion barrels of crude oil
saved and 1 billion tons of carbon emissions eliminated. Unlike Phase 1, where many technologies were
already commercially available and proven, in order to achieve the ambitious goals outlined in Phase 2,
EPA and NHTSA should proceed with caution in that they have incorporated reliance on adoption of
some technologies that are not currently widely tested, proven or commercially available. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.4]
Response:
The agencies carefully considered the lead time required for each individual technology while setting the
standards, consistent with the respective statutory requirements to consider lead time as part of the
standard setting process.
Organization: Doran Manufacturing
Currently, the proposed Phase 2 of the EPA's and NHTSA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
includes only automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS) as an acceptable technology for maintaining tire
inflation pressures in order to reduce rolling resistance, fuel consumption and associated greenhouse gas
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p.l]
Historically, tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) have not been included in the EPA's SmartWay
program because the Agency had no way to determine the effect this technology had on fuel economy
unless each requesting fleet provided a clear description of their compliance strategy. This information
was necessary to help the EPA to calculate the associated fuel savings from running on properly inflated
tires. The benefit which is calculated was determined to be fleet-specific, since it depends upon a fleet's
individual compliance strategy and was not able to be generalized industry-wide. This meant that tire
-------
pressure monitoring systems were not able to be SmartWay approved at the time, since the fuel savings
depended upon the follow-up action by the fleet, rather than the technology itself. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1165-Alp.l]
Fortunately, a significant amount of development has occurred since the inception of the SmartWay
program to help verify the fuel savings and the associated reduction of replacement tires by utilizing
TPMS and telematics integrations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p.l]
-- The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has studied TPMS for a number of years
pointing to the positive impact of TPMS: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p. 1]
• 2006: FMCSA found that this technology accurately reported tire inflation pressure values to within 2 to
3 psi of the measured value and accurately created low pressure alerts within 2 to 3 psi of the expected
threshold [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p.l]
• 2007: performance and durability of TPMS was studied in a field test on transit buses [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1165-A1 p.l]
- This study found that using a TPMS display is essential to impact tire maintenance practices, fuel
economy and tire life
- In addition, it found that only using diligent tire pressure maintenance did not increase the average tire
pressures
• 2011: the FMCSA published the results of a Field Operational Test of tire pressure monitoring systems
(TPMS) and automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS) on two fleets that were considered to have good tire
maintenance which was conducted over the previous twenty-four months which created the following
conclusions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p.l]
- TPMS or ATIS use will reduce fuel consumption of equipped tractor-trailers with test fleets seeing a
1.4% improvement in fuel economy
- TPMS or ATIS use will reduce road calls for damaged/flat tires of equipped tractor-trailers
- TPMS or ATIS use will not introduce unscheduled maintenance that adversely affects day-to-day fleet
operations [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p.l]
-- Significant technological advancements related to integrating TPMS data between TPMS providers and
telematics companies have occurred over the past few years which creates an even greater effect on fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas emission than the original tire pressure monitoring systems which were
tested and proven to deliver 1.4% improvement in fuel economy by the FMCSA: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1165-Alp.2]
• It is recommended that drivers are still required to inspect tires during a pre-trip inspection. Due to the
advancements and in-cab monitoring, drivers can know instantly and accurately if any of their tires are
under inflated before departing on their trip [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p.2]
- In cab display examples, with visual and audible low pressure alert notifications:
-------
- The tire pressure data and alert notifications are also captured and transmitted off the truck to provide
real time access for fleet management to increase awareness and improve driver accountability
- Examples of real-time TPMS data: [sample of TPMS data can be found on p.2-3 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1]
• the capability is now being used by a significant and growing number of fleets to not only visually and
audibly alert the driver of a low pressure event, but to also transmit tire pressure/temperature data and low
pressure alarms off the truck to create e-mail/text message alerts for dispatch or maintenance personnel
and/or to generate reports to help fleets quickly identify which trucks/trailers and tires have low pressures
that need to be addressed [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A 1 P.4]
- In addition, the date/time and GPS location for each low pressure alarm is available which can be used
to identify when and where tire pressure events occur and to hold drivers accountable [images can be
found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A 1]
• Below is actual trailer tire data from a fleet that is utilizing a TPMS telematics integration to help
monitor tire pressures and temperatures in conjunction with ATIS: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1
p.4]
- the tire pressure dropped below 20psi while the trailer was detached and the inflation system wasn't
powered
- a low pressure alarm was generated by TPMS and transmitted by a telematics provider to a web portal
which created the awareness to the potential tire problem
- the tire was inspected, repaired and put back into service
- the repair did not correct the problem and the tire began to deflate/inflate again
- more low pressure alarms were triggered and the tire was inspected/replaced which will help to
minimize rolling resistance and improve fuel economy for that trailer
- most likely, this tire would have continued to have drastic changes in tire pressure resulting in an
extended period higher rolling resistance and reduction in fuel economy and ultimately ended with a
catastrophic tire failure [chart, 'TPMS History Summary Report', can be found on p.4 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1]
-- 2009-2010: a waste hauling fleet conducted a 12-month comprehensive study on the impact of tire
pressure monitoring systems on 60 trucks out of a terminal in Jacksonville, FL [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1165-Alp.5]
• Overall, the fleet replaced 204 fewer tires (from 1,439 down to 1,235) which is a 14.2% reduction
during the 12-month period with TPMS on the vehicles compared to the prior 12-month period without
TPMS on the vehicles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p.5]
[Chart, 'Tires Replaced: Monthly Summary', can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1165-A1]
-------
• According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association, it can take up to 7 gallons of crude oil to produce a
single tire [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p.5]
- approving the use of an existing and reliable technology that is proven to reduce the number of replaced
tires will also help to reduce the carbon footprint and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Overall, it is Doran's position that the advancements in technology which have been implemented with
the continued development of tire pressure monitoring systems and telematics offerings, should be
included in Phase 2 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1 p.5]
There are simply too many documented conclusions by FMCSA and cases of real-world results in support
of improved fuel economy and a reduction in the number of replaced tires from a significant number of
fleets across the country which have occurred after SmartWay's initial ruling to not include TPMS in
Phase 2 of this Standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165 p.l]
Furthermore, without including this technology, there will not be a system available in this Standard to
address tire inflation pressure for powered vehicles because automatic tire inflation systems (which are
plumbed inside an axle) are currently only available for trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A1
p.5]
It would be shortsighted to overlook an advanced and proven technology which can dramatically impact
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in a number of ways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1165-A 1
p.5]
Response:
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allow
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS. However, the effectiveness value in GEM for TPMS is less than that for ATIS,
reflecting the loss in efficiency reflecting need for driver interaction. See RIA Chapter 2.4.3.3.
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Phase 2 does not prescribe technology and provides a flexible structure that allows OEM's to use
advanced powertrains, and their significant potential to save fuel, for regulatory compliance. Eaton
believes that deep engine-transmission integration, Dual Clutch Technologies and ultra-efficient
transmissions are cost-effective methods to save fuel and achieve compliance, without adding the weight,
cost and complexity common to some new and/or un-tested technologies. Technologies available to the
market today are only partially accounted for in the pathways to compliance and cost analysis. We believe
that they offer OEMs increased flexibility to achieve the standards in the NPRM without any significant
additional cost, thus reducing the technology and reliability risks required to comply with the proposed
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.5]
-------
Hybrids
In the HD line haul segment the potential for hybridization is driven by improved aerodynamics. An
analysis [Vinjamoor 2015]1 on a typical high speed line haul route, shown in the figure below, compares
current and more aerodynamic trucks. A significant improvement in the tractor-trailer aerodynamics from
current levels of = 0.65 to = 0.45 - 0.52 and a reduction in tire rolling resistance from = 6.9 - 7.3 to =
5.6-5.9 increases the coasting time and braking loads (and thus the regeneration opportunities). A
parallel lOOkW hybrid system can further improve the fuel consumption of such a vehicle by more than
5%. In such a configuration, a Waste Heat Recovery system would also make use of the electrical
infrastructure to lower its conversion losses, and the combined system could provide more than 8% fuel
reduction over the conventional powertrain on a constant speed cycle over a relatively flat road as shown
below. These results are consistent with analyses presented by Volvo and Daimler and seen on
SuperTruck demonstrators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 17]
[Figure 3, HD Line haul route for Hybrid analysis, can be found on p. 18 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1]
We recommend the EPA revisit the assumptions behind the 6x2 impact of 2.5%. Our experience shows a
lower value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1194-A1 p. 19]
1 Vinjamoor, H., Patil, C., Tsourapas, V., Dorobantu, M., (2015) 'Fuel saving potential of hybrid
powertrains with electric waste heat recovery for heavy duty line haul applications', Int. J. Powertrains,
Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 196-207
2 Benjey, R., Biller, B., Tsourapas, V., (2015) 'Cost effective hybrid boosting solution with application to
light duty vocational vehicles' Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 302-314
3 Patil, C., Naghshtabrizi, P., Deng, Y., Vinjamoor, H., (2015) 'Real-time implementable optimal control
strategy for hybrid electric vehicles energy management: application to medium-duty commercial
vehicles', Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 225-242
Response:
After considering the comments, the agencies are continuing the Phase 1 approach of not including hybrid
powertrains in our feasibility analysis for Phase 2 tractors. Because the technology is still under
development for tractor applications we cannot confidently assess the effectiveness of this technology at
this point in time. In addition due to the high cost, limited benefit for tractors during highway driving,
and lacking any existing systems or manufacturing base, we cannot conclude with certainty, that such
technology will be available for tractors in the 2021-2027 timeframe. However, manufacturers will be
able to use powertrain testing to capture the performance of a hybrid system in GEM if systems are
developed in the Phase 2 timeframe.
The agencies reassessed the effectiveness of 6x2 axles. Meritor stated in their comments that their
internal testing and real world testing supported the 2.5 percent efficiency proposed by the agencies for
6x2 axles. The agencies' assessments of these technologies show that the reductions are in the range of 2
to 3 percent.65 For the final rule, the agencies are simulating 6x2,4x2, and disengageable axles within
65 See Section III.D.2.b of the Preamble for further discussion.
-------
GEM instead of providing a fixed value for the reduction. This approach is more technically sound
because it will take into account future changes in axle efficiency.
Organization: FedEx Corporation
4. Components Ratings: While the proposal currently states that it is the responsibility of manufacturers
to document the contributive benefit of the components installed on the Tractor and or Trailer; fleets such
as FedEx need the verified efficiency of the available components separately, and/or when used in
combination. There should be a government-provided rating of components to assist a fleet in its
deliberation as to which components are the most effective and should be included in future purchases.
Implementation would be inhibited if fleets were required to conduct their own evaluations of individual
components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.4]
Response:
For tractors, the agencies are not adopting a program to provide a rating of components to the fleets or
public. The Phase 2 tractor program has been designed to drive reduction of GHG emissions and fuel
consumption of new tractors through performance-based standards that are met on average by each
manufacturer. We believe this is the most efficient method of driving reductions.
Organization: First Industries Corporation
The following EPA-proposed penetration rates are too aggressive and in our estimation must be adjusted
downward: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.2]
6x2's: 60% - 6x2's may not be used legally and safely in all 50 U.S. states and Canada. In particular, six
state laws limit tire and axle loading in such a way that 6x2's cannot be used as intended, and many other
states have confusing regulations that effectively prevent usage of 6x2's. Fleet owners must purchase
trucks that can operate in all 50 states, and many cross the border between the U.S. and Canada. As long
as state and provincial laws limit the use of 6x2's, fleet owners will only purchase the technology in
limited areas and quantities. Moreover, while fuel savings can be realized with 6x2's, 6x2's also see an
increase in tire wear and associated costs, and have lower resale value. Accordingly, the payback period
for 6x2's can be longer, making them cost-ineffective for some applications. EPA should assume no more
than a 5% penetration rate for 6x2's through 2027 and should engage in additional study of the safety and
regulatory challenges associated with 6x2's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.3]
6x2's — EPA should include in its cost calculation the additional tire wear and the negative impact on
resale value associated with 6x2's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.4]
Auxiliary Power Units ('APUs'): 90% - Many operations do not require APUs, and basing stringency on
the assumption that 90% of customers will purchase APUs skews what is actually achievable and
ultimately imposes unnecessary costs. Further, no environmental benefit results from the purchase of an
APU by a fleet that does not idle. Many fleets use diesel-fired heaters to greatly reduce idling in cooler
weather, but still need to use idling when cab cooling is required. Fleets that already limit idling either via
slip seat operation (where drivers are rotated) or use of fuel-fired heaters will not get adequate payback
from an APU. Fleets will also see reduced load capacity due to the APU weight and possibly worse
aerodynamics from a larger trailer gap if the space for an APU requires a longer wheelbase. Notably,
most fleets already purchase programmable idle shutdown timers which limit idling. However, fleets do
not purchase regulatory versions of idle shutdown timers because of the negative perception in the
-------
secondary market regarding such technology and the importance of considering resale value when
purchasing a new vehicle. In practice, idle shutdown timers are typically used for the useful life of the
vehicle, whether they are regulatory or not. If forced to purchase APUs or regulatory shutdown timers,
many fleets will pre-buy vehicles so as to delay the negative costs associated with such technology.
APU's and AES's should not be considered part of stringency, unless the agencies' choose to provide
credit for non-regulatory versions of AES's that provide essentially the same environmental benefits as
the regulatory version. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.3]
APU's — EPA estimates on the cost of APU's in 2027 will be $4,327. The cost of the APU today is two
to three times above that number. EPA should use the actual cost of APU's in its calculation and adjust
the numbers upward to reflect the future costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.4]
Tire Inflation Systems: 40% - Customers are more likely to purchase tire pressure monitoring systems,
which provide all of the benefits of tire inflation systems at a lower cost. In addition, a customer who
simply checks tire pressure daily can achieve all of the same benefits without purchasing either
technology and incurring its costs. Tire inflation systems should not be forced into the market by
assuming any penetration rate. To the extent credit is provided for these systems, both tire inflation
systems and tire pressure monitoring systems should receive the same amount of credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1145-A2p.3]
Tire Inflation Systems — The cost estimates for tire inflation systems must include warranty risk and
maintenance costs, as well as the cost of false warnings. Consideration of the benefits must factor in
system leakage, which forces increased operation of the air compressor and therefore depending on the
type of system, could require more fuel to be burned by the truck ultimately creating a penalty to the
engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.5]
Lower Low Rolling Resistance ('LRR') Tires — EPA and NHTSA should do an independent study of
the LRR tires that they are seeking to push into the market, both in terms of safety and availability. In
particular, the agencies should look at the effect on stopping distance and whether such tires should and
can be used safely in all weather conditions. Fleets will use LRR tires when appropriate. However,
including wide spread use of these tires when determining a baseline from which to apply reductions will
result in overly stringent standards. Because EPA's tampering rules require retention of all features that
reduce GHG emissions, another unintended consequence of this action is that fleets will likely choose
tires with higher rolling resistance (less efficient), so that they have more flexibility in replacing tires in
the field when needed. EPA also errs in its tire analysis by using the same rolling resistance for day cabs,
sleepers, and raised roof sleepers. The need for and benefit of LRR tires on a raised roof sleeper is very
different from the other, categories. EPA should examine fleet tire data and adjust stringency to account
for variations and different business needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.3-4]
Lower LRR Tires — EPA erred in its cost calculations for LRR tires by basing its cost figures on 1999
tire data indexed for inflation, rather than using current cost data. Moreover, EPA's cost figures did not
account for additional wear and tear and lifetime replacement costs of LRR tires. Also, EPA should not
assume the same level of fuel economy benefit for the life of the tire, since fuel economy associated with
higher rolling resistance tires generally improves with wear. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.4-5]
Aerodynamic Devices — EPA's estimated cost of future aerodynamic devices appears very low given
the historical nature of the proposed changes. In the rule the agencies should describe in detail and on an
individual basis what components they expect to be used for compliance, the costs of these individual
components, and how this will change over-time to maintain compliance with stricter standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.5]
-------
Response:
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.66 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.67 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."68
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
The agencies considered the maintenance impact of 6x2 axles. As noted in the NACFE Confidence
Report on 6x2 axles, the industry expects an overall reduction in maintenance costs and labor for vehicles
with a 6x2 configuration as compared to a 6x4 configuration.69 Among other savings, the reduction in
number of parts, such as the interaxle drive shaft, will reduce the number of lubrication procedures
needed and reduce the overall quantity of differential fluid needed at change intervals. The agencies have
taken an approach to the maintenance costs for the 6x2 technology where we believe that the overall
impact will to be zero.
Idle Reduction Technologies
While the agencies do not necessarily believe that customer reluctance in the initial years of Phase 1
should be considered insurmountable, we do agree with commenters that the agencies should allow
adjustable AESS to be a technology input to GEM and should differentiate effectiveness based on the idle
reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-
proof and adjustable systems to qualify for some reduction. After consideration of the comments, the
66 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
67 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
68 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
69 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." 2014
-------
agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle reduction technologies and only projected
adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS.
EPA considered the comments and more closely evaluated NHTSA's contracted TetraTech cost report
found the retail price of a diesel-powered APU with a DPF to be $10,000. The agencies used a retail
price of a diesel-powered APU to be $8,000 without a DPF and $10,000 with a DPF in the cost analysis
for this final rulemaking. See also Preamble Section III.C.3 and response 4.6 below.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS.
With respect to costs, all of the agencies' technology cost analyses include both direct and indirect costs.
Indirect costs include items such as warranty. In terms of maintenance, the presence of tire inflation
management systems, should serve to improve tire maintenance intervals and perhaps reduce vehicle
downtime due to tire issues; they may also carry with them some increased maintenance costs to ensure
that the tire inflation systems themselves remain in proper operation. For the analysis, we have
considered these two competing factors to cancel each other out.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1
certification data. We found that the drive tires on low and mid roof tractors on average had 10 to 17
percent higher rolling resistance than the high roof sleeper cabs. But we found less of a difference in
rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor subcategories. Based on comments received and
further consideration of our own analysis of the difference in tire rolling resistance levels that exist today
in the certification data, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards using a technology pathway that
utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for low and mid roof tractors than the levels used to set the high
roof tractor standards. The agencies phased-in the low rolling resistance tire adoption rates within the
technology packages used to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that manufacturers can
gradually introduce these technologies.
We have estimated the cost of lower rolling resistance tires based on an estimate from TetraTech of $30
(retail, 2013$). We also have applied a "medium" complexity markup value for the more advanced low
rolling resistance tires. We expect that, when replaced, the lower rolling resistance tires would be
replaced by equivalent performing tires throughout the vehicle lifetime. As such, the incremental
increases in costs for lower rolling resistance tires would be incurred throughout the vehicle lifetime at
intervals consistent with current tire replacement intervals. A recent study conducted by ATA's
Technology and Maintenance Council found through surveys of 51 fleets that low rolling resistance tires
and wide base single tires lasted longer than standard tractor tires.70 Due to the uncertainty regarding the
life expectancy of the LRR tires, we maintained the current tire replacement intervals in our cost analysis.
70 Truckinginfo. TMC Survey Reveals Misinformed View of Fuel-Efficient Tires. March 2015.
-------
Aerodynamics
The agencies included the technology cost of aerodynamic improvements, such as wheel covers and
active grill shutters, in our analysis of aero bin V. The direct manufacturing cost of aero bin V, as shown
in RIA Chapter 2.11.9, is $3089 for high roof sleeper cabs and $2660 for high roof day cabs (2013$ in
2014). The agencies did not receive any detailed cost estimates for aerodynamic devices in the comments
to the NPRM.
Organization: Gaines, Linda
Similarly, long-haul trucks are evaluated at the manufacturer level, which does not easily take into
account the many retrofits, including aftermarket idling reduction devices not installed on initial purchase,
or the actual use patterns. It might therefore make sense to measure truck efficiency at the fleet level,
using telematics data to infer actual fuel use. Although this could be considered intrusive, at least
telematics data measures what is actually of concern rather than a poor proxy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1357-A1 p.l]
Response:
The agencies developed the Phase 2 rule under their respective authorities. Clean Air Act section
202(a)(1) and (2) authorize EPA to establish standards for emissions of pollutants from new motor vehicle
and engines.
Organization: Green Transportation Solutions
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 234-236.]
So beyond the costly vehicle upgrades and modifications that are being discussed here today, it is rather
difficult for some of these drivers to purchase some of these things. We usually actually recommend three
simple and inexpensive ways to reduce petroleum consumption, and, thus, greenhouse gas emissions with
our clients.
The third is to incorporate a tire pressure screening system
It's very important for not only fuel efficiency, but for safety. It is one of the simplest ways to increase
your fuel economy. It does take management. It does take participation by the drivers. And also many,
many safety improvements having properly inflated tires.
Response:
The agencies have included tire pressure monitoring systems in the menu of technologies recognized in
Phase 2 GEM.
Organization: He, Leard, McConnell
We do not directly measure the adoption of these technologies and vehicle design characteristics over
time. Instead, the effects of these advances are absorbed by model year fixed effects in our estimation.
-------
Therefore, the time period fixed effects potentially reflect the adoption of a combination of these
technologies. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p.3]
2.2 Trade-off Factors
Some truck attributes have a negative correlation with fuel economy, ceteris paribus. We examine closely
two ofthese trade-off attributes, engine displacement and vehicle weight. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1
p.3]
[Figure 1, 'Theoretical illustration: trade-off between MPG and vehicle weight', can be found on p.4 of
docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0115 -A 1 ]
4 Empirics
Our main regression is specified as follows. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p.6]
In MPG, = aj In Weight, + a2 In CIDs + MY,"y + X,'B + E, (1)
MY, are the model year fixed effects. The estimated coefficient 'y indicates how technological progress
changes over time. A list of controls, X,, include body/trailer type, number of axles on the power unit, cab
type, whether equipped with air-conditioning, ln(odometer reading), main cargo type, vehicle make, fuel
type (interacting with model years), survey year fixed effects and region fixed effects. The estimation
results are shown as model 1 in Table 1 and Table 2. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p.6]
In the second model, we aggregate the data by fuel type, model year, body/trailer type, vehicle make,
number of axles on the power unit and cab type to recover the average fuel economy at the truck model
level. We compute the probability weight based on the distribution of each truck model in the original
dataset. The estimation results are shown in columns (2) and (4) in Table 1 and Table 2. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0115-A1 p.6]
Third, we apply the Oaxaca/Blinder method of decomposition to estimate the technological progress. The
base period is from model year 1973 to 1975. We run the regression as specified in (1) only for
observations from the base period, and use the estimated parameters from the base period to fit the fuel
economy in each of the following model years. That is to say, we are holding the coefficients of trade-off
variables, Weight and CID, constant. The difference between actual and fitted fuel economy can be
decomposed into an explained part and an unexplained. The explained part is the effect of changes in
trade-off variables; the unexplained part reflects the technological progress. The estimated progress (in
percent) in each model year after the base period is shown in the third and sixth columns in Table 1.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p.6]
[Table 1, 'Technological Progress' and Table 2, 'Estimation Results of the Trade-off Variables', can be
found on p.7 and 8, respectively, of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1]
Response:
The agencies have analyzed two tractor baselines in the Phase 2 final rulemaking to recognize that there is
uncertainty in projecting the future fleet in the absence of Phase 2 standards. The fuel consumption and
C02 emissions in the "flat" baseline remains the same over time with no assumed improvements after
2017, absent a Phase 2 regulation. An alternative baseline was also evaluated by the agencies in which
-------
there is a continuing uptake of technologies in the tractor market that reduce fuel consumption and C02
emissions absent a Phase 2 regulation. This alternative baseline, referred to as the "dynamic" baseline,
was developed to estimate the potential effect of market pressures and non-regulatory government
initiatives to improve tractor fuel consumption. The dynamic baseline assumes that the significant level
of research funded and conducted by the Federal government, industry, academia and other organizations
will, in the future, result in the adoption of some technologies beyond the levels required to comply with
Phase 1 standards. As documented in the RIA, the choice of stringency for final standards for each source
category was identical under analysis for either of these baselines.
Organization: Idle Smart
We believe that automatic stop/start systems like Idle Smart have and will continue to provide significant
GHG benefits in addition to providing fleets of all sizes a compelling solution to reduce fuel usage [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.l]
We are concerned that the Phase 2 rulemaking excludes automatic start/stop systems from continuing to
play the vital role that it does today in reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption. As a result, the
Phase 2 rulemaking provides an unnecessarily incomplete set of viable alternatives to achieve its stated
goals, it underrepresents costs associated with the limited set of onboard idle reduction technology
solutions presented, and it creates unintended but very predictable and quantifiable consequences that are
counter to successfully achieving Phase 2's goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p. 1]
1. The EPA and NHSTA omit and thereby effectively eliminate other viable Extended Idle
technologies that have proven market results to reduce fuel consumption. Auxiliary power units
(APUs), fuel operated heaters, battery supplied air conditioning, and thermal storage systems are the only
solutions presented as viable Extended Idle Reduction solutions, and only one technology - diesel APUs
- is modeled economically. By omitting other solutions, notably automatic start/stop systems, and
combined with the AES provisions presented in the rulemaking, technologies that have proven to reduce
an equal amount of fuel consumption are not provided a level playing field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1128-A1 p.2]
The proposed rulemaking presumably uses diesel APUs as its exemplar given that it is the only four
season idle reduction solution presented, which is understandable. Nevertheless, the singular focus on
diesel APUs provides an incomplete analysis, particularly since Idle Smart's automatic stop/start system
has quantifiable and verifiable operational data that yields an identical reduction in fuel consumption
when compared to diesel APUs. While we believe some of the modeling inputs are inaccurate (e.g., diesel
APU gallons/hour), below we use the operational metrics as provided3 to generate a simple but
instructive side-by-side comparison of diesel APUs and Idle Smart in terms of fuel reduction for
Extended Idle times: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.2]
[Table of Extended Idle times fuel reduction comparisons can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1]4
In its rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA requested comment on other approaches that would appropriately
quantify the reductions that would be experienced in the real world. To that end, Idle Smart's fuel
reduction performance metrics provide proven market results that are, at a minimum, at parity with diesel
APUs, quantifiable and measurable, and can be achieved using an automatic engine shutdown (AES) with
the appropriate override provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.2]
-------
As mentioned earlier, we are concerned that the Phase 2 rulemaking excludes automatic start/stop systems
from continuing to play the vital role that it does today in reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption.
As a result, we would ask that care be given to ensuring a level playing for all viable onboard
technologies, including automatic start/stop solutions and appropriate AES override provisions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.4]
It is our hope that two of the areas highlighted above, items 1 and 3, speak directly to Idle Smart's ability
to address the stated goals of the Phase 2 rulemaking at a level that is at parity with (fuel consumption) or
materially better than (PM2.5 emissions) the implied Extended Idle technology highlighted in the Phase 2
Draft. Automatic start/stop solutions such as Idle Smart have proven themselves in the market, and we
have quantifiable data and reporting that supports our ability to offer a viable alternative that meets the
collective needs of both fleets and the EPA andNHTSA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.4]
4 Idle Smart performance metrics (2014)
Response:
We generally agree with several commenters that encouraged the agencies to consider the effectiveness of
a variety of idle reduction technologies. The Phase 2 regulations differentiate effectiveness based on the
idle reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer, including automatic stop/start
technologies such as the system described by Idle Smart. See RIA Table 2-5.
Organization: IdleAIR
IdleAir's core offering, Electrified Parking Spaces ("EPS"), as it is referenced in the proposed rule,
provides long-haul truck drivers an alternative to idling their main engines to maintain a comfortable
cabin temperature, sustain vehicle battery charge and power electronics such as televisions and laptops
during their overnight stays. EPS provides other benefits such as cleaner air with the reduction of black
carbon and soot emitted from diesel engines, reduced noise pollution, local job creation, and an increased
tax base for the local economy. Drivers benefit from improved sleeping conditions without the noise,
vibration and exhaust fumes from idling and are therefore better rested and safer on the road. Dedicated
truck site sales staff, national maintenance, nearly 24 x 7 customer support, highway signage, and other
important investments have all uniquely contributed to achieve a growing user base of over 40,000 active
driver customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1250-A2 p.l]
MANDATING AES IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO CURB MAIN ENGINE IDLING FOR
MODEL YEAR 2021 AND BEYOND, BUT OVERALL FUEL ECONOMY AND AIR QUALITY
WILL DECREASE, WHEN ALSO CONSIDERING ALL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
The agencies intend for the market to dictate how an OEM may achieve compliance with the fuel
efficiency standard. However, a stringent standard that recognizes Automatic Engine Shutdown (AES) as
the only idling mitigant effectively mandates AES. Indeed, the stated goal is 90% adoption of AES. The
agencies maintain that its decision to recognize only AES is technology agnostic, since an owner is left to
choose among all alternatives to idling. However, a truck owner cannot risk the driver's safety even one
night per year, and therefore must buy and transport a technology that is available wherever the vehicle
stops. The GEM model input is either Yes or No for "idle reduction w/ APU," which suggest a
presumption that Auxiliary Power Units (APUs), will be the de facto solution. IdleAir is concerned that
mandating AES is effectively mandating APUs, even if a consumer believes that a combination of
-------
alternative technologies are superior. And many do. As stated above, IdleAir has 40,000 active driver
customers and fleet agreements with 750 Fleets. Within the last two years, six "mega fleets" built IdleAir
facilities within their own terminals and nine more are planned within the next two years. Mandating
APU adoption will threaten the continued growth and viability of IdleAir, the electrified truck parking
space industry at large. Although some APU owners patronize IdleAir, their savings is too small for
IdleAir (and a host of other providers) to operate a viable business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1250-A2
p.2]
UNACCEPTABLE NEAR TERM IMPACT:
Most trucks in today's fleet do not have an APU, and therefore need some alternative like EPS. Class 8
trucks have a design life of 2mm miles or 8 or more years. Even if 100% of all trucks are sold with an
AES and APU in model year 2021, then in the year 2025, we conservatively estimate that half of all
trucks on the road will still have no choice but to idle during their extended stays if IdleAir and other non-
APU technologies are regulated out of existence. The slow turnover of durable long haul trucks renders
our solution, at worst, an important bridge technology that should not be taken lightly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1250-A2 p.2]
ELECTRIFIED PARKING SPACES ARE MORE EFFICIENT THAN APUS:
APUs add 400-500 pounds, which increases fuel consumption by about 200 to 280 gallons per year in
order to carry the heavier load. At worst, however, the extra weight results in additional vehicle trips. It
should be noted that interstate highways and some states have additional weight allowance for APUs, but
several state routes do not. Heavy loads have to plan their entire trip for the most stringent state through
which it plans to travel. We recommend EPA further study the effect of these additional trips. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1250-A2 p.2]
Diesel APUs:
Diesel APUs consume less fuel, but are generally unflltered, and therefore generate substantially more
emissions tied to respiratory ailments than the main engine. PM emissions from idling trucks are well
documented and occur at locations with the greatest impact to human health - congregated on large truck
stops where drivers spend the night. Surrounding neighborhoods that are most likely to permit truck stop
siting are least likely to have adequate access to health care services. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1250-
A2 p.2]
Our site staff receives complaints that drivers report headaches from neighboring diesel APUs. We
encourage additional research on the health impacts of drastically increasing the adoption rate of APUs.
We note that the cost of maintenance or filters were not modeled into the rule. Some large fleets have
removed all APUs (numbered in the thousands) in light of maintenance alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1250-A2 p.2]
Battery Power APUs:
Battery power APUs are predominantly charged by two methods. 1) while the truck is in operation, an
oversized alternator creates additional drag on the main engine, and 2) during extended stays, to recharge
the battery, the main engine activates in high idle mode to consume more fuel than ordinary idling. Both
methods involve fuel consumption and emissions that should be accounted for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1250-A2 p.3]
-------
Indirect emissions from EPS:
Even electrified parking spaces generate emissions which should not be ignored, however, the carbon
footprint of EPS service is orders of magnitude less than an APU, and the difference in PM emissions are
even more striking. Through a methodology approved by the American Carbon Registry, the carbon
intensity of EPS service is 6% of an idling truck. It should be noted that most of our service is delivered
off-peak, when the cleanest power-plants are powering the grid. A side by side comparison of the indirect
but substantial and quantifiable emissions caused by EPS and APUs should be considered against the
emissions of AES. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1250-A2 p.3]
MORE DATA IS NEEDED TO STUDY A DIESEL APU'S EFFECT ON SLEEP QUALITY:
IdleAir commissioned a third party study to evaluate the effects an idling engine has on sleep quality. The
study is published on our website www.idleair.com and will be uploaded separately as supporting
documentation. All evidence concluded a significant loss of sleep quality resulted from the idling engine.
Staff and customer observations report diesel APUs are actually louder and vibrate more than a main
engine, and we encourage NTSHA and EPA to evaluate the impact on sleep quality of drivers. It goes
without saying driver alertness requires high quality sleep. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1250-A2 p.3]
RECOMMENDATIONS
Fuel efficiency standards are not the right tool to regulate idling. Idling is a behavioral activity that has a
loose relationship to onboard attributes. A regulation with influence over only one small cog (OEM's) in
the large wheel of the idling problem may have adverse consequences on market choice, driver health and
safety, and ultimately the environment. On its face, AES with limited override appears technology
agnostic, but it instead dictates the subsequent decision in favor of APUs, and not because APUs are
superior. The environmental benefits of AES combined with the environmental costs of APUs create an
inferior outcome to a regulation that promotes greater flexibility for a range of solutions - even if some
main engine idling exists as a backup. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1250-A2 p.3]
If we are forced to improve upon a rule within the confines of on-board solutions to idling, we
recommend a scheme that allows for partial credit for adjustable AES or stop start devices, such as those
offered by Idle Smart. Telematics can demonstrate the substantial and measurable decrease that adjustable
AES has on idle time, and it permits the owner to more flexibly address nearly all of the other instances
where the device permits idling. This flexibility is necessary to preserve driver/owner choice for a host of
idle mitigation solutions. The comfort of knowing that isolated idling episodes are mechanically possible
affords owners the margin of safety necessary to effectively employ bunk heaters, EPS, hotels, screen
windows, etc. depending on the circumstances. The adoption rate of AES did not budge after the Phase I
forecasted 80% adoption, because flexibility is critically important to the owner, driver, and free market.
It is dangerous to underestimate the reasons that OEM's opted out of AES. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1250-A2 p.3]
Although the current rule does not address whichever additional idle mitigation technology is employed,
in the event that it is modified to award credit to technologies other than AES, IdleAir implores the
agencies to treat on-board and off-board technologies fairly. It will be challenging for such a modification
to avoid picking winners. Off-board technologies are not traditionally provided by manufacturers. IdleAir
requests an additional opportunity to comment if such a change is considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1250-A2 p.3-4]
-------
As a prior draft of the rule contemplated, however, it is possible to recognize off board behavior at the
OEM level. That draft recognized that a buyer of a new truck could enter into a contract with an EPS
provider prior to accepting delivery. In a market where owner operators pay high teen interest rates to
factor loads, part of the EPS value proposition is the ability to "pay as you go." In fact, about $765,000 of
IdleAir sales last year were cash transactions because many drivers have no additional credit available.
We maintain that a commitment to use EPS can be demonstrated with a binding agreement upfront,
without the obligation of prepayment. The calculation for hours of idle mitigation should reflect the fact
that every hour consumed is an hour that would have otherwise been spent idling. This premise was
accepted by the most credible carbon credit verifiers, in part because our service module detects idling
and discontinues services. For each hour of service, about .8 to 1 gallon of fuel is saved, and the
efficiency credit issued to the OEM can be backed into after discounting the small fraction of waste at the
power-plant level. We would want the indirect waste of APU uses to be factored into the efficiency score
for APU-enabled trucks, because that inclusion is accurate and important. It should be noted that the
network of EPS locations has tripled in the past four years, and the two biggest operators, comprising
over 90% of all locations, are willing to cross-honor membership agreements so as to enhance ubiquity.
Ultimately, an OEM can have high confidence of sum certain idle reduction if it is presented with an
executed agreement between the buyer and an EPS provider specific to a vehicle identification number,
and the OEM should receive an improved vehicle credit for the associated VIN. No modification is
necessary for existing EPS service procedures in order to document the utilization of a vehicle bearing a
specific VIN - all transactions are recorded and vehicle specific. The fairest protocol is not
straightforward, but it is accurate, enforceable, and important for market efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1250-A2 p.4]
Response:
The agencies made several changes to the treatment of AES and idle reduction technologies in the final
rule. We, however, did not specifically include EPS as one of the technologies on the menu of idle
reduction technologies due to the lack of data supporting the amount of idle operation that is reduced in
the real world through the use of EPS on a given tractor. Tractors manufactured during the Phase 2
timeframe with either the tamper-proof AES or adjustable AES options would receive a C02 emissions
and fuel consumption reduction in GEM. EPS paired with an AES could receive this level of reduction.
We recognize that EPS could be an important idle reduction technology, but believe the technology
should be evaluated in the off-cycle credit program so that data on specific vehicles can be considered.
It is also worth noting that the agencies are not mandating AES under the Phase 2 rulemaking. The
agencies have adopted C02 emissions and fuel consumption standards based on our analysis of om
technology pathway for each level of stringency, but manufacturers will be free to use any combination of
technology to meet the standards, as well as the flexibility of averaging, banking and trading, to meet the
standards on average.
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
We have heard repeated concerns from our employers that the proposed emission standards might
inadvertently be more stringent than EPA had intended. For example, the assumed 2017 aero baseline
uses the best aero trucks available, not the average. This baseline increases stringency by roughly 2.5%.
The compliance margin for aerodynamic audits has been removed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2
p.9]
-------
Response:
While the agencies agree with the commenters that it is important to develop an accurate baseline so that
the appropriate aerodynamic technology package effectiveness and costs can be evaluated in determining
the final Phase 2 standards, there appears to be some confusion regarding the NPRM baseline
aerodynamic assessment. The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic
bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards. The baseline was not
determined by or declared to be the average results of the vehicles tested, as some commenters
maintained. The vehicles that were tested prior to the NPRM were used to develop the aerodynamic bin
structure for Phase 2. In both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins such
that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into
consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in Phase 2. The
Phase 2 bins were developed so that tractors that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as
Bin III tractors in Phase 2. The baseline aerodynamic value for the Phase 2 final rulemaking was
determined in the same manner as the NPRM, using the adoption rates of the bins used to determine the
Phase 1 standards, but reflect the final Phase 2 bin CdA values.
The agencies' assessment for the final rule is that only Bins I through V are achievable with known
aerodynamic technologies, but that Bins VI and VII have less known technology paths. Upon further
analysis of simulation modeling of a SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we
agree with the manufacturers that a SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the Bin V
level of CdA. See RIA Chapter 2.8.2.2. These aerodynamic improvements have been demonstrated
within the program on two vehicles in 2015. In the final rule, the agencies are projecting that truck
manufacturers will be able to begin implementing these demonstrated aerodynamic technologies as early
as 2021 MY on a limited scale. We adjusted the adoption rates for MY 2027 in the technology package
developed for the final rule to consist of 20 percent of Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V
reflecting our assessment of the fraction of high roof sleeper cab tractors in this segment that we project
could successfully apply these aerodynamic packages with this amount of lead time.
The agencies received comments from manufacturers arguing for the agencies to establish compliance
margins that would allow actual production vehicles to exceed the standards by some fixed amount.
These comments included specific requests for an aerodynamic compliance margin. We also received
comments from UCS supporting the elimination of the aerodynamic compliance margin. As explained in
Section I.C. 1 of the Preamble, although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate
the initial implementation of new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an
appropriate long-term policy. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on
coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance
testing, in which test-to-test variability is normally expected to be small relative to production variability.
With coastdown testing, however, test-to-test variability is expected to be larger relative to production
variability. In response to comments addressing this difference, EPA developed a different structure for
conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor CdA s and solicited supplemental comments on it. See 81 FR 10825.
We believe the structure being finalized appropriately balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives
for manufacturers to act in good faith with manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on
inaccurate testing. Our current assessment is that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when
certifying and uses good engineering judgment throughout the process, false failures for individual
vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family would not occur.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
-------
Transmissions - Advanced integrated transmissions, including automated manual transmissions that
enable downspeeding and optimal engine operation, by leading companies like Eaton and Volvo, have
already been introduced (Stoltz and Dorobantu, 2014; Greszler, 2014). Automatic transmissions are the
norm in Europe, and increasingly advanced dual-clutch transmissions are being introduced there. The
agencies considered this technology as part of their stringency determination, but more advanced versions
of this technology have been demonstrated in SuperTruck (Delgado and Lutsey, 2014). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4p.4
Tractor-trailers
The ICCT offers several new technical data inputs and suggestions for the agencies to consider in their
final tractor and tractor-trailer stringency determination. We suggest that the agencies consider the two
recent ICCT analyses that include rigorous state-of-the-art tractor-trailer vehicle simulation modeling
(Delgado and Lutsey, 2015) and a detailed synthesis of best-available technology cost inputs (Meszler et
al, 2015) in their final tractor standard determination. The scope of these studies were designed to the
particular technologies under consideration by manufacturers, and the particular simulation, cost, cost-
effectiveness, and benefits calculation methods are matched to those of the agencies analysis in their
light-duty vehicle and initial phase heavy-duty vehicle rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4
p. 10]
Our analysis indicates that the technology potential is higher, and the technology cost is lower, than the
agencies assessed. In those studies, we find that technology levels beyond the proposed 2027 standards
can achieve 9 mile-per-gallon tractor-trailers on highly comparable drive cycles to the agencies' new
cycles, while also delivering payback periods for truck owners of 6 months (under high fuel prices) up to
1.5 years (with sustained low fuel prices). This compares to the agencies' approximately 8 mile-per-
gallon tractor-trailer standards in 2027, when tractors and trailer improvements are combined. In addition,
we found the total cost of delivering a 9-mpg tractor-trailer is approximately $9,000, which is over 20%
lower than the agencies' $11,680 projection for tractors complying with the proposed 2027 standards (see
Delgado and Lutsey, 2015; Meszler et al, 2015). As a result, the new ICCT technology assessment - not
included in the proposal's assessment - demonstrates that the tractor-trailer stringency could be increased
to above 9 mpg in 2027 and would cost several thousand dollars less per tractor-trailer than the agencies
estimated. We recommend that the agencies consider these data inputs in their final technical inputs and
in their final tractor-trailer stringency determination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.10-11]
The increased incorporation of incremental engine efficiency technology, discussed above, appears to a
key discrepancy between the ICCT and agencies' analyses on tractor-trailer efficiency. Based on that
ICCT tractor-trailer analysis and the engine research above, our primary recommendation is to
incorporate the required improvements from greater engine technology, as described above, as equivalent
required tractor efficiency fuel consumption and C02 reductions that go beyond the proposed 2021, 2024,
and 2027 standards. Including the engine improvements (i.e., 4.2% as proposed, up to 10% in 2027)
would approximately reduce the fuel consumption and emissions across all of the tractor categories in
2027 by 6%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 11]
For additional technical context, especially relevant for 2027 standards, the ICCT analyzed the extent to
which the agencies' assessment of applicable technologies in the proposed tractor stringency differ from
SuperTruck tractor-trailer efficiency. The SuperTruck teams are achieving 10.7 mpg (Peterbilt) and 12.2
mpg (Daimler/Freightliner) in real-world testing (Buchholz, 2014; Daimler, 2015). To rigorously compare
the technologies we utilized the EPA GEM model (Phase 2 GEM vl.0) with the physical attributes and
off-cycle credits just as applied in the agencies' analysis and on the official GEM test cycles, and assessed
differences for SuperTruck teams' demonstrated physical attributes (See Lutsey, 2015b). As analyzed, the
-------
regulation would result in tractor-trailers that achieve about 8 miles per gallon on the new regulatory test.
SuperTruck technologies would go further, delivering 9-10 mpg for tractor-trailers on the same test cycle.
Although the off-cycle credits (e.g., automated manual transmission, 6x2, direct drive, tractor automatic
tire inflation) are included for all the technology packages, idling reduction technology is not included in
the numbers shown. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 11]
Based on this Phase 2 GEM analysis of the standards and SuperTruck technology, it appears to be clear
that the proposed standards are at considerably lower technology levels than the technical potential as
indicated from the U.S. DOE SuperTruck Peterbilt/Cummins and Daimler demonstration prototypes.
Considering the very large gap in efficiency between the proposed standards and improvements achieved
through the SuperTruck program, and considering the research progress and current uptake of SuperTruck
technologies in the marketplace (see Bloch-Rubin and Gallo, 2014), we recommend that the agencies
investigate the full spectrum of SuperTruck technologies and assess standards up to those efficiency
technology levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 11]
Response:
Transmissions
The agencies have evaluated the various transmission configurations available for heavy-duty tractors.
The agencies recognize the effectiveness of these technologies in two ways. First, the agencies recognize
the benefit of automation in reducing the variability of drivers which should lead to operation in the
optimal gear more often. The second is through the optional transmission efficiency test that will
recognize the benefits of improved gear efficiencies. The agencies have built some improvements in
transmission gear efficiency into the technology package used to derive the final standards. The agencies
have included ICCT's assessment of transmissions in our transmission technology discussion in Section
III.D.l.b.
Overall Stringency
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the proposed Alternative 3 and
Alternative 4 tractor standards. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed comments received
regarding technologies. The agencies have included ICCT's assessment of tractor technologies in our
technology discussion in Preamble Section III.D. l.b. and considered their assessments along with other
literature and comments for the final rule. The agencies have developed a set of final tractor standards
that reflect our reevaluation of the ability to pull ahead certain technologies, the limitations in adoption
rates and/or effectiveness of other technologies, and consideration of additional technologies. In general,
the final Phase 2 tractor standards are similar in overall stringency as the levels proposed in Alternative 3,
but have been determined using new technology packages that reflect consideration of all of the
technology comments, and in several respects reflect greater stringency than the proposed Alternative 3.
Specifically, the engine improvements for the final rule reflect greater reductions. Consistent with the
commenter, we have incorporated the required improvements from the more stringent engine assessment
into the tractor (i.e. vehicle) fuel consumption and C02 standards for the final rule.
As noted by the commenter, DOE has partnered with the heavy-duty industry to demonstrate high roof
sleeper cab tractor and box trailer combinations (only one of the ten tractor subcategories) that achieve a
50 percent improvement in freight efficiency evaluated as a 65,000 pound vehicle operating on the
highway under somewhat controlled circumstances. However, these SuperTrucks are not necessarily
designed to handle the rigors of daily use over actual in-use roads. For example, they generally have very
limited ground clearance that would likely preclude operation in snow, and would be very susceptible to
-------
damage from potholes or other road hazards. In addition, each manufacturer only produced a single high
roof sleeper cab for demonstration purposes at a cost of nearly $40-$80 million each. While the
agencies cannot simply apply the SuperTruck program achievements directly into the Phase 2 program
because of the significant differences in the limited purpose of SuperTruck and the plenary applicability
of a regulation to all operating conditions and duty cycles, it is helpful to assess the achievements and
evaluate how the technologies could be applied into mass production into a variety of real world
applications while maintaining performance throughout the full useful life of the vehicle.
Organization: International Foodservice Distributors Association
IFDA member companies are among the largest private fleet operators in the country using tractors and
refrigerated trailers to service their hundreds of thousands of operator customers each day. The Phase 1
emissions regulations currently in effect have resulted in considerable increases in acquisition costs for
power units over the last 10 years. The proposed Phase 2 requirements would only add to this already
considerable additional expense for member companies. While the proposal maintains that these
additional costs will be offset by reduced fuel consumption, we are concerned that the proposal includes
unrealistic analyses of the state of technology, rates of adoption of new technologies and the potential
return on investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1258-A1 p.l
As purchasers of equipment, the burden of meeting the emissions requirements would not fall on IFDA
members. Instead the proposal sets emissions targets for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), yet
these companies must rely on adoption of their technology by purchasers to meet these targets. IFDA is
strongly concerned that targets should not be set in a manner that would force users such as IFDA
members to purchase unproven and unreliable equipment in order for OEMs to meet the requirements.
Each company has different transportation requirements depending upon such issues as location and
customer base. Many of the solutions anticipated in the proposal would not make sense for different types
of transportation operations. Foodservice distributors should not be required to purchase technologies that
are not cost effective for their fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1258-A1 p.2
IFDA is also concerned that the foodservice distribution industry would be disproportionately impacted
by the technology required to comply with the new targets. Industry drivers are generally not long haul
but rather make multiple stops during the day which limits the ability of many technologies to be effective
in reducing emissions. Many of the technologies anticipated by the EPA would do little to impact
emissions or be impractical for distributors in short haul delivery environments. This is also true for the
trailer requirements which generally rely on streamlining improvements which provide little benefit when
used over shorter driving distances. As a result, distributors could be forced to pay for technologies that
result in little real emissions reductions in their operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1258-A1 p.2]
Response:
The agencies developed ten tractor and nine vocational subcategories in addition to specialty chassis
subcategories that acknowledge that trucks operate under many different conditions and with different
driving patterns. We also have included three different drive cycles, ARB transient and cruise cycles at
55 and 65 mph with grade, to cover the range of operation of trucks. On top of this, the agencies also
adopted provisions that require manufacturers to meet the standards on average using a suite of
technologies and allow the manufacturers to bank and trade credits, along with carry-over credit deficits
for three years. Each of these design elements of the program were developed to allow manufacturers to
produce products that meet the needs of their customers. In addition, the agencies are adopting provisions
in Phase 2, and have existing provisions in Phase 1 (EPA's 40 CFR 1037.630 and NHTSA's regulation at
49 CFR 523.2), that allow low-roof tractors intended for intra-city pickup and delivery, such as those that
-------
deliver bottled beverages to retail stores to be treated as vocational vehicles. The vocational vehicle
standards are predicated on drive cycles with distance-based weighting factors of 20, 54, or 90 percent
transient cycle depending on the type of vocational operation (see 40 CFR 1037.510). The transient cycle
is representative of the type of driving cited by the commenter - short haul operations with multiple stops
per day.
With respect to the portion of the comment dealing with trailers, the agencies believe the majority of box
vans will experience C02 and fuel consumption reductions with use of the technologies encouraged by
this rulemaking. We also believe many of the box vans that operate at lower speeds will have work-
performing equipment (e.g., side platforms, rear lift gates) that will allow manufacturers to designate
these trailers as partial-aero or non-aero vans. Partial-aero standards are based on adoption of a single
aerodynamic device, and non-aero vans have design standards that require installation of tire technologies
only with no aerodynamic requirements. A small fraction of the box van industry may not qualify for a
partial- or non-aero designation, yet still operate at lower speeds. These vans may not achieve the real-
world benefits that their compliance results would suggest or that similar vans experience because they
frequently travel at higher speeds. However, we believe that they will still benefit from the technologies,
even in urban operation. In RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.1, we show that even trailers operating under 100%
transient conditions will experience a small benefit from use of trailer skirts, and trailers that spend any
time at speeds of 55-mph or greater will achieve benefits of at least 1% during that time, compared to
operating without skirts.
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation
Higher-performing lubricants will play an important role in helping the OEMs comply with the Phase 2
Rule. Indeed, as shown in Figure 1 below, many of the technologies and strategies that will be used by the
OEMs will require HPLs to operate cleanly, efficiently, and without compromising equipment
performance and durability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.2]
[Figure 1 can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1]
Response:
The agencies' assessment of axle improvements, including the use of high performing lubricants, found
that axles built in the Phase 2 timeline could be 2 percent more efficient than a 2017 baseline axle.
Organization: Meritor, Inc.
Define Drive Axle Disconnect and Resolve with 6x2 Default FE Credit
Meritor is supportive of the 2.5 percent credit for a constant 6X2 configuration. Our internal testing plus
vehicle testing in real-world conditions supports this level of efficiency improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1254-A1 p.9]
On a related note, Meritor believes that the 2.5 percent FE benefit in the proposed rule is excessive and
over-credits the technology because it will not be engaged for the amount of time assumed in the model.
For example, under the current proposal, a Linehaul Sleeper Cab with a Detachable Tandem would
receive an effective credit of 2.38 percent which is nearly identical to the 2.5 percent granted to a
permanent 6X2-truck configuration. Meritor does not believe the data support this large credit due to the
limitations on the duty cycle. In addition to the transient cycles, the detached axle will be engaged for
-------
certain percentage of the population based on load conditions at 55 mph and 65 mph. For example, a fully
loaded tractor trailer cannot disengage one of its axles without a significant impact to grade performance
and the life of the engaged axle. This latter point can be countered by upgrading the constantly engaged
drive axle to an axle used for a 6X2 configuration, however, this solution has the drawback of additional
cost which may not be accepted in the marketplace and the upgraded axle is less efficient than its 6X4
counterpart. Therefore, Meritor recommends that a fuel efficiency benefit of 2.0 percent be assigned to
the disengageable tandem for the 55 mph and 65 mph drive cycles to account for the more limited use.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 11]
Meritor is also supportive of regulations that encourage investment in technologies that disengage a
tandem-drive axle. Although this technology is in its infancy, activity in international markets illustrates
the potential for this technology to migrate to North America within the regulatory timeframe, therefore,
disengageable tandem-drive axles should be included in the proposed regulation. We have some concerns,
however, about the proposed rule as it is currently written. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.9-10]
First, the technology is not well defined in the proposal. It is referred to several times within the Proposal
and Regulatory Impact Analysis by different names such as 6X4 "Axle Disconnect," a 6X2 configuration
"that may be engaged only during some types of vehicle operation," "6x2 axle disconnect" and "part time
6X2." To ensure clarity and provide consistent definitions, we advocate the use of one name:
"DISENGAGEABLE TANDEM" be used along with a definition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1
p. 10]
Meritor defines DISENGAGEABLE TANDEM as a tandem-drive axle that provides two modes of
operation: 1) a "standard" drive mode whereby torque from the transmission is transferred to both axles of
the tandem, and 2) a "disengaged" drive mode whereby torque from the transmission is transferred to
only one axle of the tandem. Each drive mode is selected based on the vehicle's operating condition (load,
grade, speed, etc.) per the axle manufacturer's application guidelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-
Alp.10]
Even with this established definition, there are several possible configurations of DISENGAGEABLE
TANDEM , each with a significantly different impact on fuel efficiency: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1254-A1 p. 10]
BASIC DISENGAGEABLE TANDEM - In the most basic configuration, the disengaged axle is
disconnected from the powertrain input. There are minimal torque-related losses in the disengaged axle
but the disengaged axle's gearset is still connected to the wheels via the axle shafts and remains spinning
inside the axle. Therefore, there is still oil churning losses in the disengaged axle and the resulting axle
efficiency benefit of this configuration is less than the benefit of a 6x2-axle configuration. Oil churning
losses vary greatly, as much as 2 percent depending on the amount of oil in the axle, the type of oil in the
axle, the rotational speed of the gearset, and the vertical location of the gearset. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1254-A1 p.10]
ENHANCED DISENGAGEABLE TANDEM - In a more complex disengageable tandem configuration,
the axle gear set is disconnected from both the axle input and the wheel input rendering the gears
stationary and eliminating the resulting churning losses. This is in addition to the minimal torque-related
losses realized in the BASIC configuration. In the ENHANCED configuration, the efficiency benefit as
compared to a conventional 6X4 will be close to the benefit of a 6x2 axle configuration while a drive axle
is disconnected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 10]
-------
LIFTABLE/DISENGAGEABLE TANDEM - In a yet more complex disengageable tandem
configuration, the disconnected axle may also be lifted off of the ground to both eliminate churning losses
but also bearing friction and tire rolling resistance. In this configuration, the efficiency benefit will be
close to that of a 4X2-axle configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 10-11]
[Chart, Axle Configuration Efficiency', can be found on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1254-A1]
Meritor's recommendation is to define DISNENGAGEABLE TANDEM in the final rule as described
above in 2) Enhanced Disengageable Tandem as it is the only configuration that warrants a fuel efficiency
credit at this time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 11]
Expand and Update Weight Reduction Technologies
As with Phase 1, Meritor supports the inclusion and expansion of weight reduction technologies in the
proposed regulation as well as the methodology of implementation via the GEM model. We also agree
with NHTSA and EPA that weight reduction in the tractor sector should not be included in the anticipated
Technology Adoption Rate given the high cost-to-benefit ratio in this segment. We believe weight
reduction has a more substantial role to play in the vocational sector and when weight reduction
technologies are implemented, the resulting fuel efficiency credits should be acknowledged. Therefore,
Meritor is requesting the expansion of weight reduction technologies to include the following: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p. 12]
Aluminum Axle Carrier - Apples-to-apples comparisons between steel and aluminum carriers illustrate
consistent weight reductions of 60 pounds for the rear-front-drive axle, 35 pounds for the rear-rear-drive
axle and therefore 95 pounds for the tandem. In addition, this technology has been proven in the market
and is available with very limited penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.12]
AL Carrier (Tandem Front-Drive Axle) = 60 pounds [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 12]
AL Carrier (Tandem Rear- Drive Axle) = 35 pounds [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 12]
Aluminum Drum Brake Bracket - The brake bracket which is the main structural component between the
air brake actuator and the cam. We anticipate the availability of an aluminum version of this bracket in
the timeframe of the regulation which will provide a calculated per vehicle weight savings of 36 pounds
for a 6X4 configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p. 12]
[Brake Bracket picture can be found on p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1]
Finally, Meritor believes that weight savings should be credited for the use of single- piece drivelines in
excess of 86." Today, most drivelines in excess of 86" are two piece. A single-piece driveline greater than
86" eliminates a u-joint and center bearing assembly. In addition, it requires the use of a stiffer driveline
tube which can be achieved with a larger OD driveline tube made of steel, aluminum or composite. It is
relatively straightforward to calculate the weight savings for a typical 110" driveline in each of the three
materials listed above: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 P. 13]
[Chart, 'Driveline Weights @ 110', can be found on p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1254-A1]
-------
[Chart, 'OEM Class 8 Driveline Length Distribution', can be found on p. 14 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1]
Per the above tables, Meritor requests that the weight savings technology list include options for one-
piece drivelines in Class 8 Tractors per the table below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 14]
Meritor would also like to correct the current credits for high strength steel drums. The proposed rule
currently grants an 8-pound weight savings for non-drive High Strength Steel Drums and 11 pounds for
high strength steel drums for Class 8 Drive Axles per vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 14]
[Table, 'Proposed Vocational Weight Reduction Technologies', can be found on p. 14 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 ]
Our data for currently available drum technologies indicate that a larger weight-reduction credit be
awarded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A 1 p. 14]
[Table, of drum weight and configuration, can be found on p. 15 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1254-A1]
Based on this data, Meritor recommends that a 42-pound weight savings be credited per tractor for using
High-Strength Steel Drums on the Steer (non-drive) axle and 74-pound per vehicle for 6X4 Drive-Axle
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 15]
Below is a table representing our recommendation for weight reduction technologies and associated
values: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 15]
[Table, 'Meritor's Recommended per Vehicle Weight Reduction Technology Values', can be found on
p. 15 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1]
Improve Automatic Tire Inflation Definition and Correct Misstatements about the Market.
The definition of automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS) listed in Subpart 1, Definitions & Other
Reference Information, is not consistent with the historical industry definitions. The Technology
Maintenance Council, (TMC), of the American Trucking Association, in their Recommended Practice,
RP23 9A (most recently updated in 2014) uses the following widely accepted definition of ATIS: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 15]
Automatic Tire Inflation Systems maintain tire pressure at a single preset level and are pneumatically or
electronically activated. These systems eliminate the need to manually inflate tires. [EPA-HQ- OAR-
2014-0827-1254-A1 p.15]
The current definition included in the rulemaking states: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 15]
ATIS means a system installed on a vehicle to keep each tire inflated to within 10% of the target value
with no operator input. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 16]
Assigning an arbitrary number of 10 percent is not consistent with the manner in which these systems are
used in practice. Tire pressure increases by 15 - 20 percent when the tire is hot and running on a fully
loaded vehicle at 75 mph on asphalt roads on a sunny day. Tires cool back down to the specified tire
-------
pressure after a few hours. The reduced fuel economy and increased greenhouse gas emissions are due to
tire under inflation. ATIS systems assure that tires will always be running at the recommended cold tire
inflation pressure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 16]
Response:
6x2
The agencies reassessed the effectiveness of 6x2 axles and disengageable tandem axles. The agencies'
assessments of these technologies show that the reductions are in the range of 1 to 3 percent. For the final
rule, the agencies are simulating 6x2, 4x2, and disengageable axles within GEM instead of providing a
fixed value for the reduction. This approach is more technically sound because it will take into account
future changes in axle efficiency and accounts for the fact that the technologies will have different
effectiveness depending on the drive cycle. See generally RIA section 2.4.5.
Consistent with the comments, EPA has defined a disengageable axle configuration as 6/4D. EPA
defines this in 40 CFR 1037.520 as an axle that can automatically switch between 6x2 and 6x4
configuration. When the axle is in the 6x2 configuration the input and output of the disconnectable axle
must be mechanically disconnected from the drive shaft and the wheels to qualify.
Weigh t Reduction
The agencies are adopting an expanded list of weight reduction options which could be input into the
GEM by the manufacturers to reduce their certified C02 emission and fuel consumption levels. As at
proposal (and as endorsed by this commenter), the agencies view weight reduction as a technology with a
high cost that offers a small benefit in the tractor sector. For example, our estimate of a 400 pound weight
reduction will cost $2,050 (2012$) in 2021MY, but offers a 0.3 percent reduction in fuel consumption and
C02 emissions. Therefore, we did not premise the Phase 2 tractor standards on a technology package that
included weight reduction.
The agencies are updating the weight reduction value in the table included in 40 CFR 1037.520 for brake
drums and adding values for single piece drivelines. The agencies, however, are not including weight
reduction for the axle carrier because we cannot be certain that this weight reduction value has not already
been included in the weight reduction value of the axle. Manufacturers will continue to have the option in
Phase 2 to request for approval weight reduction components not included in the tables of 40 CFR
1037.520.
ATIS
Consistent with this comment, EPA has revised the definition of ATIS in 40 CFR 1037.801 to mean a
pneumatically or electronically activated system installed on a vehicle to maintain tire pressure at a single
preset level. These systems eliminate the need to manually inflate tires.
Organization: Michelin North America, Inc.
Distinguishing New Generation Wide-Base Single (NGWBS) Tire Technology for the GHG and FE
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Engines
Clarification to assure distinguishing the NGWBS tire technology
-------
New generation single wide tires, which were first introduced in 2000, are designed to replace a set of
dual tires on the drive and/or trailer positions. They are designed to be interchangeable with the dual tires
without any change to the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.3]
Clarification is needed here to distinguish the technology of the 'super single' or 'wide base single (WBS)',
e.g. 385, 425, and 445/65R22.5, drive and trailer tires from the 'new generation wide base single
(NGWBS)' tires, e.g. 445/50, 455/55R22.5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.3]
Referring to the DOT Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), Michelin is not aware of a New Generation
Wide Base Single tire dimension known as 435/50R22.5. Also the availability of the 455155R22.5
dimension is not included in the DOT RIS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.3]
Availability of stud-piloted wheels for vehicle fitments of NGWBS tires
In addressing the DOT RIS statement that 'if the vehicle does not have hub-piloted wheels, there may be a
need to retrofit axle components", stud piloted 22.6)(14' wheels have been available for retrofit on
vehicles which are not equipped with hub-piloted axle ends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.3]
This information will assist users in their considerations for NGWBS tire conversions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1286-A1 p.4]
Additional information on the NGWBS tire technology on rolling resistance, an environmental Life
Cycle Analysis, and summary of the attributes
The NGWBS 445/50- and 455/55R22.5 tires were introduced to be direct replacements for the
conventional long haul dual tire sets, e.g. 275/80 or 295/75R22.5, and the 11R22.5, respectively, and offer
LRR advantages as defined by the EPA/DOT NPRM Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles —Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1286-A1 p.4]
The NPRM defines 'Low rolling resistance tire' as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.4]
• A tire on a vocational vehicle with a tire rolling resistance level (TRRL) of 7.7 kg/metric ton or
lower.
• A steer tire on a tractor with a TRRL of 7.7 kg/metric ton or lower.
• A drive tire on a tractor with a TRRL of 8.1 kg/metric ton or lower.
See the following chart of 'Drive Tire RR vs Time' comparing 'Best Dual' vs 'Best NGWBS' as an
example of the NGWBS tire LRR technology development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.4]
[Chart can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1]
Additional support of the NGWBS tire technology performance and use
The Department of Transportation Volpe Center's 2015 report titled 'Review and Analysis of Potential
Safety Impacts and Regulatory Barriers to Fuel Efficiency Technologies and Alternative Fuels in
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles' summarizes research and analysis findings on potential safety issues
associated with both the diverse alternative fuels (natural gas-CNG and LNG, propane, biodiesel, and
-------
power train electrification), and the specific FE technologies recently adopted by the MD/HDV fleets.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.6
• These include Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and telematics, speed limiters, idle
reduction devices, tire technologies (single-wide tires, and tire pressure monitoring systems-
TPMS and Automated Tire Inflation Systems-ATIS), aerodynamic components, vehicle light-
weighting materials, and Long Combination Vehicles (LCVs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-
A1 p.7]
• The key finding from the literature review and Subject Matter Experts (SME) interviews is that
there appear to be no major safety hazards preventing the adoption of FE technologies, or the
increased use of alternative fuels and vehicle electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1
p.7]
With respect to the NGWBS tire technology, the following studies further support the aspects of NGWBS
tire technology performance and use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.7]
• 'Objective Analysis of the Stability of an Extra-Legal Weight Tractor Trailer Combination during
a Rapid Air Loss (RAL) Event' Jeff Anderson and Ryan Pawlowski Michelin Americas Research
Company, Greenville, SC 31st Annual Meeting and Conference on Tire Science and Technology
Cleveland, OH, September 19,2012 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.7
• 'Heavy Truck Driver Workload Investigation using conventional and NGWBS tires for
quantifying driver workload for a heavy truck driver through the measurement of muscle activity
during four maneuvers' Ryan Pawlowski Tire Society Sept. 2013 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1286-A1 p.7]
Tire Technology Costs
[Table, 'Class 7 and 8 Tractor Technology Incremental Costs in the 2021 Model Year Preferred
Alternative vs. the Less Dynamic Baseline', can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1286-A1]
From the NPRM Table III-15 above, Michelin believes that the current estimates of additional cost (per
vehicle) for the improved RRc tires are underestimated, e.g. from $9 to $81 depending on vehicle class.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 11]
We would estimate that an appropriate value, taking into account the appropriate recuperation of indirect
costs (R&D and Industrialization) would be above $25/tire and, therefore, $250 per truck (tractor 10
tires). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 11]
Referencing the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 11]
• Given that the stated R&D investment of most tire manufacturers varies between 2% and 3.5% of
revenues and that a new product line can take between 5 to 10 years of development (especially if
it requires new building bricks) and that the initial payback should be expected within 5 years, it
would not be unreasonable to use a premium of 2% to 7% (2% R&D *5 years development 15
years payback = 2%, and 3.5% R&D * 10 years development 15 years payback = 7%).
• Applying this to an average cost per tire of $300 to $400, the premium value would range from
$6/tire to $28/tire or $60/truck to $280/truck for a 6X4 or 6X2 tractor.
-------
Michelin agrees with the values proposed except for the last one from EPA/DOT for drive tires (@ $121
per truck for 8 tires or $15/tire. This value is too low, however, most importantly; these numbers do not
appear to match with the above Table 111-15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 11]
Recent studies done on over 400 tires (Michelin and others) are showing a conversion rate which appears
slower than the assumption made, i.e. all below SmartWay before 2027, unless SmartWay made
provisions for vocational applications (on/off, urban, refuse). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 11]
Today we find that 60% to 70% of all tire tread patterns sold (not weighted) would still be above the 6.5,
6.6, and 5.1 limits for steer, drive and trailer respectively. Many of these are vocational offers that are not
yet affected by the California requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 11]
Despite the above comment, we do not believe that the assumption is too severe and can still be
maintained as an important input parameter in setting the ambitions, and, therefore, no change requested.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 11]
We agree that the development of future generation LRR tires with minimal or no compromise on other
important performance characteristics will require significant R&D and industrialization investments.
Such additional costs are not current properly reflected in the current Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 11]
The actual assumption on adoption rates by vocation and proportion of vocation by vehicle class would be
useful. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 11]
We believe that the current estimates of additional cost (per vehicle) for the improved RRc tires are
underestimated, i.e. from $9 to $81 depending on class. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.l 1]
We would estimate that an appropriate value, taking into account the appropriate recuperation of indirect
costs for R&D and Industrialization would be above $25/tire and therefore $250 per 10 tire truck tractor.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 12]
The values proposed for potential evolution of RR by product category (steer and drive) appears
reasonable for the drive (even though the 4.5 kg/ton would require a significantly higher adoption rate of
the new generation wide base single (NGWBS) tires). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 12]
However, the value of 4.3 kg/ton for steer is highly unlikely. A more reasonable number based on current
evolution, North American sizes and fundamental research conducted would be 5.0 kg/ton. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 12]
Response:
The agencies appreciate the clarification regarding NGWBS.
The agencies considered the dual and NGWBS rolling resistance information provided by Michelin in
developing the rolling resistance considered in the technology packages to demonstrate the feasibility of
the final rule standards. Specifically, the agencies have evaluated this comment and find it persuasive.
We have accordingly increased the coefficient of rolling resistance for Level 3 tires in the technology
packages used to determine the stringency of the final rule standards based on the comments and the
certification data. The Level 3 steer tire CRR increased from 4.3 kg/ton in the NPRM to 4.9 kg/ton in the
-------
final rule. The Level 3 drive tire CRR increased from 4.5 kg/ton in the NPRM to 5.0 kg/ton in the final
rule. See Section III.D. l.b.iii of the Preamble to the final rules.
The agencies discuss the 2015 report in Section IX.N of the Preamble to the final rule.
We have estimated the cost of lower rolling resistance tires based on an estimate from TetraTech of $30
(retail, 2013$). We also have applied a "medium" complexity markup value for the more advanced low
rolling resistance tires. We expect that, when replaced, the lower rolling resistance tires would be
replaced by equivalent performing tires throughout the vehicle lifetime. As such, the incremental
increases in costs for lower rolling resistance tires would be incurred throughout the vehicle lifetime at
intervals consistent with current tire replacement intervals.
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Modify Credits, Operation Time and Fuel Consumption Rate for Idle Reduction Technologies
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.5]
There are several aspects regarding idle reduction technologies' credit in the GEM for the Class 7 and 8
tractor vehicle category. Since the agencies are proposing to carry over the Phase 1 credit into Phase 2,
MEMA reiterates our original comments relating to the agencies' Phase 1 supporting analysis for the idle
reduction technology credits.4 MEMA recommends the agencies modify the credit based on the merit of
the individual idle control technology, clarify the definition of "other" and revise the operation time and
fuel consumption rates for idle reduction technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.5-6]
Modify the GEM Credit - The proposed Phase 2 carries over the Phase 1 credit for all idle reduction
devices for Class 7 and 8 sleeper cabs, which is 5 percent.5 This 5 percent was based on Phase 1 Draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis of idle control technologies that included: auxiliary power units (APUs); fuel
operated heaters (FOHs); battery air conditioning systems (BACs); and, thermal storage air conditioning
systems (TACs).6 The analysis assumed that all idle reduction devices use 0.2 gallons of fuel per hour
(gal/hr). However, MEMA urges the agencies to give each idle reduction technology credit based on the
fuel consumption and emissions of that technology and assume that all devices consume 0.2 gal/hr. This
approach would be consistent with the different levels of credit given to different types of aerodynamics
and tires. The various idle control technologies listed in the agencies' Phase 2 Draft RIA have fuel
consumption from the battery APU of almost zero to the diesel engine APU of approximately 0.3 gal/hr
fuel consumed and also emit different amounts of GHG. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.6]
MEMA submitted proposed modifications to the Phase 1 DRIA Table 2-22: Idle Credit Calculation.
Below is an excerpted version of MEMA's original proposed modifications for the agencies' reference. It
shows the recommendation for credit based on the fuel consumption and GHG emissions of each
technology. Using middle-idle figures in the table below, MEMA re-submits the following
recommendation (also see the Appendix): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1274-A1 p.6]
[Table, excerpt from MEMA's original proposed modifications to the idle credit calculations, can be
found on p. 6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1]
Also, in the NPRM's Table III-7 Proposed Phase 2 Technology Inputs, the agencies present a weighting
factor percent reduction of 5 percent for APUs with automatic engine shutoff (AES) and of 7 percent for
"Other" idle reduction. This appears to be an acknowledgement by the agencies that some idle reduction
devices reduce GHGs more than others. MEMA proposes that perhaps an additional incentive could be
given to trucks that have idle reduction technologies factory-installed as a way to assure the technology
-------
benefit will be realized. MEMA presumes that "Other" may include idle reduction technologies such as
battery powered units. However, since it is not exactly clear in the NPRM, MEMA asks the agencies to
clarify and define what is intended to be covered as "Other." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.6-7]
Revise Operation Time and Consumption Rate Assumptions - MEMA supports the agencies' proposal
that, in order to qualify for credits, it is mandatory that the truck is equipped with an AES. Five-minute
mandatory engine shutdown will support increased annual hours of operation for idle reduction
equipment. In the supporting analysis from the Phase 1 RIA, the agencies assumed Class 8 sleeper cab
spends 1,800 hours in extended idle per year and travels about 250 days per year. MEMA recommends
that the agencies use 2,500 annual hours for APUs and 1,250 annual hours for FOHs to better reflect real-
world application and experiences. Additionally, the agencies' analysis assumed that the main engine
consumes about 0.8 gal/hr during idling. However, based on our analysis, MEMA recommends that 0.87
gal/hr fuel consumed by the main engine during idle be used in the calculations for credit. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.7]
Please view the Appendix attached to MEMA's comments for supporting details. It shows the
recommendation for credit based on the recommended hours of operation and fuel consumption rate for
various APUs, FOHs and combination units. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.7]
Extend Idle Reduction Credit to Class 7 and 8 Day Cab Tractors [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-
A1 p.7]
The agencies asked for comments in the Phase 2 NPRM about whether or not the proposed vocational
idle reduction approach should be extended to Class 7 and 8 day cab tractors. Increasingly, companies
that operate day cabs are implementing requirements to reduce their idle time in drive cycles that have a
lot of stop-and-go. Examples of these type of drive cycles are operations where the vehicle is making
several local/regional deliveries and/or waiting in long lines for pick-up/drop-off and not being allowed to
leave the truck at idle, such as at loading docks, container yards or ports. Restrictions on idling impact
day cab operators in a very direct way. More and more trucking operations are moving to a more
regionalized system to accommodate driver preferences and customer needs, which may result in an
increased demand for Class 7 and 8 day cab tractors. Consequently, utilization of day cabs - and
associated idling - will likely increase. As the agencies are aware, restrictions on idling are on the rise
throughout the country. Examples of limiting idle time include: SmartWay partner shippers do not allow
idling on their property; cities, municipalities and regions that face non-attainment of air quality standards
enforce strict idling restrictions; and, sustainability practices and company policies of fleet operators.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.7]
Therefore, MEMA supports extending the sleeper cab neutral idle and stop-start weighting factors to day
cab tractors. MEMA recommends that Class 7 and 8 day cabs be credited with 35 percent of the credit
given to Class 8 sleeper cabs when equipped with comparable technology. Offering credits for day cabs
equipped with idle reduction technologies will result in reduced idling of these vehicles and achieve the
desired result of reduced fuel consumption and emissions for the full slate of vehicles in the combination
tractor category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.7-8]
4 EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-1752, MEMA Comments + Appendix B, January 31, 2011
5 See Section 2.4.8.1.1, Phase 2 - Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA-420-D-15-900, June 2015.
-------
6 See Section 2.5.4.1, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA-420-D-10-901, October 2010
Response:
Idle Reduction Technology Effectiveness
After consideration of the comments, the agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle
reduction technologies and only projected adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS.
Details and calculations regarding the effectiveness of the menu of technologies are included in RIA
Chapter 2.4.8.1.1.
Hours of Idle Operation
The agencies reviewed this and other studies to quantify idling operation. The 2010 NAS study assumes
between 1,500 and 2,400 idling hours per year.71 Gaines uses 1,800 hours per year.72 Brodrick, et al.
assumes 1,818 hours per year (6 hours per day for 303 days per year) based on an Argonne study and
Freightliner fleet customers.73 An EPA technical paper states between 1,500 and 2,400 hours per year.74
Kahn uses 1,830 hours as the baseline extended idle case.75 Based on the literature, the agencies are
finalizing as proposed the use of 1,800 hours per year as reasonably reflecting the available range of
information.
Day Cab Idle
The agencies considered the comments, both supporting and raising concerns over idle reduction in day
cabs. The agencies determined that neutral idle for automatic transmissions is an appropriate technology
for use in tractors, and are predicating the standards for day cabs based on a technology package that
includes neutral idle. Therefore, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 to recognize neutral-idle
in automatic transmissions as an input to GEM. Our analysis shows that neutral idle effectiveness is
approximately 0.8 to 1 percent over the composite day cab tractor cycles, as shown in RIA Chapter
2.8.2.6. The agencies will also include neutral idle as a GEM input for sleeper cabs, though the
effectiveness is very low.
In terms of stop-start technologies in tractors, the agencies are not including it as a technology input to
GEM because we believe the technology needs further development. If this technology is developed in
the future for tractors, then manufacturers may consider applying for off-cycle technology credits. Since
the agencies are not predicating the Phase 2 standards on adoption of start-stop technologies, the agencies
are also not including this technology as a GEM input.
Organization: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
71 National Academy of Science. Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Vehicles. March 2010. Page 124.
72 Gaines, L., A. Vyas, J. Anderson. Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks. 2006. Page 6.
73 Brodrick, C., T.Lipman, M. Farshchi, H. Dwyer, S. Gouse III, D.B. Flarris, and F.King, Jr. Potential Benefits of
Utilizing Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power Units in Lieu of Fleavy-Duty Truck Engine Idling. 2001. Page 3.
74 Lim, Han. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Idling Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks and Commercially Available Idle-
Reducing Devices. EPA420-R-02-052. 2002. Page 2.
15 Kahn,ABM, N. Clark, G. Thompson, W.S. Wayne, M. Gautam, and D. Lyons. Idle Emissions from Heavy-Duty
Diesel Vehicles: Review and Recent Data. 2006. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association. Page 1405.
-------
Several NAM members have expressed sharply different opinions on the potential penetration rates for
various technologies covered in the proposed rule, and the NAM recommends that the EPA and NHTSA
revisit these assumptions as they craft a final rule. For instance, a 60 percent penetration of 6x2 Drive
Axle Type may be overly optimistic given that six state laws limit tire and axle loading in such a way that
6x2s cannot be used as intended, and other states are not uniform in their regulations. A 40 percent Tire
Inflation Systems assumption may not adequately take into account the viability of alternatives such as
tire pressure monitoring systems, which provide similar benefits at a lower cost. Baseline assumptions on
widespread use of Low Rolling Resistance (LRR) Tires may not sufficiently take into account the uneven
conditions that many medium- and heavy-duty vehicles must face (including sloped loading docks,
unpaved and uneven trailer lots, and harsh weather conditions). And a 90 percent penetration rate
assumption for tamper-proof idle shut down timers may be overly optimistic when viewed through the
lens of current consumer conduct. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1323-A2 p.2]
Response:
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.76 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.77 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."78
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
Idle Reduction Technologies
16 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
77 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
78 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
-------
While the agencies do not necessarily believe that customer reluctance in the initial years of Phase 1
should be considered insurmountable, we do agree with commenters that the agencies should allow
adjustable AESS to be a technology input to GEM and should differentiate effectiveness based on the idle
reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-
proof and adjustable systems to qualify for some reduction. After consideration of the comments, the
agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle reduction technologies and only projected
adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1
certification data. We found that the drive tires on low and mid roof tractors on average had 10 to 17
percent higher rolling resistance than the high roof sleeper cabs. But we found less of a difference in
rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor subcategories. Based on comments received and
further consideration of our own analysis of the difference in tire rolling resistance levels that exist today
in the certification data, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards using a technology pathway that
utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for low and mid roof tractors than the levels used to set the high
roof tractor standards. The agencies phased-in the low rolling resistance tire adoption rates within the
technology packages used to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that manufacturers can
gradually introduce these technologies.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
CLASS 7 AND 8 COMBINATION TRACTORS
Working off a Phase I structure which tailors specific standards based on a tractor's weight class, roof
height, and cab type (sleeper or day), the Phase 2 proposal aims to increase the stringency for this vehicle
group by 24 percent overall, starting in MY 2021, ratcheting up in MY 2024, and fully phased in with
MY 2027. This is in addition to the 7-20 percent reduction in GHG emissions and fuel consumption the
Phase 1 rule seeks to achieve for these tractors over a 2010 baseline. NHTSA and EPA estimate that the
costs per vehicle to comply with these new combination tractor standards will be offset by potential fuel
savings and will result in a 2 year average payback period. Of course, many customers will actually pay
significantly higher costs and will face a longer payback periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1
p.6]
The Phase 2 proposal contemplates that engine and chassis manufacturers will achieve compliance
through improvements in engine, transmission, driveline, and aerodynamic design, and through greater
use of lower rolling resistance tires and idle reductions technologies. The market penetration rates
(MPRs) of various technologies or strategies are critical to the proposal's effectiveness. Unfortunately,
several of the proposal's tractor-related MPRs appear unrealistic. As noted above, tractor customers are
risk averse and simply will not buy or lease equipment until it is proven to be appropriate for their
-------
operations, to be cost-effective, and to be reliable. And if customers don't buy or lease new equipment, the
rule fails. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 09-A1 p. 6]
Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) and Automatic Engine Shutdown Devices (AESDs) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1309-A1 p.6]
APUs and AESDs are proven technologies which reduce engine idling, resulting in lower fuel use, engine
wear, and emissions. A wide-variety of idle reduction options exist in the marketplace, not all of which
involve the use of APUs and AESDs. Curiously, the proposal appears to assume that up to 90 percent of
MY2027 sleepers will have an APU/AESD onboard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.6]
AESDs are also widely available and often purchased by new tractor (and truck) customers. But these are
almost universally "programmable" devices designed to accommodate different operating conditions and
driver needs. Importantly, first purchasers view AESD programmability is a critical vehicle resale value
issue, recognizing that second and third purchasers likely will have different idle control needs. Clearly, a
vehicle's residual/resale value is an important total-cost-of-ownership criterion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1309-A1 p.6]
The Phase 2 program should recognize and encourage a wide variety of idle reduction strategies. Idle
reduction is not now and will not in the future be a "one-size-fits-all" strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1309-A1 p.6]
For example, customers especially sensitive to weight or space constraints will gravitate toward non-APU
technologies. Note that NADA/ATD is not suggesting that a lower MPR be set for idle reduction. Instead,
NADA/ATD suggests that all legitimate idle reduction strategies "be counted," not just those involving
APUs and nonprogrammable AESDs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.7]
Automatic Tire Inflation Systems (ATISs)
The Phase 2 proposal overvalues automatic tire inflation systems while undervaluing tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMSs). TPMSs can provide comparable benefits at a lower cost. The extra fuel
consumption and other problems associated with underinflated tires are well recognized, but it is
estimated that only 1 percent of tractors presently are equipped with ATISs. Given the lower cost of
TPMSs, the Phase 2 rule should treat them the same (or close to the same) as ATISs. Assuming TPMSs
are considered to be appropriate tire inflation control strategies, NADA/ATD can support a 40 percent
tractor MPR for MY 2027. If not, NADA/ATD submits that a MY2027 tractor MPR of 10% would make
sense. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.7]
Low Rolling-Resistance Tires (LRRT)
Current LRRT tractor MPRs are low and are not expected to increase significantly any time soon unless
significant improvements in design are forthcoming. Moreover, there is no realistic means of ensuring
that customers (or subsequent owners) will continue to use LRRTs. While LRRTs can be very effective,
their cost, useful life, maintenance, and appropriateness vary widely depending on a customer's duty-
cycle and needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.7]
6x2 Axle Configurations
The 6x2 tractor axle MPR also appears to be unreasonable, given that current sales rates range around 2
percent. The low uptake of this technology reflects state-by-state legal issues, practical highway use
-------
limitations, a low acceptance in the secondary market, traction and tire wear concerns, and low driver
acceptance. Given these constraints, NADA/ATD suggests that the proposal's MY 2027 tractor MPR for
be revised downward from 60 to 20 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.7]
Response:
Idle Reduction Technologies
We agree with commenters that the agencies should allow adjustable AESS to be a technology input to
GEM and should differentiate effectiveness based on the idle reduction technology installed by the tractor
manufacturer. Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-proof and adjustable systems to qualify for
some reduction. After consideration of the comments (including the comment summarized above), the
agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle reduction technologies and only projected
adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS. Consistent with the comment, we determined that the effectiveness of TPMS is
1%, while ATIS is 1.2%, in tractors. We believe that TPMS will be slightly less effective because it is
dependent on operator intervention.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1
certification data. We found steer tires with rolling resistance as low as 4.9 kg/ton and drive tires with
rolling resistance as low as 5.1 kg/ton. The average tire rolling resistance that we used in the technology
packages to derive the final rule standards are higher than the lowest rolling resistance tires made today.
We also note that the certification data analysis shows that the drive tires on low and mid roof tractors on
average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling resistance than the drive tires on high roof sleeper cabs. We
found less of a difference in rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor subcategories. Based
on comments received and further consideration of our own analysis of the difference in tire rolling
resistance levels that exist today in the certification data, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards
using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for low and mid roof tractors than
the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards. The agencies phased-in the low rolling resistance
tire adoption rates within the technology packages used to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so
that manufacturers can gradually introduce these technologies.
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
-------
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.79 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.80 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."81
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The bin structure and baseline proposed for Tractors is unworkable and must be changed for the Proposed
Rule to be successful. The bin structure sets the buckets each tested vehicle is placed in and, then, sets the
aerodynamic score in GEM. It is thus a key component of the compliance structure since the bin in which
each tractor is placed directly determines its GEM input and thus the vehicle's modeled emissions. The
baseline impacts the bin structure, since it sets the beginning point, from which expected future
improvements are set. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.24-25]
• The aerodynamic baselines in the Proposed Rule must be adjusted to accurately reflect the actual
baseline for aerodynamics and the bin structure must be corrected accordingly. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0094-A1 p.2]
As a baseline, the Proposed Rule uses a theoretical tractor to represent the average tractor compliant to the
phase 1 standard. The Phase 1 aerodynamic CdA did not include an adjustment for wind average drag and
the reference trailer did not include trailer skirts. The average CdA for a MY17 tractors in Class 8 Sleeper
High and Class 8 Daycab High categories are summarized below using the RIA from the Phase 1
regulation (Table 3). These values were then adjusted for wind average drag using the assumption in the
Phase 2 regulation and the average delta for a trailer skirt from EPA's SWRI data for coast-down(Table
4). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.25]
The calculated baseline differs from EPA's assumption of the aero baseline for Phase 2 by a full BIN or
6-9% higher CdA. In addition, EPA tested 3 tractors with sleepers that represent the industry's best
configurations versus the average configuration being sold. From this data, EPA incorrectly assumed in
19 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
80 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
81 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
-------
the RIA that "most tractors today would qualify for Bin III." We estimate that most sleepers would test on
average in bin 2. Also it was found through analysis of the provided Southwest Research Institute data
that the coastdown method is sensitive to the range of the high speed segment which is being processed.
The proposed CFR changes specify a range of 72-58 mph, while RIA contains CdA values that appear to
be based on the vehicle speed range of 70-56mph. This is estimated to report about a 2% lower value than
it should be and as a result misplace the proposed baseline vehicle. Baseline must be reviewed and
adjusted accordingly as the current proposal is as much as a bin off of the 2017 actual baseline. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.25]
In fact, the SuperTruck program, a cooperative effort by the manufacturers and the Department of Energy,
shows the extent of this issue. SuperTruck is intended to identify the most efficient possible tractor
configurations, with a 50% increase in efficiency. Navistar is a participant in the SuperTruck program.
Our analysis shows that the SuperTruck program vehicle would test at best in bin 5 with the current test
trailer. Bin 6 and bin 7 are unachievable targets with the current test trailer. Many of the aero
improvements achieved on SuperTruck are a result of the improved integration of the tractor and trailer,
which will not be represented in the Phase 2 coastdown as the trailer selected for testing is a standard
trailer with trailer skirts only. In addition, SuperTruck is designed to be the best configuration (sleeper
only) and real world requirements will drive some enablers to be removed reducing the aero performance
for that vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.25]
SuperTruck is a sleeper program only and did not account for day cabs. Day cabs in general have less
opportunity for improvement, due to the shorter length and therefore less surface area for optimization.
Day cabs are a more diverse fleet, with lower adoption of aero devices since many work regional
applications at lower speeds and are more sensitive to weight or damage to devices (e.g. skirts). Despite
these facts, the current Phase 2 proposal expects the same percentage of improvement from a day cab as a
sleeper. This is an incorrect assumption and needs to be revised. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1
p.26]
With an incorrect aero baseline and unachievable targets, this alone would make the Proposed Rule
infeasible. The Proposed Rule should be modified to reflect the true baseline for MY17 and to set an
appropriate and achievable bin structure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.26]
Before we comment on the proposed emission standards for tractors, we must again note our issues with
the baseline. The baseline is critical to judging the stringency, because if the baseline is wrong, the
emission standard stringency is also wrong. To know how far we are being asked to run, we need to know
the location of starting line. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.28]
The feasibility of the standards must be judged by the underlying assumptions as to technology
penetration. For the rule to be feasible, the technologies on which it is based must be adopted by
customers at the rates assumed by the agencies. We have a number of concerns with various elements
underlying the proposed emission standards: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.28]
Navistar believes that the penetration of tire pressure management systems (auto inflation) is overstated.
Fleets adopt tire pressure monitoring systems to perform essentially the same function as a tire pressure
management system. The driver alert is simpler and sufficient to ensure tire inflation in commercial
applications. This is a significant difference between light and heavy duty. In heavy duty, a professional
driver has both the incentive and the knowledge to keep tires adequately inflated, neither of which may
necessarily be the case with light duty. Tire pressure monitoring systems are also significantly lower cost
to purchase and operate than automatic inflation systems. GEM should recognize monitoring systems as
well as management, since monitoring systems are preferred by fleets and effectively perform the same
-------
function. These monitoring systems are often linked to the fleet telematics devices, so that warnings are
provided to the driver as well as the fleet service department. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.28]
Navistar believes that the assumed 6x2 axle penetration rate in the RIA is also too high. Operator
concerns with traction loss and tire wear are significant hurdles to overcome for the adoption of this
technology. Moreover, the 6x2 configuration is simply not legal in all states.29 We also disagree with the
RIA cost estimates, which we believe understates the costs involved with 6x2. We fully agree with the
EMA comments in this regard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.28]
For tractors, the adoption of Level 2 and 3 tires for day-cabs, especially 4x2, should not follow the same
trends as sleepers as these applications typically purchase tires for traction and durability versus fuel
economy. These assumed penetrations underlying the standard are flawed and must to be revisited. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.29]
Similarly, tamper-resistant idle control systems face acceptance challenges. Although the phase 1 rule
predicted 100% penetration of tamper resistant idle systems in Class 8 sleepers there is no acceptance of
tamper resistant idle shutdown within fleets.30 In fact, industry experience has been an adoption rate of
zero or near zero. Resale concerns remain a significant issue for customers. The concerns is that the
existence of a tamper-resistant idle shutdown or extended idle system negatively impacts resale value of
the vehicle, since a subsequent user may have different needs than the original purchaser which do not
allow for the use of an idle control system. The agencies should provide credit for the currently used
programmable idle shutdown solution. Fleets owners select this to be set on their vehicles at the time of
purchase and often never change this setting. The driver is unable to change these settings as this is a fleet
strategy for improving fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.29]
These flawed assumptions in the assumed adoption rates directly impact the feasibility of the tractor
standard. The emission standards should be adjusted to reflect more realistic adoption rates throughout the
period addressed by the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.29]
We are concerned that GEM does not fully capture all of the potential accessory improvements. The
Proposed Rule provides a credit for "electrically powered pumps for engine cooling." This should be
revised to include "electronically controlled variable speed coolant pumps" to align with the Preamble
descriptions and technology under development as part of the SuperTruck program. Shifting to fully
electronic on this pump creates reliability concerns and adds additional complexity due to the size of the
necessary pumps (2+ hp). In addition, the increased power load will require a larger alternator and
upgraded wiring. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.29-30]
In addition to a fully electric pump, Dual Displacement power steering should also be included as an
accessory improvement. This technology reduces parasitic loads by applying power proportional to
steering demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.30]
The benefits included in the regulation for electrified A/C compressor are understated. Our estimates are
closer to 1.5% when in use which will be during the use of A/C and during defrost; therefore, the
effective benefit should be 1%. Also, these accessory improvements should each be available for the
vocational vehicles as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.30]
Navistar feels the following are key areas the agencies must address: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
• The emission standards must reflect the technology packages customers will actually purchase and
use. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
-------
29 EMA comments lay out a state-by-state comparison of restrictions related to 6x2 configuration.
Response:
Aerodynamics
While the agencies agree with the commenters that it is important to develop an accurate baseline so that
the appropriate aerodynamic technology package effectiveness and costs can be evaluated in determining
the final Phase 2 standards, there appears to be some confusion regarding the NPRM baseline
aerodynamic assessment. The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic
bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards. The vehicles that were
tested prior to the NPRM were used to develop the aerodynamic bin structure for Phase 2. The
aerodynamic performance of the tractors tested by EPA were recalculated for the final rule using the final
aerodynamic test procedures (including the 72-58 mph high speed range noted by the commenter). See
RIA Chapter 3.2.1. In both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins such that
there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into consideration
the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in Phase 2. The Phase 2 bins
were developed so that tractors that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as Bin III
tractors in Phase 2. See RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2. The baseline aerodynamic value for the Phase 2 final
rulemaking was determined in the same manner as the NPRM, using the adoption rates of the bins used to
determine the Phase 1 standards, but reflect the final Phase 2 bin CdA values.
In consideration of these comments, the agencies have adjusted the aerodynamic adoption rate for Class 8
high roof sleeper cabs used to set the final standards in 2021, 2024, and 2027 MYs (/. e., the degree of
technology adoption on which the stringency of the standard is premised). The agencies' assessment for
the final rule is that only Bins I through V are achievable with known aerodynamic technologies, but that
Bins VI and VII have less known technology paths. Upon further analysis of simulation modeling of a
SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the manufacturers that a
SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the Bin V level of CdA. See RIA Chapter
2.8.2.2. These aerodynamic improvements have been demonstrated within the program on two vehicles in
2015. In the final rule, the agencies are projecting that truck manufacturers will be able to begin
implementing these aerodynamic technologies as early as 2021 MY on a limited scale. We adjusted the
adoption rates for MY 2027 in the technology package developed for the final rule to consist of 20
percent of Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V reflecting our assessment of the fraction of
high roof sleeper cab tractors in this segment that we project could successfully apply these aerodynamic
packages with this amount of lead time. The agencies phased-in the aerodynamic technology adoption
rates within the technology packages used to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that
manufacturers can gradually introduce these technologies. For example, in the 2021 MY technology
package, the agencies have assumed that 10 percent of high roof sleeper cabs will have Bin V
aerodynamic performance. This phase-in structure is consistent with the normal manner in which
manufacturers introduce new technology to manage limited research and development budgets as well as
to allow them to work with fleets to fully evaluate in-use reliability before a technology is applied fleet-
wide. The agencies believe the phase-in schedule will allow manufacturers to complete these normal
processes.
The agencies recognize that SuperTruck only include high roof sleeper cabs, one of ten tractor
subcategories. We took similar steps in adjusting the adoption rates in the high roof day cab
subcategories, such that the high roof day cab had higher adoption rates in lower bins than high roof
-------
sleeper cabs. The aerodynamic adoption rates used to develop these standards for the other tractor
regulatory subcategories (low and mid roof tractors) are less aggressive than for the Class 8 sleeper cab
high roof tractors. Aerodynamic improvements through new tractor designs and the development of new
aerodynamic components is an inherently slow and iterative process. The agencies recognize that there
are tractor applications that require on/off-road capability and other truck functions which restrict the type
of aerodynamic equipment applicable. We also recognize that these types of trucks spend less time at
highway speeds where aerodynamic technologies have the greatest benefit. The 2002 VIUS data ranks
trucks by major use.82 The heavy trucks usage indicates that up to 35 percent of the trucks may be used in
on/off-road applications or heavier applications. The uses include construction (16 percent), agriculture
(12 percent), waste management (5 percent), and mining (2 percent). Therefore, the agencies analyzed
the technologies to evaluate the potential restrictions that will prevent 100 percent adoption of more
advanced aerodynamic technologies for all of the tractor regulatory subcategories. In addition, the
agencies also accordingly reduced the adoption rates in the highest bins for low and mid roof tractors to
follow the change made to the high roof subcategories because we neither proposed nor expect the
aerodynamics of a low or mid roof tractor to be better than a high roof tractor.
Baseline
In the proposal, the agencies noted that the manufacturers were not using tamper-proof AESS to comply
with the Phase 1 standards so the agencies reverted back to the APU adoption rate of 30 percent used in
the Phase 1 baseline for the Phase 2 baseline. The agencies received a number of comments regarding
this. In response to these comments, the agencies reassessed the baseline idle reduction adoption rates.
The latest NACFE confidence report found that 9 percent of tractors had auxiliary power units and 96
percent of vehicles are equipped with adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems.83 Therefore, the
agencies are projecting that 9 percent of the baseline sleeper cab tractors will contain an adjustable AESS
and APU, while the other 87 percent will only have an adjustable AESS, and none will have tamper-proof
AESS. Additional changes to the baseline for the final rule are discussed in Preamble Section III.D. l.a.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS. The effectiveness value in GEM is less for TPMS, reflecting the need for driver
interaction.
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
82 U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 28-2009. Table 5.7.
83 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Report:Idl- Reduction Solutions. 2014. Page 13.
-------
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.84 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.85 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."86
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1
certification data. We found steer tires with rolling resistance as low as 4.9 and drive tires with as low as
5.1 kg/ton. The average tire rolling resistance that we used in the technology packages to derive the final
rule standards are higher than the lowest rolling resistance tires made today. With respect to the comment
about assuming that customers will continue to demand low rolling resistance tires, we set performance-
based standards that allow the manufacturers to produce a wide variety of products.
We also note that during the certification data analysis, we found that the drive tires on low and mid roof
tractors on average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling resistance than the high roof sleeper cabs. We
found less of a difference in rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor subcategories. We did
not find a difference in average rolling resistance levels between Class 7 (4x2) and Class 8 tractor
subcategories, as suggested by the commenter. Based on comments received and further consideration of
our own analysis of the difference in tire rolling resistance levels that exist today in the certification data,
the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling
resistance levels for low and mid roof tractors than the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards.
The agencies phased-in the low rolling resistance tire adoption rates within the technology packages used
to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that manufacturers can gradually introduce these
technologies.
Idle Reduction Technologies
While the agencies do not necessarily believe that customer reluctance in the initial years of Phase 1
should be considered insurmountable, we do agree with commenters that the agencies should allow
84 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
85 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
86 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
-------
adjustable (or programmable) AESS to be a technology input to GEM and should differentiate
effectiveness based on the idle reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. Phase 2 will
allow a variety of both tamper-proof and adjustable systems to qualify for some reduction. After
consideration of the comments, the agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle
reduction technologies and only projected adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS.
This change in the technology package to adjustable AESS removes the concern about resale noted by the
commenter.
Accessories
In response to the comments, the agencies evaluated a set of accessories that can be designed to reduce
accessory losses. Due to the complexity in determining what qualifies as an efficient accessory, we are
maintaining the proposed language for accessories for tractors which provides defined effectiveness
values for only electric air conditioning compressors and electric power steering pumps and coolant
pumps. The agencies did not revise the electric coolant pump definition to include "electronically
controlled variable speed coolant pumps." We believe the type of technology suggested by the commenter
could be captured during the measurement of the engine fuel map. Manufacturers have the option to apply
for off-cycle credits for the other types and designs of high efficiency accessories, such as dual
displacement power steering pumps.
Organization: North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
While NADCA does not endorse a specific weight reduction amount, die castings represent a clear
opportunity to help achieve improved fuel efficiency and weight standards. As noted in the NPRM, 'some
materials work better than others for particular vehicle components," and NADCA believes regulators
should provide manufacturers with the ultimate flexibility to meet realistic standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1283-A1 p.2]
NADCA believes that die castings are a central part of any effort to improve fuel efficiency and
performance of all vehicles, whether light, medium, or heavy-duty. As demonstrated above, the die
casting industry is capable of helping achieve significant efficiency improvements, however, the
Association cannot speak directly to questions surrounding the overall feasibility raised by OEMs and
others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1283-A1 p.3]
As demonstrated in Phase I and reinforced in the Phase II proposal, regulators clearly see that aluminum,
and therefore cast parts, are an integral component to weight reduction and energy efficiency. We urge the
EPA and NHTSA to explore the opportunities metal castings provide. Through its direct research and
partnerships with industry and universities, NADCA has a demonstrated track record securing energy and
cost savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1283-A1 p.3]
Response:
The agencies have provided weight reduction tables in the regulations that allow vehicle manufacturers to
demonstrate compliance with the C02 emissions and fuel consumption standards with technology
packages that include weight reduction in addition to other technologies. For components that are not
included in the weight reduction tables, manufacturers have the option of pursuing off-cycle credits.
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
The full-vehicle standard should be stronger.
-------
Commensurate with increased engine stringency, the tractor standards should be strengthened to ensure
that manufacturers utilize the full suite of appropriate complementary technologies, in addition to engine
improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.3][[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 138.]]
Response:
The final Phase 2 engine standards will lead each manufacturer to achieve reductions of over 5 percent in
2027 MY relative to the Phase 1 baseline. For the final Phase 2 rule, we recognize that it could be
possible to achieve greater reductions than those included in the engine standard by designing entirely
new engine platforms. Unlike existing platforms, which are limited with respect to peak cylinder
pressures (precluding certain efficiency improvements), new platforms can be designed to have higher
cylinder pressure than today's engines. New designs are also better able to incorporate recent
improvements in materials and manufacturing, as well as other technological developments. Considered
together, it is possible that a new engine platform could be 6 percent more efficient without WHR than
Phase 1 engines and 8 percent more efficient than Phase 1 if 50 percent of these engines have WHR. We
project in 2024 MY, that a limited number of engine platforms would be redesigned, and therefore have
pulled ahead the reduction expected from the proposed 2027 MY engine standards into the vehicle
standards for 2024 MY. In addition, we project that 50 percent of tractor engines in 2027 MY will be
redesigned engines (i.e. engines reflecting redesigned engine platforms, again based on existing engine
platform redesign schedules within the industry) achieving a 6 percent reduction for day cabs and an 8
percent reduction in fuel consumption in sleeper cabs beyond Phase 1. This means the average 2027 MY
tractor engine would be 5.4 and 6.4 percent more efficient than Phase 1 for day and sleeper cabs
respectively. We have factored these levels into our analysis of the vehicle efficiency levels that will be
achievable in MY 2027. These additional engine improvements make more stringent vehicle standards
feasible, and the final standards are structured so that these improved engines are not able to generate
windfall credits, but rather that their projected performance is reflected in the stringency of the final
tractor vehicle standard.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
OEMs have voiced very significant concerns regarding the proposed emission standards, which was a
significant point in their joint testimony during the Long Beach Public Hearing. These noteworthy
concerns included: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 17]
• The agencies recommendation that the 2017 aero baseline utilizes the best aero trucks available
rather than the average, this has an effect of increasing stringency about 2.5%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1244-A1 p.18]
• The baseline assumes 30% or more sleeper tractors are equipped with non-programmable idle
shutdown timers when, in fact, very few customers take this feature. This increases stringency
about 1.5% (30% of 5%). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.18]
• Cab aerodynamic expectations (Bins V, VI, and VII) cannot be achieved with the specified test
trailer. This means vehicle OEMs must try to find about 4.5% more fuel economy elsewhere.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 18]
• The compliance margins for aerodynamic bins have been removed. In contrast, Phase 1 allowed
a full bin margin. This means that OEMs would have to declare worse aero performance to
-------
ensure passing an audit, with as much as 5% impact on declared fuel economy that they would
need to make up somehow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 18]
• No compliance margin is provided for engine fuel map audits, compared to the 3% margin
allowed in Phase 1 for engine efficiency. This would require that OEMs declare worse engine
efficiency than their certification measurement to ensure passing an audit, considering production
and test variability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p. 18]
• In summary, these test and protocol issues add as much as 17% greater reduction in fuel
consumption than the proposed rule estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.18]
When combined, these issues create an impossible challenge that could not be met with any reliable, cost-
effective technology, which will negatively affect the owner-operators, professional truck drivers, and the
general public that the agencies are hoping to serve. In conversations with EPA staff, OOIDA has been
assured that the agencies are working to resolve many of these issues, and that meetings have taken place
between respective teams of engineers to resolve them. This will be especially crucial because of the
agencies seeming reliance on new technology. The testing methods and protocols must be accurate to
avoid an overly stringent regulation which can have several unintended consequences. Without these
corrections, this rulemaking will force OEMs to specify a truck optimized for simulated duty cycles
which EPA has chosen rather than meet the needs of consumers operating in the real-world, which would
ultimately lead to increased fuel consumption and GHG emissions. If these concerns are not adequately
addressed, this further endangers the goal of this NPRM and puts the livelihoods of hard working
individuals at a grave risk for failure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.18-19]
APU's
Auxiliary power units (APUs) can be used instead of idling the main engine of the truck to provide both
power and climate control for the driver. While APU's unquestionably offer multiple benefits, an
adoption rate of 90% that the agencies are estimating by MY 2024 is completely
unreasonable. Additionally, while many carriers purchase sleeper cabs because they are the most
versatile choice, this does not mean that a driver will routinely be sleeping in the cab of the
truck. Depending on the operation and length of haul, a driver might only spend one to two nights a week
in the cab. In these types of situations an APU is merely 400 lbs. of extra and unneeded weight and
maintenance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.21]
Ironically, while the agencies' NPRM hopes to reduce the weight of a truck, a typical APU adds
approximately 400 lbs. to the weight of a truck. Whereas most states allow a 400 lb. exemption for trucks
equipped with an APU, the following states do not: CA, DC, HI, KY, MA, NC, and RI. If the agencies
mandate the installation of an APU on a truck which operates in one of these states, then the potential
income for that carrier will be reduced. This issue was not addressed by the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1244-A1 p.22]
Automatic Engine Shutoff
OOIDA is concerned that installing automatic engine shutoff (AES) in a class 8 vehicle may compromise
safety in different circumstances. Overall, AES can easily produce negative consequences for long-haul
drivers who frequently visit new facilities (warehouses, shippers, receivers, etc.). These facilities rarely
have similar check-in procedures, which can be problematic. For example, a driver might leave the truck
believing that it will only take a few moments for him or her to access the check-in area and then
return. However, this is not always the case and delays can easily ensue. While this might not be an issue
for a single truck driver, it can create a safety hazard for team driving operations, if a co-driver was left
asleep in the sleeper berth and the truck shut off, he or she could be left out in extreme weather
-------
conditions, which could interrupt the driver's valuable sleeping time and thus increase
fatigue. Additionally, this situation could be especially harmful for drivers with certain medical
conditions, such as those who have experienced a heat stroke in the past. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1244-A1 p.22]
According to OOIDA Foundation's Member Profile Surveys, 16% of OOIDA members indicate that they
have a pet with them in their truck. This leads to the same concerns as those presented above. However,
a pet will not have the ability to turn the truck back on. Such areas of concern were not a part of the
agencies analysis and subsequent costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.22]
Automatic Tire Inflation
Automatic tire inflation technology is among the agencies' list of approved technologies in order for
OEMs to achieve compliance goals. The agencies have projected as part of the NPRM that 50 percent of
dry van and refrigerated trailers will have automatic tire inflation (ATI) systems installed to maintain
optimal tire pressure by MY 2018. This penetration rate is far too high, as many owner-operators would
prefer to purchase tire pressure monitoring (TPM) systems rather than ATI systems because of the
reduced cost and complexity while achieving similar savings. It is important that ATI systems are not
forced onto consumers by assuming such high adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.23]
It is well-accepted that poorly inflated tires decrease a truck's fuel economy, and that proper tire pressure
is essential to avoiding blow outs. Tire failure for an owner-operator is a costly expense, as the driver
will both lose productivity while waiting for a replacement tire and will incur costs to purchase the
replacement tire. This alone is a proper incentive for owner-operators to ensure that tires are inflated to
the proper pressure. While ATI systems are capable of monitoring tire pressure, they are often expensive
and unreliable, whereas TPM systems are much less expensive and can be utilized to achieve the same
results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.23]
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
Lower Rolling Resistance Tires can be a useful technology which reduces the energy needed in order to
move a truck, but it is important to understand that they do not work for all types of truck
operations. Low rolling resistance (LRR) tires are designed to improve fuel efficiency of a tractor pulling
a trailer by minimizing its rolling resistance, which consists of energy lost as heat within the rubber itself,
as well as aerodynamic drag of the tire, and friction between the tire and the road and between the tire and
the rim when the tire is rolling under load; rolling resistance is expressed as the energy consumed per unit
distance as the tire rolls under load.23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.23-24]
According to the EPA SmartWay program, for every 5 percent reduction in tire rolling resistance, a 1
percent reduction in fuel savings might be attained. Tests have confirmed that most LRR tires have a
long stopping distance at high speeds and lack grip in the corners, both of which could ultimately lead to
an accident.24 Sheldon Brown, an executive program manager at the Toyota Technical Center, has said,
"There have been significant trade-offs with this type of tire, namely wear performance and stopping
distance.25" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.24]
Regardless of the higher cost of LLR tires and the concerns of its effectiveness in fuel savings, the tire is
not designed for all types of operations. An owner-operator running routes in mountainous terrain does
not want a tire that has less friction and less traction equipped on their tractor-trailer, especially while
driving in extreme weather conditions. The LRR tire may be beneficial on flat terrain, but it is a safety
concern in many geographical regions. Steven Bixler, an OOIDA Board Member, who frequently
-------
operates in winter conditions and mountainous terrain, stated "Asking me to run LRR's would be like
asking someone to walk up and down Lombard Street in San Francisco in a pair of smooth soled penny
loafers on an inch of ice." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.24]
By the very nature of their job, truckers must be prepared for just about any possible situation at all times,
whether it is foreseeable or not. In the course of a single day, a truck driver can be faced with many
varying situations and scenarios, and a large part of being properly prepared is choosing the right
equipment and accessories for a job that can change as quickly as the weather. Understanding this fact is
vital because making a poor equipment choice can have dire consequences. The tires on a tractor-trailer
are not only a significant financial investment, but can be the difference between safely completing a trip,
or not. A LRR tire achieves much of its potential fuel savings benefit by reducing the very component of
friction or resistance that a truck driver needs to have faith in, which is not an option for many owner-
operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.24-25]
When a truck driver is navigating a curve, static friction is the main force that keeps the truck on the
pavement. If an owner-operator is running a route over a mountain pass such as California's Interstate 5,
which is infamously known for its curves as the unforgiving Grapevine, they must be equipped with the
proper tire. The heavily traveled Grapevine is part of the Tejon Pass located in the Tehachapi
Mountains. The peak reaches over 4,100 feet and has a steep grade of up to 6 percent. In addition, on
any given day a driver may encounter conditions such as rain, snow, ice, fog, and condensation. If the
static friction is reduced, the driver has a much greater possibility of encountering kinetic friction, or in
other words a skid, which may result in a crash. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.25]
For another example, the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel in Colorado is one of the highest
vehicular tunnels in the world with a maximum elevation of 11,158 ft. However, if an owner-operator is
transporting hazardous materials, they are not allowed to use the tunnel. Instead, the driver must travel on
top of the mountain across Loveland Pass, which is almost another 1,000 ft. higher. For the two routes
mentioned, LRR tires are simply not an option. The small fuel saving benefit associated with LRR tires is
greatly outweighed by the potential loss of friction that may cause an accident. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p.25-26]
While a much more mundane situation than an accident, without proper traction a truck can get stuck. Un-
laden truck suspensions do not lend themselves to good traction, even when equipped with tires which
have a more aggressive tread depth. The towing bill for a class 8 truck is costly and being extracted is
time-consuming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.26]
6x2's
It is obvious that the agencies have not properly researched 6x2 axle configurations, as 6x2's are not safe
for all operations, nor are they legal in all 50 states and Canada. When considering the purchase of a
truck, it is imperative for an owner-operator that the vehicle is able to legally operate in all states and
provinces. A truck which is not able to do so is not desirable and thereby can have a dramatic effect upon
the resale value of the vehicle. EPA should include in its cost and benefit analysis the negative impact on
the resale value, as well as the potential for increase tire wear and costs associated with the 6x2
axles. While a 6x2 configuration can lead to fuel savings, a market penetration rate of 60% by 2027 does
not appear to be a realistic estimate when considering the potential limitations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p.26]
Speed Limiters
-------
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed to permit the use of speed limiters in order to grant credits to OEMs
as a way to improve fuel economy. However, OOIDA strongly cautions that the agencies must fully
consider the significant negative consequences of speed limiters. Julie Cirillo, a former Assistant
Administrator and Chief Safety Officer of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),
stated in a sworn affidavit, "it is my opinion that the Speed Limiter Legislation does not increase safety,
and in fact decreases safety on the highways travelled by those heavy trucks and can cause dangerous
situations to arise.26" Specifically, these dangerous situations arise from a differential in speed
limits. Mrs. Cirillo also stated, "Jurisdictions responsible for ensuring the safety of the travelling public
should not take any action that could result in creating an unsafe situation. Included in these actions
would be the establishment and enforcement of differential speed limits for passenger cars and
commercial vehicles. Adherence to differential speed limits creates a situation where a significant
percentage of traffic is operating more slowly than general traffic." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1
p.26-27]
In 1964, David Solomon wrote a report entitled Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed,
Driver, and Vehicle published by the Bureau of Public Roads (predecessor to the Federal Highway
Administration). In order to define the relationship between speeds, characteristics of drivers and
vehicles, and accidents, Solomon collected data from 11 cooperating states on 600 miles of main rural
highways. The study recorded 10,000 drivers across 2-lane and 4-lane highways, and discovered vehicles
travelling 10-15 mph less than the average speed of all traffic had a much greater chance of being
involved in a crash. Solomon presented his findings in a distinguished "U-shape" curve, which has now
become famous.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.27]
In fact, Solomon wrote that regardless of the average speed on the highway, the more a driver deviates
from the average speed, the greater his or her chance of being involved in an accident. Low speed drivers
are more likely to be involved in accidents than high-speed drivers are, as 80% of rear-end collisions
involving a large truck and a car resulting in a fatality, the passenger vehicle rear-ended the truck.28 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.27-28]
Additional research studies have been published through the years that support Solomon's conclusions,
such as the Interstate System Accident Research Study II published by the Bureau of Public Roads (now
the FHWA) and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices published in 1991 by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Both studies confirmed the "U-shape" curve
established initially by Solomon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.28]
In 2005 Dr. Steven L. Johnson of the University of Arkansas conducted a study entitled Cost-Benefit
Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed Limit Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways which
found that differentiating speeds were shown to produce more interactions between vehicles. Moreover,
Dr. Johnson found that as the speed of an individual vehicle deviates from the mean traffic speed on a
roadway, the number of interactions between vehicles increases and the potential for being involved in
accidents increases. The frequency of interactions with other vehicles by a vehicle traveling 10-mph
below the posted speed limit is 227% higher than moving at traffic speed.29 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1244-A1 p.28]
In similar fashion, in 1993 the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council published
a study by John E. Baerwald, which found that vehicles travelling at or about the same speed minimized
the need for overtaking, passing and lane changes and, as a result, caused fewer accidents.30 This too was
supported recently by the United Kingdom, which in April 2015, increased the national speed limit for
heavy goods vehicles from 40-mph to 50-mph in order to reduce risky overtakes by frustrated car
drivers.31 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.28-29]
-------
When a truck is artificially limited to a lower speed than other traffic, this will create an obstruction in the
traffic flow. As other vehicles approach from behind in traffic there will invariably be situations where
they will need to reduce speed before passing. The vehicle will then have to regain their cruising speed.
This will cause the vehicle to use more fuel than it would if it could have maintained cruising speed.
While this type of interaction will occur in any traffic flow situation, it will occur more frequently if
VSLs are mandated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.29]
The agencies are correct to note that reducing the speed of all trucks will lead to a greater number of
trucks being necessary to haul the same amount of freight. With an artificial reduction in freight capacity,
due to a loss in total miles operating within the allowed hours of service, more trucks and drivers would
be needed to compensate. This would also require more truck parking spaces, which are already in
shortage (cite Jason's law study) and come with their own GHG footprint. A larger amount of trucks on
the road would also add to congestion which would increase GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p.29]
OOIDA is opposed to the utilization of speed limiters as a way for OEMs to receive credits in order to
comply with the Phase II fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards. A technology which has been
proven to decrease highway safety is completely and utterly inappropriate, and should not be included in
any form as part of the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.29-30]
Weight Reduction
The Notice proposes that heavy duty vehicles would save fuel and lower emissions if trucks were
redesigned to use less mass, possibly using lighter, higher strength materials. Before such standards are
created, however, OOIDA has and continues to encourage NHTSA to establish a rule for the crash-
worthiness of trucks. Without a baseline standard for the forces that a truck and its components must
withstand in a crash, what guidelines would truck manufacturers follow to ensure that mass reduction
designs do not compromise the safety of the truck driver? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.31]
In the academic world, the idea of reducing the vehicle weight sounds like a good way to tackle fuel
inefficiency in CMVs. However, this is a frightening concept for a truck driver. The goal of better fuel
efficiency is a noble one, but it is not worth the expense of a weaker and lighter cabs. Currently, the
United States does not have any cab crashworthiness standards for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating over 10,000 pounds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.31]
In 2009, Carl VanWasshnova, an OOIDA member from Port Orange, FL, was killed in a low-speed crash
after his day cab collapsed around him. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
approximately 700 truck drivers have died annually the past 10 years in single or multi-vehicle
crashes. Accidents involving truck rollovers are among the most deadly as they account for
approximately 63 percent of fatal injuries to truck occupants. While millions are being spent to develop
new technologies, basic and common sense features such as air bags and truck cab crashworthiness are
being left behind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.31]
In response to a 20 percent increase of truck occupant deaths in 2011, OOIDA released a statement
saying, "What is wrong with this picture? NASCAR drivers walk away from collisions at 200 miles per
hour but truck drivers are losing their lives at 30 miles per hour. Families are being destroyed because we
are making cabs lighter and lighter while efforts persist to make the loads heavier. Accidents will happen
- period. We won't be able to outsmart that.32" Reducing the weight of CMVs in order to improve fuel
efficiency should not be a compromise for safety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.32]
-------
Section 32201 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) directed the
Secretary of Transportation to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the need for crashworthiness
standards for property carrying commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross
vehicle weight of 26,001 pounds involved in interstate commerce including an evaluation of the need for
roof strength, pillar strength, air bags, and other occupant protections standards, and frontal and back wall
standards. NHTSA contracted with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute to
conduct a study on heavy truck fatal and injury crashes. After breaking down the crash data from TIFA,
GES, and the LTCCS, and researching SAE's Recommend Practices, UMTRI identified four primary
countermeasures. However, the research team stated that an assessment of the countermeasures'
effectiveness to reduce truck occupant injury and death in crashes was beyond the scope of the
study. The countermeasures included: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.32]
- Measures to increase seat belt usage. These may include the installation of enhanced seat belt warning
systems that activate a visual and audible warning when truck drivers and other vehicle occupants fail to
use their seat belt. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.33]
- Increasing the integrity and robustness of cab structures and the protection of cabs particularly with
respect to rollover. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.33]
- The installation of side curtain air bags to prevent occupant ejection through the side windows and head
trauma. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.33]
- Increasing occupant head space during rollover events through installation of automatic pull-down seats.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 3 3]
UMTRI also recommend that since SAE's Recommended Practices and standards were formed over a
decade ago with the cooperation of manufacturers and associations from various countries, that SAE
reassess and update their Recommended Practices. NHTSA has stated that they will closely follow and
participate in this work. OOIDA feels this issue needs to be addressed before other regulations are
initiated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.33]
23 Final Regulation Order: Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation, CARB (2011) pg. 5.
24 Eric Loveday, "Range-Increasing Low-Rolling Resistance Tires Falling Out of Favor with Drivers,"
Inside EVs, http://insideevs.com/range-increasing-low-rolling-resistance-tires-falling-out-of-favor-with-
drivers/
25 Stuart F. Brown, "More Traction for Fuel-Efficient Tires," The New York Times (2013),
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/automobiles/more-traction-for-fuel-efficient-tires.html?_r=0.
26 Affidavit of Julie Cirillo
27 David Solomon, Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and Vehicle, Bureau of
Public Roads (1964), pg. 1.
28 Transport Topics, "Trucker Driver Fault: What are the Odds?" Transport Topics (April 22, 2013),
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=31803&page=2 (accessed April 22, 2013)
-------
29 Steven L. Johnson, Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed Limit Differentials on
Rural Interstate Highways, Mack-Blackwell Transportation Center, University of Arkansas (2005), pg.
98.
30 Affidavit of Julie Cirillo, Fair Fax County, Virginia, 8 September 2011.
31 "Faster HGVs could cut dangerous overtakes," Spalding Guardian Lincolnshire Free Press,
http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/faster-hgvs-could-cut-dangerous-overtakes-l-6674323
32 Jami Jones, "Truck occupant fatalities up 20 percent," Land Line Magazine (2012),
http: //www, landlinemag. com/Story, aspx? S torvld=2453 3
Response:
The agencies' responses to OOIDA's specific comments from the Long Beach Public Hearing are
included in each of the subsections below. In general in the final rule, the agencies have revised the
aerodynamic test procedures to reduce variability, adjusted baseline tractor configurations, and developed
new compliance approaches to alleviate the need for compliance margins. We also have made other
revisions, such as the road grade profile, to better match the in-use operation of heavy-duty vehicles. We
believe we are adopting accurate test methods and that the trucks designed to meet the Phase 2 standards
will also perform well in the real world because we recognize the importance of this issue.
Idle Reduction Technologies
Baseline: In the proposal, the agencies noted that the manufacturers were not using tamper-proof AESS
to comply with the Phase 1 standards so the agencies reverted back to the baseline APU adoption rate of
30 percent used in the Phase 1 baseline. The agencies received a number of comments regarding this. In
response to these comments, the agencies reassessed the baseline idle reduction adoption rates. The latest
NACFE confidence report found that 9 percent of tractors had auxiliary power units and 96 percent of
vehicles are equipped with adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems.87 Therefore, the agencies are
projecting for the Phase 2 baseline that 9 percent of sleeper cabs will contain an adjustable AESS and
APU, while the other 87 percent will only have an adjustable AESS, and none will include tamper proof
AESS.
APU Mandate: There is a misconception of the proposed Phase 2 program where some stakeholders
thought that the agencies were mandating use of APUs. This is incorrect. The Phase 1 and Phase 2
tractor standards are performance standards. The agencies projected_an adoption rate of up to 90 percent
for tamper-proof AESS in our analysis for determining the stringency level of the proposed standard. We
did not propose to differentiate between the various idle reduction technologies in terms of effectiveness
and only used the diesel powered APU in terms of determining the cost and effectiveness.
Adoption Rate: The agencies received numerous comments on our proposed adoption rates of tamper-
proof AESS. We generally agree with this commenter (and others) that the agencies should consider
other types of idle reduction technologies because an automatic engine shutdown system (or an APU)
may not be the optimum choice for every tractor. For the final rule, we now differentiate effectiveness
based on the specific idle reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. This change is
consistent with the commenter's concern that APUs would not benefit all operators or may lead to a
87 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Report:Idl- Reduction Solutions. 2014. Page 13.
-------
concern regarding weight in some operations. The agencies note that all but five states and the District of
Columbia provide weight exemptions between 400 and 550 pounds for APUs.88 Thus, we have set the
maximum diesel powered APU adoption rate at 40 percent in MY 2027 in the technology package for the
final rule. This maximum adoption rate conservatively recognizes that diesel-powered APUs may impact
the payload capacity of tractor-trailers traveling in only those five states and only when those tractor-
trailers are traveling at maximum GCW of 80,000 pounds (which is estimated to be approximately 30
percent of the miles travelled).89 For the states with an APU weight exemption and all of the tractor-
trailers traveling at less than maximum GCW, the addition of 400 pounds to an 80,000 pound tractor-
trailer will only have an impact of on direct fuel consumption of approximately 0.1 percent, and no
impact on payload capacity.90 Additionally, the potential positive implications of other weight reduction
efforts could partially or fully offset concerns from added weight of APUs, including the additional fuel
use. For the final rule, we recognize a variety of idle reduction technologies -including automatic engine
shutdown systems, fuel operated heaters, automatic stop/start systems, and diesel powered APUs. Phase
2 will allow a variety of both tamper-proof and adjustable systems to qualify for some reduction. After
consideration of the comments, the agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle
reduction technologies and only projected adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS.
Safety: The regulations already provide AESS override criteria that includes ambient temperature if it
reaches a level below or above which the cabin temperature cannot be maintained for health and safety of
the operator (40 CFR 1037.660(b)(3)). These override allowances are directly related to the concerns
raised by the commenter.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies agree with this
commenter and believe that sufficient incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure
conditions if they are notified that they exist through a TPMS.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
The agencies recognize that different tractor operations (such as the California Interstate 5 and the
Loveland Pass mentioned by the commenter) require different tires. For the final rulemaking, the
agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1 certification data.91 We found that high
roof sleeper cabs are certified today with steer tire rolling resistance levels that ranged between 4.9 and
7.6 kg/ton and with drive tires ranging between 5.1 and 9.8 kg/ton. In the same analysis, we found that
high roof day cabs are certified with rolling resistance levels ranging between 4.9 and 9.0 kg/ton for steer
tires and between 5.1 and 9.8 kg/ton for drive tires. This range spans the baseline through Level 3 rolling
88Dills, Todd. Overdrive. "APU Weight-Exemption Guide, State by State." June 9, 2016.
http://www.overdriveonline.com/apu-weight-exemption-guide-state-by-state/
89 M.J. Bradley & Associates. Setting the Stage for Regulation of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy and GHG
Emissions: Issues and Opportunities. February 2009. Page 35. Analysis based on 1992 Truck Inventory and Use
Survey data, where the survey data allowed developing the distribution of loads instead of merely the average loads.
90 Reinhart, Thomas. Southwest Research Institute. "Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency
Technology Study - Report #1." May 2015. Page 53. Scaled the 2200 pound reduction at 65 mph at 100% payload.
91 Memo to Docket. Coefficient of Rolling Resistance and Coefficient of Drag Certification Data for Tractors.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
-------
resistance performance levels. Therefore, for the final rule we took an approach similar to the one taken
in Phase 1 and proposed in Phase 2 that considers adoption rates across a wide range of tire rolling
resistance levels to recognize that operators may have different needs. 76 FR 57211 and 80 FR 40227.
Also in our analysis of the Phase 1 certification data, we found that the drive tires on low and mid roof
sleeper cab tractors on average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling resistance than the high roof sleeper
cabs. But we found only a minor difference in rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor
subcategories. Based on comments received and further consideration of our own analysis of the
difference in tire rolling resistance levels that exist today in the certification data, the agencies are
adopting Phase 2 standards using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for
low and mid roof tractors than the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards. This is also consistent
with the approach that we took in setting the Phase 1 tractor standards. 76 FR 57211. In addition, the
final rule reflects a reduction in Level 3 adoption rates for low and mid roof tractors from 25 percent in
MY 2027 used at proposal (80 FR 40227) to zero percent adoption rate. The technology packages
developed for the low and mid roof tractors used to determine the stringency of the MY 2027 standards in
the final rule do not include any adoption rate of Level 3 drive tires to recognize the special needs of these
applications, consistent with the comments noted above raising concerns about applications that limit the
use of low rolling resistance tires.
The agencies continue to stand behind the low rolling resistance tire research conducted to date, which
includes the Department of Transportation Volpe Center's 2015 report titled "Review and Analysis of
Potential Safety Impacts and Regulatory Barriers to Fuel Efficiency Technologies and Alternative Fuels
in Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles," along with any research supporting the development, and
maintenance, of FMVSS No. 121. In addition, DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and
NHTSA sponsored a test program conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory to explore the effects of
tire rolling resistance levels on Class 8 tractor-trailer stopping distance performance over a range of
loading and surface conditions. The objective was to determine whether a relationship exists between tire
rolling resistance and stopping distance for vehicles of this type. The overall results of this research
suggest that tire rolling resistance is not a reliable indicator of Class 8 tractor-trailer stopping distance.
The correlation coefficients (R2 values) for linear regressions of wet and dry stopping distance versus
overall vehicle rolling resistance values did not meet the minimum threshold for statistical significance
for any of the test conditions. Correlation between CRR and stopping distance was found to be negligible
for the dry tests for both loading conditions. While correlation was higher for the wet testing (showing a
slight trend in which lower CRRs correspond to longer stopping distances), it still did not meet the
minimum threshold for statistical significance. In terms of compliance with Federal safety standards, it
was found that the stopping distance performance of the vehicle with the four tire sets studied in this
research (with estimated tractor CRRs which varied by 33 percent), were well under the FMVSS No. 121
stopping distance requirements. The agencies agree, though, that continuing research will be important as
new tire technologies enter the marketplace, and like the extensive rolling resistance testing conducting to
support the Phase 1 regulation and, in part, this final rule, the agencies will continue to monitor
developments in the tire supply marketplace through the EPA Smartway program and other, potential,
research. NHTSA notes that FMVSS No. 121 will continue to play a role in ensuring the safety of both
current and future tire technologies.
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
-------
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.92 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.93 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."94
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
With respect to OOIDA's general comment about safety of 6x2 axles, the agencies considered NACFE's
confidence report on 6x2 axles that identifies a potential benefit of 6x2 axles because they add stability
when operating on slippery roads, and possibly prevent jack-knife conditions.95 Also noted in the
NACFE report, technologies such as load shifting can increase the weight over the drive axle to improve
traction at low speed to alleviate that concern.
Vehicle Speed Limiters
The agencies are not premising these final Phase 2 standards on use of VSL. However, we are continuing
to allow VSL as an input to the GEM simulations. The Department of Transportation Volpe Center's
2015 report titled "Review and Analysis of Potential Safety Impacts and Regulatory Barriers to Fuel
Efficiency Technologies and Alternative Fuels in Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles" summarizes
research and analysis findings on potential safety issues associated with both the diverse alternative fuels
(natural gas-CNG and LNG, propane, biodiesel, and power train electrification), and the specific FE
technologies recently adopted by the MD/HDV fleets.96 These include Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS) and telematics, speed limiters, idle reduction devices, tire technologies (single-wide tires, and tire
pressure monitoring systems-TPMS and Automated Tire Inflation Systems-ATIS), aerodynamic
components, vehicle light-weighting materials, and Long Combination Vehicles (LCVs). The safety
findings from literature review pertaining to the specific FE technologies implemented to date in the
92 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
93 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
94 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
95 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles. 2014. Pages
30-33.
96 Brecher, A., Epstein, A. K., & Breck, A. (2015, June). Review and analysis ofpotential safety impacts of and
regulatory barriers to fuel efficiency technologies and alternative fuels in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. (Report
No. DOT HS 812 159). Washington, DC: National Flighway Traffic Safety Administration.
-------
MD/HDV fleet found that both experience abroad and the cited US studies of trucks equipped with active
speed limiters indicated a safety benefit, as measured by up to 50 percent reduced crash rates, in addition
to fuel savings and other benefits, with good CMV driver acceptance. Any negative aspects were small
and avoidable if all the speed limitation devices were set to the same speed, so there will be less need for
overtaking at highway speeds.
Weigh t Reduction
The Department of Transportation Volpe Center's 2015 report titled "Review and Analysis of Potential
Safety Impacts and Regulatory Barriers to Fuel Efficiency Technologies and Alternative Fuels in
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles" summarizes research and analysis findings on potential safety issues
associated with both the diverse alternative fuels (natural gas-CNG and LNG, propane, biodiesel, and
power train electrification), and the specific FE technologies recently adopted by the MD/HDV fleets.97
These include Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and telematics, speed limiters, idle reduction
devices, tire technologies (single-wide tires, and tire pressure monitoring systems-TPMS and Automated
Tire Inflation Systems-ATIS), aerodynamic components, vehicle light-weighting materials, and Long
Combination Vehicles (LCVs). The scenario-based hazard analysis, based on the literature review and
experts' inputs, indicates that MD/HDVs equipped with advanced FE technologies and/or using
alternative fuels have manageable potentially adverse safety impacts. The findings suggest that the
potential safety hazards identified during operation, maintenance, and crash scenarios can be prevented or
mitigated by complying with safety regulations and voluntary standards and industry best practices. The
study also did not identify any major regulatory barriers to rapid adoption of FE technologies and
alternative fuels by the MD/HDV fleet
Aerodynamics Baseline
While the agencies agree with the commenters that it is important to develop an accurate baseline so that
the appropriate aerodynamic technology package effectiveness and costs can be evaluated in determining
the final Phase 2 standards, there appears to be some confusion regarding the NPRM baseline
aerodynamic assessment. The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic
bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards. The baseline was not
determined by or declared to be the average results of the vehicles tested, as some commenters
maintained. The vehicles that were tested prior to the NPRM were used to develop the aerodynamic bin
structure for Phase 2. In both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins such
that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into
consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in Phase 2. The
Phase 2 bins were developed so that tractors that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as
Bin III tractors in Phase 2. The baseline aerodynamic value for the Phase 2 final rulemaking was
determined in the same manner as the NPRM, using the adoption rates of the bins used to determine the
Phase 1 standards, but reflect the final Phase 2 bin CdA values.
Aerodynamics
The agencies' assessment is that the best aerodynamic tractor tested by EPA in 2015 achieved Bin IV
performance. This vehicle did not include all of the possible aerodynamic technologies, such as wheel
91 Brecher, A., Epstein, A. K., & Breck, A. (2015, June). Review and analysis ofpotential safety impacts of and
regulatory barriers to fuel efficiency technologies and alternative fuels in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. (Report
No. DOT HS 812 159). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
-------
covers or active aerodynamics like a grill shutter or front air dam. Thus, the agencies' assessment is that
Bin V is achievable with known aerodynamic technologies, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.4, but agree
with the manufacturers that Bins VI and VII have less known technology paths. However, we are
including Bins VI and VII in the Phase 2 regulations as a potential Phase 2 technology to recognize the
possibility that over the next ten years (until the full implementation of the Phase 2 program) tractor
manufacturers may advance their aerodynamic technologies beyond the Bin V levels projected for the
Phase 2 standards, and to provide a value to be input to GEM should they do so. In consideration of the
comments, the agencies have adjusted the aerodynamic adoption rate for Class 8 high roof sleeper cabs
used to set the final standards in 2021, 2024, and 2027 MYs (i.e., the degree of technology adoption on
which the stringency of the standard is premised). Upon further analysis of simulation modeling of a
SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the manufacturers that a
SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the proposed Bin V level of CdA. The
changes required for Bin V and better performance reflect the kinds of improvements projected in the
Department of Energy's SuperTruck program. That program assumes that such systems can be
demonstrated on vehicles by 2017. In this case, the agencies are projecting that truck manufacturers will
be able to begin implementing these demonstrated aerodynamic technologies as early as 2021 MY on a
limited scale. Accordingly, we adjusted the adoption rates for MY 2027 in the technology package
developed for the final rule to consist of 20 percent of Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V
reflecting our assessment of the fraction of high roof sleeper cab tractors in this segment that we project
could successfully apply these aerodynamic packages with this amount of lead time. Overall, while the
agencies are now projecting slightly less benefit from aerodynamic improvements than we did in the
NPRM, the actual aerodynamic technology being projected is very similar to what was projected at the
time of NPRM.
With respect to the comments related to the aerodynamic test procedures, please see the agencies'
response to the EMA comments in Section 4.5 of this response to comments document.
Compliance Margin/SEA
Although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate the initial implementation of
new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an appropriate long-term policy.
Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic
parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance testing. EPA developed a different
structure for conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor aerodynamics and solicited supplemental comments on
it. We believe the structure being finalized appropriately balances EPA's need to provide strong
incentives for manufacturers to act in good faith with manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions
based on inaccurate testing. Our current assessment is that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when
certifying and uses good engineering judgment throughout the process, false failures for individual
vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family would not occur. It is important to note that,
although SEAs are directed by EPA, the actual testing is conducted by the manufacturer at their chosen
facilities. This minimizes many potential causes of test variability, such as differences in test trailers, test
tracks, or instrumentation. Thus confidence intervals need only reflect true test-to-test variability. Also,
manufacturers generally rent facilities for coastdown testing as needed, which means EPA will need to
provide some advance notice to allow the manufacturer to reserve the appropriate facility. Additional
discussion is included in Section III.E.2.a of the Preamble to the final rule.
See the agencies' response to engine fuel map compliance margins in the Response to Comments Section
3.7.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
-------
Recent Trends for Technology Development and Acceptance Dictate the Emission Levels and
Timing in Alternative 3
During the past 10 years a number of significant new technologies have been developed and introduced
into PACCAR brand trucks. These technologies are aimed at improving performance, fuel efficiency, and
reducing emissions and include: automatic engine shutdown (AES); selective catalytic reduction (SCR);
low rolling resistance tires; hybridization; aerodynamic improvements; our new MX-13 engine and our
soon to be introduced MX-11 engine. What PACCAR has experienced with customers with the
implementation and growth of each of these technologies aligns with the time frame that it will take to
reach the full implementation of Alternative 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.2]
In essence, what PACCAR has found is that its customers - most of which are commercial businesses -
need to become comfortable with technologies before they will adopt them on a widespread basis. For
example, when diesel particulate filters (DPF) were introduced, customers paced their purchases of new
trucks to assure themselves that the trucks would provide the same performance and could be maintained
in a reasonable manner. What this led to was slow initial sales that have increased gradually over the past
5-7 years. PACCAR's experience with our new MX-13 engine followed a similar path. This is an
excellent engine that was, and continues to be, highly regarded in its European configuration. Regardless
of this, our customers needed time to assure themselves that this engine would meet their needs in the
applications for the vehicles and engine reliability and performance levels did not cause undue disruption
to their business. Our customers have also moved slowly regarding adoption of aerodynamic
improvement changes and low rolling resistance tires. Again, they have examined their business needs to
determine when adopting these technologies make sense for them, given their unique circumstances. The
penetration rate for Automatic Engine Shutdown (AES) is discussed in greater detail in Section II below.
The penetration rate has been significantly lower than the agencies anticipated in Phase I, regardless of
the fuel savings and emission reduction. Although AES is widely offered and available, the slow adoption
is largely due to customer expectations and needs, as well as the perceived expense of the needed
auxiliary systems to provide heating, cooling, and electrical power to the driver during mandated rest
periods, and the associated pay-back period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.2-3]
What PACCAR's decades of experience in the heavy-duty truck and engine market demonstrates is that
customers consider many factors in their vehicle purchases. Clearly, fuel efficiency is high on their list,
but it is not the only factor. They also want to ensure that new technologies meet their duty cycle
demands, not cause undue disruption to maintenance protocols, and not significantly more expensive
without offering payback within a reasonable period of time. Customers want higher residual prices to
offset the initial cost increases for new technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.3]
PACCAR believes the challenges set out in meeting the standards within the time frame for Alternative 3
are considerable, but provide the greatest likelihood for a successful program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1204-A1 p.3]
Revisions to Several Aspects of the Alternative 3 Standards are Needed to Make the Final
Standards Challenging but Achievable and to Reflect the Current and Expected Rates of
Technology Penetration
The Aerodynamics Assessments Must Be Revised
The agencies have proposed a number of changes to aerodynamic assessment in Phase 2 including,
increase the number of aerodynamic bins for all roof heights, testing methodologies, data assessment
approaches, wind averaged drag versus zero yaw drag determination, and notably increasing the
-------
aerodynamic performance for stringency calculations. PACCAR does agree with the agencies' approach
to increase the number of bins but has identified several issues related to the aerodynamics assumptions
used by the agencies that must be addressed. The aerodynamics baseline is incorrect, contributing to
aerodynamic stringencies that are unachievable even with the best of currently-available aerodynamic
technologies. The proposed aerodynamics testing provisions also must be revised in order to bring the
testing process more closely in line with real-world conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.7]
Bin Assignments Based on CdA are too High
The agencies have proposed to narrow and make more stringent the aerodynamic bins to which trucks
must be certified under the Phase 2 program. Currently, all of PACCAR's vehicles fall into Phase 2 Bin I
and Bin II when using zero degree yaw CFD values and applying the regulatory formula CdAwad =
(CdACFD * Fait_aero) + 0.80. This is inconsistent with the baseline the agencies established for Phase 2.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.7]
The agencies' bin penetration rates for the baseline and stringency setting fail to take into account that the
Phase 2 wind-averaged drag approach on the very best aerodynamic high-roof vehicles in Phase 1 will
push some configurations of these vehicles lower down in the bin structure—to the bottom of Bin II, if
not into Bin I. These higher aerodynamic drag configurations are the ones that will often be the high-roof
equivalent of low- / mid-roof vehicles that are operating with flatbed, tanker, low-boy, or other non-box
van trailers. The proposed regulation would then assign these less aerodynamic models into the Phase 2
low- and mid-roof Bin I. The NPRM does not include any Bin I penetration in the stringency setting for
these roof heights, which causes concern based on the assessment of current vehicle production using the
Phase 2 methodologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.7]
Also, for 2027 stringency, the agencies anticipate a greater percentage of Bin IV low-and mid-roof
vehicles than are expected in the "equivalent" high-roof category, Bin VII. The proposal is based on 10%
Bin IV low- and mid-roof vehicle penetration, compared for 5% for the high-roof category. PACCAR
requests the agencies reconsider the penetration rates for low- and mid-roof tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1204-A1 p.7-8]
Across the board, the low- and mid-roof penetration rates should be concentrated lower in the bin
structure (higher CdA values) than the high-roof bins because the low-and mid-roof vehicle
configurations cannot use all the same aerodynamic improvement technologies like full length chassis
fairings or side extenders. Therefore, these vehicles cannot reach the lower CdA values of the better
performing high-roof vehicles for determining the placement in the low- / mid-roof bin structure.
PACCAR recommends a change to these penetration rates to better reflect the vehicle configurations that
are required by customers in these segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.8]
In addition, the agencies should review the proposed Phase 2 Bin designations for the range of vehicles
being offered by OEMs, particularly how baseline vehicles and the concept SuperTrucks would be
classified. As currently proposed, the Peterbilt SuperTruck would be placed in Phase 2 Bin IV when
assessed with the Phase 2 standard trailer, despite being one of the most advanced aerodynamic vehicles.
PACCAR's understanding is that the Freightliner SuperTruck, also an advanced vehicle in terms of
aerodynamic improvements, would be classified as Phase 2, Bin IV or maybe as high as Bin V with the
Phase 2 trailer. Once the Peterbilt SuperTruck production opportunity is evaluated, however, it may
become clear that not all of the demonstrated aerodynamic improvements can be implemented for real-
world use, or that some technologies may not achieve the expected benefits or do not work as well as
anticipated in combination with other technologies. PACCAR therefore believes that the proposed vehicle
Bin designations are unnecessarily stringent and recommends that the agencies revise the aerodynamic
-------
cut-offs for each bin so that the best-performing SuperTruck is designated as Phase 2, Bin VI. Revising
the Bin designations in this manner would reflect the best-available technologies expected to be offered
under the Phase 2 program, while also leaving open Bin VII as a target for even greater technological
advancement on aerodynamics if they can be developed. PACCAR also makes this recommendation
based on our understanding of current aerodynamic technology penetration rates and consumer
acceptance patterns, which are discussed more fully below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.8]
It is recommended that vehicles maintain their zero-degree yaw Phase 1 aerodynamic bin placement in
Phase 2, as one of the agencies' test vehicles, the Kenworth T700, is shown to do in the image below. To
assist in the proper definition of the new aero bins, it is also recommended that the DOE SuperTruck
tractors, when assessed with the Phase 2 reference trailer, should be placed in the upper portion of aero
Bin VI. The vehicle placement and bin boundaries should use the agencies default wind-average drag
factor of 0.80 m2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.8]
[Graphics, showing proposed aerodynamic bins, can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1204-A1]
For day cab vehicles, PACCAR believes the agencies have dramatically overestimated the baseline
penetration rates, stringency setting bin penetration rates, and assumptions on aerodynamic improvements
that are possible. The day cab aero CdA chart below for MY2016 shows that the day cab version of the
most aerodynamic sleeper cab models cannot attain Bin IV levels in Phase I, let alone Bin V in Phase 2.
Day cabs do not have the same aerodynamic enhancement capabilities that sleeper cabs do so the Phase 2
aerodynamic bin structure must be established to reflect this reality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1
p.9]
PACCAR also has concerns about the ability to plan for compliance without knowing how the agencies
intend to finalize the Bin designations. If the agencies revise the Bin cut-offs to be aligned with actual
current and future vehicle aerodynamic performance, as recommended above, then PACCAR believes the
standards will be challenging but potentially achievable, depending on the aerodynamic bin penetration
rates. However, if the agencies retain the Bin designations from the proposed rule, compliance will be all
but impossible. PACCAR requests that the agencies provide additional information about the intended
final Bin cut-offs to enable additional compliance planning and provide the opportunity to provide
feedback regarding any changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.9-10]
The Technology Baselines and Adoption Rates Used in Developing the Proposed Standards are
Overly Optimistic and Should Be Revised
The agencies' baseline technology assumptions are too high, particularly as they apply to automatic
engine shutdown (AES) for sleepers. EPA and NHTSA have also over-estimated the rate at which
manufacturers will be able to offer, and customers will adopt, new emission-reduction technologies.
While PACCAR sees this as an issue with regard to Alternative 3 standards, this would be an even greater
problem if Alternative 4 were to be adopted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 13-14]
The Agencies Overestimate the Current Use of GHG-Compliance Automatic Engine Shutdown
Systems in the Marketplace
In the proposal, the agencies developed technology baseline and adoption rates for AES systems based on
the current rate of auxiliary power units (APUs) installed in vehicles in-use. The agencies are likely
correct that approximately 30% of in-use vehicles have APUs installed, none of which are installed at the
manufacturing factories under PACCAR direction. Virtually all tractors in the field have an automatic
-------
shutdown programmed in their engine; however, less than 1% of PACCAR vehicles sold in recent years
have fully GHG-compliant AES systems that are triggered in less than five minutes and cannot be
reprogrammed for 1.259 million miles. Both of these requirements must be met in order for the AES
system to receive full credit under the Phase 1 and Phase 2 GHG programs. Additional PACCAR vehicles
have partial-credit AES systems that cannot be reprogrammed for 500,000 miles, but the total of full-
credit and partial-credit is still under 1% of all vehicles sold since the start of Phase I in MY2014. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 14]
The agencies estimate that 80% of all sleeper-cab vehicles would be required to have 1.259 million mile-
certified systems by model year 2021 in order to meet the Phase 2 standards. For 2024-27 model years,
that percentage increases to 90% of all sleeper-cab vehicles. These are extremely ambitious and
unachievable targets considering that less than 1% of current PACCAR sleeper-cab production includes
these GHG-compliant AES systems. EMA discussions indicate a similar limited penetration for other
OEMs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p. 14]
In addition, many customers do not want 1.259 million mile AES systems, either because of the short
time at idle before the AES is triggered or because this technology also requires the use of a diesel or
battery APU in order to avoid undesirable sleeping conditions for the driver during Hours of Service
required off-duty time. The cost of a diesel or battery-based APU is $8,570 to $11,263 for each chassis
that requires this technology, which is much higher than the APU total cost (TC) of $4,899 that EPA
estimated for 2021 in RIA Table 2-172 (shown below). The cost of the diesel APU increases by
approximately $3,200 if a diesel particulate filter is added to meet the regulatory requirements of
California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 14]
[The table, Costs for Auxiliary Power Units (APU) Sleeper Cab Tractors, can be found on p. 15 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A 1 ]
The agencies also vastly underestimated financial impact to vehicle owners by averaging the compliance
costs across the entire industry. These estimates do not adequately demonstrate the full costs to individual
owners. Each individual customer who must purchase an AES/APU system will have to pay the full cost
of that system and not the average cost that the agencies have included in the RIA calculation. This cost
will be incurred for every new sleeper cab tractor that is purchased since APUs stays with the old vehicles
when they are sold by the original owner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p. 15]
As was stated previously, nearly all tractors with sleepers utilize an automatic engine shutdown system.
The technology adds benefit but the requirement to lock it to a 5-minute or less shutdown for 1.259
million miles devalues the vehicle in the resale market. Since the technology is being used and is
infrequently changed by the first owner, PACCAR requests the agencies consider partial credit for AES
systems that are programmed to a 5-minute or sooner shutdown but are not tamper-resistant to changes by
an owner. PACCAR will work with the agencies to determine the proper credit value based on the fuel
savings associated with non-tamper-resistant AES systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 15]
PACCAR urges the agencies to reconsider the expected penetration rate of 1.259 million mile AES
systems, based on the number of such systems currently in use, and establish more realistic adoption rates
with the current baseline in mind. PACCAR also recommends that the agencies reevaluate the costs of
such systems and to recognize that each individual customer purchasing an AES/APU system must bear
the full cost of that system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A 1 p. 15]
The Drive Tire Rolling Resistance Values Should be Tailored to Each Market Subcategory as in
Phase 1
-------
The proposal establishes an industry-wide drive tire rolling resistance value without differentiating
between types of vehicles, markets, and location of use. The agencies should revise these values to reflect
the reality that different market subcategories require different types of tires with different rolling
resistance. A single value for all tractor regulatory subcategories does not fit this industry. Tractors with
low- and mid-roof configurations have different tire requirements than tractors hauling trailers down the
highway at 55-to-65 miles per hour. Customers with low- and mid-roof configurations typically operate
more in urban areas where tires must withstand the abuse of curbs and other obstacles. The tires for these
vehicles are designed with additional side wall protection and generally have a higher coefficient of
rolling resistance. Also, these vehicles are operated in more on/off road conditions that are typical for
flatbed, tanker, and low-boy operations, which use the low and mid-roof configuration vehicles. Because
of these two operational needs, the tire rolling resistance penetration values for stringency calculation
should be adjusted to reflect the realities and needs of the market. Below is a table showing the rolling
resistance change for low- and mid-roof families as compared to the equivalent high roof regulatory
subcategory. Individual owners also have preferences about tire rolling resistance, particularly for use in
colder, snowier, and icier conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 15-16]
[The table, Tire Crr Value Differences - High Roof vs. Low and Mid Roof, can be found on p. 16 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1]
The Agencies' Expectations for Developments in Advanced Transmission Technologies are Overly
Optimistic
The agencies' proposed rule indicates that they expect dual-clutch transmissions to be available in
MY2021. However, PACCAR and other OEMs do not currently have heavy-duty dual-clutch
transmission prototypes in development, much less close to production for use in MY2021. As with all
new technologies, adoption rates differ between vehicles and uses. Some advanced transmissions are
likely to be adopted more quickly in some categories of vehicles and more slowly in others. Different
types of new transmission technologies are also likely to be implemented at various rates, depending on
how much of an advantage the technology offers, the cost, and the payback period for customers.
PACCAR recommends that the agencies take a more detailed approach to assessing transmission
advances and revise the agencies' estimate to reflect technologies that are already under true
consideration for use in production powertrains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 16]
Use of 6x2 Axle Configuration is not Appropriate for All Vehicles in All Circumstances
In the proposal, the agencies assume a broad shift from 6x4 chassis to 6x2 axle configuration and a
corresponding GHG reduction/fuel efficiency increase due to the decreased tire drag. However, not all
vehicles operating in all conditions can switch to 6x2 axles due to performance considerations. Some
jurisdictions also prohibit 6x2 axles in certain areas or under certain operating conditions. A full list of
restrictions by state and province can be located as an appendix of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 17]
Customers also have preferences regarding 6x4 or 6x2 axles and are likely to resist being pushed toward
using the latter for all type vehicles in many locations or driving conditions. PACCAR recommends that
the agencies reevaluate the assumptions made about the rate at which the industry can shift to 6x2 axles
and take into account the lower penetration rate when establishing the overall stringency of the GHG
emission and fuel efficiency standards. PACCAR supports EMA's comments on this issue. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 17]
-------
Also, the definition of "composite" should be broadened to include materials other than thermoplastics.
PACCAR recommends EPA broaden the materials to thermoplastics, thermosets, and fiber reinforced
plastics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.31]
Speed Limiters
The Agencies should provide partial credit for speed limiter devices that are set below 65 MPH even if
these are not tamper-resistant. PACCAR and its customers' experience is that drivers cannot change these
devices once they are in place and customers make changes, up or down, only if it increases the overall
efficiency of the vehicle and the fleet or is required to complete the assigned task within the required
time. PACCAR will work with the Agencies to determine the proper credit value based on the fuel
savings associated with lower speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.24]
Tire Pressure Monitoring
The feedback PACCAR has received from its customers is that vehicle operators pay attention to tire
pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) and like them. These customers' maintenance practices allow them
to gain the same or near same benefits from a tire pressure monitoring system as they do from a more
expensive automated tire inflation system. As is stated in the NPRM, proper tire pressure helps optimize
fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. In addition to GHG reduction benefit in GEM for the
automated tire inflation system, PACCAR joins EMA in requesting credit in GEM for the TPMS
technology. PACCAR will work with the Agencies to develop the proper credit amount. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1204-A1 p.24]
Response:
Alternative 3 Timing
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the proposed Alternative 3 and
Alternative 4 tractor standards. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed comments received
regarding technologies and lead time. Instead of merely choosing from among the proposed alternatives,
the agencies have developed a set of final tractor standards that reflect our reevaluation of the ability to
pull ahead certain technologies, the limitations in adoption rates and/or effectiveness of other
technologies, and consideration of additional technologies. In general, the final Phase 2 tractor standards
are similar in overall stringency as the levels proposed in Alternative 3, but have been determined using
new technology packages that reflect consideration of all of the technology comments, and in several
respects reflect greater stringency than the proposed Alternative 3. In addition, the agencies are fully
aware, and agree with, the commenter's statement that fleet owners do not rush in to purchase new
technologies but need a period to assure themselves of a new technology's efficacy and reliability. The
final standards are structured with this phenomenon in mind. Thus, the initial 2021 standards reflect very
modest penetration rates for advanced technologies, with greater penetration in MY 2024, and with
aggressive penetration rates generally deferred until MY 2027.
Aerodynamics
While the agencies agree with the commenters that it is important to develop an accurate baseline so that
the appropriate aerodynamic technology package effectiveness and costs can be evaluated in determining
the final Phase 2 standards, there appears to be some confusion regarding the NPRM baseline
aerodynamic assessment. The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic
bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards. EPA conducted coastdown
-------
testing of the four major tractor manufacturer's (including one produced by PACCAR) high roof sleeper
cab tractors. We tested each in two configurations - (1) using a Phase 1 standard trailer without skirts and
the Phase 1 data analysis approach and (2) using a Phase 2 standard trailer with skirts and the Phase 2 data
analysis approach. The agencies note that we are not adopting the default 0.8 m2 conversion from zero
degree yaw to wind average drag for the final rule because the agencies are adopting a surrogate angle
(4.5 degree) approach to reduce the testing burden. Therefore, the default value no longer would serve
the purpose of reducing test burden. The vehicles that were tested prior to the NPRM were used to
develop the aerodynamic bin structure for the Phase 2 NPRM. The aerodynamic performance of the
tractors tested by EPA were recalculated for the final rule using the final aerodynamic test procedures.
See RIA Chapter 3.2.1. In both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins such
that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into
consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and standard trailers required in Phase 2. The
Phase 2 bins were developed so that tractors that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as
Bin III tractors in Phase 2. See RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2. The baseline aerodynamic value for the Phase 2
final rulemaking was determined in the same manner as the NPRM, using the adoption rates of the bins
used to determine the Phase 1 standards, but reflect the final Phase 2 bin CdA values.
The agencies' assessment is that the best aerodynamic tractor tested by EPA in 2015 achieved Bin IV
performance. This vehicle did not include all of the possible aerodynamic technologies, such as wheel
covers or active aerodynamics like a grill shutter or front air dam. Thus, the agencies' assessment is that
Bin V is achievable with known aerodynamic technologies, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.8.2.2, but
agree with the manufacturers that Bins VI and VII have less known technology paths. However, we are
including Bins VI and VII in the Phase 2 regulations as a potential Phase 2 technology to recognize the
possibility that over the next ten years (until the full implementation of the Phase 2 program) tractor
manufacturers may advance their aerodynamic technologies beyond the Bin V levels projected for the
Phase 2 standards, and to provide a value to be input to GEM should they do so.
In Phase 1, the agencies determined the stringency of the tractor standards through the use of a mix of
aerodynamic bins in the technology packages. For example, we included 10 percent Bin II, 70 percent
Bin III, and 20 percent Bin IV in the high roof sleeper cab tractor standard. The weighted average
aerodynamic performance of this technology package is equivalent to Bin III. 76 FR 57211. In
consideration of the comments, the agencies have adjusted the aerodynamic adoption rate for Class 8 high
roof sleeper cabs used to set the final standards in 2021, 2024, and 2027 MYs (i.e., the degree of
technology adoption on which the stringency of the standard is premised). Upon further analysis of
simulation modeling of a SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the
manufacturers that a SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the Bin V level of CdA,
as discussed above and in RIA Chapter 2.8.2.2. Consequently, the final standards are not premised on
any adoption of Bin VI and VII technologies. Accordingly, we determined the adoption rates in the
technology packages developed for the final rule using a similar approach as Phase 1 - spanning three
aerodynamic bins and not setting adoption rates in the most aerodynamic bin(s) - to reflect that there are
some vehicles whose operation limits the applicability of some aerodynamic technologies. We set the
MY 2027 high roof sleeper cab tractor standards using a technology package that included 20 percent of
Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V reflecting our assessment of the fraction of high roof
sleeper cab tractors that we project could successfully apply these aerodynamic packages with this
amount of lead time. The weighted average of this set of adoption rates is equivalent to a tractor
aerodynamic performance near the border between Bin IV and Bin V. We believe that there is sufficient
lead time to develop aerodynamic tractors that can move the entire high roof sleeper cab aerodynamic
performance to be as good as or better than today's SmartWay designated tractors.
The agencies phased-in the aerodynamic technology adoption rates within the technology packages used
to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that manufacturers can gradually introduce these
-------
technologies. The changes required for Bin V performance reflect the kinds of improvements projected in
the Department of Energy's SuperTruck program. That program has demonstrated tractor-trailers in 2015
with significant aerodynamic technologies. For the final rule, the agencies are projecting that truck
manufacturers will be able to begin implementing some of these aerodynamic technologies on high roof
tractors as early as 2021 MY on a limited scale. For example, in the 2021 MY technology package, the
agencies have assumed that 10 percent of high roof sleeper cabs will have aerodynamics better than
today's best tractors. This phase-in structure is consistent with the normal manner in which
manufacturers introduce new technology to manage limited research and development budgets as well as
to allow them to work with fleets to fully evaluate in-use reliability before a technology is applied fleet-
wide. The agencies believe the phase-in schedule will allow manufacturers to complete these normal
processes. Overall, while the agencies are now projecting slightly less benefit from aerodynamic
improvements than we did in the NPRM, the actual aerodynamic technologies being projected are very
similar to what was projected at the time of NPRM (however, these vehicles fall into Bin V in the final
rule, instead of Bin VI and VII in the NPRM). Importantly, our averaging, banking and trading
provisions provide manufacturers with the flexibility (and incentive) to implement these technologies
over time even though the standard changes in a single step.
With respect to the other tractor subcategories, the agencies recognize that there are tractor applications
that require on/off-road capability and other truck functions which restrict the type of aerodynamic
equipment applicable. We also recognize that these types of trucks spend less time at highway speeds
where aerodynamic technologies have the greatest benefit. The 2002 VIUS data ranks trucks by major
use.98 The heavy trucks usage indicates that up to 35 percent of the trucks may be used in on/off-road
applications or heavier applications. The uses include construction (16 percent), agriculture (12 percent),
waste management (5 percent), and mining (2 percent). Therefore, the agencies analyzed the
technologies to evaluate the potential restrictions that will prevent 100 percent adoption of more advanced
aerodynamic technologies for all of the tractor regulatory subcategories and developed standards with
new penetration rates reflecting that these vehicles spend less time at highway speeds. For the final rule,
the agencies evaluated the certification data to assess how the aerodynamic performance of high roof day
cabs compare to high roof sleeper cabs. In 2014, the high roof day cabs on average are certified to one
bin lower than the high roof sleeper cabs." Consistent with the public comments, and the certification
data, the aerodynamic adoption rates used to develop the final Phase 2 standards for the high roof day cab
regulatory subcategories are less aggressive than for the Class 8 sleeper cab high roof tractors. In
addition, the agencies are also accordingly reducing the adoption rates in the highest bins for low and mid
roof tractors to follow the changes made to the high roof subcategories because we neither proposed nor
expect the aerodynamics of a low or mid roof tractor to be better than a high roof tractor.
The agencies also note that we held several discussions with the aerodynamic specialists within the tractor
manufacturers between the NPRM and FRM.100 The primary purposes of these discussions were to
develop robust aerodynamic test procedures and improve the understanding of the aerodynamic bin
development process between all of the involved parties.
Idle Reduction Technologies
98 U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 28-2009. Table 5.7.
99 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. Coefficient of Rolling Resistance and Coefficient of Drag Certification Data for
Tractors. See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
100 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. Aerodynamic Subteam Meetings with EMA. See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827.
-------
In the proposal, the agencies noted that the manufacturers were not using tamper-proof AESS to comply
with the Phase 1 standards so the agencies reverted back to the baseline APU adoption rate of 30 percent
used in the Phase 1 baseline. The agencies received a number of comments regarding this. In response to
these comments, the agencies reassessed the baseline idle reduction adoption rates. The latest NACFE
confidence report found that 9 percent of tractors had auxiliary power units and 96 percent of vehicles are
equipped with adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems.101 Therefore, the agencies are projecting
for the Phase 2 baseline that 9 percent of sleeper cabs will contain an adjustable AESS and APU, while
the other 87 percent will only have an adjustable AESS for consideration in the baseline, and none will
have a tamper-proof AESS.
While the agencies do not necessarily believe that customer reluctance in the initial years of Phase 1
should be considered insurmountable, we do agree with commenters that the agencies should allow
adjustable AESS to be a technology input to GEM and should differentiate effectiveness based on the idle
reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-
proof and adjustable (programmable) systems to qualify for some reduction. After consideration of the
comments, the agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle reduction technologies and
only projected adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS. The agencies agree with
the commenter that nearly all sleeper cabs can utilize an automatic engine shutdown system, and our
adoption rates reflect this.
EPA considered the comments and more closely evaluated NHTSA's contracted TetraTech cost report
found the retail price of a diesel-powered APU with a DPF to be $10,000. The agencies used a retail
price of a diesel-powered APU to be $8,000 without a DPF and $10,000 with a DPF in the cost analysis
for this final rulemaking.
The comment regarding the "averaging vehicle costs across the industry" versus the vehicle equipped
with a specific device or devices is an interesting take on our analysis. However, in aggregate, the average
cost estimated in our analysis is the best and most meaningful measure of the projected cost of the new
standards. We do not expect that a "maximum" or a "minimum" technology tractor will be built. Instead,
we estimate that, on average, tractors will gradually improve fuel consumption and decrease GHG
emissions such that a variety of prices and performance characteristics will continue to be available. Just
because every vehicle is not "average" does not mean that we are underestimating costs, nor are we
overestimating costs. In addition, our payback analysis represents the "average" vehicle but in reality
some purchasers may experience payback periods that are shorter (or longer) than the average depending
on the individual technologies purchased and the operation of the specific vehicle.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
For the proposal, the agencies used the same level of tire rolling resistance across all tractor
subcategories. In our analysis of the Phase 1 certification data for the final rule development, we found
that the drive tires on low and mid roof sleeper cab tractors on average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling
resistance than the high roof sleeper cabs.102 This finding aligns with the commenter's concerns raised
that low and mid roof tractors require a different mix of tire attributes (fuel efficiency, wear, durability,
side wall protection, cost, etc.). But we found only a minor difference in rolling resistance of the steer
tires between the tractor subcategories. Based on comments received and further consideration of our
101 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Report:Idl- Reduction Solutions. 2014. Page 13.
102 Memo to Docket. Coefficient of Rolling Resistance and Coefficient of Drag Certification Data for Tractors.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
-------
own analysis of the difference in tire rolling resistance levels that exist today in the certification data, the
agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling resistance
levels for low and mid roof tractors than the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards. This is also
consistent with the approach that we took in setting the Phase 1 tractor standards. 76 FR 57211. In
addition, the final rule reflects a reduction in Level 3 tire (the lowest CRR) adoption rates for low and mid
roof tractors from 25 percent in MY 2027 used at proposal (80 FR 40227) to zero percent adoption rate.
The technology packages developed for the low and mid roof tractors used to determine the stringency of
the MY 2027 standards in the final rule do not include any adoption rate of Level 3 drive tires to
recognize the special needs of these applications, consistent with the comments noted above raising
concerns about applications that limit the use of low rolling resistance tires.
DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and NHTSA sponsored a test program conducted by
Oak Ridge National Laboratory to explore the effects of tire rolling resistance levels on Class 8 tractor-
trailer stopping distance performance over a range of loading and surface conditions. The objective was
to determine whether a relationship exists between tire rolling resistance and stopping distance for
vehicles of this type. The overall results of this research suggest that tire rolling resistance is not a
reliable indicator of Class 8 tractor-trailer stopping distance. The correlation coefficients (R2 values) for
linear regressions of wet and dry stopping distance versus overall vehicle rolling resistance values did not
meet the minimum threshold for statistical significance for any of the test conditions. Correlation
between CRR and stopping distance was found to be negligible for the dry tests for both loading
conditions. While correlation was higher for the wet testing (showing a slight trend in which lower CRRs
correspond to longer stopping distances), it still did not meet the minimum threshold for statistical
significance. In terms of compliance with Federal safety standards, it was found that the stopping
distance performance of the vehicle with the four tire sets studied in this research (with estimated tractor
CRRs which varied by 33 percent), were well under the FMVSS No. 121 stopping distance requirements.
The agencies agree, though, that continuing research will be important as new tire technologies enter the
marketplace, and like the extensive rolling resistance testing conducting to support the Phase 1 regulation
and, in part, this final rule, the agencies will continue to monitor developments in the tire supply
marketplace through the EPA Smartway program and other, potential, research. NHTSA notes that
FMVSS No. 121 will continue to play a role in ensuring the safety of both current and future tire
technologies.
Advanced Transmissions
The agencies evaluated various types of transmissions. Volvo put into production in 2014 a DCT in
Europe for heavy-duty tractors.103 For the final rule, the agencies projected 5% adoption rate of DCTs in
2021 and 10% in 2024. However, the effectiveness of DCTs is equal to the effectiveness of AMTs (2%).
Therefore, if the HD manufacturers do not develop/bring a DCT to the U.S. market during the Phase 2
timeframe, the difference in stringency could be offset by installing an AMT instead, which is currently
offered by all HD tractor manufacturers.
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
103 Volvo Trucks Global. The World's First Dual-Clutch Transmission for Trucks. October 15, 2014.
http://mag.volvotrucks.com/global/global/article/?art=4009&ref=l. See Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
-------
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.104 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.105 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."106
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
With respect to PACCAR's general comment about the acceptance of 6x2 axles, the agencies considered
NACFE's confidence report on 6x2 axles that identifies a potential benefit of 6x2 axles because they add
stability when operating on slippery roads, and possibly prevent jack-knife conditions.107 Also noted in
the NACFE report, technologies such as load shifting can increase the weight over the drive axle to
improve traction at low speed to alleviate that concern.
Weigh t Reduction
The agencies are not broadening the definition of thermoplastics in the Weight Reduction tables included
in 40 CFR 1037.520. The values in the table are specific to thermoplastics. Manufacturers have the
option to request approval for off-cycle technologies that include weight reduction of components
manufactured out of other types of materials.
Speed Limiters
The agencies considered DOT's upcoming actions with respect to mandatory vehicle speed limiters for
heavy-duty trucks, but could not take it into account in this Phase 2 rulemaking because that rule is not
final yet. The existing Phase 1 VSL flexibilities provide opportunities for manufacturers to account for
the impact of VSLs on reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption, while still allowing the settings to
change after an "expiration" time determined by the manufacturer or to include a soft top. At this time,
we believe that the Phase 1 flexibilities sufficiently balance the desire to encourage technologies that
104 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
105 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
106 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
107 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles. 2014.
Pages 30-33.
-------
reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption while minimizing the compliance burden of trying to
accommodate changes throughout the useful life of the vehicle. Therefore, the agencies are not adopting
any new VSL provisions for Phase 2.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies agree with this
commenter and believe that sufficient incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure
conditions if they are notified that they exist through a TPMS.
Organization: Plastics Industry Trade Association (SPI)
The Impact of Aerodynamics and Fuel Efficiency
Class 8 tractor-trailers, the target of this rule making, can exhibit significant energy savings and better
fuel efficiency by improving aerodynamics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.3]
The main causes of aerodynamic drag of a tractor-trailer, as noted in the draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis, are: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A 1 p.4]
• Stagnation pressures at front end [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.4]
• Turbulent in-flows at the tractor trailer gap [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.4]
• Underside flow; and, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.4]
• Wake at the rear of the trailer [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.4]
Roof fairing of sleeper cabs and day cabs has been shown to reduce stagnation pressure at the front end of
Class 8 vehicles. Computational fluid dynamics modelling in the industry has shown that optimization of
day cab roof fairing designs are possible.7 We encourage the agencies to provide incentive for these types
of innovative technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.4]
3 RIA, p. 3-16.
4 Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics, Evaluation of fuel efficiency
improvements in the heavy-duty vehicle (HDV) sector from improved trailer and tire designs by
application of anew test procedure, Report No. 1-24/2011 Hb-Em 18/11/679 (2011).
7 Pereira, C. et al., Drag Reduction through Optimization of an Aerodynamic Day Cab Roof Fairing, SAE
2015 Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress, October 6-8, 2015, 15CVA-0026 2015-01-2892
PPRES.
Response:
The agencies are adopting Phase 2 tractors standards based on technology packages that include
significant aerodynamic improvements of tractors.
-------
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
V. Automatic Inflation Tire System (ATIS) and Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS)
The NPRM proposes that Class 8 tractors and the trailers towed will include the technology of the
Automatic Tire Inflation System (ATIS) as inputs into the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model P2 vl.O.
The NPRM GEM input for ATIS will provide a 1.0% and 1.5% C02 and fuel consumption (FC)
reduction for the tractor and trailer, respectively. The agencies solicit comment on whether GEM should
also offer a credit for the installation of a Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS). RMA supports a
GEM credit for TPMS systems, similar to the credit being proposed for ATIS systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1304-A1 p.28-29]
In support of this GEM input credit for ATIS, The NPRM references the 2013 North American Council
for Freight Efficiency "Tire Pressure Systems - Confidence Report" which states that tractor-trailers
operating with all tires under-inflated by 10 psi have been shown to increase fuel consumed by up to 1
percent. ATIS and TPMS technologies have evolved since the time of the 2003 Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration "Commercial Vehicle Tire Condition Sensors" report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p.29]
The NPRM states that the ATIS can maintain tire pressure at a single preset level. They eliminate the
need to check tire pressure manually and allow a vehicle to remain in-service despite small air leaks in
one or more of its tires. Constant tire inflation systems have no involvement from the driver. They
automatically sense the pressure in the tires and inflate as necessary when they lose air. However, the
technology of the Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks is
also another viable tool for alerts and maintenance requirements on tire inflation pressure. Properly used
TPMS systems may also achieve equal results as ATI systems. Some modern systems actually notify the
fleet central office if an underinflated tire is not dealt with by the vehicle operator in a timely fashion.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 04-A1 p.29]
In the case of TPMS for light duty vehicle tires, the environmental and safety benefits are well
documented. In 2011, NHTSA conducted a review of the effectiveness of FMVSS 138, which mandates
TPMS systems be installed as original equipment in all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles
and trucks and buses a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and manufactured
on or after September 1, 2007.31 The TPMS system must be capable of detecting any combination of tires
that is/are at least 25 percent underinflated. Prior to the compliance date, some vehicles met the
requirements of FMVSS 138, either voluntarily or according to the phase-in schedule included in FMVSS
138. In its study, NHTSA studied vehicles of model years 2004-2007 and found that the presence of a
TPMS system led to a 55.6 percent reduction in the likelihood that a vehicle would have one tire that is
significantly underinflated (25 percent or greater).32 In addition, NHTSA found TPMS to be effective in
reducing moderate under inflation (at least 10 percent, under 25 percent), which was reduced by 35.3
percent.33 For light trucks and vans, the effectiveness rates were even higher, with TPMS reducing severe
under inflation by 61.2 percent and moderate under inflation by 37.7 percent. NHTSA found that in 2011,
the TPMS systems save $511 million in fuel costs across the vehicle fleet.34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p.29-30]
Anticipated improvements in the incidence of under inflation and fuel savings would likely be greater for
Class 8 trucks than for light duty vehicles. Since most Class 8 tractors and trailers are managed by
professional fleets, tires typically are treated as a valuable commodity and managed as company assets. In
addition, since fuel is the largest single cost for a fleet, conserving fuel can mean significant cost savings.
-------
Due to the larger fuel economy contribution made by tires of Class 8 tractor and trailers, TPMS will spur
action more quickly than by a light duty vehicle owner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.30]
The choice of using the ATIS or TPMS provides the tools to assure tire inflation pressure maintenance
and service requirements beyond the visual and manual tire inspections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p.30]
Providing efficiency benefits to only ATIS technology neglects the benefits of correctly using TPMS. In
addition, both ATIS and TPMS should carry the same benefit in terms of C02 and fuel consumption
reduction. TPMS can also provide the applications to the other Class 2b - 6 medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles encompassed in the proposed Phase 2 fuel efficiency standards, in addition to the overall tire
performances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.30]
In anticipation of the evolution of the TPMS, ATIS, and Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS)
technologies, SAE International developed and published proactively, the first of their kind, three (3)
standards: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.30]
• J2848/l_201004 - Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems - For Medium and Heavy Duty Highway
Vehicles
• J2848/2_201106 - Tire Pressure Systems - Maintenance (ATIS) Type For Medium and Heavy
Duty Highway Vehicles
• J2848/3_201202 - Tire Pressure Systems - Management (CTIS) Type for Medium and Heavy
Duty Highway Vehicles
Recently, the ISO (International Standardization Organization) TC22 Working Group 15 has initiated
development of "ISO 18633 Road Vehicles - Safety enhancement in conjunction with tire inflation
pressure monitoring & automatic tire inflation - Commercial vehicles." Therefore, both ATIS and TPMS
should be considered in the Phase 2 rule and carry the same benefits, i.e. input into the GEM, in terms of
C02 and fuel consumption reduction and offer the industry a choice in the technologies, especially if the
Class 2b - 6 vehicles are included. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.31]
31 Sivinski, Robert (2012). Evaluation of the Effectiveness Of TPMS in Proper Tire Pressure
Maintenance. (Report No. DOT HS 811 681), Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
32 Id. at 13.
33 Id. at 18.
34Jd at 28.
Response:
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
-------
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS. The agencies appreciate the additional studies related to TPMS provided by the
commenter.
Organization: Schneider National Inc.
EPA is suggesting various technologies which, while appropriate in some applications, are inappropriate
on a fleet-wide basis. Among these technologies:
6x2 Axle Configurations. We recognize the benefits of reduced weight and fuel savings which 6x2 axle
configurations may provide. There are, however, a number of issues related to this configuration. Some
relate to cost. For example, this configuration presents issues related to diminished resale value, tire cost
and life. Other issues are less about costs than other impediments. This configuration may not be legally
operated in all jurisdictions. As importantly, it is not appropriate for operation in all geographies as the
configuration provides noticeably less traction than the standard 6x4 axle configuration. While
manufacturers have offered electronic based traction solution, none are as effective as 6x4 axle
configurations in providing traction either in the yard or over the road in inclement conditions. Drivers
who operate in four season geographies strongly prefer 6x4, and the preference is strong enough to impact
driver retention and attraction for hiring. When all costs are considered, the overall cost is unfavorable
except for vehicles which are restricted to southern climates without snow and ice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1201-A1 p.2]
6x2 Axle Configurations. The cost should include loss on resale value, increased tire wear, and cost for
electronic technology to improve traction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1201-A1 p.3]
Auxiliary Power Units CAPUs'). Our entire sleeper fleet is equipped with diesel fired heaters, and electric
APUs are primarily used in southern climates where drivers are required to sleep in extreme temperatures.
The APUs are heavy, expensive, and require significant maintenance. The payback for even the lowest
cost APU is unfavorable for a five year tractor life. While APUs are an appropriate approach when
dealing with vehicles manufactured prior to 2014, they are not appropriate with more recently
manufactured vehicles. Diesel engines produced after 2014 produce a suitable vehicle cab temperature by
idling at very low RPMs, consuming .75 gallon per hour of idle, and produce few emissions. Mandating
APUs in the context of newer vehicles would reduce vehicle payloads, add the cost of a potentially
unreliable APU, and not materially improve air quality or overall energy consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1201-A1 p.2]
APU — An electronic APU will have an initial cost of at least $5,000 plus maintenance of $500/year.
Engine powered APU are 2-3x the electric costs, and must also add maintenance costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1201-A1 p.3]
Wide Base Single Tires ('WBS'). The fleet uses low rolling resistance tires ('LRR') on dual wheels for the
majority of the standard fleet while using wide-based single ('WBS') tires for weight sensitive portions of
the fleet. Regulations should not, in Schneider's estimation, force the use of WBS based solely on rolling
resistance advantages without considering the overall performance. Key disadvantages of WBS tires
include their wear rate and limited recapping capacity as contrasted to dual tires. Broader use of WBS
tires will increase waste, the number of scrapped tire casings and landfill requirements. In addition, WBS
tires increase costs as a result of an increase in required service calls and increased downtime when a flat
tires is experienced, as well as diminished resale value. LRR dual tires are very comparable to WBS tires
-------
in fuel efficiency while providing better overall operating and economic efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1201-A1 p.2-3]
WBS Tires — tire costs must include additional service costs, cost of reduced tire life, increased
replacement tire costs due to recaps not available, and reduced resale value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1201-A1 p.3]
For the reasons stated above, the listed technologies should not be required to be adopted on a fleet-wide
basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1201-A 1 p.3]
Response:
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.108 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.109 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."110
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
With respect to Schneider's comment about the of 6x2 axles in all geographies, the agencies considered
NACFE's confidence report on 6x2 axles that identifies a potential benefit of 6x2 axles because they add
stability when operating on slippery roads, and possibly prevent jack-knife conditions.111 Also noted in
108 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
109 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
110 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
111 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles. 2014.
Pages 30-33.
-------
the NACFE report, technologies such as load shifting can increase the weight over the drive axle to
improve traction at low speed to alleviate that concern.
The agencies considered the maintenance impact of 6x2 axles. As noted in the NACFE Confidence
Report on 6x2 axles, the industry expects an overall reduction in maintenance costs and labor for vehicles
with a 6x2 configuration as compared to a 6x4 configuration.112 Among other savings, the reduction in
number of parts, such as the interaxle drive shaft, will reduce the number of lubrication procedures
needed and reduce the overall quantity of differential fluid needed at change intervals. The agencies have
taken an approach to the maintenance costs for the 6x2 technology where we believe that the overall
impact will to be zero. In addition, the agencies reviewed the NACFE confidence report in terms of
resale value. NACFE found in their surveys that some fleets have experienced no issues with resale of
tractors with 6x2 axles, while other still believe that it may impact resale. NACFE also noted many
believed "that the resale value of 6x2s is rising as the technology is better understood and the industry
becomes better educated on its limitations."113
Idle Reduction Technologies
There is a misconception of the proposed Phase 2 program where stakeholders thought that the agencies
were mandating APUs. This is incorrect. The tractor standards are performance standards. The agencies
merely projected an adoption rate of up to 90 percent for tamper-proof AESS in our analysis for
determining the proposed standard. We did not propose to differentiate between the various idle
reduction technologies in terms of effectiveness and only used the diesel powered APU in terms of
determining the cost and effectiveness. Also, because the standards are performance standards, the
agencies are not mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For
each standard, we developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the
standards, but manufacturers will be free to choose other paths. After consideration of the comments, the
agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle reduction technologies (including diesel
fired heaters and battery powered APUs) and only projected adoption of idle reduction technologies with
adjustable AESS.
The agencies added maintenance costs for diesel powered APUs, battery powered APUs, and diesel fired
heaters into the cost analysis for the final rulemaking, as described in RIA Chapter 7.2.3. We have
estimated the cost of the battery powered APU technology at $6400 retail price. The agencies used a retail
price of a diesel-powered APU to be $8,000 without a DPF and $10,000 with a DPF in the cost analysis
for this final rulemaking.
Wide Base Single Tires
The agencies have not mandated any use of WBS tires in either the NPRM or the final rule. We have
projected technology packages that include lower rolling resistance tires, but at levels that could be
achieved with dual tires.
We expect that, when replaced, the lower rolling resistance tires would be replaced by equivalent
performing tires throughout the vehicle lifetime. As such, the incremental increases in costs for lower
rolling resistance tires would be incurred throughout the vehicle lifetime at intervals consistent with
current tire replacement intervals. A recent study conducted by ATA's Technology and Maintenance
112 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." 2014.
113 Ibid. Page 36.
-------
Council found through surveys of 51 fleets that low rolling resistance tires and wide base single tires
lasted longer than standard tractor tires.114 Due to the uncertainty regarding the life expectancy of the
LRR tires, we conservatively maintained the current tire replacement intervals in our cost analysis.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In addition, the proposed standard trailer that is to be used during coastdown testing is configured in such
a way that it will actually preclude certification to the more stringent aerodynamic "Bins" incorporated
into the Proposed Phase 2 Standards (i.e., Bins V-VII). That, in turn, will preclude "certified" attainment
with many of the assumed improvements in aerodynamics and drag, thereby rendering infeasible one of
the key premises for the proposed Phase 2 fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles. That is a
critical issue, which, in essence, undermines a foundational cornerstone of the Proposed Phase 2
Standards for heavy-duty tractors. Later in these comments, EMA describes the necessary revisions to the
aerodynamic "baseline" and to the process for certifying aerodynamic improvements and accounting for
those improvements in the implementation of the Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.4]
Aerodynamic Baseline, Bins and Stringency
Simply stated, the Proposed Phase 2 Standards assume unachievable aerodynamic performance. Since the
Phase 2 proposal includes adjustments to the aerodynamic test trailer (adding a skirt) and to the
aerodynamic certification process (utilizing wind-averaged drag), the "baseline" drag area coefficient
("CdA") also must be adjusted for Phase 2. As it stands, the assumption in the draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis ("RIA") that all tractors would qualify for Bin III or better in Phase 2 is incorrect. In fact, it
appears that the majority of current tractors may only qualify for Bin II. Even the best anticipated future-
technology "SuperTruck" tractor configurations likely would only qualify for Bin IV or possibly Bin V,
leaving Bins V, VI and VII largely infeasible and unachievable, which stands in stark contrast to the
NPRM's 2027 projected aerodynamic penetration-rate targets of 35% for Bin V, 20% for Bin VI, and 5%
for Bin VII. The agencies' significant over-estimation of the relevant aerodynamic baseline and
performance capabilities must be corrected and accounted for before the agencies finalize any Phase 2
tractor standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.6]
As explained below, the agencies' use of an over-estimated baseline will result in infeasible aerodynamic
standards. For example, EPA and NHTSA assume an average CdA of 6.23 for a "Sleeper High-Roof'
vehicle. The RIA states that "most tractors today would qualify for Bin III with varying degrees of
opportunity to move into improved bins." As support for this assumption, the agencies cite to data from
three sleeper vehicles tested at Southwest Research Institute ("SwRI"). But those vehicles were not
"average" vehicles, as the agencies assert. Rather they were closer to the best vehicle configurations for
each manufacturer. The average configuration is much more likely to fall into Bin II (or even into Bin I)
for Phase 2 based on the agencies' proposed aerodynamic test procedures and new requirements for
utilizing wind-average drag. Indeed, a conversion of the baseline from Phase 1 (CdA of 6.4) to Phase 2
(with wind-average drag and trailer skirts) falls into Phase 2 Bin II. Consequently, the agencies' assumed
baseline of Bin III for Phase 2 is off by a full Bin. This 1-Bin overestimation would necessitate, on
average, an 8.7% improvement in aerodynamic performance just to reach the defined "baseline," which,
in turn, would render it infeasible to meet the more stringent requirements included in the Proposed Phase
2 Standards. Moreover, the Proposed Standards are set based on assumed significant penetrations of Bins
III through VII for the 2021-2027 phase-in period. However, as noted, initial analyses of the performance
114 Truckinginfo. TMC Survey Reveals Misinformed View of Fuel-Efficient Tires. March 2015.
-------
of the best configurations from the "SuperTruck" development program do not show attainment with Bin
VI or Bin VII aerodynamic performance, with the net result being that the proposed aerodynamic targets
are not achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.6-7]
The following figures depict the manner and extent to which the agencies have overestimated the
assumed aerodynamic baseline for "sleeper high-roof' vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.7]
[Figure, 'Sleeper: GHG Phase I to Phase II Baseline Analysis', can be found on p.7 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 ]
In addition, it appears that the agencies have overstated the results obtained from the SwRI testing. As
noted, the tractors that SwRI tested were "best" configurations, not average configurations. Moreover,
while the SwRI report calculated the CdA coastdown results for 3 sleeper tractors as ranging between
5.76-6.37, the agencies have stated those results in the R1A, without any detailed explanation, as ranging
between 5.4-5.6 (Bin III). (See Table 3-21, below). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.8]
[Table, '3-21: Baseline Justification', can be found on p.8 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1]
Other analyses confirm that the upper bins of the proposed aerodynamic standards would not be
attainable. In particular, it appears that Bins V-VII will remain out-of-reach with the proposed Phase 2
test trailer, which will only include the addition of side skirts and so will not facilitate high-end
aerodynamic performance. The detail of this analysis with respect to sleeper-high tractors is shown below.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p. 8]
[Figure, 'Aero Improvements for Sleeper High', can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1]
- Bin VI & Bin VII are unachievable with the Phase 2 trailer [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.9]
- Bin V is only potentially achievable with mirror-less designs (not currently allowed) and is not possible
without the inclusion of a compliance margin [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.9]
The agencies' incorrect assumption that average high-roof vehicles will fall into Bin III instead of Bin II
also will result in the corollary mid- and low-roof vehicles being included in an over-estimated Bin for the
baseline as well. (See Table 5 to Proposed § 1037.520, reproduced below). Accordingly, the necessary
corrections of the agencies' over-estimation of the aerodynamic baseline will need to consider the "Mid"
and "Low" roof baselines as well, in addition to the "Average" for the "High-Roof' baseline. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 10]
[Figure, High and Mid/Low bins, can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1]
[Table 5, 'Bin determinations for Phase 2 Low- and Mid-Roof Tractors Based on Equivalent High-Roof
Tractors', can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1]
In addition, the NPRM asserts that by calendar year 2020 (model year ("MY") 2021 for heavy-duty
vehicles), all new high-roof vehicles will be certified to Phase 1 Bin IV or higher, and low- and mid-roof
-------
vehicles will be in Bin II, corresponding to high-roof Bins III and IV, which essentially would require the
installation of the entire suite of SmartWay-verified technologies. However, EPA's Bin penetration rates
fail to take into account that the Phase 2 wind-averaged drag approach, even when applied to the very best
aerodynamic high-roof vehicles in Phase 1, will push some configurations of those vehicles lower down
in the Bin structure to the bottom of Bin II, if not into Bin I. Those higher aero-drag configurations are the
same ones that will be the high-roof equivalent of low-/mid-roof vehicles operating with flatbed, tanker,
low-boy, or other non-box van trailers. Consequently, the proposed Phase 2 regulation would actually
force those aerodynamic models into low- and mid-roof Bin I. Significantly, and incorrectly, the NPRM
does not include any Bin I penetration in the assessed stringency for those vehicle types. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.11]
For the proposed 2027 stringencies, the agencies are assuming a greater percentage of Bin IV low- and
mid-roof vehicles - 10% - than is expected in the high-roof category - 5%. That is illogical and incorrect.
The low- and mid-roof penetration rates must be concentrated lower down in the Bin structure (with
higher CdA values) than the high-roof Bins, because the low- and mid-roof vehicle configurations cannot
use all of the assumed aerodynamic improvement technologies, such as full-length chassis fairings or side
extenders, and therefore cannot reach the lower CdA values of the better-performing high-roof Bins
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 11]
With respect to day-cab vehicles, the agencies' baseline penetration rates, stringency-setting Bin
penetration rates, and assumptions regarding potential aerodynamic improvements are all dramatically
overestimated. As evidenced by the day-cab aerodynamic CdA chart set forth below for MY2016 day-
cabs, even the day-cab version of the most aerodynamic sleeper-cab models cannot attain Bin IV levels in
Phase 1, let alone Bin V. Day-cabs simply do not have the same aerodynamic enhancement capabilities as
sleeper-cabs. The Phase 2 aerodynamic Bin structure must be amended to reflect this reality. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p. 11]
[Chart, 'Day Cab CdA Values', can be found on p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
Al]
In light of the foregoing, it follows that the day-cab vehicle configurations are impacted even more
severely by the agencies' overestimation of the aerodynamic performance baseline, as depicted below:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p. 14]
[Chart, 'Daycab Baseline Walk Phase 2', can be found on p. 14 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1]
The salient fact is that the day-cab version of even the most aerodynamic vehicle model is still only in Bin
III. Consequently, as depicted below, it is inherently unreasonable for the agencies to assume that day-cab
models will be able to achieve similar improvements in aerodynamic performance as those envisioned for
sleeper-cab models. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 14]
[Chart, 'Aero Improvements for Daycabs', can be found on p. 15 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1]
- Bins V, VI and VII are unachievable for daycabs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 15]
- The Aerodynamic Baseline is significantly off [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 15]
-------
- The agencies' assumed percent reduction for daycabs matches that for sleepers, even though daycabs
have less opportunity for aero improvements [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 15]
- SuperTruck capabilities are sleeper-focused, not daycab-focused [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
P-15]
In sum, the agencies have over-estimated in fundamental ways the potential improvements in vehicle
aerodynamic performance. Consequently, the Proposed Phase 2 Standards are infeasible to the extent that
they have been derived from those fundamental overestimations. The agencies will need to incorporate
correct and significantly revised assessments of aerodynamic performance in any final Phase 2 Standards.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 15]
Aerodynamics
• The assumptions that Class 7 and Class 8 high-roof vehicles will achieve a 35% penetration rate into
Bin V, a 20% penetration rate into Bin VI, and a 5% penetration rate into Bin VII are grossly over-
stated and unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.71]
The assumed aerodynamic performance improvements to be achieved by daycab and mid and low-roof
vehicles are over-estimated by at least one Bin, and so are inherently unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.71]
Automatic Engine Shutdown (AES) Systems
The assumptions that 90% of Class 8 sleeper caps and 90% of long-haul tractor trailers will utilize APUs
to achieve extended idle emission reductions is based on grossly underestimated cost estimates and is
unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.71]
The agencies have confused the use of an APU with the use of locked-idle technologies in assessing the
baseline for the Proposed Phase 2 Standards. Specifically, a 30% penetration rate by APUs is not the
same as a 30% penetration rate by locked-idle systems. The assumed baseline is incorrect in that regard.
In the Phase 2 proposal, EPA has developed technology baselines and adoption rates for AES systems
based on the current rate of auxiliary power units (APUs) installed in vehicles in-use. In that regard, EPA
is correct that approximately 30% of in-use vehicles have APUs installed.4 While virtually all tractors
have an automatic shutdown programmed in their engine, less than 1% of vehicles sold in recent years
have GHG-compliant AES systems (i.e., systems that are triggered in less than five minutes and that
cannot be reprogrammed for 1.259 million miles). Nonetheless, both of those requirements must be met
in order for the AES system to receive full credit under the Phase 1 and Phase 2 GHG/FE programs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p.53]
EPA estimates that 80% of all sleeper-cab vehicles would be required to have the 1.259 million mile-
certified AES systems by 2021 in order to meet the Phase 2 standards. For 20242027, that percentage
increases to 90% of all sleeper-cab vehicles. Those targets, however, are likely unachievable considering
that less than 1% of current sleeper-cab production vehicles include those types of GHG-compliant AES
systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.53]
In addition, many customers do not want 1.259 million-mile AES systems, either because of the short
time at idle before the AES is triggered, or because this technology also requires the use of a diesel or
battery APU in order to avoid unhealthy "hours of service" and to provide acceptable off-duty sleeping
-------
conditions for the driver. In that regard, the direct per-chassis cost of a diesel APU is approximately
$8,500-$10,100 (the cost is even higher, approximately $11,300, for battery/electric APUs), much higher
than the $2,000 per-chassis direct cost that EPA has estimated. Moreover, EPA has vastly underestimated
the financial impact to vehicle owners by averaging the compliance costs (also underestimated, as noted)
across the entire industry. Those estimates do not adequately represent the full costs to individual owners.
While the average cost may be lower than $3,000 per vehicle using the NPRM cost figures, each
individual customer who must purchase an AES/APU system will have to pay the full cost for that system
and cannot average that cost across other vehicles that do not utilize those devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.54]
As noted, nearly all tractors with sleepers utilize an automatic engine shutdown system. That technology
adds benefit, but the requirement to permanently program it to a 5-minute or less shutdown time devalues
the vehicle in the resale market. At the same time, since AES technologies are being used and are
infrequently changed by the first owner, EMA requests that EPA consider partial credit for AES systems
that are programmed to a 5-minute or sooner shutdown, but are not permanently locked against changes
by an owner for the full 1.259 million miles. EMA will work with the agencies to determine the proper
credit value based on the fuel savings associated with such non-tamper-resistant AES systems. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.54]
EMA also urges EPA to reconsider the expected penetration rate of 1.259 million mile AES systems,
based on the number of such systems currently in use and their actual costs, and to establish more realistic
adoption rates with the current baseline and actual full costs in mind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.54]
Assumed Penetration of "6x2" Axles
For example, "6x2" axle systems cannot be implemented as the agencies have assumed, since they are not
allowed in all localities. Local and state laws pertaining to bridge loads, per-axle weights and tire-patch
requirements simply make it impractical to implement "6x2" axle configurations at the rate of penetration
that the agencies have forecast. There are similar impracticalities with respect to the agencies' other
forecasted penetration rates as well. As a result, a three-year pull-ahead of already overstated penetration
rates would only serve to exacerbate the infeasibility of the proposed vehicle program, cause significant
market disruptions, and would result in disproportionately costly and delayed reductions in GHG
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.55
The agencies' assumptions regarding the penetration targets of 6x2 tractors are inconsistent with the laws
in the U.S. and Canada, and would lead to the manufacture of tractors that are unusable in many states
and provinces during inclement weather. Contrary to the agencies' projections, manufacturers forecast a
6x2 penetration rate of less than 5%, which is far below the agencies' assumption of a 60% penetration
rate for Class 8 High-Roof Tractors in 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.62]
In that regard, it is important to remember that going from a 6x4 to a 6x2 tractor configuration is not a
clear-cut decision. There are many factors involved, including concerns about (i) the inherent rapid tire
wear on the drive axle; and (ii) the practical inability to drive 6x2s in six U.S. states - due to the traction
issues, and the limited ability to shift loads onto the drive axle to get enough traction - and in one
province, where 6x2s are prohibited at the weights at which heavy-duty vehicles often operate. (See Map
below depicting 6x2 axle compliance issues). (See also Appended Survey ("Appendix 2") of State and
Provincial Regulations limiting the design and deployment of 6x2 axles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.62]
-------
[Graphic on current status of 6 x 2 & WBS Tire Compliance can be found on p.62 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 ]
• Because heavy-duty vehicles must be designed for cross-country operation in all 50 states and in
Canada, the agencies' use of a 60% penetration rate for a technology that cannot be used in more than
10% of the states and provinces is inherently unreasonable. There are numerous issues that need to be
resolved before 6x2s can be used in any more than a niche segment of the heavy-duty fleet, and the
agencies should not premise regulations on a high penetration rate of a technology that faces such
significant obstacles. Accordingly, until the agencies, in particular NHTSA, create an allowance to
briefly overload a 6x2's drive axle for traction purposes, and the Canadian government allows 6x2s in
all provinces with temporarily shifted weights, the agencies should not predicate any aspect of the
Proposed Phase 2 Standards on anything more than a 5% penetration rate for 6x2s. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.62-63]The assumption that 40% of all Class 7 and 8 vehicles will utilize
automated tire inflation systems lacks any factual basis, overlooks the prevalence of tire inflation
monitoring systems, and is unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p.71]
Response:
Aerodynamics
While the agencies agree with the commenters that it is important to develop an accurate baseline so that
the appropriate aerodynamic technology package effectiveness and costs can be evaluated in determining
the final Phase 2 standards, there appears to be some confusion regarding the NPRM baseline
aerodynamic assessment. The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic
bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards. EPA conducted coastdown
testing of the four major tractor manufacturer's high roof sleeper cab tractors. We tested each in two
configurations - (1) using a Phase 1 standard trailer without skirts and the Phase 1 data analysis approach
and (2) using a Phase 2 standard trailer with skirts and the Phase 2 data analysis approach. The vehicles
that were tested prior to the NPRM were used to develop the aerodynamic bin structure for the Phase 2
NPRM. The aerodynamic performance of the tractors tested by EPA were recalculated for the final rule
using the final aerodynamic test procedures and all of the coastdown testing conducted prior to the final
rule. See RIA Chapter 3.2.1. In both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2
bins such that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into
consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and standard trailers required in Phase 2. The
Phase 2 bins were developed so that tractors that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as
Bin III tractors in Phase 2. See RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2. The baseline aerodynamic value for the Phase 2
final rulemaking was determined in the same manner as the NPRM, using the adoption rates of the bins
used to determine the Phase 1 standards, but reflect the final Phase 2 bin CdA values.
The agencies' assessment is that the best aerodynamic tractor tested by EPA in 2015 achieved Bin IV
performance. This vehicle did not include all of the possible aerodynamic technologies, such as wheel
covers or active aerodynamics like a grill shutter or front air dam. Thus, the agencies' assessment is that
Bin V is achievable with known aerodynamic technologies, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.8.2.2, but
agree with the manufacturers that Bins VI and VII have less known technology paths. However, we are
including Bins VI and VII in the Phase 2 regulations as a potential Phase 2 technology to recognize the
possibility that over the next ten years (until the full implementation of the Phase 2 program) tractor
manufacturers may advance their aerodynamic technologies beyond the Bin V levels projected for the
Phase 2 standards, and to provide a value to be input to GEM should they do so.
-------
In Phase 1, the agencies determined the stringency of the tractor standards through the use of a mix of
aerodynamic bins in the technology packages. For example, we included 10 percent Bin II, 70 percent
Bin III, and 20 percent Bin IV in the high roof sleeper cab tractor standard. The weighted average
aerodynamic performance of this technology package is equivalent to Bin III. 76 FR 57211. In
consideration of the comments, the agencies have adjusted the aerodynamic adoption rate for Class 8 high
roof sleeper cabs used to set the final standards in 2021, 2024, and 2027 MYs (i.e., the degree of
technology adoption on which the stringency of the standard is premised). Upon further analysis of
simulation modeling of a SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the
manufacturers that a SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the Bin V level of CdA,
as discussed above and in RIA Chapter 2.8.2.2. Consequently, the final standards are not premised on
any adoption of Bin VI and VII technologies. Accordingly, we determined the adoption rates in the
technology packages developed for the final rule using a similar approach as Phase 1 - spanning three
aerodynamic bins and not setting adoption rates in the most aerodynamic bin(s) - to reflect that there are
some vehicles whose operation limits the applicability of some aerodynamic technologies. We set the
MY 2027 high roof sleeper cab tractor standards using a technology package that included 20 percent of
Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V reflecting our assessment of the fraction of high roof
sleeper cab tractors that we project could successfully apply these aerodynamic packages with this
amount of lead time. The weighted average of this set of adoption rates is equivalent to a tractor
aerodynamic performance near the border between Bin IV and Bin V. We believe that there is sufficient
lead time to develop aerodynamic tractors that can move the entire high roof sleeper cab aerodynamic
performance to be as good as or better than today's SmartWay designated tractors.
The agencies phased-in the aerodynamic technology adoption rates within the technology packages used
to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that manufacturers can gradually introduce these
technologies. The changes required for Bin V performance reflect the kinds of improvements projected in
the Department of Energy's SuperTruck program. That program has demonstrated tractor-trailers in 2015
with significant aerodynamic technologies. For the final rule, the agencies are projecting that truck
manufacturers will be able to begin implementing some of these aerodynamic technologies on high roof
tractors as early as 2021 MY on a limited scale. For example, in the 2021 MY technology package, the
agencies have assumed that 10 percent of high roof sleeper cabs will have aerodynamics better than
today's best tractors. This phase-in structure is consistent with the normal manner in which
manufacturers introduce new technology to manage limited research and development budgets as well as
to allow them to work with fleets to fully evaluate in-use reliability before a technology is applied fleet-
wide. The agencies believe the phase-in schedule will allow manufacturers to complete these normal
processes. Overall, while the agencies are now projecting slightly less benefit from aerodynamic
improvements than we did in the NPRM, the actual aerodynamic technologies being projected are very
similar to what was projected at the time of NPRM (however, these vehicles fall into Bin V in the final
rule, instead of Bin VI and VII in the NPRM). Importantly, our averaging, banking and trading
provisions provide manufacturers with the flexibility (and incentive) to implement these technologies
over time even though the standard changes in a single step.
With respect to the other tractor subcategories, the agencies recognize that there are tractor applications
that require on/off-road capability and other truck functions which restrict the type of aerodynamic
equipment applicable. We also recognize that these types of trucks spend less time at highway speeds
where aerodynamic technologies have the greatest benefit. The 2002 VIUS data ranks trucks by major
use.115 The heavy trucks usage indicates that up to 35 percent of the trucks may be used in on/off-road
applications or heavier applications. The uses include construction (16 percent), agriculture (12 percent),
waste management (5 percent), and mining (2 percent). Therefore, the agencies analyzed the
115 U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 28-2009. Table 5.7.
-------
technologies to evaluate the potential restrictions that will prevent 100 percent adoption of more advanced
aerodynamic technologies for all of the tractor regulatory subcategories and developed standards with
new penetration rates reflecting that these vehicles spend less time at highway speeds. For the final rule,
the agencies evaluated the certification data to assess how the aerodynamic performance of high roof day
cabs compare to high roof sleeper cabs. In 2014, the high roof day cabs on average are certified to one
bin lower than the high roof sleeper cabs.116 Consistent with the public comments, and the certification
data, the aerodynamic adoption rates used to develop the final Phase 2 standards for the high roof day cab
regulatory subcategories are less aggressive than for the Class 8 sleeper cab high roof tractors. In
addition, the agencies are also accordingly reducing the adoption rates in the highest bins for low and mid
roof tractors to follow the changes made to the high roof subcategories because we neither proposed nor
expect the aerodynamics of a low or mid roof tractor to be better than a high roof tractor.
The agencies also note that we held several discussions with the aerodynamic specialists within the tractor
manufacturers between the NPRM and FRM.117 The primary purposes of these discussions were to
develop robust aerodynamic test procedures and improve the understanding of the aerodynamic bin
development process between all of the involved parties.
Idle Reduction Technologies
In the proposal, the agencies noted that the manufacturers were not using tamper-proof AESS to comply
with the Phase 1 standards so the agencies reverted back to the baseline APU adoption rate of 30 percent
used in the Phase 1 baseline. The agencies received a number of comments regarding this. In response to
these comments, the agencies reassessed the baseline idle reduction adoption rates. The latest NACFE
confidence report found that 9 percent of tractors had auxiliary power units and 96 percent of vehicles are
equipped with adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems.118 Therefore, the agencies are projecting
for the baseline tractor that 9 percent of sleeper cabs will contain an adjustable AESS and APU, while the
other 87 percent will only have an adjustable AESS, and none will have a tamper proof AESS. This is
consistent with the commenter's assessment that "nearly all tractors with sleepers utilize an automatic
engine shutdown system."
While the agencies do not necessarily believe that customer reluctance in the initial years of Phase 1
should be considered insurmountable, we do agree with commenters that the agencies should allow
adjustable AESS to be a technology input to GEM and should differentiate effectiveness based on the idle
reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-
proof and adjustable systems to qualify for some reduction. After consideration of the comments, the
agencies have refined the adoption rates of a new menu of idle reduction technologies and only projected
adoption of idle reduction technologies with adjustable AESS, and none with tamper-proof AESS.
EPA considered the comments and more closely evaluated NHTSA's contracted TetraTech cost report
found the retail price of a diesel-powered APU with a DPF to be $10,000. The agencies used a retail
price of a diesel-powered APU to be $8,000 without a DPF and $10,000 with a DPF in the cost analysis
for this final rulemaking.
116 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. Coefficient of Rolling Resistance and Coefficient of Drag Certification Data for
Tractors. See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
117 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. Aerodynamic Subteam Meetings with EMA. See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827.
118 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Report:Idl- Reduction Solutions. 2014. Page 13.
-------
The comment regarding the "averaging vehicle costs across the industry" versus the vehicle equipped
with a specific device or devices is an interesting take on our analysis. However, in aggregate, the average
cost estimated in our analysis is the best and most meaningful measure of the projected cost of the new
standards. We do not expect that a "maximum" or a "minimum" technology tractor will be built. Instead,
we estimate that, on average, tractors will gradually improve fuel consumption and decrease GHG
emissions such that a variety of prices and performance characteristics will continue to be available. Just
because every vehicle is not "average" does not mean that we are underestimating costs, nor are we
overestimating costs.
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.119 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.120 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."121
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS. Because of this change, the agencies have lowered the adoption rate of ATIS in
the final rule, but added adoption rates of TPMS.
119 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
120 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
121 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
-------
Organization: TireStamp, Inc.
The proposed Phase 2 of the EPA's andNHTSA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards includes only
automatic tire inflation systems as an acceptable technology for maintaining tire inflation pressure in
order to reduce rolling resistance, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMS) have been totally overlooked. This is most likely because the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency have only tested
and/or considered first generation TPMS that were developed over 25 years ago. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1255-A1 p.l]
These older TPMS provide in-cab displays that alert the driver of tire problems when they occur, but no
one else is advised. This is a problem for commercial fleets since drivers are paid to deliver goods and
most drivers are not interested in being tire technicians as well. If left to their own devices without
instruction from their company's dispatch office, most drivers will not care that a tire problem exists until
they get to their final destinations, if then. Since maintenance was only infrequently advised of a problem
by the driver, commercial fleets did not purchase these systems since their benefits were minimal. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-125 5-A1 p.l]
However, in the past 5-10 years there has been an incredible move to integrate electronic TPMS with
telematics in order to provide fleet managers and technicians with visibility of their tires 24/7 even when
they are hundreds of miles away. These systems analyze tire data for all the tires in the fleet and deliver
insightful reports, actionable work orders, and immediate tire alerts that empower fleet management,
technicians, and outsourced tire service providers to proactively improve tire maintenance rather than
simply react to tire alerts. They form the basis of any good tire maintenance program by enabling fleets
to measure as well as verify tire maintenance performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1255-A1 p.l]
Today's second generation TPMS alerts are e-mailed or texted to anyone the fleet designates who has
Internet connectivity on their smartphones, tablets, laptops or desktop computers. Alerts contain much
more information than is possible with first generation TPMS such as vehicle location, tractor or trailer
the vehicle is hooked to, a description of the alert condition, its severity, and even instructions for
properly resolving the issue. Some second generation TPMS products also provide the temperature and
pressure of all the other tires on the vehicle, so that the technician can be proactive and adjust pressures
on any other tires that haven't triggered an alert but are a few psi off from their target pressure. An
example of an alert is to the right. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1255-A1 p. 1-2]
If alerts are not cleared right away, technicians can receive a "work order" report that provides a listing of
all the vehicles at or near their location that have alert conditions and instructions for resolving their
issues. If scheduled to be run in the early morning, technicians can print off this report and address tire
problems before the vehicles get on the road thereby preventing tires from running improperly inflated or
overheated and reducing enroute, tire-related breakdowns as well. Below is an example of one such
report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1255-A1 p.2]
[Example of Active Issues Report can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1255-A1]
[Example of Daily Service History Report can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1255-A1]
With the information these advanced systems provide, fleet managers can now verify that maintenance
was needed and was performed properly by both their in-house technicians and outsourced tire service
-------
providers. The example of the Daily Service History Report shown below lists alerts that were closed
and provides the tire condition (temperature or pressure) of the tire before and after service was
performed. It also provides the name of the technician, if known, and the location at which the service
was performed. With this report the fleet manager can verify that the tire service was needed, performed
to the fleet's specifications, and hold people accountable if the service was less than satisfactory. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-125 5-A1 p.2-3]
Tire pressure monitoring systems that are integrated with telematics also are able to provide fleet
management with the tools they need to measure and monitor their tire maintenance programs. Since tire
data is stored in a database, these systems can provide a snapshot of the state of tire pressures across the
entire fleet. Managers can monitor alert response times in both time and mileage and get at a glance an
idea of the vehicles types that are prone to overheating issues. An example of such a report is below:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1255 -A 1 p.3]
[Example of Fleet Management Survey can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1255-A1]
As can be clearly seen, TPMS integrated with telematics is not your father's tire pressure monitoring
system. These systems provide visibility and information that are just not possible with TPMS 1.0
systems. They help fleets ensure that tires are run at their optimal inflation pressures for a much greater
percentage of time. And yes, while someone still has to connect an inflation hose to the tire, now many
people know it has to be done while in days gone by only the non-communicative driver knew. Today,
with the high cost of tires, the need to conserve fuel, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fleets are
motivated to address tire problems as soon as they can and this technology helps them to do just that.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1255 -A 1 p.3]
It should be noted that while automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS) provide pressure to tires that are
losing air while the trailer runs down the road, there are some distinct disadvantages to them that by
pairing second generation TPMS with them can be resolved. The first issue is that when a tire problem
occurs on a trailer equipped with ATIS, only the driver is aware that the system is working to pump air to
the tire. If he does not inform his vehicle maintenance department or take steps on his own to address the
tire issue, no one else knows there is a tire issue. When the trailer is dropped, the tire goes flat until the
next driver hooks up to the trailer. As she drives off with the trailer she may notice the light goes on
indicating the system is working pumping air to the tire. However, she continues to drive since she
knows the ATIS will inflate the tire again. Unfortunately, the tire is dragged flat/underinflated for many
miles until it is fully inflated again. With this scenario repeating many times, when the tire is finally
removed from the vehicle for low tread depth, the casing is ruined and cannot be retreaded or the tire may
fail prematurely from a separation caused by continuing to inflate a punctured tire. This can be avoided by
having a TPMS integrated with telematics advise fleet personnel of tire problems. In addition, second
generation TPMS will also advise the fleet of the wheel position of the problem tire(s). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1255-A1 p.3-4]
It should be noted that automatic tire inflation systems plumbed through the axle are currently available
only for trailers. ATIS for trucks, tractors, and buses must be plumbed externally. Due to their high
maintenance and propensity for damage, they are not of interest to U.S. fleets. Advanced TPMS
integrated with telematics are ideal for these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1255-A1 p.4]
There are several TPMS companies that have either partnered with telematics service providers to
transmit tire alerts and data off the vehicle or that have built telematics into their own TPMS
products. The world is rapidly adopting telematics to improve safety, performance, and the
-------
environment. TPMS integrated with telematics does all of these things and should be included in the
Phase 2 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1255-A1 p.4] Note: Second generation
TPMS integrated with telematics are also referred to as TPMS 2.0 systems. For more information on the
capabilities of these systems, see: www.TPMS2.com [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1255-A1 p.4]
Response:
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allows
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS, especially when linked with telematics. The agencies appreciate the information
related to the latest generation of TPMS provided by the commenter.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Stringency is based on a 60% Penetration of 6x2 Drive Axle Type in 2027. There are many complications
to such a high penetration of 6x2 drive axle types, most of which are outside of the control of the OEMs,
the agencies, the lessor and the customer/lessee. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.5]
The Agencies' Low Rolling Resistance Tire Assumptions Do Not Reflect Customers' Real-World Needs.
While it is true that low rolling resistance tires are currently offered in different configurations (id. at
40216), the agencies merely assume that customers will continue to demand higher performing low
rolling resistance tires in the future. Id. at 40221 ("the agencies expect that tire manufacturers will
continue to respond to demand for more efficient tires and will offer increasing numbers of tire models
with rolling resistance values significantly better than today's typical... tires"). That is little more than a
guess about future consumer behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.5]
The Agencies Rely Upon Erroneous Assumptions of Market Penetration of Automatic Engine Shutdown
Systems. The agencies estimate that 30% of the tractors in the market today already have GHG-compliant
automatic engine shutdown systems (AES). Id. at 40219. That assumption is false. While most tractors do
have automatic shutdowns activated on the vehicles, there are very few trucks on the road in the United
States with AES options that are compliant to the regulation. The systems today allow owners to
reprogram the engine to shut down after longer idling periods than the required five minutes so that
different applications and seasons can be properly dealt with. The 30% number that the agencies cite
could be accurate for the number of vehicles with APUs but that does not mean the vehicle automatic
shutdown system is compliant. These regulated systems are seen by the industry as detrimental to fleet
operational flexibilities and they hurt the resale market value of a vehicle if they cannot be reprogrammed
by the second owner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.5]
Response:
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
-------
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.122 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.123 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."124
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1
certification data. We found steer tires with rolling resistance as low as 4.9 and drive tires with as low as
5.1 kg/ton. The average tire rolling resistance that we used in the technology packages to derive the final
rule standards are higher than the lowest rolling resistance tires made today, so the technology is feasible.
With respect to the comment about assuming that customers will continue to demand low rolling
resistance tires, we set performance-based standards that allow the manufacturers to produce a wide
variety of products.
We also note that during the certification data analysis, we found that the drive tires on low and mid roof
tractors on average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling resistance than the high roof sleeper cabs. We
found less of a difference in rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor subcategories. Based
on comments received and further consideration of our own analysis of the difference in tire rolling
resistance levels that exist today in the certification data, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards
using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for low and mid roof tractors than
the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards. The agencies phased-in the low rolling resistance
tire adoption rates within the technology packages used to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so
that manufacturers can gradually introduce these technologies.
Idle Reduction Technologies
In the proposal, the agencies noted that the manufacturers were not using tamper-proof AESS to comply
with the Phase 1 standards so the agencies reverted back to the baseline APU adoption rate of 30 percent
122 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
123 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
124 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
-------
used in the Phase 1 baseline. The agencies received a number of comments regarding this. In response to
these comments, the agencies reassessed the baseline idle reduction adoption rates. The latest NACFE
confidence report found that 9 percent of tractors had auxiliary power units and 96 percent of vehicles are
equipped with adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems.125 Therefore, the agencies are projecting
for the Phase 2 baseline that 9 percent of sleeper cabs will contain an adjustable AESS and APU, while
the other 87 percent will only have an adjustable AESS for consideration in the baseline, and none will
have a tamper-proof AESS.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
TRACTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS
The agencies' estimate of vehicle improvements to the tractor is largely in agreement with our estimate of
the performance feasible within the timeframe of the rule, with the notable exception of improvements to
the powertrain. There are two central issues that will lead to a more stringent tractor standard: 1)
powertrain integration; and 2) an improved tractor engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 11]
POWERTRAIN TESTING
The agencies have chosen to exclude powertrain integration from tractor-trailers, despite noting its strong
effectiveness in the vocational vehicle sector. While the duty cycles of tractor-trailer contain significantly
less transient operation than vocational vehicles that does not mean powertrain integration is not
applicable. In fact, the SmartAdvantage powertrain from Cummins and Eaton that the agencies cite in the
vocational section to justify the powertrain integration is designed for tractor-trailers. For this reason, it is
a surprising omissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 11]
As much as 1.3- to 2.0-percent savings from tractor-trailers could be added to the current stringency to
reflect the true potential from tractor-trailers—this would further incentivize tractor manufacturers to
invest in powertrain optimization, particularly since every major manufacturer already offers at least one
"integrated powertrain" option in its long-haul fleet. The agencies' "alternative engine mapping"
procedure is another approach that could better capture transient operation and ensure that the regulations
reward real-world operational benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 12]
IMPROVED TRACTOR ENGINE
An increase in the engine stringency as outlined above will lead to reductions in fiiel usage and emissions
from the vehicle itself; however, due to differences in test cycle and the agencies' assumptions between
the separate engine and vehicle standards, this relationship is not a one-to-one correlation (i.e., a 10.3-
percent increase in engine stringency will not directly lead to a 10.3-percent increase in vehicle
stringency). Table 3 illustrates the additional improvements to the vehicle we would expect to see based
upon the engine improvements outlined in the sections titled Tractor Engine Standards and Powertrain
testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1329-A2 p. 12]
[Table 3, 'Powertrain-related Vehicle Improvements', can be found on p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2]
125 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Report:Idl- Reduction Solutions. 2014. Page 13.
-------
In particular, the change to the SET cycle that led to improvements on the engine standard will not result
in any additional reductions to the fuel consumption or emissions of a vehicle modeled in GEM due to the
direct incorporation of the engine map—therefore, we have omitted it as a source of further vehicle
reductions. Downspeeding, on the other hand, is only partially captured in the vehicle simulation as it
stands currently, since we are proposing a greater level of downspeeding greater than the 16 percent
assumed by the agencies—the improvement assessed in Table 3 is calculated by comparing
Downspeeding A and B technologies (see Reinhart 2015), since Downspeeding A is the result of 16
percent beyond the baseline DDI 5 engine, in concert with the agencies' estimated level of future
downspeeding. The other engine improvements are generally applicable across the entire tractor-trailer
fleet, with the exception of organic waste heat recovery. While we believe that waste heat recovery is
broadly applicable to a range of duty cycles, including regional haul or day cabs, the agencies' assumed
penetration rates do not reflect this assumption. Therefore, we have assumed that improvements to waste
heat recovery will be reflected only in the sleeper cab fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 12-
13]
OVERALL INCREASE IN TRACTOR EFFICIENCY
Combining the assessment of engine technologies beyond the agencies' appraisal in the RIA and the use
of powertrain testing for long-haul tractors, we estimated an additional 6-percent improvement by 2024
and 7-percent improvement by 2027 from tractor-trailers (Table 3). In calculating this improvement, we
have applied the engine improvements as described above and have applied powertrain testing to only 70
percent (35 percent) of the fleet in 2027 (2024), similar to the fractions applicable in the vocational fleet.
As mentioned earlier, though the incremental improvement may not be as great for tractor-trailers, the
overall reductions in fuel usage will be similar due to increased vehicle mileage, so we would expect a
similarly high uptake of integrated powertrains by 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 13]
Reinhart, T.E. 2015a. Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study -
report #1. (Report no. DOT HS 812 146) Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Online at http ://www.nhtsa. gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/812146-
CommercialMDHD-TruckFuelEfficiencvTechStudv%E2%80%93Reportl.pdf.
Response:
Powertrain Testing
The agencies acknowledge UCS's comment about increasing the stringency of the tractor program due to
the opportunity to further improve powertrain optimization through powertrain testing. For the Phase 2
final rule, we have made several changes that capture much of the improvement potential highlighted by
UCS. First, the required use of a cycle average fuel map in lieu of a steady state fuel map for evaluating
the transient cycle in GEM will recognize improvements to transient fuel control of the engine. The
agencies are including the impact of improved transient fuel control in the engine fuel maps used to
derive the final standards. Second, the optional transmission efficiency test will recognize the benefits of
improved gear efficiencies. The agencies have built some improvements in transmission gear efficiency
into the technology package used to derive the final standards. This leaves only the optimization of the
transmission shift strategy, which would need to be captured on a powertrain test. The agencies believe
that the opportunity of shift strategy optimization is less for tractors than for vocational vehicles because a
significant portion of the tractor drive cycles are at highway speeds with limited transmission shifting.
Therefore, we have not included the powertrain optimization portion only recognized through powertrain
testing into the standard setting for the final rule.
-------
Engines
The Phase 2 engine standards will lead each manufacturer to achieve reductions of 5 percent in 2027 MY.
For the final Phase 2 rule, we recognize that it could be possible to achieve greater reductions than those
included in the engine standard by designing entirely new engine platforms. Unlike existing platforms,
which are limited with respect to peak cylinder pressures (precluding certain efficiency improvements),
new platforms can be designed to have higher cylinder pressure than today's engines. New designs are
also better able to incorporate recent improvements in materials and manufacturing, as well as other
technological developments. Considered together, it is possible that a new engine platform could be 6
percent more efficient without WHR than Phase 1 engines and 8 percent more efficient than Phase 1 if 50
percent of these engines have WHR. We project that by the 2024 MY, a limited number of engine
platforms will be redesigned, and therefore have pulled ahead the reduction expected from the proposed
2027 MY engine standards into the vehicle standards for 2024 MY. In addition, we project that 50
percent of tractor engines in 2027 MY will be redesigned engines (i.e. engines reflecting redesigned
engine platforms, again based on existing engine platform redesign schedules within the industry)
achieving a 6 percent reduction for day cabs and an 8 percent reduction in fuel consumption in sleeper
cabs beyond Phase 1. This means the average 2027 MY tractor engine would be 5.4 and 6.4 percent
better than Phase 1 for day and sleeper cabs respectively. We have factored these levels into our analysis
of the vehicle efficiency levels that will be achievable in MY 2027. These additional engine
improvements make more stringent vehicle standards feasible, and the final standards are structured so
that these improved engines are not able to generate windfall credits, but rather that their projected
performance is reflected in the stringency of the final tractor vehicle standard. We project all vehicle
manufacturers will be able to use new platform engines for some of their vehicles. Nevertheless, some
may choose not to for business reasons, even though it may be the most cost-effective path. We project
that manufacturers that do not achieve this level of engine reduction would be able to make up the
difference by applying one of the many other available and cost-effective tractor technologies to a greater
extent or more effectively, so that there are multiple technology paths for meeting the final standards.. In
other words, a manufacturer that does not invest in updating engine platforms in the Phase 2 time frame
(i.e. does not have a scheduled redesign within the Phase 2 period) is likely to be able to invest in
improving other vehicle technologies. These reductions will show up in the fuel maps used in GEM to set
the Phase 2 tractor stringencies.
Overall Increase in Tractor Stringency
The agencies considered all of the comments associated with the tractor technologies. We believe there is
merit in many of the detailed comments received regarding technologies. The agencies have developed a
set of final tractor standards that reflect our reevaluation of the ability to pull ahead certain technologies,
the limitations in adoption rates and/or effectiveness of other technologies, and consideration of additional
technologies. In general, the final Phase 2 tractor standards are similar in overall stringency as the levels
proposed in Alternative 3, but have been determined using new technology packages that reflect
consideration of all of the technology comments, and in several respects reflect greater stringency than the
proposed Alternative 3.
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems should be Given Credit under the Rule
UPS fully supports ATA's position repeated below on this issue. As noted above, UPS prefers TPMS over
automatic systems because we are alerted that there is a problem that we can fix. UPS makes heavy use of
telematics and the TPMS is compatible with telematics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.9]
-------
'TPMS have not historically been included in the EPA's SmartWay program since the agency had no way
to determine the effect these systems have on fuel economy unless each requesting fleet provided a clear
description of how it would respond to alerts. This information was necessary so that the EPA could
calculate the resulting fuel savings. However, much has transpired since the inception of the SmartWay
Program. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ('FMCSA') has studied TPMS since 2006. It
found that these systems accurately reported inflation pressure values within 2 to 3 psi of the measured
value and accurately warned of low pressure within 2 to 3 psi of the expected threshold. In 2007, the
performance and durability of TPMS was examined in a field test using transit buses. This study found
that TPMS-equipped buses did not experience increased average tire pressure due to diligent tire pressure
maintenance and the location of the TP 1 VIS display is essential to impact tire maintenance practices, fuel
economy, and tire life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.9]
'In late 2011 the FMCSA published the results of a field test it conducted over the previous 24 months of
tire pressure monitoring and ATISs on two fleets that were considered to have good tire maintenance. The
test revealed that both TPMS and ATISs delivered a 1.4% improvement in fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.9]
'Technology has greatly advanced since the tests that FMCSA conducted. Today, TPMS is much more
advanced than the first generation of TPMS that was tested by FMCSA which just delivers alerts to the
driver in the cab through an in-cab display. Second generation TPMS (TPMS 2.0 systems) are integrated
with telematics and GPS so that the tire data and alerts are sent from vehicles and delivered to a fleet's
Operations and Vehicle Maintenance Department. By providing the fleet with the location and visibility
of its tire problems, dispatch can provide instructions to the driver to handle developing tire problems
immediately and Maintenance is aware of the exact nature of these issues when the vehicle arrives at the
fleet's location. With the reports these systems provide the fleet, problem tires are ensured to be attended
to before the vehicle sets out on its next trip, thereby dramatically reducing enroute breakdowns and
optimizing the percentage of time tires are run properly inflated. In essence, a fleet is able to build its
entire tire maintenance program around this technology and drastically improve its ongoing tire inflation
maintenance. Therefore this technology has an even greater effect on fuel consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions than TPMS 1.0 systems which were proven to deliver 1.4% improvement in fuel economy
by the FMCSA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.9]
'Due to the advances that have been made in TPMS 2.0 systems and the impact they have on fuel
economy and greenhouse gas emissions, the Tire & Wheel (S.2) Study Group of ATAs Technology and
Maintenance Council ('TMC') requests that TPMS 2.0 systems, tire pressure monitoring systems that are
integrated with telematics, be included in the technology options provided under Phase 2. Without
inclusion of this technology, there will be no system available in the TMC standard to address tire
inflation pressure for powered vehicles since ATISs that are plumbed inside an axle (a market
requirement by US fleets) are currently only available for trailers and an advanced technology that can
seriously impact GFIG emissions will be overlooked.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.9-10]
The specific market penetration rates that concern UPS, given our particular fleet, are listed below and
UPS strongly recommends reduction of these MPRs: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.4]
Tire Inflation Systems (40% in 2024)
Phase 2 only permits the use of ATISs as the solution for tire pressure maintenance. Yet, tire pressure
monitoring systems ('TPMSs') provide similar benefits of tire inflation systems at a lower cost. In fact
UPS in its considerable experience prefers TPMSs over ATISs for two reasons in addition to lower costs.
First, TPMSs give the truck owner an affirmative indication that there is a tire pressure problem, so it can
-------
be fixed, whereas the ATIS does not. Second, the ATIS simply keeps adding tire pressure automatically,
wasting energy, and the truck owner may never know it. This is the flip side of the concern of some that
TPMSs require user interaction — user interaction ensures the truck owner can address the underlying
problem. We support ATA's comments on tire inflation systems: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1
p.4]
A recent study on truck and tire inflation systems indicates that both ATISs and TPMSs are being utilized
in fleet operations.1 As of 2012, approximately 33% and 10% of surveyed fleets utilize ATISs and TPMSs
respectively on their trailers. Roughly 1% of tractors used ATISs. Operators are well aware of the
increased fuel consumption, maintenance costs, downtime, and safety concerns associated with operating
heavy-duty vehicle with under-inflated tires. These concerns over time have been significant given the
historic volatility of diesel prices, the competitive nature of the industry, shipper pressures to reduce costs,
and the rising costs of liability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.4-5]
'The agencies do not acknowledge TPMSs as a viable menu option since they require user interaction to
inflate tires to appropriate pressures. A misguided assumption is that drivers 'may' continue to operate a
vehicle with underinflated tires. However, in light of continual pressures on fleets to reduce total costs of
operation in order to remain competitive and profitable, the agencies should reconsider their rejection of
TPMSs as a viable technology option under the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.5]
'Given the ability of fleets to monitor fuel consumption remotely, including the ability to identify causes
for increased fuel consumption, drivers are routinely held responsible for proper tire pressure levels on
TPMS-equipped vehicles. ATA therefore believes that the agencies should provide efficiency credit for
TPMS use under the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.5]
Therefore, UPS strongly recommends that under the final rule the truck purchaser should have a
choice between ATISs and TPMSs, and that the assumed MPR be higher for TPMSs than for
ATISs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.5]
Errors in EPA's Baseline and Testing Protocols Result in Overly-Stringent Standards
As ATA points out in its comments, the proposed emission standards are actually more stringent than
EPA has indicated. An overly stringent regulation can have several unintended consequences. It could
force OEMs to offer a truck optimized for the EPA duty cycles rather than a customer's requirements,
which could actually increase fuel consumption and GI-IG emissions, or render the truck inadequate for
its intended use. If OEMs cannot provide the trucks that a customer needs, the customer has no choice but
to continue using its existing trucks. From UPS's vantage point and the fleet we use, the actual stringency
in the proposed rule is greater than what EPA has indicated due to the following error in EPA's baselines
and testing protocols: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.8]
The assumed 2017 aero baseline uses the best aero trucks available, not the average. This has the effect of
increasing stringency about 2.5%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.8]
Aerodynamic and tire power losses for tractor-van trailer combination8
UPS endorses ATA's recommendations in their comments: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 11]
-------
1 Tire Pressure Systems Confidence Report, North American Council for Freight Efficiency (August
2013).
8 National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing
the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, (2010).
Response:
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allow
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). This reflects a change from the
Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The agencies believe that sufficient
incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions if they are notified that they
exist through a TPMS.
Please see the agencies' responses to ATA's comments in this Section 4.3 of the response to comments.
Organization: Volvo Group
We find a number of the technology assumptions in the NPRM are not justified because the technology is
not demonstrated, does not deliver the assumed efficiency, or cannot be forced into the market at the
agencies' assumed penetration rates. These include aerodynamic drag reduction, start/stop technology,
neutral idle, low rolling resistance tires, 6x2 axles, new transmissions, idle shutdown, vehicle speed
limiters, hybridization, "deep integration" of driveline, and vehicle weight reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.19
Baseline Errors Increase Effective Stringency
While the agencies have stated their target efficiency improvement ranges up to 24% over the 2017
baseline for high-rise sleepers, there are significant errors in the baseline from which these targets are
established. Two key issues are the assumption that 30% of 2017 sleeper tractors will utilize the
regulatory automatic engine shutdown (AES) and the baseline aerodynamic assumptions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 19
As of now, nearly two years into mandatory application of the Phase 1 rule, virtually no truck purchaser
has been willing to take the AES, nor is there any reason they would ever opt to do so. All tractors come
with customer programmable idle shutdown timers. Truck owners program the idle shutdown to suit the
needs of their operation while minimizing idle fuel consumption where possible. The regulatory
requirement requires locking the timer to shut down after 5 minutes of idling, eliminating the flexibility to
set the function to match operational needs or to change it for a second owner. Many fleets use fuel fired
heaters to avoid idling in colder weather but choose to idle when cooling is required. Even if a truck is
equipped with an APU for hotel operation, an owner may want to enable idling if the APU is not
functioning properly, until it can be repaired, thus avoiding a mission disabling failure. Given this
situation, it is unreasonable to predict that somehow 30% of purchasers would suddenly opt for the
regulatory AES. Since AES is given a 5% GHG/efficiency credit, this faulty assumption amounts to a
1.5% lower baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 19]
-------
Similarly, there is a fundamental error in the way the aerodynamic drag baseline for 2017 tractors was
established. As noted in the EMA comments, the agencies evaluated some of the best aerodynamic
tractors available and declared these to be the baseline. In fact, the average tractor, the true baseline, is a
full bin worse than these best tractors. This error result in baseline fuel consumption and GHG emissions
approximately 4.5% better (lower) than the actual baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 19]
Together, these two errors add an additional 6% in efficiency that that does not exist, and accordingly
would have to be obtained through other measures beyond the agencies' projected technologies (if even
possible) to achieve the Phase 2 targets. This huge, erroneously calculated and infeasible increase in
stringency has not been accounted for in any of the agencies' technology assumptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.19]
Aerodynamic Drag Targets
As noted in comments by the EMA, it is impossible to achieve the targeted aerodynamic drag reductions
that ultimately are predicated on 60% of tractors achieving aero bins V, VI, and VII. Our analysis
indicates it is physically impossible to achieve these low drag levels with any tractor design coupled to
the non-aerodynamic test trailer prescribed in this proposal. In fact, all examples provided in the RIA of
combination vehicles that can achieve the targets include a highly aerodynamic trailer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.20]
Either the agencies must reduce the aerodynamic targets for tractors or provide for a test trailer with
advanced aerodynamics, including, at a minimum, an efficient boat-tail and side skirts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.20]
SuperTruck Efficiency is not an Appropriate Target
Although the U.S. Department of Energy's SuperTruck program is an outstanding freight efficiency
research program, some now argue that the results demonstrate capability to regulate to that level of
increased freight efficiency. There are several issues with this supposition. The SuperTruck demonstration
vehicles are after all "demonstration vehicles" - the technology is demonstrated but far from proven in
terms of cost, reliability, durability, and broad applicability. Each project was funded at $40 to $80
million, so technology cost-effectiveness was not a requirement. These trucks were designed for, and
demonstrated on, carefully selected routes that enhance their performance. Much of the demonstrated
SuperTruck improvement was achieved by careful matching of tractor and trailer aerodynamics. No
manufacturer has control of this because tractors and trailers are manufactured by different companies and
purchased separately by truck fleets and shippers. In fact, the proposed Phase 2 regulatory test trailer has
very limited aerodynamic features, with only side skirts but no other aerodynamic features. This severely
limits the potential efficiency of the tractor-trailer combination. In fact, Volvo Group analysis determined
that even though our complete SuperTruck combination could achieve aero bin VII, our SuperTruck
tractor, coupled with the Phase 2 test trailer, could only achieve bin IV out of the seven Phase 2 aero bins,
even though regulators ultimately expect 60% of tractors to achieve bins V, VI, or VII. Even an extremely
sleek tractor coupled with a rectangular shaped box trailer cannot achieve the performance required to
reach the proposed aerodynamic targets. The test trailer should represent an advanced aerodynamic design
that meets the 2027 trailer targets so that future tractors are designed to operate efficiently with future
trailers and the combinations can achieve the desired aerodynamic performance. Consequently, with
tractors in the fleets that have been optimized for peak performance on the most aerodynamic trailers, the
market pull (combined with trailer efficiency regulations) for those most aerodynamic trailers will follow,
accelerating efficiency gains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.26-27]
-------
[Table, 'Bin determination for Phase 2 High-Roof Tractors Based on Aerodynamic Test Results', can be
found on p.27 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-A1]
Aerodynamic improvements expected to achieve tractor standards are infeasible in the context of
the proposed rule and must not be factored into stringency expectations unless the issues are
corrected.
As previously noted, even SuperTruck cannot achieve the expected aerodynamic targets. In fact, it is
infeasible or impossible to design a tractor with drag results that will achieve bins V, VI, or VII when
tested according to the proposal. Section 2.4.2.2.3 of the RIA supposedly provides examples of feasible
tractor aerodynamic improvements that are, in fact, completely infeasible due to operational and
regulatory constraints (e.g. exceeding length laws) and that are tested and analyzed with a highly
aerodynamic trailer rather than the standard regulatory trailer. Inability to achieve the targets is caused by
a number of issues with the proposal: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 P.27]
• The baseline aero tractors are the best available, not the average expected during 2017.
• The proposed audit process for tractor aero performance eliminates the "one bin" compliance
margin granted in the Phase 1 rule, ignoring the tremendous variability of aerodynamic
measurements and the differences between possible audit methods. This requires conservative
binning to ensure passing an audit.
• The aerodynamic coast-down test procedure fails to account for yaw during the test, increasing
the measured drag test result. This means the aerodynamic performance is under-reported as an
input to GEM.
• The aerodynamic coast-down test procedure assumes rolling resistance is a constant independent
of vehicle speed. In fact, rolling resistance increases substantially with speed. This results in
overestimating the vehicle drag force during the testing.
• The test trailer required by the proposal has minimal aerodynamic features. This greatly limits
what can be physically achieved by tractor treatments. In fact, the expectation of advanced
aerodynamic performance is predicated in the RIA on examples deploying highly aerodynamic
trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 P.28]
All of these issues are explained more fully in comments submitted by the Truck and Engine
Manufacturers. In addition, the four major US tractor manufacturers have provided a detailed proposal to
EPA to resolve these issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 P.28]
Tires
In the technology packages anticipated to set Phase 2 stringency levels, the agencies have further relied
on unreasonable expectations for lower rolling resistance tires in all regulatory subcategories. Tire
manufacturers have continued to claim that they are able to balance tire life, safety, and traction concerns;
however, as the agencies have noted in the Regulatory Impact Analysis section 2.4.3.1, tires with higher
rolling resistance are likely designed to address only some of these concerns. We continue to hear
customer feedback that low rolling resistance tires often lack adequate traction. The reality is that many of
the features that provide for traction, especially deep lugs and pliable sidewalls, also create high rolling
resistance, but without these features many customers are finding that attaining adequate traction is nearly
impossible under many of the demanding conditions that trucks and tractors experience, such as snow and
off-road. Customers have stated that, in some cases, they are being pushed into low rolling resistance tires
at the point of sale only to be left with no choice but to replace the tires with higher rolling resistance,
traction tires immediately after taking delivery of the new vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
P-21]
-------
In addition, heavy-duty fleets expect to retread tires as many as five times and have concerns that tire
casing durability may be compromised with low rolling resistance (LRR) tires. Retreading saves cost and
about two thirds of the oil required to produce a new tire (reported to be between 22 and 44 gallons
depending on tire size). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.21]
With respect to highway tractor and heavy-haul tractor penetration and stringency setting the agencies
show penetration of Level 3 tires starting in MY 2021. It is unclear how this can be possible given the
agencies own determination that this technology "could" be achieved only in the 2025 timeframe. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.22]
Tire Inflation
In setting vehicle stringencies, the agencies have predicated the standards for tractors on adoption of
Automatic Tire Inflation Systems (ATIS), while giving no consideration to Tire Pressure Monitoring
Systems (TPMS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23]
All commercial vehicle operators are well aware of the increased fuel consumption, maintenance costs,
downtime, and safety concerns associated with operating a heavy vehicle with under-inflated tires. These
concerns have been much more significant given the volatile diesel prices, the pricing pressure on fleets
due to an unstable economy and consolidation within the industry, the continued ratcheting of safety
regulations, and the rising costs of liability, all within the last decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.23]
In Section 2.4.3.3 of the RIA the agencies noted that "although most fleets understand the importance of
keeping tires inflated, it is likely that a substantial proportion of trucks on the road have one or more
underinflated tires." Their evidence of this assertion are two studies, one industry survey conducted by
checking pressures at a truck stop in 2002, and another study conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) in 2003. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.23]]
The agencies have based their lack of credit provisions for TPMS on this outdated data, as well as their
assertion that TPMS requires user interaction to re-inflate a tire to the appropriate pressure and therefore a
driver "may" continue to operate a vehicle with underinflated tires, even to their final destination.
However, in light of continually increasing pressures on fleets to reduce total costs of operation in order
to be profitable, Volvo Group disagrees that two studies dating from 12 to 13 years in the past are truly
relevant in the decision making process of today's fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23]
In addition, given the poor reliability of past ATIS systems, we are skeptical of supplier's claims of
current or future reliability improvements to these systems. Fleets are even more skeptical than truck
OEMs, as an ATIS air leak results in increased fuel consumption due to a compressor cycling more
frequently and also in potentially significant downtime of the vehicle, even more so than a tire blowout.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23]
To incentivize truck operators to maintain tire pressure on vehicles equipped with a TPMS system, fleets
have the ability to monitor fuel consumption remotely, including the ability to identify causes for
increased fuel consumption. This capability is expected to motivate drivers to properly maintain tire
pressure on TPMS equipped vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23
For these reasons Volvo Group believes that the agencies should provide the same 1% efficiency credit
for TPMS as given to ATIS. Volvo Group does not believe this inclusion should be included in the
baseline efficiency assumptions or result in a stringency increase, as these systems are an alternative to
-------
ATIS, are not credited today, and the evolution of the remote tracking systems has only recently made
them more likely to result in a positive corrective action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23]
Automatic Engine Shutdown (AES) and Extended Idle Reduction
In the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas proposed regulation the agencies have premised a significant amount of
the sleeper tractor stringencies on extended idle reduction and have stated that this will generally require
the use of an auxiliary power unit (APU) for hotel loads while parked. The agencies project 80%
penetration of APUs in 2021 and 90% in 2024 and 2027; however, there is no provision in 40 CFR Part
1037 for Extended Idle Reduction credit beyond the requirements of § 1037.660 allowing credit for a
tamper-resistant five minute idle shutdown timer (AES). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23-24]
For AES to be at all feasible and acceptable to fleets and owner-operators requires additional technology
for hotel loads. Typically, this means an APU, since most trucks are not on dedicated routes and cannot
be assured that their operation will always allow them to overnight in a location with shore power or
IdleAir type systems that can provide hotel loads absent idling or an APU. Many fleets have tried APUs
and have found them to be unreliable and problematic to secure warranty repairs. As of this writing there
is only one OEM with a factory installed APU solution, though all OEMs provide a prep-kit to interface
the APU with the vehicle systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.24]
There are many types of APUs available: those powered by small diesel engines driving generators and
A/C compressors; battery powered units driving heating and cooling systems whose batteries must be
periodically recharged by starting and running the engine; and fuel cell APUs that are still in the early
stages of development and, if ever technically feasible, will not likely be on the market in the next decade.
Acceptance of any of these solutions to date has been low due to several factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.24]
First and foremost, the number one customer complaint regarding APUs has been reliability issues that
have driven customers away from large scale deployment of these systems. Moreover, since most APUs
are installed in the aftermarket, the warranty support has been lacking. The reliability issues generate
operator safety concerns in both cold and hot ambient conditions. The most reliable hotel support system
has proven to be fuel fired heaters, but these do not provide for cooling or electrical and accessory loads,
and therefore are not sufficient for the majority of the sleeper tractors in operation. However, use of a fuel
fired heater greatly diminishes the need for, and payback of, a full APU system but still requires idling to
maintain cab cooling when required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.24]
Second, all APUs increase total vehicle weight due to the weight of the units themselves, as well as the
additional components required to integrate them into vehicle systems. A battery powered APU can add
400-500 lbs. in batteries alone and have a total system weight of 700 lbs. APUs also require additional
open frame rail space for installation, which can lead to weight increases due to increased wheelbase
requirements if the customer is unwilling to sacrifice fuel capacity to make room for the APU. To further
exacerbate the issue aerodynamic performance can be compromised by the added wheelbase driving
increased trailer gaps and an APU that does not fit behind the OEM's chassis fairings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.24]
Due to the limited acceptance of APUs in the marketplace we propose that the agencies provide a
compliance option allowing credit for APUs and a partial credit for a fuel fired heater, which does not
require a tamper-resistant AES. It is our belief that this would help drive future penetration of APUs,
while still allowing for operator comfort and safety without concerns of system reliability. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.24]
-------
Current Technology Example: Auxiliary Power Units (APUs)
The agencies have assumed an 80% penetration rate of APUs in MY 2021 Class 8 Sleeper Tractors for
purposes of determining the proposed MY 2021 standards (Preamble Table III-8). They have also put
forth in Table III-15 a proposed incremental cost for MY 2021 of $2,449 for idle reduction with an APU
that includes the above adoption rate (which provides for a price of $2,449/80% = $3,061 in 2012$). Yet,
section 2.4.8.1.1 of the RIA states that APUs can retail for over $7,000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.35-36]
Irrespective of the conflicting information, if we consider that an APU requires auxiliary components to
interface with the vehicle systems, the current street price for an installed APU can vary from $9,500 to
over $11,000 depending on the type. Even providing for a conversion to 2012$ the agencies are off
significantly in their cost assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.36]
Vehicle Speed Limiters (VSL)
As with Phase 1, the agencies have proposed Phase 2 credit for tamper-resistant vehicle speed limiters set
below 65 MPH. However, as has been the experience in Phase 1, truck owners are unwilling to accept this
feature since it means they have to give up flexibility in their operations and face reductions in residual
value of their used trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.24-25]
From January 1st of 2013 through January 1st of 2015 Volvo Group built in excess of 50,000 highway
tractors for the North American market. Of these, -15% were shipped with their programmable road
speed limiters set at less than 65 mph from the factory. When comparing road speed limiter (RSL)
settings data available from in-use vehicles it was determined that there was actually a slight increase of
+0.7% in the percentage of the fleet that had in-use settings set below 65 mph compared to the percentage
programmed below 65 mph at the factory. This is indicative that the overall fleet RSL settings remain
fairly stable. On top of this, 45% of Volvo vehicles leave the factory with an RSL setting of 65 mph and
below, and 47% were reported in use with the same setting, even during a period of very low fuel prices.
Due to the apparent stability of the RSL settings across the highway tractor populations and, in fact, the
slight increase in the in-use population with RSL settings at or below 65 mph Volvo Group requests that
the agencies consider crediting manufacturers for reprogrammable speed limiters set at the factory at, or
below 65 mph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.25]
The regulatory vehicle duty cycles are standardized with maximum speed of 65 mph, so there is no
benefit to a speed limiter set at 65 mph, or above, in the regulated cycles. The reality is that more than
half of the in-use fleet is running faster, with nearly 48% having speed limiters set at 68 mph or above.
Clearly the programmable RSL is yielding benefits, even if set at 65 mph or above, and should be given
appropriate credit in the Phase 2 regulation. Volvo Group is willing to continue to work with the agencies
to validate the benefits of programmable RSLs, and to develop a means to ensure benefits are verifiable in
use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.25]
6x2 Penetration
The expected penetration rates of 6x2 axle configurations are infeasible due to operational requirements
and confusing or conflicting state and provincial regulations. The maximum penetration rate for highway
tractors should be lowered from 60% to 5% in 2027 and 0% for vocational vehicles, including vocational
tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 P.28]
-------
6x2 axle configurations are only feasible when combined with the capability to transfer load to the driven
axle when needed for traction. This may occur on a slippery road, in many off-road situations, and at
take-off (either on a grade or at high gross combination weights). Volvo Group has been a leader in
developing 6x2 tractor drive systems including both a conventional system where the front tandem is
driven and a "pusher" where the rear axle is driven. Both systems are confronted with a hodge-podge of
state and provincial regulations that may not allow control of axle load from inside the cab or may require
load balance between the tandem axles. A compendium of these regulations is attached to the EMA
comments; however, to summarize the major issues, there are nine states and five Canadian provinces
which do not allow, or severely limit the amount of load shifting control on variable suspension axles. In
some cases the load shifting between axles in a tandem system is limited to either a 60/40 load split
(driven/dead axle), or a maximum weight delta of 1,000 kg. In other cases states and provinces have
regulations that require that any controls for load distribution be located outside the cab of the vehicle
such that the driver is unable to make any load corrections during operation. These regulations appear to
be aimed at limiting any ability for load shifting to occur during vehicle operation, but require further
rulings from the state and provincial regulatory agencies on a case by case basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 P.28]
It is unclear, in many cases, how these rules apply or how they would restrict 6x2 application. What is
clear is that these rules limit acceptance of 6x2 axles because owners are unsure if they will pass
inspections. Unless and until there are federal regulations that clarify what is allowable, we cannot expect
high penetration of 6x2 drives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 P.28-29]
With respect to stringency settings (at the above noted penetrations) the agencies project a 2% benefit of
the part-time 6x2 on the highway cruise cycles, but have proposed to assign a fixed value in GEM of 2.5
percent over these same cycles (see Preamble Section V.C. l.a.ii). Given the issues noted with the current
architecture of the part-time 6x2 systems, the inadequacy for use of 6x2 in HHD vocational applications,
and the fixed GEM value at a greater benefit than the agencies expect, it is not feasible to set stringencies
at the levels projected based on application of 6x2 systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 P.29]
Compromising Vehicle Utility
Given the previously stated concerns regarding inability to meet the standards with the agencies assumed
technology packages and penetration rates, the far reaching timeframe for the Phase 2 regulation, the
uncertainty in the feasibility of the proposed technologies and their penetrations, and the expected
increases in fuel economy and GHG performance measured on non-representative duty cycles that are
still under revision, Volvo Group is concerned that the proposed regulation will force technologies that
are not suited for the specific intended applications and duty cycles. One such example is expected
penetration of Waste Heat Recovery on a highway tractor which could serve to limit aerodynamic
performance due to increased cooling package size, as well as suitability for weight sensitive applications.
If, forced to introduce this technology, OEMs could likely face pre-buy, no-buy, or delayed-buy effects,
all of which would result in continued operation of old trucks and large scale rebuilding of older vehicles
and engines. This again renders the proposal uncertain to accomplish its intended purpose. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.31-32]
Response:
Baseline
In the proposal, the agencies noted that the manufacturers were not using tamper-proof AESS to comply
with the Phase 1 standards so the agencies reverted back to the baseline APU adoption rate of 30 percent
-------
used in the Phase 1 baseline. The agencies received a number of comments regarding this. In response to
these comments, the agencies reassessed the baseline idle reduction adoption rates. The latest NACFE
confidence report found that 9 percent of tractors had auxiliary power units and 96 percent of vehicles are
equipped with adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems.126 Therefore, the agencies are projecting
for the baseline that 9 percent of sleeper cabs will contain an adjustable AESS and APU, while the other
87 percent will only have an adjustable AESS, and none will include tamper proof AESS.
While the agencies agree with the commenters that it is important to develop an accurate baseline so that
the appropriate aerodynamic technology package effectiveness and costs can be evaluated in determining
the final Phase 2 standards, there appears to be some confusion regarding the NPRM baseline
aerodynamic assessment. The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic
bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards. The baseline was not
determined by or declared to be the average results of the vehicles tested, as some commenters
maintained. The vehicles that were tested prior to the NPRM were used to develop the aerodynamic bin
structure for Phase 2 NPRM. In both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins
such that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into
consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in Phase 2. The
Phase 2 bins were developed so that tractors that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as
Bin III tractors in Phase 2. See RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2. The baseline aerodynamic value for the Phase 2
final rulemaking was determined in the same manner as the NPRM, using the adoption rates of the bins
used to determine the Phase 1 standards, but reflect the final Phase 2 bin CdA values.
Aerodynamics
The agencies' assessment is that the best aerodynamic tractor tested by EPA in 2015 achieved Bin IV
performance. This vehicle did not include all of the possible aerodynamic technologies, such as wheel
covers or active aerodynamics like a grill shutter or front air dam. Thus, the agencies' assessment is that
Bin V is achievable with known aerodynamic technologies, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.4, but agree
with the manufacturers that Bins VI and VII have less known technology paths. However, we are
including Bins VI and VII in the Phase 2 regulations as a potential Phase 2 technology to recognize the
possibility that over the next ten years (until the full implementation of the Phase 2 program) tractor
manufacturers may advance their aerodynamic technologies beyond the Bin V levels projected for the
Phase 2 standards, and to provide a value to be input to GEM should they do so. In consideration of the
comments, the agencies have adjusted the aerodynamic adoption rate for Class 8 high roof sleeper cabs
used to set the final standards in 2021, 2024, and 2027 MYs (i.e., the degree of technology adoption on
which the stringency of the standard is premised). Upon further analysis of simulation modeling of a
SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the manufacturers that a
SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the Bin V level of CdA. The changes
required for Bin V and better performance reflect the kinds of improvements projected in the Department
of Energy's SuperTruck program. That program assumes that such systems can be demonstrated on
vehicles by 2017. In this case, the agencies are projecting that truck manufacturers will be able to begin
implementing these demonstrated aerodynamic technologies as early as 2021 MY on a limited scale.
Accordingly, we adjusted the adoption rates for MY 2027 in the technology package developed for the
final rule to consist of 20 percent of Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V reflecting our
assessment of the fraction of high roof sleeper cab tractors in this segment that we project could
successfully apply these aerodynamic packages with this amount of lead time. Overall, while the
agencies are now projecting slightly less benefit from aerodynamic improvements than we did in the
126 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Report:Idl- Reduction Solutions. 2014. Page 13.
-------
NPRM (i.e. because the agencies have reevaluated the efficiencies of these technologies, consistent with
this and other comments), the actual aerodynamic technology being projected is very similar to what was
projected at the time of NPRM.
With respect to the comments related to the aerodynamic test procedures, please see the agencies'
response to the EMA comments in Section 4.5 of this response to comments document.
Low Rolling Resistance Tires
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1
certification data.127 We found that high roof sleeper cabs are certified today with steer tire rolling
resistance levels that ranged between 4.9 and 7.6 kg/ton and with drive tires ranging between 5.1 and 9.8
kg/ton. In the same analysis, we found that high roof day cabs are certified with rolling resistance levels
ranging between 4.9 and 9.0 kg/ton for steer tires and between 5.1 and 9.8 kg/ton for drive tires. This
range spans the baseline through Level 3 rolling resistance performance levels. Therefore, for the final
rule we took an approach similar to the one taken in Phase 1 and proposed in Phase 2 that considers
adoption rates across a wide range of tire rolling resistance levels to recognize that operators may have
different needs. 76 FR 57211 and 80 FR 40227.
Also in our analysis of the Phase 1 certification data, we found that the drive tires on low and mid roof
sleeper cab tractors on average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling resistance than the high roof sleeper
cabs. But we found only a minor difference in rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor
subcategories. Based on comments received and further consideration of our own analysis of the
difference in tire rolling resistance levels that exist today in the certification data, the agencies are
adopting Phase 2 standards using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for
low and mid roof tractors than the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards. This is also consistent
with the approach that we took in setting the Phase 1 tractor standards. 76 FR 57211. In addition, the
final rule reflects a reduction in Level 3 adoption rates for low and mid roof tractors from 25 percent in
MY 2027 used at proposal (80 FR 40227) to zero percent adoption rate. The technology packages
developed for the low and mid roof tractors used to determine the stringency of the MY 2027 standards in
the final rule do not include any adoption rate of Level 3 drive tires to recognize the special needs of these
applications, consistent with the comments noted above raising concerns about applications that limit the
use of low rolling resistance tires.
With respect to the comments about the ability to retread low rolling resistance tires, we have asked fleets
and others for data regarding this topic, but we have not received any. In discussions with EPA's
SmartWay, tire manufacturers have claimed that their low rolling resistance tires are as retreadable as
those with higher rolling resistance. While there may be individual tire models that do not perform as
well in terms of retreadability, we do not believe this is a systematic issue related to low rolling resistance
tires.
DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and NHTSA sponsored a test program conducted by
Oak Ridge National Laboratory to explore the effects of tire rolling resistance levels on Class 8 tractor-
trailer stopping distance performance over a range of loading and surface conditions. The objective was
to determine whether a relationship exists between tire rolling resistance and stopping distance for
vehicles of this type. The overall results of this research suggest that tire rolling resistance is not a
127 Memo to Docket. Coefficient of Rolling Resistance and Coefficient of Drag Certification Data for Tractors.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
-------
reliable indicator of Class 8 tractor-trailer stopping distance. The correlation coefficients (R2 values) for
linear regressions of wet and dry stopping distance versus overall vehicle rolling resistance values did not
meet the minimum threshold for statistical significance for any of the test conditions. Correlation
between CRR and stopping distance was found to be negligible for the dry tests for both loading
conditions. While correlation was higher for the wet testing (showing a slight trend in which lower CRRs
correspond to longer stopping distances), it still did not meet the minimum threshold for statistical
significance. In terms of compliance with Federal safety standards, it was found that the stopping
distance performance of the vehicle with the four tire sets studied in this research (with estimated tractor
CRRs which varied by 33 percent), were well under the FMVSS No. 121 stopping distance requirements.
The agencies agree, though, that continuing research will be important as new tire technologies enter the
marketplace, and like the extensive rolling resistance testing conducting to support the Phase 1 regulation
and, in part, this final rule, the agencies will continue to monitor developments in the tire supply
marketplace through the EPA Smartway program and other, potential, research. NHTSA notes that
FMVSS No. 121 will continue to play a role in ensuring the safety of both current and future tire
technologies.
Tire Pressure Systems
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allow
manufacturers to show compliance with the C02 and fuel consumption standards using various
technologies, including either ATIS or TPMS (see 40 CFR 1037.520). See Preamble Section III.D. l.b.iv.
This reflects a change from the Phase 2 NPRM, where only ATIS (not TPMS) was a GEM input. The
agencies believe that sufficient incentive exists for truck operators to address low tire pressure conditions
if they are notified that they exist through a TPMS, however, we set the effectiveness value of TPMS
lower than ATIS to reflect the need for operator intervention.
Idle Reduction Technologies
The agencies received numerous comments on our proposed adoption rates of tamper-proof AESS. We
generally agree with this commenter (and others) that the agencies should consider other types of idle
reduction technologies because an automatic engine shutdown system (or an APU) may not be the
optimum choice for every tractor. For the final rule, we now differentiate effectiveness based on the
specific idle reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. This change is consistent with
the commenter's concern that APUs would not benefit all operators or may lead to a concern regarding
weight. For the final rule, we recognize a variety of idle reduction technologies -including automatic
engine shutdown systems, fuel operated heaters, automatic stop/start systems, and diesel powered APUs.
Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-proof and adjustable (programmable) systems to qualify for
some reduction. After consideration of the comments, the agencies have refined the adoption rates of a
new menu of idle reduction technologies and only projected adoption of idle reduction technologies with
adjustable AESS.
EPA considered the comments and more closely evaluated NHTSA's contracted TetraTech cost report
found the retail price of a diesel-powered APU with a DPF to be $10,000. The agencies used a retail
price of a diesel-powered APU to be $8,000 without a DPF and $10,000 with a DPF in the cost analysis
for this final rulemaking.
Vehicle Speed Limiters
The agencies considered DOT's upcoming actions with respect to mandatory vehicle speed limiters for
heavy-duty trucks, but could not take it into account in this Phase 2 rulemaking because that rule is not
-------
final yet. The existing Phase 1 VSL flexibilities provide opportunities for manufacturers to account for
the impact of VSLs on reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption, while still allowing the settings to
change after an "expiration" time determined by the manufacturer or to include a soft top. At this time,
we believe that the Phase 1 flexibilities sufficiently balance the desire to encourage technologies that
reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption while minimizing the compliance burden of trying to
accommodate changes throughout the useful life of the vehicle. Therefore, the agencies are not adopting
any new VSL provisions for Phase 2. With respect to the commenter's request that the agencies
recognize the effectiveness of VSLs set at greater than 65 mph, the agencies' assessment is that based on
truck speed limits in each of the states, weighted by truck miles in each state, that 65 mph is an
appropriate speed for one of the cruise cycles. If a manufacturer has sufficient data to support the real
world reduction of VSLs set at greater than 65 mph, then they may pursue off-cycle credit approval.
6x2 Axles
Upon further consideration, the agencies have lowered the adoption rates of 6x2 axles in the final rule
from those used in the proposal. We projected a 15 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the final 2021 MY standards and a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used
to determine the 2027 MY standards. This adoption rate represents a combination of 6x2 axles (which as
noted by a commenter that liftable axles are expected to be allowed in all states by the time of
implementation of Phase 2), enhanced 6x2 axles, disconnectable 6x4 axles, and 4x2 axles. Some axle
manufacturers offer enhanced 6x2 products that perform similar to the 6x4 configurations and address
concerns regarding traction. SMARTandem offered by Meritor is just one of the examples.128 In this
system, the axle runs 6x2 for most time. Once the conditions that require more traction are experienced,
the vehicle activates the system to add more loads into one the powered axle, thus instantly increasing
traction. In addition to enhanced 6x2 axles, based on confidential stakeholder discussions, the agencies
anticipate that the axle market may offer a Class 8 version of axle disconnect to automatically disconnect
or reconnect the one of the tandem axles depending on needs for traction in varying driving conditions.
Recently, Dana Holding Corporation has developed an axle system that switches between the two modes
based on driving conditions to maximize driveline efficiency.129 When high traction is required, the
system operates in 6x4 mode. When 6x4 tractive effort is not required, the system operates in 6x2
mode. Though the adoption rate of 6x2 axles have been low in the U.S. market, NACFE found in their
confidence report that more fleets are adopting 6x2 axles. NACFE found that one large national fleet,
Conway Truckload, has purchased around 95% of their new tractors in the past few years with 6x2s."130
In addition, it is worth noting that the standards are performance standards, therefore, the agencies are not
mandating any specific fuel consumption or GHG emission reducing technology. For each standard, we
developed one potential technology pathway to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards, but
manufacturers will be free to choose other paths.
The agencies have modified how 6x2 axles are recognized in the final rule. In lieu of a fixed
improvement, GEM will simulate a 6x2 axle by removing the axle losses of one of the drive axles. The
agencies believe this is a more representative approach. See RIA Chapter 4.4.1.2.
Vehicle Utility
128 Fleet Owner, "Meritor Expects to offer new tandem axle in 2013," http://fleetowner.com/equipment/meritor-
expects-offer-new-tandem-axle-2013, December 2012.
129 Dana Holding Corporation Patents (8,523,738, 8,795,125, and 8,911,321).
130 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. "Confidence Findings on the Potential of 6x2 Axles." January
2014. Page 19.
-------
The agencies understand the potential impact that certain designs of WHR could have on aerodynamics;
however, WHR systems have evolved from earlier versions demonstrated in SuperTruck and will
continue to evolve over the next 5-10 years (as noted in Cummins' comments to the rule). The WHR
systems continue to reduce weight, improve packaging, and reduce the impact on the aerodynamics. As
demonstrated on the Cummins-Peterbilt, the Volvo, and the Daimler SuperTrucks, manufacturers were
able to demonstrate tractors that incorporated WHR and simultaneously improved the aerodynamics of
the tractor-trailer. We understand the limitations of the DOE SuperTruck program in terms of applying
the reductions broadly across vehicle applications and duty cycles, and in terms of durability and cost.
However, this program demonstrates that it is possible to design systems that utilize WHR without
significant compromise to aerodynamics. In addition, the agencies premised the final Phase 2 standards
on engine technology packages that include WHR only on sleeper cab tractors and only on 50 percent of
those vehicles in 2027. It is important to also note that manufacturers that do not invest to achieve a level
of engine reduction through WHR could potentially be able to make up the difference by applying one of
the many other available and cost-effective tractor technologies to a greater extent or more effectively, so
that there are multiple technology paths for meeting the final standards. See Section 3 of this RTC for
additional discussion of WHR technology.
Organization: Werner Enterprises
There are several key areas the agencies need to address: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
-Due to errors in EPA's baseline vehicle assumptions (used to determine future achievable stringency)
and testing protocols, the actual stringency of the proposed standards is much greater than what EPA had
indicated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
Response:
Baseline
In the proposal, the agencies noted that the manufacturers were not using tamper-proof AESS to comply
with the Phase 1 standards so the agencies reverted back to the baseline APU adoption rate of 30 percent
used in the Phase 1 baseline. The agencies received a number of comments regarding this. In response to
these comments, the agencies reassessed the baseline idle reduction adoption rates. The latest NACFE
confidence report found that 9 percent of tractors had auxiliary power units and 96 percent of vehicles are
equipped with adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems.131 Therefore, the agencies are projecting
for the baseline that 9 percent of sleeper cabs will contain an adjustable AESS and APU, while the other
87 percent will only have an adjustable AESS, and none will include tamper proof AESS.
While the agencies agree with the commenters that it is important to develop an accurate baseline so that
the appropriate aerodynamic technology package effectiveness and costs can be evaluated in determining
the final Phase 2 standards, there appears to be some confusion regarding the NPRM baseline
aerodynamic assessment. The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic
bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards. The baseline was not
determined by or declared to be the average results of the vehicles tested, as some commenters
maintained. The vehicles that were tested prior to the NPRM were used to develop the aerodynamic bin
structure for Phase 2. In both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins such
that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into
131 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Confidence Report:Idl- Reduction Solutions. 2014. Page 13.
-------
consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in Phase 2. The
Phase 2 bins were developed so that tractors that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as
Bin III tractors in Phase 2. The baseline aerodynamic value for the Phase 2 final rulemaking was
determined in the same manner as the NPRM, using the adoption rates of the bins used to determine the
Phase 1 standards, but reflect the final Phase 2 bin CdA values.
-------
4.4 Proposed Exclusions from the Phase 2 Tractor Standards
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA should amend the definition of heavy-haul tractors to account for lower overall gear
reductions with fully automatic transmissions and to provide credits for same. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.3]
EPA and NHTSA Should Amend Proposed Definition of Heavy-Haul Tractors To Account for
Lower Gear Ratios Used by ATs And Allow For Crediting of AT Architecture and Neutral-Idle
EPA and NHTSA are proposing to add a tenth subcategory to the tractor category in order to address
heavy-haul tractors. This category would be defined with reference to weight (GCWR over 120,000 lb)
and with respect to total gear ratio (greater than 57:1) and a frame Resisting Bending Motion of 2,000,000
in-lb. While Allison supports creation of this category, we would recommend that in heavy-haul tractors
equipped with an AT, the gear reduction ratio requirements be changed to greater than or equal to 24.9:1.
A 57:1 gear reduction requirement is required for a manual/AMT transmission to launch due to heavy
haul weights and engine torque being limited to protect a slipping clutch. But this ratio is excessive for a
torque converter AT which can launch a vehicle at full power. If the 57:1 requirement was applied to
ATs, it would unnecessarily result in poor fuel economy in actual service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p.37]
Specifically, due to an AT's torque converter allowing full power at stall, its torque multiplying
characteristics and the ability to do full power shifting, deep gear reduction is not required for ATs. The
total gear reduction (including torque converter ratio) for an AT in the heavy haul application ranges from
24.9:1 to 144.4:1. Typical (i.e., standard) configurations utilize a range from 24.9 to 48:1 gear reduction
ratio. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.37]
We include with our comments the following data from current heavy haul applications: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.37]
[Chart, 'Data from current Allison transmission heavy haul applications', can be found on p.37 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 ]
This data supports our view that the total gear reduction ratio for ATs needs to be different from other
transmission architectures and request that EPA change the proposed regulatory definition at 40 C.F.R.
1037.801 (which is cross-referenced within NHTSA regulations). Specifically, EPA and NHTSA should
adopt the following definition: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.37]
Heavy-haul tractor means a tractor with GCWR above 120,000 pounds, a total gear reduction at or above
24.9:1 for tractors containing fully automatic transmissions, a total gear reduction at or above 57 for all
other tractors, and a frame Resisting Bending Moment at or above 2,000,000 in-lb per rail, or per rail and
liner combination. Total gear reduction is the transmission gear ratio in the lowest gear multiplied by the
drive axle ratios. A heavy-haul tractor is not a vocational tractor.60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A 1
p.38]
Separate Certification Approach for Vocational Tractors
-------
EPA and NHTSA have proposed to allow vocational tractors to follow the same subcategory assignment
process as other vehicles. Allison lacks data upon which to address the agencies' request for comment on
whether vocational tractors, when measured against vocational vehicle baseline configurations, would be
deficit-generating vehicles. But as a matter of policy, we believe it would be reasonable to not limit the
number of tractors that can be certified as vocational vehicles as was done in Phase 1. This limitation may
have been reasonable in the initial years of the program as a precaution against unreasonably assigning
too many tractors to the vocational vehicle category. Vehicle configurations, however, change over time.
For example, beverage delivery was formerly performed by straight trucks but now primarily occurs
using tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.42]
In Phase 2, EPA and NHTSA have both diversified the vocational vehicle category and include additional
elements within GEM for vehicle certification. This regulatory framework seeks to better represent the
diversity of vocational vehicles and their differentiated uses that may change over time. Given the scope
of the Phase 2 regulations, extending into major vehicle components such as transmissions, axles and
tires, it would be correspondingly reasonable to allow manufacturers to certify all HD vehicles, both
vocational and tractor, with regard to intended use. This would allow for better alignment of vehicles with
duty cycles that are more representative of their real-world operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-
A1 p.42]
60 Italicized words are not in the proposed regulatory definition for heavy-haul tractor.
Response:
For the FRM, EPA and NHTSA are revising the Phase 1 heavy-haul tractor provisions (and the Phase 2
proposal) to better assure that vehicles are regulated in an appropriate subcategory. Based on our
assessment, the tractors with GCWR greater than or equal to 120,000 pounds truly represent heavy-haul
applications in the U.S. Therefore, we are adopting criteria only based on GCWR, not the proposed RBM
or total gear reduction ratios.
The final version of Phase 2 GEM treats ATs and AMTs the same for heavy-haul tractors as for the other
tractors.
The agencies evaluated the sales cap limit proposed for special purpose tractors and the comments
addressing the issue of a sales cap. EPA calculated the number of vocational tractors certified in MY
2014 and MY 2015. The number of tractors ranged between approximately 2,600 and 6,200 per year per
manufacturer that certified special purpose tractors, but one manufacturer did not use this provision at
all.132 It is apparent that none of the manufacturers are utilizing this provision near the maximum
allowable level in Phase 1 (a rolling three year sales limit of 21,000). We also believe that there is more
incentive for manufacturers to use the special purpose tractor provisions in Phase 1 because the relative
difference in stringency between the tractor and vocational programs is much greater in Phase 1 than in
Phase 2. Upon further consideration, we concluded that there is significantly less incentive for the
manufacturers to reclassify tractors that are not truly special purpose tractors as vocational vehicles as a
pathway to a less stringent standard in Phase 2 primarily due to the fact that the Phase 2 vocational
vehicle program stringency is more in line with the tractor program stringency. In addition, the Phase 2
vocational vehicle compliance program and standards better represent the duty cycles expected of these
132 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket: Special Purpose Tractor Production Volumes. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
-------
vehicles and are predicated on performance of similar sets of vehicle technologies as the primary tractor
program (although some of the vocational vehicle standards are predicated on stop start and hybrid
technologies, which are not part of the technology path predicated for tractors and vocational vehicle
standards are not predicated on aerodynamic technologies). Therefore, we are adopting Phase 2 special
purpose tractor provisions without a sales cap.
Organization: American Reliance Industries, Co. (ARI)
ARI serves as a second stage manufacturer that improves completed vocational vehicles and heavy duty
tractors. ARI does not receive or work on incomplete vehicles and thus 40 C.F.R. § 1037.620 does not
apply to ARI's circumstances. Instead, ARI's primary focus is to make cab sleeper modifications to
vocational vehicles and heavy duty tractors that are considered complete prior to arrival. The vehicles
received by ARI for improvement must meet the requirements of the EPA and DOT/NHTSA regulations
relevant to the specific vehicle in its completed form. This includes the labeling requirements that an
OEM must comply with under Phase 1 and soon to be Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.2]
EPA and NHTSA's Intent Related to Second Stage Manufacturers Performing Cab Sleeper
Modifications
Upon review of the proposed regulations and after discussions with representatives of the agencies, ARI
believes that it is EPA and NHTSA's intent to continue to exclude or exempt second stage manufacturers
performing cab sleeper modifications from the Phase 2 proposed regulations. ARI appreciates EPA and
NHTSA's recognition of the unique nature of this niche market and the significant adverse effect the
proposed regulations could have on small businesses in this market, like ARI. ARI appreciates EPA and
NHTSA's focus on their top priority of obtaining real world emission reductions and recognition that
regulating this niche market in addition to the regulations placed upon the OEM would not provide such
results. ARI values EPA and NHTSA's recognition that such regulation would have the unintended
consequence of being a barrier to entry and a disruption to the current marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1300-A1 p.3]
EPA and NHTSA have drafted specific provisions in the proposed regulation to implement the above
intent. EPA and NHTSA have also sought comment on several of the drafted sections. Included herein are
sections of the proposed regulation that ARI believes are important to consider when implementing the
agencies' intent. ARI will include the specific section(s) with citation below along with ARI's comments
on the section(s). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.3]
ARI's Analysis of Sections of the Proposed Regulation
80 Fed. Reg. 40214-15 (July 13, 2015).
Also in Phase 1, EPA determined that manufacturers that met the small business criteria specified in 13
CFR 121.201 for "Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing" were not subject to the greenhouse gas emissions
standards of 40 CFR 1037.106.130 The regulations required that qualifying manufacturers must notify the
Designated Compliance Officer each model year before introducing the vehicles into commerce. The
manufacturers are also required to label the vehicles to identify them as excluded vehicles. EPA and
NHTSA are seeking comments on eliminating this provision for tractor manufacturers in the Phase 2
program. The agencies are aware of two second stage manufacturers building custom sleeper cab tractors.
We could treat these vehicles in one of two ways. First, the vehicles may be considered as dromedary
vehicles and therefore treated as vocational vehicles. Or the agencies could provide provisions that stated
if a manufacturer changed the cab, but not the frontal area of the vehicle, then it could retain the
-------
aerodynamic bin of the original tractor. We welcome comments on these considerations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1300-A1 p.3]
ARI Comment: ARI recognizes EPA and NHTSA's desire to limit the small business exemption
previously set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 1037.150(c). ARI appreciates EPA and NHTSA's efforts to propose
alternative methods for excluding or exempting those second stage manufacturers performing cab sleeper
modifications that previously qualified for the small business exemption under 40 C.F.R. § 1037.150(c).
ARI has some concerns related to the methods set forth by the agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1300-A1 p.3-4]
Dromedary Vehicles
ARI understands that the idea behind considering the vehicles as dromedary vehicles and thus vocational
vehicles would be that the aerodynamic requirements of the proposed regulation are not applicable to the
vocational vehicles. ARI is concerned that treating these vehicles as vocational vehicles will result in
three possible issues: (1) other regulations related to vocational vehicles will become applicable and have
unanticipated adverse results; (2) the vehicles will be treated as heavy duty vehicles and not vocational
vehicles when originally certified by an OEM; and (3) vocational vehicles are often considered the
highest polluters of greenhouse gas emissions with the lowest fuel efficiencies, and heavy duty trucks
with cab sleeper modifications do not fit this general category. ARI is open to discussing this option
further, but does not believe it is the best solution for adopting EPA and NHTSA's intent under these
circumstances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.4]
80 Fed. Reg. 40653 (July 13, 2015).
§ 1037.622 Shipment of incomplete vehicles to secondary vehicle manufacturers. This section
specifies how manufacturers may introduce partially complete vehicles into U.S. commerce. The
provisions of this section do not apply for trailers, except in unusual circumstances. You may not use the
provisions of this section to circumvent the intent of this part. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.5-
6]
(a) The provisions of this section allow manufacturers to ship partially complete vehicles to secondary
vehicle manufacturers or otherwise introduce them into U.S. commerce in the following circumstances:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.6]
(2) Small businesses modifying certified tractors. Small businesses that build custom sleeper cabs may
modify complete or incomplete vehicles certified as tractors, as long as they do not increase the effective
frontal area of the certified configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.6]
ARI Comment: ARI is first concerned that this section appears in part to only address the shipment of
incomplete vehicles, but later permits small businesses modifying certified tractors to modify complete or
incomplete vehicles. ARI believes that EPA and NHTSA's goal is to use this section to adopt the frontal
area approach previously discussed. If EPA and NHTSA adopt a frontal area approach for second stage
manufacturers making cab sleeper modifications, ARI requests that the section be revised to ensure
greater clarity as to the intention and effect of this section. ARI believes that it is important for any final
section providing an exemption or an exclusion to directly state that it is an exemption or exclusion from
the Phase 2 regulation in order to avoid possible ambiguities arising at a later date. EPA and NHTSA took
a direct approach in the small business exemption under the Phase 1 regulation. ARI encourages the
agencies to take a similar approach in the Phase 2 regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.6]
-------
Thank you for recognizing the need for an exemption or exclusion for small businesses engaged in the
unique niche market of second stage manufacturers performing cab sleeper modifications. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.7]
Otherwise, ARI requests that the agencies engage in additional discussions to evaluate what significant
changes would need to be made to provide an exemption or exclusion that allows day cabs to be changed
to sleeper cabs and permits the addition of aerodynamic technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-
A1 p.7]
Frontal Area
ARI recognizes that the idea behind permitting a second stage manufacturer to change the cab, but not the
frontal area of the vehicle, would permit the second stage manufacturer to keep the original OEM's
certification within a specific aerodynamic bin category. Our primary concerns for this approach is that it
does not permit a second stage manufacturer performing cab sleeper modifications to convert a day cab
into a sleeper cab or improve the frontal area as a part of the modifications. As the EPA and NHTSA
recognize, aerodynamic technologies provide an "opportunity to reduce aerodynamic drag from the
tractor." 80 Fed. Reg. 40216 (July 13, 2015). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.4]
Depending on the custom cab sleeper modification, ARI may use wind fairings on the sleeper, fuel tank
fairings, roof fairings, and side extenders or gap reducing tractor fairings that can modify the frontal area
of the vehicle in height and width as compared to the frontal area of the vehicle used to obtain the original
certification. These additions will, in some circumstances, result in the vehicle being taken out of its prior
certification configuration because roof height is defined to "include [e] any wide accessories such as roof
fairings." 80 Fed. Reg. 40664, 40739 (July 13, 2015). Requiring the small businesses to test the vehicle
for recertification or certify the vehicle at the worst case aerodynamic bin for the type of vehicle under
these circumstances would not further the intent of EPA and NHTSA and would have a significant
adverse impact on small businesses in this niche marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.4]
ARI wishes to continue improving the client's lifestyles, health, and happiness by modifying day cabs
into sleeper cabs. ARI also wishes to continue using aerodynamic technologies in connection with the cab
sleeper modifications to benefit the clients and further, although modestly, the goals of the EPA and
NHTSA. As recognized by the EPA and NHTSA, "fuel tank fairings can reduce the surface area
perpendicular to the wind and provide a smooth surface to minimize disruptions of the air flow[;] [r]oof
fairings provide a transition to move the air smoothly over the tractor and trailer[; and] [s]ide extenders
can minimize the air entrapped in the gap[s] . . . ." 80 Fed. Reg. 40216 (July 13, 2015). ARI is open to
discussing this option further, but does not believe it is the best solution for adopting EPA and NHTSA's
intent under these circumstances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.4-5]
80 Fed. Reg. 40603 (July 13, 2015).
Basic vehicle frontal area has the meaning given in 40 CFR 86.1803. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-
Alp.5]
40 C.F.R. § 86.1803.
Basic vehicle frontal area means the area enclosed by the geometric projection of the basic vehicle along
the longitudinal axis, which includes tires but excludes mirrors and air deflectors, onto a plane
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 00-A1 p.5]
-------
ARI Comment: ARI is concerned that if EPA and NHTSA adopt a frontal area approach for second
stage manufacturers making cab sleeper modifications, that the above definitions are too restrictive and
would not permit the addition of beneficial aerodynamic technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-
Alp.5]
80 Fed. Reg. 40657 (July 13, 2015).
(d) Examples of prohibited modifications. The following are examples of modifications that are not
allowable: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.6]
(2) No person may remove aerodynamic fairings from tractors that are used primarily to pull box trailers
on highways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.6]
ARI Comment: Depending on the custom cab sleeper modification, ARI may replace an aerodynamic
fairing from the tractor in order to provide better aerodynamic results in light of the cab sleeper
modification. ARI does not want to be precluded from continuing to provide these benefits to clients. ARI
believes an exception to this section would resolve these concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1
p.6]
80 Fed. Reg. 40664 (July 13, 2015).
Secondary vehicle manufacturer [means] (sic) anyone that produces a vehicle by modifying a complete or
partially complete vehicle. For the purpose of this definition, "modifying" does not include making
changes that do not remove a vehicle from its original certified configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1300-A1 p.6]
ARI Comment: ARI recognizes that the purpose of this definition was to further support the frontal area
approach. ARI remains concerned that making a day cab a sleeper cab or adding the aerodynamic
technology described above will result, in some circumstances, in the vehicle being removed from its
original certified configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.7]
Response:
In response to these comments, EPA is clarifying in 40 CFR 1037.622 that small businesses may modify
tractors as long as they do not modify the front of the vehicle and so long as the sleeper compartment is
no more than 102 inches wide or 162 inches in height. As an interim provision, to allow for a better
transition to Phase 2, EPA is finalizing a more flexible compliance path in 40 CFR 1037.150(r). This
option allows small manufacturers to convert a low or mid roof tractor to a mid or high roof configuration
without recertification, provided it is for the purpose of building a custom sleeper tractor or for
conversion to a natural gas tractor.
Although this more flexible allowance to convert low and mid roof tractors to mid or high roof tractors is
being adopted as an interim provision, we have not established an end date at this time. We expect to
reevaluate this provision as manufacturers begin to make use of and may decide to revise it in the fiiture,
potentially to make it a permanent allowance. To be eligible for this option, the secondary manufacturer
must be a small manufacturer and the original low or mid roof tractor must be covered by a valid
certificate of conformity. The modifications may not increase the frontal area of the tractor beyond the
frontal area of the equivalent high roof tractor paired with a standard box van.
See also Section III.C.5 of the Preamble to the final regulation.
-------
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Elimination of the vocational engine limitation that is no longer necessary in Phase 2 - The agencies
propose to remove the prohibition against the use of vocational engines in tractors, given that the
performance of the engine would be appropriately reflected in GEM regardless which engine certification
procedure was used to certify the engine. We agree that, with the engine properly represented in GEM,
there is less need for the prohibition on vocational-only certified engines in tractors. In fact, the agencies'
reasoning shows why the engine-based standards on the FTP or RMC tests are so outdated: the true in-
vehicle emissions are represented by the full-vehicle standard. 80 FR 40251. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p.30]
Proposed Heavy-Haul Tractor Definition - The agencies request comment on the proposed heavy-haul
tractor definition, including whether Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) OR Gross Axle Weight
Rating (GAWR) would be a more appropriate metric to differentiate between a heavy-haul tractor and
typical tractor. 80 FR 40233. In discussions with the EPA, we originally had suggested using GVWR as a
surrogate for Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR), given that the vehicle purchaser inputs GCWR
while GVWR is calculated from items that are on the vehicle—making GVWR harder a metric to game
than GCWR. However, as we dug deeper into the question of whether GVWR or GCWR is better for the
regulations, for example analyzing our sales numbers by the agencies' proposed heavy-haul definitions
and by a definition offered by Paccar, we learned that 1) there was not a one-to-one relation between
GVWR and GCWR, with some vehicles designed for high GCWR having relatively low GVWR and vice
versa, and more importantly 2) our computer system does use GCWR in such a way that a vehicle
purchaser would penalize himself if he chose an inaccurately high GCWR in order to avoid having a
vehicle regulated as a standard tractor. In conclusion, we think that the agencies' general proposal for a
GCWR-based definition of heavy haul will work, as will Paccar's, although each one will catch a slightly
different set of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.33]
So although either the GCWR- or GVWR-based proposals will work, the question is whether the actual
definitions properly catch all of the intended vehicles. As we analyze our vehicles, trying to match
vehicles that we expect to be categorized as heavy- haul with those that are, we find several ways to
improve the definition. First, the total gear reduction of 57:1 is too high. It will exclude many vehicles
that, by our standards, would be heavy-haul. Second, the weight of 120,000 lb. or more (note that, as we
discussed with the agencies, many heavy-haul vehicles are specified at 120,000 lb. exactly, so the correct
definition is not "over 120,000 lb." as the agencies propose but "120,000 lb. or more") is so high that it
misses many heavy-haul vehicles. We think that 105,000 lb., which catches 105,500 lb. to 120,000 lb.
vehicles and those originally in the agencies' proposal, is better. This broader weight definition catches a
very small number of US vehicles (0.1 to 0.9% of the vehicles, depending on other factors) but catches
the large number of Canadian vehicles that are heavy-haul, as shown below. Third, when we look at the
vehicles excluded from the heavy-haul category by the use of the agencies' proposed requirements for a 2
million in-lb. RBM or rail/liner combination plus 57:1 total gear reduction, we see that the RBM and gear
reduction criteria exclude a lot of vehicles that are rated to haul either 105,000 lb. or 120,000 lb. and thus
are heavy-haul vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 P.33-34]
In conclusion, we propose to go with just a 105,000 lb. GCWR-based definition without a requirement for
an RBM or gear reduction; the manufacturers, in building vehicles capable of hauling such a GCWR will
do what it takes to meet the hauling requirements, whether through a particular RBM and gear reduction
or otherwise. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 P.34]
-------
[The tables, showing the percentage of vehicles matching heavy haul criteria at 120,000 lbs or more
versus 105,000 lbs or more, in the US and Canada, can be found on p.34 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1]
We have invited the agencies to participate in a meeting to go through our vehicle categorization data, and
we reiterate our invitation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 P.34]
Proposed Exclusions from the Phase 2 Tractor Standards - The agencies seek comment on whether
the proposed rolling 21,000 sales volume limit for special purpose tractors is set at an appropriate level
looking into the future. 80 FR 40214. First, we wish to note that we think the agencies are correct in
choosing not to apply a sales volume limit to heavy haul vehicles. The agencies are working toward a
good definition of these vehicles, as well as reasonable standards for the vehicles, and therefore have no
reason to limit the use of the heavy haul provisions to a fixed number of vehicles. Regarding special
purpose tractors, we think that with the addition of heavy haul vehicles, there will be less need for a sales
volume limit on special purpose tractors. But in the absence of a finalized definition for the heavy haul
vehicle, we cannot say how many special purpose tractors there will be. In Phase 1, we sold nearly the
sales volume limit of special purpose tractors, indicating that it would be inappropriate for the agencies to
lower the limits unless the definition of a heavy haul vehicle were very broad. We wish to work with the
agencies further to understand 1) the final heavy haul definition and 2) how this affects the size of special
purpose tractor sales volume limit that would be needed to satisfy the industry's need for such vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 131 -132]
Proposed Exclusions from the Phase 2 Tractor Standards - The agencies discuss two possible
approaches for second stage manufacturers that build custom sleepers, that the vehicles be considered 1)
as dromedary vehicles or 2) if the manufacturer changed the cab, but not the frontal area of the vehicle,
then it could retain the aerodynamic bin of the original tractor. 80 FR 40214. Our main concern is to
clarify that where the primary manufacturer has certified a vehicle as a day cab, the second stage
manufacturer's actions do not draw the primary manufacturer into noncompliance. In many cases, we do
not know a priori that a vehicle will be altered by a second stage manufacturer; we have simply sold (for
example) a long wheel base tractor like any other long wheel base tractor. Given the extremely large
number of companies that buy our vehicles and alter them or add components to perform the vehicles'
intended tasks, we cannot monitor each company to see if it is (for example) adding a sleeper that will
enlarge the frontal area. Rather, we sell vehicles as compliant and essentially our obligation ends there
(albeit with warranty requirements, etc.). Either way that the agencies propose to regulate these secondary
vehicle manufacturers is fine, as long as we the primary vehicle manufacturers can continue to sell
vehicles with the expectation that anyone changing them from the compliant state in which we built them
will certify those changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 132]
Response:
EPA is adopting the proposed regulatory language in 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(1) that states it is a violation to
introduce into U.S. commerce a Phase 1 tractor containing an engine not certified for use in tractors; or to
introduce into U.S. commerce a vocational vehicle containing a light heavy-duty or medium heavy-duty
engine not certified for use in vocational vehicles.
For the FRM, EPA and NHTSA are revising the heavy-haul tractor provisions to better assure that
vehicles are regulated in an appropriate subcategory. Based on our assessment of CBI data provided by a
manufacturer, the tractors with GCWR greater than or equal to 120,000 pounds truly represent heavy-haul
applications in the U.S. Therefore, we are adopting criteria only based on GCWR, not the proposed RBM
or total gear reduction ratios.
-------
The agencies evaluated the sales cap limit proposed for special purpose tractors and the comments
addressing the issue of a sales cap. EPA calculated the number of vocational tractors certified in MY
2014 and MY 2015. The number of tractors ranged between approximately 2,600 and 6,200 per year per
manufacturer that certified special purpose tractors, but not all manufacturers utilized this provision.133
From this, we can conclude that none of the manufacturers are utilizing this provision near the maximum
allowable level in Phase 1. We also believe that there is more incentive for manufacturers to use the
special purpose tractor provisions in Phase 1 because of the relative difference in stringency between the
tractor and vocational programs is much greater in Phase 1 than in Phase 2. We therefore concluded that
there is significantly less incentive for the manufacturers to reclassify tractors that are not truly special
purpose tractors as vocational vehicles. In addition, the Phase 2 vocational vehicle compliance program
and standards better represent the duty cycles expected of these vehicles and are predicated on
performance of similar sets of vehicle technologies, except for aerodynamic technologies, as the primary
tractor program. Therefore, we are adopting Phase 2 special purpose tractor provisions without a sales
cap.
In response to these comments, EPA is clarifying in 40 CFR 1037.622 that small businesses may modify
tractors as long as they do not modify the front of the vehicle and so long as the sleeper compartment is
no more than 102 inches wide or 162 inches in height. As an interim provision, to allow for a better
transition to Phase 2, EPA is finalizing a more flexible compliance path in 40 CFR 1037.150(r). This
option allows small manufacturers to convert a low or mid roof tractor to a high roof configuration
without recertification, provided it is for the purpose of building a custom sleeper tractor or for
conversion to a natural gas tractor. Although this more flexible allowance to convert low and mid roof
tractors to high roof tractors is being adopted as an interim provision, we have not established an end date
at this time. We expect to reevaluate this provision as manufacturers begin to make use of and may
decide to revise it in the future, potentially to make it a permanent allowance. To be eligible for this
option, the secondary manufacturer must be a small manufacturer and the original low or mid roof tractor
must be covered by a valid certificate of conformity. The modifications may not increase the frontal area
of the tractor beyond the frontal area of the equivalent high roof tractor paired with a standard box van.
See generally Section III.C.5 in the Preamble to the final rule.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar supports creating a new Heavy Haul sub-category as this type of vehicle is specified uniquely
and is not designed for standard trailers. To appropriately identify the vehicles for this category, the
proposed total gear reduction ratio of 57:1 should be revised to 53:1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-
A1 p.30]
4x2 tractors with heavy duty powertrains are typically purchased to pull multiple trailers. These tractors
should be classified as Class 8 vehicles regardless of their GVWR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1
P-30]
Response:
For the FRM, EPA and NHTSA are revising the heavy-haul tractor provisions to balance the certainty
that vehicles are regulated in an appropriate subcategory. Based on our assessment, the tractors with
GCWR greater than or equal to 120,000 pounds truly represent heavy-haul applications in the U.S.
133 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket: Special Purpose Tractor Production Volumes.
-------
Therefore, we are adopting criteria only based on GCWR, not the proposed RBM or total gear reduction
ratios.
Also for the FRM, EPA adopted regulations (40 CFR 1037.106(f)) that allow manufacturers to optionally
certify 4x2 tractors with heavy heavy-duty engines to the standards and useful life for Class 8 tractors,
with no restriction on generating or using emission credits within the Class 8 averaging set.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
PACCAR requests that the definition of special purpose tractors in § 1037.630 be maintained as it is for
Phase 1. The provision for gross combination weight rating of over 120,000 lb. should be retained since
not all heavy hauling vehicles will meet all the requirements of a heavy-haul tractor but will meet the
requirements for the Special Purpose Tractor and therefore OEMs should have the option to include them
in this vehicle family. A modification to the definition to include "equal to 120,000 GCWR" is also
requested. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.30]
PACCAR supports the current sales limit for vocational tractors at 21,000 per OEM over a 3-year period.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.30]PACCAR also supports removing the prohibition on the
installation of vocational engines into tractors where these engines are appropriate for the customer's
application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.30]
Definitions
In the definition of "heavy haul tractors," PACCAR has several suggestions. First, Total Reduction ratio
should be 53:1 not 57:1 based on transmission and rear axle ratio combinations that are typically used in
heavy-haul tractors meeting the agencies' definition. Specifically, the ratio change will allow vehicles
using 9-speed low-low and 18-speed transmissions with appropriate rear axle ratios, plus Allison heavy-
duty 4500 and 4700 series automatic transmissions, to be properly included in the Heavy-Haul Tractor
regulatory subcategory. The 14.4 first gear of the 18-speed transmission coupled with the 3.73 rear axle
ratio is an example of a significant sales volume combination that meets the recommended 53:1 Total
Reduction ratio Second, the Drive Axle Ratio in Table III-19 of the Preamble needs to be increased
numerically so that the Total Reduction ratio (lowest transmission gear multiplied by rear axle ratio)
matches the heavy haul tractor definition. In the table, the 12.29 first gear ratio for the 13-speed
transmission and the 3.55 drive axle ratio yield a 43.6:1 Total Reduction ratio. Changing the rear axle
ratio to 4.31 would reach the 53:1 definition that PACCAR is recommending. Third, an automatic
transmission torque converter ratio should be included in the Total Reduction ratio calculation to properly
incorporate the slip and first gear ratio combination that is inherent in an automatic transmission. A ratio
of 1.5:1 should be the minimum recommended ratio for consideration as the bottom of the range for
torque converter ratios, with 2.0:1 being a more fitting ratio at the middle of the range for heavy-haul
automatic transmissions. Fourth, the definition of heavy-haul should be revised to be "equal to or greater
than 120,000 lb. GCWR" rather than "over 120,000 GCWR." PACCAR agrees with the agencies'
approach that all heavy-haul tractors should be combined into a single subcategory regardless of roof
height/configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.31]
Response:
EPA is maintaining the definition of special purpose tractors in 40 CFR1037.630 for Phase 1, with the
exception of including tractors with a GCWR equal to 120,000 pounds.
EPA is retaining the 21,000 special purpose tractor three-year sales cap for Phase 1.
-------
EPA is adopting the proposed regulatory language in 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(1) that states it is a violation to
introduce into U.S. commerce a Phase 1 tractor containing an engine not certified for use in tractors; or to
introduce into U.S. commerce a vocational vehicle containing a light heavy-duty or medium heavy-duty
engine not certified for use in vocational vehicles.
EPA and NHTSA are revising the heavy-haul tractor provisions to balance the certainty that vehicles are
regulated in an appropriate subcategory. Based on our assessment, the tractors with GCWR greater than
or equal to 120,000 pounds truly represent heavy-haul applications in the U.S. Therefore, we are adopting
criteria only based on GCWR, not the proposed RBM or total gear reduction ratios. See generally Section
III.C.4.a to the Preamble to the final rule.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Heavy-Haul Tractor Definition
EPA's proposed specifications for heavy-haul tractors are unworkable. More specifically, the relevant
vehicles do not actually meet the Agency's proposed total gear reduction ratio of 57:1 or greater. Even
EPA's baseline heavy-haul vehicle only generates a 43.6:1 total reduction, which is well short of the
proposed regulatory mark. Consequently, the Agency needs to lower the benchmark total reduction to
53:1. For example, the Allison 7-speed 4700 transmission and the Eaton 9LL products both are
specifically designed for heavy-haul operations, but cannot meet the proposed 57:1 ratio. They could,
however, meet a 53:1 specification, which is where the heavy-haul requirement should be set. To that end,
the agencies should change the rear axle ratio for the baseline vehicle to attain the 53:1 total reduction
ratio.1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.43-44]
That said, EMA supports the agencies' proposed approach of not requiring the use of aerodynamic
technologies as a component of the proposed Phase 2 heavy-haul tractor standards. Those vehicles are
already quite heavy (by virtue of need), are designed to meet high-cooling needs (thus having, for
example, large grilles), and generally are not designed for hauling standard trailers on highways. In
addition, those vehicles are often designed to be capable of operation off-road or on difficult terrain.
Consequently, mandating aerodynamic values (which could push manufacturers toward smaller grilles) or
aerodynamic components (which are often unsuitable for difficult terrain) could compromise the vehicles'
work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.44]
In addition, the agencies should revise the definition of "heavy-haul tractor" to be "equal to or greater
than 120,000 pounds GCWR" rather than "greater than 120,000 pounds GCWR." The specifications for
the heavy-haul market start with and include 120,000 pounds GCWR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.44]
Special Purpose Tractors
There is a group of special purpose tractors with a gross combination weight rating ("GCWR") over
120,000 pounds that needs to be accounted for in a separate and distinct manner. Those special-purpose
vehicles, in essence, fall in between the regulatory categories for heavy-haul tractors and Class 8 tractors.
Such vehicles are still appropriately categorized as "Specialty Tractors" and should be included at the
manufacturer's option in the Vocational Tractor family, even though they may not meet the total gear
reduction requirement (which, as noted above, should be 53:1, not 57:1), or the frame rail RBM
requirements. Accordingly, the 120,000 GCWR metric should remain as a sufficient defining criteria for
Vocational/Specialty Tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.47]
-------
1 In addition, an automatic transmission torque converter ratio should be included in the total reduction
ratio calculation to properly incorporate the slip and first gear ratio combination that is inherent in
automatic transmissions. A ratio of 1.5:1 should be considered as the bottom of the range for torque
converter ratios, with 2.0:1 being a more suitable ratio at the middle of the range for heavy-haul automatic
transmissions.
Response:
EPA and NHTSA are revising the heavy-haul tractor provisions to better assure that vehicles are
regulated in an appropriate subcategory. Based on our assessment, the tractors with GCWR greater than
or equal to 120,000 pounds truly represent heavy-haul applications in the U.S. Therefore, we are adopting
criteria only based on GCWR, not the proposed RBM or total gear reduction ratios. With these Phase 2
changes to the proposed heavy-haul tractor definition, all tractors that would have been considered as
Special Purpose Tractors in Phase 1 due to the GCWR criteria listed in EPA's 40 CFR 1037.630 and
NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR 523.2 will now qualify as heavy-haul tractors in Phase 2. Therefore, we
no longer believe that it is necessary for heavy-haul tractors to be treated as Special Purpose Tractors.
See generally Section III.C.5 of the Preamble for additional discussion.
EMA's comments about aerodynamic limitations for heavy-haul tractors largely echo the agencies' own
concerns voiced at proposal. After considering these comments, the agencies are using a technology
package that does not use aerodynamic improvements in setting the Phase 2 heavy-haul tractor standards,
as we proposed.
Organization: Volvo Group
The agencies have proposed to add a heavy haul category to Class 8 tractors. We support this addition
since heavy haul tractors require large engines and increased cooling capacity. In addition, most heavy
haul rigs have some requirement for off-road access to pick up machinery, bulk goods, and unusual loads.
For all these reasons, it is infeasible or ineffective to add many aerodynamic features to heavy haul
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.45]
Heavy Haul Tractor Subcategory
Volvo Group supports the agencies' proposal to provide for a heavy haul tractor regulatory subcategory;
however, and in support of the EMA comments, Volvo Group proposes a gross combination weight rating
of greater than or equal to 120,000 lbs. and a total gear reduction at or above 53:1. In addition, Volvo
Group has concerns regarding the drive cycle weighting for the heavy haul subcategory (19% transient,
17% 55 mph, and 64% 65 mph cycles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.45]
In reality, there are multiple types of heavy-haul tractors, each with their own specific characteristics
based on operational considerations: high-roof highway sleeper tractors pulling box vans at or above 120k
GCWR (e.g. long combination vehicles) that run regional and long-haul operations and can benefit from
the same technologies as high-roof sleepers with 80k GCWR and should be credited for the higher
payload, low- and mid-roof sleepers that primarily run long-haul routes (e.g. pulling low-boy trailers and
heavy equipment), low-roof day cab tractors running regional and shorter routes (e.g. bulk haul), and then
what the industry typically refers to as heavy-haul that are extremely high GCWR and can haul above 300
metric tons and sometimes run in multiple tractor configurations that provide for one or more tractor(s)
pulling and one or more tractor(s) pushing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.45-46]
-------
Volvo Group does not agree that certain segments of the heavy-haul population are appropriately
represented by the baseline and technology packages for each stringency step. These types of vehicles
typically utilize an 18-speed transmission, since they require the very close gear ratios (as the agencies
noted in their technology assessment), would not likely be able to utilize even current SmartWay tires, let
alone Level 2 and 3 tires as proposed in the penetration rates, would see no benefit from predictive cruise,
sometimes utilize an auxiliary transmission for further reduction or closer ratios, and nearly all heavy-
haul tractors have deeper drive axle ratios than the agencies have assumed (3.55). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.46]
Lastly, Volvo Group does not agree with the proposal in Section III.D.3.d.i "Proposed Heavy-Haul
Tractor Standard" that the engine installed in a heavy-haul tractor must meet the tractor engine standard
defined in 40 CFR 1036.108. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.46]
Since the agencies have given the ability for a broad definition of a heavy-haul tractor, but limited that
tractor to a day cab tractor duty cycle and tractor engine standard, there is still a significant segment of the
heavy-haul market which is unaccounted for. We request that the agencies add a Vocational Heavy-Haul
Tractor subcategory that allows for a heavy-haul tractor which benefits from the utilization of a
powertrain optimized to meet the vocational operational requirements of this segment, a technology
package corresponding to those operational characteristics, and with a corresponding duty cycle and, most
importantly, a payload representative of heavy-haul operation. We also request the agencies be clearer on
what they perceive to be a "heavy-haul" tractor. Volvo would like to continue to work with the agencies
to further define the heavy-haul tractor sub-category and any definition of an additional "Vocational"
heavy-haul tractor sub-category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.46]
Vocational Tractor Production Limit
During the development of the Phase 1 regulation Volvo Group proposed and led the way for the creation
of the Vocational Tractor subcategory. In addition, Volvo Group offered many suggestions on how to
identify and categorize these vehicles in order to avoid gaming. The final proposal was based on
vocational tractor characteristics and can be outlined as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.49]
1. Vocational specific model - Volvo VHD, Mack Granite, Titan, and TerraPro Or,
2. GCWR > 120,000k Or,
3. Any three of the following
1. Configuration other than 4*2, 6*2, 6*4
2. > 14.6k FAL
3. >46k RAL
4. >3.00:1 OAR in trans high range
5. >57.00:1 OAR in trans low range
6. RBM >=2e6 in*lbs.
7. >=20° approach angle
8. >=14" ground clearance as measured from the lowest point of any chassis mounted
component [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.49]
The first item denotes any vehicle designed specifically as a vocational vehicle and for any off-road
operation. These vehicles typically meet many of the criteria from item 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.49]
-------
The second item was based on the EPA provision to allow for heavy-haul tractors to be categorized as
vocational due to their operational considerations. This option will no longer be available in Phase 2 with
the creation of the Heavy-Haul Tractor subcategory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.49]
The last item was a list of vocational tractor and vehicle characteristics that make a vehicle suitable for
off-road operation and the specific tractor in question had to meet at least three of these criteria. Due to
the unsuitability of the majority of these characteristics for line haul operation, especially in terms of fuel
economy and ride comfort, as well as the significant added costs for these features, the agencies
understood that they would provide little opportunity for gaming due to negative incentives to specify a
vehicle with these features for purely highway operation, and even noted some of the Volvo proposed
characteristics in the Phase I rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.49-50]
Unfortunately, EPA and NHTSA could not gain consensus on these features from other OEMs since, at
the time, they were utilizing several models as highway and vocational and could not commit to this
approach. Thus, the EPA instituted a volume limit on the number of tractors that could be certified as
vocational tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.50]
In Volvo Group's opinion, this volume limit is overly constraining and burdensome and should be
removed. Given the recent product lineup overhauls across the industry we do not believe that there are
many models still on the market that are sold in large numbers into both highway tractor and vocational
tractor segments, nor is there sufficient reason that any OEM cannot identify specific vehicle attributes in
order to classify a tractor as suitable solely for highway use, or on/off-road use. Given the stringencies
proposed in Phase 2, it is not likely that many vehicles will be able to meet the demands of both
applications. As well, the agencies have made no mention of any OEM incorrectly or intentionally
misapplying the Vocational Tractor provision in order to game the system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.50]
For these reasons Volvo Group proposes that the agencies remove the vocational tractor volume
restrictions and employ a guideline based on the aforementioned vehicle characteristics, as they have
done with the Heavy-haul Tractor subcategory on a much more limited basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.50]
Response:
The agencies are adopting heavy-haul tractor standards for Phase 2. Volvo's comments about
aerodynamic limitations for heavy-haul tractors largely echo the agencies' own concerns voiced at
proposal. After considering these comments, the agencies are using a technology package that does not
use aerodynamic improvements in setting the Phase 2 heavy-haul tractor standards, as we proposed.
EPA and NHTSA are revising the heavy-haul tractor provisions to balance the certainty that vehicles are
regulated in an appropriate subcategory. Based on our assessment, the tractors with GCWR greater than
or equal to 120,000 pounds truly represent heavy-haul applications in the U.S. Therefore, we are adopting
criteria only based on GCWR, not the proposed RBM or total gear reduction ratios or the requirement to
include a heavy heavy-duty tractor engine. With these Phase 2 changes to the proposed heavy-haul
tractor definition, all tractors that would have been considered as Special Purpose Tractors in Phase 1 due
to the GCWR criteria listed in EPA's 40 CFR 1037.630 and NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR 523.2 will
now qualify as heavy-haul tractors in Phase 2. Therefore, we no longer believe that it is necessary for
heavy-haul tractors to be treated as Special Purpose Tractors. See Section III.C.5 of the Preamble to the
final rule for additional discussion.
-------
The agencies have revised the baseline heavy-haul tractor to use an 18-speed transmission and a
numerically higher axle ratio to better reflect the drivelines used in these types of tractors. After
considering the other technology comments and the information regarding the tire rolling resistance
improvement opportunities, the agencies have adjusted the adoption rate of low rolling resistance tires.
The agencies considered Volvo's request for an additional heavy-haul vocational subcategory and
analyzed the expected technology package differences between the vocational and tractor program. As
described in Section III.D. 1 of the FRM Preamble, the agencies are only adopting technologies in the
heavy-haul tractor category that would be applicable to the operation of these vehicles. For example, we
are not adopting standards that are premised on any improvements to aerodynamics or extended idle
reduction. Therefore, we concluded that there is not a need to develop another vocational subcategory to
account for heavy-haul tractors.
The agencies also reviewed Volvo's suggested criteria for Special Purpose Tractors and concluded that
the Phase 1 approach and the existing criteria are working well; therefore, we do not foresee the need to
adopt more restrictive criteria. The agencies are adopting in Phase 2 provisions (but not revising Phase 1)
in EPA's 40 CFR 1037.630 and NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR 523.2 to only allow the following two
types of vocational tractors to be eligible for reclassification to Special Purpose Tractors by the
manufacturer:
(1) Low-roof tractors intended for intra-city pickup and delivery, such as those that deliver
bottled beverages to retail stores.
(2) Tractors intended for off-road operation (including mixed service operation), such as those
with reinforced frames and increased ground clearance.
The agencies evaluated the sales cap limit proposed for special purpose tractors and the comments
addressing the issue of a sales cap. EPA calculated the number of vocational tractors certified in MY
2014 and MY 2015. The number of tractors ranged between approximately 2,600 and 6,200 per year per
manufacturer that certified special purpose tractors, but not all manufacturers utilized this provision.134
From this, we can conclude that none of the manufacturers are utilizing this provision near the maximum
allowable level in Phase 1. We also believe that there is more incentive for manufacturers to use the
special purpose tractor provisions in Phase 1 because of the relative difference in stringency between the
tractor and vocational programs is much greater in Phase 1 than it will be in Phase 2. Upon further
consideration, we concluded that there is significantly less incentive for the manufacturers to reclassify
tractors that are not truly special purpose tractors as vocational vehicles as a pathway to a less stringent
standard in Phase 2 primarily due to the fact that the Phase 2 vocational vehicle program stringency is
more in line with the tractor program stringency. In addition, the Phase 2 vocational vehicle compliance
program and standards better represent the duty cycles expected of these vehicles and are predicated on
performance of similar sets of vehicle technologies, except for aerodynamic technologies, as the primary
tractor program. Therefore, we are adopting Phase 2 special purpose tractor provisions without a sales
cap. See generally Section III.C.5 of the Preamble for additional discussion.
4.5 Compliance Provisions and Flexibilities for Tractor Standards 863
Organization: A de F Limited
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 169-170.]
134 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket: Special Purpose Tractor Production Volumes.
-------
EPA, it appears, took the approach to carve up the combination tractor-trailer into two regulatory phases.
In the first phase, a tractor manufacturer offers a coefficient of drag for their tractor, which in the case of
our product is buried within that number and not quantified. Yet, it is known to be a significant
contributor in lowering drag.
In the second phase, a collection of various products, largely aerodynamic, are encouraged to be
incorporated into a trailer to reach the desired increase in efficiency. The truck and the trailer do not
operate independent of one another. Making them more incorporated as a single efficient unit is the
ultimate goal. However, EPA collects a coefficient of drag from the manufacturer for their tractor and
then relies on its certification methodology for its trailers.
Response:
The agencies have developed regulations that regulate the tractor separately from the trailer for several
reasons. First, the manufacturers of the tractor are different entities than those that manufacture trailers.
Requiring tractor manufacturers to certify to a proper trailer configuration is thus both unnatural and
unfair. The applicable principle, which EPA has applied in numerous certification contexts, is that the
entity with most control over the particular vehicle segment due to producing it should normally be the
entity which certifies. See 73 FR 59115. Second, tractors and trailers are not typically purchased
together. Third, a specific tractor is rarely paired with a specific trailer in-use throughout its life. The
agencies have adopted aerodynamic protocols that have the ability to quantify the impact of technologies,
such as wheel covers, on the aerodynamic drag of the tractor and trailer independently.
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Chassis testing of tractor and vocational vehicles
ACEEE supports the agencies' proposal that tractor and vocational vehicle manufacturers annually
chassis test some of their production vehicles over the GEM cycles to verify that relative reductions
simulated in GEM are being achieved in actual production (p. 40190). ACEEE in its 2011 report
recommended physical testing (road, track, or chassis dynamometer) for a basic set of well-defined
vehicle configurations.1 The results of these tests should be public information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.7]
Such a requirement can benefit the heavy-duty vehicle program greatly by: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p.7]
1. Helping to make further changes to the GEM model that will improve its accuracy in projecting
real-world effectiveness of fuel efficiency technology packages, and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p.7]
2. Generating extensive data on vehicle performance that could be used by researchers to evaluate
the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.7]
Recommendation: Chassis testing requirements
• Finalize the requirement that manufacturers provide results from annual chassis testing of a small
number of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.7]
• Provide the results of this testing to the public in a usable format. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p.7]
-------
Tractor trucks
Road grade in GEM certification
ACEEE supports the agencies' proposal to include road grade in the constant speed cycles used in vehicle
certification. Significant road grade is common much of the country. Driving through the grade demands
more power from the engine and hence increases fuel consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
p. 14]
The grade profile discussed in the proposal was developed by Southwest Research Institute on a 12.5 mile
stretch of restricted-access highway during on-road tests. The agencies have requested comment on
related work done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). We agree with NREL's
concern that a cycle that requires constant speeds (55-mph and 65-mph) on positive and negative grades
misrepresents the real-world operation of MD/HD trucks, because there is a strong correlation between
road grade and average speed for these vehicles11'12. The agencies should address this issue before
adopting the Phase 2 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 14]
Measurement issues
We support the agencies' proposal to shift to wind-averaged drag in the calculation of CdA. This step is
necessary to capture the benefits of certain aerodynamic improvements whose primary function is to
reduce drag with non-zero yaw. Such devices can provide substantial real-world savings, so the standards
should promote their adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 15]
We take this opportunity to comment on an adjustment EPA proposes to the Phase 1 measurement of Cd.
Phase 1 does not call for the measurement of wind-averaged drag but offers manufacturers the option of
using wind-averaged drag, together with a downward adjustment factor, to estimate Cd for compliance
purposes. Due to an error in the agencies' specified adjustment factor, however, manufacturers using this
option are currently generating unwarranted fuel efficiency and GHG credits. The discrepancy is
significant. In order not to lose benefits of the program through the application of credits that do not
correspond to real-world savings, the agencies should as soon as possible correct the factor applied to
wind-averaged drag to generate Cd values for Phase 1 compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
p. 15-16]
Recommendations: Tractor aero measurement issues
• Include wind-averaged drag, as proposed, in the final measurement protocol for tractor CdA
measurement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 16]
• At the earliest opportunity, correct the factor applied to wind-averaged drag to generate Cd values
for Phase 1 compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 16]
Standard trailer for tractor certification
The agencies seek comment on the proposed Phase 2 standard trailer configuration (p.40245). While the
agencies' decision to use a more aerodynamic trailer as the standard trailer than in Phase 1 is welcome,
the proposed improvement is not sufficient. The wind tunnel testing results shown in Table 3-10 of the
RIA indicates that the addition of a skirt to a trailer achieves a delta CdA of approximately 0.5 on a high
roof sleeper. This suggests that the proposed Phase 2 standard trailer is a Bin IV trailer ("advanced skirt
or tail," according to the characterization in RIA Table 2-70).13 However, by the time the standard trailer
is updated in 2021, the agencies' compliance package assumes an average delta CdA = 0.66, considerably
-------
better than that of the new standard trailer. By 2027, the compliance package has average delta CdA =
1.1. To the extent that the tractor manufacturers seek to design tractors to tow the more aerodynamic
trailers coming into the market over the course of Phase 2, keeping the standard trailer static could be
counterproductive. In fact, it does not seem realistic to expect that all tractors would necessarily admit
testing with a standard trailer, as advanced aerodynamic designs call for more dramatic changes in cab
shape. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 16]
We recommend that, at a minimum, tractor OEMs be given the option of testing with a trailer more
advanced than the proposed standard trailer. This option would help to promote the integration of tractor
and trailer, which represents an enormous opportunity for savings in the longer term. Volvo's SuperTruck
project reports that it has already achieved approximately 6% drag reduction from "co-optimization" of
tractor and trailer and anticipates additional drag reductions of over 10% from "integrated design."14
Major gains in tractor-trailer efficiency through improved aerodynamics will eventually allow these
trucks to far surpass the 2027 standards. In discussing the Peterbilt SuperTruck project, which is said to
have achieved a 25% gain in fuel economy through aerodynamic improvements, the agencies observe:
"This effort represents the first step in the evolution of improving the aerodynamic efficiency of tractor-
trailer by radically redesigning today's tractor-trailer combination, as a wholly integrated system rather
each component, tractor and trailer, independently." (RIA p.2-23) The RIA (p.2-24) also discusses
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's advanced aerodynamic research, which developed a
prototype tractor-trailer designed to achieve 50 percent reduction in aerodynamic drag. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1 p.16]
While the standards perhaps should not anticipate that that transition will occur by 2027, Phase 2 should
facilitate the transition by promoting full tractor-trailer integration. The current requirement that tractors
be tested using a standard box trailer cannot recognize integration and therefore cannot promote it. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 16-17]
Allowing manufacturers to test their tractors with advanced trailers would yield results reflecting the
aerodynamic gains of both tractor and trailer, as well as their integration. To prevent double counting of
the drag reductions provided solely by the more advanced trailer under this option, the result of testing
would need to be corrected using a "delta CdA" approach, as is discussed in the proposal in connection
with trailer aero. Specifically, a manufacturer could assign tractor X to a given bin if CdA of tractor X
with aerodynamic trailer + delta CdA of aerodynamic trailer met the bin threshold. Note that the value of
second term in this expression would be available from compliance testing for the aerodynamic trailer, so
this approach would not increase the test burden on the tractor manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p. 17]
While tractor X might not always be paired with an aerodynamic trailer in operation and thus might not
realize the calculated benefit (just as any tractor might operate with a trailer less aerodynamic than the
standard box trailer), manufacturers and purchasers of advanced tractors presumably would seek to ensure
that the correct pairings were made as a matter of course. As the agencies note, "tractor-trailer pairings
are almost always optimized." (p.40245) Furthermore, the value of a meaningful incentive to accelerate
the aerodynamic integration of tractors and trailers likely outweighs potential costs in fuel savings of
mismatched tractors and trailers. However, if the possibility of unrealized benefits poses an obstacle to
allowing certification with an advanced trailer, the agencies could require that tractors so certified be used
only with advanced trailers and that this requirement be indicated on the tractor label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1 p.17]
It should be noted that trailer manufacturers are already given the latitude to test with any tractor of Bin
III or better: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.17]
-------
In order to maintain a minimal level of performance, we are proposing that tractors used in trailer
aerodynamic tests meet Phase 2 Bin III or better tractor requirements (see Section III.D.). We believe the
majority of tractors in the U.S. trucking fleet will be Bin III or better in the timeframe of this rulemaking,
and trailer manufacturers have the option to choose higher performing tractors in later years as tractor
technology improves, (p. 40280) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 17]
Tractor manufacturers should be accorded this flexibility as well. While allowing such flexibility on the
tractor side, as well as for the trailer, might appear to invite double counting of tractor-trailer integration
benefits that is not the case. If the trailer manufacturer has already taken credit for integration through this
mechanism, that trailer's delta CdA will have been elevated as a result. Hence the (upward) correction of
the tractor's CdA will be greater, and the tractor OEM will gain no integration credits in this situation.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 17]
Recommendation: Standard trailer for tractor certification
• To promote integration of aerodynamically advanced tractors and trailers, provide manufacturers
the option to test tractors with advanced trailers; correct the test result appropriately to account
for the benefit provided by the trailer alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 17]
Standard tractor for trailer certification
The Phase 2 proposal would permit manufacturers to test their trailers with tractors meeting Phase 2 Bin
III or better (p. 40280). This will allow trailer manufacturers to gain credit for integration with tractors as
both tractor and trailer aerodynamics evolve. Above we recommend that tractor manufacturers be given a
comparable flexibility in their choice of test trailer while noting that a trailer already certified to a higher
delta CdA by virtue of such integration would negate any integration benefits on the tractor side. This is
appropriate, since double counting of integration benefits cannot be permitted. However, tractor
manufacturers may be far more likely than trailer manufacturers to pursue the development of integrated
tractor-trailer aerodynamic designs, so the availability of an integration credit on the trailer side does not
diminish the need for such a credit on the tractor side. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 18-19]
Test trailer
The comments of Volvo Trucks (p.20) state: "Either the agencies must reduce the aerodynamic targets for
tractors or provide for a test trailer with advanced aerodynamics, including, at a minimum, an efficient
boat-tail and side skirts." While we do not support the view that the proposed aerodynamic targets are too
demanding when the prescribed test trailer is used, making the standard trailer for testing tractors more
aerodynamic makes sense. As Volvo says (p.27), "The test trailer should represent an advanced
aerodynamic design that meets the 2027 trailer targets so that future tractors are designed to operate
efficiently with future trailers and the combinations can achieve the desired aerodynamic performance."
Yet, by 2021, the average trailer will have better aerodynamics (delta CdA = 0.66) than the proposed
standard trailer (delta CdA = 0.5). By 2027, the average trailer will achieve delta CdA =1.1. This trailer
would reduce the drag of the 2027-compliant tractor (high roof sleeper with standard trailer, CdA = 5.32)
by more than 20%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 12]
An insufficiently aerodynamic standard trailer forgoes an incentive for manufacturers to pursue certain
improvements in the tractor and elsewhere in the vehicle. As one example, Daimler notes that lower
vehicle drag allows greater benefits for its eCoast technology
(http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/arravt080_vss_rotz_2015_o.pdfslide 8). As another
example, an aerodynamic trailer will reduce vehicle load, which may permit the use of a smaller engine.
-------
A more representative standard trailer will also yield better estimates of the benefits of various
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1896-A1 p.12]
Updating the standard trailer to include an Advanced Combination (skirt and boat tail) gives delta CdA =
1.0 on average (RIA Table 2-70), which approaches the standard for box trailers in 2027. Alternatively,
rather than specifying additional aerodynamic devices for the standard trailer, the agencies could simply
increase the required delta CdA for the standard trailer to 1.0 and leave it to the manufacturers to select a
test trailer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 13]
When updating the standard trailer, the agencies will need to make a corresponding (downward)
adjustment to the CdA of the tractor-trailer in the compliance package and hence increase the stringency
of the tractor truck standard. Otherwise, the effect of updating the trailer would be to demand less
improvement from the tractor, which is counterproductive and not the intent of our comment. If the test
trailer had delta CdA = 1, for example, rather than the proposed standard trailer of delta CdA= 0.5, then
the high-roof tractor compliance package for 2021 should achieve CdA = 5.24, rather than the CdA =
5.74 of the proposal. This adjustment offsets the aerodynamic benefit from the trailer alone, but
recognizes any savings achieved through co-optimization of the tractor and trailer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1896-A1 p.13]
In addition to incentivizing co-optimization, this change to the standard trailer would make it feasible to
achieve drag levels better than those in the compliance package. Volvo asserts (comments p.27; table
replicated below) that its SuperTruck tractor would reach only bin IV (CdA = 5.43) with the proposed
Phase 2 standard trailer, falling slightly short of the 2027 target (CdA = 5.32). However, the table shows
that Volvo's SuperTruck tractor paired with its Super Trailer would achieve CdA = 4.31. A Volvo
SuperTruck presentation (http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/fl7/vss081_amar_2014_o.pdf, slide
10) suggests that this result is achieved through trailer add-on devices followed by co-optimization. The
graphic (replicated below) suggests that co-optimization alone reduces CdA by about 0.27, which is more
than sufficient to meet the 2027 target, even after the target has been adjusted to reflect the trailer add-on
devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 13]
[Figure can be found on p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1]
[Figure, 'Complete Vehicle Aerodynamic Optimization', can be found on p. 14 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 ]
Beyond bringing the standard trailer up to date, the agencies should consider allowing manufacturers to
test tractors with still more advanced trailers; this would promote integration of tractor and trailer. In this
case, the modeled fuel efficiency of the tractor would need to be adjusted upward to reflect the delta CdA
of the aerodynamic trailer (relative to the standard trailer). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 14]
Hence, we recommend that the agencies redefine the standard trailer as one having delta CdA matching
the average for the appropriate model year. The tractor standard stringency should then be adjusted
accordingly. In addition, the agencies should consider allowing testing with more advanced/integrated
trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A 1 p. 14]
-------
I Khan and Langer. 2011. "Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The
2014-2019 Standards and a Pathway to the Next Phase." ACEEE Research Report T113.
htto: //aceee. org/research-report/t 113.
II Khan, A.S., and Clark, N.N., An Empirical Approach in Determining the Effect of Road Grade on
Fuel Consumption from Transit Buses,' SAE International Journal of Commercial Vehicle, Vol. 3, No. 1,
pp. 164-180, December 2010
12 EPA GHG Certification of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Development of Road Grade Profiles
Representative of US Controlled Access Highways. NREL/TP-5400-63853, May 2015
13 The agencies should clarify whether the proposed Phase 2 standard trailer is in fact a Bin 3 trailer.
14 Amar 2014. DOE Annual Merit Review, ditto ://energy. gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f 17/vss081 amar
2014 o.pdf.
Tractor aerodynamic selective enforcement audit and confirmatory testing
In a memo referenced in the NODA, EPA clarified how a vehicle would be determined to pass or fail in
selective enforcement audit (SEA) and confirmatory testing of its certified aerodynamic drag (CdA).3 The
EPA memo is responsive to comments of the manufacturers and others regarding the proposed
elimination of the compliance margin in these testing processes in Phase 2. It proposes that multiple
coastdown tests be performed in SEA or confirmatory testing, and that the vehicle would fail if and only
if the testing showed with high statistical confidence that the vehicle lay in a lower-numbered (higher
drag) aerodynamic bin than the one to which it had been certified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1
p.3]
The proposed approach represents a significant improvement over the one-bin compliance margin in
Phase 1. However, it should be further improved by setting the threshold in the statistical test at the bin
midpoint, rather than at the upper limit of the bin. Bin limits in the proposal appear to be based on the
range of benefits from defined improvements in aerodynamic design or equipment, so a bin midpoint
might best represent the result of a typical implementation of those aerodynamic improvements, making it
a suitable threshold for the statistical test. Moreover, the bin midpoint is the GEM CdA input for a tractor
certified to the given bin, so the midpoint is the proper value for purposes of SEA and confirmatory
testing. Using the proposed procedure, by contrast, CdA values could be expected to accumulate around
the upper limits of the bins. Tractor bins cover a range of drag values of about 0.5 m2, or roughly 10
percent of CdA values; so the half bin between the bin midpoint and upper bin threshold is roughly 5
percent of a typical CdA value. Five percent increase in long-haul tractor-trailer drag increases fuel
consumption by about 2 percent. Hence using the upper bin limit in SEA or confirmatory testing would
overstate tractor emissions reductions under the standards by about 2 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1896-A1 p.3]
Impact on proposal
The proposed SEA and confirmatory testing procedure would improve upon the current procedure but
would still overstate the emissions reductions resulting from the standards. To ensure that the real world
benefits of the rule are maintained, we recommend that the approach discussed in the EPA memo be
revised to require that the average confirmatory or SEA test results be no higher (statistically) than the
midpoint, rather than the upper limit, of the appropriate bin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1896-A1 p.3]
-------
1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1623/NHTS A-2014-0132-0185.
2 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1624/NHTSA-2014-0132-0186
3 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1625/NHTSA-2014-0132-0188.
Response:
Chassis Testing
The agencies are finalizing the tractor chassis test requirement largely as proposed.
EPA believes this chassis test program is necessary because of our experience implementing regulations
for heavy-duty engines. In the past, manufacturers have designed engines that have much lower emissions
on the duty cycles than occur during actual use. The recent experience with Volkswagen is an unfortunate
instance. By using this simple test program, we hope to be able to identify such issues earlier and to
dissuade any attempts to design solely to the certification test. We also expect the results of this testing to
help inform the need for any further changes to GEM. Even though there will be no direct compliance
liability for the GHG testing, the agencies would still be able to identify differences in performance that
resulted (on purpose or inadvertently) from how the powertrain is installed in the chassis.
Road Grade
After considering the road grade profile comments and using the NREL database, the agencies have
independently developed a road grade profile for the final rules for use in the 55 mph and 65 mph
highway cruise duty cycles for the Phase 2 final rulemaking. While based on the same road grade
database generated by NREL for U.S. restricted-access highways, its design is predicated on a different
approach. The development of this profile is documented in the RIA Chapter 3.4.2.1. The road grade in
the final rules includes a stretch with zero percent grade and lower peak grades than the profile presented
in the NODA. The minimum grade in the final cycle is -5 percent and the maximum grade is 5 percent.
The cycle spends 46 percent of the distance in grades of +/- 0.5 percent. Overall, the cycle spends
approximately 66 percent of the time in relatively flat terrain with road gradients of +/- 1 percent. A
detailed discussion of the road grade profile is included in RIA Chapter 3.4.2.1.
Drive Cycle
After considering these comments and evaluating the final Phase 2 version of GEM, the agencies in the
Phase 2 final rules are retaining a constant target speed for the 55 mph and 65 mph cycles, thus continuing
this aspect of the Phase 1 approach. However, the addition of road grade to these cruise cycles in Phase 2
marks a significant difference with Phase 1. See Preamble Section III.E.2. The addition of road grade to
the cruise cycles brings the GEM simulation of vehicles over the drive cycles closer to the real world
operation described by ACEEE. Even though the cruise cycles will continue to have constant target
speeds (55 mph or 65 mph), the vehicle may slow down from the target speed of the cycle on an uphill
stretch of road due to the addition of road grade in the Phase 2 cycles. If the vehicle does slow down the
transmission shift logic built into GEM will downshift the transmission to limit the amount of further
vehicle deceleration. Similarly, on the downhill portions of the cycles, the driver control logic built into
GEM will allow the vehicle to exceed the target speed by 3 mph prior to braking the vehicle.
Aerodynamic Test Procedures
-------
The commenter suggested that the agencies adopt wind averaged drag aerodynamic assessments in Phase
2. We proposed and are adopting aerodynamic test procedures that take into account the wind averaged
drag performance of tractors in Phase 2.
Phase 1 Aerodynamics Equation: EPA proposed a different equation with a ratio of 0.8330 in 40 CFR
1037.525(d) for the case of full yaw sweep measurements to determine wind-averaged drag correction as
an amendment to the Phase 1 program. Some commenters argued that this change would impact
stringency of the Phase 1 standard, but we disagree because manufacturers are already subject to EPA
compliance using both methods (full yaw sweep and ± 6 degree measurements), and this Phase 1
flexibility was not used in setting the level of the Phase 1 standards. Nevertheless, we are adopting the
final rule without amending this part of the Phase 1 rules. Commenters persuasively indicated that any
such amendment to the Phase 1 rules at this date could upset compliance plans predicated on the rules
remaining un-amended. These expectations and reliance are legitimate, and the agencies accordingly are
not amending this aspect of the Phase 1 rules. However, the agencies evaluated the status of Phase 1
credit balances in 2015 by sector.135 For tractors, we found that manufacturers are generating significant
credits, and that it appears that many of the credits result from their use of an optional provision for
calculating aerodynamic drag. However, we also believe that manufacturers will generate fewer credits in
MY 2017 and later when the final Phase 1 standards begin. Still, the agencies believe that manufacturers
will have significant credits balances available to them for MYs 2021-2023, and that much of these
balances would be the result of the test procedure provisions rather than pull ahead of any technology.
Therefore, we are increasing the stringency of the C02 and fuel consumption tractor standards for MYs
2021-2023 by 1 percent to reflect these credits (see Preamble Section III.D. lb.xiii).
The agencies re-evaluated the proposal to include trailer skirts on the Phase 2 reference trailer after
consideration of the comments. We still project that the bulk of trailers that will be in operation during
the life of tractors produced early in Phase 2 will be represented by the aerodynamic performance of a
trailer with skirts. Therefore, we are adopting the reference trailer as proposed. However, we also want
to recognize that the trailer fleet will continue to evolve over the lifetime of tractors built and certified to
Phase 2, especially from MY 2027 and later. Based on testing conducted to support the trailer portion of
Phase 2, we found that on average a boat tail added to a dry van trailer with skirts reduces wind averaged
CdA by 0.6 m2. We recognize that if we do not account for reduced aerodynamic loads in the real world,
then we may not be appropriately evaluating the tractor powertrain. We considered changing the standard
trailer in MY 2027; however, this would lead to significant testing burden for the tractor manufacturers
because they would have to determine new CdA values for their entire fleet of tractors. Instead, we are
adopting Phase 2 GEM that beginning in MY 2027 will take the CdA input for each vehicle and reduce it
by 0.3 m2 to reflect the lower aerodynamic loads that are a mix of trailers with skirts and trailers with
skirts and boat tails. This change has been accounted for in both the baseline and standard setting of the
C02 emissions and fuel consumption values.
Unlike the trailer program where the CdA assessment is in terms of differences in CdA, the tractor
program utilizes the absolute CdA result from testing. This difference in program structure requires the
agencies to treat the standard tractor in the trailer program and the standard trailer in the tractor program
uniquely. The impact of the test procedure allowance in the trailer program to use standard tractors that
are Bin III or better is appropriately offset by the fact that the tractor aerodynamic performance is
constant between the "A" test with no trailer aerodynamics and the "B" test with the trailer being
certified. However, in the tractor program, a similar allowance that permitted tractor manufacturers to
test with a standard trailer "with equivalent or better aerodynamic performance" would lead to a direct
135 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. 'Phase 1 Credit Balance Analysis." Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
-------
reduction in the tractor absolute CdA performance and unfairly put the tractor in a more aerodynamic bin.
Therefore, it is crucial in the tractor program that the standard trailer be well-defined and constant.
With respect to ACEEE's recommendation for the agencies to facilitate the transition to more integrated
tractor-trailers, such as those demonstrated with SuperTruck, the agencies believe this would require a
significant change in tractor-trailer logistics to encourage more matching of specific tractors to specific
trailers in operation. We believe that this would be most appropriately handled through the Off-Cycle
Credit program.
The agencies used the aerodynamic test data included in the NODA to determine the Phase 2
aerodynamic bin boundaries. As shown in the RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2, the tractors tested fell into Bins III
and IV. From there, the agencies evaluated additional aerodynamic technologies that could be used to
move the best performing tractor tested by EPA into the more aerodynamic bins and used this assessment
in developing one technology package used in developing the stringency of the tractor standard.
EPA is adopting SEA provisions for aerodynamics that do not include a one bin compliance margin.
However, the aerodynamic bin structure was created such that any tractor that has a CdA value that fell
within the bin boundaries is treated as compliant with that bin. We are not adopting provisions for SEAs
that would essentially require manufacturers to only use the more aerodynamic half of the bin. Therefore,
we are adopting the SEA provisions that consider the SEA as a "pass" if the results of the test show that
the tractor falls at or below the highest CdA boundary of the certified bin. See Section III.E.2.a.ix of the
Preamble for discussion on the SEA provisions.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Drive Cycle Weightings Need to be Re-Evaluated
The proposed rule indicates drive cycle weightings of 5% of the transient cycle, 9% of the constant speed
55 mph cycle, and 86% of the constant speed 65 mph cycle for sleeper cabs. For day cabs, the weightings
are 19% of the transient cycle, 17% of the constant speed 55 mph cycle, and 64% of the constant speed 65
mph cycle. ATA believes these weightings are not reflective of real world operations and tend to
overestimate the benefits of certain technologies, such as aerodynamics and rolling resistance, and
potentially discount others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 18]
As discussed in Appendix 2, using 3.6 million spot speed records collected from throughout the U. S.
during the month of May 2015, trucks operated at speeds of 55 mph or greater 57% of the time. This is
significantly lower that the weightings being used by EPA (95% of the time for sleeper cabs and 81% of
the time for day cabs). As shown below, the benefits from a 20% reduction in the aerodynamic drag
coefficient ("Cd") diminishes as speed decreases. The power loss (and benefits) associated with the
rolling resistance coefficient ("Crr") of tires also diminishes as speed decreases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1 p.18]
[Chart, 'Tractor-Trailer Operating Losses', can be found on p. 19 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1]16
Given the relationship between vehicle speed and technology benefits, it is imperative that EPA and
NHTSA develop drive cycle weightings that are representative of real-world operating conditions. The
agencies should consult with the American Transportation Research Institute to determine how available
data can be used to characterize the speeds at which trucks actually operate and incorporate this
-------
information into the speed weightings and technology assessments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1
p. 19]
16 National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Technologies and Approaches to
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (2010).
Response:
The agencies considered these comments along with the information that was used to derive the drive
cycle weightings in Phase 1. The agencies believe that the study cited by ATA includes weightings of
speed records, which represent the fraction of time spent at a given speed. However, our drive cycle
weightings represent the fraction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The agencies used the vehicle speed
information provided in the ATA comments and translated the weightings to VMT. Based on our
assessment discussed in RIA Chapter 3.4.3, their findings produce weightings that are approximately 74
percent of the vehicle miles traveled are at speeds greater than 55 mph and 26 percent less than 55 mph.
In addition, the study cited by ATA represents "Class 8 trucks" which would include day cab tractors
(with drive cycle weightings in Phase 1 and 2 of 19 percent at speeds less than 55 mph and 81 percent at
speeds greater than 55 mph), sleeper cab tractors (with drive cycle weightings in Phase 1 and 2 of 5
percent at speeds less than 55 mph and 95 percent at speeds greater than 55 mph), and heavy heavy-duty
vocational trucks (with drive cycle weightings in Phase 2 ranging between 20 percent and 54 percent at
speeds less than 55 mph). Based on this assessment, the agencies do not believe this new information is
significantly different than the drive cycle weightings that were proposed. Therefore, we are adopting the
drive cycle weightings for tractors that we adopted for Phase 1 and proposed for Phase 2.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - Making the constant speed test procedure the reference aerodynamic method
The RIA requests comment whether the constant speed test procedure should be the reference
aerodynamic method. CARB staff believes the constant speed test procedure should not be made the
reference method until it can be demonstrated to be superior to the coastdown type methods. The constant
speed test procedure requires invasive and costly vehicle modifications in preparation for testing. Namely
it requires installation of physical torque meters in either multiple wheel hub positions or in a custom
driveshaft location. Nevertheless, while CARB staff believes it is pre-mature at this time to deviate from
the accepted industry practice of the coastdown method, we also believe the constant speed procedure
holds merit as a potential alternative to the coastdown method. CARB staff looks forward to working with
U.S. EPA and NHTSA to examine the full potential and applicability of the constant speed procedure.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 119]
Response:
After consideration of all of the comments, the agencies are continuing to use the Phase 1 approach of
establishing coastdown testing as the reference method for aerodynamic assessment in Phase 2. See
Section III.E.2.a of the Preamble and RIA Chapter 3.2 for the Phase 2 aerodynamic assessment
discussion.
Organization: Caterpillar Inc., et al.
Protocols must be clearly defined and accommodate production and test variability
-------
There are a number of new or updated test procedures in the Phase 2 proposal including aerodynamic
coast-down, fuel mapping procedure, powertrain test procedure, rear axle efficiency, Selective
Enforcement Audits (SEA), and in-use chassis dyno testing. The current proposal does not include
compliance margins for modified or new procedures, such as aerodynamic and engine fuel map audits. To
reduce some of the variability that is inherent in the proposed test procedures, we recommend that the
agencies perform confirmatory and SEA tests using the same method and location that the manufacturer
used to certify the vehicle or component. Furthermore, we have worked with the agencies to improve the
accuracy of the procedures, for example we have recommended the inclusion of the yaw angle in the
coast-down procedure to reduce the impact of wind conditions. To account for the remaining variability,
compliance margins must be included in the Phase 2 regulation. If not corrected, these issues will subject
manufacturers to risks simply as a result of expected test variation that can only be mitigated by
downgrading our declared certifications to levels significantly worse than the actual test results, so as to
cover the range of production and test variability. We estimate these issues have the impact of raising the
de facto targets by approximately 12.5%; that is, we need to achieve 36.5% efficiency improvement to
meet the stated 24% target for high-rise sleeper tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.8]
Response:
The agencies have made several changes to the aerodynamic test procedures for the final rule to reduce
test-to-test variability. Although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate the
initial implementation of new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an
appropriate long-term policy. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on
coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance
testing, in which test-to-test variability is normally expected to be small relative to production variability.
With coastdown testing, however, test-to-test variability is expected to be larger relative to production
variability. In response to comments addressing this difference, EPA developed a different structure for
conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor CdA s and solicited supplemental comment on it. This new structure
reflects an approach that would be consistent with the following principles:
• Test-to-test variability for individual coastdown runs can be high, so compliance determinations
should be based on average values from multiple runs.
• Coastdown testing of a single vehicle is expensive and time consuming, so testing should focus more
on repeat tests for the same vehicle than on tests for multiple vehicles. However, manufacturers
should not be required to conduct more than 100 valid coastdown runs on any single vehicle.
• Compliance determinations should be based on whether or not the true value for the CdA falls within
the bin to which the vehicle was certified, rather than on whether or not the true value for the CdA
exceeds the value measured for certification.
• Given the limited ability to eliminate uncertainty, compliance determinations should consider the
statistical confidence that a true value lies outside a bin.
Commenters were generally very supportive of these principles and the proposed structure.
We believe the structure being finalized appropriately balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives
for manufacturers to act in good faith with manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on
inaccurate testing (or on testing that does not account for legitimately occurring test-to-test and
performance variability). Our current assessment is that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when
certifying and uses good engineering judgment throughout the process, false failures for individual
vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family would not occur.
Under this approach, EPA would select a production vehicle for coastdown testing, and the manufacturer
would be required to perform up to 100 valid coastdown runs to demonstrate whether or not the vehicle
was certified to the correct bin. EPA will address uncertainty in the measurement using a confidence
-------
interval around the mean CdA value. For example, the result of the testing could be a CdA value of 5.9 ±
0.05, which would fall entirely within Bin III. If the vehicle had been certified to Bin III or lower, this
would be considered a passing test. If it had been certified to Bin IV or higher, this would be considered
a failing test. For each vehicle that fails, the manufacturer would be required to test two additional
vehicles up to a maximum of 11 vehicles. Manufacturers would have the option to select the same
vehicle configuration, or they could choose to have EPA select another configuration within the family. It
is appropriate to allow manufacturers the opportunity to retest the same failed configurations because they
would only do so where there had reasonable confidence that the failure did not accurately reflect the true
value.
It is important to note that, although SEAs are directed by EPA, the actual testing is conducted by the
manufacturer at their chosen facilities. This minimizes many potential causes of test variability, such as
differences in test trailers, test tracks, or instrumentation. Thus confidence intervals need only reflect true
test-to-test variability. Also, manufacturers generally rent facilities for coastdown testing as needed,
which means EPA will need to provide some advance notice to allow the manufacturer to reserve the
appropriate facility.
In selecting the original configuration and subsequent selections, EPA would likely consider vehicles
with measured CdA values near the top of the bin since they could be most the likely to be mis-certified
based on inaccurate results. However, EPA could select any configuration. For subsequent testing if the
first vehicle fails, manufacturers would be allowed to retest the same configuration (but not the same
exact vehicle). EPA believes this would not decrease the risk of failure for subsequent vehicles, but could
allow a manufacturer the opportunity to show its design was actually compliant.
With respect to confirmatory testing, which is testing EPA conducts during certification rather than
during production, EPA has generally considered its test results to be the official test results. However,
we recognize that we need to treat confirmation of a manufacturer's Fait_aero differently because small
changes in its value would be spread over an entire family. Therefore, EPA is adopting an interim
provision that would apply the SEA confidence interval approach for confirmatory testing with respect to
Fait-aero* EPA would also attempt to use the same test trailers, test locations, and instrumentation that the
manufacturer. Nevertheless, we expect to revisit this issue in the future.
The agencies have also improved the engine test procedures and compliance provisions to reduce the
agencies' and the manufacturers' uncertainty of engine test results. For example, in the agencies'
confirmatory test procedures we are requiring that the agencies use the average of at least three tests (i.e.,
the arithmetic mean of a sample size of at least three test results) for determining the values of
confirmatory test results for any GEM engine fuel maps. This is in contrast to the agencies' usual
convention of utilizing a sample size of one for confirmatory testing. This at least triples the test burden
for the agencies to conduct confirmatory testing, but it also decreases confirmatory test result uncertainty
by at least 42 percent.136 Based on improvements like this one, and others described in Section 1.4 of the
RTC, we believe that SET, FTP and GEM's steady-state, cycle-average and powertrain test results will
have an overall uncertainty of +/-1.0 percent. To further protect against falsely high emissions results or
false failures due to this remaining level of test procedure uncertainty, we have included a +1 percent
compliance margin into our stringency analyses of the engine standards and the GEM fuel map inputs
136 The statistical formula for standard error, which is a well-accepted measure of uncertainty, is the standard
deviation times the reciprocal of the square root of the sample size. For a sample size of three, the reciprocal of the
square root of three is approximately 0.58, which results in a 42% reduction in uncertainty, versus a sample size of
one.
-------
used to determine the tractor and vocational vehicle standards. In other words we set Phase 2 engine and
vehicle standards 1 percent less stringent than if we had not considered this test procedure uncertainty.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports the development of representative road grades for the vehicle GHG/FE program
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.37]
The initial Phase 2 proposed road grade profiles (see Figure 15) do not contain sufficient grade to fully
exercise the vehicle powertrain, and the grade distributions do not match that of real world roads. The
data in Figure 15 do not have a normal distribution of grades and only span a range of +/-2%. Data of
North American roads suggest a distribution of road grades of +/-6%. The agencies have recently
suggested alternative road grades (see Figure 16) that are more representative of the roads that HD
vehicles encounter. Cummins supports further Agency discussions to establish more representative road
grades that better represent the North American highway system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1
p.37]
[Figure 15 and 16 can be found on p.37 and 38 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
Response:
After considering the road grade profile comments and using the NREL database, the agencies have
independently developed a road grade profile for the final rules for use in the 55 mph and 65 mph
highway cruise duty cycles for the Phase 2 final rulemaking. While based on the same road grade
database generated by NREL for U.S. restricted-access highways, its design is predicated on a different
approach. The development of this profile is documented in the RIA Chapter 3.4.2.1. The road grade in
the final rules includes a stretch with zero percent grade and lower peak grades than the profile presented
in the NODA. The minimum grade in the final cycle is -5 percent and the maximum grade is 5 percent.
The cycle spends 46 percent of the distance in grades of +/- 0.5 percent. Overall, the cycle spends
approximately 66 percent of the time in relatively flat terrain with road gradients of +/- 1 percent. A
detailed discussion of the road grade profile is included in RIA Chapter 3.4.2.1.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
In-use aero testing, § 1037.401(b): The EPA proposes unrealistic in-use aero tests, contrary to the well-
established procedures developed for IUT of engines. In engine IUT, the EPA recognizes that it would be
unfair to a manufacturer to test an engine when its owner has improperly maintained it, but in the
proposed aero IUT the EPA provides vehicle manufacturers no such protection. Moreover, the EPA
proposes to allow itself to use any aero test procedure with no margin for compliance. Truck aero testing
is subject to variability and the uncertainty of test results is compounded if the EPA can choose any test
procedure-even one that the manufacturer never used. Even in engine IUT, the test procedure (the
PEMS) is constrained to something with which manufacturers have familiarity. To expect that, in the case
of aerodynamics, manufacturers would either become familiar with all possible test procedures, and their
impact on all vehicle, or would build into every vehicle's GEM values a buffer against any aero test-
when the EPA did not use such a buffer in setting standards-is not realistic. The EPA should rectify this
situation by 1) constraining IUT to the test procedure(s) that the manufacturer used to derive a particular
vehicle's bin and 2) assigning a realistic compliance margin of 5%, which (based on the EPA's own data)
is the test-to-test variability and in turn the smallest margin that reflects statistical confidence in the
differences between the agency's tested value and the manufacturer's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
Alp.8]
-------
Proposal for aerodynamic Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) procedures (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1625, NHT S A-2014-0132-0188):
We appreciate the EPA's recognition that "[w]ith coastdown testing, ... test-to-test variability is expected
to be larger relative to production variability" than for other types of testing subject to SEAs and
"[c]oastdown testing of a single vehicle is expensive and time consuming" such that important changes
are necessary relative to the longstanding SEA principles. We appreciate the EPA's use of a bin approach
that recognizes test-to-test variability by not expecting the SEA test value of a vehicle to exactly mirror
the originally submitted test value but instead to fall within the appropriate bin. And we appreciate the
agency's having proposed some improved procedures relying only on statistically significant results.
Moreover, we agree that similar issues apply to confirmatory tests, so we agree with the EPA's approach
of focusing such tests on Fait_aero and of relying only on statistically significant results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1918-A2 p.8]
We further appreciate the EPA's willingness to work with us to minimize disruption for customers. Each
vehicle is custom built for a purchaser who has waited for the vehicle and needs it to complete a job. We
cannot simply grab the next vehicle on the assembly line and give it to the disrupted customer. At the
same time, coast-down testing and the preparation for that testing takes a long time and must be done at a
specific track, the reservation of which must be done a long time in advance. So finding a way to do the
testing yet minimize the disruption is very important. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.8]
In the proposed regulation § 1037.301(d)(l)(i), the EPA proposes to require that manufacturers
coastdown a vehicle "in its production configuration." The data submitted to the agencies as part of
certification, however, involve putting each vehicle at a predefined tractor-trailer gap of 45 ± 2 inches, in
order to reduce test burden for every actual gap. The regulations should state that we either test at the
regulatory gap or use good engineering judgment to correct actual tests to reflect test results if we used
the regulatory gap. (We generally have "rule of thumb" estimates for the increase in Cd*A due to a
particular increase in gap). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.8]
Making available any F_alt_aero vehicle for EPA audits: We agree with the agencies' approach in
1037.201(g). The agencies recognize that we cannot store indefinitely a large number of test vehicles, nor
can we guarantee that on any given day we will have exactly the configuration of vehicle that the EPA
demands in 1037.201(g). Rather, if the EPA intends to require testing of a lot of full-scale vehicles, either
through coast-down or constant-speed testing, the EPA should understand that we need to sell some of
those vehicles. In turn the EPA should agree to work with manufacturers to find acceptable test vehicles
at acceptable times, which perhaps means that the EPA's first choice of vehicle is not available on the day
the agency requests it. But the agencies have proposed that manufacturers be able to produce similar
vehicles, not the original test vehicles. We agree with this approach. 1037.201(g) / 80 FR 40617 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 10]
1. SEAs, generally
Aero audits and compliance: The test procedures dictate the need for additional compliance margins.
The agencies propose to authorize audits of vehicles' aerodynamics with no compliance margin. 40
C.F.R. §§ 1037.150(k) and 1037.401(b) (proposed). However, in setting stringencies for vehicle
standards, the agencies did not consider the safety margin that manufacturers would need in order to
certify under such a regime, thus making the agencies' proposed standards impossibly stringent. The
variability of coast-down testing is on the order of +/- 5%, based on the EPA's test data using our
Cascadia vehicle under very controlled conditions (low wind, the same flat test track, skilled driver, and
so on). (See the chart below, showing the EPA's measured data plotted relative to DTNA's measurement
-------
of the same vehicle) If the EPA expects a manufacturer to certify vehicles with no safety margin in the
rules to account for this 5% variability, then the manufacturers will have to certify vehicles at 5% above
their true Cd*A. In turn, the agency's stringency numbers need to be decreased to reflect the fact that what
the agency believes is achievable improvements in aerodynamic minus the 5% safety margin is all that
can go into GEM. Alternatively, and better for the EPA, is to recognize the variability in audit procedures
and to say that a vehicle fails an audit if it's Cd*A is more than 5% above the certified level. 1037.150(k)
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.6-7]
[The graphic, displaying Relative Cd*A(-) versus Temperature, can be found on p. 7 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
Aero SEAs needs to operate in the manner proposed by the EMA - First, the EPA needs to add in a
compliance margin or else to relax the emission standards, as manufacturers would need to use
compliance margins to account for the test-to-test variability associated with truck aero testing-yet the
EPA did not factor such margins into the standard setting, thus rendering the agency standard values
unachievable. In addition, the EPA's proposal to have SEAs involve testing two or six additional vehicles,
beyond those originally planned for testing, is untenable. Testing will have to take place at a specific track
in Cape Canaveral, Florida, given the constraints on test facilities. There is no guarantee the Cape
Canaveral facility will be available for the life of the phase 2 program. And data analysis takes time. For
manufacturers to know that vehicles might fail an SEA (e.g., due to test-to-test variability inherent in
truck aero procedures) and to get two or six additional vehicles out to the test facility within a test
window is not possible. Rather the EPA should 1) assign a realistic compliance margin, as the agency did
in Phase 1, and 2) allow realistic SEA procedures like testing another vehicle at a later date. 1037.301(d),
80 FR 40623. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.7-8]
Audits using constant speed testing - Similar to the previous comment, the agencies propose to adopt
procedures for constant speed testing and, as we understand the NPRM and our subsequent discussions
with the EPA, to allow for confirmatory tests and SEAs using the constant-speed test procedure. Having
vehicles auditable through a procedure with which we are not familiar is very problematic: we cannot
ensure compliance if we are not familiar with the test. There is no time to properly study if constant speed
testing is equivalent or better than coast down testing to determine the aerodynamic drag coefficient. The
complex and time consuming test procedure would require multiple studies to determine the
reproducibility of the results and comparison to results from coast down test. We recommend that the
constant speed as an alternative or allow more time to study the proposed procedure. In the meantime, we
recommend that the agencies confirm that the constant speed test is an alternative procedure for use solely
at the manufacturer's discretion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.55-56]
Chassis Dynamometer Tests
The agencies must find a more reasonable approach for the In-Use Testing (IUT) requirements in §
1037.665. Although we support the agencies' efforts to validate that FE improvements from the
regulatory realm translate to actual on-road improvements, the agencies' proposed method is burdensome
yet will not get the agencies the information they purport to want. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.6]
Unnecessary Burden of In-Use Tractor Testing With Chassis Dyno - We support auditing
vehicles. However, the In-Use Testing (IUT) requirements in § 1037.665 are burdensome and will not get
the EPA the information the agency purports to want, a validation that GEM's measured trends are
observed in the real world. In particular, regarding burden: the agencies note that there are few heavy-
duty chassis test sites in the country. We do not have one, and we are the largest manufacturer of heavy-
-------
duty vehicles in the country. Other manufacturers may have them, and indeed the agencies' state that they
"have seen an increased interest in building new sites." 80 FR 40178. However, we are not aware of any
of our competitors building them. (They may be doing so, but we are not aware of it). We do know that
the "EPA is currently building a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer." Id. If the agency decides to push
forward with chassis dyno testing then, with the EPA having a facility and some or all manufacturers not,
the best course of action is for the EPA to test vehicles in its facility rather than requiring the
manufacturers to do so, or to work with industry on developing other methods of validating GEM results.
We would be more than willing to support the agency in performing tests at its facility, helping with the
set-up and preconditioning of the vehicles, etc. On a more minor level, the agency should clarify that the
stated production volumes are annual, as the time frame over which the 20,000 applies is unstated. 80 FR
40657. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 11]
Chassis Dynamometer Testing Costs - The agencies request comment on the costs (and efficacy)
of the chassis dyno data submission requirement. 80 FR 40178. (Efficacy is addressed in the next
comment, below). Although Daimler Trucks North America is the largest heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturer in the country and has some of the most expansive test facilities, including the industries
only full-scale wind tunnel, we do not have a chassis dyno facility that is capable of the type of
measurements that the agencies propose to require of manufacturers. Moreover, we would need to build
such a facility and expect that it would cost us the same as it costs the EPA, who is building such a
facility right now. While we are not certain how much that is, the agency should know better than us. But
in any case, costs are in the millions of dollars, and facilities would be needed to test only five vehicles
per year on a test cycle that fails to replicate the on-road operation of vehicles. In other words, this would
be a costly way to get data; it is not cost effective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 11]
Efficacy of Chassis Dyno Testing and Better Alternatives - The EPA and NHTSA propose
chassis dyno testing with the explanations that the agencies 1) need to validate the GEM simulation tool
on a continuous basis and 2) foresee the need to continue to track the progress of the Phase 2 program
throughout its implementation. We strongly support validating GEM and tracking the Phase 2 program to
ensure that real-world FE improvements translate into the regulatory realm and vice versa. The agencies
request comment on the efficacy of their proposed requirement that manufacturers conduct and submit
data from annual chassis dynamometer tests of three sleeper cabs tractor and two day cab tractors (and
provide corresponding GEM results). Although we support validation and correlation to real-world
testing, we wish to ensure that the testing actually validates GEM and actually correlates to real-world FE.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.l 1]
Unfortunately, the agencies' proposal will not achieve its aims. In order to be able to track incremental
improvements, measurement tools must have the capability to measure with requisite accuracy and
repeatability, and the test process must be able to emulate the vehicle features that cause those FE gains.
The limited number of existing chassis dynamometer facilities are largely of unknown quality relative to
their ability to conduct repeatable, comparable or accurate tests for the purposes intended by EPA.
Moreover, chassis dyno testing cannot replicate the real-world conditions like intelligent coasting on
grades ("eCoast"), predictively adjusting vehicle speed on hills, adapting ride height at speed, using
advanced cooling system controls, etc. In other words, the chassis dyno testing will miss many important
FE benefits and consequently should not be expected to correlate to real-world FE improvements. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 12]
Additionally, without conducting separate tests to re-quantify aerodynamic characteristics and tire rolling
resistance (which account for more than 70% of a vehicle's load factor) for the trucks being tested, the
tests will capture only powertrain impacts. We do not recommend adding to vehicle manufacturers'
workload by requiring that they retest aerodynamics and that they delve into tire testing (which is now the
-------
responsibility of tire manufacturers). But without such testing, the chassis dyno test may as well be a
simple powertrain test or, because of the limited gear shifting involved in the drive cycles for linehaul
vehicles (see our "Detailed proprietary transmission shift logic" comments below), just an engine test. In
short, the testing can be done much more simply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 12]
As an alternative that will get at fleet-averaged characteristics as the agencies want, we propose tracking
of GEM input data. That is, the agencies better achieve their goal of tracking manufacturers' progress in
improving critical vehicle attributes by tracking those attributes, rather than sampling a limited number of
vehicle variants, as the agencies proposed. As another alternative, DTNA recommends that agencies and
industry revisit the concept of chassis dyno testing and its potential uses in a cooperative manner through
a cooperative program similar in nature to past programs, for example those conducted to establish
protocols for in-use emissions measurement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 12]
1.8 % Downspeeding credit for GEM - The agencies propose to credit vehicles whose powertrains
allow for downsped operation. 80 FR 40221. The agencies propose that the credits would not be part of a
pull-down menu-type or post-processing-type credit but 'demonstrated through the Phase 2 GEM inputs
of transmission gear ratio, drive axle ratio, and tire diameter' as well as engine fuel map. Id. We agree that
this is the correct approach. And to be clear, although the agencies project that downspeeding will
'improve the fuel consumption by 1.8 percent' (Id.), we understand the agencies are not proposing to give
a post-processing-type credit for downsped engines. If we understand correctly, then we agree with the
agencies. If however the agencies do plan post-processing credits for vehicles somehow characterized as
downsped, then we disagree with the agencies' approach, as it will double-count benefits of technologies
and will involve a difficult definition of what exactly is a downsped vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p.20] [redacted] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.21]
Continuing the same tractor categorization - The agencies propose to continue the same tractor
categories, except with the improvement of adding a heavy-haul category. We agree with the agencies. 80
FR 40142. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.31]
Heavy-haul Regulatory Sub-Category (RSC) added - We agree with and strongly support the
agencies' proposal to add heavy-haul regulatory categories. This is very important, certainly in the US
where heavy-haul vehicles have been mischaracterized and regulated improperly as normal highway,
high-speed vehicles, but particularly in Canada which allows higher weights than the US and has a greater
fraction ofvehicles designed for heavy-haul operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.33]
Artificially Biasing Drive Cycles and Weightings - The agencies describe the fact that for tractors the
agencies retain the same weightings of the three speed cycles (the 65 mph, 55 mph, and ARB transient
cycles) as in Phase 1. The agencies request comment on the need to include segments of lower or variable
speed operation in the nominally 55 mph and 65 mph drive cycles used in GEM and how this may or may
not impact the strategies manufacturers would develop. We have discussed at length with the agencies the
need to match the regulatory drive cycles to real-world driving. We support the agencies' work with
NREL to use real-world data measured on a statistically representative sample of vehicles in order to
characterize the actual split between operation at high speeds, mid-speeds, and low speeds and then to
weight the various drive cycles accordingly. If the work with NREL shows a different weighting is
necessary for some regulatory sub-category, then we support changing to that weighting so as to maintain
alignment with real-world operation. That said, we do not see a benefit to increasing the amount of low
speed operation for tractors. These vehicles consume the largest portion of their fuel at high speeds and
are thus designed around such operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.40-41]
-------
On the other hand, we do see a benefit to allowing increased variability in the vehicle speeds during high
speed cycles. In particular, with systems such as Soft Cruise and Predictive Cruise Control, vehicles
optimize fuel consumption by allowing deviations from a set cruise speed. The tighter a speed band that a
vehicle is forced to maintain, the larger the torque excursions are required to maintain the speed within
that band. If a vehicle can slow down and speed up within a larger band around the set cruise speed
during hill climbs and descents, the better the vehicle can minimize fuel consumption. So when the
agencies create a very narrow acceptable speed band and apply it to engine or powertrain testing, the
agencies limit manufacturer's ability to apply a known fuel saving strategy. We recommend further
discussion about how to constrain speeds within testing. 80 FR 40242. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p.41]
Representing Traffic - The agencies request comment on whether we should consider varying the
vehicle target speed over the 55 mph and/or 65 mph duty cycles to simulate human driver behavior
reacting to traffic congestion. 80 FR 40242. DTNA believes that, for regulatory purposes, using constant
speed cycles with representative long haul road grade profiles are appropriate. In fact, DTNA uses the
same type of drive cycles for internal development purposes. First, we run actual test vehicles over a
number of long-haul routes that we frequently use (and that we have come to understand are
representative of nationwide average driving) to prove out the real world effect of each technology's fuel
consumption reduction potential. Second, we run simulations on the same routes in various DTNA
simulation tools for the purposes of validation as well as projection of future fuel economy
improvements. These routes, tested and simulated, are largely highway routes with minimal time spent
stuck in traffic. We have found very good correlation between these two development approaches and
support the agencies in adopting the proposed approach for the high speed drive cycles in GEM. In short,
we do not see any value in implementing traffic related information into GEM. While varying traffic
patterns certainly occur in the real world it would be extremely difficult to come up with traffic patterns
that represent a national average. We believe that a regulatory simulation tool should not get into this kind
of, in this case unnecessary, detail. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.41]
Empty Weight and Payload Used in GEM - The agencies propose to carry over the empty weight and
payload from Phase 1 to Phase 2. 80 FR 40242. These weights were based on data from in-use vehicles.
There is, of course, a large spread in weights across any one regulatory subcategory given the variety of
different features that a vehicle might incorporate, in order to perform its task. So it is difficult to say that
the agencies the exact weight correct or to refute the agencies' weight estimates. That said, the agencies'
estimated Class 8 sleeper cab tractors are heavier than ours but seem to match with some of our
competitors' vehicles. So these seem to be reasonable. The day cab weights, however, might be about 500
lb. too high, perhaps from underestimating the average weight of a sleeper. The deltas from high to mid-
and low-roof in both sleeper and day cabs seems reasonable, again given the large variety of vehicles. The
payload weight is even harder to pin down, given that weights can change from good economic times to
bad, and given that a number of carriers (like [redacted]) are trying to minimize dead volume thus driving
weight per load up. Due to this trend, the agencies might consider increasing the payload weight for the
regulatory subcategories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.50-51]
Weight reduction credits, specifically - Hoods and fairings are not credited enough for the difference
between steel and thermoplastic; for example, a thermoplastic hood is not a mere 65 lb. less than a steel
one. § 1037.520 Table 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.51]
Weight reduction credit for <15L engines - The agencies requested comment on the weight reduction
credit for engines less than 15L. 80 FR 40249 Table 111-36. We oppose the arbitrary credit for
DemanDetroit.com. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.51-52]
-------
Qualifying a transmission as automatic or automated manuals - The agencies propose to give a credit
to automatics and AMTs based on, among other things, the fact that these transmissions eliminate the
problems faced by bad drivers. Then, it should not be necessary for vehicle manufacturers to expend a lot
of effort certifying the transmissions as eligible for the credits, as little benefit is added. Rather, the
agencies should write into the rule that a transmission qualifies upon a very simple showing that 1) there
is no clutch pedal and 2) the driver can leave the transmission in a "drive" position and not have to shift
gears as the vehicle accelerates through the gears. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.78-79]
Additional technologies that should be considered for fuel saving technology credits - The agencies
request comment on recognizing additional technologies that should get post-processing credits in GEM.
The table 'Vehicle Side Fuel Saving Technologies' can be found on p.82-86 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0828-1164-A1. The technologies include e-Coast, autonomous vehicles, battery APU, fuel
fired heater, diesel APU, driver coaching, safety technologies, fan power demand reduction, advanced
cooling systems, air compressor and other accessories, cab insulation, high efficiency glass, high
efficiency lighting, air conditioning system improvements, reduced tractor-trailer gap, and dynamic ride
height. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.82].
Allowing credits from Phase 1 to be used in Phase 2 is the correct approach to smooth transition into the
new program, which would otherwise be very difficult in an industry so complex as HDV manufacturing.
That is, with such a variety of products, it is impossible to change over an entire product portfolio at one
time, as we have described to the EPA on numerous occasions (e.g., during our staggered transition to
aftertreatment devices). If the Phase 2 rules drive large technology changes, it will be crucial for
manufacturers to stagger transitions, which means use of credits. Thus the agency's choice to continue
credit carry-over is the correct approach. 1037.7010 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 116]
Aerodynamics (wind average drag, coast down, constant speed testing)
Aero test procedures - The agencies requested comments on aero test procedures. We have worked with
the EMA on our comments about 1) improving the coast-down test procedures, 2) minimizing the number
of F alt aero tests required, and 3) delaying the constant-speed test procedures for another rulemaking.
We incorporate those comments as if they were our own. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.55]
Constant speed testing - The agencies request comment on the need to change the reference
method for the Phase 2 final rule to constant speed testing, including comparisons of aerodynamic test
results using both the coast down and constant speed test procedures. 80 FR 40244. The EPA should not
change the reference method for Phase 2 to constant speed testing. More time is required to determine if
constant speed testing would be a better alternative to the coast down test procedure. We propose to keep
constant speed testing only as an alternative to the coast down test, for use at a manufacturer's discretion.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.55]
CFD Procedures - The agencies proposed some revisions to the CFD procedures in § 1037.531
and requested comment on them. The agencies proposed to change certain aspects of the CFD regulation
but to leave unchanged the simulated vehicle speed of 55 mph. We recommend changing to 65 mph to
align with the coast-down testing's high speed range and to better align with the regulatory drive cycles.
Otherwise, the agencies' changes are fine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.56]
Additional Aero Components On The Reference Trailer - The agencies propose to add side
skirts to the trailer used for tractor certification and request comment on whether to add other
aerodynamic features. 80 FR 40245. First, we strongly agree with the agencies' proposal to add side
skirts. We see the industry heading toward trailers with skirts, and we design our tractors to perform
-------
optimally with such features. So it is appropriate that the agencies test the tractors that way. To do
otherwise would be to lock in old style trailers with future aerodynamic tractors, which would
compromise tractor designs, as the agencies note. Second, on the question of additional features, we think
that trailer features need to be addressed as part of the larger aero package that we discuss in the present
comments and in the EMA comments. In particular, given that the agencies' current aero bin and
penetration rate proposals (in the NPRM) create impossible targets~for example, putting Super Truck's
tractor in Bin V because of the use of the regulatory trailer, as we have explained to the agencies~we
could rectify this problem by either a) correcting the aero bin Cd*A entry criteria or b) adding trailer aero
features like a boat tail, in either case to align with the agencies' desired qualitative criteria. (These
proposals are discussed more fully below). After all, as we explained earlier, the Super Truck tractor and
trailer will fall in Bin VII (assuming no compliance margin is needed) as the agency had expected, so the
lack of trailer features is part of the misalignment problem. That said, we would prefer option a, to correct
the aero bins and keep the trailer as the agencies proposed in the NPRM, thereby minimizing cost and
complexity of testing. If the agencies choose option b, we need more specifics about the trailer to
understand what the agencies propose and whether that aligns with real-world trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-Alp.56]
Full Yaw Sweep versus Surrogate Angle for Wind Average Drag - The agencies request comment on
whether to use a full yaw sweep to determine the wind averaged drag, as specified in Appendix A of the
SAE recommended practice number J1252 'SAE Wind Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses.' 80
FR 40245. As we have discussed with the agencies since the NPRM's publication, the use of a full yaw
sweep is not overly burdensome when a manufacturer is testing a vehicle in a scale model wind tunnel;
rather, the model may be turned and measured very easily. So we agree with the use of a full yaw sweep
(or at least a number of important yaw angles, omitting unimportant ones at large yaw angles) at a scale
model wind tunnel. On the other hand, in CFD, where a full yaw sweep is very resource- and cost-
intensive, we believe that use of a surrogate angle is the better approach. The reason for this is that,
although in theory a surrogate angle is potentially less accurate than a full yaw sweep, we and other
manufacturers found through analysis of aero data that most vehicles have a wind-averaged drag Cd that
fall extremely close to the Cd at 4.5 degrees yaw, when measured at 65 mph. (See table below). Therefore
that angle is sufficiently accurate that we believe the minor deviation from the true wind-averaged drag is
a small price to pay for the great savings in resources and money for testing. We should note that we had
told the agencies in Phase 1 that 6 degrees yaw is an appropriate surrogate angle. That was for 55 mph
vehicle speed. But as we focus on 65 mph, the wind angle becomes smaller, and 4.5 degrees is
appropriate.
[Table, listing yaw angle for various vehicle configs, can be found on p.61 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
These are six DTNA sleeper configurations, multiple model years of various technology levels, all with
the yaw angle for wind averaged drag within 0.3 degrees of the 4.5 degree surrogate that we suggest. In
short, we believe that for scale model wind tunnels, a full yaw sweep or abbreviated yaw sweep is
appropriate, while for CFD the use of a surrogate angle is best. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
P-61]
No carryover of aero data from Phase 1 to Phase 2: Given the changed test procedures and trailer
specifications, this seems appropriate. 1037.150(r) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.61]
We agree with the agencies' proposal to continue a procedure where we can use high-roof test data in lieu
of testing mid-/low-roof vehicles; we strongly support continuing that.
-------
Aero bin boundaries and penetration rates -
The agencies must resolve problems with aerodynamic test procedures and binning, as the problems make
the agencies' proposed standards impossible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.5]
Proposal A: The bottom line is that we propose to align the agencies' aero bins with the agencies'
expectations of where the aero bins should be, and we propose to align penetration rates with aggressive
but hopefully achievable rates. Note that this proposal is contingent on 1) revised aero testing procedures
and 2) some compliance margin in the case of SEAs. If the agencies do not agree to these related
proposals, then the whole package falls apart and we cannot ensure that the present proposal remains
reasonably achievable. Below are the landmarks that we used in setting our proposed aero bins for raised
roof Class 8 sleepers:[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-Al p.57]
[Table, with Cd*A values for various vehicle types, can be found on p.57 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
Note that we set Bin III as we understood the agencies intended to set it: we took the vehicle that
the agencies used in setting Phase 1 targets (2010 vehicles) and translated its Cd*A into the wind-
averaged drag space, added the implicit compliance margin, and put this in the middle of Bin III. Note
that the baseline remains Bin III, as the agencies intended. To provide upper and lower bounds for our
bins, we 1) put classic styled vehicles in Bin I and 2) assumed that a Super Truck was in Bin VII, as the
agencies intended to allow room for improvement from ST. Since improvement is not possible from
there, we think ST should be in Bin VII. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.57]
Note additionally that we included a compliance margin in the landmark vehicles, because we are not yet
certain that the agencies will amend the NPRM proposal to allow a compliance margin on confirmatory
tests or SEAs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.57]
Using these landmarks, and trying to keep the aero bins to approximately the same widths as the agencies'
proposed ones (wider in the worse bins, narrower in the better bins, reflecting the increasing difficulty of
making improvements as one improves through the bins), we get the following proposed bin targets,
which we show next to the original proposal for the sake of comparison: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p.57]
[Table, showing BIN targets of EPA and DTNA proposals, can be found on p.57 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
Note that we are essentially just shifting approximately one bin (e.g., where Bin I was 7.3 m2 or worse,
now Bin II is now at 7.3 m2 or worse) and trying to keep the bin widths approximately the same as
originally proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.58]
Also in that table are the inputs to GEM that would correspond. Note that by changing the inputs to GEM
from those in the NPRM, the agencies will have to change the stringency levels by rerunning GEM to
determine the corrected g C02/ton-mile numbers. If the agencies determine that there is sufficient
penetration in the market of trailers with boat-tails, then the agencies would not change the test trailer for
certification but would update the Cd*A results of each bin, bumping them down by 0.5 m2 to reflect in
GEM the actual on-road aero load. This is reflected in the rightmost column of the chart, as compared to
the second-to-right. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.58]
-------
Proposal B: Another alternative is to re-define the test trailer to include a boat tail. This would effectively
shift all tractors one bin better than in the current NPRM. The EPA can then maintain the bin definitions
and the baselines as proposed in the NPRM. This also achieves their stated goal of Super Truck being in
Bin VII. Further, it has the effect of providing GEM the correct aero loads when boat tails do become
widely adopted, such that GEM in turn calculates an accurate engine torque and fuel consumption rate.
The boat tail adoption rate issue can be addressed in a manner similar to Proposal A above, but the Cd*A
inputs into GEM are adjusted upwards by ~0.5mA2 only for a first period of Phase II ("Step 1"), after
which time boat tails are relatively widespread and we shift to Step 2: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p.58]
[Table, hi-roof sleepers for Phase II NPRM and Proposal B, can be found on p.59 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1]
There are two advantages to this proposal:
1) It defines the trailer up front without the risk of changes mid-way through Phase II [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-Alp.59]
a. The EPA has hinted at this and maybe forced by boat tail adoption rates
b. This would add certification burden via reference test and an updated Falt-aero
2) It forces the EPA to reconcile the test trailer with a "Super Truck" based stringency [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-Alp.59]
a. The trailer has a majority contribution to the aero improvement in Super Truck
b. It's impossible to achieve Super Truck aerodynamics without a "Supertrailer"
c. [redacted]
We propose working with the agencies on setting bin boundaries for the other RSCs in the same manner
as above: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.59]
Post Useful Life Modifications - The EPA clarifies that 1) it is allowable to modify a vehicle prior to the
end of its regulatory Useful Life in the case that the modification does not increase regulated emissions
and 2) the agency specifically wrote 1037.655 to allow modifications after the UL where the modifier has
a good faith reason to believe that the modification will improve the vehicle's efficiency in its operation.
80 FR 40252. But the agency requests comment on the continuation of the provision that it is generally
prohibited for any person to remove or render inoperative any emission control device installed to comply
with the requirements of part 1037. We think that the agency has the correct approach in allowing
modifications where there is a good reason to believe that it will provide improved the fuel efficiency in
use, and we think that this should not be limited until after the UL~as the EPA clarifies in the NRPM.
That is, a vehicle may be used for many different tasks, it may have many different sets of equipment on
it, and it may have different tires according to driving conditions. And where these choices improve actual
in-use fuel efficiency, the agency should not interpret the law to prohibit such improvement-certainly not
if it is done before the arbitrary time of the UL. We think that the agency is correct to clarify that if
regulated emissions do not increase, a modification is legal, and we think that the agency should go
further by allowing modifications in good faith before the UL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p. 120]
-------
Response:
In-use Aerodynamics Testing
The agencies considered the comments related to the proposed in-use aerodynamic testing regulations (40
CFR 1037.401). Any in-use testing would be limited to full-scale testing and would be required to be
correlated to coastdown testing. Thus, the likely testing would be coastdown testing. The provisions of
40 CFR 1037 subpart F would apply, along with the compliance margin built into the aerodynamic bins.
With respect to the "improperly maintained" comment, the agencies note that any recall action under the
provisions in 40 CFR 1068.505 would require EPA to make a determination that a "substantial number of
properly maintained" engines or equipment do not conform to the regulations.
SEAs
Although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate the initial implementation of
new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an appropriate long-term policy.
Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic
parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance testing, in which test-to-test variability is
normally expected to be small relative to production variability. With coastdown testing, however, test-
to-test variability is expected to be larger relative to production variability. In response to comments
addressing this difference, EPA developed a different structure for conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor
CdA s and solicited supplemental comments on it. We believe the structure being finalized appropriately
balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives for manufacturers to act in good faith with
manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on inaccurate testing. Our current assessment is
that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when certifying and uses good engineering judgment
throughout the process, false failures for individual vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family
would not occur. It is important to note that, although SEAs are directed by EPA, the actual testing is
conducted by the manufacturer at their chosen facilities. This minimizes many potential causes of test
variability, such as differences in test trailers, test tracks, or instrumentation. Thus confidence intervals
need only reflect true test-to-test variability. Also, manufacturers generally rent facilities for coastdown
testing as needed, which means EPA will need to provide some advance notice to allow the manufacturer
to reserve the appropriate facility. Additional discussion is included in Section III.E.2.a of the Preamble
to the final rule.
EPA adopted SEA provisions that state that we may conduct aerodynamic testing using either the
coastdown (reference) test method or the aerodynamic method used by manufacturer to certify the tractor.
We would not conduct a constant speed test for SEA if it was not used by the manufacturer to certify the
tractor.
In Section III.E.2.ix, the agencies state that although SEAs are directed by EPA, the actual testing is
conducted by the manufacturer at their chosen facilities. This minimizes many potential causes of test
variability, such as differences in test trailers, test tracks, or instrumentation. Thus confidence intervals
need only reflect true test-to-test variability. Also, manufacturers generally rent facilities for coastdown
testing as needed, which means EPA will need to provide some advance notice to allow the manufacturer
to reserve the appropriate facility.
With respect to the comment regarding trailer gap, EPA specified the tractor-trailer gap in 40 CFR
1037.501 of less than or equal to 45 inches. However, we also note in 40 CFR 1037.525(b)(6), that if the
tractor-trailer cannot be configured to meet the gap requirements, then manufacturers should use good
engineering judgment.
-------
The agencies are adopting provisions in 40 CFR 1037.201(g) that provides the manufacturers to choose to
deliver another vehicle or component that is identical in all material respects to the test vehicle or
component, or a different vehicle or component that we determine can appropriately serve as an emission-
data vehicle for the family.
Tractor Chassis Dyno Testing
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are requiring tractor manufacturers to annually chassis
test five production vehicles over the GEM cycles to verify that relative reductions simulated in GEM are
being achieved in actual production. See 40 CFR 1037.665. We do not expect absolute correlation
between GEM results and chassis testing. GEM makes many simplifying assumptions that do not
compromise its usefulness for certification, but do cause it to produce emission rates different from what
would be measured during a chassis dynamometer test. Given the limits of correlation possible between
GEM and chassis testing, we would not expect such testing to accurately reflect whether a vehicle was
compliant with the GEM standards. Therefore, we are not applying GHG compliance liability to such
testing. Rather, this testing will be for informational purposes only. However, we do expect there to be
correlation in a relative sense. Vehicle to vehicle differences showing a 10 percent improvement in GEM
should show a similar percent improvement with chassis dynamometer testing. Nevertheless,
manufacturers will not be subject to recall or other compliance actions if chassis testing did not agree with
the GEM results on a relative basis. Rather, the agencies will continue to evaluate in-use compliance by
verifying GEM inputs and testing in-use engines. (Note thatNTE standards for criteria pollutants may
apply for some portion of the test cycles).
EPA believes this chassis test program is necessary because of our experience implementing regulations
for heavy-duty engines. In the past, manufacturers have designed engines that have much lower emissions
on the duty cycles than occur during actual use. By using this simple test program, we hope to be able to
identify such issues earlier and to dissuade any attempts to design solely to the certification test. We also
expect the results of this testing to help inform the need for any further changes to GEM.
As also noted in Section II. B. (1), it can be expensive to build chassis test cells for certification.
However, EPA has structured this pilot-scale program to minimize the costs. First, this chassis testing will
not need to comply with the same requirements as will apply for official certification testing. This will
allow testing to be performed in developmental test cells with simple portable analyzers. Second, since
the program will require only five tests per year, manufacturers without their own chassis testing facility
will be able to contract with a third party to perform the testing. Third, EPA is applying this testing to
only those manufacturers with annual production in excess of 20,000 vehicles. Finally, 40 CFR
1037.665(c) states that we may approve a request to perform alternative testing that will provide
equivalent or better information compared to the specified testing. We may also direct you to do less
testing than we specify in this section.
EPA estimates that the cost to conduct chassis testing at a third party facility would be approximately
$30,000 per tractor, for a total of $ 150,000 per year per manufacturer. RIA Chapter 7.2.1.2 includes the
compliance costs of the program, including the increased level of reporting in the tractor program.
Downspeeding
Daimler is correct in their assessment of downspeeding. The agencies proposed and adopted provisions
to account for the gearing of vehicles such that C02 emissions and fuel consumption benefits of a
downsped vehicle operation would be recognized in GEM.
Tractor Subcategories
-------
The agencies are adopting a standards for a set of ten tractor subcategories, aligned with Daimler's
comment.
Drive Cycle
The agencies considered these drive cycle comments along with the information that was used to derive
the drive cycle weightings in Phase 1. The agencies did not receive any new drive cycle weighting data
for tractors from the EPA-NREL work. Based on our assessment on the only comment that included
speed data (i.e. the comment from ATA, addressed above), the agencies do not believe this new
information is significantly different than the drive cycle weightings that were proposed (as explained in
that comment response). Therefore, we are adopting the drive cycle weightings for tractors that we
adopted for Phase 1 and proposed for Phase 2.
After considering the comments on the use of constant speeds in the 55 and 65 mph cycles and evaluating
the final Phase 2 version of GEM, the agencies are adopting in the Phase 2 final rules constant target
speed for the 55 mph and 65 mph cycles, as adopted in Phase 1. We are not adopting drive cycles that
include traffic congestion, which is consistent with Daimler's recommendation. One key difference in
Phase 2 is the addition of road grade in these cruise cycles. The addition of road grade to the cruise
cycles brings the GEM simulation of vehicles over the drive cycles closer to the real world operation
described by Daimler. Even though the cruise cycles will continue to have constant target speeds (55
mph or 65 mph), the vehicle may slow down from the target speed of the cycle on an uphill stretch of
road due to the addition of road grade in the Phase 2 cycles. If the vehicle does slow down the
transmission shift logic built into GEM will downshift the transmission to limit the amount of further
vehicle deceleration. Similarly, on the downhill portions of the cycles, the driver control logic built into
GEM will allow the vehicle to exceed the target speed by 3 mph prior to braking the vehicle. The
agencies also note that the technologies noted in the comment regarding the recommendation to increase
the variability of the vehicle speed will not be simulated over the drive cycles. The impact of predictive
cruise control will be applied as a fixed percent reduction in C02 emissions and fuel consumption after
the simulation is complete, but still within GEM, for Phase 2.
Curb Weight and Pay load
In the absence of newer data or other compelling comments, the agencies continue to believe that it is
appropriate to continue using the Phase 1 tractor payloads and tractor curb weights for all of the Class 7
and 8 tractors, as proposed, except for heavy-haul.
Weigh t Reduction
In the absence of additional details, the agencies are not adopting different weight reduction values for
hoods and fairings. The manufacturers have the option of requesting off-cycle credits for weight
reductions that differ from those included in 40 CFR 1037.520. Also, in Phase 2, we recognize the
potential C02 emission reduction opportunities in the powertrain and drivetrain systems as part of the
vehicle inputs into GEM. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to also recognize the weight reduction
associated with both smaller engines and 6x2 axles.
Transmissions
EPA is adopting simple definitions of AMTs and ATs in 40 CFR 1037.801. The manufacturers only need
to utilize transmissions that meet these definitions as their demonstration for certification.
-------
Additional Technologies
The agencies considered the additional fuel saving technologies that Daimler suggested in their
comments. For the technologies where the agencies could determine, for each of the ten tractor
subcategories, the baseline 2017MY vehicle architecture, clearly define what qualifies as the technology,
the effectiveness of the technology, and the current and potential adoption rates of the technology, we
adopted specific values for post-processing in GEM. This set of technologies includes Neutral Coast,
diesel APU, battery APU, and fuel fired heater. For the other technologies enumerated in the comment,
the agencies could not appropriately determine some aspect of the technology. Therefore, the
manufacturers may consider applying for off-cycle credits for some of these technologies. There may be
technologies, such as some safety technologies that would not be considered under off-cycle technology
credits (see 49 CFR 535.7(F)).
Phase 1 Credits
The agencies are allowing Phase 1 vehicle credits to be used in Phase 2. However, the existing five year
credit life still applies for heavy heavy-duty vehicle credits. See Preamble Section I.C.I.b.i for details.
Aerodynamic Test Procedures
• After consideration of the comments, the agencies are continuing to use the Phase 1 approach of
using coastdown testing as the reference method for aerodynamic assessment in Phase 2, which is
consistent with Daimler's recommendation. We believe that there are practical implications of
selecting a different reference method, such as CFD or scaled wind tunnel testing. Coastdown
testing and constant speed testing are the only two options that allow testing of the actual tractor.
While the agencies have conducted a significant amount of constant speed testing, we agreed with
the manufacturers' potential concerns about developing robust constant speed test procedures in
time for the final Phase 2 rule. Instead, we focused our activities on developing more robust
coastdown test procedures for the final rule. We have made enhancements to the Phase 2
coastdown procedures to improve the robustness of the results when compared to Phase 1 or
those proposed for Phase 2. See RIA Chapter 3.2.
• The agencies are adopting provisions to align the speed at which CFD is conducted in Phase 2 (65
mph) with the average of the coastdown high speed range.
• Phase 2 reference trailer: We still project that the bulk of trailers that will be in operation during
the life of tractors produced early in Phase 2 will be represented by the aerodynamic performance
of a trailer with skirts. Therefore, we are adopting the reference trailer with a trailer skirt, as
proposed. However, we also want to recognize that the trailer fleet will continue to evolve over
the lifetime of tractors built and certified to Phase 2, especially from MY 2027 and later. We
recognize that if we do not account for reduced aerodynamic loads in the real world, then we may
not be appropriately evaluating the tractor powertrain. We considered changing the standard
trailer in MY2027; however, this would lead to significant testing burden for the manufacturers
because they would have to determine new CdA values for their entire fleet of tractors. Instead,
we are adopting Phase 2 GEM that beginning in MY2027 will take the CdA input for each vehicle
and reduce it by 0.3 m2 to reflect the lower aerodynamic loads that are a mix of trailers with skirts
and trailers with skirts and boat tails. This change has been accounted for in both the baseline
and standard setting of the C02 emissions and fuel consumption values. We are not electing
Daimler's (b) suggestion to address the Phase 2 aero bin concerns, and instead have aligned the
definition of the Phase 2 aero bins to the final aerodynamic test procedures and lowered the
adoption rates of Bins VI and VII to zero for the final rule. The agencies discuss our response to
-------
Daimler's specific comments regarding the aero bin penetration rates in Section 4.3 of this RTC
document.
• The agencies are adopting aerodynamic testing provisions that use a 4.5 degree surrogate angle in
lieu of a full yaw sweep because it is technically equivalent to the full yaw sweep but it also
reduces the testing burden for aerodynamic assessments (see RIA Chapter 3.2.1.1.3). Our
approach in the final rule is consistent with the recommendation from Daimler.
The agencies are adopting the provision that allows manufacturers to use high-roof test data in lieu of
testing mid-/low-roof vehicles. Aerodynamic Bins
The agencies have refined the aerodynamic test procedures, developed a new SEA approach, revised
aerodynamic bin boundaries, and adjusted aerodynamic bin adoption rates in the technology packages for
the final rule. This package of changes as a whole is in response to the set of detailed comments from
stakeholders. The changes to the coastdown test procedures reduce the test-to-test variability of the CdA
results (See RIA Chapter 3.2). The new SEA approach appropriately balances EPA's need to assure that
manufacturers are acting in good faith and meaningful incentives to do so with manufacturers' need to
avoid compliance actions based on inaccurate testing. The high roof bin values being adopted in the HD
Phase 2 final rulemaking differ from those proposed due to the changes in the coastdown and other
aerodynamic test procedures. However, in both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the
Phase 2 bins such that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after
taking into consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in
Phase 2. The Phase 2 bins were developed so that a tractor that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would
also perform as a Bin III tractor in Phase 2. Please see RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2 for the derivation of the
aerodynamic bins.
Post Useful Life Modifications
In 40 CFR 1037.655 EPA clarifies that certain vehicle modifications are allowed after a vehicle reaches
the end of its regulatory useful life. This section applies for all vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 1037 This
section states (as examples) that it is generally allowable to remove tractor roof fairings after the end of
the vehicle's useful life if the vehicle will no longer be used primarily to pull box trailers, or to remove
other fairings if the vehicle will no longer be used significantly on highways with vehicle speed of 55
miles per hour or higher. More generally, this section clarifies that owners may modify a vehicle for the
purpose of reducing emissions, provided they have a reasonable technical basis for knowing that such
modification will not increase emissions of any other pollutant. This essentially requires the owner to
have information that will lead an engineer or other person familiar with engine and vehicle design and
function to reasonably believe that the modifications will not increase emissions of any regulated
pollutant. Thus, this provision does not provide a blanket allowance for modifications after the useful
life.
This section also makes clear that no person may ever disable a vehicle speed limiter prior to its
expiration point, or remove aerodynamic fairings from tractors that are used primarily to pull box trailers
on highways. It is also clear that this allowance does not apply with respect to engine modifications or
recalibrations.
This section does not apply with respect to modifications that occur within the useful life period, other
than to note that many such modifications to the vehicle during the useful life and to the engine at any
time are presumed to violate section 202 (a)(3)(A) of the Act. EPA notes, however, that this is merely a
presumption, and it does not prohibit modifications during the useful life where the owner clearly has a
reasonable technical basis for knowing that the modifications would not cause the vehicle to exceed any
applicable standard.
-------
Organization: Exa Corporation
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 261-266.]
We are pleased to see in the proposed ruling that computational fluid dynamics, also known as CFD, will
continue to be one of the allowed methods for heavy vehicle aerodynamic assessment. The confidence our
customers have in our tool has been built from many years of experience performing correlations to other
test methods, including the full- and reduced-scale wind tunnel testing, SAE type II fuel economy testing,
coast-down testing, constant speed aerodynamic testing, and full-scale drag meter testing. Thus, the
decision to certify the use of CFD for the regulation of greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency will fit well
within the aerodynamic design processing used today, help our customers to be efficient and to deliver
superior products to the benefit of society.
The proposed ruling does, however, introduce challenges from the variations that we expected in the
predicted drag coefficients, from not only the allowed methods, coast-down, wind tunnel, and simulation,
but also within these tools themselves. For example, wind tunnel drag coefficients are highly dependent
on the facility chosen. And wind average drag, the drag associated with varying ambient wind conditions
may vary by as much as 10 percent between wind tunnel facilities.
It is not clear that the proposed aerodynamic bin structure and the F-alt factor, the aerodynamic factor for
alternate tools, will alleviate these challenges as we expect the absolute drag values will differ
substantially between different test methods and different facilities.
Correlating simulation results with any non-road physical testing requires accounting for many specific
details of the test setup that are not representative of the on-road conditions. CFD offers the advantage of
creating a virtual test environment that is more representative of the on-the-road performance.
The preferred setup used by our customers for design and development is a domain that replicates the
open road, including a moving ground, rotating tires, open grill with realistic engine, bay details, and
other factors.
Further, our customers also regularly evaluate different wind conditions by considering yaw flow. They
can even evaluate the impact of the real-world conditions due to the environmental or traffic-generated
winds. The setup details are necessary for producing results that are representative of on-the-road
performance.
It is our suggestion that the EPA and NHTSA require a certification procedure for an alternate tool that
includes broad validation suite, including different vehicle types from aerodynamic sleepers to less
aerodynamic day cabs. In the proposed program, the coast-down method is a proposed standard to
measure the vehicle aerodynamic performance. However, we feel this test procedure does not relate
closely to real- world fuel efficiency.
Since these types of vehicles experience significant changes in aerodynamic drag with relatively small
changes in wind, a better predictor of real-world fuel economy is used as a use of wind average drag.
Coast-down testing is limited to near-zero wind yaw angle and does not accurately represent the
aerodynamics experienced on the road due to wind.
-------
Because of the significant impact of real-world efficiencies due to the wind yaw effects, we feel it is
imperative that wind effects be part of the standard for both tractors and trailers.
The negative consequences of not adopting wind effects into the standard for tractors and trailers include
truck and trailer buyers, not realizing the fuel savings implied by the levels of which the truck and trailers
are certified and the overall emission reductions promised for the program will not be achieved.
Some of the proposals attempt to address the inadequacies of the coast-down results by adjusting the
coast-down results through the use of alternate tools for when they have the drag. We feel, as stated
above, that the variations of wind average drag between the tools and facilities themselves is too
significant and it would be an adverse consequence to allowing alternative tools for adjusting coast-down
results. A standard that holds all the tools accountable to a real-world measure of the wind average drag
performance of a vehicle, such as constant speed aerodynamic testing, is imperative in ensuring
predictable behavior.
Response:
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are continuing to use the Phase 1 approach of
establishing coastdown testing as the reference method for aerodynamic assessment in Phase 2. We
believe that there are practical implications of selecting a different reference method, such as CFD or
scaled wind tunnel testing. Coastdown testing and constant speed testing are the only two options that
allow testing of the actual tractor. While the agencies have conducted a significant amount of constant
speed testing, we agreed with the manufacturers' potential concerns about developing robust constant
speed test procedures in time for the final Phase 2 rule. Instead, we focused our activities on developing
more robust coastdown test procedures for the final rule. We have made enhancements to the Phase 2
coastdown procedures to improve the robustness of the results when compared to Phase 1 or those
proposed for Phase 2. See RIA Chapter 3.2.
We are adopting aerodynamic assessments that consider the real world wind conditions through the use of
wind averaged drag. We are also continuing to allow alternative test methods, such as CFD, while
correlating the results to the reference method using Falt-aero. We are requiring manufacturers to
determine Falt-aero using both sleeper cabs and day cabs. Manufacturers also are required to determine a
unique Falt-aero value for each wind tunnel facility and each type of CFD software that they use for
certification to account for variability between the methods.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Compliance and real-world validation
Per agency discussion within the proposed rulemaking, there appears to be some discrepancies across
various companies regarding the precise times when model years fall within a given calendar year (e.g.,
engines within tractors could have differing model years). Importantly, the agencies' analysis is based on
a thorough investigation of the ability to introduce, and deploy in larger percentages, technologies in
future years. We support the agencies' approach to technology implementation timing, without including
any delay in implementation due to industry-adopted convention for model years that differs across
various regulated vehicle and engine manufacturers. Especially considering companies' latitude in selling
products of given model years, that are independent of calendar year, any delay in technology deployment
or stringency determination due to how companies' decisions about naming and marketing products by
model year would be unwarranted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 16]
-------
The agencies propose a production vehicle chassis dynamometer testing program to complement the new
full vehicle standards. This is consistent with recommendations from Sharpe, Delgado, Muncrief (2014)
that C02 reductions over the certification tests correlate to reductions in the real world, as it is extremely
important that end users and other stakeholders have confidence that the benefits from the rule are real. In
order for the real-world testing program to be successful it is critical that results from the program are
shared publicly and that the program start as soon as possible (as discussed in the proposal, the purpose of
the data collection program is to look for trends, not absolute values). If possible, the program start date
would be the same year the rule is finalized (2016) in order to maximize the amount of data that is
collected. There is no reason to delay the start of the testing program, since the data is not being used for
regulatory compliance and sufficient testing facilities are readily available. In addition, we suggest that
the agencies give more detailed guidance to the OEMs on the precise vehicles selected for production
testing. This data collection effort will be the most useful if similar, best-in-class models are tested year to
year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 16]
Response:
Phase 2 is requiring a significant number of changes that apply to both the engine and the vehicle so it is
necessary for alignment of model years between engines and tractors. In the final standards, stringency of
the vehicle reflects in part engine improvements. See Section III.D. l.b of the Preamble. By aligning the
model years of the tractors with the engines, this essentially provides some additional lead time for the
tractor manufacturers. The current practice among tractor manufacturers is that the tractor model year
starts in the January-April timeframe in the year preceding the calendar year. This additional lead time
was considered by the agencies in setting the tractor stringency levels. For example, the technology
package developed by the agencies for setting the 2027 MY tractor standards included both a relatively
high adoption rate of waste heat recovery and new engine platforms that will require some modifications
to the vehicle; therefore, the vehicle standard cannot take effect before the engine standards.
The agencies are finalizing the tractor chassis test requirement largely as proposed. Past experience has
shown us that including a broad range of testing discourages manufacturers from focusing their
development efforts on a single narrow test procedure. Even though there will be no direct compliance
liability for the GHG testing, the agencies would still be able to identify differences in performance that
resulted (on purpose or inadvertently) from how the powertrain is installed in the chassis. We are starting
this requirement in 2021 MY to allow manufacturers time to either build chassis dynamometer cells or
identify locations to conduct the testing.
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Review Lightweighting and Aerodynamics in GEM [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.8]
Aerodynamics - MEMA supports the agencies' expanded recognition of aerodynamics as it allows the
GEM to be more closely aligned with actual performance on the road. The additional bins offer a wider
range of drag coefficient values and incentivizes adoption of aerodynamic improvements. The agencies
asked for input regarding the proposed constant speed testing. Because research has demonstrated that
constant speed tests offer stability, reliability and repeatability as compared to coast down tests and since
a constant speed test is required in European aerodynamic test protocols, MEMA supports the inclusion
of a constant speed test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 8]
Suppliers with specific products and materials impacted by these categories will submit detailed
commentary on the Phase 2 NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.8]
-------
Response:
The agencies are adopting additional aerodynamic bins for Phase 2 to recognize improvements in the
future. After consideration of the comments, the agencies are continuing to use the Phase 1 approach of
establishing coastdown testing as the reference method for aerodynamic assessment in Phase 2. We
believe that there are practical implications of selecting a different reference method, such as CFD or
scaled wind tunnel testing. Coastdown testing and constant speed testing are the only two options that
allow testing of the actual tractor. While the agencies have conducted a significant amount of constant
speed testing, we agree with the manufacturers' potential concerns about developing robust constant
speed test procedures in time for the final Phase 2 rule so that it could be used as the reference
aerodynamic test method. Instead, we were able to focus our activities on developing more robust
coastdown test procedures for the final rule. We have made enhancements to the Phase 2 coastdown
procedures to improve the robustness of the results when compared to Phase 1 or those proposed for
Phase 2.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The Proposed Rule requires in-use testing utilizing a chassis dynamometer in order to correlate to
GEM. We understand that this considerable extra cost is proposed to assist with future regulatory
development and not to confirm compliance with current rules. While we support the agencies collecting
data in support of future rules, we think that the agencies ought to bear the cost of this regulatory
development. This is very similar to the testing EPA conducts through its contractors; with the single
difference being that here it would not pay for the proposed new testing. We do not think this is fair or
appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 16]
Moreover, this data will not correlate exactly to GEM as the impacts of many technologies will not show
up in the dynamometer test (e.g., predictive cruise and tire pressure management). Requiring five tests a
year from each manufacturer is an excessive burden and cost with no direct benefit to the agencies. While
we oppose this requirement in its entirety, the same goal could be achieved by chassis testing the best
configuration from each manufacturer in the chassis dyno during the compliance years (when significant
changes will be made to both the engine and vehicle). If this requirement is maintained, Navistar proposes
this burden be reduced to one vehicle in each of the following years: MY2021, MY2024, and MY2027.
This correlation to GEM will demonstrate a downward trend with this proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-Alp.l6]
To be implemented successfully, MD/HD chassis testing requires a significant staffing, time and capital
commitment. The availability and capability of existing facilities are limited and expensive when
compared to an equivalent engine dynamometer facility which is commonplace at most engine OEMs. In
addition, the typical test constraints for a chassis dynamometer are not easily and cost effectively
controlled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 17]
The Proposed Rule requires the measurement of gaseous emissions. There is simply no good reason to
require any data other than C02 and/or fuel consumption data for comparison to GEM outputs. Any
requirement for measurement of NOx, PM, CO, NMHC, CH4, and N20 emissions should be dropped
from the requirements of this section. The additional cost burden for either powertrain or chassis testing
will be considerable, when compared to stand alone engine testing. In addition, the RIA does not appear
at all to take into account the costs of this testing. This provision should be dropped from the Proposed
Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 17]
-------
The NPRM discusses proposed changes to § 1037.135(c)(6) to remove the requirement for emission
control information from the vehicle GHG labels. Navistar supports the elimination of the requirement to
list emission control information on vehicle labels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 19]
Navistar supports coastdown as the only certification input procedure in this rule. However, we are
concerned with test variability, trailer gap and other elements of the test procedure. In general, Navistar
echoes EMA's comments and concerns regarding the coastdown test procedure. In particular, we are
concerned with the assumption of zero yaw angle, an assumption that the test will be conducted in near
windless conditions.26 We recommend the yaw correction detailed in the EMA comments. If held to this
test procedure without such a correction, manufacturers will be forced, due to that assumption of zero
wind speed, to wait for a very calm day in order to ensure accurate, measurements. We are also concerned
that if EPA conducts confirmatory testing, it will not necessarily wait for that condition and may test
under windier conditions, thus arriving at a different result than the manufacturer, simply due to the test
conditions. EPA's number would then become the de facto input. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1
p.26]
There should not be a set trailer gap or range. EPA should have the authority to approve an open range of
trailer gaps proposed by the manufacturer. Trailer gap should be defined by manufacturer depending on
the truck configuration and the manufacturer's recommendation to customers. As technology and designs
evolve, the trailer gaps will be tighter for real-world fuel economy improvements. Alternatively, a
maximum trailer gap could be defined in the regulation, but the minimum for the aero test should be
driven by manufacturer vehicle recommendations. Confirmatory and SEA testing must utilize the
manufacturer's certified trailer gap. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.26]
As in Phase 1, only one aerodynamic adjustment factor, Fait_aero, should be required. Proposed section
1037.525(b)(3) would require determining separate adjustment factors for "a high-roof day cab and a
high-roof sleeper cab corresponding to each major tractor model." This additional test burden is not
necessary as the Fait_aero factors will be the same. Navistar has tested a daycab ProStar and sleeper ProStar
at the same facility using the Phase 2 methods and found the Fait_aero to be less than 1%. In addition, EPA's
data in the RIA for 3 different sleepers tested at the same facility show Falt_aero values within 0.4 %. See
Table 3-21, below (from RIA) There is no data included in the proposal or available from our experience
that supports the need for more than one Falt-aero. Navistar recommends that the requirement should
remain as the requirement currently is in the Phase 1 regulatory text (1037.525 (b) (l)-(2)) and eliminate
the new Phase 2 requirement for multiple Falt-aero values. Falt_aero is not vehicle dependent. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.26-27]
[Table 3-21, Wind Average Equivalent Coastdown Values, can be found on p.27 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1]
The standard trailer as defined in the coastdown test procedures must be more aerodynamic. The
Proposed Rule currently adds only side skirts over the assumed Phase 1 trailer. This certainly cannot be
an accurate reflection of the trailers over the life of this Proposed Rule, due in part to the Proposed Rule
itself. The hypothetical test-only trailer incorporated into the procedure ensures that no tractor will
achieve bins V through VII. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.29]
The issues with the standard trailer go to the feasibility of the emission standard for tractors as well. The
standard trailer must be modified to reflect the more efficient trailers expected to be in use during the time
the rule is in effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.29]
-------
Navistar, in general, agrees with EMA's comments on constant speed testing. Navistar does not believe
that constant speed testing should be adopted as a compliance test at this point, even as an alternative.
However, with significant further work, constant speed testing may be suitable as an optional test in the
future. For example, among other refinements: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.30]
• There would need to be an effective definition of what constitutes a windy day;
• A full yaw curve should be defined;
• Preconditioning procedures including instrument calibrations should be developed; and
• Torque sensors should be added. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.30]
We do not think the development of the method is sufficient mature at this point to even include it as an
optional test as part of this Proposed Rule. Navistar believes that a future rulemaking is the appropriate
method for the adoption of this test in the future. We therefore request that this be dropped from the final
rule and considered only in the future in a subsequent rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1
P-30]
Aerodynamic testing, such as coastdown, is inherently variable. There are a number of conditions that can
cause test result variations even when controllable parameters are unchanged from test to test. Navistar
agrees with EMA's comments related to aerodynamic compliance margin. The lack of any accounting for
test variability effectively increases the stringency of the rule. EPA's own data shows the level of
variation that is possible when testing vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 P.27]
For sleeper cabs, the agencies justified this elimination of a compliance margin in the Proposed Rule
based on coastdown testing of one sleeper from each manufacturer. That is not a sufficient data set upon
which to eliminate the compliance margin from the rule. We note that while the agencies may point out
that the bins themselves constitute a compliance margin, it is more accurate to characterize the bin
structure as a design limitation, rather than a compliance margin. Manufacturers will design the tractors to
fit within a particular bin and the potential for manufacturing variation will be accounted for in that
design. It is too much to also assume that the bin structure would also account for test variation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 P.27]
We should again repeat that, while aerodynamic testing of vehicles has been around for some time, it has
only been about 21 months since it has been used across the heavy duty industry for compliance purposes.
Navistar does not believe we are yet at a place where we can state that simple test variation has been
reduced, or even understood, to the point where it can be essentially ignored in certification tests. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.27-28]
Navistar's recommendation is to maintain the one bin compliance margin from the Phase 1 regulation to
account for this variability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.28]
III. Selective Enforcement Audit and Confirmatory Testing for Aerodynamics
Another example of this issue is the difference between the coastdown test procedure done for
certification and the SEA procedure. Manufacturers certify their vehicles utilizing the alternative
aerodynamic test methods (wind tunnel or CFD); however, the regulation allows for SEA testing of a
vehicle using the reference method (coastdown) which introduces significant variability (grade
corrections, road surface, instrumentation, wind, temperature, driver, etc.). As the manufacturer did not
certify the vehicle configuration with coastdown, the SEA should not be utilizing coastdown due to the
variability. The compliance margin to account for these differences should be sufficient to account for
-------
that variability. SEA should validate the method of certification that the manufacturer utilized. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 11]
In short, an SEA must be conducted under conditions representative of the process the manufacturer used
to certify. For example, if the manufacturer conducted the test with zero winds, EPA should conduct the
test under zero winds. It is the same with other test parameters; they should be representative of the
testing that was conducted, not just within those parameters allowed by the rules. Beyond that, as noted,
the rule should account for normal test variability. Anything else would lead to an unfair, unrepresentative
and arbitrary result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.ll]
Confirmatory testing is an area where the Proposed Rule must provide that testing be done in a manner
consistent with and representative of the conditions the manufacturer used to certify. Coastdown testing,
in particular, includes several variables that are beyond the manufacturer's control (e.g. wind,
temperature, and driver) as well as variables from differences in particular facilities (e.g. grade, road
surface). A confirmatory test allows EPA to test with up to 6 mph winds, which can result in a significant
increase in Coefficient of drag-area (CdA) due to yaw effect. The manufacturer cannot make any
adjustment for wind and has to assume zero yaw during the test procedure. Several of these factors could
be eliminated if SEA and confirmatory testing were held at the same facility that the manufacturer used
for certification. In addition, variation from instrumentation and the trailer could also be reduced by
utilizing the manufacturer's trailer and anemometer. Compliance margin is necessary to account for all
other variations that cannot be controlled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 11-12]
Navistar has reviewed the Memorandum entitled "Additional Discussion of Selective Enforcement Audit
and Confirmatory Testing for Aerodynamic Parameters for Combination Tractors and for Trailers"
identified in the NODA ("SEA Memorandum") and has the following comments. The SEA Memorandum
discusses potential approaches to Selective Enforcement Audits (SEAs) and confirmatory testing. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.4-5]
Of initial concern, the memorandum states that "EPA is considering applying some or all of these
approaches to the Phase 1 tractor program." That is, the agencies apparently intend to change the
approach in the Phase 1 rule, which is currently in place and has been since model year 2014. However,
there is no method to account for Yaw correction in the Phase 1 coast down method. Therefore, any SEA
performed would not account for Yaw and could have very large test variability involved. Navistar
believes the Phase 1 coast down method is not conducive to a fair SEA test process due to the large test
variability as discussed in the referenced Memo and no Yaw correction in the test method. SEA coast
down testing should not be performed in the Phase 1 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.5]
As noted in the memo the constants "a" and "b" are yet to be defined. The value of these numbers have a
large effect on the ability to meet an SEA with all of the test variability as discussed in the Memo.
Therefore, until the value of the constants are defined and can be evaluated Navistar cannot support the
adoption of the strawman outlined. When the values are know we can then evaluate the concept and
comment if the method is indeed reasonable and realistic given the large variability inherent in coast
down testing and other aerodynamic test methods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.5]
26 1037.527-1. We are also concerned that despite this assumption in the coastdown test procedure, the
Selective Enforcement Procedure allows EPA to test with up to 6mph of winds.
-------
Response:
Chassis Dyno Testing
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are requiring tractor manufacturers to annually chassis
test five production vehicles over the GEM cycles to verify that relative reductions simulated in GEM are
being achieved in actual production. See 40 CFR 1037.665. We do not expect absolute correlation
between GEM results and chassis testing. GEM makes many simplifying assumptions that do not
compromise its usefulness for certification, but do cause it to produce emission rates different from what
would be measured during a chassis dynamometer test. Given the limits of correlation possible between
GEM and chassis testing, we would not expect such testing to accurately reflect whether a vehicle was
compliant with the GEM standards. Therefore, we are not applying compliance liability to such testing.
Rather, this testing will be for informational purposes only. However, we do expect there to be correlation
in a relative sense. Vehicle to vehicle differences showing a 10 percent improvement in GEM should
show a similar percent improvement with chassis dynamometer testing. Nevertheless, manufacturers will
not be subject to recall or other compliance actions if chassis testing did not agree with the GEM results
on a relative basis. Rather, the agencies will continue to evaluate in-use compliance by verifying GEM
inputs and testing in-use engines. (Note thatNTE standards for criteria pollutants may apply for some
portion of the test cycles).
EPA believes this chassis test program is necessary because of our experience implementing regulations
for heavy-duty engines. In the past, manufacturers have designed engines that have much lower emissions
on the duty cycles than occur during actual use. By using this simple test program, we hope to be able to
identify such issues earlier and to dissuade any attempts to design solely to the certification test. We also
expect the results of this testing to help inform the need for any further changes to GEM.
As also noted in Section II. B. (1), it can be expensive to build chassis test cells for certification.
However, EPA has structured this pilot-scale program to minimize the costs. First, this chassis testing will
not need to comply with the same requirements as will apply for official certification testing. This will
allow testing to be performed in developmental test cells with simple portable analyzers. Second, since
the program will require only five tests per year, manufacturers without their own chassis testing facility
will be able to contract with a third party to perform the testing. Third, EPA is applying this testing to
only those manufacturers with annual production in excess of 20,000 vehicles. Finally, 40 CFR
1037.665(c) states that we may approve a request to perform alternative testing that will provide
equivalent or better information compared to the specified testing. We may also direct you to do less
testing than we specify in this section.
EPA estimates that the cost to conduct chassis testing at a third party facility would be approximately
$30,000 per tractor, for a total of $ 150,000 per year per manufacturer. RIA Chapter 7.2.1.2 includes the
compliance costs of the program, including the increased level of reporting in the tractor program.
Emission Control Labels
The number of emission control systems for greenhouse gas emissions in Phase 2 has increased
significantly. Due to the complexity in determining greenhouse gas emissions as in Phase 2, the agencies
do not believe that we can unambiguously determine whether or not a vehicle is in a certified condition
through simply comparing information that could be made available on an emission control label with the
components installed on a vehicle. Therefore, EPA proposed to remove the requirement to include the
emission control system identifiers required in 40 CFR 1037.135(c)(6) and in Appendix III to 40 CFR
part 1037 from the emission control labels for vehicles certified to the Phase 2 standards. After
considering the comments, EPA is finalizing the proposed tractor labeling requirements. This approach is
consistent with the recommendation in Navistar's comments.
-------
Aerodynamics
• The agencies are keeping the reference aerodynamic test method as coastdown for Phase 2.
• The agencies also received comments from other HD manufacturers stressing that coastdown
testing does not produce CdA values at zero yaw. Even at calm test conditions, the resulting yaw
angle is something greater than zero degrees. The agencies evaluated our aerodynamic test data
and agree with the manufacturers. Therefore, we are adopting Phase 2 provisions that use the
effective yaw angle determined by the actual testing (instead of an assumed zero degree) from
coastdown testing to determine the Falt-aero value (see 40 CFR 1037.525). See RIA Chapter
3.2.1 for additional detail.
• Trailer gap: The agencies believe that it is necessary to specify a range for the trailer gap used in
aerodynamic testing. It is well-accepted that gap influences the overall CdA value, with smaller
gaps producing lower CdA values. Therefore, EPA specified the tractor-trailer gap in 40 CFR
1037.501 of less than or equal to 45 inches. However, we also note in 40 CFR 1037.525(b)(6),
that if the tractor-trailer cannot be configured to meet the gap requirements, then manufacturers
should use good engineering judgment.
• Falt-aero: The agencies determined the Falt-aero values for all of the tractors tested using
different aerodynamic methods for Phase 2 using the aerodynamic test procedures and data
analysis finalized for Phase 2. As shown in further detail in RIA Chapter 3.2.1, the Falt-aero
values ranged between 1.13 to 1.20 for multiple sleeper and day cab tractors tested with the same
CFD software. Therefore, the agencies concluded that a single Falt-aero value is not sufficient
for determining the correlation of test methods for all tractors. Based on the comments and
further refinement of our selective enforcement audit (SEA) provisions in the Phase 2 final rule,
we are adopting provisions that require manufacturers to determine Falt-aero for a minimum of
one day cab and one sleeper cab in MYs 2021, 2024, and 2027. The Falt-aero testing
requirements in the final rule are less than the number proposed, but still balance the need for
accuracy with the associated test burden.
• Phase 2 standard trailer: We still project that the bulk of trailers that will be in operation during
the life of tractors produced early in Phase 2 will be represented by the aerodynamic performance
of a trailer with skirts. Therefore, we are adopting the reference trailer with a trailer skirt, as
proposed. However, we also want to recognize that the trailer fleet will continue to evolve over
the lifetime of tractors built and certified to Phase 2, especially from MY 2027 and later. We
recognize that if we do not account for reduced aerodynamic loads in the real world, then we may
not be appropriately evaluating the tractor powertrain. We considered changing the standard
trailer in MY2027; however, this would lead to significant testing burden for the manufacturers
because they would have to determine new CdA values for their entire fleet of tractors. Instead,
we are adopting Phase 2 GEM that beginning in MY 2027 will take the CdA input for each
vehicle and reduce it by 0.3 m2 to reflect the lower aerodynamic loads that are a mix of trailers
with skirts and trailers with skirts and boat tails. This change has been accounted for in both the
baseline and standard setting of the C02 emissions and fuel consumption values. The agencies
respond to Navistar's more detailed comments on Bins V through VII in RTC Section 4.3.
• Constant Speed Testing: The agencies conducted a significant number of constant speed tests
both prior to issuing the NPRM and between the NPRM and FRM. See RIA Chapter 3.2.1.1.3.3.
While constant speed testing is not the reference aerodynamic method for Phase 2, it is allowed as
an alternative method under both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The agencies addressed Navistar's
specific suggestions for refinements in 40 CFR 1037.534. Additional requirements were included
for testing on a windy day through constraints on the yaw angle distribution. Our analysis
showed that meeting these requirements resulted in a yaw characteristic with sufficient
confidence. Torque instruments must also be calibrated and zeroed as specified in 40 CFR
-------
1037.534. Many aspects of the constant speed test procedure, including preconditioning
procedures and road/track characteristics, refer to the coastdown test procedure detailed in 40
CFR 1037.528.
SEA and Confirmatory Aerodynamic Testing
With respect to Navistar's concern about changing the Phase 1 tractor program related to aerodynamic
testing of tractors, EPA is not revising the Phase 1 tractor aerodynamics provisions in terms of SEA or
confirmatory testing. The agencies note that we maintained the provision in 40 CFR 1037.150(k) which
allows a one bin compliance margin for in-use testing.
Although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate the initial implementation of
new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an appropriate long-term policy.
Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic
parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance testing, in which test-to-test variability is
normally expected to be small relative to production variability. With coastdown testing, however, test-
to-test variability is expected to be larger relative to production variability. In response to comments
addressing this difference, EPA developed a different structure for conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor
CdAs and solicited supplemental comments on it. We believe the structure being finalized appropriately
balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives for manufacturers to act in good faith with
manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on inaccurate testing. Our current assessment is
that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when certifying and uses good engineering judgment
throughout the process, false failures for individual vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family
would not occur. It is important to note that, although SEAs are directed by EPA, the actual testing is
conducted by the manufacturer at their chosen facilities. This minimizes many potential causes of test
variability, such as differences in test trailers, test tracks, or instrumentation. Thus confidence intervals
need only reflect true test-to-test variability. We are adopting provisions in 40 CFR 1037.305 that detail
the SEA procedures for aerodynamic testing, including the definition of "a" and "b." We set "a" equal to
1.5 and "b" equal to 0.03 (the middle of the range discussed in the NODA). These provisions also define
the top of the bin boundary to be the value specified in 40 CFR 1037.520 plus 0.05 m2 to account for
rounding. We are also adopting provisions in 40 CFR 1037.150(s) which states that EPA will make our
determination using a statistical analysis consistent with the principles of SEA testing in 40 CFR
1037.305. Also, manufacturers generally rent facilities for coastdown testing as needed, which means
EPA will need to provide some advance notice to allow the manufacturer to reserve the appropriate
facility. EPA adopted SEA provisions that state that we may conduct aerodynamic testing using either
the coastdown (reference) test method or the aerodynamic method used by manufacturer to certify the
tractor. Additional discussion is included in Section III.E.2.a of the Preamble to the final rule.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Furthermore, it is imperative to note that fuel economy has a non-linear relationship with the percent of
fuel consumed. The agencies have created confusion on this topic which must be addressed. "Fuel
economy" is not used in reference to heavy-duty vehicles as it can be misleading based on the type of
freight hauled, route, traffic conditions, speed limits, driver skill, etc.5 Therefore, a technology which
might increase the fuel economy by 24% does not necessarily equate to fuel consumption savings. In
fact, there is a higher probability that the fuel consumption savings will be much less. While the agencies
claim that the Phase II regulations will be based upon performance standards, they still do not properly
address the diversity which exists in the trucking industry and in the various duty cycles (type of freight,
weight, routes, etc.). According to NAS 2010 research analysis entitled Technologies and Approaches to
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, "in [h]eavy vehicles the most
meaningful metric of fuel efficiency must be viewed in relationship to the work performed." They call
-------
this load-specific fuel consumption (LSFC). This vital metric is missing in the agencies testing and
analysis. According to the NAS study, "Regulators need to use a common procedure to develop a
baseline LSFC data for various applications, to determine if separate standards are required for different
vehicles that have a common function.6" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.6-7]
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory performed a study in 2011 in partnership with the Department of
Energy (DOE) and industry to research the impact real-world conditions can have on the fuel efficiency
of Class 8 trucks (trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,001 pounds). Oak Ridge
collected data on over 1,000 trips covering some 700,000 miles of primarily highway travel. When
looking at the fuel efficiency of Class 8 trucks by weight over flat terrain and traveling 65 miles per-hour
("mph"), the result demonstrates that fuel economy/mpg is not an appropriate measure of fuel efficiency
for the heavy-duty industry due to the effects of the weight of the load.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1244-A1 p.7-8]
The Oak Ridge study also monitored the weight, speed, fuel efficiency, and actual road location/grade of
certain trucks. When the fuel economy of the same truck carrying the same load over different terrain
was analyzed, results show that fuel economy can vary substantially even for the same truck. On severe
uphill sections of terrain, fuel economy of the same truck can be 60 percent worse, while on severe
downhill grades, the same truck's fuel economy is 221 percent better. The opportunities for inappropriate
mpg claims to be made for heavy-duty vehicles are almost infinite, especially when operational
differences are factored in. For example, using the data from Figure 1 it can be shown that the gain/loss
from going uphill or downhill is not equivalent. This means that a truck traveling up and back down a hill
with no net elevation change will only get approximately 70 percent of the fuel economy as the truck
would on level ground.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.8]
Response:
Metric
The agencies agree with the commenter that fuel economy is not the appropriate metric for heavy-duty
vehicles. The metrics used in the rules are grams of C02 per ton-mile and gallons per 1,000 ton-mile.
These metrics align with the load-specific fuel consumption metric recommended by NAS. In addition,
the agencies discussed the non-linearity between fuel economy and fuel consumption and more details on
the metric in the Preamble to Phase 1. 76 FR 57148. We are retaining the same metrics between Phase 1
and Phase 2.
Grade
The agencies agree with the commenter's concern that the program should reflect real world operation.
As discussed in Section III.E.2.b of the Preamble to the final rules, the agencies have adopted drive cycles
that include road grade. The agencies also cite the study conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory
discussed in the comments.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
The Wind-Averaged Drag Assessment can be Greatly Simplified and Still Provide Accurate
Measurements of Aerodynamic Drag
-------
The agencies have proposed to require wind-averaged drag evaluation to include nine separate wind
angles. Due to the broad number of cab/sleeper combinations that make up PACCAR's product offerings,
conducting eight additional evaluation points will be extraordinarily burdensome. PACCAR currently
conducts simulations on just under 250 combinations offered under the Kenworth and Peterbilt brands,
totaling nearly 500 simulation points. If the agencies finalize the proposal and requires nine different wind
angles for each of these combinations, PACCAR would be conducting approximately 4,000 additional
simulations, as well as several dozen additional mid-point simulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-
A1 p. 12]
Instead of requiring a 9-angle wind averaged drag evaluation, PACCAR recommends that the agencies
allow manufacturers to use a surrogate angle of 4.5 degrees. PACCAR and other OEM analysis has
demonstrated that this approach provides nearly identical test results as the more burdensome 9-angle
sweep, within a minimal margin of error. The chart and table below show the data and findings. In the
charts below, PACCAR has provided more information regarding our tests and assessments that result in
the recommended 4.5 degree wind angle, which compares very favorably to the 9-angle sweep. PACCAR
can provide more information to the agencies on this subject as needed and is willing to work with the
agency on other possible methods of reducing the wind-averaged drag testing burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1204-A1 p.12]
[Graphics, Aerodynamic Drag Polar and Surrogate Yaw Angles Evaluated, can be found on p. 12-13 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1]
Low- and Mid-roof Tractor Compliance Effort Should be Reexamined
In the review of the NPRM tractor stringency levels, it was determined that the compliance effort to meet
low- and mid-roof tractor configurations is not consistent with the effort that is needed on high-roof
tractors. It is expected that the change of a vehicle spec from a high-roof tractor to a low- or mid-roof
tractor should not require additional vehicle GHG-reducing technologies for the lower roof vehicle
configuration to be compliant to the GHG regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.22-23]
Currently the GEM output for a low- and mid-roof vehicle in Phase 2 Aero Bin II, III, or IV will require
some-to-significant levels of additional technology to make up the 3-5 g/ton-mile shortfall as compared to
the high-roof equivalent. The added cost of the technologies for vehicles operating tankers, flatbeds, and
low-boys could lead to the unintended consequence of the purchase of a high roof vehicle to operate in a
low- or mid-roof application. This would clearly be an adverse impact as a result of this GEM assessment.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.23]
Performance of a low- and mid-roof aero Bin III tractor should have the same or near same performance
as its equivalent aero Bin VI tractor when the same technologies are applied to both configurations.
PACCAR requests the agencies review the low- and mid-roof relationship to high-roof tractors in order to
balance the compliance effort for these tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.23]
The Proposed Coastdown Testing Requirements Should be Streamlined
The agencies have proposed to require coastdown for each major model in both a day cab and sleeper-cab
configuration and would require manufacturers to test up to six models, or up to 12 vehicles, per year,
until all models have been tested. Due to the large number of models and configurations that PACCAR
companies offer, this would impose an extremely high testing burden on our operations. PACCAR would
be faced with at least three or four years of testing, which may have to be repeated as models change or
new models are introduced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.20]
-------
PACCAR has provided EPA with testing results that shows that coastdown test-to CFD analysis results
yield extremely similar comparisons for the aerodynamic adjustment factor, Falt_aero across three different
truck models. The spread of the Fait-aero values is less than 0.3%. PACCAR recommends that a single
coastdown test can be used to represent multiple models, if not the entire model lineup from an OEM. The
aero adjustment factor compares favorably when assessed with a given OEM's coastdown test process
and alternate aero assessment method (i.e. CFD, or reduce scale model wind tunnel testing). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.20]
PACCAR strongly recommends that the agencies reduce the number of coastdown tests that must be
conducted each year to a single vehicle, as well as provide coastdown testing flexibilities. PACCAR
suggests that the agencies allow OEMs the option to extrapolate coastdown test data and Fait_
aero determination for each alternative aerodynamic test method from one model to all other models.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.20]
The Agencies Should Not Penalize The Industry if it Corrects an Error in the Phase 1
Aerodynamics Equation
As part of the Phase 1 rule, the agencies issued an equation for calculating wind-average drag that
included a factor which the agency now believes results in overly generous wind-average drag values.
The agencies have proposed to correct this factor as part of the Phase 2 rule, which would increase
vehicle CdA values by 3.3%. This change would effectively move many vehicles to a lower aerodynamic
bin designation. While PACCAR agrees that the agencies did not use this equation or factor in calculating
the stringency of the standards, PACCAR does not agree that the agencies should revise the factor now
and retroactively lower the bin designations, i.e. higher CdA value GEM input, for many PACCAR
vehicles. We estimate that approximately 50% PACCAR tractors would move from Bin V to Bin IV if
this change is made. These lower bin classifications would affect our overall ability to comply with the
Phase 1 standards and to generate credits that may be necessary for compliance with the Phase 2 program.
PACCAR and other OEMs have relied on the current equation for three model years and future product
plans have been based on the Bin designations using the current equation. If the agencies revise the factor
now for future model years, it will have serious implications for our product planning and future
compliance. A retroactive application of a revised factor would have a devastating effect on our overall
compliance strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 13]
PACCAR understands that the agencies now believes the factor to result in slightly lower numerical
wind-averaged drag values than what the agencies would like to have used for aero bin determination.
However, the agencies should not make any changes now that affect credits that PACCAR and other
companies have already generated, nor should the agencies make changes to an equation that has large
implications for our compliance planning. PACCAR recommends that the agencies leave this factor
unchanged. To do otherwise would undermine the existing program and greatly complicate compliance,
and the agencies should not retroactively penalize the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1
P-13]
ii. A Compliance Margin is Required for Aerodynamic Confirmatory Testing
The agencies have proposed to narrow the Bin ranges in the Phase 2 rule, which has significant
implications for confirmatory and Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) testing. All testing has variability.
This variability, combined with narrowed compliance Bins, could mean that a vehicle might be dropped
to a lower bin (higher CdA) in confirmatory testing, when in fact in conforms to a higher bin. PACCAR
has compiled the range of high roof sleeper cab and day cab CdA values of tractors since the start of the
year. These are seen in the charts below. The agencies' proposed compliance margin of requiring the
-------
aerodynamic CdA during the confirmatory or SEA test to fall in the same bin as the OEM's stated bin for
that chassis does not take into account the testing variabilities. Any testing variation could cause the
aerodynamic CdA value to be slightly higher, pulling vehicles that are near a bin boundary into a worse
aero bin, thus making them non-compliant. This is an unacceptable outcome. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1204-A1 p. 10]
[Graphs, Sleeper Bin Concentration, Day Cab Bin Concentration, can be found on p. 10-11 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 ]
EMA's comments provide extensive details on the sources and extent of variability in aerodynamic test
runs. As this supporting information shows, moderate variability can be expected, but the agencies should
not finalize a rule that does not account for this aspect of testing. Without such compliance margin
PACCAR will be required to move a large section of vehicles that tested in a higher Bin to a lower Bin,
i.e. from Bin IV or Bin V, to enforce an internal compliance margin. This compliance margin would need
to be applied to all PACCAR vehicles in bins above Bin I. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p. 11]
In the Phase 1 rule, the agencies provided a 1-Bin compliance margin for confirmatory testing. If
manufacturers certified vehicles to a particular Bin designation, the agencies would consider the vehicle
in compliance as long as the confirmatory or SEA testing did not show the vehicle as moving down more
than a single Bin. PACCAR recommends that the agencies continue to provide the same compliance
margin in the Phase 2 rule, or provide another type of compliance margin to reflect the variability in
confirmatory or SEA test results. This could be in the form of an allowable CdA value or percentage
difference from the certification standards. PACCAR is willing to work with the agencies on establishing
the proper compliance margin for this testing; a compliance margin cannot be specified that is smaller
than the variability of the test process executed within weather and other constraints. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1204-A1 p.11]
In-Use Vehicle Testing Should be Eliminated
The agencies have proposed highly burdensome in-use testing that is intended only to generate data to
validate the GEM model used by EPA and NHTSA. The proposed in-use testing will largely replicate the
powertrain integration testing that manufacturers are already highly motivated to conduct as part of the
certification process. These in-use testing requirements are not aimed at confirming compliance and the
agencies have existing and effective tools for ensuring that in-use performance is consistent with
certification test results. PACCAR therefore recommends that the agencies eliminate the in-use vehicle
testing requirement in its entirety. At minimum, the agencies should reduce the number of vehicles that
must be tested, share the expense and effort of the testing program, or conduct a one-time GEM validation
test program. In addition, PACCAR supports EMA's comments on in-use testing burdens. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1204-A 1 p.23]
Rear Axle Efficiency
The agencies recognize that this technology has benefits; however, the requirement to conduct testing to
demonstrate the benefit of rear axle efficiencies that are reflective of real world products is quite
burdensome given the amount of credit that might be generated. PACCAR recommends that the agencies
eliminate the testing burden by providing credit amounts based on calculated values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1204-A1 p.25]
Continue Phase I Approach for Class 7 Cabs
-------
There are few Class 7 sleeper-cabs produced each year. PACCAR has produced less than 50 each year
since GHG regulations began. Vehicles that have sleepers added should be allowed to comply with Class
7 day cab standards as is the case in Phase 1. PACCAR agrees with the agencies that no change in policy
is needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.30]
Response:
Aerodynamics
Wind Average Drag Assessment: Consistent with the commenter's suggestion, the agencies are adopting
aerodynamic testing provisions that use a 4.5 degree surrogate angle in lieu of a full yaw sweep.
Low/Mid Roof Tractors: In Phase 1, the agencies adopted only two aerodynamic bins for low and mid
roof tractors. The agencies limited the number of bins to reflect the range of aerodynamic technologies
effective in low and mid roof tractor applications. High roof tractors are consistently paired with box
trailer designs, and therefore manufacturers can design the tractor aerodynamics as a tractor-trailer unit
and target specific areas like the gap between the tractor and trailer. In addition, the high roof tractors
tend to spend more time at high speed operation which increases the impact of aerodynamics on fuel
consumption and GHG emissions. On the other hand, low and mid roof tractors are designed to pull
variable trailer loads and shapes. They may pull trailers such as flat bed, low boy, tankers, or bulk
carriers. The loads on flat bed trailers can range from rectangular cartons with tarps, to a single roll of
steel, to a front loader. Due to these variables, manufacturers do not design unique low and mid roof
tractor aerodynamics but instead use derivatives from their high roof tractor designs. As Phase 2 looks to
further improve the aerodynamics for high roof sleeper cabs, we believe it is also appropriate to expand
the number of bins for low and mid roof tractors too. For Phase 2, the agencies proposed to differentiate
the aerodynamic performance for low and mid roof applications with four bins, instead of two, in
response to feedback received from manufacturers of low and mid roof tractors related to the limited
opportunity to incorporate certain aerodynamic technologies in their compliance plan. However, upon
further discussions with EMA, it became evident to the agencies that the most straightforward approach
would be to include the same number of low and mid roof aero bins as we have for high roof tractors.137
Therefore, we are adopting seven aero bins for low and mid roof tractors in Phase 2. In addition, we
proposed and are adopting provisions in 40 CFR 1037.520(b)(3) that allow low and mid roof tractor
aerodynamic bins to be determined based on the aerodynamic bin of an equivalent high roof tractor.
These modifications, along with the adjustments to the adoption rates of the low and mid roof
aerodynamic bins discussed in RTC Section 4.3, should address the concerns raised by the commenter.
Coastdown Test Requirements: The agencies determined the Falt-aero values for all of the tractors tested
using different aerodynamic methods for Phase 2 using the aerodynamic test procedures and data analysis
finalized for Phase 2. As shown in further detail in RIA Chapter 3.2.1, the Falt-aero values ranged
between 1.13 to 1.20 for multiple sleeper and day cab tractors tested with the same CFD software.
Therefore, the agencies concluded that a single Falt-aero value is not sufficient for determining the
correlation of test methods for all tractors. Furthermore, based on the comments and further refinement of
our selective enforcement audit (SEA) provisions in the Phase 2 final rule, we are adopting provisions
that require manufacturers to determine Falt-aero for a minimum of one day cab and one sleeper cab in
MYs 2021, 2024, and 2027.138 While this significantly reduces the test burden from the levels proposed,
it also only represents a minimum requirement.
Memo to Docket. Aerodynamic Subteam Meetings with EMA. July 2016. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
138 See Section III.E.2.a.ix for details on the SEA requirements.
-------
Phase 1 Aerodynamics Equation: EPA proposed a different equation with a ratio of 0.8330 in 40 CFR
1037.525(d) for the case of full yaw sweep measurements to determine wind-averaged drag correction as
an amendment to the Phase 1 program. Some commenters argued that this change would impact
stringency of the Phase 1 standard, but we disagree because manufacturers are already subject to EPA
compliance using both methods (full yaw sweep and ± 6 degree measurements), and this Phase 1
flexibility was not used in setting the level of the Phase 1 standards. Nevertheless, we are adopting the
final rule without amending this part of the Phase 1 rules. Commenters persuasively indicated that any
such amendment to the Phase 1 rules at this date could upset compliance plans predicated on the rules
remaining un-amended. These expectations and reliance are legitimate, and the agencies accordingly are
not amending this aspect of the Phase 1 rules.
Aerodynamics Compliance Margin:
The widths of the aerodynamic bins represent a balance between narrower bins to further differentiate the
performance of aerodynamic technologies versus wider bins to allow less test burden (more tractors fall
within a given bin). The range of Phase 1 aero Bin IV is 0.5 m2. The agencies set the Phase 2
aerodynamic bin boundaries in the final rule with a range of 0.5 m2 for Bins I through III and 0.4 m2 for
Bins IV through VI. The agencies held discussions with the tractor manufacturers to discuss bin widths
post-proposal to help us achieve the proper balance.139
Although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate the initial implementation of
new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an appropriate long-term policy.
Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic
parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance testing, in which test-to-test variability is
normally expected to be small relative to production variability. With coastdown testing, however, test-
to-test variability is expected to be larger relative to production variability. In response to comments
addressing this difference, EPA developed a different structure for conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor
CdAs and solicited supplemental comments on it. We believe the structure being finalized appropriately
balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives for manufacturers to act in good faith with
manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on inaccurate testing. Our current assessment is
that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when certifying and uses good engineering judgment
throughout the process, false failures for individual vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family
would not occur. It is important to note that, although SEAs are directed by EPA, the actual testing is
conducted by the manufacturer at their chosen facilities. This minimizes many potential causes of test
variability, such as differences in test trailers, test tracks, or instrumentation. Thus confidence intervals
need only reflect true test-to-test variability. We are adopting provisions in 40 CFR 1037.305 that detail
the SEA procedures for aerodynamic testing, including the definition of "a" and "b." We set "a" equal to
1.5 and "b" equal to 0.03 (the middle of the range discussed in the NODA). These provisions also define
the top of the bin boundary to be the value specified in 40 CFR 1037.520 plus 0.05 m2 to account for
rounding. We are also adopting provisions in 40 CFR 1037.150(s) which states that EPA will make our
determination using a statistical analysis consistent with the principles of SEA testing in 40 CFR
1037.305. Also, manufacturers generally rent facilities for coastdown testing as needed, which means
EPA will need to provide some advance notice to allow the manufacturer to reserve the appropriate
facility. EPA adopted SEA provisions that state that we may conduct aerodynamic testing using either
the coastdown (reference) test method or the aerodynamic method used by manufacturer to certify the
tractor. Additional discussion is included in Section III.E.2.a of the Preamble to the final rule.
In-Use Testing Requirement
139 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. Aerodynamic Subteam Meetings with EMA. EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827.
-------
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are requiring tractor manufacturers to annually chassis
test five production vehicles over the GEM cycles to verify that relative reductions simulated in GEM are
being achieved in actual production. See 40 CFR 1037.665. We do not expect absolute correlation
between GEM results and chassis testing. GEM makes many simplifying assumptions that do not
compromise its usefulness for certification, but do cause it to produce emission rates different from what
would be measured during a chassis dynamometer test. Given the limits of correlation possible between
GEM and chassis testing, we would not expect such testing to accurately reflect whether a vehicle was
compliant with the GEM standards. Therefore, we are not applying compliance liability to such testing.
Rather, this testing will be for informational purposes only. However, we do expect there to be correlation
in a relative sense. Vehicle to vehicle differences showing a 10 percent improvement in GEM should
show a similar percent improvement with chassis dynamometer testing. Nevertheless, manufacturers will
not be subject to recall or other compliance actions if chassis testing did not agree with the GEM results
on a relative basis. Rather, the agencies will continue to evaluate in-use compliance by verifying GEM
inputs and testing in-use engines. (Note thatNTE standards for criteria pollutants may apply for some
portion of the test cycles).
EPA believes this chassis test program is necessary because of our experience implementing regulations
for heavy-duty engines. In the past, manufacturers have designed engines that have much lower emissions
on the duty cycles than occur during actual use. By using this simple test program, we hope to be able to
identify such issues earlier and to dissuade any attempts to design solely to the certification test. We also
expect the results of this testing to help inform the need for any further changes to GEM.
As also noted in Section II. B. (1), it can be expensive to build chassis test cells for certification.
However, EPA has structured this pilot-scale program to minimize the costs. First, this chassis testing will
not need to comply with the same requirements as will apply for official certification testing. This will
allow testing to be performed in developmental test cells with simple portable analyzers. Second, since
the program will require only five tests per year, manufacturers without their own chassis testing facility
will be able to contract with a third party to perform the testing. Finally, 40 CFR 1037.665(c) states that
we may approve a request to perform alternative testing that will provide equivalent or better information
compared to the specified testing or we may also direct you to do less testing than we specify in this
section.
Rear Axle Efficiency
The agencies' assessment of axle improvements found that axles built in the Phase 2 timeline could be 2
percent more efficient than a 2017 baseline axle. In lieu of a fixed value for low friction axle lubricants,
the agencies are adopting an axle efficiency test procedure (40 CFR 1037.560), as discussed in the
NPRM. The axle efficiency test is optional, but will allow manufacturers to recognize in GEM reductions
in C02 emissions and fuel consumption through improved axle gear designs and/or mandatory use of low
friction lubricants. We believe the testing approach better differentiates the effectiveness of the variety of
axle technology improvement paths, such as lubricants or low friction gears, than developing a fixed
improvement value and trying to define what technologies qualify.
Phase 1 Approach to Class 7 Tractors
The agencies have not changed the approach of requiring Class 7 tractors with sleepers to comply with
the Class 7 all cab style standards in 40 CFR 1037.106.
Organization: Plastics Industry Trade Association (SPI)
-------
Recognizing Aerodynamic Improvements
The Phase 2 proposal suggests the addition of two additional bins for aerodynamic metrics (drag
coefficient). This will provide increased incentive to adopt aerodynamic advances. Additionally, the
increased yaw angles added to wind tunnel testing and an average wind coefficient of drag will enhance
the ability to simulate drag under real life highway and wind conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1225-A1 p.3]
The new requirements for constant speed tests may also help isolate aerodynamic drag from the vibration,
mechanical and friction encountered at low speeds 3 because constant speed tests provide better
repeatability than coast down tests.4 Finally, this will provide an opportunity for harmonization with
European testing which already requires constant speed tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.3]
The proposed rule also seeks to model tractors with a standardized trailer, and model trailers with a
standardized tractor, which is a wise approach to encourage improved aerodynamics. The proposed
reference trailer, with skirts between the fifth wheel and the trailer body to restrict underbody air flow, is
representative of trailer aerodynamic improvements likely to emerge during the term of Phase 2. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1225-A1 p.3]
Response:
The agencies are adding two additional aerodynamic bin definitions (Bins VI and VII) in the Phase 2
regulations with the understanding that aerodynamics will continue to improve over the next ten years
until the full phase-in of the Phase 2 program and to provide a value to be input to GEM should they do
so. However, we considered the comments and discuss the adoption rates of the more aerodynamic bins
in Section III.D. l.c.i of the Preamble, which ultimately concludes that the standards should be predicated
only on performance of aerodynamic technologies reflecting up to Bin V. We are also adopting an
aerodynamic assessment at a yaw angle of 4.5 degrees, which is representative of a wind averaged value.
The agencies are adopting constant speed testing as an alternative aerodynamic testing method in Phase 2,
which will allow manufacturers to harmonize with their European testing. We are also adopting as
proposed the standard trailer for tractor aerodynamic testing that includes a skirt for Phase 2.
Organization: SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC
Under Phase 2, the measured frontal drag area (CdA), which is drag coefficient (Cd) multiplied by frontal
area (A), would be calculated rather than predefined. This should help capture the reduction in drag
achieved by tractor designs with optimized frontal areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.3]
Likewise, the agencies propose using several yaw angles to better approximate highway and wind
conditions that introduce drag on the side areas of the vehicle. It is particularly important to account for
lateral yaw in this rulemaking because of the relatively large lateral areas of a tractor-trailer combination.
As Exa Corporation testified at the Long Beach public hearing: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.3]
Because of the significant impact to real world efficiencies due to wind yaw effects; we feel it is
imperative that wind effects be part of the standard ...4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.3]
The agencies note that a 'wind averaged drag coefficient is about 15 percent higher than the zero degree
coefficient of drag.' This is directionally consistent with findings from SABIC's work with Exa to model
the aerodynamic benefits of the optimized Class 8 Day Cab roof fairing.6 That research showed an 8-10
percent higher wind-averaged drag coefficient, based on the use of both zero degree and 6 degree yaw in
-------
CFD modelling.7 We believe the proposal to include yaw effects in CFD modelling for Phase 2 will result
in more realistic estimates of on-road aerodynamic performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1
p.3-4]
Revised Aerodynamic Bin Structure
Under the Phase 2 proposal, wind-averaged measured frontal drag area (WACdA) would replace Cd as
the aerodynamic input into the GEM. WACdA will be used to place tractors into bins with similarly
performing tractors. The boundaries of the Phase 1 bins have been modified and additional bins proposed
to 'recognize further advances in aerodynamic drag reduction beyond what was recognized in Phase
1.' SABIC supports adjustment of the bin structure to accommodate coming advances in tractor
aerodynamics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1207-A1 p.4]
SABIC's research with Exa included close to 100 roof fairing design concepts and were modeled using
CFD. Significantly, multiple designs demonstrated in excess of 2 percent fuel savings compared to a
baseline roof fairing representative of the current market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.4]
The best performing concept is pictured in Figure 1 and utilizes a double-walled thermoplastic
construction featuring internal air ducts to accelerate airflow through the fairing and around the trailer. In
CFD analysis, this model achieved a 5.8 percent reduction in drag compared to the baseline roof fairing
and thereby yields a fuel efficiency improvement of nearly 3 percent. SABIC plans to fabricate a full-
scale prototype to undergo on-road testing to corroborate CFD results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-
A1 p.4]
[Figure 1, Optimized Fairing with internal Ducting, can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1]
A noteworthy finding from this research was the potential for a single, critically placed component (in
this case, a roof fairing) to provide significant aerodynamic benefits. SABIC is confident that other areas
along the tractor and trailer present opportunities for drag reduction, resulting in substantial cumulative
improvements in mileage and emissions. Given this, the revised bin structure should help incentivize
adoption of advanced aerodynamic features and packages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.4-5]
Constant Speed Testing
Also for Phase 2, the agencies have for the first time proposed specific requirements for conducting the
constant speed test, which would remain an alternative to coast-down testing. Constant speed testing may
help isolate aerodynamic drag from the vibration, mechanical and friction encountered at low speeds.
Research suggests that constant speed tests may provide better repeatability than coast-down tests.10 Also,
the constant speed test is required in European aerodynamic testing for trucks, and its use in the U.S.
could promote harmonization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.5]
Trailer Aerodynamics
Consistent with the 2010 National Research Council report,11 the agencies recognize that aerodynamic
efficiencies can best be obtained through the optimized pairing of trailers and tractors. The agencies note
some challenges in modelling the large number of combinations that might occur in the marketplace (e.g.,
due to different manufacturers, useful lives and owners). Because the matching of tractor and trailers on
any given vehicle —or any given run — is impossible to predict, the agencies have wisely proposed to
model tractors with a standardized trailer, and model trailers with a standardized tractor. The proposed
-------
reference trailer features aerodynamic improvements likely to emerge during the term of Phase 2,
including skirts between the fifth wheel and the trailer body to restrict underbody airflow. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1207-A1 p.5]
SABIC supports the recognition of trailer aerodynamics in the GEM program, and the expansion of the
bin structure to accommodate anticipated improvements in tractor and trailer aerodynamics during Phase
2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1207-A1 p.6]
4 Testimony of Kevin Golsch, Exa Corporation, U.S EPA Public Hearing on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, August 18,
2015.
6 Pereira, C. et al., Drag Reduction through Optimization of an Aerodynamic Day Cab Roof Fairing, SAE
2015 Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress, October 6-8, 2015, 15CVA-0026 2015-012892 PPRES.
7 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (Phase II), Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis, EPA-420-D-15-900 (June 2015), pp. 2-19 and 2-20.
10 Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics, Evaluation of fuel efficiency
improvements in the heavy-duty vehicle (HDV) sector from improved trailer and tire designs by
application of anew test procedure, Report No. 1-24/2011 Hb-Em 18/11/679(2011).
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Final_ReportiCCT_VDA_FINAL2.pdf.
11 National Research Council; Transportation Research Board, Technologies and Approaches to
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, ISBN: 978-0-309-14982-2
(2010).
Response:
The agencies are adopting aerodynamic testing provisions that represent wind averaged drag, but are also
adopting the use of a 4.5 degree surrogate angle in lieu of a full yaw sweep.
The agencies appreciate the information and data shared by SABIC in terms of opportunities for
aerodynamic improvements. The agencies included this information in the RIA of the final rule in
Chapter 2.4.2.1.2.
The agencies are keeping the reference aerodynamic test method as coastdown for Phase 2, while
allowing constant speed testing as an alternative aerodynamic test method. We believe this is the
appropriate approach because the agencies were able to develop more robust coastdown test procedures
for Phase 2 and it builds on the experience that the agencies and tractor manufacturers have gained during
Phase 1 aerodynamic testing.
Phase 2 reference trailer: We still project that the bulk of trailers that will be in operation during the life
of tractors produced early in Phase 2 will be represented by the aerodynamic performance of a trailer with
skirts. Therefore, we are adopting the reference trailer with a trailer skirt, as proposed.
-------
HD Phase 1 included five aerodynamic bins to cover the spectrum of aerodynamic performance of high
roof tractors. Since the development of the Phase 1 rules, the manufacturers have continued to invest in
aerodynamic improvements for tractors. This continued evolution of aerodynamic performance, both in
production and in the research stage as part of the SuperTruck program, has consequently led the
agencies to propose and adopt two additional aerodynamic technology bins (Bins VI and VII) for high
roof tractors. However, we have not predicated the use of either Bins VI or VII in setting the stringency
of the Phase 2 standards.
Organization: SmartTruck
As an Aerodynamic Device Manufacturer, SmartTruck is keenly aware of the challenges that are inherent
in aerodynamic testing protocols and have dedicated countless hours of research in this area with our
aerodynamic scientists and engineers. SmartTruck's Chief Science Officer and aerodynamicist, Michael
Henderson, spent 32 years at Boeing in senior engineering and management positions as well as helping
to develop one of the first Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) programs (Naiver-Stokes). Since
founding SmartTruck, our aerodynamic engineers have conducted over 1,000 coastdown test runs and
have over 75 years of combined experience with CFD analysis. We therefore direct these comments to the
Supplemental Aerodynamic Data from EPA Testing Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1624,
specifically the testing methods used to determine the performance of aerodynamic devices on medium
and heavy duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1923-A1 p. 1-2]
We support the use of various test methods such as Coastdown, CFD, Wind Tunnel, and Constant Speed
in order to provide aerodynamic device manufacturers the option to use their preferred method and as a
way to achieve alignment with the tractor regulations in the Phase 1 rule. However, to ensure accuracy
and comparability between all parties regardless of testing methodology we believe testing protocols
across all methods should include calibration standards, that coastdown testing protocols should account
and correct for non-linear speed related mechanical drag, and that there should be more test facilities and
technology types involved in the comparison between different testing methods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1923-A1 p.2]
All testing methods have strengths and weaknesses related to assumptions that are utilized in each test.
For example, coastdown and constant speed testing are dependent upon the data regression techniques
used for their analysis.1 CFD is dependent upon its grid density and its location on the model to ensure
accurate results. Wind Tunnel testing utilizing scaled models can produce Reynolds Number Effects,
Wall Effects, and Jet Effects that influence the test results of components that interact with the boundary
layer.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.2]
CFD and wind tunnel testing methods could both be calibrated with an Ahmed Body style analysis to
ensure both separation predictions and wake drag are accurately accounted for. A two stage drag spoiler
analysis could be used with coastdown and constant speed testing to ensure that a difference in drag is
predicted accurately with minimal cost to users. Using a calibration process across all testing
methodologies would also provide a more accurate comparison between tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1923-A1 p.2]
The current coastdown methodology, specifically SAE J1263 and SAE J2263, has two fatal flaws; it is
assumed that rolling resistance, or more aptly denoted as Mechanical Drag, is constant over the course of
a coastdown test session and Mechanical Drag is linear with speed. Firstly, current coastdown
methodology tests for the complete road load force or total drag, which is the sum of the Aerodynamic
Drag and the Mechanical Drag. Current methodology assumes the Mechanical Drag is constant during a
test and therefore a change in Aerodynamic Drag is equivalent to the change in Total Drag. Therefore a
-------
simple test is performed to calculate the Road Load Force. At SmartTruck we have seen first-hand that
this method leads to inaccurate results. If the vehicle's oil, lubrications, metals, tires, and brakes are not
completely warmed up and maintained at a near consistent state for an entire test session (eight Baseline
Segments and eight Aerodynamic Segments as outlined in CFR 1066.310) the Mechanical Drag is subject
to change, or creep, throughout the day. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.2]
Secondly, the Mechanical Drag is not just the rolling resistance of the tires. During a coastdown test when
the vehicle is shifted into neutral, the vehicle is not only experiencing aerodynamic drag and tire rolling
resistance, but it is also back driving the transmission and differential gears in addition to all the bearings
between the tires, axels, and drive shafts. The back driving of the mechanical drive components of the
vehicle is highly non-linear with speed. For example, with the differential gear there is a ring gear
engaged to a pinion gear which are suspended in oil and/or air. As they are being back driven, and
spinning within their case, they are rotating through oil and through the air and thusly subject to two
separate sources of drag. These sources of drag are well known and vary with speed to the order of
velocity squared, not linearly.3 In addition to the two separate sources of drag, the differential gear will be
subject to wet friction while the teeth are engaged in the oil. With two rear gears, a transmission, a
multitude of bearings, axles and drive shafts all being driven, all having their own Wet Friction and/or
Aerodynamic Drag, the final Mechanical Drag will be a combination of the tire's rolling resistance and
the non-linear drag associated with the drive components of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1923-A1 p.3]
If current coastdown methodology does not account for both the creep of Mechanical Drag throughout a
test session as well as its non-linear variation with speed, any and all Aerodynamic Drag associated will
be subject to unknown non-measured errors rendering its solutions unreliable. There are reliable,
inexpensive ways of accomplishing this. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.3]
Also, while the agencies have proposed a formula for normalizing wind tunnel, CFD, and constant speed
to coastdown testing, specifically relating to Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827 concerning
Selective Enforcement Audits (SEAs), that formula is based solely on the results of one wind tunnel
facility to the results of one coastdown facility.4 Due to the variables and assumptions that are utilized at
different locations we would prefer to see multiple testing facilities used in normalizing data from one
method to another. For example, CFD calibrations could be done similar to the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics' Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW). Also, for further refinement and
correlations, more technology types, such as boundary layer manipulation devices, should be utilized in
normalization to further strengthen claims. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.3]
1 Cornbleet, P. Joanne, and Nathan Gochman. 'Incorrect Least-squares Regression Coefficients in
Method-Comparison Analysis.' Clinical Chemistry 25, no. No. 3 (1979).
2 Schewe, Guneter. 'Reynolds-number Effects in Flow around More-or-less Bluff Bodies.' Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89 (2001).
3 CDA = D/(0.5pV2)
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Proposed
Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles- Phase 2 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis. Accessed February 19, 2016.
htto: //www3. epa. gov/otaa/climate/documents/420d 15900.pdf
-------
Response:
As noted in the comments, coastdown testing measures all of the losses associated with the vehicle,
including aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and driveline losses. To isolate the aerodynamic CdA, it is
important to remove the losses for the driveline and tire rolling resistance. For the final Phase 2 rules, the
agencies are incorporating into the coastdown procedure a modified SAE J2452 test procedure that
requires manufacturers to measure the speed dependence of the tire rolling resistance for each of the steer,
drive, and trailer tire models used on the article undergoing a coastdown test. The tire rolling resistance
must be adjusted to the ambient temperature during the coastdown test using the correction mentioned in
ISO 28580. The agencies are also requiring that manufacturers measure the speed dependence of the spin
losses of the model of the drive axle(s) used on the article undergoing a coastdown test. We did not
observe strong evidence of mechanical drag creep in our testing and did not receive data to correct for
this. The testing we conducted was overnight with minimal fluctuations in ambient temperature. Repeat
testing of tractors on different days showed acceptable repeatability. Testing requires a warming up phase
as well as driving at high speeds, which help to keep the vehicle warmed up.
Due to the various technologies and geometries that we would expect to be implemented from this rule,
the agencies are finalizing wind tunnel and CFD test procedures based largely on industry standards SAE
J1252 and SAE J2966, respectively. We believe that adopting industry standards is a sound basis for these
complex areas of testing, which encompass many facilities and software codes. Modest exceptions to the
SAE standards are required for greater precision or to align with specific aspects of the rulemaking. The
CFD test procedure can be found in 40 CFR § 1037.532. Furthermore, for the tractor program, CFD and
wind tunnel tests are required to be adjusted to a coastdown equivalent value using Falt_aero determined
from a reference coastdown test. Any modifications to simulation parameters would require a
recalculation of this adjustment factor, leading to corresponding changes in the certification drag area
values for non-reference tractors.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Standard Trailer
As referenced above, the configuration of the standard trailer proposed for use in Phase 2 coastdown
testing should be more aerodynamic. Proposed section 1037.501(g) specifies that the standard trailer for
coastdown testing will be similar to the Phase 1 standard trailer, with the sole addition of aerodynamic
side skirts. A more aerodynamic trailer, however, would better reflect the trailers expected in 2027 and
beyond, and would be better suited for the advanced tractor-trailer aerodynamic performance assumed
and required under the Proposed Phase 2 Standards. As it stands, the agencies have failed to demonstrate
that any tractor can achieve aerodynamic Bins V through VII when pulling the defined test trailer. To the
contrary, all designs envisioned for achieving those Bins are matched with a highly streamlined trailer.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 15]
Aerodynamic Compliance Margin
EPA also has proposed to narrow the Bin ranges in the Phase 2 program, which has significant
implications for confirmatory testing. All testing has variability. This variability, combined with narrowed
compliance Bins, could result in a vehicle appearing to have dropped into a lower Bin in confirmatory
testing. One OEM has compiled the range of high-roof sleeper-cab and day-cab CdA values from wind-
averaged and non-yaw averaged vehicle tests conducted since the start of 2015. Those CdA values are
plotted in the charts below. EPA's proposed compliance requirement - that the aerodynamic CdA during
any confirmatory test or SEA must fall in the same Bin as the OEM's stated Bin - does not take into
-------
account the several relevant testing variabilities. Current testing variation could cause the aerodynamic
CdA value to be slightly higher, pulling vehicles that are near a Bin boundary into a lower Bin, thereby
making them "non-compliant." This is an unacceptable situation that could result in an infeasible rule. A
1-Bin compliance margin is necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 12]
EMA's comments below regarding the coastdown test procedure provide extensive details on the sources
and extent of variability in aerodynamic testing. As that information shows, the agencies should not
finalize a rule that does not account for known sources of testing variability. Without an adequate
compliance margin, OEMs will be required to move a large section of vehicles that tested in a higher Bin
to a lower Bin to allow themselves the necessary compliance margin. That will result in making the Phase
2 Standards that much more infeasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 14]
A compliance margin is necessary for the proposed aerodynamic certification measurements. However,
proposed section 1037.401(b) does not include any compliance margin whatsoever for an audit of
aerodynamic certification, despite the fact that coastdown testing includes a great deal of variability -
significantly more than in Phase 1 where the agencies did include a compliance margin. If the agencies
hold manufacturers to the certified CdA during an audit without providing any compliance margin,
manufacturers would have to compensate for the lack of a test margin by raising their GEM CdA input by
approximately one Bin to provide themselves with the necessary margin to account for the variability
inherently associated with compliance testing. Such a forced increase of manufacturers' aerodynamic
CdA GEM inputs would make achieving the Proposed Phase 2 Standards, in effect, a full-Bin more
difficult, which amounts to a hidden stringency increase, further exacerbating the infeasibility of the
Proposed Phase 2 Standards for heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 16]
The variability of coastdown testing is on the order of +/- 5%, based on EPA's own test data under very
controlled conditions (i.e., same flat test track, same vehicle and time-of-day, low wind, skilled driver,
etc.). (See Daimler Trucks North America's SAE ComVEC 2013 Presentation). If EPA expects
manufacturers to certify vehicles with no compliance testing margin provided in the rules to account for
that 5% variability, then manufacturers will have to certify vehicles at 5% above their true CdA. In turn,
the agencies' stringency numbers will need to be increased to reflect the fact that the agencies projected
aerodynamic improvement targets - plus 5% - would be the necessary inputs into GEM. The alternative
and better option is for the agencies to recognize the variability inherent in the proposed audit procedures,
and to provide that a vehicle would fail an audit only if its CdA is more than 5% above the certified level.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 16]
EPA also is proposing to allow aerodynamic audits under methods of the Agency's choosing. For
example, EPA is proposing that in auditing a vehicle's aerodynamic performance, the Agency "may use
any of the procedures specified in § 1037.525 for measuring drag area." See Proposed § 1037.401(b). As
a practical matter, this would force manufacturers to consider the variability among all of the methods
referenced in section 1037.525 in order to determine the maximum CdA that the Agency might calculate
with any one of them, and to include additional margins of compliance into all vehicles' declared CdA's
to protect against the variability that may occur when a vehicle is tested using a procedure that the
manufacturer did not use. This would make already-difficult aerodynamic targets that much more
unachievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 16]
To remedy this unreasonable result, EMA recommends as follows for any audit, whether for
aerodynamics or for any engine-related or vehicle-related parameter input into GEM: the Agency should
(first) inquire about the method that the manufacturer used in its certification testing, and (second)
assuming that method is authorized under the Phase 2 regulations, then the Agency should use that same
method for its audit. The underlying rationale is that if a manufacturer has selected a proper test method,
-------
then the Agency should not, in effect, second-guess the manufacturer. Rather, the audit should merely be
a test of whether the manufacturer's results under that authorized method are valid. To that end, the
agencies should utilize the same test methods and testing location as used by the manufacturer. The
agencies also should use the same reference test tractor and trailer as used by the manufacturer to
eliminate potentially significant sources of variability. Under EPA's proposal, however, the Agency could
confound natural variations arising from different test procedures with test-to-test variations, thus
increasing the likelihood of the Agency erroneously concluding that the manufacturer submitted invalid
or improper test results. EPA should not second-guess manufacturers or misapply the results from
differing test method and measurement errors to challenge manufacturers' otherwise proper certifications.
The agencies' proposed test methods need to be revised and improved substantially, as discussed further
below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p. 16-17]
On the other hand, EPA's proposal to conduct SEAs that involve testing two or six additional vehicles,
beyond those originally planned for testing, is untenable. Testing will in all likelihood have to take place
at a specific track (for example, in Cape Canaveral, Florida), given the limited number of suitable test
facilities. In addition, data analysis takes time. For manufacturers to know that vehicles might fail an SEA
(e.g., due to test-to-test variability inherent in the aerodynamic testing procedures) and to arrange to get
two or six additional vehicles out to the test facility within a narrow test window is not reasonable.
Rather, EPA should (i) assign a realistic compliance margin to SEAs, as the Agency did in Phase 1, and
(ii) adopt realistic and reasonable SEA procedures, such as testing another vehicle at a later date. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 19]
• For confirmatory tests, the agencies should use the same tractor, trailer, and wind
instrumentation, at the same testing facility as used by the vehicle manufacturer
• For SEAs, use the same test method, test facility and trailer, as well as the same instrumentation,
if applicable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p.18-19]
With respect to other confirmatory testing issues, EMA agrees with the agencies' approach in proposed
section 1037.201(g). The agencies have recognized that manufacturers cannot store a large number of test
vehicles for an indefinite period, nor can they guarantee that on any given day they will have exactly the
configuration of vehicle that the agencies request under proposed section 1037.201(g). Rather, if EPA
intends to require testing of a number of full-scale vehicles, EPA should understand that manufacturers
may need to sell some of those vehicles. Consequently, EPA should agree to work with manufacturers to
find acceptable test vehicles at acceptable times, which perhaps could mean that EPA's first choice of
vehicle is not available on the day the Agency requests it. The agencies have proposed that manufacturers
would be able to produce similar vehicles, not necessarily the original test vehicles. EMA agrees with this
approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 19]
Coastdown Test Procedure
There are a number of fundamental problems with the proposed aerodynamic testing requirements. In
particular, the proposed coastdown test procedures are not sufficiently defined and do not adequately
address many key issues, such as yaw angle, type and number of sensors (i.e., anemometers), test speeds,
and test sequence. The test procedures also fail to provide any compliance margin, which creates basic
feasibility concerns given the many sources of significant testing variability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.4]
The proposed coastdown test procedure (see Proposed § 1037.527) will produce inherently inaccurate
results. The proposed test procedure assumes 0° yaw wind conditions, a completely unrealistic
assumption. When coastdown testing is conducted, there always will be some wind, which necessarily
-------
increases the CdA. Additionally, the non-aerodynamic losses during a coastdown test (such as tire rolling
resistance and driveline friction) are underestimated in the proposed test procedure, which will further
increase the measured CdA. Finally, the proposed test procedure does not include a method of correction
for pavement surface variability of the test track. All of those factors need to be addressed. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p. 17]
Chief among those test procedure issues is the agencies' unrealistic assumption of zero yaw conditions (=
no cross-wind). EPA and NHTSA are assuming that a coastdown test will yield a 0 degree CdA value (the
lowest point on the drag polar), whereas in reality manufacturers measure something that is higher up the
drag polar (at a non-zero point). Theoretically, manufacturers could attempt to wait at the test track for
zero-wind conditions, but EPA is authorized to conduct confirmatory coastdown tests with wind speeds
up to 6 mph. Consequently, it is necessary for manufacturers and EPA to assign and account for an
average yaw angle in any given coastdown test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 17]
With a complete drag polar determined through the alt-aero method (CFD or wind tunnel), it is possible to
calculate the ratio between two values at two different yaw conditions. That way, manufacturers could
measure at 2 degrees and EPA could measure at 3 degrees (depending on the wind conditions during the
test) and then the manufacturers could adjust its value to EPA's test condition (or vice versa) and actually
have two comparable test values. Given the shrinking (if not disappearing) compliance margin, it is
critically important to ensure as close to an "apples-to-apples" comparison as possible. Thus, including
yaw angle is important to the implementation of a fair and reasonable coastdown test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.17]
Another problem associated with the proposed coastdown test is its failure to properly account for the
various non-aero losses (driveline/axle losses, rolling resistance). The "low speed" test may not be as
accurate as it needs to be due to the inaccurate estimation of axle losses/rolling resistance. Specifically,
rolling resistance is known to increase significantly between the "low speed" test and the "high speed"
test, but that is not accounted for in the proposed coastdown test procedure. The underestimated non-aero
losses "bleed" into the aerodynamic load estimation, leading to an overestimation of the CdA. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p. 17]
With respect to the actual running of a coastdown test, there are multiple sources of test-to-test variability.
More specifically, all of the following variables will need to be accounted for in any final regulatory
coastdown test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 17]
Coastdown Test Variables [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 18]
Test Conditions (up to +10% increase in CdA) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 18]
- Wind (head, tail, yaw)
- Temperature (including tire impacts)
Track (up to 5% increase in CdA due to surface difference) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.18]
- Grades
- Pavement surface
- Pavement temperature
Tractor (up to 5% increase in CdA due to newer truck and/or tires) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
P-18]
- Tire model and wear
- Axle friction
Measurement Accuracy and Variability [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 18]
- Vehicle speed
- Wind speed and direction
-------
Trailer Gap [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 18]
- Many trucks cannot achieve the regulated gap due to long wheel base or short cab (especially day cabs)
- +/- 2" tolerance
- Trailer skirt location relative to tractor bogie
Trailer [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 18]
- Corners
- Skirt tolerances
- Skirt stiffness
- Tires
Since improved aerodynamic performance is a cornerstone of the Proposed Phase 2 Standards, the test
methods to assess that performance need to be correct, repeatable and accurate. Otherwise, the foundation
of the Phase 2 program could be subject to challenge. To strengthen and enhance the test methods at
issue, and in addition to accounting for the sources of variability noted above, the agencies should
implement the following improvements: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p. 18]
• Tighten the wind constraints to <=2 mph crosswind (maintain the other constraints)
• Include a tire rolling resistance offset between low and high-speeds to account for the speed
dependency of the rolling resistance term
• Add yaw measurement (not just air speed) and define the tolerance to +/- 0.5 degrees
• Change the location of the anemometers to at least 1.5 meters above the trailer's leading edge
• Change the proposed test sequence to high-low, high-low in matched pairs
• Increase the required number of tests to >30 valid high-low pairs in a test day
• Determine average yaw during each high-speed coast
• Plot CdA vs. yaw, where each high-speed coast generates a data point
• Define objective data-acceptance criteria based on statistical results
• Define minimum grade and elevation survey data requirements to ensure that any change in
velocity due to grade can be captured during high and low-speed runs
• Obtain an effective mean CdA at an effective mean yaw angle for the test
• "Fait-aero" then should be defined at the yaw angle for the reference test
• Vehicle manufacturers should provide the yaw curve for the reference vehicle through the "alt
aero" method; this could be used by the agencies to account for any differences in wind
condition/yaw angle between a reference test and a confirmatory test [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p. 18-19]
In addition, the agencies should commit to review the current trailer-gap specification and tolerance (i.e.,
45" +/- 2"; see section 1037.501(g)). In that regard, tighter trailer-gaps may be appropriate in the future
for assessing aerodynamic performance, as well as compliance with the Phase 2 Standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p. 19]
Changes to CFD Certification
Since the highway test cycle in GEM assumes that heavy-duty vehicles spend 86% of the time traveling at
65 mph, EMA recommends that the agencies raise the test speed for Computational Fluid Dynamics
("CFD") certification from 55 mph to 65 mph to be consistent with GEM. In addition, EMA recommends
that the agencies replace the full yaw sweep, as generated through SAE J1252, with a single surrogate
yaw angle of 4.5 degrees, which represents the intended (SAE J1252) wind-averaged condition. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 19-20]
-------
EMA recommends that these amendments be included in proposed section 1037.531. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.20]
Aerodynamic Adjustment Factors
One core issue relates to the proposed test procedures and data assessment methods to determine a heavy-
duty vehicle's certification to and compliance with the proposed aerodynamic standards for each major
tractor model. The agencies' proposed procedures would include, among many other requirements, a
requirement that vehicle manufacturers test up to six (6) vehicle models each year in both the day-cab and
sleeper-cab configurations, resulting in a total of twelve (12) coastdown tests per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.4]
Only one aerodynamic adjustment factor, Fait_aero, should be required. This is confirmed by the data set
forth in RIA Table 3-21 (reproduced above at page 7) which shows that the Falt_aero values are extremely
close (1.11-1.15) among the tested vehicles. (See also Agency data, reproduced below, showing |.:i|Ulcro
factors of 1.09 +/- 0.02 for three tested vehicles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.20]
Data that vehicle manufacturers have provided to the agencies also establish that the relevant |.:i|Ulcro values
are within a range of three-tenths of 1% (0.30%). However, proposed section 1037.525(b)(3) would
require determining separate adjustment factors for "a high-roof day cab and a high-roof sleeper cab
corresponding to each major tractor model." The coastdown testing needed to establish such multiple
adjustment factors would be a time-consuming, costly and unreasonable burden. Additionally, there
would not be any need for such multiple adjustment factors if the aerodynamic test procedure is made
sufficiently robust to produce comparable results at different facilities on different days. Simply stated,
the aerodynamic adjustment factor should not be vehicle dependent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1
p.20]
Constant-Speed Testing
The agencies are considering the adoption of a constant-speed test for assessing aerodynamic
performance in lieu of the proposed coastdown test. EMA cannot support this proposal at this juncture.
There is insufficient time in this rulemaking process to properly study whether constant-speed testing is
equivalent to or better than coastdown testing in determining the aerodynamic drag coefficient. The
complex and time-consuming test procedure would require multiple studies to determine the
reproducibility of the results and their comparison to results from coastdown tests. Accordingly, EMA
recommends that the constant-speed test be included only as a potential alternative to be phased-in at a
future date, if appropriate, to allow more time to study the proposed procedure. In that regard, a number
of considerations will need to be studied in evaluating the potential merits of a constant-speed test,
including the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.70]
• There should be a requirement for either axle or wheel-end torque sensors (wheel-end torque
sensors on front-drive axles with unpowered, shortened half-shafts on rear-drive axles have been
shown to be effective and cost-efficient)
• There should be a requirement for equal data (time) in each direction at each speed
• Onboard anemometer calibrations (Vr) should be required using the SAE J2263 method with all
valid 50 and 70-mph constant-speed data; zero-offset (yaw calibration) should be performed
using equal 70-mph data in each direction
• Requirements should be defined for preconditioning prior to each steady-state speed and
throughout the data-collection process
-------
• Speed-dependent tire RR terms should be included (ISO or SAE tire data depending on test
process precondition constraints - steady-state or transient)
• A correction should be included for non-zero inertial terms in each 10-sec segment
• Corrected force tolerance should be specified (include gravity and inertial corrections) rather than
drive-torque consistency to validate data
• A minimum requirement for yaw distribution should be specified before curve-fitting to
determine drag polar
• Given the error with low speed measurement in high wind conditions, a 1st order wind
speed/direction force correction should be adopted [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.70]
In sum, the foregoing issues, along with many others, will need to be carefully considered before the
agencies move to adopt a constant-speed test as a designated reference test method. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.70]
4x2 Axle Configurations
The agencies should specify that any vehicle with a "4x2" axle configuration and that also is equipped
with a heavy-duty powertrain should be classified as a Class 8 vehicle, regardless of GVWR. If such a
vehicle has a heavy-duty certified engine, it should be treated as a Class 8 vehicle, and so should be able
to generate Class 8 credits. In that regard, 4x2 tractors are typically purchased to pull multiple trailers and,
as a result, normally pull heavier loads than a typical 6x4 tractor, even if the GVWR of the tractor is less
than 33,000 pounds due to the reduced number of axles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.43]
Phase 1 Changes
The proposed changes to the Phase 1 wind-average drag aerodynamic certification calculation should not
be finalized. As it stands, proposed section 1037.525(d)(2)(iii) would establish anew equation for
calculating the wind-averaged drag area for model year 2018 and later vehicles. Such a Phase 1 change -
in effect, a retroactive change - would require recertification of all heavy-duty tractors that utilized the
alternative yaw-sweep correction factor (which alternative has been relied on by virtually all
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance), and would increase the aerodynamic drag inputs into GEM
starting in 2018, effectively increasing the stringency of the Phase 1 standards for model years 2018-
2020. That is fundamentally unfair and, from an administrative rulemaking perspective, invalid. If EPA
and NHTSA want to alter the stringency of the Phase 1 program, they will need to provide the requisite
leadtime and stability periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.21]
More specifically, pursuant to the equation in the current version of section 1037.525(d)(2)(iv), the
corrected drag area to be used to determine the Phase 1 aerodynamic bins is calculated by multiplying the
zero-yaw drag area by "CFys," which is a yaw-sweep correction factor. Current Phase 1 regulatory
section 1037.521(f)(2) provides the option to calculate wind-average drag, as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.21]
(f) Yaw sweep corrections. You may optionally apply this paragraph (f) for vehicles with aerodynamic
features that are more effective at reducing wind-averaged drag than is predicted by zero-yaw drag. You
may correct your zero-yaw drag area as follows if the ratio of the zero-yaw drag area divided by yaw
sweep drag area for your vehicle is greater than 0.8065 (which represents the ratio expected for a typical
aerodynamic Class 8 high-roof sleeper cab tractor): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.21]
-------
(1) Determine the zero-yaw drag area and the yaw sweep drag area for your vehicle using the same
alternate method as specified in this subpart. Measure drag area for 0°, -6°, and 6°. Use the arithmetic
mean of the -6° and 6° drag areas as the ±6° drag area. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.21]
(2) Calculate your yaw sweep correction factor (CFys) using the following equation: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.21]
CFys = (±6° drag area) x 0.8065 / (Zero Yaw Drag Area)
Subparagraph (5) of current section 1037.521(f) also provides as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.21]
(5) As an alternative, you may choose to calculate the wind-averaged drag area according to SAE J1252
(incorporated by reference in §1037.810) and substitute this value into the equation in paragraph (f)(2) of
this section for the ±6° yaw-averaged drag area. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.21]
This regulatory flexibility has proved to be critical to the cost-effective implementation of Phase 1, and
heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers have expressly relied on the alternative set forth in section 1037.521(f)
in certifying their heavy-duty tractors. However, in the proposed Phase 2 regulations, and without any
proper notice or study, EPA and NHTSA are proposing to replace the option set forth in subparagraph
(f)(5) with a new equation in proposed section 1037.525(d)(2), which increases the target ratio of zero-
yaw drag area to wind-averaged drag area from 0.8065 to 0.8330 (when using the SAE J1252 wind-
averaging) after MY 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.21-22]
The effect of this unilateral revision by the agencies is an increase in CFys by a factor of 0.833/0.8065,
which amounts to an increase of 3.3% in the CdA used for certification. This will necessarily shift tractors
to lower, less aerodynamic bins, which again effectively increases the burden of compliance and the
stringency of the Phase 1 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.22]
For example, the Phase 1, Bin IV CdA range for high-roof sleepers is 5.6-6.2, but effectively will become
5.42-6.00 under EPA's revision. Consequently, all trucks currently above 6.00 CdA will shift down to
Bin III. The net result is that approximately 36% of Bin IV sleeper trucks will shift to the lower Bin.
Similarly, the current Bin III CdA range for high-roof sleepers is 6.3-6.7, but will effectively become 6.1-
6.48 under the agencies' retroactive changes to the Phase 1 Standards, causing a corresponding reversion
to Bin II. Additionally, since mid-and low-roof tractors can be binned based on their high-roof
equivalents, and since the low- and mid-roof subcategories for both sleepers and day-cabs typically are in
applications with lower penetrations of aerodynamic devices due to operational considerations, those
factors also will drop many Phase 1 tractors that are in those low- and mid-roof subcategories from Bin II
(which will reduce the vehicles' FEL) into Bin I. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.22]
EPA and NHTSA argue that since the correction factor at issue is an option, the announced regulatory
change is not a stringency increase. But all manufacturers are using this "option," and, in effect, are
required to do so given the impossibility of meeting the agencies' automatic engine shutdown ("AES")
system targets (discussed further below at page 52). Consequently, the revision at issue is, in fact, an
unacceptable, essentially retroactive Phase 1 stringency increase that will significantly impact credit
balances and feasibility. It is also a change with near-zero leadtime to certify MY 2018 vehicles, since
those vehicles can begin production on Jan. 2, 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.22]
For its part, NHTSA is proposing to amend the stringency of its Phase 1 program, and to expand the
NHTSA standards to four decimal places. The expanded precision would be required in calculating
-------
vehicle FELs. EMA supports this amendment, since it will correct the current error in the calculation of
GHG/FE credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.22]
That said, EMA is concerned that there is no reference in the NPRM that the agencies will use the
corrected method to recalculate the 2013 and 2014 model year credits, which manufacturers have earned
based on the year-end reports that they have already submitted. The agencies should allow for those
recalculations of earned credits. In addition, the agencies will need to account for this in their release of
an updated version of GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.23]
In-Use Tractor Testing
A second core issue relates to the proposed requirement that vehicle manufacturers conduct chassis
dynamometer testing of three sleeper-cab tractors and two day-cab tractors each year to verify the results
simulated through the updated GEM Model. Simply stated, vehicle manufacturers do not have sufficient
testing facilities to run all of those required verification tests, which would not be cost-effective even if
sufficient facilities were available. In addition, the proposed test methods are (again) not sufficiently
defined. More fundamentally, EMA questions the need for the proposed chassis dynamometer testing. If
EPA and NHTSA believe that such testing is sufficiently important, the agencies are, of course, free to
undertake that testing on their own. However, the agencies have not proposed any rational basis for
imposing such a significant cost on manufacturers, with little or no corresponding environmental or
societal benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.4]
Proposed section 1037.665 would require annual chassis dynamometer testing and reporting of emissions
(including NOx, PM, CO, NMHC, C02, CH4, and N20 emissions) from "three sleeper cabs and two day
cabs" for the informational purpose of comparing "real world" test results with GEM-based results. Such
annual testing would impose a very significant burden on manufacturers and could result in a shortage of
available heavy-duty chassis dynamometer test facilities, all while yielding no corresponding benefit. In
particular, testing five vehicles is insufficient to identify or confirm fleet trends. Moreover, testing on a
chassis dynamometer would not discern "real-world" fuel efficiency improvements like those resulting
from AMTs, predictive technologies or other systems that improve the way a driver drives, and that are
recognized in GEM - but are impossible to recreate on a chassis dynamometer. In other words, the results
would be unrepresentative of the full fleet of vehicles and further unrepresentative of real-world driving,
so the results would not fully reflect a vehicle's compliance with Phase 2 Standards. Moreover, the costs
for this proposed "informational" testing would be inordinately high and have not been fully accounted
for in the agencies' cost-benefit analysis for the Proposed Phase 2 Standards. In addition, EPA lacks the
legal authority to compel manufacturers to test in-use, non-new motor vehicles and engines. Accordingly,
while EMA is willing to work with the agencies to explore means to assess the in-use performance of
Phase 2 vehicles, the proposed chassis-dynamometer testing is not a valid, reasonable or cost-effective
approach for generating such in-use data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.28]
There are better, less burdensome ways for the agencies to gather the Phase 2 data at issue. One option
would be for EPA to do its own testing or to work with manufacturers to develop a collaborative in-use
testing research program. As an additional alternative, the agencies should consider using data that
manufacturers already generate as part of their ongoing development processes. Product validation
engineering groups regularly run vehicles through modified fuel economy tests to verify the real-world
fuel-saving potential of new technologies. Those tests are conducted in a controlled way, are documented
in detail, and yield very reliable results. Those data could provide the agencies with the information they
are looking for in a far more cost-effective manner. Further, the agencies could consider tracking
manufacturers' inputs into GEM as a means of monitoring improvements in GHG/FE technologies.
Alternatively, if chassis dynamometer testing is utilized to develop comparative information, it should be
-------
limited to testing only one vehicle configuration and only during model years when the underlying
GHG/FE standards change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.28-29]
Chassis Dynamometer Testing
The agencies have asked for comment on the utilization of chassis dynamometer testing for certification
instead of relying on GEM. EMA opposes any mandate for chassis dynamometer testing for medium-duty
and heavy-duty vehicles. There are far too many certifiable vehicle configuration and far too few chassis
dynamometer testing facilities to make it possible to implement such a dynamometer-based certification
program. Furthermore, it should be recognized that a chassis dynamometer test would require separate
inputs for aerodynamic performance and rolling resistance, loads that compromise over 70% of a typical
vehicle's load factors. In addition, such testing is subject to other significant variables, such as driver
differences, rolling resistance on the chassis dynamometer rolls, tire temperature, and many other variable
factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.63]
Accordingly, given the potential variability between GEM-based certification and dynamometer-based
certification, EPA needs to specify that the Agency will only utilize a chassis-dynamometer-based audit
test where the underlying certification test was conducted at a chassis-dynamometer testing facility. In all
other cases, the Agency's audits should be GEM-based to match the certification method that the
manufacturer has used. In that regard, EMA supports setting the cut point for chassis-based certification
testing at 14,000 pounds GVWR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p.63]
Response:
Standard Trailer
The agencies re-evaluated the proposal to include trailer skirts on the Phase 2 reference trailer with
consideration of the comments. We still project that the bulk of trailers that will be in operation during
the life of tractors produced early in Phase 2 will be represented by the aerodynamic performance of a
trailer with skirts. Therefore, we are adopting the reference trailer as proposed. However, we also want
to recognize that the trailer fleet will continue to evolve over the lifetime of tractors built and certified to
Phase 2, especially from MY 2027 and later. Based on testing conducted to support the trailer portion of
Phase 2, we found that on average a boat tail added to a dry van trailer with skirts reduces wind averaged
CdA by 0.6 m2. We recognize that if we do not account for reduced aerodynamic loads in the real world,
then we may not be appropriately evaluating the tractor powertrain. We considered changing the standard
trailer in MY 2027; however, this would lead to significant testing burden for the manufacturers because
they would have to determine new CdA values for their entire fleet of tractors. Instead, we are adopting
Phase 2 GEM that beginning in MY 2027 will take the CdA input for each vehicle and reduce it by 0.3 m2
to reflect the lower aerodynamic loads that are a mix of trailers with skirts and trailers with skirts and boat
tails. This change has been accounted for in both the baseline and standard setting of the C02 emissions
and fuel consumption values.
Aerodynamic Compliance Margin/SEA
The agencies have refined the aerodynamic test procedures, developed a new SEA approach, revised
aerodynamic bin boundaries, and adjusted aerodynamic bin adoption rates in the technology packages for
the final rule. This package of changes as a whole is in response to the set of detailed comments from
stakeholders. The changes to the coastdown test procedures reduce the test-to-test variability of the CdA
results. The new SEA approach appropriately balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives for
manufacturers to act in good faith with manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on
-------
inaccurate testing. The high roof bin values being adopted in the HD Phase 2 final rulemaking differ
from those proposed due to the coastdown and other aerodynamic test procedures changes. However, in
both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins such that there is an alignment
between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into consideration the changes in
aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in Phase 2. The Phase 2 bins were developed
so that a tractor that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as a Bin III tractor in Phase 2.
The widths of the aerodynamic bins represent a balance between narrower bins to further differentiate the
performance of aerodynamic technologies versus wider bins to allow less test burden (more tractors fall
within a given bin). The range of Phase 1 aero Bin IV is 0.5 m2. The agencies set the Phase 2
aerodynamic bin boundaries in the final rule with a range of 0.5 m2 for Bins I through III and 0.4 m2 for
Bins IV through VI. The agencies held discussions with the tractor manufacturers to discuss bin widths
post-proposal to help us achieve the proper balance.140
Although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate the initial implementation of
new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an appropriate long-term policy.
Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic
parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance testing, in which test-to-test variability is
normally expected to be small relative to production variability. With coastdown testing, however, test-
to-test variability is expected to be larger relative to production variability. In response to comments
addressing this difference, EPA developed a different structure for conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor
CdA s and solicited supplemental comments on it. We believe the structure being finalized appropriately
balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives for manufacturers to act in good faith with
manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on inaccurate testing. Our current assessment is
that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when certifying and uses good engineering judgment
throughout the process, false failures for individual vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family
would not occur. It is important to note that, although SEAs are directed by EPA, the actual testing is
conducted by the manufacturer at their chosen facilities. This minimizes many potential causes of test
variability, such as differences in test trailers, test tracks, or instrumentation. Thus confidence intervals
need only reflect true test-to-test variability. Also, manufacturers generally rent facilities for coastdown
testing as needed, which means EPA will need to provide some advance notice to allow the manufacturer
to reserve the appropriate facility.
Aerodynamic compliance will be determined by comparing the certification CdA bin with the bin
determined from the SEA. Variability in the coastdown tests are addressed partially through the
implementation of a bin structure, as opposed to using the test result directly. However, there may be
tractors whose results are near the edge of a bin for which the SEA result could be in the neighboring less
aerodynamic bin. To address this issue, the agencies are finalizing a confidence interval to apply to the
top of the CdA bin, within which an SEA result would be considered to be in compliance. The basis for
this confidence interval, z, is a-ax+b, where ox is the standard error of the SEA result, a is a t-value, and
b is an offset to account for testing variability. Details of this approach and the SEA process for
aerodynamic performance are discussed in RIA Chapter 3.2.2.2.2 and Section III.E(2)(a)(ix) of the
Preamble.
The agencies determined that a value of 1.5 was appropriate for a. This critical t-value for a failure of 1.5
means that, from the precision error alone, the agencies must have a confidence level of 93 percent that
140 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. Aerodynamic Subteam Meetings with EMA. EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827.
-------
the test results is above the boundary of the bin declared for that tractor configuration. This comes from
the (one-tailed) probability of approximately 7 percent that a result falls in the tail of a normal distribution
for at-value of 1.5.
In addition to the precision component, the agencies are allowing an offset, b, to be applied to account for
test-to-test variability. The variability of multiple tests of the same tractor was used to consider value
b. As mentioned earlier, Sleeper Cab 3 was tested on multiple days. Wind conditions varied between
each of these tests, causing different effective yaw angles. To compare the tests with each other, the
wind-averaged CdA values were used, after adjustment to 4.5° as described in RIA Chapter 3.2.1.1.3. For
a given alternate method used for the yaw adjustment, the wind-averaged CdA values varied by a range of
0.11 m2.
The coastdown testing at NRC was used to investigate site-to-site variability to inform the b value. While
the agencies anticipate that the manufacturers would use the same test facilities that they used for their
reference tractor tests, they could choose a different site based on availability or other factors. The
coastdown analysis process the agencies are finalizing could not exactly be used on the NRC data because
wind conditions were not always favorable, and an unequal numbers of runs were conducted in each
direction. A matched pair analysis (instead of a low-pair mean) was used along with the alternate method
adjustments that were performed for the SwRI data in order to compare all results in the wind-averaged
drag domain. The wind-average CdA estimated using the NRC data differed by 0.15 m2 from that using
the SwRI data.
As shown in Figure 3-9 of the RIA, the standard error of test decreases as the number of runs in a test
increases. At 24 runs, the standard error is on average, approximately 0.84 percent (not the +/- 5 percent
noted by the commenter). For a given distribution, increasing the number of runs to 100 would roughly
halve the standard error to 0.42 percent, as the standard error decreases with the square root of the number
of runs. With an a value of 1.5, the contribution to the confidence interval, z, of the precision error at the
Bin III/IV boundary of 5.6 m2 is approximately 0.04 m2.
Since the bin boundaries are expressed to one decimal place, the SEA provision also allows for rounding,
which provides an additional 0.049 m2. Finally, the agencies selected a b value of 0.03 m2. Combining
the selected a and b values, the estimated standard error after 100 tests, and the rounding margin; the
estimated confidence interval for a tractor at the Bin III/IV boundary is 0.12 m2. This in the 0.11-0.15 m2
range estimated by the repeat tests done on Sleeper Cab 3 at SwRI and NRC and is around 30 percent of
the width of Bin IV. The agencies are finalizing a confidence interval of z=1.5-erx+0.03, which would be
applied to the SEA result when determining compliance as per SEA test procedures in 40 CFR 1037.305.
The agencies have limited the types of aerodynamic methods that would be used for SEAs in the final
rule. 40 CFR 1037.305 states that EPA would require manufacturers to use the reference method
(coastdown) or the method used by the manufacturer for certification.
40 CFR 1037.150(s) states that EPA will conduct confirmatory testing of Falt-aero using a statistical
analysis consistent with the principles of SEA testing in 40 CFR 1037.305.
With respect to the proposed language in 40 CFR 1037.401 (in-use testing), we are adopting language that
is very similar to the proposal. CAA section 206 provides EPA with broad discretion to conduct in-use
testing. EPA notes that in-use aerodynamic testing would likely be limited to full-scale testing, such as
coastdown. We believe EMA's comment are primarily related to recall determinations. In this context,
we note that EPA's policy has been to generally use the specified test procedures (which would be
coastdown in this case) to evaluate compliance with the standards. To the extent EPA were to use other
-------
test procedures, they would likely to be used evaluate compliance with requirements other than the GHG
standards, such as the prohibition against defeat devices.
Consistent with EMA's comment, EPA is adopting 40 CFR 1037.201(g) language that allows
manufacturers to choose to deliver another vehicle or component that is identical in all material respects
to the test vehicle or component, or a different vehicle or component that we determine can appropriately
serve as an emission-data vehicle for the family.
Coastdown Test Procedures
The agencies, after further consultation with EMA, have made a number of changes to the coastdown test
procedures for the final rule (see 40 CFR 1037.528).141 The items below summarize the responses to
EMA's comments.
• The agencies have taken into account that the coastdown testing is typically not conducted under
zero wind (zero yaw) conditions in the final rule. The Phase 2 regulations in 40 CFR 1037.525
now use the CdA at the "effective yaw angle" of the coastdown testing instead of assuming zero
yaw. This provides an "apples-to-apples" comparison.
• As noted in the comments, coastdown testing measures all of the losses associated with the
vehicle, including aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and driveline losses. To isolate the
aerodynamic CdA, it is important to remove the losses for the driveline and tire rolling resistance.
For the final Phase 2 rules, the agencies are incorporating into the coastdown procedure a
modified SAE J2452 test procedure that requires manufacturers to measure the speed dependence
of the tire rolling resistance for each of the steer, drive, and trailer tire models used on the article
undergoing a coastdown test. The agencies are also requiring that manufacturers measure the
speed dependence of the spin losses of the model of the drive axle(s) used on the article
undergoing a coastdown test.
• The agencies set the recommended wind constraints to <=6mph. The required constraints are as
proposed with one additional constraint that the wind component parallel to the direction of travel
must not exceed 6 mph.
• EPA adopted regulations that require yaw measurement (not just air speed) with a tolerance of +/-
0.5 degrees.
• EPA adopted regulations that require the location of the anemometers must be at least 1.5 meters
above the trailer's leading edge. EPA requires pairs of high-low testing for coastdown, but allows
some flexibility in the order that the tests are run.
• The agencies have developed a process of identifying and removing coastdown test outliers for
the determination of data acceptance. First, the CdA and yaw angle data can be plotted and then
the median yaw angle of the data is determined. All results differing by more than 1° from the
median are removed. Then the mean CdA value of the remaining data points is determined. CdA
values that differ by more than two standard deviations from this mean CdA are removed. At
least 24 data points are needed after removal of outliers for the results to be valid. Finally, the
mean CdA and mean effective yaw angle are calculated from the remaining points. The Falt-aero
is determined at the effective yaw angle of the coastdown test. These values are then used to
adjust to reflect a 4.5 degree yaw angle result based on an alternate method yaw curve results.
• EPA adopted provisions in 40 CFR 1037.528 that require if the road grade is greater than 0.02 %
141 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. Aerodynamic Subteam Meetings with EMA. EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827.
-------
over the length of the test surface, you must determine elevation as a function of distance along
the length of the test surface and incorporate this into the analysis. In addition, road grade may
exceed 0.5 % for limited portions of the test surface as long as it does not affect coastdown
results, consistent with good engineering judgment.
• EPA adopted provisions in 40 CFR 1037.525 that require vehicle manufacturers to provide the
CdA results for a minimum set of yaw angles from any alternative method for the reference
vehicle.
• The agencies believe that it is necessary to specify a range for the trailer gap used in aerodynamic
testing. It is well-accepted that gap influences the overall CdA value, with smaller gaps producing
lower CdA values. The agencies will not allow a variation in test procedure to be used to
artificially lower CdA values. 40 CFR 137.501 states that the king pin located with its center
36±0.5 inches from the front of the trailer and a minimized trailer gap (no greater than 45 inches).
40 CFR 1037.525 provides an allowance for a scenario where a tractor and trailer cannot be
configured to meet the gap requirements. Manufacturers are to test with the trailer positioned as
close as possible to the specified gap dimension and use good engineering judgment to correct the
results to be equivalent to a test configuration meeting the specified gap dimension.
Changes to CFD Certification
The agencies are adopting provisions to align the speed at which CFD is conducted in Phase 2 (65 mph)
with the average of the coastdown high speed range.
Aerodynamic Adjustment Factor
The agencies determined the Falt-aero values for all of the tractors tested using different aerodynamic
methods for Phase 2 using the aerodynamic test procedures and data analysis finalized for Phase 2. As
shown in further detail in RIA Chapter 3.2.1, the Falt-aero values ranged between 1.13 to 1.20 for
multiple sleeper and day cab tractors tested with the same CFD software. Therefore, the agencies
concluded that a single Falt-aero value is not sufficient for determining the correlation of test methods for
all tractors. Furthermore, based on the comments and further refinement of our selective enforcement
audit (SEA) provisions in the Phase 2 final rule, we are adopting provisions that require manufacturers to
determine Falt-aero for a minimum of one day cab and one sleeper cab in MYs 2021, 2024, and 2027.142
While this significantly reduces the test burden from the levels proposed, it also only represents a
minimum requirement.
Constant Speed Testing
The agencies are not finalizing constant speed as the reference aerodynamic method. The agencies
investigated the use of constant speed testing as the reference method to achieve a wind-averaged CdA
result, which would have eliminated the need to rely on alternate methods for yaw curves. We received
comments from manufacturers that they did not have enough experience in constant speed testing and
recommended that the agencies not use it as a reference method. Though the agencies believe that the
potential for a wind-averaged CdA from constant-speed testing exists, we agree with the manufacturers'
potential concerns about developing a robust constant speed test procedure as a reference method in time
for the final Phase 2 rule. However, a constant speed test procedure has been developed for use as an
alternate method based on significant testing conducted by EPA (see RIA Chapter 3.2). The constant
142 See Section III.E.2.a.ix for details on the SEA requirements.
-------
speed test procedures are described in 40 CFR 1037.534. Below is a summary of responses to EMA's
comments.
• The procedure requires wheel torque measurements on each of the drive wheels. If some drive
wheels can be disabled and unpowered, then only the powered wheels may be instrumented.
• The procedure requires testing at 50 and 70 mph in both calm and windy conditions to obtain data
over a wide range of yaw angles. Testing is conducted over a sequence of test segments at
constant vehicle speed as follows:
(i) 300±30 seconds in each direction at 10 mi/hr.
(ii) 450±30 seconds in each direction at 70 mi/hr.
(iii) 450±30 seconds in each direction at 50 mi/hr.
(iv) 450±30 seconds in each direction at 70 mi/hr.
(v) 450±30 seconds in each direction at 50 mi/hr.
(vi) 300±30 seconds in each direction at 10 mi/hr.
• An onboard anemometer is required for testing. The air speed measurement correction is based
off of the roadside/trackside weather station, similar to the coastdown procedure.
• Required preconditioning is similar to the coastdown procedure.
• Speed dependence of tire rolling resistance must be determined using the modified SAE J1269
test procedure at multiple speeds.
• Corrections for inertial forces were not included because tolerances limit the speed variation
allowed during testing and because the vehicle is likely to both accelerate and decelerate during
the ten-second periods, which can have offsetting effects over many data points.
• The wind conditions must be such that 80 percent of the values of yaw angle, ^, from the 50
mi/hr and 70 mi/hr test segments are between 4° and 10° or between -4° and -10°.
• The agencies set the drive torque validation criteria as follows - All ten of the 1 second mean
torque values used to calculate a corresponding 10 second mean torque value must be within ±50
% of that 10-second mean torque value.
• The onboard anemometer measurements for air speed are corrected using onboard measurements
and measured ambient conditions as described in 40 CFR 1037.528(f).
• The output of the procedure is an average CdA value at ±4.5°.
4x2 Tractors
EPA adopted language in 40 CFR 1037.106 that allows manufacturers to optionally certify 4x2 tractors
with heavy heavy-duty engines to the standards and useful life for Class 8 tractors, with no restriction on
generating or using emission credits within the Class 8 averaging set.
Phase 1 Changes
Phase 1 Aerodynamics Equation: EPA proposed a different equation with a ratio of 0.8330 in 40 CFR
1037.525(d) for the case of full yaw sweep measurements to determine wind-averaged drag correction as
an amendment to the Phase 1 program. Some commenters argued that this change would impact
stringency of the Phase 1 standard, but we disagree because manufacturers are already subject to EPA
compliance using both methods (full yaw sweep and ± 6 degree measurements), and this Phase 1
flexibility was not used in setting the level of the Phase 1 standards. Nevertheless, we are adopting the
final rule without amending this part of the Phase 1 rules. Commenters persuasively indicated that any
such amendment to the Phase 1 rules at this date could upset compliance plans predicated on the rules
remaining un-amended. These expectations and reliance are legitimate, and the agencies accordingly are
not amending this aspect of the Phase 1 rules. NHTSA Standards: NHTSA is finalizing its standards and
method for calculating performance values for the Phase 1 and 2 programs with increased significant
-------
digits as the only option for compliance. Retaining the previous method would result in ongoing
differences in credit plans and balances, and continue the associated burden on manufacturers. Since
manufacturers already have and will continue to develop compliance strategies for the EPA GHG
program, the change will enable those strategies to also directly comply with the NHTSA fuel efficiency
program, creating a more aligned National Program. Compliance with the EPA GHG program is
unaffected by the change. EPA will modify the single interface used by manufacturers for certification to
include increased significant digits for NHTSA's values. The new interface will apply retroactively
starting in 2013 MY and will require each manufacturer's to recalculate their credit balances using the
new approach.
In-Use and Chassis Dynamometer Testing
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are requiring tractor manufacturers to annually chassis
test five production vehicles over the GEM cycles to verify that relative reductions simulated in GEM are
being achieved in actual production. See 40 CFR 1037.665. We do not expect absolute correlation
between GEM results and chassis testing. GEM makes many simplifying assumptions that do not
compromise its usefulness for certification, but do cause it to produce emission rates different from what
would be measured during a chassis dynamometer test. Given the limits of correlation possible between
GEM and chassis testing, we would not expect such testing to accurately reflect whether a vehicle was
compliant with the GEM standards. Therefore, we are not applying compliance liability to such testing.
Rather, this testing will be for informational purposes only. However, we do expect there to be correlation
in a relative sense. Vehicle to vehicle differences showing a 10 percent improvement in GEM based only
on the technologies that can be simulated in the chassis dynamometer (aerodynamic loads, rolling
resistance loads, axle efficiency, transmission type and efficiency, engine fuel maps, axle ratio, etc.)
should show a similar percent improvement with chassis dynamometer testing. Nevertheless,
manufacturers will not be subject to recall or other compliance actions if chassis testing did not agree with
the GEM results on a relative basis. Rather, the agencies will continue to evaluate in-use compliance by
verifying GEM inputs and testing in-use engines. Note that NTE standards for criteria pollutants may
apply for some portion of the test cycles.
EPA believes this chassis test program is necessary because of our experience implementing regulations
for heavy-duty engines. In the past, manufacturers have designed engines that have much lower emissions
on the duty cycles than occur during actual use. By using this simple test program, we hope to be able to
identify such issues earlier and to dissuade any attempts to design solely to the certification test. We also
expect the results of this testing to help inform the need for any further changes to GEM.
As also noted in Section II. B. (1) of the Preamble, it can be expensive to build chassis test cells for
certification. However, EPA has structured this pilot-scale program to minimize the costs. First, this
chassis testing will not need to comply with the same requirements as will apply for official certification
testing. This will allow testing to be performed in developmental test cells with simple portable analyzers.
Second, since the program will require only five tests per year, manufacturers without their own chassis
testing facility will be able to contract with a third party to perform the testing. Finally, 40 CFR
1037.665(c) states that we may approve a request to perform alternative testing that will provide
equivalent or better information compared to the specified testing, therefore the agencies may consider
testing such as suggested by the commenter. We may also direct the manufacturers to do less testing than
we specify in this section.
EPA estimates that the cost to conduct chassis testing at a third party facility would be approximately
$30,000 per tractor, for a total of $ 150,000 per year per manufacturer. RIA Chapter 7.2.1.2 includes the
compliance costs of the program, including the increased level of reporting in the tractor program.
-------
Perplexingly, EMA states (without further discussion) that "In addition, EPA lacks the legal authority to
compel manufacturers to test in-use, non-new motor vehicles and engines." Section 207 (b) (1) of the Act
authorizes EPA establish "methods and procedures' if EPA determines that "there are available testing
methods and procedures to ascertain whether, when in actual use throughout its warranty period ... each
vehicle ... to which regulations under [section 202] apply comply with the emission standards of such
regulations." That is precisely what EPA has done here. Moreover, section 207 (b)(2) provides for
substantial enforcement authority if EPA determines that vehicles are not meeting section 202 standards
"when in actual use." Under EMA's apparent theory, that authority applies to a null set since any vehicle
in actual use is by definition non-new.
In its comments, Volvo slightly expanded on EMA's argument, stating that "we do not believe EPA has
the authority to compel emissions testing of non-new vehicles simply for collecting information to
compare to the regulatory approach." But EPA seeks the information as an assurance that in-use
performance is being adequately evaluated through the certification process. So this information is
directly related to assuring that in use performance is consistent with certification, and thus is directly
related to compliance with the section 202 (a) standards. (EPA, must, of course, develop standards that
apply in use, see section 202 (a), and therefore can require testing designed ultimately to assure that
standards are met in use).
With respect to the certification of tractors, the agencies are not adopting chassis dynamometer testing to
demonstrate compliance with the Phase 2 tractor C02 and fuel consumption standards. Instead, the
agencies are adopting a compliance structure that includes component testing and GEM. Therefore, the
audits would be based on the components, not on chassis testing
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientist
MODEL-YEAR ALIGNMENT
Some concerns have been raised in public by vehicle manufacturers regarding the industry's convention
of introducing vehicles of a particular model year ahead of the calendar year. In particular, it has been
cited that common practice for engines is to tie them to the calendar year, thus creating a potential
misalignment between engine and vehicle model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 13]
Currently, EPA and NHTSA allow significant latitude for vehicle manufacturers to determine for
purposes of compliance their own model year of vehicles sold—a model year may begin as early as Jan 2
of the preceding year and can extend through December 31, effectively a two-year window. If a vehicle
manufacturer is concerned that its ability to comply with a regulation is dependent on the availability of a
particular engine aligned with the calendar year, there is already ample flexibility for a manufacturer
under this definition. It does not seem sensible to allow a common industry practice to interfere with
regulations, since no single manufacturer is bound by convention and, if the standards were weakened in
response, may choose to align the model years anyway. We appeal to the agencies not to adjust the
stringency or timing of tractor vehicle regulations in response to these concerns, as it could lead to the
unnecessary postponement of environmental benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 13]
CALCULATION OF WIND-AVERAGED DRAG
In the Phase 2 regulations, the agencies recognized that it is important for manufacturers to consider yaw
angle when designing a vehicle, as wind can have significant effect on fuel energy lost to aerodynamics—
as such, they are now requiring that wind-averaged drag be input into GEM. In Phase 1, however, the
manufacturers had the flexibility to adjust the zero-yaw aerodynamic drag coefficient by a correction
-------
factor to reflect this design characteristic (40 CFR 1037.521(f)). The agencies are now proposing an
adjustment to this factor based on additional data (Draft RIA Table 3-7). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1329-A2 p. 14]
The Phase 1 stringency did not include the use of the correction factor, which we now know based on
additional data was much too low, thus giving manufacturers more credit than is appropriate for the fuel
and emissions savings attained. The new data clearly show that the flexibility of being able to use the
correction factor results in a 3.3 percent lower value than is appropriate. We strongly support adjusting
this factor to accurately reflect real world reductions in fuel consumption and global warming emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 14]
Aerodynamic inputs into GEM are determined by which bin the manufacturers' CdA value corresponds
to. A CdA reduction of 3.3 percent corresponds to an average of 30 percent of an aerodynamic bin—on
average, this could mean that about 30 percent of vehicles are being run in GEM with a higher
aerodynamic bin than is justifiable. Given the effect of aerodynamic bin on the GEM model, this could
mean a credit of about 4 g C02/ton-mile per affected high-roof sleeper—that is approximately 5.5 percent
of the average value that these vehicles are supposed to achieve over the Phase 1 rule. The agencies
estimated that about 80 percent of all sleeper cabs are high-roof, which roughly means that these vehicles
are responsible for about one-third of all HDV emissions (Phase 1 RIA, Figure 1-5). If 30 percent of those
vehicles are getting an artificially inflated credit of 5.5 percent, this would mean an erosion of benefits of
approximately 0.5 percent of the entire Phase 1 rule. That is the equivalent of over 100 million gallons of
oil and 1 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions just for the model years in question. It is critical
therefore that this be remedied. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 14]
If for some reason the agencies are unable to correct this factor through a technical amendment, the
stringency of the Phase 2 rule should reflect the undue credits that manufacturers would be banking
entering the 2021 model year, in order to ensure that the regulations be set based on real world
performance and result in the appropriate real world fuel consumption and emissions reductions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 14]
COMPLIANCE MARGIN FOR AERODYNAMIC TESTING
The agencies are eliminating the ability for manufacturers to "pass" a real-world compliance audit of
aerodynamics as long as the confirmatory test results in measurement within the bin greater than certified
(example, Bin II if certified as Bin III; see 40 CFR 1037.150(k)). This was a significant margin of error
for manufacturers that could have encouraged gaming, and we agree with the agencies that this was
unjustified based on the reproducibility of coastdown testing—as Table 3-8 in the Draft RIA illustrates,
the typical reproducibility for coastdown testing is around 2 percent, much less than the 15- to 25-percent
error for which the real world audit allowed. With the agencies' additional changes to the testing
procedure to account for environmental conditions, this is a much-needed adjustment that will make the
program stronger and hold manufacturers more accountable for real world reductions in fuel use and
emissions due to improvements in tractor aerodynamics. Constant speed testing, which the agencies are
also considering, appears to offer an even narrower band of reproducibility (Draft RIA Table 3-9),
providing further argument against a large "compliance margin." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
p. 14]
THE STANDARD TRAILER AND INCENTIVIZING TRACTOR-TRAILER INTEGRATION
Tractor aerodynamics are measured while pulling a standard trailer. In Phase 1, this trailer contained no
aerodynamic devices; however, the uptake of aerodynamic devices on trailers has led to the agencies
-------
determination that tractors should be measured against a trailer with an aerodynamic skirt in Phase 2.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 14]
Because tractors and trailers are completely interchangeable, there is no guarantee that a new tractor will
be pulling the newest trailer. Therefore, we do not recommend further revising the standard trailer over
the course of the rule to reflect improvements to new trailers, which some parties have called for, since
tractors will generally be on-call to haul a variety of different trailers. However, we do believe it is
important to recognize opportunity for innovation in cases where tractors and trailers may be more closely
coupled because it can lead to significant fuel consumption reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-
A2 p. 15]
Results of the SuperTruck program and countless aerodynamic designers over the years have shown that
designing the tractor-trailer system together as an integrated system would lead to significantly more
aerodynamic vehicles. While we do not anticipate the ability for this type of integration to become
mainstream in the timeframe of this rule, we recommend that the agencies develop a procedure to
incentivize tractor manufacturers to work with trailer manufacturers to develop vehicle systems that better
optimize the aerodynamics of the tractor-trailer in order to spur the market in this direction. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 15]
One possible way to do this is through A-to-B testing. Tractor manufacturers and trailer manufacturers
already must obtain aerodynamic information relative to a standard tractor and trailer. If the system is
truly integrated, there will be further reductions in CdA that are not captured when attached to a standard
tractor or trailer. Consider two tractors, TRACO (baseline) and TRAC1 (advanced), and two trailers,
TRLRO (baseline) and TRLR1 (advanced). The manufacturer of TRAC 1 already must complete a test of
TRAC1 and TRLRO ([CdA] 10). Likewise, the trailer manufacturer must already prove the effectiveness
of its trailer with an A-to-B comparison using a Bin III tractor or better (therefore, TRACO or TRAC1)—
this could be measured as [CdA]xO-[CdA]xl. Finally, [CdA]00 is simply a baseline configuration that
could be used repeatedly by the two manufacturers. This leaves just a single test unaccounted for in
estimating the additional efficacy of the integrated tractor-trailer system. If the tractor and trailer are truly
integrated, then the difference in aerodynamic drag between the baseline tractor pulling a baseline trailer
and the advanced, integrated tractor trailer would be greater than the sum of the differences between the
baseline and advanced tractor and baseline and advanced trailer ([CdA]00-[CdA] 11 ~ {[CdA]00-
[CdA]10}+{[CdA]x0-[CdA]xl}). The difference between the two sides could be considered as a credit to
the tractor manufacturer, applicable to the certified CdA for TRAC1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-
A2 p. 15]
There are two additional considerations to address here. The first is that under the trailer regulation, trailer
manufacturers can choose the tractor pulling the trailer, as long as it is Bin III or better—this means that
credit for tractor-trailer integration is currently evaluated under the trailer regulation. A credit on the
tractor side could therefore be seen as double-counting. However, given the relative research budgets and
in light of the SuperTruck program itself, it seems much more likely that any additional investment in this
opportunity would be made by tractor manufacturers, so therefore this does not provide sufficient
incentive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 15]
The second consideration is that there is no guarantee that the tractor and trailer would always be used as
an integrated system. It seems likely that the purchaser would be incentivized to use the two together due
to the increased upfront investment, but that can't be validated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
P-15]
-------
To address both of these concerns, we recommend that the credit only be given to the tractor
manufacturer upon submitted data on how these vehicles are being operated together over the lifetime of
the tractor. While it is likely that fleet operators purchasing these tractors would purchase an appropriate
number of integrable trailers, we believe that the burden of proof should be on the manufacturer to prove
the use of these vehicles in order to avoid undercutting the environmental benefits of the regulation. This
arrangement could avoid the most significant negative environmental impacts of over crediting while
promoting advanced aerodynamic design. Given the impact that aerodynamics can have on the overall
efficacy of the rule (see section above on the Calculation of Wind-Averaged Drag), it is important that the
incentive be balanced against real world performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 15]
SUPPLEMENTAL DYNOMOMETER AND OVER-THE-ROAD TESTING
The agencies have proposed a chassis dynamometer testing program designed to complement full vehicle
standards. Due to the agencies' reliance on GEM modeling for certification, we find this proposal entirely
necessary and consistent with the goal of producing real-world benefits. Not only should this program be
required of manufacturers, but the results of these tests should be shared publicly as part of an annual
compliance report. It is in the public interest to ensure that any regulation is yielding the anticipated
reductions in harmful emissions— therefore, it is a necessary component of that program that the public
be made aware of the actual emissions of these vehicles. In order to maintain the greatest usefulness to the
public, the agencies should give additional guidance to the OEMs on vehicles to select for production
testing, prioritizing the testing of high-volume vehicles to inform the assessment of clear industry trends.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 15-16]
In addition to the proposed tractor dynamometer testing, the agencies should implement a program to
perform over-the-road testing of select vehicles to monitor the advancement of emissions reductions and
fuel economy under real world conditions. This data could further inform any updates to dynamometer or
GEM test cycles in the future along with future rulemakings on fuel economy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and criteria pollution. The recent admittance by Volkswagen to circumventing laboratory testing with
defeat devices harkens back to activities in the nineties by the heavy-duty truck industry and again
highlighted the critical importance of not only ensuring test cycles and dynamometer testing accurately
reflects real world driving as closely as possible but also the necessity of actually performing on-road
testing of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 16]
Response:
Model Year Alignment
Phase 2 is requiring a significant number of changes that apply to both the engine and the vehicle so it is
necessary for alignment of model years between the two categories. The final Phase 2 rule includes a
greater impact of engine technologies than were considered in the NPRM to determine the tractor
standards. By aligning the model years of the tractors with the engines, this essentially provides some
additional lead time for the tractor manufacturers. This additional lead time was considered by the
agencies in setting the tractor stringency levels. For example, the technology package developed by the
agencies for setting the 2027 MY tractor standards included both a high adoption rate of waste heat
recovery and new engine platforms that will require some modifications to the vehicle, therefore, the
vehicle standard cannot take effect before the engine standards.
Phase 1 Wind Averaged Drag Equation
-------
EPA proposed a different equation with a ratio of 0.8330 in 40 CFR 1037.525(d) for the case of full yaw
sweep measurements to determine wind-averaged drag correction as an amendment to the Phase 1
program. Some commenters argued that this change would impact stringency of the Phase 1 standard, but
we disagree because manufacturers are already subject to EPA compliance using both methods (full yaw
sweep and ± 6 degree measurements), and this Phase 1 flexibility was not used in setting the level of the
Phase 1 standards. Nevertheless, we are adopting the final rule without amending this part of the Phase 1
rules. Commenters persuasively indicated that any such amendment to the Phase 1 rules at this date could
upset compliance plans predicated on the rules remaining un-amended. These expectations and reliance
are legitimate, and the agencies accordingly are not amending this aspect of the Phase 1 rules. However,
the agencies evaluated the status of Phase 1 credit balances in 2015 by sector.143 For tractors, we found
that manufacturers are generating significant credits, and that it appears that many of the credits result
from their use of an optional provision for calculating aerodynamic drag. However, we also believe that
manufacturers will generate fewer credits in MY 2017 and later when the final Phase 1 standards begin.
Still, the agencies believe that manufacturers will have significant credits balances available to them for
MYs 2021 -2023, and that much of these balances would be the result of the test procedure provisions
rather than pull ahead of any technology. Therefore, we are increasing the stringency of the C02 and fuel
consumption tractor standards for MYs 2021-2023 by 1 percent to reflect these credits (see Preamble
Section III.D. lb.xiii).
Aerodynamic Compliance Margin
Although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate the initial implementation of
new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an appropriate long-term policy.
Consistent with the commenter's suggestion, we are not adopting a fixed compliance margin for Phase 2.
Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic
parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance testing, in which test-to-test variability is
normally expected to be small relative to production variability. With coastdown testing, however, test-
to-test variability is expected to be larger relative to production variability. In response to comments
addressing this difference, EPA developed a different structure for conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor
CdA s and solicited supplemental comments on it. We believe the structure being finalized appropriately
balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives for manufacturers to act in good faith with
manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on inaccurate testing. Our current assessment is
that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when certifying and uses good engineering judgment
throughout the process, false failures for individual vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family
would not occur. As shown in Figure 3-9 of the RIA, the standard error of test decreases as the number of
runs in a test increases. At 24 runs, the standard error is on average, approximately 0.84 percent (not the
+/- 5 percent noted by the commenter). For a given distribution, increasing the number of runs to 100
would roughly halve the standard error to 0.42 percent, as the standard error decreases with the square
root of the number of runs. Additional discussion is included in Section III.E.2.a of the Preamble to the
final rule.
Standard Trailer
The agencies re-evaluated the proposal to include trailer skirts on the Phase 2 reference trailer with
consideration of the comments. We still project that the bulk of trailers that will be in operation during
the life of tractors produced early in Phase 2 will be represented by the aerodynamic performance of a
trailer with skirts. Therefore, we are adopting the reference trailer as proposed. However, we also want
143 U.S. EPA. Memo to Docket. 'Phase 1 Credit Balance Analysis." Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
-------
to recognize that the trailer fleet will continue to evolve over the lifetime of tractors built and certified to
Phase 2, especially from MY 2027 and later. Based on testing conducted to support the trailer portion of
Phase 2, we found that on average a boat tail added to a dry van trailer with skirts reduces wind averaged
CdA by 0.6 m2. We recognize that if we do not account for reduced aerodynamic loads in the real world,
then we may not be appropriately evaluating the tractor powertrain. We considered changing the standard
trailer in MY 2027; however, this would lead to significant testing burden for the manufacturers because
they would have to determine new CdA values for their entire fleet of tractors. Instead, we are adopting
Phase 2 GEM that beginning in MY 2027 will take the CdA input for each vehicle and reduce it by 0.3 m2
to reflect the lower aerodynamic loads that are a mix of trailers with skirts and trailers with skirts and boat
tails. This change has been accounted for in both the baseline and standard setting of the C02 emissions
and fuel consumption values.
With respect to UCS's recommendation for the agencies to facilitate the transition to more integrated
tractor-trailers, such as those demonstrated with SuperTruck, the agencies believe this would require a
significant change in tractor-trailer logistics to encourage more matching of specific tractors to specific
trailers in operation. We believe that this would be most appropriately handled through the Off-Cycle
Credit program.
In-Use Chassis Testing
The agencies are finalizing the tractor chassis test requirement largely as proposed. Past experience has
shown us that including a broad range of testing discourages manufacturers from focusing their
development efforts on a single narrow test procedure. Even though there will be no direct compliance
liability for the GHG testing, the agencies would still be able to identify differences in performance that
resulted (on purpose or inadvertently) from how the powertrain is installed in the chassis.
EPA agrees that in-use (or over-the-road) testing of engines provides a number of benefits for ensuring
useful life compliance. The heavy-duty on-highway engine manufacturers are already required to conduct
in-use testing under the criteria pollutant regulations. In addition, the GHG Reporting Rule required
manufacturers to submit C02 data from all engine testing beginning in the 2011 MY, which we believe is
equally applicable to in-use measurements. Furthermore, EPA conducts periodic in-use testing of heavy-
duty engines.
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
Drive Cycle Weightings Need to be Re-evaluated
UPS notes that our class 8 tractor and trailers average 54 miles per hour in part because we also deploy
speed governors on all our heavy trucks. This disparity between our actual average speed and what is
assumed in the proposed rule will significantly reduce the fuel efficiency potential of speed-dependent
technologies such as aerodynamic devices and low rolling resistance tires. We agree in principle with the
following ATA comments on this point. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 11]
'The proposed rule indicates drive cycle weightings of 5% of the transient cycle, 9% of the constant speed
55 mph cycle, and 86% of the constant speed 65 mph cycle for sleeper cabs. For day cabs, the weightings
are 19% of the transient cycle, 17% of the constant speed 55 mph cycle, and 64% of the constant speed 65
mph cycle. ATA believes these weightings are not reflective of real world operations and tend to
overestimate the benefits of certain technologies, such as aerodynamics and rolling resistance, and
potentially discount others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 11]
-------
'As discussed in Appendix 2, using 3.6 million spot speed records collected from throughout the U. S.
during the month of May 2015, trucks operated at speeds of 55 mph or greater 57% of the time. This is
significantly lower that the weightings being used by EPA (95% of the time for sleeper cabs and 81% of
the time for day cabs). ..' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.l 1]
Limited Flexibility Must be Built In to the Use of Speed Limiters
UPS deploys speed limiters on all its class 8 trucks, and we support ATA's efforts to advocate for lower
average speed of all vehicles, including the mandatory, electronic speed governing of large trucks. Such
changes would yield substantial benefits in fuel efficiency, as well as in safety. We think that greater
flexibility is needed in how speed limits are set in these devices and that this is easily achieved given
today's ECMs. The concept of 'tamper-proof devices is unnecessary and incompatible with modern trucks
because any changes, and in fact the mere entry into the ECM software settings is trackable by
authorities. Instead of 'tamperproof devices,' UPS would support a regulatory approach in which the fleet
owner can adjust speed settings, but only if certified personnel make these changes and their activities
within the ECIVIs are trackable and fully accountable to proper authorities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1262-A 1 p. 12]
UPS notes that the proposed rule does not provide any incentive for speed limiters because, as we
understand it, the test cycles are conducted at legal speed limits and therefore unless EPA and NHTSA
provide some specific credit to the speed limiter, it gains nothing for the OEM. And the fleet owner gains
nothing via this in the eventual rule. Traffic of course does not always honor the posted speed limit. As
vehicle air drag increases as the square of velocity, the potential fuel savings with speed limiters are
substantial. UPS urges EPA/NI-ITSA to consider providing some credit for inclusion of speed limiters.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 12]
Response:
Drive Cycle Weightings
The agencies considered these comments along with the information that was used to derive the drive
cycle weightings in Phase 1. The agencies believe that the study cited by ATA includes weightings of
speed records, which represent the fraction of time spent at a given speed. However, our drive cycle
weightings represent the fraction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The agencies used the vehicle speed
information provided in the ATA comments and translated the weightings to VMT. Based on our
assessment, their findings produce weightings that are approximately 74 percent of the vehicle miles
traveled are at speeds greater than 55 mph and 26 percent less than 55 mph. In addition, the study cited
by ATA represents "Class 8 trucks" which would include day cab tractors, sleeper cab tractors, and heavy
heavy-duty vocational trucks. Based on this assessment, the agencies do not believe this new information
is significantly different than the drive cycle weightings that were proposed. Therefore, we are adopting
the drive cycle weightings for tractors that we adopted for Phase 1 and proposed for Phase 2.
Vehicle Speed Limiters
The commenter is mistaken in their assessment that the rule does not provide any incentive for speed
limiters. Phase 1 and Phase 2 provide C02 emissions and fuel consumption reductions in GEM for
vehicles with tamper-proof vehicle speed limiters (VSL) set below 65 mph. The existing Phase 1 VSL
flexibilities provide opportunities for manufacturers to receive credit for VSL while still allowing the
settings to change after an "expiration" time determined by the manufacturer and the agencies adopted
provisions to allow for VSLs with "soft top" speeds. At this time, we believe that the Phase 1 flexibilities
-------
sufficiently balance the desire to encourage technologies that reduce GHG emissions and fuel
consumption while minimizing the compliance burden of trying to accommodate changes throughout the
useful life of the vehicle. Therefore, the agencies are not adopting any new VSL provisions for Phase 2.
Organization: Volvo Group
Aerodynamic Drag Determination
While we are open to continued evaluation of alternative aerodynamic test methods, Volvo Group
opposes the agencies' proposal to shift the primary test method from coast-down to constant speed at this
time, simply because there is inadequate time to fully evaluate any new test method prior to promulgation
of the final rule. The agencies should not mandate Constant Speed Aerodynamic testing as the default
method for CdA determination in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.38]
Volvo Group supports all comments from EMA on necessary changes to the processes for coast-down
measurements and alternative aero certification. This issue has been extensively discussed with the
agencies and the major heavy-duty tractor manufacturers have agreed on the proposal. Measurement of
tractor-trailer aerodynamic drag is extremely complex and subject to many variables. Even if there are
advantages to constant speed testing, there is inadequate time to evaluate and resolve the many critical
details needed to ensure accurate results, maintain a level playing field, and to establish new aero bins and
targets based on test results. We also believe that the expected advantages from constant speed testing
could be largely gained through further refinement of the coast-down procedure. We are open to
continued evaluation of constant speed testing that could be introduced as a technical amendment or in a
subsequent rulemaking when and if it is found to be an improvement over coast-down and all issues are
resolved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.38]
EPA coast down test data
The EPA plans to use coast down test data from a handful of tractors to set the standards for Phase II.
These "standard-setting" tractors were tested under varying wind conditions, from yaw angles below 2°
for some to ~4° for others. Since Phase I procedure assumes coast down to represent 0° condition, the
associated errors were larger on the trucks tested under higher crosswind condition. EPA needs to account
for this in establishing the baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 16]
Although the Phase II procedure accounts for wind condition, the analysis procedure leads to a somewhat
flatter yaw curve than expected (or obtained from alternate aero methods). The same truck tested under
higher crosswind (yaw>2°) may produce a lower certification CdA (@4.5°) than when tested under
calmer conditions. Ironically, this is the exact opposite of the problem encountered in Phase I. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 16]
The EMA (industry consensus) proposal requested the EPA to limit crosswind during coast down tests to
<2mph, which was not accepted by the compliance division. This constraint had been proposed initially to
address the artificial asymmetry in the CdA vs. yaw curve, but this needs to be re-visited in the context of
the flatter yaw curve generated by the Phase II coast down procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-
A1 p.16]
Since the initial proposal of the Phase 1 rule, the industry has been working with coastdown to understand
the issues and to improve measurement and analysis methods. In Phase 1 comments, Volvo Group and
the rest of the industry noted shortcomings in the coastdown procedure and provided the agencies with
many suggestions on sources of errors and variability and how to correct or account for them. Few of the
comments were implemented in Phase 1. Since that time the industry has gained significantly more
-------
experience in coastdown testing and provided feedback and a full proposal to the agencies on limiting
variability and improving accuracy in the Coastdown process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.38]
Based on the industry's gained knowledge of the Coastdown procedure, our comments and our inputs
already provided to the agencies, as well as industry's complete lack of experience with Constant Speed
testing, Volvo Group requests that the agencies incorporate the industry recommendations and maintain
coastdown in the Phase 2 final rule as the default procedure. We support a longer term process to continue
to improve the aerodynamic procedures, which may at some point incorporate constant speed testing via
subsequent rulemaking or via technical amendments to the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.39]
EPA constant speed test data
At this time Volvo does not have sufficient information or experience with constant speed testing to
comment on the test data collected by the EPA. Based on our experiences to date with the proposed coast
down testing and analysis procedure, we should expect to unearth several issues as we look into constant
speed testing in earnest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 16]
Multiple Aerodynamic Adjustment Factors
The aerodynamic adjustment factor (Falt_aero) is a ratio between the test result of the full vehicle coast-
down test and the alternative method (computational fluid dynamics or reduced scale model wind tunnel
testing) used by a manufacturer to evaluate the multitude of truck models and aero options. The proposed
rule section 1037.525(b) (3) would require determining separate adjustment factors for "a high-roof day
cab and a high-roof sleeper cab corresponding to each major tractor model." The agencies came to the
conclusion that this would be required based on limited and faulty test data using the test procedure with
all the flaws we have reported to the agencies and reviewed in the EMA comments. In fact, the whole
aerodynamic adjustment factor concept is based on the premise that Falt_aero is not vehicle dependent but
only method dependent. We have shared data with EPA showing that, when the testing is done under the
conditions and methods industry has recommended, Fait_aero is highly consistent for widely varying truck
models. As such, there is no need to repeat the full vehicle aerodynamic testing for many different
vehicles as proposed. This testing is extremely time-consuming and expensive and must not be expanded
without adequate quantifiable benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.39]
EPA wind tunnel test data
Volvo does not intend to use reduced scale wind tunnel (RSWT) as an alternate aero method for Phase II
certification since it is cost prohibitive, given the diversity and complexity of its highway tractor
portfolio. Nevertheless, EPA has raised concerns about variability between alternate methods (different
CFD tools, various wind tunnels, etc.) especially regarding potential facility dependence of yaw curves.
EPA's own data shows a variation of ~2% (1.078 to 1.101) in terms of CdA(4.5°)/CdA(0°) comparing
constant speed, two different CFD methods and one RSWT facility. EPA considers this level of
variability acceptable, while Volvo does not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 16]
EPA CFD simulation data
The CFD data from two different sources (vendors) show significant discrepancy on the order of 10-15%.
While this may be alarming, it is within the expected level of variation between RANS-based steady-state
calculations and Lattice-Boltzmann method based transient simulations. Although such discrepancies are
supposed to be absorbed into Falt-aero, differences in the two yaw curves could affect the certification
CdA. EPA's data shows this difference to be -0.5% on the particular truck in the NoDA. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 16]
-------
Aerodynamic Audits
Volvo Group fully supports EMA's comments on reducing audit measurement variability by auditing for
conformance or selective enforcement by using only the same vehicles (tractor and trailer), test facilities,
and methods used by manufacturers to certify vehicle aerodynamics. In addition, we support the need to
add audit margins that consider all the variables inherent in these measurements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.39]
Chassis Dvno Testing
Volvo Group does not support the requirement to annually test five tractors on a chassis dynamometer as
proposed in NPRM section 1037.665. Chassis dyno testing requires simulated or separately measured
inputs to determine road loads associated with aero drag, rolling resistance, climbing grades, and
acceleration; loads that comprise around 90% of the vehicle load in the tractor cycles. Rolling resistance
of the drive tires on the dynamometer rollers does not duplicate on-road rolling resistance, so applied
dynamometer loading must be corrected for this as well as for dynamometer inertia. Accessory loads will
not duplicate on-road utilization unless the use of power steering, compressed air, vehicle cooling, ram
air, air conditioning, and electrical systems are all precisely managed. Differences in driver shifting,
throttle control, and braking have large impacts. In addition, there are many other variables in the test set
up and measurements. In short, chassis dyno testing introduces errors that are much worse than simply
simulating vehicle efficiency. The only system actually tested in a chassis dyno test is the powertrain,
which is tested much more precisely in a powertrain test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.41]
There are few facilities capable of running a Class 8 chassis dyno test, particularly when adding the
proposed requirement to include emissions of NOX, PM, CO, NMHC, C02, CH4, and N20. Building
such a facility is estimated to cost as much as $2M. Manufacturers could end up competing to contract
testing to the few capable test sites, driving up costs. In addition, the cost to pull a vehicle out of service
and provide a substitute vehicle, or to build and run-in a new vehicle add enormous cost, especially when
the resulting data has little value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.42]
Furthermore, we do not believe EPA has the authority to compel emissions testing of non-new vehicles
simply for collecting information to compare to the regulatory approach. The proposed testing has no
bearing on vehicle or engine certification and is an unnecessary burden without justification. EMA has
proposed alternative methods to collect data to help the agencies refine the simulation and certification
protocol. We support this effort but cannot support the current NPRM proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.42]
4x2 Tractors with Class 8 Powertrains
Under the Phase 1 rule, the agencies allowed OEMs to certify vehicles into a higher service class and they
propose to continue this with the Phase 2 rulemaking. No credits can be generated from vehicles certified
to the higher service class, but any deficit produced must be offset by credits generated from other
vehicles within the higher service class. Volvo used this flexibility to accommodate very limited volumes
of Class 7 4x2 Tractors. These tractors are HHD models that only differ in axle configurations and gross
vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) from other vehicles of the same model and still utilize the same HHD
engines and drivelines as the Class 8 versions of the same model (>10L). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.48]
In Volvo's case, the Class 7 tractors have GVWRs of no less than 32,000 lbs. by utilizing a 12,000 lb.
front gross axle weight rating (GAWR) with a 20,000 lbs. rear. At times the rear GAWR is 21,000 lbs.,
-------
but this still results in a Class 7 vehicle with a GVWR of 33,000 lbs. (just 1 lb. short of being a Class 8
vehicle). Even though these 4x2 tractors have a GVWR from 32,000-33,000 lbs. and are considered by
definition to be class 7, they are rated to 80,000 lbs. gross combination weight rating (GCWR) and are
routinely employed to pull double trailers with the added benefit of maneuverability and improved
efficiency from eliminating one axle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.48]
Since these Class 7 4x2 tractors are in the same (or even heavier) duty cycles as their Class 8
counterparts, are rated to 80,000 lbs. GCWR, and utilize a HHD powertrain, Volvo proposes that the
agencies allow these vehicles to be certified as Class 8 with any generated credits banked in the HHD
service class. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.48-49]
Response:
Constant Speed Testing
The agencies investigated the use of constant speed testing as the reference method to achieve a wind-
averaged CdA result, which would have eliminated the need to rely on alternate methods for yaw curves.
We received comments from manufacturers, including Volvo, that they did not have enough experience in
constant speed testing and recommended that the agencies not use it as a reference method. Though the
agencies believe that the potential for a wind-averaged CdA from constant-speed testing exists, we did not
pursue this as the reference method based on these comments. Similarly, we do not expect manufacturers
to use constant speed testing as an alternate method (even though it is an option) because it requires full-
scale on-road tests for all certification configurations, which is extremely burdensome and the entire
reason for not requiring coastdown tests for certification of all tractor configurations in the first place.
Coastdown Testing
Please see the agencies' response to EMA's comments regarding aerodynamic test procedures, located in
this section of the RTC.
The agencies are requiring calculation of a mean yaw angle to characterize a coastdown result in Phase 2.
Thus, there will no longer be an assumption of zero yaw for a coastdown result. At least 24 runs within a
certain ±1° yaw angle range and statistical criteria, as determined by the test conditions, are required to
determine a mean CdA and yaw angle. This helps to reduce the precision error from the proposed
coastdown procedure. The coastdown CdA and yaw angle must then be used in conjunction with data
from an alternate aerodynamic method to produce a wind-averaged drag result, using surrogate angles of
±4.5°.
The agencies coasted down the Phase 1 tractor configurations using the Phase 1 test procedures. Any data
that exceeded the Phase 1 maximum, average, or cross-wind limits were considered invalid and not
included in the analysis shown in RIA Chapter 3.2.1.1.1. The remaining valid data is appropriate for use
to determine the Phase 1 bins.
The agencies adopted a lower low speed range (20 to 10 mph instead of 25 to 15 mph proposed) to
address the issue raised by the commenter related to the fact that coastdown testing using the proposed
approach produced a flatter yaw curve. Additional detail and analysis is included in RIA Chapter
3.2.1.1.2.6.
Aerodynamic Adjustment Factors
-------
The agencies determined the Falt-aero values for all of the tractors tested using different aerodynamic
methods for Phase 2 using the aerodynamic test procedures and data analysis finalized for Phase 2. As
shown in further detail in RIA Chapter 3.2.1, the Falt-aero values ranged between 1.13 to 1.20 for
multiple sleeper and day cab tractors tested with the same CFD software. Therefore, the agencies
concluded that a single Falt-aero value is not sufficient for determining the correlation of test methods for
all tractors. Furthermore, based on the comments and further refinement of our selective enforcement
audit (SEA) provisions in the Phase 2 final rule, we are adopting provisions that require manufacturers to
determine Falt-aero for a minimum of one day cab and one sleeper cab in MYs 2021, 2024, and 2027.144
While this significantly reduces the test burden from the levels proposed, it also only represents a
minimum requirement.
Wind Tunnel and CFD
The agencies expect some differences between CFD simulations of the same vehicle between multiple
acceptable CFD software, which is why the Falt_aero calculation is required.
To account for differences between yaw curves, a multiplicative, not additive, approach was finalized to
adjust between the effective yaw angle and the surrogate yaw angle.
RIA Chapter 3.2.1 shows that the two CFD software in the EPA dataset in conjunction with the tractor's
coastdown result produce good agreement in the final surrogate-angle CdA values for Sleeper Cab 1 (5.96
and 5.98 m2).
A spread of 2% in the yaw increase between alternate methods is not a large amount given that CdA bin
widths are set around 8%. Not including constant speed results in the alternate method evaluation further
reduces the spread of the results from Sleeper Cab 1 down to about 1%. We should note that the agencies
incorporated the use of alternate aerodynamic methods into the test procedures mainly to allow
manufacturers to use tools they were already using in product development for GHG certification.
Because of variability in these tools, precision error of coastdown testing, and the large number of
configurations to certify, the agencies set up a bin structure for certifying aerodynamic performance
instead of requiring precise test results as input into GEM.
Please see the agencies' response to EMA's comments regarding aerodynamic audit procedures, located
in this section of the RTC.
In-Use and Chassis Dynamometer Testing
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are requiring tractor manufacturers to annually chassis
test five production vehicles over the GEM cycles to verify that relative reductions simulated in GEM are
being achieved in actual production. See 40 CFR 1037.665. We have revised 40 CFR 137.665 for the
final rule to allow testing of new or used tractors. We do not expect absolute correlation between GEM
results and chassis testing. GEM makes many simplifying assumptions that do not compromise its
usefulness for certification, but do cause it to produce emission rates different from what would be
measured during a chassis dynamometer test. Given the limits of correlation possible between GEM and
chassis testing, we would not expect such testing to accurately reflect whether a vehicle was compliant
with the GEM standards. Therefore, we are not applying compliance liability to such testing. The testing
is ultimately related to compliance with the standards since it is used as a cross-check on GEM-based
results from certification. However, we do expect there to be correlation in a relative sense. Vehicle to
144 See Section III.E.2.a.ix for details on the SEA requirements.
-------
vehicle differences showing a 10 percent improvement in GEM based only on the technologies that can
be simulated in the chassis dynamometer (aerodynamic loads, rolling resistance loads, axle efficiency,
transmission type and efficiency, engine fuel maps, axle ratio, etc.) should show a similar percent
improvement with chassis dynamometer testing. Nevertheless, manufacturers will not be subject to recall
or other compliance actions if chassis testing did not agree with the GEM results on a relative basis.
Rather, the agencies will continue to evaluate in-use compliance by verifying GEM inputs and testing in-
use engines. Note that NTE standards for criteria pollutants may apply for some portion of the test cycles.
EPA believes this chassis test program is necessary because of our experience implementing regulations
for heavy-duty engines. In the past, manufacturers have designed engines that have much lower emissions
on the duty cycles than occur during actual use. The recent experience with Volkswagen is an unfortunate
instance. By using this simple test program, we hope to be able to identify such issues earlier and to
dissuade any attempts to design solely to the certification test. We also expect the results of this testing to
help inform the need for any further changes to GEM.
As also noted in Section II. B. (1) of the Preamble, it can be expensive to build chassis test cells for
certification. However, EPA has structured this pilot-scale program to minimize the costs. First, this
chassis testing will not need to comply with the same requirements as will apply for official certification
testing. This will allow testing to be performed in developmental test cells with simple portable analyzers.
Second, since the program will require only five tests per year, manufacturers without their own chassis
testing facility will be able to contract with a third party to perform the testing. Finally, 40 CFR
1037.665(c) states that we may approve a request to perform alternative testing that will provide
equivalent or better information compared to the specified testing, therefore the agencies may consider
testing such as suggested by the commenter. We may also direct the manufacturers to do less testing than
we specify in this section.
EPA estimates that the cost to conduct chassis testing at a third party facility would be approximately
$30,000 per tractor, for a total of $ 150,000 per year per manufacturer. RIA Chapter 7.2.1.2 includes the
compliance costs of the program, including the increased level of reporting in the tractor program.
In its comments, Volvo slightly expanded on EMA's argument, stating that "we do not believe EPA has
the authority to compel emissions testing of non-new vehicles simply for collecting information to
compare to the regulatory approach." But EPA seeks the information as an assurance that in-use
performance is being adequately evaluated through the certification process. So this information is
directly related to assuring that in use performance is consistent with certification, and thus is directly
related to compliance with the section 202 (a) standards. (EPA, must, of course, develop standards that
apply in use, see section 202 (a), and therefore can require testing designed ultimately to assure that
standards are met in use).
4x2 Tractors
EPA adopted language in 40 CFR 1037.106 that allows manufacturers to optionally certify 4x2 tractors
with heavy heavy-duty engines to the standards and useful life for Class 8 tractors, with no restriction on
generating or using emission credits within the Class 8 averaging set.
4.6 PM Emissions from APUs
Organization: American Lung Association
-------
The American Lung Association offers the following recommendations to strengthen the stringency and
timing of the proposal and address several key elements of California's commitment to protecting public
health and air quality. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 143-144.]]
The American Lung Association urges strengthening changes to require that particle pollution
from the increased use of Auxiliary Power Units be reduced through filter technologies. The
projected increase in Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) to achieve fuel and emissions savings, and APUs'
associated particle pollution increases, must be mitigated nationwide with the use of particle filter systems
as are required in California. We simply cannot afford trade-offs in this rule that would allow for
increased carcinogenic, lethal diesel exhaust or climate-forcing black carbon emissions. Californians
enjoy protections that should be extended to all Americans. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.3] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.146.]]
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
New Standards for Auxiliary Power Units will Increase Cost and Discourage Use
ATA is concerned that efforts to place additional emissions controls on diesel-fired auxiliary power units
(APUs) will discourage the use of this fuel efficient technology. Currently, APUs are one of several
alternatives to operating the main engine for ancillary power and cab comfort. And while APUs provide
year-round comfort and fuel savings, as opposed to heat- or air conditioning-only systems, they tend to be
at the higher end of the cost spectrum. Requiring additional emissions control technology will further
increase the cost of this technology and likely discourage its use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1
P-15]
California currently requires diesel-powered APUs to be equipped with particulate filters when used on
trucks with 2007 and newer engines. And while these filters are available, use has been limited primarily
due to the additional cost and maintenance. Carriers who rely on APUs for fuel savings throughout the
United States tend to forego their use in California in order to comply with the state's unique filter
requirements. This practice reduces the overall fuel savings benefit from an APU. ATA believes a further
expansion of this type of requirement will have a negative impact on the use of idle reduction
technologies and fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 15]
For example, currently battery-powered APUs are another option. However, depending on a number of
factors, including period of operation, ambient temperature, power demand, etc., this option may or may
not meet a carrier's ancillary power and cab comfort requirements during federally-mandated rest periods.
By increasing the cost of one of the most common idle reduction technologies, diesel-powered APUs,
solutions to reduce idling will become more limited. ATA recommends that EPA fully consider the
potential impacts of increasing the cost of APUs on consumer acceptance, how such a cost increase will
impact the cost-benefit assumptions used in the proposed rule, and what operational limitations may exist
with other idle reduction technology option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 15]
-------
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. We project that the annual impact of the final program to further control PM will
lead to a reduction of PM2 5 emissions nationwide by 927 tons in 2040 and by 1,114 tons in 2050. Our
review of the costs and cost effectiveness of these standards indicate that they will be reasonable. We
have also concluded that given the timing of the PM emission standards for APUs installed in new
tractors and the availability of the technologies, engines for use in APUs can be designed to meet the new
standards in the lead time provided. In terms of safety, EPA considered the facts that diesel particulate
filters are a known technology. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
III. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors, C. Proposed Phase 2 Tractor Standards, (3) PM
Emissions From APUs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.5]
EPA is also seeking comment on new standards to further control emissions of particulate matter (PM)
from auxiliary power units (APU) installed in tractors that would prevent an unintended consequence of
increasing PM emissions from tractors during long duration idling. Bendix believes that the full vehicle
emissions and fuel consumption should be considered. This means that APUs should not be excluded
from the counting of C02 emissions or the fuel consumed for their operation. Inclusion of the emissions
and fuel consumption of APUs will create a more accurate comparison when considering alternatives to
diesel powered APUs or APU alternatives altogether. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.5-6]
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
4. Address projected diesel PM increases due to the increase use of auxiliary power units
The proposal encourages manufacturers to increase the use of auxiliary power units (APUs) to reduce
idling. While CARB supports reducing such unnecessary idling, U.S. EPA estimates that this action could
increase diesel particulate matter emissions throughout the rest of the country by nearly 10 percent, thus
exacerbating public health issues associated with exposure to toxic diesel particulate matter. This is one of
the largest public health problems tackled by GARB in recent decades, and even after an extensive
control program in California, diesel particulate matter remains responsible for about 60 percent of the
known risk from toxic air contaminants. As such, CARB supports the development of a federal rule that
requires diesel particulate filters on APUs, concurrent with the Phase 2 program, similar to requirements
already in place in California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.4]
In the Phase 2 NPRM, U.S. EPA and NHTSA rightly note that CARB, recognizing the excess PM
emissions from APUs, requires APUs that operate in California to control PM emissions by either
installing a DPF that is Level 3 (85 percent filtration efficiency) verified or must have the APU exhaust
routed to the truck's exhaust system upstream of the truck's DPF. To comply with California's
-------
requirements, several APU and DPF manufacturers have verified Level 3 DPFs for use with APUs.
Commercially available today, verified DPFs for use with APUs include Thermo King's Electric
Regenerative DPF for use with their TriPac APU, Impco Ecotrans Technologies' ClearSky DPF for use
with their Comfort Pro APU, and Proventia's Electronically Heated DPF for use with the Thermo King
TriPac APU. APUs are typically equipped with diesel-fueled off-road engines with power ratings less
than 25 hp. The verified DPFs are available as factory installed on APUs or as APU retrofits. As of
December 31, 2014, approximately 7,000 APUs equipped with CARB verified DPFs have been sold
nationwide. These technologies have been in use now for the last 5 to 7 years and during this period,
CARB has not received any complaints from end users related to DPF performance, safety, reliability, or
noise issues that would make these devices impractical to use on APUs. Thus, there are no technical
feasibility issues that would hinder U.S. EPA and NHTSA from requiring additional PM controls on
APUs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p. 179-180]
The health risk posed by diesel PM is one of the largest public health problems tackled by CARB in
recent decades, and even after an extensive control program including a series of air toxic control
measures in California (see for example the mobile source measures listed at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/atcm.htm), diesel PM remains responsible for 60 percent of the known
risk for air contaminants. Hence, controlling diesel PM remains a huge priority for CARB. Diesel PM
also contains black carbon, which is a powerful short-lived climate pollutant, so even beyond the toxicity
reasons for controlling diesel PM, there are climate reasons as well. The PM 2.5 increases projected for
the Phase 2 regulation are very significant - an increase of 1,631 tons and 2,257 tons of nationwide PM
2.5 in 2035 and 2050,77 respectively. To put those emission increases in perspective, they are greater than
the entire projected reductions of 1,058 tons statewide diesel PM in 2023 from CARB's Truck and Bus
Regulation.78 While this issue does not significantly affect California because CARB already requires
DPFs on APUs, CARB staff supports adopting similar requirements at the federal level concurrent with
the Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 180-181]
Based on price quotes provided by the three manufacturers, the average incremental cost of a verified
DPF for an APU is approximately $2,500. This cost estimate for an APU engine rated at less than 25 hp is
relatively high compared to the $580 DPF incremental cost estimate for a 150 hp off-road engine that
U.S. EPA cites in the NPRM. The higher cost quoted by the three manufacturers for these DPFs is due to
the low sales volume of APUs with verified DPFs since the requirements only apply to California as
opposed to being a nationwide requirement. Also, since DPFs are not required on APUs installed on
trucks equipped with 2006 or older MY engines, California does not prohibit the purchase and installation
of non-DPF equipped APUs. It only restricts their operation within the state if installed on trucks
equipped with 2007 or subsequent MY engines. Thus, many trucking companies that purchase APUs do
not purchase the DPF. CARB staff expects if the requirements are applied nationally, the sales volume
will increase and consequently the incremental cost will drop significantly, most likely to levels even
below the $580 DPF cost estimate for a 150 hp engine that U.S. EPA and NHTSA cite in the NPRM.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 180]
Overall, CARB staff strongly urges U.S. EPA and NHTSA to regulate PM emissions from APUs in this
rulemaking since the technology is commercially available, trucking businesses are currently using it, and
it is cost-effective. It does not make sense to pursue C02 emissions reductions at the expense of increased
toxic diesel PM emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 181]
11 Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 40 CFR 1036; 40 CFR 1037; 40 CFR
86; http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HO-OAR-2Q 14-0827-0002.
-------
78 (CARB, 2014d) California Air Resources Board, "Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for
Proposed Rulemaking - Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation," page 33, March
2014,
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
As indicated in our response to Thermo King and Proventia comments below (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1196-A1; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0811-A1), in the NPRM, EPA discussed several sources for
DPF cost estimates. The three sources included the Nonroad Diesel Tier 4 rule, ARB, and Proventia.
EPA developed long-term cost projections for catalyzed diesel particulate filters (DPF) as part of the
Nonroad Diesel Tier 4 rulemaking. In that rulemaking, EPA estimated the DPF costs would add $580 to
the cost of 150 horsepower engines (69 FR 39126, June 29, 2004). On the other hand, ARB estimated the
cost of retrofitting a diesel powered APU with a PM trap to be $2,000 in 2005. Proventia is charging
customers $2,240 for electronically heated DPF for retrofitting existing APUs. EPA considered all of the
comments on DPF costs and more closely evaluated NHTSA's contracted TetraTech cost report which
found the total retail price of a diesel-powered APU that includes a DPF to be $10,000. Based on all of
this information, EPA is projecting the retail price increment of an actively regenerating DPF installed in
an APU to be $2,000. This cost is incremental to the diesel-powered APU technology costs beginning in
2024 MY.
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
THE EPA MUST ADOPT A PARTICULATE MATTER ("PM") CAP THAT PROTECTS
AGAINST INCREASED BLACK CARBON EMISSIONS FROM AUXILIARY POWER UNITS
As proposed, the Phase 2 standards would result in an increase in national black carbon and associated
fine particulate matter ("PM") emissions from auxiliary power units ("APUs"): this is untenable. APUs
allow a tractor to maintain power during non-road hours, but the tradeoff is increased black carbon and
particulate matter emissions. Black carbon is a significant short-lived climate pollutant that must be
controlled to avoid undermining the climate benefits of the proposed standards. In addition, PM poses
significant public health risks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.20]
Black carbon is a potent short-lived pollutant with climate impacts that may be second only to carbon
dioxide over the next 20 years.98 As such, it has received international attention as an important part of
short-term actions to stave off immediate climate catastrophe and avoid imminent tipping points. Black
carbon, or soot, is a product of incomplete combustion. It is typically co-emitted with organic carbon; the
ratio of black carbon to organic carbon is highest for fossil fuels. Both black carbon and organic carbon
are components of particulate matter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.20]
One of the fundamental characteristics of a climate pollutant is the amount that it contributes to global
warming. This is often characterized as radiative forcing. The most recent Assessment Report ("AR5")
from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the radiative forcing for black carbon
is approximately 0.40 W/m2.99 For comparison, Chung and Seinfeld recently reported observational
estimates of direct radiative forcing for both black carbon and organic matter from biomass burning. They
estimate direct radiative forcing for black carbon to be 0.65 W/m2 and the contribution of organic carbon
to be 0.0 W/m2 due to the offsetting balance of absorption by brown carbon and light scattering.100 Thus,
-------
the radiative forcing of black carbon is at least similar to that of methane, and potentially higher. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.20]
Public health impacts from black carbon include both cardiovascular and respiratory effects.101 Much of
the negative health effect can be attributed to ultrafine black carbon particles emitted from diesel engines
and likely reflects increased inflammatory responses.102 Black carbon has also been associated with
decreased memory and learning in children.103 Moreover, cancer risk is increased with exposure to diesel
particulate emissions.104 Notably, these public health impacts can be avoided easily through the use of
diesel particulate filters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.20]
The United States has reduced black carbon emissions, primarily from diesel engines, through a number
of recent regulatory actions. However, allowing an increase in PM - and associated black carbon - from
APUs will undermine both recent efforts to reduce US black carbon emissions and the climate benefits of
the proposed standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. An increase in diesel PM will also result in
harm to public health. Consequently, it is imperative that the agencies adopt measures to ensure that PM
emissions from APUs are fully controlled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.21]
The EPA should take into account that California already requires PM emissions to be controlled from
APUs. Thus, manufacturers of vehicles for use in that state will already be complying with such a
requirement. In California, a diesel-fueled APU operated on a truck equipped with a 2007 or newer
engine must either be fitted with a verified Level 3 particulate control device (85% particulate reduction
efficiency), or have its exhaust plumbed into the vehicle's exhaust system upstream of the particulate
matter after-treatment device.105 We urge the EPA to adopt a similar, nation-wide control requirement for
PM emissions from APUs, which would level the playing field and enhance air quality in all states. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.21]
98 See, e.g., V. Ramanathan and G. Carmichael, Global and regional climate changes due to black
carbon, 1 NATURE GEOSCIENCE 221, 221 (2008).
99IPCC, AR5 supra note 69 at 683, Table 8.4.
100 C. E. Chung et al., Observationally constrained estimates of carbonaceous aerosol radiative forcing,
109 PROC. NATL. ACAD. SCI. 11624, 11627 (2012), available at
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/29/11624.full.pdf.
101 See Joel Schwartz, Testimony for the Hearing on Black Carbon and Climate Change House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform United States House of Representatives The Honorable
Henry A. Waxman, Chair (Oct. 17, 2007); Nicole A.H. Janssen et al., Chapter 3: Effects ofBC exposure
observed in epidemiological studies, in HEALTH EFFECTS OF BLACK CARBON 23, World Health
Organization (2012).
102 Schwartz Testimony, supra note 101; Peter S. Gilmour et al., Pulmonary and systemic effects of
short-term inhalation exposure to ultrafine carbon black particles, 195 TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED
PHARMACOLOGY 35 (2004).
103 S. Franco Suglia et al., Association of Black Carbon with Cognition among Children in a Prospective
Birth Cohort Study, 167 AM. J. EPIDEMIOL. 280 (2008).
-------
104 See H.-E. Wichmann, Diesel Exhaust Particles, 19 INHALATION TOXICOLOGY 241 (2007).
105 13 California Code of Regulations Chapter 10 § 2485.
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Coalition for Clean Air/California Cleaner Freight Coalition
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 217-218.]
I agree with MECA, who talks about the APUs having a filter requirement nationwide, as they do here in
California. EPA should adopt this regulation expeditiously.
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
18. PM Emissions from APUs
Requirement to Control PM Emissions from APUs - The agencies propose new standards to further
control emissions of particulate matter (PM) from auxiliary power units (APU) installed in tractors that
would prevent unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during long duration
idling. 80 FR 40211. The agencies request comment on the technical feasibility of diesel particulate filters
ability to reduce PM emissions by 85 percent from non-road engines used to power APUs. We understand
the direction the agencies are taking in regulating APUs to reduce the amount of PM, and we currently
supply APUs that meet California ARB emission requirements. The technology is available and has been
used in California for years (CARB 13 CCR § 2485(c)(3)(A)(l) as stated on page 176 of the RIA). If the
EPA plans to adopt regulations on PM emissions from APUs, we recommend that the EPA adopts the
CARB requirements word-for-word to reduce luture complexity on APU emissions and idling
requirements. This will allow for a nationwide standard which in turn will satisfy the agencies
requirements. That said, we think it makes more sense to simply require that APUs meet Tier 4-final
regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p. 134-135]
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Though EPA did not adopt CARB's APU requirements directly, manufacturers
should be able to meet both EPA and ARB requirements using the same engines and emission control
technologies. EPA used the existing engines and effectiveness of DPFs that were developed for the ARB
-------
program as the basis for setting the PM standards. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of
the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
EPA should promulgate more stringent PM emission standards for APUs to protect public health
Auxiliary power units (APUs) are among the technologies available today to reduce fuel use from sleeper
cab tractors due to idling. We request the agencies adopt more protective health-based diesel particulate
matter (PM) emissions standards for these units to bring them in line with the truck engines they are
relieving. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.50]
Reducing idling is an important step in reducing fuel consumption, GHG emissions and other airborne
contaminants from diesel engines in sleeper cabs because they are estimated to idle 6-8 hours a day, as
many as 250-300 days a year.213 EPA estimates that every year long-duration idling of truck and
locomotive engines consumes over one billion gallons of diesel fuel and emits 11 million tons of carbon
dioxide, 200,000 tons of oxides of nitrogen, and 5,000 tons of particulate matter.214 A truck owner can
end up paying an extra $6000 or more per year in fuel costs.215 Also, idling can increase engine
maintenance costs, shorten engine life, harm driver well-being, and elevate noise levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.50]
EPA has verified dozens of cost-effective technologies that can be applied to APUs to reduce fuel
consumption and C02 emissions from these engines. EDF supports the inclusion of APUs as a
technology option manufacturers can use to meet the proposed standards for sleeper cab trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.50]
However, the PM standards for diesel APUs, established under the nonroad rule, are not as protective as
the truck engine standards for MY 2007 and later trucks, which require the use of diesel particulate filters
(DPFs) or comparable alternative. This disparity allows diesel APUs to emit more than 5 times as much
harmful diesel PM as a MY 2007 or later diesel sleeper cab engine.216 Indeed, EPA estimates in the
proposal that without further controls on APUs, harmful particulate emissions will increase by 1,600 tons
annually by 2035 and more than 2,200 tons annually in 2050. This increase in PM emissions will be
particularly significant at idling "hotspots" like truck stops, travel centers, rest areas, distribution centers
and port areas, creating high concentrations of harmful diesel PM, and threatening the health of drivers,
area workers and neighboring communities, many of which are often low-income. In addition to the
health impacts, diesel PM is made primarily of black carbon, which is a potent GHG. We therefore
request that the agencies promulgate more protective PM emissions standards for these units to protect
public health and the environment from the harmful impacts of diesel PM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.51]
To address these public health concerns, in 2008, California Air Resources Board established more
protective standards for diesel APUs that require the use of diesel particulate filters or a comparable
alternative, which reduce PM by as much as 85 percent and make APUs as clean as the truck engines they
are attached to. CARB concluded that the technology to make these reductions is available and cost-
effective.217 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.51]
It is imperative that EPA follow California's leadership and protect the health of all Americans by
adopting protective particulate matter standards for APUs. Such an action will allow cost-effective APU
technology to be used to reduce unnecessary fuel consumption by idling trucks without increasing
harmful particulate pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.51]
-------
213 EPA, "Idle reduction" tab, available at http://epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/technology.htm (last
accessed August 14,2015).
214 Id.
215 Id.
216 CARB, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons Notice of Public Hearing to Consider
Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In-Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008 (2005). Table
3 and Table 5, page 44, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/hdvidle/isor.pdf.
217 CARB, Heavy-Duty Idling Emissions Reduction Program, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msDrog/truck-idling/truck-idling.htm.
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Environmental Law and Policy Center
The proposed regulation should do more to protect children's health. Asthma hospitalization rates in
Chicago are nearly double those of the national average, and that's why we're so concerned that the
proposed rule would actually increase particulate pollution by encouraging the use of auxiliary power
units on trucks. We urge you to amend this rule by requiring that these units be equipped with particulate
filters. This would eliminate the long-term increase in particulate pollution which may occur as a result of
these regulations.
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Idle Smart
3. As proposed, implementation of Extended Idle technologies in Phase 2 rulemaking would lead to
higher PM2.5 emissions, which is directly counter to the stated goals of Phase 2 to reduce GHG
emissions. This fact is acknowledged and quantified in the Phase 2 draft. The Phase 2 draft explicitly
states that the use of APUs results in "an increase in PM emissions" and goes on to quantify the impact
using data presented in MOVES201412. Specifically, the adverse PM2.5 emissions impact of utilizing of
diesel APUs is 1,631 tons and 2,257 tons of PM2.5 emissions in 2035 and 2050, respectively. As noted in
the rulemaking, this is because diesel APUs emit 1.8 grams PM per hour vs. 0.35 grams PM per hour for
2010 or newer model engines. Putting this in simpler terms and comparing it to Idle Smart yields the
following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.3]
-------
[Table of diesel APU and Idle Smart comparison can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1128-A1]13
Said another way, utilizing a diesel APU to offload 2000 Extended Idle hours a year generates 3600 PM
grams/year, which is nearly 20 times that which is produced when utilizing Idle Smart's automatic
start/stop solution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.4]
12 Exhaust Emission Rates for Heavy-Duty On-road Vehicles in MOVES 2014, September, 2015
13 Idle Smart performance metrics (2014)
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Control of Black Carbon with Particulate Filters
Black carbon is a major component of particulate matter emissions from mobile sources and is believed to
have a significant net atmospheric warming effect by enhancing the absorption of sunlight. Black carbon
is a mix of elemental and organic carbon, in the form of soot, emitted by fossil fuel combustion, bio-mass
burning, and bio-fuel cooking. Black carbon is a dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the
atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon are transported over long distances and are most
concentrated in the tropics where solar irradiance is highest. Because of the combination of high
absorption, a regional distribution roughly aligned with solar irradiance, and the capacity to form
widespread atmospheric brown clouds in a mixture with other aerosols, emissions of black carbon are
thought to be the second strongest contribution to current climate change, after C02 emissions. The
glacier retreat has accelerated since the 1970s and several scientists have speculated that solar heating by
soot in atmospheric brown clouds and deposition of dark soot over bright snow surfaces may be an
important contributing factor for the acceleration of glacier retreat. A study published in a 2009 issue
of Nature Geoscience (vol. 2, 2009) by researchers from the NASA Goddard Institute and Columbia
University found that black carbon is responsible for 50% of the total Arctic warming observed from
1890 to 2007 (most of the observed Arctic warming over this timeframe occurred from 1976 to 2007).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 10]
It is estimated that 70% of the black carbon emissions from mobile sources are from diesel-fueled
vehicles, with the assumption that 40% of gasoline PM is black carbon and 60% of diesel PM is black
carbon. The black carbon concentration and its global heating will decrease almost immediately after
reduction of its emission. Black carbon from diesel vehicles can be significantly reduced through
emission control technology that has been required on every U.S. heavy-duty diesel truck manufactured
since 2007. The basis for the design of wall-flow particulate filters is a ceramic honeycomb structure with
alternate channels plugged at opposite ends. As the gases pass into the open end of a channel, the plug at
the opposite end forces the gases through the porous wall of the honeycomb channel and out through the
neighboring channel. The porous wall and the filter cake of particulate matter that forms within and on the
surface of the wall serve as the filter media for particulates. Since the filter can fill up over time by
developing a layer of retained particles on the inside surface of the porous wall, the accumulated particles
-------
must be burned off or removed to regenerate the filter. This regeneration process can be accomplished
with a variety of methods including both active strategies that rely on generating external sources of heat
(e.g., fuel burners, fuel dosing strategies that utilize fuel combustion over a catalyst, electrical elements,
intake air throttling) and passive strategies that utilize catalysts that are displayed directly on the filter
element or upstream of the filter. During the regeneration of DPFs, captured carbon is oxidized to C02
but this filter regeneration still results in a net climate change benefit since the global warming potential
of black carbon has been estimated to be as high as 2,200 times higher than that of C02 on a per gram of
emission basis. It is estimated that the installation of DPFs has reduced PM emissions from U.S. heavy-
duty diesel vehicles by 110,000 tons per year. The ACES Phase 2 study that evaluated the PM emissions
from 2010 technology heavy-duty engines showed that DPF equipped engines emit PM at one to two
orders of magnitude below the current standard of 0.01 g/bhp-hr and deliver over 99% PM capture
efficiency over their lifetime. MECA encourages EPA to develop policies and/or incentives that reward
vehicle and engine manufacturers for employing technologies such as particulate filters that provide
significant reductions in mobile source black carbon emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3
p.10-11]
Control of PM from Auxiliary Power Units
Auxiliary power units or APUs are used on heavy-duty trucks during "hoteling" at truck stops or other
suitable rest areas. During long periods of idling, the APU provides power to auxiliary systems such as
cabin electricity and air conditioning so that the main truck engine can be turned off. Because APUs have
diesel engines less than 10 horsepower, they burn less fuel than the main engine and thus reduce C02
emissions. Under Tier 4 standards, the small displacement of these engines allows them to operate
without exhaust emission controls such as diesel particulate filters and as a result they emit 5-10 times
more PM emissions than the much larger displacement but filter-equipped main truck engine idling for
the same amount of time. The California Air Resources Board recognized this fact and in 2008, included
as part of their anti-idling regulations for heavy-duty trucks, a requirement that APUs must be retrofit
with a particulate filter capable of achieving at least an 85% reduction in PM or have the APU exhaust
diverted through the main DPF in the exhaust system of the truck. To achieve an 85% PM reduction, the
particulate filter must be a wall flow device, or similar. ARB has verified four of these retrofit devices,
made by third-party manufactures, for installation on existing APU engines. Due to the relatively cold
exhaust temperatures of these small engines, the DPF filters installed on APUs must use either all active
or a combination of passive and active regeneration to periodically clean the soot from the filter. Active
regeneration can be accomplished through the use of a fuel burner or electrical heater upstream of the
filter element that can be activated if the back pressure is too high. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3
p.ll]
California's APU Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) regulation demonstrates that it is feasible to
control PM from small APU engines and several companies are supporting this market. The technology is
commercially available and has been implemented on APUs since 2008 as part of the state's Diesel Risk
Reduction Plan (DRRP). In the Phase 2 proposal, EPA estimates the potential PM reduction impacts from
installing DPFs on APUs as approximately 3,000 tons in 2035. Because these engines operate for many
hours in a single location, the health impact from PM exposure to people that work, stop or live near rest
areas and truck stops may be of greater concern than might be indicated by a simple mass-based
inventory. Groups of trucks operating their APUs at a truck stop are similar to a stationary point source.
California based their requirements for using PM controls on stationary sources on the health-based
cancer risk of PM exposure around a point source exceeding one in a million. To better quantify the
emissions impacts of installing emission controls on small diesel engines, such as APUs, TRUs and other
small off-road engines, CARB is funding a demonstration program at UC-Riverside. MECA is supporting
this effort with technology and expertise and we encourage EPA to seriously consider requiring DPF
-------
technology on APU engines as part of this regulation. We agree with EPA's cost estimates for a DPF
retrofit on an existing APU, that cost includes the expense of verifying the device and the need for a
separate control unit to monitor and regenerate the filter. We believe that the cost would be significantly
lower if the filter could be integrated onto the APU engine at the time of manufacture or the APU exhaust
is routed into the truck exhaust, upstream of the DPF, at the time of vehicle manufacture and incorporates
economies of scale that an OEM can achieve with larger numbers of engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1210-A3 p. 11-12] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1420, pp.212-213.]]
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Moving Forward Network
Eliminate loophole for Auxiliary Power Units (APUs), which will increase harmful Particulate Matter
Emissions - As the California Air Resources Board has pointed out, a regulation that will increase the use
of APUs more extensively throughout the nation will result in increased PM2.5 emissions unless these
APUs are equipped with diesel particulate filters. We cannot sacrifice public health protections as we seek
to battle climate pollution. We represent groups on the front lines battling deadly pollution from the
freight industry. This approach that increase PM2.5 emissions is even more problematic given at least one
state, California, has shown that diesel particulate filters can be required on APUs. The final rule should
require the use of diesel particulate filters on APUs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1130-A2 p.2]
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Next, EPA projects an increase in the use of auxiliary power units (APUs) under the Phase 2 proposal and
an associated 10-percent increase in PM emissions. The agency seeks comment on this, but proposes
nothing to address the unacceptable and unnecessary expected rise in PM pollution. Exposure to diesel
PM is one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. In California, for example, diesel PM was
identified as a toxic air contaminant in 1998. However, even after implementation by the state of
extensive control programs, diesel PM remains responsible for 60 percent of the known risk from toxic air
contaminants. Therefore, NACAA recommends that, concurrent with the final Phase 2 rule, EPA adopt
national requirements to equip APUs with diesel particulate filters, similar to C ARB's requirements.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.4-5]
Additionally, while MOVES modeling points to other air quality benefits of APU usage, there remains a
significant difference between the emission standards for Tier 4 smaller nonroad diesel engines typically
used in APUs when compared to the emission rates of a modern long-haul truck at idle. To prevent any
potential backsliding from air quality benefits appreciated from the newest onroad engine standards, we
recommend adding provisions to ensure that there are no increases in emissions of NOx or PM as a result
-------
of increased use of APUs on all affected vehicles. We also encourage EPA to ensure against
overestimation of the potential NOx benefits associated with APU use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-
Alp.5]
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Furthermore, the MOVES emission rates for extended idle were lowered significantly for criteria
pollutants based on the analyses of the latest test programs that reflect the current prevalence of clean idle
certified engines. The extended idle rate for NOx was changed from 203 g/hr to 42.6 g/hr for model year
2013 and later. This change resulted in smaller differences between emission rates for extended idle and
APUs for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the emissions benefits of using APUs during extended idle,
instead of the main engine, are lower for non-GHGs in the final rulemaking than at proposal.
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Prevent increases in diesel particulate matter (PM) pollution from greater use of diesel-powered auxiliary
power units (APU) by establishing appropriate APU PM emission requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1220-A1 p.2]
Prevent Increases in Diesel Particulate Matter from Diesel APUs
Auxiliary power units (APUs) offer significant fuel savings and C02 emissions benefits compared to
main engine idling. However, the agencies note that the proposed rule results in a net increase in PM
emissions from the increased use of diesel APUs (Table III-2 of Proposed Rule). Non-road diesel engines
used to power APUs do not meet the same criteria pollutant emission standards as the main engine. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.9]
Short- and long-term exposure to particulate matter pollution can have severe negative health impacts.
Communities close to diesel vehicle and equipment operation suffer from high health risks due to PM
exposure. To address this issue, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requires diesel powered
APUs to obtain equivalent or better particulate matter emissions than the main engine through the use of a
diesel particulate filter or alternative means. There are three manufacturers offering particulate matter
filters for diesel fuel APUs.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.9]
Given the availability of technology to control PM emission from diesel powered APUs, the potential
health impact to communities from elevated levels of PM emission from truck idling, and the existence of
preventative measures already in place in California, the EPA should require diesel powered APUs to
achieve the maximum technically feasible and cost-effective reductions in PM emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.9]
21 See CARB verified devices listed at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/cabcomfort/cabcomfort.htm.
-------
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from new tractors
during long duration idling. The 2018 provision is a compliance constraint, simply not allowing credit for
APUs installed in MY 2018 tractors unless the APU engine meets specified PM standards. Additional
details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
There should be no backsliding on fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and NOx from increased use of
auxiliary power units (APUs).
We also urge the agencies to ensure that there are no increases in emissions of either PM2.5 or NOx as a
result of the proposed rule. We note that the agencies project an increase in PM2.5 as a result of increased
APU use. While idle reduction represents an important opportunity for fuel savings, any increase in this
harmful pollutant is unacceptable, particularly given that appropriate PM control technology for APUs is
already in the marketplace and currently required by CARB. EPA should adopt similar requirements to
CARB's for PM control on APUs, and should do so concurrently with this proposed Phase 2 rulemaking.
Similarly the agencies should ensure there is no backsliding on NOx emissions as a result of increased use
of APUs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.3 [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 139.]]
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
The agencies do not expect backsliding of NOx emissions due to the use of APUs. EPA conducted a new
analysis of the emission rates for extended idle for the final rule. The NOx extended idle rate for main
engine idling was lowered in the MOVES analysis from 203 g/hr to 42.6 g/hr for model year 2013 and
later to reflect new analysis of test results, but the extended idling NOx emission rate of APUs is 15.6 g/hr
which is still significantly lower than main engine idling.145
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Auxiliary Power Units
In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas proposal USEPA cites a
reduction in NOx emissions of around 7% in 2025 due to the implementation of the rule, primarily from
an expansion of the use of Auxiliary Power Units (APUs). Although this reduction is commendable, it is
not nearly enough to achieve the NOx reductions necessary for the states in the OTR to meet their clean
ozone obligations, and leaves a great amount of potential for emission reductions unrealized. There are
145 U.S. EPA. Updates to MOVES for Emissions Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 FRM. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016
July, 2016.
-------
also concerns as to whether the 7% reductions will be achieved given thatUSEPA has reduced its
estimate of the emission benefits from the use of APUs cited in the first Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.2]
Lastly, while MOVES modeling points to the air quality benefits derived from APU usage, there remains
a significant difference between the emission standards for the Tier 4 smaller nonroad diesel engines
typically used in APUs as compared to the emission rates of a modern long haul truck at idle. To prevent
any potential backsliding from air quality benefits appreciated from the newest on-road engine standards,
we recommend adding language to ensure that there are no increases in emissions from either NOx or fine
particulate matter as a result of increased use of APUs on all affected vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1211-A2 p.2]
Response:
EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new
tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of increasing PM emissions from tractors during
long duration idling. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM Preamble.
The agencies do not expect backsliding of NOx emissions due to the use of APUs. EPA conducted a new
analysis of MOVES emission rates for extended idle for the final rule. The NOx extended idle rate for
main engine idling was changed from 203 g/hr to 42.6 g/hr for model year 2013 and later, but the
extended idling NOx emission rate of APUs at 15.6 g/hr is still significantly lower than main engine
idling.
Organization: Proventia Emission Control
Proventia received ARB approval (Executive Order DE-13-003) for their level 3 (85 percent PM
reduction) actively regenerating DPF to fit the Thermo King Tripac APU and has been manufacturing and
selling it since 2012. Due to the very low exhaust temperatures of the APU (110 to 260C), the DPF
systems need to be actively regenerating. This technology is proven, reliable, and commercially available.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0811-A1 p.l]
The EPA technology cost estimate of $580 added to the cost of 150 hp engines is accurate, if it is defined
as the OEM cost of materials and manufacturing cost in production quantity exceeding 10,000+ annually.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0811-A1 p.l]
The $2,240 cost estimate cited for Proventia for the electrically heated DPF is an end-user price for an
aftermarket retrofit device, not an OEM cost for an OEM device. Proventia estimates that a comparable
OEM cost of materials and manufacturing cost for production quantity exceeding 10,000+ annually
would be $975 for the actively regenerating DPF for APU. The basis for this estimate is that current
Proventia production cost in quantity of 50 units is $1069. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0811-A 1 p.l]
It should be noted that the $580 added cost for 150 hp engines is likely to be for a catalyzed passively
regenerating DPF due to the higher exhaust temperatures for this class of engine. In comparison, the
APU's, due to their low exhaust operating temperatures, always need an actively regenerating DPF and
the cost of actively regenerating devices is significantly higher than passively regenerating devices. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0811-A1 p.l]
-------
Response:
In the NPRM, EPA discussed several sources for DPF cost estimates. The three sources included the
Nonroad Diesel Tier 4 rule, ARB, and Proventia. EPA developed long-term cost projections for catalyzed
diesel particulate filters (DPF) as part of the Nonroad Diesel Tier 4 rulemaking. In that rulemaking, EPA
estimated the DPF costs would add $580 to the cost of 150 horsepower engines (69 FR 39126, June 29,
2004). On the other hand, ARB estimated the cost of retrofitting a diesel powered APU with a PM trap to
be $2,000 in 2005. Proventia is charging customers $2,240 for electronically heated DPF for retrofitting
existing APUs. EPA considered all of the comments on DPF costs and more closely evaluated NHTSA's
contracted TetraTech cost report which found the total retail price of a diesel-powered APU that includes
a DPF to be $10,000. Based on all of this information, EPA is projecting the retail price increment of an
actively regenerating DPF installed in an APU to be $2,000. This cost is incremental to the diesel-
powered APU technology costs beginning in 2024 MY.
Organization: Thermo King
Technical Feasibility of Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) Requirements in Auxiliary Power Unit
(APU) Applications [§III.C(3)]
Section III.C(3) of the Proposed rule requests comment on the technical feasibility of requiring the use of
DPFs for diesel-powered APUs, as is required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and on the
assumptions made by EPA in its preliminary analysis. Ingersoll Rand has significant concerns with
regards to a nationwide requirement for use of DPFs in diesel-powered APUs, and strongly urges EPA
not to impose such a burden on the trucking industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1196-A1 p. 1]
Thermo King currently offers a DPF option on its line of diesel-powered APUs in order to help the
trucking industry comply with CARB requirements. However, the incremental cost of the DPF option can
be as high as $3,500 - considerably higher than the cost estimated by EPA in this section of the proposed
rule - and often the deciding factor in removing the cost-effectiveness justification for the installation of
an APU at all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1196-A1 p. 1-2]
If diesel-powered APUs were to no longer be cost-effective on a nationwide basis, Ingersoll Rand
believes the consequences on the trucking industry would be significant. Currently, the only alternatives
available to diesel-powered APUs are battery-powered options. While battery-powered APUs may be
commercially available, the technology is not yet mature enough to adequately serve as a replacement for
diesel. A typical battery-powered APU provides half the air conditioning cooling capacity of a diesel-
powered model, and often is unable sustain a charge for the entire driver rest period. Drivers are already
under constant pressure to meet mandated rest times regardless of factors such as traffic or weather;
having to sacrifice comfort during these periods by relying on battery-powered APUs would be an added
detriment to their ability to get quality rest, which could ultimately decrease highway safety. According to
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration1, 33.6% of large truck accidents in 2013 cited at least
one driver-related factor, and of those accidents 11.4% were determined to be the result of driver
impairment, which includes fatigue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1196-A1 p.2]
Ingersoll Rand believes that high-capacity battery-powered APUs will eventually become a commercially
available and cost-effective alternative to diesel-powered APUs, and Thermo King has been dedicating
resources to research and development in this area for some time. However, mandating this technology
today would significantly decrease consumer choice, competitiveness in the APU marketplace, and driver
comfort and safety. Ingersoll Rand would welcome additional research, development, and deployment of
-------
high-capacity battery technologies available to APUs supported by or in collaboration with EPA. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1196-A1 p.2]
1 "Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2013," U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, Analysis Division, Rep. FMCSA-RRA-15-004, Apr. 2015.
Response:
The agencies have adopted C02 emissions and fuel consumption standards based on our analysis of one
technology pathway for each level of stringency, but manufacturers will be free to use any combination of
technology to meet the standards, as well as the flexibility of averaging, banking and trading, to meet the
standards on average. In addition to diesel powered APUs, tractor manufacturers have several other idle
reduction technology options in addition to other vehicle technologies such as aerodynamic designs,
lower rolling resistance tires, and powertrain improvements. In addition, the idle reduction technology
package in the final rule actually has an overall lower cost (even after increasing the diesel APU
technology cost for the final rule) than would have been developed for the final rule due to the reduced
penetration rate of diesel APUs. The stringency of the tractor standards are not affected because of the
higher penetration rate of other idle reduction technologies. The increased use of these other idle
reduction technologies offsets the difference in APU use, even though these other technologies are not
quite as effective as APUs from a GHG standpoint.
In the NPRM, EPA discussed several sources for DPF cost estimates. The three sources included the
Nonroad Diesel Tier 4 rule, ARB, and Proventia. EPA developed long-term cost projections for catalyzed
diesel particulate filters (DPF) as part of the Nonroad Diesel Tier 4 rulemaking. In that rulemaking, EPA
estimated the DPF costs would add $580 to the cost of 150 horsepower engines (69 FR 39126, June 29,
2004). On the other hand, ARB estimated the cost of retrofitting a diesel powered APU with a PM trap to
be $2,000 in 2005. Proventia is charging customers $2,240 for electronically heated DPF for retrofitting
existing APUs. EPA considered all of the comments on DPF costs and more closely evaluated NHTSA's
contracted TetraTech cost report which found the total retail price of a diesel-powered APU that includes
a DPF to be $10,000. Based on all of this information, EPA is projecting the retail price increment of an
actively regenerating DPF installed in an APU to be $2,000. This cost is incremental to the diesel-
powered APU technology costs beginning in 2024 MY.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
APU Requirements
The agencies should not impose any new emission requirements on APUs as a part of the Phase 2
program. APUs already meet the Tier 4 nonroad standards, and so are in compliance with technology-
forcing emission limits. This rulemaking is not the proper forum for amending the Tier 4 nonroad engine
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.64]
Response:
As explained in Preamble section III.C.3, EPA is adopting new PM standards that apply exclusively to
APUs installed in MY 2018 and later new tractors that will prevent an unintended consequence of
-------
increasing PM emissions from tractors during long duration idling.146 We project that the annual impact
of the final program to further control PM will lead to a reduction of PM2 5 emissions nationwide (i.e.
prevent emissions that would otherwise occur) by 927 tons in 2040 and by 1,114 tons in 2050. As
explained at the conclusion of this response, EPA considers the costs of achieving these emission
reductions (more precisely, preventing their occurrence) to be reasonable.
EPA has carefully considered the adequacy of lead time. With respect to the constraint that takes effect in
2018, EPA acknowledges that it is acting relatively aggressively to forestall potential increases in APU-
related diesel exhaust PM emissions. However, this 2018 provision is a compliance constraint which
prevents tractors from obtaining any credit for use of an APU unless the APU is certified to a given
standard which is already being achieved within the industry. APUs not meeting that standard can be
used for other purposes. This provision thus can be implemented expeditiously, and it is appropriate to do
so given that diesel exhaust PM is a likely human carcinogen. See Preamble Section VIII.A.6. The MY
2021 standard, which is essentially the same type of provision as the 2018 provision except that any APU
installed in a MY 2021 tractor would have to meet the given PM standard, has adequate leadtime for the
same reason as the 2018 provision. The MY 2024 and 2027 standards are predicated on use of diesel
particulate filters, a known technology which can be designed into these engines within that amount of
lead time.147 In addition, APUs and their engines do not have to meet these standards; they only must do
so if the APUs are to be used in new MY 2024 and later tractors.
In terms of safety, EPA considered the fact that diesel particulate filters are a known technology with no
known adverse safety implications.
EPA regards any costs associated with these provisions to be reasonable. First, none of these costs need
be incurred, and so the standard can be viewed as cost free to both tractor manufacturers and
manufacturers of APUs and APU engines. Tractor manufacturers can use other types of idle reducing
technologies, or choose a Phase 2 compliance path not involving idle control. The agencies have
developed technology packages for determining the final Phase 2 tractor GHG and fuel consumption
standards that are predicated on lower penetration rates of diesel APUs than in the NPRM and have
included several additional idle reducing technologies, making it more likely that alternative compliance
paths are readily available. See RIA 2.8.3.5 indicating that APUs are not projected to be a critical part of
the compliance pathway for achieving either the MY 2024 and MY 2027 standards. APU manufacturers
(and manufacturers of APU engines) also can market their product to any entities other than MY 2024
and later new tractors without meeting the DPF-based PM standard.
In addition, the PM standard is necessary to avoid an unintended consequence of GHG idle control. The
standard adopted is also appropriate for APUs used in on-highway applications, since it is comparable to
the heavy-duty on-highway standard after considering rounding conventions (the PM standard for a
tractor's main engine is 0.01 g/hp-hr as specified in 40 CFR 86.007-1 l(a)(l)(iv))); cf. CAA section 213
146 As noted in the final Preamble, this standard can be expressed and justified as either a tractor vehicle standard or
as a standard for the non-road engine powering the APU. The standard can be a vehicle standard because engines of
any age can be placed in motor vehicles and the vehicle remains a new motor vehicle. See CAA section 216(3)
(definition of new motor vehicle engine, which includes "an engine in a new motor vehicle" and so is not limited to
engines of the same model year as the vehicle).
147 Cf, CAA section 213 (a)(3) which directs the Administrator to consider standards equivalent in stringency to the
comparable on-highway standard. Here, the MY 2024 and 2027 PM standards for APU engines used in new tractors
will be identical to the on-highway engine standard for comparably sized engines. Although CAA section 213(a)(3)
is not applicable here (it does not apply to PM), the provision is nonetheless suggestive of Congressional intent to
provide parity between on-road and non-road engine standards where feasible and otherwise reasonable to do so.
-------
(a)(3) (in considering what standards for non-road engines are "available," EPA "shall first consider"
emission standards equivalent in stringency to on-highway standard for comparable engines). The
emissions in question also are of diesel exhaust PM, which is a likely human carcinogen. See Preamble
Section VIII.A.6.b. In the agency's view, the toxicity of the pollutant in question further supports that the
costs of this standard, which costs need not be incurred, are reasonable.
A final reason we regard the costs as reasonable is that the costs of APUs equipped with a diesel
particulate filter are included as part of the agencies' cost assessment of the tractor vehicle standard. See
RIA Chapter 2.11.6.3. The agencies have explained why the costs of that vehicle standard are reasonable.
EPA further noted in Section III.C.3 of the Preamble that the quantified benefits of the filter-based PM
standard are greater than potential costs, but EPA's determination that the costs of the APU provisions are
reasonable is not based on that information.
-------
5 Trailers
5.1 General Comments
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Inclusion of trailers. The addition of trailers to the program is crucial, because known, affordable
trailer aerodynamic and tire technologies can deliver almost 10% fuel savings for tractor-trailers. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.5] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1372, p.55.]]
Response:
The agencies agree and are adopting a trailer program as part of the final Phase 2 rulemaking.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
NHTSA Should be Aware of Potential Weight Implications of Regulating Under-Ride and Over-Ride
Guards
In July 2015, NHTSA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking pertaining to rear impact
(under-ride) guards and other safety strategies for single unit trucks. NHTSA also indicated that it will
issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking focusing on rear under-ride guards on trailers. Further, NHTSA
noted that it is still evaluating a petition request to improve side under-ride and front override guards for
all trucks and will issue a separate decision on those issues at a later date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1243-A1 p. 22]
A measure included under Phase 2 to advance trailer fuel efficiency promotes the use of lighter weight
materials in their construction (i.e., decreasing trailer weight will allow for the substitution of additional
freight weight). NHTSA must remain aware that if the pending petition on side under-ride and front
over-ride guards is granted, such new standards will increase tractor, trailer, and straight truck weights.
While NHTSA and EPA give OEMs credit for selling new, light-weight equipment under Phase 2, light-
weighting gains could be quickly overcome by the added weight attributed to the addition of new side
under-ride and front over-ride guards. Likewise, new requirements for rear under-ride guards will likely
result in increased weights attributed to the use of stronger materials used in their construction. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.22]
Response:
The agencies recognize the interrelatedness of this regulation to other federal regulations. The subject
of a possible side guard requirement is in a research stage. As discussed in a July 2015 document,
NHTSA is in the process of evaluating issues relating to side guards and will issue a decision on them at
a later date. In December 2015, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to adopt
requirements of Transport Canada's standard for underride guards. NHTSA is currently assessing next
steps on that proposal, and includes as part of its analysis consideration of impacts of any decisions on
the fuel efficiency of the vehicles.
We cannot predict how the performance of future aerodynamic devices may be impacted if such
requirements were in place, though we do expect both trailer and device manufacturers will be mindful
-------
of the performance of both features in their future designs. The additional weight of the any future
safety-related components would have the potential to increase vehicle weight, but EPA and NHTSA
will not adjust their C02- or fuel consumption standards to account for the weight increase. Customers
that expect their trailers to "weigh-out" can request that the trailer manufacturer adopt some of the
agencies' lightweight components or other weight reduction measures, which could keep their trailers
within the weight limits, improve their C02 emissions and fuel consumption, and assist in the trailer
manufacturer's Phase 2 compliance.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Trailer Concerns
While ATA recognizes the potential for fuel-efficiency gains from improved trailer design, ATA
commends the agencies in affording trailer OEMs flexibility in achieving new trailer efficiency targets.
The trailer manufacturing industry is far different from the engine and truck manufacturing sectors.
Whereas there are only a handful of truck and engine manufacturers, there are well over 100 trailer
manufacturers in the U.S. with the vast majority being designated as small businesses. The top 10 trailer
manufacturers account for over 75% of total sales. Unlike the business relationships between engine and
truck manufacturers, trailer manufacturers remain separate and unique entities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1 p.23]
Trailers come in a variety of different styles including dry vans, refrigerated, tank, flat bed, and
specialized to name a few. The ratio of trailers to tractors is 3:1 or more and tractors are often paired
with a variety of different trailer types depending on a company's operations. Adding another level of
complexity to the equation, the useful life of a trailer can exceed 20 years with proper maintenance and
even be remanufactured to provide many more years of useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-
A1 p.23-24]
Having just surpassed the 100-year anniversary of the semi-trailer, ATA agrees that it is time to reassess
trailer design elements including use of LRRTs, aerodynamic devices, tire pressure technologies, and
light-weighting. Trailer regulation should be nationally harmonized and not done in a piecemeal manner
such as CARB has done. As a key stakeholder, ATA desires to work with the agencies in developing a
logical and cost-effective approach in developing a national trailer efficiency improvement program.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.24]
Response:
The agencies designed this program to be a national program. The agencies recognize the unique
characteristics of the trailer industry and we developed the Phase 2 trailer standards and compliance
regime with this in mind. We are confident these standards can be achieved and that compliance with
the standards can be successfully demonstrated, including by manufacturers that lack prior experience
implementing such standards. We are adopting many of the proposed flexibilities that are meant to
reduce the compliance burden for this newly regulated industry. Compared to the proposal, the final
program also reduces the number of regulated trailer types by limiting the non-box trailer program to
tanks, flatbeds and container chassis only, which removes more than 70 small business trailer
manufacturers from the program.
Organization: Corwin, Michael
-------
I currently work for a small trucking company that has 26 trucks running the US & Canada. ... I have
no problem with mandating fuel efficient tires but they should be for everyone regardless of the type of
trailer. The easier way to accomplish this would be to put the regulations on the tire manufacturers
which would get rid of the inefficient ones altogether making the cost better for the end user. I
purchased a used trailer a number of years ago in California that had brand new tires on it but as it
turned out they weren't on any rolling resistance list that I could find. I was unable to get the dealer to
switch them and couldn't afford to do it myself at the time. If the rules said that to be sold in the US
they had to meet minimum rolling resistance standards this would help both the manufacturer and the
end user. It would also have off road heavy equipment using them as well which should improve their
efficiency as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0730-A1 p.l]
Response:
EPA's regulatory authority is limited to vehicle manufacturers; we cannot set emissions-related
standards for suppliers, including tire manufacturers. However, under the trailer program, trailer
manufacturers will be equipping new trailers covered by the program with tires that meet the LRR
specifications needed for each of those trailers to comply with the performance standards or design
standards of this rule. We expect this increased market demand from trailer manufacturers will
encourage tire manufacturers to make appropriate LRR tires available.
Also, although tires are not specifically regulated as part of FMVSS No. 121, tires (including the LRR
tires that trailer manufacturers will be installing for compliance with the Phase 2 trailer program) are
part of the braking system that must meet the performance requirements outlined in FMVSS No. 121.
Organization: Corwin, Michael
On the issue of aerodynamics, the truck can be made aerodynamic, regardless of the trailer it is pulling,
so the regulations should be separate for the tractor and for the trailer. This would allow regulators to
take into account the different types of trailers regardless of the truck that is pulling it and no matter
what truck pulled it the aerodynamics would be good. The vast majority of companies pull one type of
trailer vs multiple types but one truck lease operator may switch companies several times and pull a
different type of trailer each time. By having the requirements separate the long term effects would be
better. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0730-A1 p.l]
Response:
The agencies are setting GHG emissions and fuel consumption standards separately for the tractor and
trailer. We designed our trailer program such that box vans are tested and evaluated with relatively
aerodynamic high roof tractors (Bin III or better) that are likely to be in widespread use in the timeframe
of the program. In the tractor program, high roof tractors are paired with box vans that include
aerodynamic skirts. By evaluating tractors and trailers that are likely to be paired in-use, including the
expected aerodynamic improvements, OEMs will be better equipped to design their tractor and trailer
aerodynamic improvements to work synergistic ally with the other half of the vehicle.
Organization: Great Dane
We at Great Dane support reductions in Greenhouse Gas emissions and improved energy efficiencies in
transportation. The issue of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) regulations affecting semi-truck trailers is a
complex matter. Trailer designs and specifications vary widely from customer to customer and even
-------
within a given customer's fleet based on their operational needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1
p.l]
In conversations with the EPA we have shared our concerns with staff as to the potential consequences
of deployment of certain types of devices that we believe will significantly increase the likelihood of
adverse effects on trailers such as water leaks due to mechanical damage, corrosion due to accumulation
of road chemicals (one of the most extensive problems the transportation industry faces) or unplanned
device damage as a result of operation of the trailer. We believe that the trailer OEM and fleet together
are best qualified to determine the practicality of the use of a particular device and hope that the
agencies agree with our viewpoint. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.3]
We appreciate the agencies study of multiple alternatives as detailed in the NPRM and believe that for
many reasons a regulatory approach with a more aggressive adoption of stringencies than the proposed
approach (Alternative 3) increases the probability of negative effects on stakeholders considerably. Thus
we suggest that the agencies consider devising an incentive based approach that could benefit all
stakeholders to augment the proposed approach and assist in the deployment and adoption of advanced
technologies as opposed to adoption of the more stringent Alternative 4 being considered. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.4]
Great Dane looks forward to continuing to work with both EPA and NHTSA to further shape and refine
the proposed rule and help develop the most appropriate regulations for the industry. We appreciate
your consideration of these matters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p. 5]
Response:
The agencies are adopting standards based on the proposed Alternative 3 and essentially agree with the
commenter that the three-year pull ahead reflected in Alternative 4 raises issues of adequacy of lead
time, including reliability of the technology. We designed our program such that manufacturers can
gradually introduce technologies that are generally familiar to their customers.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law
The agencies have made several changes to the Phase 2 rule that are consistent with our previous
comments. Notably, the Phase 2 proposal includes standards for trailers. For more on Policy Integrity's
views on heavy-duty vehicle regulation, see our comments on the Phase 1 rulemaking.6 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1195-A1 p.3]
6 http://policyintegrity.org/flles/publications/221 l_Regulatory_Report_201 l_Heavy_Trucks_Rule.pdf
Organization: Sierra Club
Finalize proposed trailer standards
We applaud the agencies for proposing to include trailers in the standards. This is a critical part of the
proposed standards, as we know that existing trailer aerodynamic and tire technologies can deliver more
than 10 percent fuel savings for tractor-trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1 p.3]
-------
Response:
In response to The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, National Association of Clean
Air Agencies, and Sierra Club, we appreciate your support of our proposed trailer program. The
agencies are including standards for trailers in the final Phase 2 program.
Organization: STEMCO
We support the EPA and NHTSA's effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation
industry while at the same time recognizing the complexity of implementing this nationwide regulation,
especially when trailers are included for the first time. Because our products related to this regulation
are primarily installed on trailers, our comments will apply only to that portion (section IV) of the EPA
and NHTSA's proposal. In general, we believe that this proposal combines an appropriate standard for
achieving the goal of significant environmental improvements with an implementation strategy that
aims to minimize negative impacts on industry stakeholders. We specifically support: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1259-A1 p.2]
-Alternative 4 standards for trailers [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.2]
-Aerodynamic Device Testing Alternative [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.2]
Response:
We appreciate the commenter's support for our proposed trailer program. The trailer manufacturers
unanimously opposed the accelerated timeline of the proposed Alternative 4 in their public comments,
citing lead time concerns. The agencies agree that the accelerated timeline of that alternative raises
serious concerns regarding adequacy of lead time, including reliability concerns. To afford adequate
lead time, the agencies are adopting standards based on the four-stage implementation schedule of
Alternative 3, with some changes to our projected technology adoption rates, including strengthened
standards for the full-aero van program that includes greater adoption of advanced aerodynamics in the
final (MY 2027) stage.
We are finalizing an aerodynamic device testing compliance path that provides for trailer aerodynamic
device manufacturers to seek preliminary approval of the performance of their devices (or combinations
of devices). Trailer manufacturers could then choose to use these devices and apply the approved
performance levels in the certification application for their trailer families.
Organization: Stoughton Trailers
Continue voluntary implementation of technological advances:
The trucking transportation industry has and is very interested in all aspects of fuel saving technology
and has through programs such as SmartWay made advances in fuel conservation. The driving force
behind such implementations has been the financial bottom line. Some of the innovations employed
include increases to interior volume while maintaining exterior size, reduction in weight, decking
systems for multi-layer cargo transportation; along with some of the technologies the EPA regulation is
basing its reductions on, such as aerodynamic devices, low rolling resistant tires, and automatic tire
inflation systems. These advances have been employed as the industry has seen and realized value
supported by evidence. The current proposal for a regulation will indeed claim a difference which would
likely have been accomplished through the voluntary adoption of systems proven as functional. An
-------
unintended side-effect will be the increased creation of C02 due to the additional fuel expended on those
"regulated units" that do not operate in a manner which causes the added options to provide for a
realized and effective performance (i.e. the added weight will cause additional fuel usage and additional
trips due to the inability to maximize the cargo potential: not to mention the increase to potential safety
issues and the cost of maintaining the components and the fact that shipping the components will result
in added miles traveled due to additional loads being generated). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2
p.1-2]
When push comes to shove the industry is very resourceful and may take action which actually detracts
from the overall purpose of reducing C02 creation: one such scenario has been experienced in the
CARB regulating of the state of California; some shipments have found their way to a container/chassis
combination as an over-the-road mode of transportation. The combined weight effect of 5,0001b
increase to the empty weigh of the unit of transference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A1 p.2]
Request 3: Maintain voluntary program without mandated regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1212-A2 p.2]
Request 4: do not regulate non-C02producing transportation equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1212-A2 p.2]
Response:
The agencies believe the majority of box vans will experience C02 and fuel consumption reductions
with use of the technologies that we expect trailer manufacturers to utilize to achieve the standards. The
agencies have tailored the standards in part to avoid the problem raised by this commenter; adding
technologies under circumstances where they do not provide C02 or fuel savings benefit. Thus, the final
rule has separate standards for partial- and non-aero trailers. We believe that many of the box vans that
operate at lower speeds will have work-performing equipment (e.g., side platforms, rear lift gates) that
will allow manufacturers to designate these trailers as partial-aero or non-aero vans. Partial-aero
standards are based on adoption of a single aerodynamic device, and non-aero vans have design
standards that require installation of tire technologies only with no aerodynamic requirements. A small
fraction of the box van industry may not qualify for a partial- or non-aero designation, yet still operate at
lower speeds. These vans may not achieve the real-world benefits that their compliance results would
suggest or that similar vans experience because they frequently travel at higher speeds. However, in
RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.1, we show that even trailers operating under 100% transient conditions will
experience a small benefit from use of trailer skirts, and trailers that spend any time at speeds of 55-mph
or greater will achieve benefits of at least 1% during that time, compared to operating without skirts.
The agencies are establishing GHG emissions and fuel consumption standards that provide appropriate
and maximum feasible reductions under their respective statutory authorities. We do not believe a
voluntary trailer program will produce sufficient emissions and fuel consumption reductions to meet our
regulatory obligations. The agencies' baseline accounts for improvements already present in the trailer
fleet due to participation in the voluntary SmartWay program or other factors. The agencies project that
very significant and cost-effective reductions over that baseline are available, largely through further
utilization of already-available tire and aerodynamic technologies that are not presently deployed on
significant portions of the trailer fleet. Thus, reliance on further voluntary efforts will not achieve
reductions which are readily feasible in the lead time provided, cost-effective, and which indeed, will
-------
pay for themselves in fuel savings. See RIA Chapter 7 and our memo to the docket for more
information on our cost calculations.148
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
9 - Ways to simplify/streamline
When and if legal authority is given to regulate trailers, there are certain ways that the program could be
streamlined. One example would be to require trailer tires to be low rolling resistance and/or trailers to
have ATIS as part of NHTSA only, so that compliance can be within the manufacturer's certification
label to remove unneeded compliance burden. That way, the regulated classes of trailers goes down and
the EPA can focus its priorities where they will do the most good, while manufacturers of non-aero- and
non-box-trailers will have a minimum of compliance burden while maximizing the available C02
reductions/fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 14-15]
Moreover, there are far more effective methods to reduce fuel consumption and improve the freight
sector's carbon footprint. Recent proposals to lengthen combination trailers to 33' would have a
tremendous impact. This can be seen in the agencies' own data and proposed C02 standards for trailers,
where longer trailers have substantially lower C02 emissions per ton-mile22. Similarly, an increase in
permissible weights would be met with improvements in fuel economy and carbon footprint. Also, a
slight reduction in speed limits for HD vehicles would be most effective23. Any and all of these would
have to be done carefully so as to give due consideration to all aspects including safety concerns, but
they would work better than the proposal as written. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 15]
Regardless of exemption levels and classification schemes, requiring reporting on every individual
trailer produced and each device fitted as the proposal envisions is overly capricious, unreasonably
burdensome and is not supportive of the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions or saving fuel.
Individual trailer manufacturers can certify that they have complied with the regulations and that should
be sufficient. If the agencies elect to regulate end users as we suggested in our authority objections
sections, we could see adding a panel/label that clearly spells out the characteristics of the trailer in
terms that work with that regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 15]
Response:
Each agency has an independent obligation here to develop standards. See State of Massachusetts v.
EPA, 549 U.S. at 532 ("But that DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its
environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with protecting the public's "health" and
"welfare," 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's mandate to
promote energy efficiency. See Energy Policy and Conservation Act, § 2(5), 89 Stat. 874, 42 U.S.C. §
6201(5). The two obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both
administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency"). The agencies have worked diligently to
develop a single national program so that compliance with the standards of either agency assures
compliance with the other agency's standards, and with standards of the State of California as well. The
agencies have also developed a compliance regime for trailer manufacturers designed to minimize
regulatory burden and complexity. Examples are design standards for non-aero trailers, and (for the
other regulated trailers) certification via use of an equation rather than needing to run the full GEM
model.
148 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. "Tractor-Trailer Cost per Ton Values", August 2016.
-------
We expect trailer manufacturers to produce their range of trailer models with a relatively small number
of certified configurations. The regulation also generally allows manufacturers to group their trailer
models into one or two emission families. The application for certification requires data submission for
at most three different configurations. The annual production report would require configuration
information for each trailer produced, but trailers with like configurations could be grouped together.
Size and weight restrictions for tractor-trailers are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and are largely controlled by the weight limits established by Congress in
1956 and 1974, the size limits established in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of
1982, and the size and weight limits established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991. Changes to these restrictions would require a broader process involving Congress and Federal
and State agencies, and is beyond the scope of the Phase 2 trailer program.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
Costing
Anti-Trust issues prevent us from gathering cost of goods data. Our members have commented that the
costs of certain components in the RIA seem quite low. We will encourage members to submit specific
examples directly to the agencies as confidential business information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1172-A1 p. 18]
Response:
We did not receive comments specifically indicating technology costs that differ from those in the
proposal. General comments that imply costs are too high or too low are not sufficient to direct the
agencies to make appropriate changes, particularly when the agencies have presented a documented
component-by-component cost assessment. As a result, the cost of our projected technology packages
remain unchanged from the proposal.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
12 - Conclusion
If rules must be crafted, they should be done so reasonably, and not arbitrarily, so as to avoid these sorts
of deleterious effects. We have pointed out certain areas that the agencies have overlooked for both
exclusion from the rule and for changing the ways that box trailers are counted to account for the ways
that they are used. We also encourage regulators to refrain from unnecessarily harming the trailer
manufacturing industry by being sensitive to its small-business, produce-to-order nature and to craft any
such regulation with the realization that there is no "average" trailer manufacturer. Putting a
manufacturer out of business by forcing it to make what it cannot sell or exclusively absorb costs that it
cannot pass on will save no fuel and reduces no emissions. There are methods in use today that
accomplish regulation of the industry without such an arbitrarily heavy hand as the agencies are
proposing here. We have detailed a few such ways that the agencies should consider that would reduce
the unreasonable burden while still accomplishing the agencies goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-
A1 p.19]
Once again, we appreciate the agencies' outreach to us and pledge to continue dialog to help the
agencies craft the best regulations possible. We will continue to gather data and may submit further
-------
information as it becomes available, and welcome inquiries from the agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1172-A1 p.20]
Response:
The agencies recognize that the trailer industry is differently situated when compared to many other
light- and heavy-duty vehicle sectors. The final standards acknowledge and account for those
differences, where it is legitimately possible to do so. We have significantly reduced the number of
regulated trailers in the final program. The non-box trailer subcategory is now limited to tanks, flatbeds,
and container chassis. All other non-box trailers ~ about half of the non-box trailers produced ~ are
excluded from the Phase 2 trailer program, with no regulatory requirements. We offer reduced
standards for trailers with work-performing equipment that would impede installation of aerodynamic
technologies. We are adopting the same list of work-performing equipment that can be used to qualify
box vans for partial- or non-aero designations, and are including roll-up doors as work-performing
equipment through MY 2023. Additionally, in response to many comments from entities representing
both small and large trailer companies, we are limiting averaging as a compliance mechanism to MY
2027 and later, and offering a set allowance of trailers from each manufacturer that do not have to meet
the standards in the years without averaging (i.e., prior to MY 2027). These are a few of the provisions
the agencies are adopting to ensure these standards are reasonable for this newly regulated industry.
We appreciate TTMA's participation in pre-proposal meetings, including our small business
discussions, and its comments on the proposed rulemaking.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
Market Forces Will Achieve Most of the Benefits of the Proposed Rules with Few of the Costs
The semi-trailer industry is a mature, extremely competitive, cyclical, low-margin industry. Utility
Trailer and the other large manufacturers do not dictate specifications to their customers. Rather, their
customers are often large trucking fleets who design their trailers to meet specific needs and then seek to
have the manufacturers produce them on a semi-custom basis. The customers are overwhelmingly
interested in a trailer that meets their respective specific needs in the most cost-effective way, as the
transportation industry too is a mature, low-margin industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.2]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.219.]]
What this means is that if technological advances exist that will permit the transporters to move their
goods more efficiently at lower costs, they will require the manufacturers to supply those advances. The
Agencies justify the Proposed Rules by touting its cost-benefit payback to the trailer owner, claiming
that there is a two-year payback on the mandated technologies. 1 As mentioned later, Utility Trailer
believes the Agencies have understated substantially the cost of the mandated technologies. But
accepting as accurate for now the Agencies' estimates on which it based its Proposed Rules, the owners
have every incentive to require that their trailers have these technologies in place and to buy them.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.219.]]
What possible justification is there for the Agencies to substitute their judgment and mandate for free-
market forces, which operate very efficiently in the trailer industry? The Proposed Rule does not
provide any; it does not explain why the operators, left to their own devices and the free-market, would
not adopt these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.2]
-------
One justification, of course, is that the technologies simply don't provide the savings touted by the
Agencies in all applications. As discussed later, all real efficiencies from the aerodynamic devices
(trailer skirts, trailer tails, and similar devices) mandated by the Agencies come at higher speeds - not a
surprising conclusion since elementary physics tells us that aerodynamic drag is proportional to velocity
squared, and power (and thus fuel) required to overcome this drag force is proportional to velocity
cubed. Those transportation applications that operate at the lower speeds - such as urban delivery, food
service, and many short-haul operations - will not achieve significant fuel savings (which, of course,
correlates directly to reduced C02 emissions) from the aerodynamic devices. Those users have no need
for the devices, and requiring installation for those applications accomplishes little if anything. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.2-3]
In other words, the free market efficiently self-selects which applications should install the aerodynamic
devices on trailers - the Agencies themselves note that operators have every incentive to do just this. As
discussed later, the Proposed Rule imposes substantial regulatory and administrative burden on the
trailer-manufacturing industry. There is neither a need nor justification for adding layers of mandates
and regulations where the market has every incentive to achieve the same results through voluntary
compliance. The Proposed Rule is silent on this topic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.3]
Response:
As noted in our response to Stoughton in this Section 5.1 on page 965, we do not believe a voluntary
trailer program will produce sufficient emissions and fuel consumption reductions to meet our statutory
mandates. Additionally, most box vans that exclusively travel at low speeds will qualify for designation
as partial- or non-aero vans. For those without work performing equipment, our results from RIA
Chapter 2.10.2.1.1 indicate that the technologies will provide some savings to those trailers, even if they
spend a large portion of their time at lower speeds.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The Proposed Rule fails to account for the increases in greenhouse gases that will result from the Rules;
they do not measure net greenhouse gas effects of the devices.
A proper analysis of the greenhouse-gas reduction resulting from implementing the Proposed Rule
would speak of the net effect on greenhouse gases by accounting from increases in emissions resulting
from the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule largely fails to do this, even though the Rule will result in
activities that will increase greenhouse gases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 12]
First, manufacturing the devices results in unwanted greenhouse gas emissions. The aerodynamic
devices typically are constructed from lightweight metal, plastic, and - particularly for the skirts -
polymers and glass fiber. Many of these materials require extreme heat and significant quantities of
petrochemicals to produce, as well as the energy expended in the mining or manufacturing process. The
materials also must be transported to the factory and repair shops, and additional fuel is required, of
course, to move a trailer with the additional weight of the devices attached. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1183-A1 p.12-13]
It is not easy to determine the amount of greenhouse gases or C02 emitted from these trailer devices; it
certainly is not negligible, and the Agencies should not ignore it or assume it is negligible. But as
written, the Proposed Rule neglects the fuel costs and greenhouse-gas emissions associated outside of
operations on the trailer. The Proposed Rule needs to account for the greenhouse gases and energy
consumption of various devices during the entire lifetime of the component's construction, delivery, use
-------
and disposal, rather than just highway use as it does now. It would be pointless to require the use of
devices whose greenhouse-gas savings in use are small compared to the greenhouse-gas emissions
resulting from production, delivery, maintenance, retreading, disposal, and the like. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1183-A1 p.13]
Additionally, any computation of the additional greenhouse-gas emissions associated with
manufacturing and repairing the aerodynamic devices must account for the fact that there is not a 1-to-l
ratio of tractors to trailers. The GHG-2 Impact Analysis acknowledges that there are typically two long-
refrigerated box trailers per tractor and three (and sometimes up to six) long-dry-van box trailers per
tractor. The fuel savings analysis ignores this reality. When these multipliers are included, the number
of trailer aerodynamic devices required to achieve the savings is basically doubled or tripled, and by
extension, the amount of GHG (C02) emissions reductions required to make up for the total the GHG
emissions caused by their fabrication, installation, and maintenance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-
A1 p.13]
Response:
The agencies cannot precisely calculate the upstream emissions/fuel consumption associated with
producing and delivering the devices, a simple back-of-the-envelope, worst-case analysis can show that
they would be much less than the projected fuel savings. For example, assuming that energy
consumption represents 25 percent of the cost of a $1,500 aerodynamic package, it would be equivalent
to about 100 to 150 gallons of diesel fuel.149 Even this worst case cost estimate would be offset by a
mere one percent savings after the 100,000 miles of operation.
Regarding the comment about accounting for the ratio of tractors to trailers, the agencies calculate
overall GHG emissions based on our MOVES model. In MOVES, tractors and trailers are modeled
together, such that we are only considering active tractors and trailers, not trailers that are parked and
waiting to be used. If we assume an average tractor-trailer ratio of 1:3, the GHG reductions projected
by MOVES as a result of trailer improvements would not account for 2/3 of the trailers produced.
Consequently, our published GHG reductions are lower than what could be expected if we accounted
for all trailers produced.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
Second, the Proposed Rule ignores that the aerodynamic devices are not one-time purchases; rather,
they are unlikely to survive more than a fraction of the trailer's expected life and therefore must be
replaced multiple times. Our freight trailers are expected to last 15 years on average. There is no data to
suggest that the aerodynamic devices will last nearly that long. The aerodynamic trailer devices have
only been available since 2010. Early-adopter fleets (having approximately 5,300 trailers with skirts)
have reported spending $1.2 million over 5 years repairing or replacing damaged skirts and trailer tails
on their long-box trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 13]
Skirts, for example, dwell in space beneath the trailer where objects regularly intrude. Whether it is
railroad tracks, inclines on loading docks, or road debris, the skirts will be abused. Utility Trailer and
the other manufacturers know this from real-world use, as shown by the following two photographs that
reflect a frequent result when the skirts encounter real-world intrusions into their space. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 13]
149 Assuming $2.50 to $3.50 per gallon of fuel.
-------
[Pictures of damaged skirts and tails can be found on p. 14 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1183-A1]
Tails encounter similar problems. As noted, the driver cannot see the tail when it is deployed, and
drivers often forget to retract the tail and then back into a fence or dock, damaging the trailer.
Additionally, because the tail causes the door when fully opened to rest further away from the side of
the trailer, drivers catch the door on another trailer when backing in or pulling out, as shown by the
following photograph. Such damage requires repairing or replacing the doors, as well as the devices
themselves. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 14]
Response:
Aerodynamic device and tire pressure system suppliers indicated that their products could be expected
to last the life of the trailer with proper maintenance. The agencies recognize that some fraction of the
C02- and fuel consumption reducing technologies installed on trailers for compliance with this program
will experience damage in their lifetime. Our analysis of these technologies indicates that even trailers
traveling in mostly urban conditions will experience benefits from these technologies. See RIA chapter
2.10.2.1.1. Because of this, we expect customers will have sufficient incentive to make any necessary
repairs. And because of their relatively simple designs, we can assume that the repaired technologies
will usually perform as well as the original and our trailer program benefits will be maintained. With
proper maintenance, which can include replacement of worn subcomponents, we are aware of no reason
that these systems would be unable to meet the durability requirements of the trailer program to last the
full 10 year useful life of the trailer.
We note the durability requirements included in the regulations. Utility cites marginal impacts for
"early-adopters", but these do not accurately represent the devices that we expect will be used to comply
with the trailer program. The regulations require that devices be durable for 10 years, and thus, we
expect them to be more durable than the devices used by early adopters. We acknowledge that
improved durability may not cover all damage due to accidents or misuse, but we expect manufacturers
and customers will increasingly select devices that remain effective in common trailer operations.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
Third, the aerodynamic devices add weight to the trailers. A typical combination of skirt and tail adds
between 300 and 350 pounds to a trailer. This is a problem for all trailers, since added weight means
added fuel usage. But it also presents additional problems for that high percentage of trailers (often but
certainly not exclusively refrigerated trailers) that weigh out rather than cube out. Adding the weight of
trailer aerodynamics will typically displace hundreds of pounds of payload per trip and thus cause
additional trips to be made to deliver the same amount of product. This not only negates the fuel savings
of the trailer aerodynamic device, but also adds to traffic congestion and increases carbon emissions for
all vehicles on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 14]
Response:
The agencies evaluated the effect of additional aerodynamic device weight on C02 emissions using our
GEM vehicle simulation tool. For both short and long box vans in the model, the additional weight of
-------
aerodynamic devices was found to increase the gC02/ton-mile results by less than 1 percent. See our
memo to the docket for more information on these calculations.150
Additionally, the potential positive implications of weight reduction efforts could partially or fully offset
concerns from added weight of aerodynamic devices, including fuel use, GHG emissions, and safety.
We discuss this issue, including NHTSA's associated safety analysis in our response to the Utility
comment regarding the "cost-benefit calculation" below.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
Requiring the trailer industry to affix trailer skirts and tails to all trailers in the hopes of achieving
questionable aerodynamic efficiencies is not a wise policy choice. The Agencies have not done a
satisfactory job of determining the savings that will result from the aerodynamic-device requirements.
What is known is that the projected efficiencies depend on assumptions that are demonstrably
unrealistic, and that when real-world data is used to perform the efficiency calculations, the projected
efficiencies - even in an ideal environment - drop dramatically. Additionally, the savings even then are
overstated because they do not account for the net decrease in emissions, ignoring emissions caused in
manufacturing and transporting the devices, in replacing the devices, and in the added weight affixed to
the trailers. The better option is to allow the industry to continue its practice of voluntarily adopting
these technologies in those uses where it makes sense to do so. This is a proven approach. Accordingly,
Utility Trailer requests that the aerodynamic device requirement be removed from the proposed EPA
Phase 2 Rule. In other words, the term "C3«(AC DA/'should be removed from the equation, and the
maximum "eC02" grams per ton-mile should be adjusted downward to compensate equivalently. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1183-A1 p.14-15]
Response:
The agencies are not requiring trailer manufacturers to install any particular device to their trailers (with
the exception of the design standards for non-box and non-aero trailers). The standards for box vans are
performance standards, and manufacturers can choose to install any combination of aerodynamic, tire,
and weight-reduction technologies, or make changes to the trailer design to achieve the desired
performance. Trailer manufacturers can evaluate and choose which devices to offer to their customers
and install on their trailers. Our primary box van standards are based on adoption of aerodynamic
technologies, and we are finalizing a program that includes these technologies as a compliance option
for box van manufacturers. However, a manufacturer can offset reduced aerodynamic performance by
incorporating a significant weight reduction. Manufacturers can also fine-tune their trailer designs to
improve their aerodynamic properties without the addition of bolt-on technologies. Additionally,
manufacturers have the option to use our off-cycle provisions that can account for innovative
technologies or strategies that cannot be captured adequately by our GEM-based compliance equation.
The per-vehicle reductions based on the performance standards (ranging from 3% to 9% for the
different trailer subcategories) are representative of performance under specific conditions that we
established to reasonably compare different trailers and technologies from multiple manufacturers. The
individual performance of each trailer in a given subcategory will differ based on their use, and we do
not claim that every trailer in the real world will achieve the reductions suggested by their performance
in testing.
150 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. "Impact of Additional Weight Due to Trailer
Aerodynamic Devices". July 2016.
-------
Our own testing demonstrated the potential improvements with use of these technologies for both long
and short trailers. While the testing was performed at high-speed conditions, our analysis in Chapter
2.10.2.1.1 of the RIA indicates that some improvements are seen at much lower speeds. Since most
trailers spend at least some of their time at speeds of 55-mph or greater, they can experience even
greater emission and fuel consumption reductions during that time.
The agency responded to Utility's comment about "manufacturing and transporting" emissions the
agencies' analytical assumptions with a sample upstream emissions calculation on page 970.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The cost-benefit calculation is flawed because it fails to give safety adequate consideration and
weight.
The aerodynamic devices specified by the EPA are relative newcomers to the market. Manufactured of
plastic, fiberglass, and light metal, they are easily damaged as the trailers travel over the road and
railroad crossings, or - in the case of trailer tails - as drivers routinely back into docks, fences, and other
trailers. Some number of these devices will become detached in over-the-road operations, resulting in
some number of increased accidents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.17]
The additional technologies are also likely to increase accidents and the injuries and fatalities associated
with them. As noted previously, adding the aerodynamic technologies to trailers that otherwise would
run at full permitted weight will mean that cargo equal to the weight of the devices will have to be
transported on additional trips. There is a correlation - some would say direct - between miles driven
and accidents/injuries/fatalities. The Agencies have not accounted for this important societal cost in
performing their cost-benefit analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 17
Finally, the effect of implementing a combination of technologies on a large scale is not yet sufficiently
evaluated to be certain that there will not be unintended consequences. Other than its own side skirt,
Utility Trailer does not know of any other aerodynamic device that has been certified to meet or exceed
relevant DOT regulations. For example, some vendors market devices to cover the ends of axles,
claiming they will reduce drag. But covering the wheel end may reduce airflow, causing the components
to run hotter. Before installing such devices, a prudent manufacturer would require approval from the
axle supplier, the bearing supplier, the hub supplier, the oil-seal and hubcap supplier, the lubricant
supplier, the brake supplier, the wheel supplier, and the tire supplier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-
A1 p.17-18]
Response:
We emphasize that the agencies do not require trailer manufacturers to install any specific technologies
to meet the standards (with the exception of design standards for non-aero box vans and non-box
trailers, for which specific tire technologies are required). The performance standards for most box vans
are designed to be met with a variety of technologies. Trailer manufacturers can evaluate and choose
which devices to offer to their customers and install on their trailers.
Regarding the comment about potential accidents from debris from damaged aerodynamic devices, we
refer to this excerpt from a recent DOT study:
Damage from road debris, or detachment of aerodynamic skirts and tails in normal vehicle operation
are a potential safety issue for aerodynamic features, particularly for underbody devices. However, no
-------
reported incidents of aerodynamic component detachment or structural failure while en route could be
found in the literature. Trailer skirt developers have prioritized the design of components that are
resilient against road damage. Various aerodynamic skirts have been in continuous use on MD/HDVs
in European and certain Asian countries for over two decades, where regulatory and economic factors
promote both fuel efficiency and the provision of vulnerable road user (VRU) underride protection.
Newer skirts are typically constructed offiber-reinforced plastic and appear to resist damage when
repeatedly impacted by curbs, loading dock ramps, railroad crossings, and snow. Some designs have
full-flex struts that allow them to bend up to 90 degrees rather than snap, as in older monolithic designs,
and they weight as little as 190pounds.. (Excerpt from "Review and Analysis of Potential Safety
Impacts of and Regulatory Barriers to Fuel Efficiency Technologies and Alternative Fuels in Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles," U.S. DOT, June 2015. DOT HS 812 159).
This study's conclusions are reinforced by anecdotal experience with these technologies. The primary
technologies that the agencies expect manufacturers to use for compliance, especially in the early years
of the program, are trailer skirts, LRR tires, and tire pressure systems. All of these technologies,
although far from universal, have significant in-use experience, often in combination with each other.
As with the DOT investigators, the agencies are aware of no large-scale concern in the industry about
unintended consequences of the use of these technologies. We expect that with the implementation of
the trailer program and its durability requirements, such concerns will generally be addressed as
manufacturers and suppliers respond to the new program in their new technologies and designs.
Regarding Utility's comments about unintended consequences, we leave it to manufacturers to
determine what appropriate approvals need to be obtained before accepting a technology to install on its
trailers. EPA is adopting durability requirements for all C02- and fuel consumption-reducing
technologies applied to meet the rules, and technologies that fail to remain durable are subject to our
recall provisions in 40 CFR 1068 Subpart F. We also note that to the extent that manufacturers install
devices using pre-approved data submitted by device manufacturers, these device manufacturers are
subject to the same recall provisions as vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA evaluated the potential safety
impact suggested by TTMA and noted by Utility. NHTSA recognizes that regulatory and market
factors that result in changes in trailer weight can potentially have safety ramifications, both positive
and negative, as discussed in response to the similar TTMA comment on page 1019.
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
The Final Rule Should Be Consistent with Overlapping Government Policies to Promote
Technological Advancements and Innovation in the Trailer Manufacturing Industry
EPA should work with other agencies to ensure that its trailer regulations harmonize with other
requirements being applied to trailers and trailer manufacturers. At least five such opportunities for
complementary policies and regulations currently exist, with respect to: (1) NHTSA RIG, (2) twin 33s,
(3) the federal excise tax ("FET"), (4) weight exemptions for aerodynamic devices, and (5) harmonized
rules with CARB. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.20]
• NHTSA continues studies to analyze the cost-benefit and feasibility of new RIG standards and
installation of side crash underride guards. The ability to integrate these side guards with
aerodynamic skirt devices is unknown, but at a minimum, both types of devices would add
significant weight to trailers and potentially could interfere with the performance of the other.
• Allowing twin 3 3-foot trailers would improve freight efficiency, and freight efficiency is a
prime way to improve fuel efficiency. With fewer trucks on the road, GHG emissions are
reduced.
-------
• Installation of aerodynamic devices adds to the overall cost of a new trailer, which is subject to
the FET. Exemption of aerodynamic devices from the FET, similar to the exemption provided
for auxiliary power units, would incentivize their installation.
• Similarly, providing a weight exemption for aerodynamic devices would incentivize their
installation by removing the inherent conflict between payload capacity and trailer devices
imposed by regulatory weight constraints.
• To reduce compliance complexity, the agencies should ensure that there is a nationally
harmonized 50-state program for trailers. Any federal requirements should be aligned and
harmonized with existing and potential future CARB regulations. In Phase 1 of this rule, the
agencies recognized the importance of cooperating with CARB and stakeholders to craft a
consistent set of rules in the HD National Program. Wabash has significant concerns that the
Phase 2 Proposal contains little, if any, discussion of the importance of national standards for
trailer manufacturers. As EPA acknowledges, this is the first rule regulating trailer
manufacturers under Title II of the Clean Air Act. Harmonized and consistent national standards
are even more important to Wabash and other trailer manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1242-A2 p.20]
Whenever possible, EPA should proactively engage with other agencies imposing requirements on
trailers to align those requirements and ensure a cost-effective and smooth glide path to regulation under
Title II of the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.20]
Response:
The agencies recognize the interrelatedness of this regulation to other federal regulations. As noted in
our response to ATA previously on page 960, the subject of a possible side guard requirement from
NHTSA is in a research stage. We cannot predict how the performance of future aerodynamic devices
may be impacted if such requirements were in place, though we do expect both trailer and device
manufacturers will be mindful of the performance of both features in their future designs.
Size and weight restrictions for tractor-trailers are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and are largely controlled by the weight limits established by congress in 1956
and 1974, the size limits established in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982, and
the size and weight limits established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
Changes to these restrictions would require a broader process involving Congress and federal and state
agencies, and is beyond the scope of the Phase 2 trailer program. Similarly, Federal Excise Taxes are
managed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and beyond the scope this program. The comment does
not suggest that our regulations conflict with current size, weight or safety requirements in other
agencies; simply that these suggestions would complement our Phase 2 rulemaking.
The agencies designed the Phase 2 GHG and fuel efficiency rules to be a national program: identical
standards and compliance mechanisms at the federal level. The agencies consulted with CARB prior to
the NPRM and we are adopting the set of standards that we believe are the maximum feasible and
appropriate under the EPA's and NHTSA's respective authorities, considering lead time, cost, and other
factors, such as small business considerations. California has adopted the Phase 1 program, and the
agencies hope that the same will be true for these maximum feasible and appropriate Phase 2 standards.
Organization: XL Specialized Trailers
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 205-206.]
-------
The truck/trailer industry is a very innovative industry that embraces new technologies and standards
that enhances the efficient operation of our equipment as well as leading to a safer product. Mandating
the implementations of this type of regulation across the board creates a counter-productive
environment that leads to subpar products that end up costing consumers more and not achieving the
goals set out by the regulatory agencies.
Response:
The trailer program was designed with standards tailored to specific trailer types. The agencies
proposed and are adopting performance standards for box vans and do not require the use of specific
technologies. Instead, manufacturers can decide which combinations of aerodynamic, tire, and weight
reduction technologies to apply. To limit the compliance burden for non-box trailers, we proposed
design standards requiring use of lower resistance (LRR) tires and automatic tire inflation systems
(ATIS). The final trailer program further reduces that burden by limiting the regulated non-box trailers
to tanks, flatbeds and container chassis only, and basing the design standards on use of LRR tires and
less expensive tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS). We believe a majority of the trailers that
would find limited benefits from this these technologies are among the excluded trailer types.
5.2 Trailer Designs Covered By This Proposed Rule
Organization: STEMCO
STEMCO recommends equal treatment under the regulation for long van roll-door trailers. We believe
the fuel savings and emissions reductions can be significant given the number of medium and long haul
trailers in this category, and including them creates an incentive for innovation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1259-A1 p.2]
Response:
The agencies recognize there may currently be limited availability of rear aerodynamic technologies for
roll-up door trailers, yet, as the commenter suggests, we also understand that innovations and
improvements continue for all trailer aerodynamic technologies. For this reason, the final trailer
program includes an interim provision - through MY 2023 - for box vans with roll-up doors to qualify
for non-aero and partial-aero standards (as defined immediately below), by treating such doors as work-
performing devices equivalent to rear lift gates. For MY 2024 and later, roll-up doors will not qualify as
a work-performing device in this way; however, we expect that manufacturers of trailers with roll-up
doors will comply with the 2024 and later MY standards using combinations of new rear aerodynamic
technologies, in conjunction with improved trailer side and gap-reducing technologies as appropriate.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
SHORT VAN TRAILERS
Short, "pup" van trailers are utilized in a significantly different manner than long van trailer, often in
tandem. This means that for 28' trailers, they may fall either fall in lead directly behind the tractor or at
the end. Thus, reducing aerodynamic drag for short van trailers is more complex and devices must
therefore not only be effective in either position but deployable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
p. 17]
-------
The agencies' definition of "short" trailers extends beyond pups to include trailers up to 48' in length.
While California's trailer regulations are applicable to 53' and longer van trailers, the aerodynamic
technology being moved to market today for long van trailers is applicable to trailers of shorter length,
and we recommend that the agencies' definition of a "short" trailer be restricted to only those most
likely to be utilized in a tandem configuration. Therefore, we recommend that the agencies shift the cut-
off length between a long and short van trailer from 52' down to at least 47'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p. 17]
Response:
The agencies agree that 48-foot vans are aerodynamically similar to longer vans and that 28-foot trailers
are often used in tandem, reducing the opportunity for rear aerodynamic features. However, the
agencies believe that the use of 48-foot vans is more similar to that of shorter trailers than to that of the
long-haul vans that make up most the long box subcategory. Trailer manufacturers have indicated that
48-foot vans are mostly used in short-haul operations (e.g., local food service delivery) and
consequently they travel less frequently at speeds at which aerodynamic technologies can be most
beneficial. Also, 48-foot vans make up a relatively small fraction of box vans. The agencies thus do not
believe that standards predicated on the use of more effective aerodynamic technologies on 48-foot vans
will provide a substantial enough additional reduction in C02 emissions and fuel consumption to justify
more stringent standards for those trailers. For these reasons, the agencies are maintaining the proposed
50-foot demarcation between long and short box vans and are basing the standards for each van size
category accordingly. Please see our memo to the docket with our complete analysis of the 50-foot
demarcation.151
5.3 Proposed Trailer Standards for C02 and Fuel Consumption
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
In-Use Trailers Should be Used in Establishing Compliance Baseline The trailer efficiency
improvements use a baseline 2017 SmartWay trailer. In-use trailers at the time would be a more
representative baseline figure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A 1 p.25]
Response:
The agencies used the available data to project a baseline trailer for evaluating trailer improvements.
We did not use a "baseline 2017 SmartWay trailer", but did refer to our baseline by the bin in which we
expected SmartWay-verified technologies to fall. In a letter from TTMA, the association stated that, as
of 2014, 35% of their members' 53-foot van sales included skirts.152 We assume these skirts performed
similarly and would fall into our final trailer aerodynamic Bin III. Our long box van baselines for the
final standards assume skirt adoption will rise to 40% by 2018, with an additional 5% in Bin IV. TTMA
also noted that under 2% of their members' short trailers included skirts and we project that there will be
a modest increase by 2018 so that the value adopted in our (2018) baseline is 5% for trailers less than
50-feet in length. See also RIA chapter 2.10.3.2.
Because the agencies cannot be certain about future trends, we also considered a second baseline. This
"dynamic baseline" reflects the possibility that, absent a Phase 2 regulation, there would be continuing
151 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827: "Evaluation of 50-Foot Trailer Length Demarcation to
Distinguish between Long and Short Box Vans." July 2016.
152 Letter, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association to EPA, October 16, 2014, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0146.
-------
adoption of aerodynamic technologies in the long box trailer market after 2018 that reduce fuel
consumption and C02 emissions. This case assumes the research funded and conducted by the federal
government, industry, academia and other organizations would, after 2018, result in the adoption of
additional aerodynamic technologies beyond the levels required to comply with existing regulatory and
voluntary programs. In this second baseline, adoption of trailer side skirts on long box vans increases
beyond 2018 at a rate of 5% every three years, until the adoption rates of the technologies reach 75% of
long box vans in MY 2040. See Section IV.D.2.b of the Preamble for a description of our baselines. As
noted in that section, the dynamic baseline mainly impacts long-term, overall Phase 2 program
projections of benefits beyond MY 2027. When calculating the relative C02 reduction due to our trailer
standards in this program, we use the flat baseline. However, the reduction values are relatively
insensitive to the choice of trailer baseline throughout the timeframe of the rules. The 35% difference in
skirt adoption between flat and dynamic baselines in MY 2040 results in just a 1 gC02/ton-mile
difference in emissions for long dry vans and long refrigerated vans.
Organization: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
The proposed EPA/DOT Phase 2 rule-making can help us pursue both our air quality and GHG
emission reduction goals. To ensure the maximum benefits are achieved from this joint-rule-making
effort, we would like to offer the following suggestions.
Collaborate with the ARB to set uniform truck/trailer standards that would apply throughout the nation's
truck fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1136-A1 p. 2]
Response:
The agencies consulted with ARB prior to the NPRM and considered ARB comment on the NPRM. We
are adopting the set of standards that we believe are the maximum feasible and appropriate under the
agencies' respective authorities, considering lead time, cost, and other factors, such as small business
impact considerations.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Stringency of trailer standard, alternative 4 recommended
The NPRM also requests comments on whether Alternative 3 or Alternative 4 should be the preferred
alternative. Both alternatives provide a gradual increase in the adoption rates of aerodynamic
technologies, leading to the same final stringency, except that Alternative 4 arrives at the final
stringency three years earlier. The main difference in the implementation of the two alternatives is the
second phase of standards, which occurs during the 2021 MY. Under Alternative 4, the adoption rates
specified in Alternative 3's second phase is skipped so that Alternative 3's 2024 standards take effect in
2021, and Alternative 3's 2027 standards take effect in 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.72]
Since most of the requirements for trailer aerodynamic equipment can be met with technology that is
already available, the difference in cost from accelerating the adoption of these technologies by three
years would be low. Table 1-11 in the NPRM provides the costs of the technology needed on a baseline
trailer to comply with the Phase 2 regulation, under Alternatives 3 and 4 and is provided here for
reference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.72]
-------
[Table 1-11 can be found on p.72 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
As indicated in the table, the added cost per trailer to meet Alternative 3 MY 2024 standards is $1010
(2012 dollars); whereas the cost to meet the Alternative 4 MY 2021 standards (the equivalent of the MY
2024 Alternative 3 standards) is $1080 (2012 dollars), a difference of $70, or 6.9 percent. Similarly, the
difference in cost to meet the final stringency requirements of the two alternatives is $60, or 5.1 percent.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.72]
The differences in compliance cost should then be viewed in terms of their effect on the payback period,
since the adoption of Alternative 4 requires more aerodynamic trailers sooner, leading to greater fuel
savings earlier. The NPRM provides the results of analyzing the payback periods of the two alternatives,
and have determined that choosing Alternative 4 over Alternative 3 results in negligible impacts on the
payback periods, with both alternatives having payback periods of 2 years, as shown below in the
NPRM's Table 1-12. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.73]
[Table 1-12 can be found on p.73 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
While Tables 1-11 and 1-12 show that there is a negligible impact on the economics of fleets that operate
trailers, it is also important to compare the impacts of the two alternatives in terms of the overall costs
and benefits of the regulation as well. Table XI and X-3 in the NPRM provide a comparison of the net
costs and benefits of the two alternatives for the tractor-trailer vehicle as a whole, in which trailer
benefits play a major part. Under both the 3 percent discount rate and the 7 percent discount rate
assumptions, Alternative 4 provides a greater net benefit, after subtracting out the costs, over the 2018
to 2029 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.73]
[Table 14 can be found on p.73 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
Upon examining the cost-benefit analysis provided in the NPRM and differences in stringency between
the two alternatives, and drawing upon CARB's experience in implementing its Tractor Trailer GHG
Regulation, CARB staff recommends Alternative 4. Under Alternative 4, by 2021, 65 percent of long
box van trailers (defined in the NPRM as those over 50 feet) would employ Bin V aerodynamic
technology, which is equivalent to SmartWay Elite levels, which became effective in 2014. CARB staff
believes it is reasonable to assume 65 percent penetration of such technology by 2021, which will be
five years after the adoption of the proposed Phase 2 regulation and seven years after SmartWay Elite
levels became effective. In addition to recommending Alternative 4, CARB staff also recommends two
modifications to the stringency levels. First, given that Bins I through VII can all be attained using
existing technology, CARB staff believes that the final phase of standards should incorporate some
adoption of Bin VIII, which represents as yet undeveloped technology. Having seen how quickly
aerodynamic technology has evolved since the SmartWay's launch in 2004, CARB staff believes that
these technologies will continue to evolve at a rapid pace for the next nine years, when the final phase of
standards in Alternative 4 takes effect. As such, CARB staff recommends that the stringencies of
Alternative 4 for long box dry van trailers should be modified to include some adoption of Bin VIII
technology trailers, such as 10 percent Bin V, 45 percent Bin VI, 40 percent Bin VII, and 5 percent Bin
VIII, by 2024. Using the compliance equation given in the proposed 40 CFR 1037.515 in the redline
version of the regulation, this modification reduces the final standard by a further 0.24 grams of C02per
ton-mile. CARB staff believes that it is important to include at least a nominal adoption rate of Bin VIII
technologies in order to move beyond off-the-shelf technology and push for further development of
aerodynamic technologies. In the event that such technology is still unavailable by the 2024 MY, the 5
percent adoption rate is low enough such that manufacturers would still be able to meet the stringency
-------
by slightly adjusting the percent adoption rates between Bins V and VII. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.73-74]
Another recommended modification relates to the final stringencies of long box refrigerated van trailers.
From the RIA, the trailer-to-tractor ratio of refrigerated vans (2:1) is lower than that of dry vans (3:1),
which means that a refrigerated van trailer is typically used on the road more than dry van trailers.
Because of the higher use experienced by refrigerated van trailers, investments in aerodynamic
equipment for refrigerated trailers can generate faster, and larger, returns on investment. In addition,
because of the higher base cost of a refrigerated trailer (roughly twice as much as a dry van trailer34), the
incremental cost of the required aerodynamic equipment would be a much smaller percentage of the
base cost of a refrigerated van trailer than it would be for a dry van trailer. For these reasons, CARB
staff believes that the final stringency level (applicable to MY 2024 under Alternative 4) of long box
refrigerated van trailers should be adjusted so that the combined adoption of Bins VI and VII should
match or exceed that of long box dry van trailers. For example, the Alternative 4 MY 2024 long box
refrigerated van trailer adoption rates should be as follows: 10 percent Bin V, 60 percent Bin VI, and 30
percent Bin VII. Using the compliance equation from the proposed 40 CFR 1037.515 in the redline
version of the regulation, this modification reduces the final standard by a further 0.41 grams of C02per
ton-mile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.74-75]
34 (ICCT, 2013) The International Council on Clean Transportation, "Trailer technologies for increased heavy-duty vehicle efficiency - Technical, market, and
policy considerations," June 2013, http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT HDVtrailertechs 20130702.pdf>.
Response:
In determining "maximum feasible" and "appropriate" under the agencies' respective authorities, we
must consider more than just the cost and availability of technologies that could be used to meet the
standards. We must also consider lead time, cost of compliance, and may consider factors such as
disproportionate impacts on small businesses. We do not believe the accelerated timeline of Alternative
4 provides sufficient lead time for all manufacturers to test, evaluate, market and adopt today's most
advanced technologies by MY 2024. While Alternative 5 does provide an additional three years to
adopt more advanced technologies, the proposed stringency of that alternative would require nearly
100% adoption of technologies with performance the agencies did not observe in testing. These factors
alone justify not adopting this alternative. Additionally, Alternative 5 would include aerodynamic
improvements for some non-box trailers, but we expect these relatively new and untried technologies
would result in relatively little emission and fuel consumption benefit at relatively high cost.
Furthermore, non-box trailers are predominately manufactured by small businesses. We believe these
small businesses would be unable to compete with the few large manufacturers to meet those standards,
which could result in significant economic impacts for these companies. See our response to UCS on
page 1026 for a more complete explanation of our decision to adopt design standards for non-box
trailers.
We are adopting a set of trailer standards based on the implementation schedule of Alternative 3. The
agencies adjusted their baseline adoption rates, and made several changes to our projected adoption
rates that made the standards more stringent than those proposed for certain of the trailer subcategories,
and thus address some of the issues raised in this comment. The standards for all box vans are now
based on nearly 100% adoption of SW-level tires in MY 2018, and CRR of 4.7 kg/ton in MY 2021 (at
proposal, the MY 2024 standard was predicated on these penetration rates). Additionally, the full-aero
van program is predicated on greater adoption than at proposal of advanced aerodynamics in the MY
2027 standard.
-------
The proposed aerodynamic bins were adjusted to account for wind-averaging and additional test data
obtained since the NPRM. A majority of the combinations of skirts and tail or skirts, tails and gap
reducer, including several technologies that are designated "SmartWay-Elite," were found to fall within
the new Bin V. The agencies observed one device combination that presently meets Bin VI, suggesting
that this bin can be met with combinations of existing aerodynamic technologies. However, no
technology combinations tested met our new Bin VII. Our MY 2027 standards for full-aero long vans
are based on significant but not universal adoption of technologies in our new performance Bin VI; full-
aero short van standards for MY 2027 are based on some adoption of Bin IV-type technologies. These
two bins represent future, optimized combinations of aerodynamic technologies for these lengths.
Trailer and device manufacturers continue to develop more effective individual aerodynamic
technologies, and combinations of technologies, which is a trend that we expect to continue as the
requirements of the trailer program are implemented. By the 2027 time frame, we expect that there is
ample lead time for existing commercial long van and short van technologies and technology
combinations to be optimized such that they can meet Bin VI and Bin IV performance levels
respectively, and that these technologies will be broadly, but probably not universally, used. See
Chapter 2.10.2.1.3 of the RIA.
Thus, in response to the commenter's suggestion that the agencies adopt the proposed Alternative 4
standards, the agencies note that features of the proposal that we think are possible are in fact reflected
in the final standards. While we believe the standards can largely be met by optimizing use of existing
aerodynamic technologies, the optimization process will require greater lead time. As trailer and device
designers approach the higher technologically feasible levels of aerodynamic performance, the
engineering challenges of developing devices that individually and synergistically perform at these
levels becomes greater. Technology costs may not be extreme, but we do not see cost as the key
concern during this process. While we are optimistic that these performance levels will in time be
achieved on a broad commercial basis, we are not prepared to assume that this can happen before MY
2027. Further, the advent of commercial technologies capable of exceeding these performance levels
similar to the more stringent standards of the proposed Alternative 5 is even more uncertain and would
require advances that may well not be technologically achievable, even with fundamental changes to the
industry. On the basis of what we know today, the agencies are unable to show a pathway for the
industry to achieve such additional improvements in the time frame of this program, at least without the
potential for major disruptions to the industry due to requiring, for example, fundamental changes to
trailer design and construction, or impractical levels of tractor-trailer integration.
Based on our analyses and as informed by the comments, we believe that the final standards in the
program, slightly revised from the proposed Alternative 3 standards, are appropriate and represent the
maximum feasible standards.
In response to the comment about refrigerated long box vans, we have reassessed the relative
stringencies of the dry and refrigerated van categories. Our test results show that gap reducers have a
relatively small impact on aerodynamic performance, and several technology combinations that did not
include a gap reducer were able to achieve our higher aerodynamic bins. The proposed MY 2027
standards for dry vans were predicated on the use of gap reducers, but refrigerated vans are unable to
use gap reducers due to the TRU. We are confident that sufficient technology combinations exist that
could meet our dry van stringencies without the use of a gap reducer. Consequently, our final
refrigerated van standards in MY 2027 are predicated on stringencies that match the dry van
stringencies. Note that the numerical standards for dry and refrigerated vans only differ due to the
difference in default vehicle weight within GEM, which is reflected in the GEM-based compliance
equation for trailers.
-------
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
EDF supports the inclusion of standards for trailers
EDF fully supports the agencies proposal to establish standards for trailers. Trailers are the primary
vehicles for moving freight in the U.S.70 In 2010, there were nearly 5.8 million commercial trailers
registered in the U.S.,71 and production of trailers by the top 25 manufacturers was up 9.4 percent in
2012, over the year before.72 Trailers impact the fuel efficiency of trucks through aerodynamic drag, tire
rolling resistance and additional weight. Trailer efficiency measures would garner much-needed
additional GHG and fuel consumption reductions in the tractor-trailer fleet by promoting the
development and deployment of new trailer technologies. Such measures would also address market
barriers like split incentives and consumers' lack of confidence in technology performance. The
technologies needed to make significant efficiency improvements are incredibly cost-effective, well-
tested and on trailers today. We request that the agencies finalize robust standards for all trailers that
reflect the leading efficiency technology for each trailer type. See Section VI below for specific
recommendations on strengthening the trailer program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.15-16]
Trailer standards can be strengthened and achieved earlier
Trailers used with Class 7 and 8 tractors contribute significantly to the heavy-duty vehicle sector's total
C02 emissions and fuel consumption. We commend the Agencies for following through on their
commitment in the Phase 1 rule to address trailers and proposing the first ever trailer standards. We
support the Agencies' proposed framework, which will provide important GHG reductions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.35]
We also encourage the Agencies to strengthen the standards by accelerating the compliance timelines
and encouraging technology innovation. The proposed standards are based on off-the-shelf technologies
that are in use on trailers today. In fact, there is already a significant market demand for these
technologies in part because of California's existing trailer regulations, the SmartWay voluntary
program and because of the very short payback periods for all of the trailer technologies being
considered.155 Consequently, we believe the trailer program could be improved by accelerating the
implementation schedule and requiring the broader deployment of more advanced aerodynamics and tire
technologies. The Agencies themselves indicated in the Preamble that Alternative 4, which accelerates
the program to 2024, "has the potential to be the maximum feasible alternative within the meaning of
section 32902(k) of EISA, and appropriate under EPA's CAA authority." Additionally, Alternative 5
indicates that there are other efficiency technologies the Agencies could include and additional types of
trailers the program could be applied to. We encourage the Agencies to consider the stringency levels in
Alternative 5 applied to the timeline suggested in Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1
p.35-36]
70 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Final Rule at 57,362 (September 15, 2011)
[hereinafter "Medium- and Heavy Duty I; Final Rule"].
71 US Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics
Series: Trailer and Semi-trailer registrations - 2010, (December 2011), available at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/mvll.cfm.
-------
72 "Trailer output up 9.4% in 2012", Trailer-Body Builders, (February 1, 2013), available at
http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/trailer-output/output/trailer-output-up-2012/.
155 Sharpe, B., Recommendations for regulatory design, testing, and certification for integrating trailers
into the Phase 2 U.S. heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas regulation, (2014),
available at http://www.theicct.org/integrating-trailers-us-phase-2-hdv-efficiency-rule.
Response:
See our previous response to CARB on page 980, which includes our justification for adopting
standards based on Alternative 3. Also, in response to the comment about the effect of the existing
California program, the SmartWay program, and favorable payback, we have accounted for all of these
factors in our estimates of technology adoption and effectiveness in our reassessment for the final
program, based on information we have developed and drawn from the comments. (Chapter 2.10 of the
RIA). The commenter correctly points to important drivers of future technological improvement in the
early stages of the program. However, consistent with our latest aerodynamic test results, reaching the
higher performance levels for the later years will be very challenging for the industry and will require
time. This is the key factor limiting the time frame and the degree of aerodynamic performance that is
appropriate and feasible in the later years of the program's phase-in.
Organization: Great Dane
We appreciate the agencies' study of multiple alternatives as detailed in the NPRM and believe that for
many reasons a regulatory approach with a more aggressive adoption of stringencies than the proposed
approach (Alternative 3) increases the probability of negative effects on stakeholders considerably. Thus
we suggest that the agencies consider devising an incentive based approach that could benefit all
stakeholders to augment the proposed approach and assist in the deployment and adoption of advanced
technologies as opposed to adoption of the more stringent Alternative 4 being considered. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.4]
Response:
The agencies are adopting a set of trailer standards based on the implementation schedule of Alternative
3, and have concluded that the significant emission and fuel consumption reduction of the final trailer
program based on Alternative 3 are appropriate. We do offer an off-cycle testing option for
manufacturers to evaluate innovative strategies for meeting the standards. Trailer configurations that
exceed the standards will not receive credit in the early years of the program, but these trailers can be
used to off-set lower performing trailers if manufacturers opt to participate in averaging in the MY 2027
or later.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Trailers - The trailer technologies upon which the stringency is determined embrace the already
commercialized technologies that have been spurred by EPA's SmartWay program and California's in-
use regulation. These technologies are already being adopted in increasing numbers by leading
SmartWay Elite fleets and as part of the California regulation (Sharpe and Roeth, 2014). Asking trailer
manufacturers and tractor fleets to move toward 2015's leading technologies by 2024 provides
sufficient lead time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.5] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.39.]]
-------
Response:
See response to CARB earlier in this section on page 980. As we discuss in that response, we
acknowledge that technology development is proceeding, but also recognize that the significant
additional engineering and development and the widespread commercial adoption of technologies and
technology combinations capable of meeting or exceeding the performance of the best available
technologies today requires the degree of lead time that the final program provides.
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
NRDC strongly supports the inclusion of trailer standards in the rule and urges the agencies to adjust the
standards so that the proposed 2027 stringency is achieved by 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-
A1 p.2]
Set Standards for Trailers
NRDC strongly supports the agencies' proposal to adopt C02 emission and fuel consumption standards
for new trailers designed for use in combination tractor-trailer configurations. The agencies note that
they "expect that the MY 2027 standards would be met with high-performing aerodynamic and tire
technologies largely available in the marketplace today." NRDC believes that the current availability of
technology supports the proposal to start standards no later than 2018 (as proposed by EPA) and that the
2027 standards can be achieved by 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.6-7]
NRDC recognizes that the trailer industry is being regulated for the first time. However, the prospect of
regulatory requirements on the industry is not new. In 2011, NRDC urged the agencies to adopt trailer
requirements in Phase 1. Although the agencies declined to include trailer standards in the Phase 1 rule,
the agencies amassed information and signaled a likely future standard stating that "[t]the agencies
broadly solicited comments on controlling fuel efficiency and GHG emissions through eventual trailer
regulations as we described in the notice of proposed rulemaking which could set the foundation of a
future rulemaking for trailers."17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1220-A1 p.7]
While trailer manufacturers have not previously been under federal regulation for C02 and fuel
consumption, the agencies note that the manufacturers are familiar with applying and proving the
effectiveness of technologies. As justification for the program starting in 2018, the agencies note that
"box trailer manufacturers have been gaining experience with C02- and fuel consumption-reducing
technologies over the past several years, and the agencies expect that trend to continue, due in part to
EPA's SmartWay program and California's Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation." The agencies
appropriately expect that trailer manufacturers will be familiar with necessary technology and the
regulatory process in time for 2018 compliance. The agencies also expect the standard levels proposed
for 2027 could be met with existing technology. For these reasons, combined with the fact that standards
will establish new certainty for investment in the trailer marketplace, NRDC believes that trailer
manufacturers could cost-effectively meet the proposed 2027 stringency levels by 2024. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.7]
17 76 FR 57106 at 57362.
Response:
See response to CARB and EDF comments earlier in this section, starting on page 980.
-------
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
The Agencies Should Adjust the Tire Limit Values for Non-Aero Vans and Non-Box Trailers
The NPRM proposes the requirements of LRR tires on "non-box" and "non-aero vans" of RRc < 4.7
kg/t. Such trailers may instead use tires with RRc <5.1 kg/t through MY 2023. The application of low
rolling resistance trailer tires to "non-box" and "non-aero" trailers may present conflicts in the ultimate
service and application of these and similar non-box trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.23]
Variable terrain use of such trailers often demand tread designs, e.g. deeper tread depths, tread rubber,
sidewall scuffing resistance, use on different axle configurations, etc., such that typical highway-type
low rolling resistance tires may not provide optimal service performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p. 24]
Typical examples of tread depths for such non-box and non-aero trailer tires would be: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1304-A1 p.24]
14 - 18/32" for 15, 17.5, 19.5 rim diameters
16 - 22/32" for 22.5 and 24.5 rim diameters
Comparing to line haul trailer tire tread depths, typical examples would be: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p.24]
13 - 16/32" for 17.5, 19.5 rim diameter tires
11-13/32" for 22.5, 24.5 rim diameter tires
Mandatory use of the proposed 5.1 kg/t (current SmartWay™ verification threshold) and 4.7 kg/t will
challenge the balance of performance in non-aero van and non-box trailer applications. Since tires for
non-aero vans and non-box trailers are significantly different in construction and desired performance
from trailer tires such as those verified by the SmartWay™ program, it is inappropriate to use the
SmartWay™ target values as near-term limit values for these tire applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1304-A1 p.24]
i. The Proposed Lead Time is Insufficient to Redesign Tires to Meet the Proposed Tire Rolling
Resistance Limit Values for Non-Aero and Non-Box Trailer Applications
By the time this regulation is final, 2018 trailers will be nearing production, and original equipment
contracts may already be in place. There is simply not enough time to design and fully execute a product
development program within a tire company with the intent of designing tires for non-aero vans or non-
box trailers that would meet the proposed limit values. RMA requests that the Agencies adjust the limit
values for tires for these two trailer subcategories to reflect actual tire rolling resistance performance in
this tire market segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.24]
Regarding lead time, the NPRM states that because "most manufacturers of long box trailers have some
experience installing these [SmartWay] tire technologies for customers," it is appropriate to truncate
lead time for compliance with low rolling resistance requirements. This may be true of line haul-type
applications, but it is not true of non-aero vans and non-box trailers. RMA challenges the assertion that
-------
the MY 2018 C02 emission standards "thus could be met by adopting off-the-shelf aerodynamic and
tire technologies available today" in the case of non-aero vans and non-box trailers, since SmartWay
verified tires are not appropriate for these trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.24-25]
RMA also challenges the assertion that "the technologies [manufacturers of trailers other than long
boxes] would need are fairly simple and can be incorporated into trailer production lines without
significant process changes." While it is certainly true that for a trailer manufacturer, installing one tire
on a trailer is the same as installing another tire type, the technology required to redesign tires for non-
aero vans and non-box to meet the proposed targets is not similarly "fairly simple." EPA should
consider not only "the burdens of installing and marketing" low rolling resistance technologies but also
the research and development, testing and commercialization costs associated with developing new tires
to meet the proposed requirements for non-aero vans and non-box trailers. The lead time analysis is
based on the faulty assumption that SmartWay-type tires are appropriate for all other types of trailers.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.25]
ii. RMA Data Collection and Analysis
RMA collected rolling resistance data from its member companies to assess the typical rolling resistance
of tires appropriate for installation on non-aero vans and non-box trailers. As seen in Figure 12 and
Figure 13 below, most of the tires studied do not meet the SmartWay™ threshold of 5.1, which is
identified as the limit values for 2018 and 2021, since these tire types are not within the scope of the
SmartWay™ program, which focuses on tires for line haul applications. This rolling resistance level
would be very challenging to meet for tires appropriate for non-aero vans or non-box trailers,
particularly since the first trailer model year of applicability is 2018, and would require the development
of new tires. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.25]
[Figure 12, 'Distribution of Rolling Resistance of Tires for Non-Aero Vans and Non-Box Trailers', can
be found on p.26 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1]
[Figure 13, 'Analysis of Rolling Resistance of Tires for Non-Aero Vans and Non-Box Trailers', can be
found on p.27 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1]
iii. RMA Proposal for Revised Tire RRc Limit Values for Non-Aero Vans and Non-Box Trailers
RMA has evaluated the data it collected to develop a proposal for a revised baseline and targets for non-
aero vans and non-box trailer tires. RMA assessed what percentage of current products are performing
at or below the 2017 baseline proposed in the NPRM and what percentage would meet the maximum
values for model years 2018, 2021, 2024 and 2027 (Figure 14). As is shown in Figure 14, only 55
percent of the products surveyed would achieve the 2017 baseline, while only 21 percent would achieve
the 2018 value. As discussed above, redesigning nearly 80 percent of products for non-aero vans and
non-box trailers in time for the 2018 model year simply is unrealistic, particularly given that these
products are not within the scope of the SmartWay verification program and in order to achieve
satisfactory performance require deeper and more aggressive tread to achieve satisfactory performance
compared to their Class 8 line haul counterparts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.27-28]
In Figure 14, RMA proposes an alternative 2017 baseline and model year targets for the Agencies'
consideration. This proposal balances incremental improvement with required technology changes and
considers the percent of products that would have to be redesigned to meet the maximum values for
each model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.28]
-------
[Figure 14, 'Percent of Current Tires for Non-Aero Vans and Non-Box Trailers that Would Meet NPRM
Limit Values', can be found on p.28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1]
For Non-Aero Vans and Non-Box Trailers, the Agencies Should Modify the Limit Values in order to
assure that the maximum values reflect current technology and achievable improvements since
SmartWay-type data collected by the Agencies may not be sufficient to characterize these tire segments.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.35]
II. The Agencies Should Adjust the Limit Values and GEM Inputs for Non-Aero Vans and Non-
Box T railers
In its October 1, 2015 comments, RMA stated that mandatory use of the proposed 5.1 kg/t (current
SmartWay® verification threshold) and 4.7 kg/t will challenge the balance of performance in non-aero
van and non-box trailer applications. After review of the documents made available in the NODA,
including the GEM P2v2.1 summary, RMA continues to support this view. Since tires for non-aero vans
and non-box trailers are significantly different in construction and desired performance from trailer tires
such as those verified by the SmartWay® program, it is inappropriate to use the SmartWay® target
values as near-term limit values for these tire applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.3-4]
RMA refers the agencies to its October 1, 2015 comments for a detailed discussion of these issues and
data to support RMA's views. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.4]
Response:
We agree that many non-box trailers are used on "variable terrain" and that the SmartWay-based tire
rolling resistance levels on which the proposed design standards for these trailers were based are
appropriate for line-haul trailers, but may be ill-suited for off-road applications. The agencies made
several revisions to our non-box trailer program based on these and similar comments. First, we are
limiting the type of non-box trailers in the program to tank trailers, flatbed trailers, and container
chassis. In general, these trailers are more likely to be used in on-road applications compared to many
specialty non-box trailers. Limiting the regulated non-box trailers to this narrow range of trailer types
reduces number of trailers that would need tires with large tread depths and high rolling resistances.
We appreciate the tire information the commenter shared with the agencies. While we know tread depth
can be related to rolling resistance, the comment does did not include a correlation or indicate how the
agencies should use the provided information to adjust our proposed values. We did, however, revise
tire rolling resistance baselines for these three non-box trailers by increasing the rolling resistance by 0.5
kg/ton. Absent regulation, we project that the baseline rolling resistance of the regulated tank trailers,
flatbed trailers and container chassis would be 6.5 kg/ton. The revised MY 2018 design standard for
these non-box trailers now require use of tire pressure systems and LRR tires meeting a CRR of 6.0
kg/ton. Beginning in MY 2021, the non-box trailer design standards would be based on tire pressure
systems and LRR tires with a CRR of 5.1 kg/ton, which is the current SmartWay threshold limit for box
vans and met by 55% of the tires in Figure 14 of the comment. Non-box trailers standards no longer
would require rolling resistances below 5.1 kg/ton, whereas the NPRM proposed these trailers be
equipped with tires meeting a 4.7 kg/ton CRR.
Box vans may be designated "non-aero" vans if they have certain work-performing equipment installed.
These work-performing equipment (e.g., lift gates) are expected to indicate urban, low-speed delivery
and not "variable terrain." While customers may not currently be requesting these tires on their local
delivery trailers, the comment does not indicate a reasonable technological barrier to non-aero box vans
-------
adopting tires similar to those used on other box vans. Nor did the commenter provide information
about why the development of tires for the non-aero subset of box vans would be different than for other
box vans. Therefore, the agencies did not adjust the CRR level for non-aero box van design standards.
In response to the comment about tire development lead time, we agree with the commenter that
manufacturers of non-box trailer tires intended primarily for off-road use may require longer to develop
LRR tires for these applications. However, because our final trailer program excludes such trailers, lead
time required to develop LRR tires for these trailers is not an issue for the program. According to the
information provided in Figure 14 of the comment, 76% of the surveyed tires would achieve or exceed
the MY 2018 non-box trailer rolling resistance, and 21% would achieve the MY 2021 rolling resistance,
suggesting that the tires are available today and less lead time would be required to achieve similar
levels of performance for the remaining tires.
We note that non-aero box vans and non-box trailers have design standards and do not use GEM. While
the agencies did change the baseline tire rolling resistance and tire rolling resistance requirements for
non-box trailer standards, there are no changes needed to the GEM vehicle simulation tool.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
Outside of regulating direct use, the agencies should continue voluntary implementation of
technological advances. The trucking transportation industry has been and still is very interested in all
aspects of fuel-saving technology, and has, through programs such as SmartWay, made great strides in
fuel conservation. The driving force behind such implementations has been the financial bottom line of
the motor carriers. Some of the innovations employed include increases to interior volume while
maintaining exterior size, reduction in weight, decking systems for multi-layer cargo transportation;
along with some of the technologies the EPA regulation is basing its reductions on, such as aerodynamic
devices, low rolling resistance tires, and automatic tire inflation systems. These advances have been
employed as the industry has seen and realized value supported by evidence. The current proposal for a
regulation will indeed claim a difference which would likely have been accomplished through the
voluntary adoption of systems proven as functional. An unintended side-effect will be the increased
creation of C02 due to the additional fuel expended on those "regulated units" that do not operate in a
manner which causes the added options to provide for a realized and effective performance.
Response:
See our response to Stoughton in Section 5.1 on page 965 related to a non-mandatory program. See also
our response to Utility's comments relating to "upstream" or manufacturing emissions on page 970 and
our general response in Section 1.
According to ACT Research, only 30% of long dry vans in 2011 were equipped with side skirts and
automatic tire inflation. Aerodynamic testing and modeling conducted by the agencies indicates that fuel
consumption could be significantly reduced by greater adoption of aerodynamic and tire improving
technologies in the dry and refrigerated van population. The same technologies can reduce fuel
consumption in trailers that travel shorter distances and at slower average speeds than trailers on long
haul cycles, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.1 and discussed in our response to Stoughton on page
965. Lack of information and other factors may be hindering greater adoption of the technologies by
fleets. The regulation will address the slow uptake of the technologies by industry by promoting
widespread adoption of aerodynamic and other technologies while creating a level playing field for
regulated entities.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
-------
Trailer Standards
The inclusion of trailers in the Phase 2 regulations is an important step forward. California's regulations
as well as EPA's SmartWay program have helped to significantly reduce fuel use through improvements
to trailers as well as identify and incentivize further technology development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p. 16]
However, the agencies' assumptions on aerodynamics underestimates the feasible reductions from
trailers in this timeframe. We recommend that the agencies adopt the More Stringent Trailer Alternative
out to 2024, with a stringency target in 2027 that will lead to approximately 1% additional benefit in
fuel consumption. Furthermore, the agencies should identify opportunities to encourage innovation for
improvements to non-box trailers as well as tractor and trailer integration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1329-A2 p. 16]
Response:
See response to CARB in this section on page 980. As discussed in that response, we do not believe that
a more stringent program is feasible, and we do not agree that more emission and fuel consumption
benefit is available through this program.
We did not propose, nor does the commenter specifically suggest, a regulatory mechanism that would
encourage innovative improvements for non-box trailers or tractor-trailer integration in this program. In
both of these cases, the agencies concluded that much more information would be needed to have
proposed such technologies that are in their infancy, but we will continue to consider them as a part of
potential future action.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The Proposed Rule's warranty provisions are unworkable.
The Proposed Rule requires that all drag-reducing devices added to trailers be warranted for five years
(one year for tires) to ensure that "these components and systems are designed to remain functional for
the warranty period." Putting aside any issues concerning the Agencies' authority to prescribe
warranties offered by manufacturers, the proposal is flawed. To the extent a warranty is provided, the
warranty should be a pass-through warranty from the manufacturer of the device; the trailer
manufacturer should not be required to offer a separate warranty, as it does not control the manufacture
of many of those products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.23]
Utility Trailer also has the following specific warranty concerns:
Tires: some users will wear through tires in less than a year. This hazard is magnified by the anticipated
overinflation problems associated with widespread adoption of automatic tire-inflation systems, as
described previously. Tire wear and road-hazard damage must not be covered under any warranty.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.23]
Skirts and trailer tails: As noted previously, these devices are damaged in routine operations.
Manufacturers must have clear protections against turning normal wear and tear, collisions, or abuse
into a warranty claim. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.23]
-------
Tire-inflation systems: A 5-year warranty is excessive. Utility Trailer is not aware of any system that
has a baseline warranty of more than 3 years. The proposed warranty period for these devices should be
reduced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.23]
Response:
Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts "may certify that use of such part will not result in a failure of the
vehicle ... to comply with emission standards." CAA section 207 (a)(2). We are adopting an emission-
related warranty period for trailers of five years for any technologies that may affect trailer C02
emissions, except for tires. For trailer tires, the rules specify a warranty period of one year. An
emission-related warranty does not apply to components that are damaged in collisions or through
abuse, nor does it cover components that experience wear with normal use. The emission-related
warranty is meant to apply to defects in the product or to improper installation by the manufacturer.
Trailer manufacturers are free to stipulate what is and is not covered under their 5-year emission-related
warranties. A copy of a manufacturer's emission-related warranty statement must be provided to EPA
at the time of certification, and customers must have clear access to the terms of this warranty, the repair
network, and the process for obtaining emission-related warranty service.
The agencies view the emission-related warranty period offered by many component manufacturers as a
business decision, rather than as a reflection of the actual durability of the systems. With proper
maintenance, which can include replacement of warn subcomponents, we are aware of no reason that
these systems would be unable to meet the durability requirements of the trailer program. We believe
these components should be designed to last the full useful life of the trailer if properly maintained and a
five year emission-related warranty is justified. We do note that trailer manufacturers can specify that
the emission-related warranty depends on the proper maintenance of components.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The Agencies should modify the Rule to encourage customers to voluntarily adopt the
technologies, and to encourage manufacturers to continue to develop new technologies.
Customers will understandably be concerned about the effect of the required technologies on their
operations and bottom line. The Agencies could ameliorate these concerns somewhat by adding
provisions to the Proposed Rule that would encourage customers to accept the new requirements. For
example, exempting the required devices from excise taxes attributed to those devices, or permitting
weight limits on trailers to increase by the weight of the added devices would make the technologies
more attractive to the customers and mitigate some of the additional costs imposed by the regulations in
the form of additional trips due to displaced cargo. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.23] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.219-220.]]
Additionally, the Agencies should consider modifying trailer width, length, and height limitations to
accommodate required devices and to encourage new, more efficient aerodynamic configurations. For
example, permitting trailer sidewalls and roof to expand in width and height, respectively, would allow
potential future designs with rounding of the front and rear box-van corners in a more aerodynamic
configuration. And measuring overall length at the allowed extreme width or height would permit
manufacturers to consider rounding the front of the trailers without sacrificing capacity. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.23-24]
-------
Response:
Please see our response to Wabash in Section 5.1 on page 975 regarding exemptions for federal excise
tax, and trailer size and weight. Such actions outside the authority of our agencies and are beyond the
scope this program. The commenter does not suggest that our regulations conflict with current size,
weight or safety requirements in other agencies, simply that these suggestions would complement our
Phase 2 rulemaking.
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
Wabash Opposes Alternative #4
EPA is requesting comment on whether its Alternative #4, which would accelerate the 2027 standards to
2024, is more appropriate than its current proposal. Wabash has significant concerns regarding whether
this accelerated timeline, with respect to the trailer industry, would be achievable with demonstrated
technologies, whether such technologies would have demonstrated reliability, and what the associated
costs would be. Wabash believes that such accelerated standards would not be feasible for every
application. EPA might consider adopting Alternative #4 for some regulatory categories (e.g., engines),
and not others (e.g., trailers). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 19]
Response:
The agencies are adopting standards based on the implementation schedule of Alternative 3.
5.4 Projected Trailer Technologies, Effectiveness, and Cost
Organization: Aluminum Association
Trailer Floor Crossmembers
Table 3 in Section 1037.515 Weight Reduction for Trailers indicates that aluminum floor crossmembers
achieve a 203 pound credit for the GEM calculations. The 2015 NACFE Lightweighting Confidence
Study as well as aluminum industry data support that the best value for use in the weight credit for
aluminum floor crossmembers is 250 pounds. In view of this differential, the Association asks that EPA
revise the table to reflect 250 pounds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.5-6]
Wheel Lightweighting
Table 7 of 1035.520 Wheel-Related Weight Reductions (80 FR 40630) indicates that a dual wide
aluminum wheel is eligible for a weight reduction credit of 21 pounds. Based on information previously
submitted to EPA by the Aluminum Association, the Association notes that given current wheel
manufacturing technology that the correct value for this credit is 25 pounds and requests that the entry
in the table be changed accordingly. This can be seen in the difference between the Accuride 50408 22"
x 8.5" steel wheel at 70 lbs and the Alcoa 88367 LvL ONE 22" x 8.5" aluminum wheel at 45 lbs (70 lbs
- 45 lbs). The credit value of 30 lbs as noted for a lightweight aluminum wheel in the table remains
correct based on the 40 lb weight of the Alcoa ULTRAx Ultra-ONE lightweight aluminum alloy wheel
previously noted (70 lbs - 40 lbs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.6]
Also in Table 7, the heading of the right hand column is "Weight Reduction (lb per tire or wheel)."
Because the table applies to both dual width and wide base wheels, this nomenclature is unclear. The
-------
Association suggests that the column heading remain "Weight Reduction" but that the units be specific
to each row in the table indicating that for wide-base the weight reduction is "lbs per wheel/tire set" and
for dual width that the weight reduction is "lbs per wheel." This clarification is important because wide-
base wheels have a corresponding additional weight reduction in the tire weight (one wide base tire
weighs less than the sum of the two tires that it replaces on a dual width wheel set) in addition to the
reductions in wheel weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.6]
The Association also proposes changes to the Table 7 of 1037.520 as follows - Consolidate the
categories of wide base 'Aluminum Wheel' and 'Light-Weight Aluminum Alloy Wheel' into a single
category as there is no weight differentiator in wide base wheels similar to what there is in dual width
wheel sets (between the Alcoa Lvl-ONE and Ultra-One, for example). Subsequently, based on
calculations made by the Aluminum Association and its member companies, the weight credits for wide
base drive wheel/tire sets should be 159 lbs and for wide base trailer wheel/tire sets should be 131 lbs.
Corresponding changes should therefore be made to the table. Supporting calculations for these values
are shown below. Recognize that the 159 lbs and 131 lbs are based on a wide base wheel/tire set which
replaces two dual width wheel/tire sets. If these values were to be recognized in the GEM on a pre-
replacement basis they would be input as half those amounts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.6-
7]
[Tables of weight calculations can be found on p. 7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-
Al]
Response:
The agencies updated the weight reduction assigned to trailer crossmembers in our respective
regulations to reflect these comments, which are persuasive. Also, we agree with the commenter's
assessment that aluminum and aluminum alloy wheels provide about the same weight reduction for
wide-base tires, and we conservatively apply the same values to both of these wheel technologies for
dual-wide tires as well.
The commenter provides specific values for trailer wheel weight reductions that are reasonable. The
final Phase 2 program uses the Aluminum Association weight-reduction value for both aluminum and
aluminum alloy wide-base single trailer wheels and tires (131 lb). We have also accepted the
commenter's weight-reduction value for aluminum dual-wide wheels and tires (25 lb), which has
mentioned above, we apply to both aluminum and aluminum alloy dual-wide wheels, including trailer
wheels. The aluminum and light-weight aluminum alloy wide-base single drive wheels for vocational
and tractors were similarly combined into a single value for Phase 2. However, we are maintaining the
more conservative Phase 1 light-weight aluminum alloy value of 147 lb per wheel instead of adopting
the 159 lb per wheel value recommended in the comment. Manufacturers that wish to receive
additional weight reduction have the option to use our off-cycle provisions to determine appropriate
values for their specific applications.
The agencies agree with the commenter that it may be unclear that the units for the wide-base tire
weight reduction includes the reduced weight of the wheel and the tire. We are changing the units to
"(lb per wheel)" and adding a footnote to the table indicating that the wide-base reductions also include
reduced tire weight.
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Van trailer aerodynamics
-------
For 53' van trailers, we find the proposed standards to be well within the technical capabilities of the
industry. The required average reduction in drag in 2027 is delta CdA =1.1, only marginally higher than
the Bin VI (SmartWay Elite) value of delta CdA=1.0. The agencies state: "To date, SmartWay has
verified over 70 technologies, including nine packages from five manufacturers that have received the
Elite designation." (p.40254) Whether or not the mix of bins will include more advanced trailers as the
agencies assume in their compliance packages, reaching an average aerodynamic performance twelve
years hence that matches that of multiple packages being produced today is a reasonable, and perhaps
overly lenient, requirement of the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 18]
To put the agencies' overall aerodynamic targets for long-haul combination trucks with dry vans in
perspective, Daimler reported a 54% reduction in drag for its SuperTruck.15 By comparison, the
agencies' compliance package for 2027 contains tractor and trailer aerodynamic parameters resulting in
a 41% reduction in drag (CdA =4.2) from the (adjusted) 2010 baseline level of CdA=7.4. Thus, the 2027
targets do not even require the industry to match levels of improvement being demonstrated today.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 18]
15 Daimler Truck NA 2014 DOE Merit Review Presentation
(http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/downloads/vehicle-technologies-office-merit-review-2014-class-8-
truck-freight).
Response:
See our response to CARB in Section 5.3 above page 980 for our justification for adopting standards
based on Alternative 3.
Also, the agencies caution against comparing reported performance from device manufacturers and
programs such as SmartWay and SuperTruck to the performance we project in this rulemaking. In
terms of aerodynamics, most device (and device combination) testing, including SmartWay verification,
is performed at one constant speed. EPA's GEM model, which is the basis of our trailer program
compliance as well as our determination of the stringency of the standards, uses a drive cycle-weighting
of 86% (long box vans) or 64% (short box vans) of the miles at 65-mph. As seen in Chapter 2.10.2.1.1
of the RIA to these rules, device combinations with performance similar to SmartWay-Elite
technologies will produce C02 reductions that are 1% and 2% lower for these long- and short-box van
weightings, respectively. Additionally, in contrast to the reductions reported under SmartWay and
comparable programs, the agencies report our reductions relative to a baseline adoption rate we project
would be in place without regulation. For long box vans, this includes over 50% of the industry
performing at an aerodynamic Bin III (i.e., skirts), almost 50% adoption of ATIS, and a high adoption of
SmartWay-level LRR tires. In total, this long box van baseline is a 3% improvement over a no-control
long van. This 3% difference, in addition to the l%-2% difference due to drive cycle, must be taken
into account when comparing to published performance data. EPA obtained additional aerodynamic test
data since the NPRM and updated the trailer program's aerodynamic bins accordingly, as described in
Chapter 2.10 of the RIA and summarized in our response to CARB on page 980. This new data, which
includes many SmartWay-Elite combinations, provides a more complete assessment of the performance
capabilities of today's box vans, and was used to update our baseline trailers and adoption rates for the
new standards.
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
-------
Specifically, for trailers, the agencies identified several components and associated weight savings,
ranging from 50 to 430 lbs. The basis of these weight savings, however, is not adequately supported in
the record for this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 15]
In the Regulatory Impact Analysis ('RIA') for the Proposed Rule,45 barely one page is devoted to the
description of the information on which the associated weight reduction options were calculated. The
agencies identified 11 common trailer components but referenced only unidentified, confidential data
for this information.46 Therefore, the Proposed Rule does not allow for informed comment on these
values since the source of the data and how the values were calculated is unknown. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 15]
It is furthermore impossible to determine how much weight is saved based both on the vague
descriptions of the components listed in Table 2-73 of the RIA and the inability to verify the listed
weight reductions. Calculating a weight 'savings' necessitates identification of a specific replaced
component; but these are also unknown. Therefore, pursuant to CAA Section 307, EPA cannot finalize
the proposed values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p.15]
45 Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, June 2015.
46 RIA at 2-166.
Response:
The agencies referred to four sources for trailer weight reduction information in the Draft RIA, as listed
below. Although the name of the source was confidential in one case, the key information from that
source, as well as from the other three, has been available in the public docket from the time of the
NRPM.
The four references, as noted in our Draft RIA for the Proposed Rule, are listed below with their original
reference numbers included in parentheses for convenience. We concluded that these four sources
provided sufficient support for our proposed trailer weigh-reduction values. For the final program, we
have incorporated additional information into our assessments of trailer weight reduction.
• (155) Scarcelli, Jamie. "Fuel Efficiency for Trailers" Presented at ACEEE/ICCT Workshop:
Emerging Technologies for Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency, Wabash National
Corporation. July 22, 2014
• (156) "Weight Reduction: A Glance at Clean Freight Strategies", EPA SmartWay. EPA420F09-
043. Available at:
• http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo38937/EPA420F09-043.pdf
• (157) Memo to docket regarding confidential weight reduction information obtained during
SBREFA Panel, June 4, 2015 (The name of this source is confidential, however, the memo
includes the components, materials, and weights.
• (158) Randall Scheps, Aluminum Association, "The Aluminum Advantage: Exploring
Commercial Vehicles
We also received comments on our proposed weight-reduction table from the Aluminum Association,
Meritor, Utility Trailer, and Wabash National in addition to American Iron and Steel Institute. These
-------
parties had a wide range of comments about our proposed weight-reduction values, but none of them
identified problems with the public availability of our data sources for comment.
Meritor and the Aluminum Association did not express disagreement with the general approach the
agencies took with regard to the weight table, but stated some of the weight reduction values in the table
were incorrect. The groups proposed specific weight changes to some components in the weight table
based on their products, such as wheels and cross members. Utility Trailers and Wabash National stated
the substitution of aluminum or high strength steel in trailers should not be the only way manufacturers
can associate weight reduction with fuel savings. Utility said trailer manufacturers should also be able to
use redesign as a means of apply weight savings to their compliance calculations or substitution of
materials not included in the weight reduction table, such as plastic. Wabash National stated that rather
than relying on an exclusive list of eligible technologies, the agencies should develop a process for
adding to the list either by specifying criteria by which additional materials could be used for
compliance, or by establishing a petition process for including additional components and materials on
the list.
For the final trailer program, we note that the list of weight reduction values is not a manufacturer's
exclusive means of applying weight reduction for compliance. The agencies have included the option
for trailer manufacturers to use the existing Phase 1 process to demonstrate off-cycle technologies. (See
Preamble Section IV.F.5.d). In the case of general lightweighting of a trailer, a manufacturer could
measure the difference in trailer weight and use this value in the weight component of the compliance
equation.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems Should be Given Credit Under the Rule
TPMS have not historically been included in the EPA's SmartWay program since the agency had no
way to determine the effect these systems have on fuel economy unless each requesting fleet provided a
clear description of how it would respond to alerts. This information was necessary so that the EPA
could calculate the resulting fuel savings. However, much has transpired since the inception of the
SmartWay Program. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA") has studied TPMS
since 2006. It found that these systems accurately reported inflation pressure values within 2 to 3 psi of
the measured value and accurately warned of low pressure within 2 to 3 psi of the expected threshold. In
2007, the performance and durability of TPMS was examined in a field test using transit buses. This
study found that TPMS-equipped buses did not experience increased average tire pressure due to
diligent tire pressure maintenance and the location of the TPMS display is essential to impact tire
maintenance practices, fuel economy, and tire life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 14]
In late 2011, the FMCSA published the results of a field test it conducted over the previous 24 months
of tire pressure monitoring and ATIS on two fleets that were considered to have good tire maintenance.
The test revealed that both TPMS and ATIS delivered a 1.4% improvement in fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 14]
Technology has greatly advanced since the tests that FMCSA conducted. Today, TPMS is much more
advanced than the first generation of TPMS that was tested by FMCSA which just delivers alerts to the
driver in the cab through an in-cab display. Second generation TPMS (TPMS 2.0 systems) are
integrated with telematics and GPS so that the tire data and alerts are sent from vehicles and delivered to
a fleet's operations and maintenance department. By providing the fleet with the location and visibility
of its tire problems, dispatch can provide instructions to the driver to handle developing tire problems
-------
immediately and maintenance is aware of the exact nature of these issues when the vehicle arrives at the
fleet's location. With the reports these systems provide the fleet, problem tires are attended to before the
vehicle sets out on its next trip, thereby dramatically reducing in-route breakdowns and optimizing the
percentage of time tires are run properly inflated. In essence, a fleet is able to build its entire tire
maintenance program around this technology and drastically improve its ongoing tire inflation
maintenance. Therefore this technology has an even greater effect on fuel consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions than the TPMS 1.0 systems which were proven to deliver 1.4% improvement in fuel
economy by the FMCSA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.14-15]
Due to the advances that have been made in TPMS 2.0 systems and the impact they have on fuel
economy and greenhouse gas emissions, the Tire & Wheel (S.2) Study Group of ATA's Technology
and Maintenance Council ("TMC") requests that TPMS 2.0 systems, tire pressure monitoring systems
that are integrated with telematics, be included in the technology options provided under Phase 2.
Without inclusion of this technology, there will be no system available in the TMC standard to address
tire inflation pressure for powered vehicles since ATISs that are plumbed inside an axle (a market
requirement by US fleets) are currently only available for trailers and an advanced technology that can
seriously impact GHG emissions will be overlooked. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 15]
Light-Weighting Must Account for Additional Weight and Impacts on Durability Light-weighting
is included as an efficiency improvement option for trailers. Whether the additional weight attributed to
add-on trailer technologies - such as aerodynamic skirts - is accounted for in the fuel savings estimate
figures needs clarification. In addition, any consideration to further expand current menu technology
credits for trailer light-weighting should assess and disclose how such measures impact trailer durability
and useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.24]
Drop-Floor Trailers Should be Afforded Efficiency Credit It remains unclear whether the agencies
have considered the aerodynamic benefits of drop-floor trailers in their menu options. If such credits are
not presently accounted for, ATA asks that such credits be added for all box-trailer categories. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.24]
Fleets Should not be Forced to Invest in Inefficient Trailer Technologies Fleets should not be forced
to purchase specific technologies only in the name of OEM compliance if such technologies do not add
benefit to a fleet's operations. To pigeon-hole fleets into making financial investments on equipment
that is ill-suited to their operations is not a good business model or good government. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1243-A1 p.25]
Consideration Should be Given to Exempt Certain Trailers from Using ATISs Certain tires loads,
especially on heavy-hauls, have working tire pressures exceeding the capabilities of on-board
compressors. Additional on-board compressor tanks can cost $800 and add an additional 150 pounds of
weight. Consideration should be given to exempt certain trailers from using ATIS and instead allow the
use of TPMS as previously discussed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.24]
Response:
The agencies agree that TPMS generally promote proper tire inflation and that including these lower-
cost systems as a compliance option will increase acceptance of the technologies. The final trailer
program provides for manufacturers to install either TPMS or ATIS as a part of compliance. The
performance standards provide ATIS a slightly greater credit in the GEM-based equation than it does
for TPMS to account for the greater uncertainty about TPMS effectiveness due to the inherent user-
interaction required. The effectiveness values adopted for ATIS (1.2%) and TPMS (1.0%) in the trailer
-------
program are consistent with those in the tractor and vocational vehicle programs. For non-aero box
vans and non-box trailers design standards, manufacturers can install either a TPMS or an ATIS with
their lower rolling resistance tires to comply.
The component substitutions provided in our trailer weight reduction tables are not meant to indicate a
specific make or model of component. The intent of these tables is to provide a generic weight
reduction value for manufacturers that optionally choose to install these components on their trailers.
We expect manufacturers will only install components that meet their individual durability standards.
We do not anticipate the weight of these components to significantly change over the useful life of the
vehicle and, therefore, any C02 or fuel consumption reductions observed from use of these components
will likely be maintained throughout the full useful life. We accounted for some additional vehicle
weight due to aerodynamic devices in our MOVES inventory analysis, such that our overall program
benefits include the small fuel consumption increase. However, as noted in our response to Utility in
Section 5.1 on page 971, the per-vehicle weight increase had a small relatively impact.153 We did not
include additional weight within our GEM vehicle simulation tool and it is not reflected in the GEM-
based compliance equation for trailers.
The agencies proposed and are finalizing provisions that consider a drop-deck design for box vans to be
"work performing equipment" that inhibits the use of aerodynamic technologies. The agencies are not
providing any "credits" to these trailers, but they can be designated "partial-aero" box vans and meet
less stringent performance-based standards based on use of a single aerodynamic device. Box vans with
a drop-deck design in addition to rear work-performing equipment, such as a lift gate, can be designated
"non-aero" box vans that have tire-based design standards with no aerodynamic requirements.
The performance standards for full-aero and partial-aero box vans do not require any specific
technologies to be used. Trailer manufacturers can work with their customers to identify the appropriate
aerodynamic, low rolling resistance tire, tire pressure monitoring and weight reduction technologies that
are most likely to benefit the customer's operations. In the years that we do not offer averaging
flexibilities, manufacturers can specify a small portion of their production that does not need to meet the
standards. In MY 2027 and later, when averaging provisions are in place, manufacturers can offer
trailers with fewer technologies to some customers if they make up the difference in performance with
other trailer sales.
In response to the comment about ATIS not being suitable for some trailers, the final program addresses
this concern to some extent by allowing manufacturers to use either ATIS or TPMS at their discretion.
In addition, by excluding many trailers designed for heavy-haul and off-road use, the final program is,
in effect, more focused on trailer applications where ATIS is a viable option.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The proposed rule requires the use of LRR tires for all trailer types. The LRR tire requirement for short
and long box type trailers begins with an 85 percent adoption rate of Level 1 tires, which have a
coefficient rolling resistance of 5.1 (kilograms per ton) kg/ton, equivalent to today's SmartWay-verified
tire models, with the remaining 15 percent using the baseline tires with a coefficient of rolling resistance
of 6.0 kg/ton. CARB staff believes that the adoption rate for Level 1 tires can be increased to at least 95
percent given that industry has already had years of experience with U.S. EPA's SmartWay program
153 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. "Impact of Additional Weight Due to Trailer
Aerodynamic Devices". July 2016.
-------
and that the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association stated in a October 16, 2014 letter to U.S. EPA
informing them that SmartWay-verified LRR tires are now standard with new trailers. Furthermore,
U.S. EPA and NHTSA propose a 100 percent Level 1 tire adoption rate for non-box trailers and non-
aero trailers, indicating that it should be possible for box-type trailers to meet a higher adoption rate as
well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p.71]
Response:
The agencies adjusted our baseline adoption rate of LRR tires for box vans based on more recent
information. In addition, the standards for all box vans are now based on nearly 100% adoption of SW-
level tires in MY 2018, and CRR of 4.7 kg/ton in MY 2021 (one stage earlier than proposed). However,
with the exception of the standards for non-aero/non-box trailers, the standards are performance
standards and so do not mandate use of LRR tires (or any other particular technology).
Organization: FedEx Corporation
1. Trailer Aerodynamics and Rear Roll-up Doors: When the proposed rule is fully implemented it will
establish a trailer aerodynamic efficiency requirement that includes the use of "Bo-Tails." The operating
companies of FedEx utilize rear roll-up doors on their trailers for a number of reasons we will expound
on in the Addendum portion of this commentary (just below). Simply said, the operators of trailers
utilizing rear roll-up doors request that roll-up doors be covered as acceptable "Partial Aero" or be given
a "Qualified Exemption" to the mandate of Bo-Tail use until an effective, durable and cost efficient
product is available which is compatible with the rear frame design utilized by rear roll-up doors. The
"To Be" created technology efficiency should be verified by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1
P-3]
Rear Rollup Benefits:
A. Driver safety - Roll-up doors allow the trailer to be positioned against a dock without requiring the
driver to approach a dock, stop, fold the Bo-Tail, swing open the doors and then reenter the tractor to
complete the parking maneuver. Roll-up doors prevent the extra process steps and contribute to process
efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.3-4]
B. Dock worker safety - The roll-up door allows a worker to approach the door latches on a solid
surface, unlatch the door and using their legs to lift the door properly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-
A1 p.4]
C. Less space is required between parked trailers with roll-up doors [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-
A1 p.4]
4. Components Ratings: While the proposal currently states that it is the responsibility of manufacturers
to document the contributive benefit of the components installed on the Tractor and or Trailer; fleets
such as FedEx need the verified efficiency of the available components separately, and/or when used in
combination. There should be a government-provided rating of components to assist a fleet in its
deliberation as to which components are the most effective and should be included in future purchases.
Implementation would be inhibited if fleets were required to conduct their own evaluations of individual
components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.4]
-------
Response:
The agencies recognize the benefits of roll-up doors for some operations and it is not the intent of the
Phase 2 trailer program to restrict the use of roll-up doors. We are aware of some technologies that will
provide small-scale improvements to the rear of trailers with roll-up doors, but are not aware of any
existing technologies that match the performance of current boat tails designed for use with out-
swinging doors. Current boat tail technologies are designed to conveniently fold when rear doors are
opened. We expect that any future designs intended to work with roll-up doors will be designed with
similar convenience in mind, including features that address the accessibility and safety concerns raised
by the commenter.
While we expect many box vans with roll-up doors will include additional features (e.g., drop decks,
side platforms) that would qualify these trailers for a partial-aero designation, we understand that some
trailers equipped with these features may not be able to find suitable technologies to meet even the
partial-aero standards. Because of the current limited availability of rear aerodynamic technologies for
roll-up door trailers, the final trailer program includes an interim provision - through MY 2023 - that
treats roll-up doors as work-performing devices equivalent to rear lift gates. We understand that
innovations and improvements continue for all trailer aerodynamic technologies, and this provision is
limited to the early years of the program to provide a degree of incentive for device manufacturers to
continue to develop and improve aerodynamic technologies that are appropriate for roll-up doors. For
MY 2024 and later, roll-up doors will not qualify as a work-performing device. We intend for this
interim provision to allow trailer manufacturers time to obtain, become familiar with, and prepare to
market these technologies to their customers.
For trailers, the agencies are not adopting a program to provide a rating of components to the fleets or
public. We do not expect fleets will need to conduct their own testing to evaluate technologies. While
some trailer manufacturers may choose to perform their own testing, we are adopting provisions for
device manufacturers to submit aerodynamic test data to EPA to be pre-approved for use by trailer
manufacturers, and we expect most trailer manufacturers to take advantage of this option to obtain
performance information. The agencies are not committing to make this information public at this time.
However, trailer or device manufacturers may make this information available to their customers to
promote adoption of these technologies. The agencies cannot ensure that any fleet's individual trailer
will experience the same performance in-use as suggested by the aerodynamic test results used for
compliance, but our program will provide a relative basis from which fleets can compare performance.
In general, aerodynamic technologies in higher bins will have better performance than others at most
speeds.
Organization: Great Dane
Great Dane supports the use of tire technologies that save fuel and reduce emissions, but as previously
stated, many factors come into play as far as the practicality of employing that approach. Not being our
primary focus and since we don't directly operate trailers in revenue service we cannot offer firsthand
information on the tradeoffs associated with these technologies. However, we do note that we have
customers who have stated to us that low rolling resistance (LRR) tires and/or automatic tire inflation
systems (ATIS) do not meet their expectations and thus they do not specify those components. Our sales
records support that fact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p. 1-2]
Trailer Aerodynamics
-------
Great Dane believes that trailer aerodynamics, generally referred to as trailer aero or trailer aero
treatments, plays an important role in reducing fuel consumption and resultant emissions. We recognize
that fleets operate a variety of equipment in both "long haul" and "short haul" operations which would
include both high and low speed operations and "transient" conditions as stated in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. A variety of trailer aerodynamic solutions have emerged and become
commercially available since approximately the year 2000. As is widely recognized, all of these devices
and systems are more effective as to reducing drag forces as vehicle speed increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1219-A1 p.2]
Aerodynamic treatments are widely available in the marketplace today for box (dry and refrigerated
van) type trailers. We believe that market penetration to date of successful trailer aero technologies
depends on many factors, with device return on investment and regulations in California (CARB),
tempered by economics, being the principal drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.2]
We believe that the growth in adoption of aero for box type trailers since approximately the year 2000 is
largely a result of skirt use on trailers used in long haul or in some cases regional operations where
highway speeds for extended distances allow sufficient payback of the devices to justify their cost (both
initial costs and maintenance). We note that adoption rates of other aero technologies such as gap
reducers, underbelly devices and rear devices has been much lower over the same time period, likely a
result of their relative performance and resulting return on investment or incompatibility with a fleet's
operational constraints or both. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.2]
As per our conversations with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we note an absence of
competition in the availability of rear aero solutions and we further note and believe that the reason that
these technologies markedly lag the growth in use of trailer side skirts is due to the potential for damage
of these rear devices during docking operations. This is exacerbated by the challenges that fleets face
with equipment and personnel, and the great variation of facilities that shippers and receivers expect
carriers to service. While we understand the intent of the proposed regulations, we do not believe that an
approach to force technology and to require the use of rear devices via large technology penetration
rates is appropriate due to the challenges many fleets face in docking operations. We do not believe that
the operation of trailers at loading docks will change to a substantial degree over the period of proposed
regulation. Therefore we believe that a technology forcing regulatory approach for rear devices will not
result in cost effective deployment of rear devices at high penetration rates as anticipated by the
agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.3]
Under the proposed regulations Great Dane and our customers will experience increased costs. The
agencies believe that the fleets will recoup those costs in an acceptable timeframe thru fuel savings.
Great Dane's additional costs in complying with the rule will be passed onto our customers, although
we are already taking measures to minimize this effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.3]
Response:
The agencies developed our Phase 2 trailer standards using specific technology packages for each phase
of the program. Our standards for full-aero long box vans (dry and refrigerated) are based on the
performance of trailer configurations that include bolt-on aerodynamic technologies, ATIS, and LRR
tires. In practice, however, trailer manufacturers have the option to comply with these standards using
any combination of aerodynamic improvements, LRR tires, tire pressure systems (including TPMS),
and weight reduction that best meets the needs of their customers.
-------
It is possible that manufacturers could meet the standards by installing higher performing aerodynamics
and substituting several light-weight components for heavier ones to avoid the use of LRR tires and tire
pressure systems if customers do not have confidence in tire technologies. Similarly, it is possible that a
different combination of existing or future aerodynamic devices would have comparable performance to
skirts and a tail, and manufacturers could offer an aerodynamic package that does not involve a rear
device. It is likely that the trailer industry, including both trailer manufacturers and aerodynamic device
manufacturers, will continue to develop new technologies that a will improve the aerodynamic
performance of box vans over the next ten years, providing additional compliance avenues over time.
Regarding the costs of the new technologies, we acknowledge and quantify the costs manufacturers will
incur that will, in most cases, be passed on to customers, and the program accounts for these costs as
well as the cost savings that end users will experience.
Trailer and device manufacturers have an incentive to develop innovative, high-performing designs that
also account for their customers' varying preferences and operational characteristics. In addition,
operators' experience and familiarity with these evolving technologies will grow as their use becomes
more widespread. For example, driver experience with trailer tails is limited today, since only a small
fraction of trailers use them. We expect these technologies will continue to evolve and increased market
demand will lead to designs that address any deployment or collapsing concerns at loading docks.
Additionally, the growing direct and indirect experience among operators will reduce the instances of
damage and inefficiencies raised by the commenter.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Trailers
The ICCT supports the agencies integration of trailers into the Phase 2 regulation. We believe that this
proposal builds on the successes of the SmartWay program and California's in-use GHG regulation and
will both promote the adoption of existing cost-effective technologies as well as spur new innovation. In
designing standards for a tremendously diverse market, the agencies have developed a sound program
that limits testing and compliance complexity in order to minimize the burden on trailer manufacturers.
We support the agencies' high-level regulatory decisions, as they are congruent with previous ICCT
recommendations (Sharpe et al, 2013; Sharpe, 2014) in key areas: trailer manufacturers are the regulated
entity; the standards for trailers are expressed in grams (and gallons) per ton-mile; the classification
framework facilitates improvements in aerodynamics, tire technologies, and lightweighting in box
trailers, while for non-box trailer types, improvements are focused on tire technologies; aerodynamic
testing procedures for tractors and trailers are closely aligned; and trailer aerodynamic testing utilizes an
"A-to-B" approach in which the same tractor model is used to test a baseline and an 'enhanced' trailer in
order to certify the enhanced trailer model's aerodynamic performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1180-A4 p. 10]
The agencies largely incorporated the portfolio of commercializable trailer efficiency technology. With
a rulemaking timeframe of 2027, we would encourage the agencies to consider greater penetration of
higher aerodynamic bins for all box trailers, as well as ways to promote more aerodynamic
improvement in non-box trailers. The agencies' analysis of technology adoption rates for trailers is
firmly rooted in a fact-based assessment of the current baseline and target levels of penetration that are
reasonable. Given the rapid acceleration of uptake of fuel-saving technologies over the past five years as
a result of the SmartWay program, California's in-use tractor-trailer GHG regulation, and attractive
returns on investment for many technologies, the agencies could consider advancing the proposed
timing of the required technology penetration by several years and greater final penetration of
technology in 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 10]
-------
Response:
We appreciate the commenter's support for the proposed Phase 2 trailer program. See response to
CARB in section 5.3 on page 980 regarding our preferred alternative, and our response to UCS in
Section 5.4 on page 1026 regarding aerodynamic technologies on non-box trailers.
Organization: Meritor, Inc.
Improve Automatic Tire Inflation Definition and Correct Misstatements about the Market.
The definition of automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS) listed in Subpart 1, Definitions & Other
Reference Information, is not consistent with the historical industry definitions. The Technology
Maintenance Council, (TMC), of the American Trucking Association, in their Recommended Practice,
RP239A (most recently updated in 2014) uses the following widely accepted definition of ATIS: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 15] [This comment can also be found in section 4.3 of this comment
summary]
Automatic Tire Inflation Systems maintain tire pressure at a single preset level and are pneumatically
or electronically activated. These systems eliminate the need to manually inflate tires. [EPA-HQ- OAR-
2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 15] [This comment can also be found in section 4.3 of this comment summary]
The current definition included in the rulemaking states: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1
p. 15][This comment can also be found in section 4.3 of this comment summary]
ATIS means a system installed on a vehicle to keep each tire inflated to within 10% of the target value
with no operator input. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 16] [This comment can also be found in
section 4.3 of this comment summary]
Assigning an arbitrary number of 10 percent is not consistent with the manner in which these systems
are used in practice. Tire pressure increases by 15 - 20 percent when the tire is hot and running on a
fully loaded vehicle at 75 mph on asphalt roads on a sunny day. Tires cool back down to the specified
tire pressure after a few hours. The reduced fuel economy and increased greenhouse gas emissions are
due to tire underinflation. ATIS systems assure that tires will always be running at the recommended
cold tire inflation pressure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 16][This comment can also be found
in section 4.3 of this comment summary]
Response:
The commenter is essentially correct. The agencies accordingly updated the definition of ATIS and
removed the reference to 10% of a target value.
Organization: Meritor, Inc.
Page 40612, § Section 1037.107 Emission standards for trailers of the proposed rulemaking, discusses
the use of low rolling resistance tires and that "qualified" automatic tire inflation systems are required
on non-box trailers effective MY 2018. It is our recommendation that the term "qualified" be expanded.
SAE Recommended Practice (RP) J2848-2, dated June 2011, is a RP on the subject of ATIS. It is the
industry standard that details the basic operational requirements for any ATIS. This RP should be
-------
referenced in the proposed rulemaking when "qualified" automatic tire inflation systems are discussed.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 16]
Response:
The use of the term "qualified" was intended to refer to the definitions of ATIS in our respective
regulations.
Organization: Meritor, Inc.
In the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Report, section 9.3.1.3 Automatic Tire Inflation (ATI)
Systems states: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1254-A1 p. 16]
"Most trailer SERs have experience installing ATI systems on some of their trailers, but ATI systems
are not installed as a standard feature on any of the SERs' current products. The non-box trailer
manufacturers have installed tire inflation systems on some trailers, but indicate that the customers are
reluctant to purchase the systems because of the added cost. In addition, the manufacturers noted that
inflation systems are often tied to a particular suspension system and they cannot be applied
universally." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 16]
In fact, all ATIS in the marketplace today can be universally applicable to all hollow tube trailer axles,
regardless of the manufacturer or the suspension type to which they are affixed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1254-A1 p. 16]
Page 40285 (IV.F.(6)(d)) of the NPR states:
"We request that trailer manufacturers as well as tire and aerodynamic technology manufacturers
provide information regarding the current projected availability of the technologies that trailer
manufacturers can use to meet our proposed standards. " [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 16]
In this regard, it should be noted that ATIS are universally applicable to ALL trailer types contemplated
in these regulations, and that while some suspension and axle manufacturers attempt to commercially
limit the application of only their ATIS to their suspensions and axles, this is not a technical limitation
of commercially available ATIS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p. 16]
Response:
The Panel Report that the commenter points to is referring to a comment made by a trailer manufacturer
and we cannot change the contents of that report. The agencies did not refer to any technical limitations
of connecting ATIS to particular trailer types in the Preamble or RIA of the final rulemaking. Our
request for comment was intended to gather information on production capabilities of tire technology
suppliers, since trailer manufacturers expressed concern that there would not be sufficient availability
for the volume of trailers requesting the technologies.
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA commends EPA for including requirements to regulate GHG emissions associated with trailers
for the first time at the national level. While we support the proposal as a first step by requiring nearly
all trailer types designed for on-highway use to use low rolling resistance (LRR) tires and automatic tire
inflation systems, we believe the proposed trailer provisions miss several opportunities to maximize fuel
efficiency technologies in the heavy-duty trailer sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.4]
-------
Based on manufacturers' and fleets' experiences with EPA's SmartWay program and CARB's
experience in implementing its Tractor Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation, we urge EPA to 1) consider
expanding the proposed requirements for aerodynamic technologies on box type trailers to include other
trailer types, such as tanker and flatbed trailers; 2) increase the proposed penetration rate for Level 1
LRR tires to at least 95 percent for short and long box type trailers; 3) adopt Alternative 4 augmented
with revisions to include a nominal adoption rate in Bin VIII technologies (which represent as yet
undeveloped technology) in order to further advance aerodynamic technology development; and 4)
increase the final Alternative 4 stringency (applicable to MY 2024) for long box refrigerated van trailers
so that the combined adoption of Bins VI and VII match or exceed that of long box dry van trailers.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.4]
Response:
The agencies appreciate the commenter's support for the trailer program. In response to the comments
about the stringency of the program, see the response to CARB in section 5.3 on page 980. We are not
adopting performance standards for non-box trailers that would require the use of aerodynamic
technologies. Of the tank, flatbed, and container chassis manufacturers that at the time of our analysis
would be covered by the Phase 2 trailer standards, about 75% qualify as small businesses. We believe
tire technology-based design standards achieve a balance between the most consistent C02 and fuel
consumption benefit across this subset of trailers, and our desire to reduce the compliance burden for
this newly regulated industry that is largely made up of small businesses. Also, see our response to
USC regarding non-box aerodynamics on page 1026 of this section.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Aerodynamic Devices
It should be understood that whenever an aerodynamic device is used, the benefit of the other devices
will be affected. For example, installing a gap fairing will affect the aerodynamic drag of the side
skirts. Therefore, the benefits gained by combining aerodynamic technologies cannot be summed by
adding the individual estimated fuel savings. Combining all the various aerodynamic devices, such as
side skirts, front gap fairings, and rear fairings, which individually are estimated to produce 4 to 7
percent, 1 to 2 percent, and 1 to 5.1% in fuel savings respectively, will not result in a grand total of 6 to
14 percent in fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 19-20]
The benefits of aerodynamic technology fluctuate greatly depending on the trailer type and cargo. For
instance, as stated above, front trailer fairings are not designed for refrigerated-vans, and are most
effective when installed on tractor-trailers with a gap greater than 36 inches. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p.20]
While aerodynamic technologies sound good academically, they often do not make sense in the real
world. In some instances aerodynamic technology can actually cost fuel rather than save fuel. For
example, a sleeper cab tractor with a full-height air deflector that is pulling a flatbed trailer will decrease
fuel efficiency because the high roof sleeper increases the frontal area of the truck beyond what the
trailer requires.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.20]
Trucking operations not only vary by types of cargo, but also by geographic region and length of haul,
which greatly affects the benefits of aerodynamic technology. Truck drivers in costal and urban areas
run very different routes than those who operate on the great plains of the Midwest. Short-haul
-------
operations primarily use day cab tractors, which constitute approximately one-third of Class 8 trucks.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.20]
In an article published in the Brow Beat, Susan King, a spokesperson for the American Trucking
Associations, stated that aerodynamic technology does not make sense for every truck. The drag on a
vehicle increases with the square velocity, so reducing drag becomes much more important as the
average speed of a truck increases. Ms. King pointed out that this technology does not start to be
effective until the truck is averaging 60 to 65 mph. "So you wouldn't see these panels on trucks that
handle local deliveries.22" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.21]
Therefore, unless an owner-operator is running long-haul where they average 60 to 65 mph, these
aerodynamic technologies would have little to no effect on fuel savings, and it would be difficult for
owner-operators to see a return-on-investment. For example, in California, the speed limit for heavy-
duty vehicles is 55 mph, thus these technologies would not be able to reach their maximum
effect. Additionally, tens of thousands of owner-operators service our nation's ports, and many never
exceed 45 mph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.21]
20 Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, National Academies Press (2010), pg. 98.
22 Mark Vanhoenacker, "What's That Thing? Truck Fins Edition," Slate Magazine (2013),
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/04/03/truck_panels_what_do_they_do_explained_photos.ht
ml
Response:
The agencies recognize the possibility of dissynergies when aerodynamic devices are combined. We
are accounting for these dissynergies by applying a correction to any individually pre-approved
aerodynamic data that manufacturers intend to use in combination. Manufacturers would be able to
claim 100% of the pre-approved effectiveness value for the highest performing device, 90% for the
second-highest performing device, and 80% for any additional devices. See 40 CFR 1037.526(c).
Device manufacturers and trailer manufacturers maintain the option to test combinations of devices and
claim the effectiveness observed in their testing. It is possible that some device combinations will
perform better in combination than the sum of their individual effectiveness values, but manufacturers
will have to test those devices in combinations to claim those values.
The agencies also recognize that some aerodynamic devices may not be appropriate for all box vans.
We are maintaining the performance standards for box vans that allow a manufacturer to install a variety
of devices with similar performance that can meet a specific customer's need. Gap reducers and other
front fairing technologies are never required to meet the standards. Our aerodynamic testing described
in Chapter 2.10 of the RIA indicates that the performance of these devices can be made up with other
technologies. Especially in the early years of the program, manufacturers may be able to substitute
large weight reductions to achieve the same performance as aerodynamic technologies. We expect
refrigerated vans that are unable to use aerodynamic devices on the front of the trailer will have
sufficient technology options to meet the standards. Additionally, the agencies are adopting provisions
that provide manufacturers the option of designating box vans with work performing equipment (WPE)
as "partial-" and "non-aero", which reduces or eliminates the need to use aerodynamic technologies to
meet the standards. The agencies believe a large fraction of short-haul box vans would have WPE to
qualify for these reduced standards.
-------
The agencies designed our trailer program to achieve C02 and fuel consumption reductions for the
majority of regulated trailers. Our standards are based on consistent pairing of appropriate tractors and
trailers. We cannot control tractor-trailer pairings in use, and understand that there may be situations
where a high roof tractor operator may be asked to transport equipment using a flatbed or other
mismatched trailer. However, our experience shows that most trailers are matched with an appropriate
tractor and we can expect consistent reductions in the real world.154
The agencies recognize that the performance of aerodynamic devices improves with increased vehicle
speed. However, our evaluation in Chapter 2.10.2.1.1 of the RIA indicates that even a trailer that travels
exclusively in transient conditions would experience a non-zero benefit by reducing drag. A long dry
van pulled by a sleeper cab tractor may achieve 9% C02 reduction for a SmartWay-Elite combination of
devices when traveling at 65-mph, and closer to 7% at a speed of 55-mph. While the C02 reduction
decreases to about 1% under completely transient driving conditions, there is still a slight benefit for
these trailers. The relatively few box vans that travel exclusively in transient conditions, but do not
qualify for partial- or non-aero designation, may see a longer return on investment than their high-speed
counterparts, but they will still benefit.
The majority of the drayage traffic at ports involves transport of containers using container chassis, and,
in some cases, specialty trailers such as auto haulers and flatbeds to transport "breakbulk" cargo that
will not fit in containers, or tanks to transport liquids. Container chassis, flatbed, and tank trailers fall
under our non-box trailer design standards that require the use of tire technologies only. Many other
specialty trailers are completely excluded from the program. We are not establishing standards for these
trailers commonly used in port operations that would necessitate the use of aerodynamic technologies to
comply. The drayage tractors pulling these trailers may be classified as vocational vehicles (see 40 CFR
1037.630 for these optional custom chassis standards). See the Preamble, Sections III.C.4.b, V.b.2.b,
and V.B.3.b.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Automatic Tire Inflation
Automatic tire inflation technology is among the agencies' list of approved technologies in order for
OEMs to achieve compliance goals. The agencies have projected as part of the NPRM that 50 percent
of dry van and refrigerated trailers will have automatic tire inflation (ATI) systems installed to maintain
optimal tire pressure by MY 2018. This penetration rate is far too high, as many owner-operators would
prefer to purchase tire pressure monitoring (TPM) systems rather than ATI systems because of the
reduced cost and complexity while achieving similar savings. It is important that ATI systems are not
forced onto consumers by assuming such high adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1
p.23]
Response:
The MY 2018 adoption rates referred to in this comment are the Alternative 1 baseline adoption rates
the agencies projected would be in place without a regulatory program for trailers. We have adjusted
those adoption rates for the FRM, based on an informal survey conducted by TTMA and provided in a
154 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0045. "Truck and Trailer Roof Height Match Analysis",
August 9, 2010.
-------
letter to EPA.155 TTMA's members observed an average ATIS market penetration of 40% for 53-foot
vans, 26% for shorter vans and 3-20% for several non-box trailer types. Our new MY 2018 baseline
adoption rates are 45% for long vans and 30% for short vans based on this information.
The agencies did not propose, but are adopting provisions to accept TPMS as a means of complying
with the Phase 2 trailer standards. Design standards for non-aero box vans and non-box trailers (i.e.,
flatbed, tank, and container chassis) now require LRR tires and either TPMS or ATIS. Performance
standards for full- and partial-aero box vans are based on the use of ATIS, but manufacturers have the
option of installing TPMS and claiming a slightly reduced effectiveness. As with all performance
standards, we do not require any specific technology be installed on full- and partial-aero box vans.
Customers can work with their trailer manufacturer to determine an appropriate combination of
aerodynamic technologies, LRR tire, tire pressure systems, or weight reduction options to apply to meet
the standards for a given model year.
Organization: Pressure Systems International (PSI)
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 206-210.]
My interest in presenting at this hearing is to address the definition of an automatic tire inflation system
and the requirements of a 'qualified ATIS system.'
Today we estimate that approximately half of the commercial trailers being produced in North America
have some type of tire solution with the overwhelming majority being ATIS. We also estimate that over
one million trailers are currently running with ATIS today.
The benefits of ATIS include increasing fuel economy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
significantly reducing tire and safety related roadside service calls. It also dramatically reduces road
debris from tire casings and better utilization of casings for retreads for lower oil consumption by the
tire manufacturers. A typical return on investment is well under 12 months.
The basic principle of ATIS is to ensure that tires maintain a minimum specified tire pressure as
determined by the fleet. However, there are numerous tire solutions in the market today, and there are
operational characteristics between some of those that classify themselves under the ATIS heading.
With most ATIS systems, air is automatically added whenever an individual tire pressure below the
system setting either while the trailer is in a static or dynamic state.
I wish to clarify two very important items in the proposed rulemaking: the definition of'automatic tire
inflation system' listed in Subpart 1. Definitions and other reference information is not consistent with
the historical industry definitions. TMC, the Technology Maintenance Council of the American
Trucking Association, in their recommended practice, RP-239(a), most recently updated in 2014, uses
the following widely-accepted definition of ATIS, and I quote: 'Automatic tire inflation system maintain
tire pressure at a single preset level, and are pneumatically or electronically activated. A warning
indicates to the driver that the system has been activated, and air is being added to a tire. These systems
eliminate the need to manually inflate tires.'
155 Letter, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association to EPA, October 16, 2014, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0146.
-------
The current definition included in the proposed rulemaking states, and, again, I quote, 'ATIS means a
system installed on a vehicle to keep each tire inflated to within 10 percent of the target value with no
operator input.' Assigning an arbitrary number of 10 percent is not consistent with the laws of tire
physics. Tire pressures increase by 15 to 20 percent when the tire is hot and running on a fully loaded
vehicle at 75 miles an hour on an asphalt road on a sunny day. Tires will cool back down to the
specified tire pressure after several hours depending on the size type tire.
The issue with tires and reduced fuel economy and increased greenhouse gas emissions is because of
tire under inflation. ATIS systems assure that tires will always be running at the recommended cold tire
inflation pressure.
The second issue to address is a clarification regarding 'qualified automatic tire inflation systems.'
Section 1037.107, Emissions Standards for Trailers, of the proposed rulemaking, discusses the use of
low rolling resistance tires, and that qualified automatic tire inflation systems are required on non-box
trailers effective model year 2018. It is our recommendation that the term 'qualified' be expanded.
SAE Recommended Practice J2848-2, dated June 2011, is an RP on the subject of automatic tire
inflation systems. It is the industry standard that details the basic operational requirements for any
automatic tire inflation system. This RP should be referenced in the proposed rulemaking when
qualified automatic tire inflation systems are discussed.
Response:
The agencies updated our definition of ATIS and removed the reference to 10% of a target value. The
use of the term "qualified" was intended to refer to the definitions of ATIS in our respective regulations.
Organization: Schneider
Trailer Aerodynamic Devices. Trailer aero devices are most beneficial at speeds above 45 MPH and
most truckload fleets operate less than 60% of the time and miles above this speed. Many trailers are
operated as a warehouse on wheels, consequently, low miles per year. The low miles per year at slow
speeds limit the benefits of aero devices on trailers. In addition, certain applications cause the trailer and
aero devices to be susceptible to damage. Any device which must be deployed by the driver, ij trailer
tail, is susceptible to not being deployed and not producing a benefit. Any device which protrudes from
the vehicle (ice trailer tail) creates a risk of contact with, and damage to, fixed objects in the operating
environment if the driver forgets about the presence of the device (i.e. trailer tails hitting light poles in
parking areas, trailer tails hitting dock doors). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1201-A1 p.3]
Response:
See our response to Stoughton in Section 5.1 on page 965 for a comparison of the benefits we expect
over the range of operation a trailer may experience. Also, see our responses to Utility in Section 5.1
(page 971) and Great Dane in this section (page 1000) for our assessment of the use of and potential
damage to current and future rear aerodynamic devices.
The agencies believe it is in the best interest of fleets and owner-operators to be aware of technologies
that will improve C02 emissions and fuel consumption. Aerodynamic devices must be designed to last
the full useful life of the vehicle. While device manufacturers are not responsible for damage caused in-
use, we believe they have an incentive to ensure their products can withstand typical driving conditions
of those using their products. Problems with inadvertent damage and damage from environmental
-------
conditions will decrease as new products are introduced to improve on previous designs, and the
industry becomes more familiar with the available technologies.
Organization: STEMCO
STEMCO supports higher fuel efficiency standards in tractor trailers and has shown it is possible to gain
an additional 5% fuel efficiency by using a TrailerTail® rear drag mitigation device. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1259-A1 p.l]
STEMCO believes requiring automatic deployment or "always deployed" technology puts undue
burden on fleets, who have a variety of operating models and driver profiles. We feel it is best to give
fleets choices and leave enforcement to the various safety agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-
Alp.l]
Available Technologies
Automatically deploying boat tails
STEMCO believes that this regulation should not require boat tails to automatically deploy when the
vehicle is in motion. Our company commercially sells both manual and AutoDeployTM versions of our
TrailerTail® product line and has found that both offerings are needed to satisfy industry demand.
Smaller fleets, fleets with lower driver turn-over, and fleets with established driver training and/or MPG
incentive programs typically prefer the lower-cost manual TrailerTail® option, whereas other fleets are
willing to pay a premium to guarantee deployed TrailerTails® without driver interaction. Because
manual boat tails are already deployed during the vast majority of their highway travel (and we see this
percentage continuing to increase as boat tails become more commonplace with drivers) and because
fleets who purchase boat tails are already financially incentivized to deploy them (free fuel savings at
that point!), we think natural market forces are sufficient to ensure that boat tails are deployed
frequently enough to meet the environmental goals of this regulation. We also believe that it would be
unfair and unwarranted to force fleets who are already successfully deploying manual boat tails to spend
additional capital on a redundant automatically deploying option when they purchase new trailers.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.3]
STEMCO instead suggests including a stipulation in the final regulation requiring all aerodynamic
devices (boat tails, side skirts, etc.) to be designed such that they can be easily positioned into their EPA
approved aerodynamic shape before or during vehicle motion, and that they can properly maintain
their EPA approved aerodynamic shape during vehicle motion. A more specific requirement could be
that a manually deploying boat tail must take a single driver less than 10 seconds to unfold into the fuel-
saving shape. We believe that this matches the spirit of the regulation and may close an unforeseen
loophole if an inexpensive, but difficult to unfold, boat tail is commercialized with the intent of
achieving compliance but rarely being deployed while in-service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1
p.3]
Response:
The agencies see value in rear trailer devices that automatically deploy to ensure proper positioning in-
use. However, we are not requiring auto-deployment as a criteria for rear devices in order to provide
additional selection for customers, including possible use of less-expensive options. In response to the
comment suggesting that boat tail technologies be required to demonstrate a specific degree of ease of
deployment and that they maintain their shape in use, we did not propose, and the final program does
-------
not include, such requirements. We expect that commercial factors will tend to result in designs that
indeed achieve promised fuel savings benefits through effective aerodynamics and reasonable ease in
deployment. In their application for certification, trailer manufacturers will provide basic information
about devices used on their trailers. Where there may be some question on the performance values
submitted, the agencies maintain the ability to test devices using our full-scale test procedures to ensure
the actual production devices perform as claimed.
Organization: Stoughton Trailers
Unintended consequence: brake/wheel end warming;
Over the history of design of a wheel end for usage on trailers a continued goal is to provide for the
safest, longest lasting, and cost sensitive components possible. The industry continues to reconfigure the
brake drum toward these ends. Consequently the weight of a brake drum has been reduced
approximately 18% over the past 30+ years (resulting in reduced fuel consumption and therefore reduce
C02 creation). The proposal may reverse this design due to the need to dissipate heat. The heat being
created due to braking action, which up until now was cooled via air flow. The concern with the
proposal is that with added side skirts and wheel deflectors for Aero purposes the air flow across the
drum area is minimized resulting in an allowance of temperature increase. One way to manage the
temperature would be to add mass to the brake drum, resulting in additional weight. Thus conflicting
with the intended potential advantages of fuel conservation. If temperature is allowed to build it will
affect bearings, lubricant, seals, brake lining, heat treatment of drum in extreme conditions the tire
bead could break seal from the rim or the tire could actually ignite and burn the unit to the ground.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.l]
Request 1: Provide direction to aero manufacturers to negate the potential hazards listed above or
remove requirement for aero all together. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.l]
Response:
Many trailers are using trailer skirts today and we do not have data to suggest that trailer brake
overheating is a widespread problem (nor did the commenter provide any). We agree that skirts have the
potential to reduce airflow to the wheels, but the agencies do not have sufficient information to
determine the trailer design, operational characteristics, or environmental conditions that may lead to
overheating, or the role of maintenance in preventing occurrences. Further, a study group (S. 11
Sustainability and Environmental Technology) at the American Trucking Association's Technology &
Maintenance Council (TMC) examined this potential issue. The study group interviewed several fleets
that used trailer aerodynamic devices and found no evidence that use of these devices resulted in
increased maintenance or component failures. As a result, the study group did not pursue the study.
Additionally, we expect that manufacturers will continue to evaluate all aspects of their trailers'
performance, and suppliers will have an incentive to create components that meet their customers'
durability and performance standards while accommodating future trailer designs.
Organization: Stoughton Trailers
EPA-HDGHG2: Reduction of GHG. Targeted vs projected Target: Defined by joint consideration
of US-EPA and DOT's NHTSA
• Projected to reduce GHG emissions by 270 MMT (530 million barrels of oil) over the life of
the regulated vehicles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.3]
-------
Trailer Industry discussion:
• Considering dry van production for a 5 year period and the life cycle of those units [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.3]
o Cost of devices employed to comply (see page 5): $1,398,097,750.00 (this does not take
into account any proof testing of performance see page 8) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1212-A2 p.3]
¦ Realized fuel savings: (see page 6) 85.34 million barrels (i.e. 164 barrels per
full aero type unit) ~ 16.1% of Target
o Effect on purchase price: 7.4% increase (range 2.14 to 9.8% see page 5) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.3]
¦ For an industry which operates in a single digit profit margin
o Note break even payback period from 52 to 66 months not considering upkeep and
maintenance (this is 2x to 3x acceptable timeframe) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-
A2 p.3]
Request 7: Continue with voluntary program
• Components detracting from target: reduces to <16% of Target [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1212-A2 p.3]
o Weight of aero devices added to equipment causes 1.03% more truckloads to deliver
current payload amounts: consumes an additional (12,500 truckloads based on a 500
mile length of load trip) see page 7 76,401 barrels oil [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1212-A2 p.3]
o Delivery of aero devices: 4,200 truckloads: 25,641 barrels oil (see page 7) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-
Request 8: Continue with voluntary program (eliminates > 16,000 trips: safety?) 1212-A2 p.3]
• Alternative consideration: Rail usage 6.6% of Target [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.3]
• For every 30% reduction in Highway miles for 30% of the fleet (i.e. 173 barrels per unit) see
page 7 35.05 million barrels of oil [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.3]
Request 9: Exclude rail use equipment from aero regulation: usage exceeds over the road full aero
benefit.
• 33ft doubles legislation: 50.9% of Target [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.3]
o Saves 18% of miles traveled: see page 8 270 million barrels of oil [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1212-A2 p.3]
o This savings accomplishes more than 50% of the program goals without installation of
defined components and subsequent cost to the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-
A2 p.3]
o Number of tractors on the road is reduced and therefore the # of potential accidents and
deaths due to those accidents are diminished. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.3]
Request 10: Exclude 33ft equipment from aero regulation: usage exceeds over the road full aero benefit
by a factor of 3x. Recommend 33 ft unit adoption.
Assumptions for consideration: provided by EPA presentation to TTMA
-------
Products made from a barrel
of crude oil, 2013
gallons
\
Other distillates
(heating oil) 1
Heavy fuel oil
(residual) 1 \.
Liquefied ^
petroleum gases
(LPG) 2
Diesel 12
Jet fuel 4
^er products 6
Tijy,,
Gasoline
Target savings of530 million barrels of oil during lifecycle of units 2014 thru 2018
equals (=) 6.36 billion gals of diesel (i.e. 270MMT GHG)
EPA presentation to TTMA (1 gal equates to 93.6 lbs GHG)
Units built in 2013 (135k) as avg/yr: 675k total units in program (2013 ACT report)
Average unit price: $28,000 (Industry pricing)
Fuel cost $2.50 per gallon (current at pump)
Average fuel economy (w/o program): 6.5 miles per gallon (mpg) (Stoughton
Trucking fleet data)
Fuel Savings:
Full Aero: 5% Fuel savings yields:
Partial Aero: 2.5% savings
NcnAero: 1.25% savings
Price of components for full aero:
Assume $2750 (volume price reduction)
Mileage traveled per unit annually:
6.825 mpg (calculated based on above)
6.6625mpg
6.58125 mpg
$896 (Side skirt OEM installed with FET)+
$ 1904 (boat tail) + $795 (Tire inflation
system)+Unknown tire differential = $3595
45,000 miles (Large trucking fleettop 3: data)
Number of Units in time (2014-2018): 135,000 per year; therefore 675,000 units
Cost to Install fuel saving devices
Full Aero: 60% of fleet: 0.6 x 675,000 units x $2750 per unit
first year:_
program units (5 years):
$222.750.000.00 (9.8% of sales)
$1.113.750.000.00 (9.8% of sales)
Partial Aero: 25% of fleet: 0.25 x 675,000 units x $1325 per unit (omit boat tail)
first year: $44.718.750.00 (4.7% of sales)
program units (5 years): $223.597.750.00 (4.7% of sales)
Non-Aero: 15% of fleet: 0.15 x 675,000 units x $600 per unit (include no aero)
first year: $12.150.000.00 (2.14% of sales)
program units (5 years): $60.750.000.00 (2.14% of sales)
Total Fleet: first year:
$279.618.750.00 (7.4% of sales)
-------
program units (5 years):
$1.398.097.750.00 (7.4% of sales)
FudSavhgs
Full Aero @ 5% efficiency @ highway speeds (60% distance):
60% of miles considered to be affective as highway speed, 60% of fleet
Firstyear 135,000units x 45,000miles x 60% x 60% @ (6.825 vs 6.5)mpg
16.021.978 gal i.e. $40.054.945.00 avg payback 66 months
1.34 million barrels oil
Full program period i.e. 675,000 units @10 year unit life (i.e. 15 year program)
801.098.901 gal i.e. $2.002.747252.00
66.76 million barrels of oil
Partial Aero @, 25% efficiency @, highway speeds (60% distance):
60% of miles considered to be affective as highway speed, 25% of fleet
Firstyear 135,000units x 45,000miles x 60% x 25% @ (6.6625 vs 6.5)mpg
3.419.325 gal i.e. $8.548.114.00 avg payback 52 months
0.285 million barrels oil
Full program period i.e. 675,000 units @ 10 year unit life (i.e. 15 year program)
170.966.229 gal i.e. $427.415.572.00
14.25 million barrels of oil
Non-Aero @, 125% efficiency @, highway speeds (60% distance):
60% of miles considered to be affective as highway speed, 15% of fleet
Firstyear 135,000unitsx45,000milesx60%x 15%@(6.58125vs6.5)mpg
1.038.462 gal i.e. $2.596.154.00 avg payback 56 months
0.086 million barrels oil
Full program period i.e. 675,000 units @ 10 year unit life (i.e. 15 year program)
51.923.077 gal i.e. $129.876.692.00
4.33 million barrels of oil
Com m ulative Fleet:
Firstyear
Full program period
20.479.765 gali.e. $51.199.412.00
1.71 million barrels oil
1.023.988.207 gal i.e. $2359.970.518.00
85.34 million barrels of oil
Effect of delivery of aero devices:
• Approximately 160 understructure aero kits/load and 170 boat tails/load
(average due to weight/space limitations)
• Equates to 4200 loads @500 miles delivery (proximity of supplier to OEM)
o 2,100,000 miles traveled
o 307,692 gallons used @ cost of $769231 (based on increased MPG)
25,641 barrels oil
o Production of aero device adds approximately ????????MT GHG, to consider
Added Trailer loads due to aero device weight:
-------
• Average weightof aero device equals: 3001bs (skirts) + 1651bs (boat tails)
• Average payload in trailer 45,000 lbs
• For each 97 loads (1) additional load will be required
o 1.03% increase in overall mileage required to deliver same amount of pavload: 6,257.250 miles @ 6.825 mpg
916,813 gallons used @ cost of $2,292,033
76,401 barrels oil
Rail service discussion: (30% used as number which provides for equivalent fuel savings: actual number is approximately
3 times if rail service were to be fully utilized)
• Consider mile reduction at a rate of 30% (i.e. 13,500 miles repurposed)
o 13,500 x (30% of fleet)675000 units @6.5 mpg
Saves 420,576,923 gallons of fuel (35.05 million barrels oil)
Saves $ 1,051.442.307 of fuel
39.37 billion lbs GHG (17.86MMT)
• General fuel consumption: locomotive moves 200 truckloads while consuming the same volume of fuel as
a tractor over the highway for a single unit. i.e. 05%
Therefore fuel savings would be: 35.05 million barrels oil
• These units need not be considered in the over the road fleet and should therefore be exempt from all of the
requirements of the proposed regulation.
33ft doubles proposed legislation:
o Assume 20,000 units per year (15 year affect): Represents 5% of the fleet (i.e. 20 year life cycle) and is
therefore extremely conservative for the present calculation,
o Saves 18% of miles traveled:
0.18x[(20000 x 45000x 15)+(20000 x 45000x 14)+(20000 x 45000x
13) + (20000 x 45000 x 1)]=19,440,000,000 miles @ 6 mpg
=3,240.000.000 gal (270 million barrels of oil)
• Note mileage reduced (6 mpg vs 6.5) to compensate for increased coefficient of drag due
to longer (combination) units.
Units to be Tested for compliance
In order to establish a coefficient of drag each model would need to be tested in a wind-tunnel to assure accuracy.
Furthermore a subsequent test is required to record the percentage of drag reduction which can be assumed for each
potential aerodynamic device. For accuracies consideration a corresponding track test would be required to correlate the
drag reduction to the actual fuel savings. The following only considers the wind tunnel portion of the cost associated
with Cd establishment.
• Considering multiple side (12), roof(6), understructure (7), height (6), width(2), length (5), and limited
misc. options (3), the number of possible combinations would exceed 90,000 variations.
o Assuming an average order size of approximately 50 units per specification yields a requirement for
establishing over 2700 (first year) base lines for coefficient of drag for the industry.
Cost to Establish Coefficient of Drag (Cd): number of models to be tested based on a declining percentage due to
repeat business
Year 1:2700 models x$19000/model= $51,000,000.00 (1.4% of sales)
Year 2:1620 models x$19000/model= $30,780,000.00 (60% of models)
Year 3:1080 models x$19000/model= $20,520,000.00 (40% ofmodels)
Year4: 810 models x$19000/model= $15,390,000.00(30%ofmodels)
Year 5:675 models x$19000/model= $12.825.000.00 (25% ofmodels)
-------
Period Total
$130515.000.00 (0.7% of sales)
Response:
The agencies considered the calculations provided by Stoughton. The values assumed for barrels of oil
and MMT of GHG saved were noted to be taken from an EPA presentation to TTMA. Any numbers
presented to TTMA would be referencing Phase 1 results. Since trailers were not considered in Phase 1,
we cannot speak directly to these values, but we will address the theme of the calculations. Note that
additional details regarding the agencies' calculations in response to this comment are provided in a
memo to the docket.156
To start, Stoughton calculates the cost to install devices and relates it to the total sales of the industry,
then estimates the fuel savings by adopting those technologies. The comment indicated that a 7.4%
increase in purchase price was unacceptable, due to the "single digit profit margin" of the trailer
industry. The agencies recognize that trailer manufacturers have very low profit margins. However,
we expect a majority of these costs will impact the overall cost of trailers across the industry and should
not be isolated to individual trailer manufacturers.
We repeated Stoughton's calculations to address the concerns with payback. These calculations indicate
there is an average payback across the industry of 66 months (5.5 years). However, the agencies'
technology costs take into account a baseline adoption rate of technologies that we believe the industry
would be applying if there were no Phase 2 trailer regulations. This market-driven adoption cannot be
counted against the program. In the case of long box vans, we expect 45% of the trailers sold would
have skirts or better in 2018 (TTMA indicated 35% of new long box vans have skirts today). To
account for this, we applied a factor of 0.55 to the calculation for full-aero cost and the 5% benefit to
45% of the baseline, which resulted in a small reduction in payback to 65 months.
Additionally, these calculations assume that aero devices are only effective during 60% of trailer
mileage, but the agencies make the more reasonable assumption that the effectiveness of the
technologies is not zero for the remaining 40% of the miles. See RIA 10.2.1.1. Assuming these lower-
speed miles are, on average, 25% of the high speed benefit gives 6.58 mpg, 6.54 mpg, and 6.52 mpg for
the remaining 40% of the miles for full-, partial- and non-aero trailers, respectively. Applying these
values in the calculation reduces the payback to 55 months. The agencies also disagree with the
effectiveness that Stoughton applied. The full- and partial-aero effectiveness values appear to only
account for aerodynamic improvements. If we add 1.25% (the value applied to the non-aero trailers) to
the full-aero and partial-aero trailers to account for tire improvements, the new effectiveness values
reduce the payback to 43 months (3.5 years).
Finally, most skirts are SmartWay-verified to achieve 5% reduced fuel consumption, yet these
calculations apply a 5% reduction to the full-aero trailers that are assumed to include skirts and tails, and
a 2.5% reduction to the partial-aero trailers that will likely include skirts. Applying an improvement of
9.25% to the full-aero trailers (a conservative 8% for skirt and tail aero and 1.25% for tires) and 6.25%
to the partial-aero trailers (5% for skirts and 1.25% for tires) reduces the payback to 29 months; under
2.5 years. The agencies rely on EPA's MOVES model for a much more sophisticated analysis that
applies the average effectiveness of technologies for each trailer subcategory over each year of the
program with decreasing VMT over the trailers' lifetime. However, even the simplified calculation
156 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. "Evaluation of Trailer Program Cost and Benefit
Calculations Provided by Stoughton Trailers in Public Comments." July 18, 2016.
-------
performed here with more closely-aligned assumptions, results in a 2.5 year payback that is close to the
agencies' estimate.157
The agencies address Stoughton's safety concerns with the addition of weight due to aerodynamic
devices in our response to TTMA on page 1019 of this section. Please see our response below. We
conclude that the additional weight from aerodynamic technologies can easily be offset by substituting
light weight components to accommodate manufacturers that believe their customers will frequently
weigh-out. These components can then be applied in the Phase 2 program to offset use of some
aerodynamic technologies for these trailers.
The agencies agree that intermodal trailers that spend some time traveling by rail have the potential to
reduce fuel consumption and C02. However, we do not have sufficient data to estimate the savings
across the industry in order to quantify an appropriate credit value. Additionally, we would have to
identify the characteristics of trailers that would indicate intermodal use, as well as the impact of the
additional weight added to those trailers that may offset some portion of the rail benefits when they are
on-road. The agencies are not adopting a credit for rail usage in this rulemaking, but could consider it in
future rulemakings with additional data.
The agencies recognize the benefit of tandem trailers in reducing VMT and improving freight
efficiency. However, we cannot guarantee that any short trailers, including 28-foot and 33-foot trailers,
will be used in tandem when they are introduced into commerce. We are not adopting provisions to
exempt any length of tandem trailer.
Organization: Thermo King
Aerodynamic Packages available for Reducing C02 Emissions and Fuel Consumption as
Calculated by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) for Trailers [§IV.D(2)(a)]
Section IV. D of the Proposed Rule sets new requirements for C02 emissions and fuel consumption in
long and short trailers, and discusses the technology packages available to meet these standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1196-A1 p.2]
However, due to the size and performance requirements of today's transport refrigeration units (TRUs),
some of the technologies discussed would not be possible to implement in a refrigerated trailer,
especially those which seek to make aerodynamic improvements. Ingersoll Rand is supportive of EPA's
recognition of these exceptions, which are reflected by the distinction of dry vans and refrigerated vans
into separate classes with different consumption requirements. That said, since GEM is ultimately a
performance-based metric using "binned" sets of technologies, it is difficult for Thermo King to analyze
specifically which technologies EPA considers inapplicable to refrigerated vans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1196-A1 p.2]
Ingersoll Rand requests that EPA specify those technologies which are not applicable to refrigerated
vans due to TRU requirements, or otherwise provide clarification to truck manufacturers on the matter.
As an example, most gap reducer technologies cannot be implemented in refrigerated vans, as this
157 The 2 year payback the agencies reference in our preamble and RIA to this rulemaking is a result of the
combined tractor and trailer program costs and benefits. The calculations performed in response to this comment
are for the trailer program only, based on the assumptions provided by Stoughton with modifications noted in our
response.
-------
would block the required airflow to the heat exchanger surfaces contained within the TRU, which is
necessary to provide adequate refrigeration to the trailer's contents efficiently. Ingersoll Rand believes
that added guidance from EPA on the specific technologies for reducing emissions and fuel
consumption that are applicable to refrigerated vans, as well suggested approaches to meeting these new
GEM requirements in refrigerated vans while only using applicable technologies, will go a long way
toward ensuring that trucks with refrigerated trailers operate efficiently as a system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1196-A1 p.2-3]
Response:
The agencies are adopting standards with the same stringency between dry and refrigerated vans in each
length subcategory. We recognize that most current gap reducers would not be appropriate for
refrigerated vans with TRUs, yet several technology combinations exist that can compensate for no gap
reducer (see our response to CARB in Section 5.3 on page 980). We designed our standards with
example technology packages, but we do not restrict our box van performance standards to any given
set of technologies. Manufacturers can choose from many combinations of aerodynamic devices, tire
rolling resistance levels, weight reduction options, and tire pressure systems to achieve their desired
performance. The agencies cannot create a comprehensive list of technologies that may or may not
apply for each trailer design. Instead, we rely on the judgment of trailer manufacturers in coordination
with their customers to choose the most effective designs that will meet the requirements of the
standards as well as the needs of the customers' applications.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
We also support: (3) equal focus on the potential fuel economy savings from improvements in the
design and aerodynamics of trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.2]
Response:
The agencies designed the box trailer program to be based on performance standards. As long as a
manufacturer can demonstrate improved aerodynamic performance through aerodynamic testing, it does
not matter if the improvements were made to the trailer design or achieved with the use of third-party
bolt-on devices. The agencies did not have the resources to evaluate trailer design changes in their
analysis, but that does not preclude manufacturers from pursuing design changes as part of their
compliance plan.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
TTMA is highly concerned with creating and maintaining a safe environment on and off the nation's
roadways when it comes to the use of truck trailers. The current voluntary model of Federal GHG &
fuel conservation relies on payback to incentivize end users to adopt technologies like aerodynamic
features. Such a payback-based feature causes users to avoid the technology in end-use situations where
either speeds or loads preclude payback; e.g. if a user needs to leave a pallet off their trailer because the
aero devices put them over the weight limit, they will choose not to use them. The proposed rule will, of
necessity, force aero devices on end users who otherwise would be avoiding them. For low speed users,
this is simply a waste of resources12, but for users operating at or near weigh-out conditions, the weight
of the aero devices forces more trips as freight has to be hauled on a second load. Those extra trips pose
a safety risk which must be accounted for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.7]
Estimate of Safety Impact of Deadweight Load of Aerodynamic Devices
-------
Using a 250 lb. weight of aerodynamic devices per trailer, and a cargo load of 50,000 lb. when tractor-
trailer is in Weigh-out mode means that the 250 lb. for extra devices will have to be hauled on an
additional trip. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.7]
250 lb add'l / 50,000 lb cargo per Weigh—out Trip = 0.5% increase in Weigh—out Trips
Approximately 30% of tractor-trailers are operating at or near weigh-out conditions.13
0.5% increase in Weigh—out Trips x 30% VMT in Weigh—out Conditions = 0.15% increase in
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.7]
Annual VMT for tractor-trailers is 122,705 M VMT/year.14
0.15% Increase in VMT x 122,705 M VMT/year = increase of 184 M VMT/Ycar [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1172-A1 p.7]
Collision rate for Tractor-trailers is 134/100 M VMT.15
Increase of 184 M VMT/Yr x 134 Collisions/100 M VMT = Increase of 246 collisions/year [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.8]
Approximately 3% of Tractor-trailer Collisions involve fatalities.16
Increase of 246 collisions/year x 3% Fatality Involvement/Collision = 7 extra fatal accidents per year
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.8]
In general, the safety impact of additional weight on trailers is 1 extra collision per year for every pound
of added trailer weight, and one additional fatality-involved crash per year for every 35 pounds
additional trailer weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.8]
Note that since the proposal relies heavily on EPA methodology that favors "technology-forcing"
regulation, where regulations are formulated to require devices that do not currently exist, the proposal
goes beyond NHTSA's mandate to reduce deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from motor
vehicle crashes. Some of these devices don't yet exist in a form that would satisfy the proposal, and
those that do have potential safety risks that have not been fully explored. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1172-A1 p.8]
Weight:
As described in our Safety Impact section, increased tare weight contributes to increased VMT. While
the safety concerns associated with this are our first concern, we ought to consider the fuel consumption
and GHG emission effects of these extra trips. This will serve to reduce benefit from applied devices.
Similarly, light-weighting trailers will allow more cargo to be carried and thus result in a reduction in
VMT and a corresponding reduction in Fuel consumption and GHG emissions. Based on our reading of
the EPA documents, the factors applied to weight reduction strategies do not include this effect and
most certainly should. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 17]
-------
Response:
NHTSA evaluated TTMA's safety impact analysis. NHTSA recognizes that regulatory and market
factors that result in changes in trailer weight can potentially have safety ramifications, both positive
and negative. NHTSA believes that the appropriate perspective is to evaluate the regulation and market
factors in their entirety. One such factor is that incentives in the Phase 2 regulation could result in an
average decrease in trailer weight. Since removing weight from trailers allows more cargo to be carried,
fewer trips are needed to move the same amount of cargo, and fewer crashes - including fatal crashes -
could occur. Fleets and other customers have a natural incentive to request lighter-weight trailers.
From the trailer owners' perspective, reducing trailer weight not only allows them to increase cargo
when they are near capacity, but also reduces fuel consumption whether the trailer is fully loaded or not.
In pre-proposal meetings with trailer manufacturers, companies said that customers are requesting
lighter-weight components when possible and manufacturers are installing them.
To further incentivize a shift to lighter weight materials, the Phase 2 program provides two compliance
mechanisms, both of which are discussed in the Preamble (Section IV.D(l)(d) and Section IV.F(5)(d),
respectively). The first is a list of weight reductions from which manufacturers can select. The list
identifies specific lighter-weight components, such as side posts, roof bows, and flooring.
Manufacturers using these lighter-weight components achieve fuel consumption and GHG reductions
that count toward their compliance calculations. The NPRM identified twelve components, ranging
from lighter-weight landing gear (which receives credit for 50 pounds of weight reduction) to aluminum
upper coupler assemblies (which receive credit for 430 pounds). See proposed section 1037.515 at 80
FR 40627. The final program includes additional lighter-weight components. In addition, for a lighter-
weight component or technology that is not on the list of specific components, the program provides for
manufacturers to use the "off-cycle" process to recognize the weight reduction (Section IV.F(5)(d)).
Through these mechanisms, the program provides significant flexibility and incentives for trailer light-
weighting.
NHTSA also recognizes that the aerodynamic devices we believe may be adopted to meet the Phase 2
trailer standards inherently add weight to trailers. In comments on the NPRM, TTMA stated that they
believe that this weight increase will result in added trips and increased numbers of fatal crashes. By its
analysis, this additional weight - which TTMA estimates to be 250 pounds per trailer, will cause some
trucks to exceed the trailer weight limits, necessitating additional truck trips to transport freight that
could not be moved by the "weighed-out" trucks. By TTMA's analysis, these added trips would cause
an additional 184 million truck miles per year and would result in 246 accidents and 7 extra fatal
crashes, using an assumed accident rate of 134 collisions per 100 million VMT and a 3 percent fatality
rate per accident. The agencies evaluated TTMA's estimate of additional fatalities and disagree with
some of the assumptions made in the analysis. For example, the fatality rate used was developed in a
study conducted for Idaho and is higher than the national average. According to FMCSA's 2014 annual
report for "Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts" indicates there are less than 1.67 fatalities per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by combination trucks in the U.S. for 2014. When multiplied by an
estimated 184 million additional truck miles due to weighed-out trucks, the result is an increase of about
3 fatalities, or 2.7 fatal crashes.
Overall, the potential positive safety implications of weight reduction efforts could partially or fully
offset safety concerns from added weight of aerodynamic devices. In fact, we believe that the Phase 2
trailer program could produce a net safety benefit in the long run due to the potentially greater amount
of cargo that could be carried on each truck as a result of trailer weight reduction.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
-------
5 - SmartWay & Alternative 1
For the purposes of trailer manufacture and end use, the EPA's SmartWay program coupled with
voluntary adoption bring the optimal solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption in the heavy duty freight sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.8]
Unlike the private car market, heavy duty trailers are used almost exclusively in a very competitive
commercial market where fuel costs are second only to labor costs. As such, there is a huge financial
incentive for end users to reduce the amount of fuel consumed and incidentally reduce greenhouse gas
emissions released during operations. Innovators have been coming up with devices, methods and
strategies to accomplish this for decades. These innovations often had varying degrees of actual effect
compared to the claimed effect as each innovator would tout their product only in its best light. To
complicate matters, not every innovation would be appropriate for every end user's operation. This
double level of confusion created a barrier to new products coming into use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1172-A1 p.8]
SmartWay, when it came on the scene, removed one side of the confusion. By setting a standard to test
products against, it allowed end users to remove one layer of variables to be evaluated before selecting a
new approach to control fuel consumption. End users could now consider how well their operations
would respond to SmartWay verified technologies when making their decisions. In doing so, the
adoption of workable fuel savings technologies in areas where they will actually perform was
accelerated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.8-9]
SmartWay is not perfect. For example, it lacks ability to account for possible savings from tire inflation
control strategies, and it's still limited in the types of trailers it considers, only recently expanding into
refrigerated trailers. However, a voluntary program manages to get the maximum feasible improvement
in fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission reduction without the unintended side effects of
inappropriately pushing strategies into areas where they do not have an actual gain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1172-A1 p.9]
We urge all parties concerned with creating an actual reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions to adopt Alternative 1 with respect to trailers. If the agencies feel the need to regulate, they
should direct their regulations at end users who are selecting particular trailers to use with particular
tractors for a given cargo and route. While California's blanket requirement for trailers to be SmartWay
certified was poorly thought out as to which end users might actually see benefit and which wouldn't
and had a host of unintended effects as a result, it was at least aimed at the correct market to effect
change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.9]
We also note that in the current environment outside of California, end users that could benefit from
SmartWay verified aero technologies are already using it. The proposal's cost benefit analysis seems to
overlook this important factor. As such, it both undervalues the work that has been done, by failing to
note that aero-device adoption is disproportionately adopted in long haul operations and overvalues the
proposal by assuming that new devices fitted to trailers that currently don't have them would be used at
fleet-average speeds, when that group of trailers are actually running at below average speeds. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.9]
As we will describe below, any steps to pursue the agencies' goals of improving fuel economy and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions must carefully consider areas to exclude and/or exempt from
regulation to avoid unintended effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.9]
-------
Response:
See our response to Stoughton in Section 5.1 on page 965 regarding non-mandatory standards. See also
our response to the TTMA comment in Chapter 1 of this RTC, relating to the statutory authority for the
trailer program to focus on trailer manufacturers as the regulated parties.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
11 - Miscellaneous Points:
Automatic Tire Inflation Systems:
The definition of ATIS describes a system that does not exist. "Automatic tire inflation system means a
system installed on a vehicle to keep each tire inflated to within 10 percent of the target value with no
operator input." State of the art systems only add air to underinflated tires. While overinflated tires do
not have a detriment in terms of rolling resistance, they do have problems with accelerated tread wear.25
As stated earlier, this proposal overlooks the full carbon footprint of the things it's proposing to
regulate. For tires, C02 emitted outside of use is 16% of the amount emitted during use.26 An ATIS
system is slated to give a 1.5% reduction in emissions, but if that results in a substantial reduction in
tread life, the relative fraction of emissions will balloon to eclipse the savings.
Response:
The agencies updated our definition of ATIS and removed the reference to 10% of a target value. In
general, manufacturers and users will adjust their ATIS to an appropriate value for their applications and
these systems will maintain proper tire pressure. We are not aware of evidence, and the commenter did
not provide any, that overinflated tires are a significant problem with use of ATIS and thus that
excessive tread wear broadly occurs with these systems.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
Warranty Problems:
The proposal requires that all devices added to trailers be warranted for a period of five years, one year
for tires. Such a warranty would be required "to warrant that these components and systems are
designed to remain functional for the warranty period."28 This has a few significant problems. For tires,
some users will wear through their tires in less than a year's period. With the overinflation problems
expected with the widespread adoption of ATIS, we would expect that number to grow. Tire wear must
not be covered under any warranty. Speaking of ATIS, the useful life for these systems is on the order
of 5 years alone and we are not aware of any system that has a baseline warranty of more than 3 years.
The proposed warranty period for ATIS needs to be reduced. Further, the most common problem with
aero-devices is with collisions with infrastructure and other road hazards. Any warranty requirement
must also exempt collisions and other non-routine use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 17]
Response:
See our response to the Utility comment in Section 5.1 (page 971) related to damage to aerodynamic
devices. See also our response to the emission-related warranty comment from Utility in Section 5.3
(page 990). Finally, see our response to the tire over-inflation comment immediately above on page
1021.
-------
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
Unintended consequence: brake/wheel end warming:
Over the history of design of a wheel end for usage on trailers, a continued goal has been to provide for
the safest, longest lasting, and cost sensitive components possible. The industry continues to reconfigure
the brake drum toward these ends. Consequently the weight of a brake drum has been reduced
approximately 18% over the past 30+ years (resulting in reduced fuel consumption and therefore reduce
C02 creation). The proposal may reverse this design due to the need to dissipate heat. The heat is
created due to braking action, which up until now was cooled via air flow. The concern with the
proposal is that, with added side skirts and wheel deflectors for aero purposes, the air flow across the
drum area is minimized resulting in an allowance of temperature increase. One way to manage the
temperature would be to add mass to the brake drum, resulting in additional weight, thus conflicting
with the intended potential advantages of fuel conservation. If temperature is allowed to build it will
affect bearings, lubricant, seals, brake lining, heat treatment of drum in extreme conditions the tire bead
could break seal from the rim or the tire could actually ignite and burn the unit to the ground. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 17]
Response:
See our response to the Stoughton comment in this section (page 1010) relating to warming of brakes
and wheel ends.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
DOE Super Truck Program
In the DOE Super Truck Program, a truck and trailer were paired together and optimized together as a
pair for aerodynamic performance. At the end of this optimization, neither the trailer nor the tractor
could be said to be interchangeable with other trucks or trailers. There are truck aerodynamic design
specifications or characteristics that can counteract and negate the trailer aerodynamic device fuel
savings. The trailer OEM should not be regulated to add aero devices to trailers because the truck,
trucks, or variety of trucks, to be used to tow the trailer is not known and such an understanding of the
effects of truck aero design and how it affects the aerodynamic characteristics of the trailer is mostly not
well understood nor have been shown to be constant or changing over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1172-A1 p. 18]
Response:
The agencies understand that there can be interaction between aerodynamic features of a tractor and
those aerodynamic features on the trailer it is towing. We did not base our trailer program on the
advanced integrated technologies demonstrated in the SuperTruck program (see our response to UCS on
page 1026 regarding SuperTruck). However, the characteristics of the tractors that we assumed in
developing the trailer standards, and that we specify for compliance testing, are meant to recognize a
reasonable degree of tractor and trailer aerodynamic interaction that typically occurs with real-world
tractor-trailers (see also our response to OOIDA on page 1005).
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
-------
When push comes to shove, the motor carrier industry is very resourceful and may take action which
actually detracts from the overall purpose of reducing C02 creation. One such scenario has been
experienced in the CARB trailer regulations in the state of California; many shipments have found their
way to container/chassis combinations as an over-the-road mode of transportation which will not be
required under the current proposal to be equipped with any of the aerodynamic features that trailer
manufacturers will have to install on trailers. Cargo containers are also, by common design, inherently
less aerodynamic given their ribbed sides and square edges. The combined weight effect of this
diversion is a 5,000 lb. increase per container-chassis shipment to the empty weight of the unit of
transference. Thus the proposed regulations will create an arbitrary and unreasonable outcome by
diverting substantial cargo on a nationwide basis to far less efficient container chassis modes of
transportation, and this will significantly undermine the desired goals of the proposal. Container and
chassis manufacturers will be unreasonably favored in the marketplace by exclusion from the
regulations, while their unregulated products will continue to produce less efficient aerodynamic
outcomes than trailers currently in production today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 19]
12 Draft RIA, p2-155 "It can also be seen that very little benefit is seen for tractor trailers driving under
highly transient conditions."
13 ."..weigh-in-motion data for 3-S2s indicate that over 70 percent operate at 70,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight or less." (Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, November 2013, Modal
Shift Analysis, p8.).
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/map21tswstudy/deskscan/modal_shift_dksn.pdf
14 Base Case for VMT total: 122,705,589,552. Ibid. Table 1, pl2.
15 "The rate for tractor-semitrailers was 42/100 million VKT (134/100 million vmt)" (Comprehensive
Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, November 2013, Highway Safety and Truck Crash Comparative
Analysis, p 16.). http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/map2ltswstudy/deskscan/safety_dksn.pdf
16 "For example, in Idaho, about 3% of crash involvements for each involved a fatality, about 30-33%
included an injury, and the remainder involved only property damage (PDO)." Ibid, pi7.
25 TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING AND INLFATION MAINTENACE Developed by the
Technology & Maintenance Council's (TMC) S.2 Tire & Wheel Study Group; Study Group Information
Report: 2010-2. ."..10 percent overinflation will reduce tread wear by five percent. ... Overinflated tires
are more vulnerable to tread surface cutting, impact breaks, punctures, and shock damage which also
shortens tire life."
26 http://www.bridgestone.com/responsibilities/environment/mission/emissions.html Total Lifecycle
C02 emissions for a tire are 86.4% during use.
28 80 FR 40282
Response:
The agencies recognize the potential for carriers to shift to use of containers in a situation where
container chassis were completely unregulated. However, the agencies are adopting design standards
for non-box trailers that require adoption of lower rolling resistance tires and tire pressure systems on all
lengths of container chassis. While these non-box standards are not based on adoption of aerodynamic
technologies, container chassis manufacturers will have appropriate regulatory requirements and we
expect that this will help to limit the shift away from the lighter and more fuel-efficient box vans.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
LONG DRY VAN AND REFRIGERATED VAN TRAILERS
The EPA has recognized the benefits of trailer aerodynamics for many years through its SmartWay
certification program. Most recently, it has created a new category in this voluntary program, SmartWay
Elite, which can achieve 9 percent or more savings in fuel through a combination of aerodynamics and
-------
additional savings from low-rolling resistance tires. In fact, the agencies even note that five
manufacturers now offer a total of nine aerodynamic technology packages that meet SmartWay Elite
certification. Therefore, it is surprising that the agencies' trailer regulation for van trailers in 2027 does
not even achieve, on average, the same level of aerodynamic improvement as these SmartWay Elite
packages offer today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 16]
In addition to EPA's own work outlined in the RIA on the effectiveness of different trailer packages on
the market today, other resources further confirm the conservative nature of the agencies' trailer
package. TIAX noted numerous trailer packages that yielded more than 20-percent reduction in CdA
(2009). The National Research Council looked at what was already available on the market and
anticipated that trailers could achieve as much as a 12.1-percent reduction in fuel in the 2015-2020
timeframe through efficient trailer aero packages (NRC 2010). And the agencies themselves have
identified synergistic effects of different trailer technology combinations, suggesting that there is further
room for improvement well beyond the first advanced packages certified as SmartWay Elite (Waltzer et
al. 2015). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 16]
As one would suspect, industry is not standing still in light of this potential. Modeling by Navistar's
SuperTruck team shows possible reductions in fuel use up to 16 percent from the static aerodynamic
package and an additional 2- to 3-percent reduction from dynamic pitch control (Zukowski 2015).
Daimler showed a 39 percent reduction in the drag coefficient from trailer technology alone. Peterbilt's
advanced trailer led to a 9% reduction in fuel consumption compared to the full SmartWay package,
well exceeding SmartWay Elite levels (Damon 2013). A Freight Wing package based on work for the
Volvo SuperTruck is being commercially developed and will offer between 12 and 14 percent savings
in fuel (Amar 2015). Those are exactly the levels of innovation one would expect from industry when
looking out at a longer time horizon, as the preferred alternative does. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1329-A2 p. 16]
Further innovation could be developed in a move towards full-vehicle optimization. While this exceeds
what is likely to be widely deployed in the timeframe of this rule, moving towards a fully integrated
vehicle could lead to even further reductions in aerodynamic drag. Volvo was able to reduce the
aerodynamic drag of their SuperTruck by 20 percent through trailer devices alone and 4 percent further
by applying modifications to the tractor; however, through even further optimization, they have
achieved a 30-percent total reduction in aerodynamic drag and have modeled a path to a 42-percent
reduction (Amar 2014). We recommend that the agencies incentivize this approach by crediting tractor
manufacturers for tractor-trailer integration, as noted in the section on tractor vehicle standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 17]
All of this evidence speaks to the possibility of a much more ambitious standard for long van trailers.
The product cycle for trailers can be much shorter than the tractors that pull them, and there are
technologies already available today that can meet the standard the agencies have set for 2027. At a
minimum, the More Stringent Trailer Alternative that is part of Alternative 4 is more appropriate,
pulling these targets forward to 2024. Furthermore, with 2027 yielding the adoption of many
SuperTruck technologies on the tractor side, we would expect SuperTruck trailers to see an even
broader adoption in that timeframe, with a target that pushes innovation. A reasonable estimate of the
market shift would be to have only 5 percent of the industry as laggards, while 10 percent of the
industry could move toward a more fully optimized design (Table 4). This would result in an additional
improvement of 0.14 ACdA, up to 1.27 in 2027 for long vans, yielding additional fuel consumption
reductions of 1.5 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 17]
Refrigerated long van trailers would see less adoption of the most advanced levels of aerodynamic
improvement because of their design but would nonetheless improve up to a ACdA of 1.13 in 2027 as
the market shifted to more advanced designs. However, the agencies should further consider crediting
-------
technologies to improve the efficiency of refrigeration, which results in significant consumption of fuel.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 17]
However, we think there is further room for advancement beyond the agencies' deployment of a
standard skirt and gap reducer. For example, aerodynamic wheel covers are simply deployed and can
improve aerodynamics on short and long van trailers alike (e.g., Deflecktor, RealWheels). Rear fairings
can also be designed in a way that would not prevent their deployment on a middle trailer (e.g., Smart
Truck Systems). This suggests that there is still further room for technology development beyond the
levels achieved under the More Stringent Trailer Alternative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2
P-18]
EPA's SmartWay program is also considering the development of a SmartWay certification for pup
trailers. Such a program would further incentivize the development of technologies for short van trailers,
which again indicates that additional innovation can be found in this sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p. 18]
Given the improvements that will be made to trailer aerodynamic technology for long vans in the time
period of the rule, we would again expect levels of improvement in 2024 according to the More
Stringent Trailer Alternative, yielding ACdA values of 0.26 and 0.20 for short dry van and short
refrigerated van trailers, respectively. Incremental improvements to aerodynamic devices can improve
these values to 0.30 and 0.24 by 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 18]
NON-BOX TRAILERS
The non-box trailer market is much more complex than van trailers due to the much greater rate of
customization for specific applications. Furthermore, many of these trailers spend a significant amount
of time at lower speed due to either heavy loads or off-road duty cycles. However, that should not
preclude the agencies from incentivizing innovative approaches to reducing fuel use by vehicles pulling
these trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.18]
The agency's current approach does not provide a path for capturing aerodynamic improvements to non-
box trailers, despite ongoing demonstration of its effectiveness. For example, Prime Inc., a for-hire
carrier, has designed custom trailer skirts to improve the fuel economy of its flatbed fleet (photo).
Freight Wing has tested its aerodynamic devices on flatbed, chassis, and tanker trailers as well, leading
to fuel savings of 3 to 6 percent (Freight Wing n.d.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 18]
Because the adoption of these technologies is so dependent on duty cycle and still at the nascent stages
of development, the agencies should encourage the continued testing and development of such
promising technologies. Currently, the agencies have set only a "design standard" for non - box trailers,
which means that technology implemented beyond the threshold design is not currently captured, and
non - box trailers are excluded from averaging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 18]
While we recognize that this approach may make sense from a regulatory perspective for the small
businesses that manufacture many of these custom trailers, we recommend that the agencies provide an
option for manufacturers to include them in the averaging set. Furthermore, aerodynamic devices could
be considered as an innovative technology for non-box or non - aero trailers, so an additional incentive
to such as a 1.5X or 2.OX multiplier in the Phase 2 timeframe could help bring these technologies to
market sooner without significant detriment to the overall environmental benefits of the rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 18]
Amar, P. 2014. SuperTruck: Development and demonstration of a fuel-efficient class 8 highway
vehicle. Presentation at Department of Energy Merit Review, June 19, 2014. Online at
http://energv.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/fl7/vssQ81 amar 2014 o.pdf.
-------
Response:
The agencies caution against comparing reported performance from device manufacturers and programs
such as SmartWay to the performance we project in this rulemaking. In terms of aerodynamics, most
device (and device combination) testing, including SmartWay verification, is performed at one constant
speed. EPA's GEM model, which is the basis of our trailer program compliance as well as
determination of standard stringency, uses a drive cycle-weighting of 86% (long box vans) or 64%
(short box vans) of the miles at 65-mph. As seen in Chapter 2.10.2.1.1 of the RIA to these rules, device
combinations with performance similar to SmartWay-Elite technologies will produce C02 reductions
that are 1% and 2% lower for these long- and short-box van weightings, respectively. Additionally, in
contrast to the reductions reported under SmartWay and comparable programs, the agencies report our
reductions here relative to a baseline adoption rate we project would be in place without regulation. For
long box vans, this includes over 50% of the industry performing at an aerodynamic Bin III (i.e., skirts),
almost 50% adoption of ATIS, and a high adoption of SmartWay-level LRR tires. In total, this long box
van baseline is a 3% improvement over a no-control long van. This 3% difference, in addition to the
l%-2% difference due to drive cycle, must be taken into account when comparing to published
performance data. EPA obtained additional aerodynamic test data since the NPRM and updated the
trailer program's aerodynamic bins accordingly. This new data, which includes many SmartWay-Elite
combinations, provides a more complete assessment of the performance capabilities of today's box
vans.
The agencies value the work accomplished in the SuperTruck program, but it is difficult to separate the
combined improvements for these tractor-trailer combinations into the individual tractor and trailer
vehicles considered in the Phase 2 program. Tractors and trailers are manufactured by separate
companies and the industries are distinctly different. We recognize that each vehicle plays an important
role in the performance of the overall tractor-trailer and the performance (or lack of performance) of one
can impact the potential improvements of the other. By specifying the characteristics of the tractors that
we assumed in developing the trailer standards, and that we specify for compliance testing, the program
recognizes a reasonable degree of tractor and trailer aerodynamic interaction that typically occurs with
real-world tractor-trailers. However, we did not develop a formal incentive program for manufacturers
to address tractor-trailer integration. Instead, manufacturers can petition EPA through off-cycle
provisions and may be eligible for credit for innovative strategies that they may develop.
For non-box trailers, the final trailer program does not predicate its standards on the expectation that
manufacturers will incorporate aerodynamic technologies on non-box trailers. The agencies are aware
that some side skirts have been adapted for the non-box trailers considered in this rule (e.g., tank
trailers, flatbed trailers, and container chassis), as noted by the commenter. However, there is currently
insufficient information to develop aerodynamic performance standards on these relatively new and
untried technologies. We did not receive data to allow us to sufficiently assess the degree of C02 and
fuel consumption improvement that could generally be achieved across this segment of the industry, the
associated costs of these technologies, and especially the likely disproportionate impact on small
businesses. In the case of each of the general non-box trailer types included in the trailer program, the
range of physical trailer designs is great, including the areas where aerodynamic devices would be
installed, and technologies to date tend to be designed for narrow applications. The lack of basic
information about the applicability of future technologies for these trailer types also inhibits our ability
to estimate costs, either of the specific future designs themselves or of the size of the market for any
particular product. As a result, only low adoption rates would be appropriate, and we expect that
standards predicated on such low levels of adoption for these trailer types could result in relatively little
emission and fuel consumption improvement at relatively high costs.
-------
Moreover, a majority of the non-box trailer manufacturers are small businesses. The agencies have
concluded that design standards for these trailers are the only way to ensure we achieve C02 emissions
and fuel consumption reductions without disproportionately impacting that large fraction of the
industry. Consequently, we are adopting tire-technology-based design standards for non-box trailers, as
proposed. These design standards may not provide a direct incentive to develop aerodynamic
technologies for non-box trailers, but it does not preclude customers from requesting these devices on
their trailers.
Non-box trailer manufacturers may include aerodynamic improvements in their future trailer designs,
but non-box trailer aerodynamic devices cannot be used for compliance at any point in the Phase 2
program. We do not provide an option for non-box trailer manufacturers to use our off-cycle provisions
for innovative technologies, because it is likely that only the largest manufacturers would have the
resources to do so. More importantly, we do not have a mechanism to provide additional credit to
trailers in a program based on design standards. We will continue to monitor this segment of the trailer
industry in this regard and may consider further action in the future.
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
Trailer Concerns
UPS is not so much concerned about the technical challenges for trailers as the unrealistic cost and
adoption rates on components. We anticipate generally an adoption rate of about half what EPA projects
and a cost of about twice what EPA foresees. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 13]
Response:
The agencies adjusted our compliance costs based on specific information provided by Wabash in their
public comments (see our response in Section 5.6 on page 1092) and adoption rates based on a letter
from TTMA.158 However, we cannot justify a sweeping reduction in technology costs without specific
information about the technologies the commenter considered. We continue to stand by our estimates,
as described in Section IV of the Preamble, which are based on the references cited in Section IV.D and
available in the full public record.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The Proposed Rules' Projected Greenhouse-Gas Reductions Are Based on Unrealistic
Assumptions that Fail to Account for Real-World Conditions and that Ignore Increases in
Greenhouse Gases Cause by the Proposed Rules
The Agencies project a 2.35% (2018) to 9.4% (2027) decrease in C02 emissions from tractor-trailers by
adopting the required technologies. Those technologies yield benefits in two ways: decreasing road
friction (through low-rolling-resistance tires; automatic tire-inflation systems; and weight reductions),
and decreasing aerodynamic drag (through side skirts, trailer tails, and other air-deflection devices).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.3]
158 Letter, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association to EPA, October 16, 2014, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0146.
-------
The Agencies will never achieve their projected savings attributable to aerodynamic devices. This is
because the projected reductions are based on assumptions that are completely unrealistic, do not
account for actual conditions operators encounter every day, and ignore the increases in greenhouse
gases caused by adopting the Proposed Rules. The net savings attributed to aerodynamic devices will be
marginal, at best. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.3]
Response:
It is not the agencies' intent or responsibility to project the actual savings for individual vehicles in use.
The 2% to 9% emissions decreases are industry-average projected reductions based on our test
procedures and driving conditions represented in our model. The assumptions we have built into our
projections have incorporated the information available in the public docket for this action, including
public comments, for the effectiveness of the likely technologies and their industry-wide adoption rates,
as well as accounting for average operational characteristics.
We recognize that the values we projected through this process will not match those of each trailer on
the road under their varying technology choices and operating conditions. The values obtained in
compliance are meant to provide a relative apples-to-apples comparison between trailers. The majority
of the trailers in each of the covered trailer subcategories will experience benefits from these
technologies, though the level of the improvement will vary, and the overall fleet-wide benefits should
be in the range that we have projected.
In response to the comment about net savings, see also our general response to comments relating to
"upstream" or manufacturing emissions in Section 1 and in our previous response on page 970.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The Agencies employ unrealistic speed assumptions.
The Agencies premise their projected aerodynamic savings on a computation concerning how much
those aerodynamic devices will reduce drag. Drag reduction, of course, is determined both by how much
more efficient the particular device is, and - more significantly - the trailer's speed. As mentioned
earlier, because aerodynamic drag is a function of velocity squared, aerodynamic drag forces are not
relevant at speeds much below cruising speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.4]
The Agencies' GEM model, however, computes savings based on the completely unrealistic assumption
that trailers travel at the following speeds for the following percentage of time: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1183-A1 p.4]
65 mph cruise — 86%
55 mph cruise — 9%
"Transient" — 5%
On their face, these assumptions bear no relationship to how tractors and trailers operate on America's
highways. Nor should they, because in reaching these speed assumptions the Agencies decided to ignore
the significant amount of time the tractor/trailers spend idling, thus artificially boosting the percentages
of time at higher-speed.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-l 183-A1 p.4]
-------
It is both meaningless and misleading to compute projected fuel savings (and thus greenhouse-gas
reductions) based on this unrealistic speed distribution, particularly when real-world data shows a
dramatically different speed profile among trailer fleets. Utility Trailer obtained real-world speed data
from four fleets showing the percent of time the fleet's tractor spent at each speed; two of the fleets are
long-haul, nationwide carriers traveling both in the United States as well as Mexico and Canada; two are
regional fleets for food-service customers. All operate long-box trailers and use a mix of refrigerated
and dry-van trailers. Data recorders logged the percentage of time the tractor/trailer was operating at
each speed between 0 mph and 70 mph. One of the fleets recorded data for 4,000 tractors operating over
a 6-month period; another (with the highest average speed) randomly sampled 15 tractors; and a third
provided data for 26 randomly sampled tractors. The fourth fleet did not provide detailed speed data
recorded by data recorders; instead, it provided its calculations of the amount of fuel saved at various
speeds. This was based on data from 342 tractors, which ran between 69,457 and 2,496 miles, with most
travelling roughly 30,000 miles during the time records were kept. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1
p.4-5]
The real-world speed data the fleets provided to Utility Trailer (denominated Fleet 1, Fleet 2, and Fleet
3) differ dramatically from that the EPA used in its GEM model in generating the assumed savings. The
following spreadsheet (and graph) shows the difference. The Agencies based their definition of
"transient" on that employed by the California Air Resources Board, which defined "transient" as
speeds between 0 mph and 47 mph, with an average speed of approximately 15 mph. For purposes of
the speed chart, "transient" is listed in the nearest speed category, 17.5 mph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1183-A1 p.5]
[Table,'% of Time at Speed-EPA vs. Real-World Data', can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1, and a graph displaying the data can be found on p. 6 of the same docket]
What is plain from the spreadsheet and graph is that the GEM assumption concerning the percent of
time the tractor-trailers spend at higher speed dramatically exceeds what the real-world data shows. In
fact, the weighted average speed of the GEM model equates to 62 mph and the average speed for these
three fleets varies from 30 mph to 45 mph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.6]
To demonstrate further how far removed the EPA's GEM model speed assumptions are from the real
world, one can focus only on Fleet 2, the Fleet that had the highest average speed of the three fleets. As
shown in the following graph, the differences persist even with these assumptions favorable to the
EPA's GEM model. Even in this fastest fleet, the single fastest tractor sampled was Truck 65000, which
spent just 33.18% of the time at 65 mph, compared to 86% for the GEM model. Its average speed was
49 mph compared to the GEM average speed of 62 mph. And the slowest was Truck 651007 at 39 mph.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.6]
[Graph, showing percentage of time individual trucks in Fleet 2 spent at each speed, can be found on p.7
of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1]
In addition to the information from the three fleets just summarized, Utility Trailer obtained information
from a fourth fleet. This fleet's data did not show amount of time the tractor-trailer operated at each
speed. Rather, the data showed the amount of fuel that fleet's tractors burned at various speeds.
Tracking data over a total of 68 weeks encompassing 9.47 million miles, that data showed that 93.8% of
the fuel consumed by the fleet was consumed at speeds lower than 55 mph. This confirms the relatively
small gains available from tractors operating at higher speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.7]
-------
The vast difference between the GEM assumptions and what happens in the real world is crucial to
assessing the validity of the Agencies' projected C02 reductions. Tractor/trailers with lower average
speeds will benefit less from trailer aerodynamic devices. Additionally, to produce valid data, projected
speeds must also account for the routes typically driven by a given fleet. Routes in rural areas are likely
to be different from urban routes, and routes along the plains will have a higher average speed than
mountainous routes. Differences in state speed limits and typical weather conditions also must be
factored in. The Agencies' GEM model accounts for none of these factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1183 p.7]
Failure to use real-world speed data overstates the benefits of the Proposed Rule.
As noted earlier, the calculated emission benefits are based on speed assumptions that are radically
different from those exhibited day-to-day on America's highways. By significantly overstating the
amount of time spent at high-speed operations, the speed at which aerodynamic devices actually may
provide a real benefit as aerodynamic drag at that point is roughly equivalent to the drag from non-
aerodynamic friction, the estimates describe benefits that never will be achieved in the real world.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 15]
Response:
The agencies have considered these comments from Utility, along with the information that we used to
derive the drive cycle weightings in Phase 1. For the Phase 1 program, we developed the sleeper cab
cycle weightings (which are also used for long box van trailers in Phase 2) based on three studies that
characterized the operation of line haul trucks: An evaluation using the EPA MOVES model, a study
conducted by University of California Riverside, and a tire test on line haul trucks conducted by Oak
Ridge National Lab.
The following discussion, excerpted from the Phase 1 RIA, Chapter 3.4.3, provides more background on
the analysis:
The distribution of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) among different speed bins was developed for the EPA
MOVES model from analysis of the Federal Highway Administration data. The data is based on
highway vehicle monitoring data from FHWA used to develop the distribution of VMT among road
types from 1999. The information on speed distributions on the different type of roads at different times
of day came from traffic modeling of urban locations and chase car data in rural California. This data
was used to characterize the fraction of VMT spent in high speed cruise versus transient operation.
The University of California Riverside and California Air Resource Board evaluated engine control
module data from 270 trucks which travelled over one million miles to develop the heavy-duty diesel
truck activity report in 2006. The study found that line haul trucks spend approximately 50% of the time
cruising at speeds greater than 45 mph, 10% of time in transient stop-and-go driving, and 40% in
extended idle operation. After removing the idle portion to establish weightings of only the motive
operation, the breakdown looks like 82% of the time cruising at speeds greater than 45 mph and 18% in
transient operation.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory evaluated the fuel efficiency effect of tires on Class 8 heavy trucks. The
study collected fleet data related to real-world highway environments over a period of two years. The
fleet consisted of six trucks which operate widely across the United States. In the Transportation Energy
Data Book (2009) Table 5.11 was analyzed and found on average that the line haul trucks spent 5% of
-------
the miles at speeds less than 50 mph, 17% between 50 and 60 mph, and 78% of the miles at speeds
greater than 60 mph. The table below summarizes the studies used to develop the weightings.
TaM# l-ili Combiautoo* Tn<«or Dm* C >
-------
tractor in a fleet travels at that specific speed. Then, the individual speed savings must be summed to an
expected average fuel savings. The Agencies have failed to provide such a study using real-world speed
data from in use tractors and trailers. Rather, by using the far-too-high GEM assumed speeds, the
Agencies have significantly overstated the anticipated fuel savings from the aerodynamic devices.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.7-8]
Appendix 1 to this submission describes in detail how the efficiency results were calculated. Using that
Appendix, it is easy to track the conclusions stated in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.
[Appendix 1 can be found on p.27 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1]
Real-world savings from side skirts are substantially less than projected in the GEM model.
Table 1-1 in Appendix 1 shows the drag force associated with the trailer, and the reduction in drag -
projected fuel savings - achievable with side skirts at 19 specific speeds between 0 and 70 mph. That
table also shows the minimal savings skirts provide at lower speeds - less than 1% at speeds below
roughly 35 mph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.8]
Using this projected fuel savings at each speed, it is possible to calculate the weighted average of fuel
savings from skirts from the EPA's GEM model, and for each of the three fleets for which we have real-
world speed data. As noted previously, the EPA's GEM study assumes only three speeds: 65 mph (86%
of the time); 55 mph (9% of the time); and "transient" (assumed 17.5 mph - 5% of the time). The
weighted average of the fuel savings at each of these speeds is 1.99%, as shown in Table 1-6 in
Appendix 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.8]
In contrast, when real-world speed data from the three fleets is used to compute the efficiencies of side
skirts, the weighted average savings range between 0.95% (Fleet 1) and 1.43% (Fleet 2), depending on
the speed profile of the fleet. See Table 1-6 in Appendix 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.8]
If cruising speeds below 55 mph are ignored, the GEM model fuel savings is reduced slightly compared
to the fleet's fuel savings because the GEM model assumes (9% @55 mph + 86% @ 65 mph)=95% of
the time from 55 mph to 65 mph. At 65 mph and above, the cruise speed fuel savings for the GEM
model is (1.79%), for Fleet 1 is (0.03%), for Fleet 2 is (0.21%), and for Fleet 3 is (0.54%). So, at this
level, Fleet 3 provides greater savings than does Fleet 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.8]
The following table and graph summarizes these comparisons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1
p.8]
[Table,'% Fuel Savings - Side Skirts', and Graph,'% Fuel Savings At Cruise Speeds', can be found on
p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1183-A1]
The percentages of time at each speed for each fleet are averages for the entire fleet. Within the fleets,
the tractor speeds exhibit substantial variation. As noted earlier, Fleet 2 shows the highest average
speed. But even within that Fleet 2, the fuel savings for both the fastest and the slowest tractors are well
below the EPA GEM assumptions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.9]
[Table, comparing fuel savings from side skirts between fastest and slowest trucks studied and EPA
GEM, can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1]
-------
Even for the tractor that had the highest average speed in the fleet that itself had the highest average
speed, the fuel savings nowhere approximate those of the GEM model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1183-A1 p.10]
Real-world savings from side skirts combined with trailer tails are substantially less than
projected in the GEM model.
The EPA's model assumes that combining side skirts with trailer tails yields the most significant
aerodynamic savings. According to the EPA, the skirt/tail combination produces a fuel savings of 5.56
%. Again, this conclusion depends upon the GEM model's assumption that the tractor-trailer travels at
65 mph 86% of the time, and at 55 mph another 9% of the time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1
p. 10]
The following table shows the fuel reductions as calculated by the EPA and as determined using real-
world data.5 When actual speed data from the three fleets is used, the efficiency savings attributed to the
skirt/tail combination drops by 28%, 35%, or 52% from the EPA estimates for 0-70 mph, depending on
which fleet is used for comparison to the EPA's GEM-model projections. In addition, they all are less
than 3.5% at 55-70 mph, and less than 1.25% at greater than 65 mph, all under ideal conditions.6 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 10]
[Table, comparing fuel savings from side skirts and trailer tails between three fleets studies and EPA
GEM, can be found on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1]
The fuel savings generated from the combination trailer skirt and trailer tail, even under ideal cruising
speed conditions, are very likely too small to be measurable in the field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1183-A1 p.ll]
But even these extremely modest fuel-efficiency gains overstate the results that will occur when the
technology is actually mounted on trailers. Putting aside the fact that the estimates assume,
unrealistically, that all trailers operate at optimum cruise conditions - level roads, no speed changes
caused by traffic fluctuations, perfect weather, and the like - these estimates fail to account for human
behavior: drivers do not want to deploy the trailer tails. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.ll]
Fleet 1 and Fleet 2 recently have installed trailer tails on many of the trailers in their fleet; one of the
fleets has used auto deploy. But in both instances, the tails are not routinely deployed. A survey recently
completed reported that the trailer tails were not deployed 58% of the time, even with auto deploy. This
means that the drivers may be disabling the auto deploy feature and or the feature is still not reliable. A
different fleet with trailer tails without auto deploy reported that the tails were not deployed over 20% of
the time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.ll]
The reason for the significant incidence of nonuse is that drivers consider deploying the tail to be a
nuisance. Even with the auto-deploy feature, retracting the tail remains a chore for the driver since
retraction is not automatic. More importantly, fleets often hold the drivers responsible for any damage to
the tractor or trailer; drivers cannot see the tails when deployed, and the tails are easily damaged by both
the trailer they are attached to and by the trailers parked adjacent to them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1183-A1 p.ll]
When other real-world factors are to be included, like the percentage of time that tractors accelerate or
drive on significant road grades, in traffic, poor road conditions, etc.; the amount of fuel used for only
ideal cruising conditions would diminish and so would the fuel savings and GHG emissions for a given
-------
trailer aerodynamic device. Because of these varying factors and a small predicted fuel savings under
ideal conditions that are not measurable, it would be better for the Agency to continue its voluntary
program in regards to trailer aerodynamic devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 11-12]
Response:
As discussed above in our drive cycle speed comparison, we converted the Utility data to a common
metric and have concluded that the Phase 1 tractor-trailer analyses of average drive cycle weightings
remain sufficiently robust to use for the Phase 2 trailer analyses. The three individual fleets that Utility
analyzes are probably not atypical, but their experience does not disprove the agencies' overall
conclusions about average tractor-trailer operation. For this reason, the subsequent analyses that Utility
performed and presents in this comment, premised as they are on this limited sample, do not provide a
meaningful counter to the agencies' broader analyses.
Further, the Phase 2 trailer compliance equation (which is based on GEM) is not a test for aerodynamic
performance. Aerodynamic performance (as delta CdA) is measured using wind tunnel, coastdown or
CFD test procedures. Users submit aerodynamic performance data as an input to the equation, and the
overall performance of the vehicle is calculated.
Within GEM, the simulated vehicle is driven over three drive cycles: 65-mph cruise, 55-mph cruise,
and a transient drive cycle. As discussed in RIA Chapter 3.4.2.1, the two cruise speeds account for
grade changes, and the transient cycle involves stops and starts with accelerations and decelerations to
several different speeds. The commenter is consequently mistaken in asserting that these phenomena are
unaccounted for in GEM.
In response to the comment about frequency of deployment of current trailer tails, we observe that
trailer tails are used on a very small fraction of box vans today, and that experience by fleets and drivers
is limited at this point. However, we expect that the growing direct and indirect experience with these
devices across the industry, as well as likely design improvements that ease deployment for operation as
well as ease the collapsing of the devices at loading docks, and will tend to increase proper use of these
devices in order for the fuel saving benefits to be achieved.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
Failure to consider the need to replace and repair the drag-reduction technologies overstates the
benefits of the Proposed Rule.
The Agencies' estimates understate the costs by failing to account for the emissions associated with
replacing the items and repairing damaged trailers. At the more micro level, the touted cost-benefit
calculation for the owner - savings in two years will pay for the devices - also is inaccurate in that the
calculation does not account for the cost of replacing items or repairing trailer damage. Moreover,
virtually none of those operators will see the fuel-reduction benefits described in the Proposed Rule for
the reasons described previously. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 16]
Additionally, the Proposed Rule fails to account for the costs associated with increased tire wear for
low-rolling-resistance tires. Because low-rolling-resistance trailer tires are stiffer, they wear faster due
to tire scrubbing, curbing, and other wear and tear. Scrubbing is a particular problem for the long-box
trailers, as the "long wheel base" provides sufficient mechanical advantage, or leverage, to the tractor to
easily scrub the trailer tires with a standard 49-inch axle spread and even an optional 121"-axle spread.
Also, urban routes with tighter maneuvers are more susceptible to scrubbing. The stiffer low-rolling-
-------
resistance trailer tires are likely to be more vulnerable to wear under these conditions. The TMC, the
maintenance council division of the American Trucking Association recently published their findings on
LRR tire wear for tractors and trailers where they report that low-rolling-resistance trailer tires are
wearing sooner than conventional standard tires.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 16]
[Graph, 'Trailer Tire Mileage', can be found on p. 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-
Al]
Standard trailer tires outperformed low-rolling-resistance trailer tires by an average of 4,000 miles.
Increased tire replacement or retreading and replacement will contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions
and mitigate the emission reduction from claimed from using low-rolling-resistance trailer tires. The
Agencies have failed to consider this in their GEM Model and Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1183-A1 p. 17]
Response:
EPA has not included maintenance costs associated with aero treatments on trailers due to lack of data
that could be used to support the estimates. Some commenters provided estimated annual values, but did
not provide data to support their estimates. It is possible that their estimates are based on anecdotal
evidence of a small number of problem installations rather than an average of all trailers equipped with
aero treatments. Without such more robust information, we continue to conclude that overall
maintenance costs are negligible. Our understanding is that the majority of routine maintenance
includes, at most, minor actions like tightening of bolts, and that any additional costs would be minimal.
The agencies are familiar with the TMC reference cited by Utility and recognize that this report showed
that standard tires outperformed LRR tires for trailers.160 However, we have two concerns with the
report's results. First, the fleets were asked to indicate mile ranges in 50,000 mile increments, which
makes it difficult to see how an average of 4,000 miles was obtained and whether this is a significant
difference. Second, the report did not provide any indication of maintenance that may or may not have
been performed. It is possible that properly maintained tires would show no difference.
The agencies agree that trailers with large axle spreads are more susceptible to scrubbing and we are
adopting provisions to exclude trailers with axle spreads greater than 120 inches (see 40 CFR
1037.5(h)).
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
AUTOMATIC TIRE INFLATION IS UNNECESSARY.
Even with an automatic tire-inflation system, a prudent operator should check tire pressure manually.
This is because systems become damaged, because the systems are not foolproof, and because at times
the systems add pressure to cold tires, but the pressure increases beyond the recommended maximum
level as the tires heat during normal operation. Only by checking the tires manually can the operator be
sure that the tires are actually at optimal pressure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 18]
160 Parks, Jim. "TMC Survey Reveals Misinformed View of Fuel-Efficient Tires". March 2015.
TruckingInfo.com. Available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827 or online at:
http://www.truckinginfo.eom/article/story/2015/03/tmc-tire-survey-reveals-discrepancy-in-fleet-view-of-fuel-
efficient-tires, aspx.
-------
Of course, many trucking fleets already have incorporated ATI systems in their trailer fleets, and they
have invested the facilities and expertise to manage them properly. They believe that it is easier on
drivers and saves tire wear. But this is not a reason to foist the system on all operators, particularly when
prudent operators will check pressure manually in any instance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1
P-18]
Additionally, most of the automatic-tire-inflation systems on the market only add air to the tires; they do
not remove the air when the tires are overinflated. But as noted, overinflation is a concern when air is
added to tires that are cold. Overinflation, however, increases the rate of tire wear, which increases net
greenhouse-gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.18]
The Agencies have not demonstrated that the tire-inflation systems will generate sufficient savings
verses the manual method to justify their adoption, nor have they considered the erosion of any benefits
that will occur as the systems overinflate tires and decrease tire life, resulting in increased greenhouse-
gas emissions. For this reason, Utility Trailer urges the Agencies to remove automatic tire inflation
system from the proposed EPA Phase 2 Rules. In other words, the term "• C5 " at the end of the
equation should be removed, and the maximum "eC02" grams per ton-mile should be adjusted up to
compensate equivalently. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 18]
Response:
The performance standards for box vans are based on use of ATIS, but do not require any specific
technology be applied. Manufacturers have the option to install any combination of aerodynamic, LRR
tires, tire pressure systems, or weight reduction to meet the standards. The agencies are including ATIS
as an option for compliance in our Phase 2 program as a means to ensure proper inflation and rolling
resistance.
Regarding the potential for tire over-inflation with ATIS and possible consequences, please see our
response to the comment from TTMA on this subject earlier in this section 5.4 (page 1021).
Additionally, the final trailer program provides for manufacturers to install either TPMS or ATIS as a
part of compliance. Manufacturers can offer box van customers that are confident in their drivers' tire
maintenance the option to choose no tire inflation or TPMS instead of ATIS. The final design standards
for non-box trailers do require the use of LRR tires and a tire inflation system, but they can choose
either TPMS or ATIS, and the trailer program does not require a specific make or model for these
systems; manufacturers can already choose from several options on the market today, and these choices
may expand as the program phases in.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
Manufacturers should be given credit for net weight reductions, regardless of whether the weight
reductions are attributable to switching to aluminum components.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis focuses on weight savings in trailers by substituting aluminum for steel
components, although other portions of the Analysis recognize that weight savings are possible with
high-strength steel or other materials. Aluminum, though lighter than steel, often is not the best material
for a given application, since it only has approximately one-third the stiffness and lower yield strengths
than steel. Manufacturers are in an excellent position to determine the best materials for their trailers
and the stresses those trailers will encounter. They should be encouraged to reduce the weight of their
trailers, while maintaining strength and longevity. Accordingly, since the Agency associates weight
reduction with fuel-efficiency savings, manufacturers should be given credit for any weight savings in
-------
their trailers, regardless of whether the savings come from redesign or substitution of materials, and if
from substitution of materials, regardless of whether the previous material was steel, or whether the new
material is aluminum, high-strength steel, plastic, or any other weight-savings material. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.24]
5 These calculations are described in Appendix 1 - using real-world speed data from the three fleets - at
various speeds.
6 Utility Trailer developed this information in the same way as it developed the statistics for efficiency
of trailer skirts, but it reduced the drag coefficient to 0.423, the appropriate number with 0-degree yaw
as determined by the computational fluid dynamic analysis performed by Exa Corporation.
Response:
We did not propose, but after further consideration in response to similar comments, we are finalizing a
provision that makes the existing off-cycle process available to trailer manufacturers that wish to
demonstrate design improvements by means not currently available in GEM (or the GEM equation).
We have outlined steps for evaluating lightweight components or designs that are not listed in our
current lightweighting tables. (See Preamble Section IV.F.5.d). Additionally, manufacturers have the
option to use a different test procedure, with advance EPA approval, that they believe will effectively
capture the benefits of their new design. See 40 CFR 1037.61
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
Wabash Supports EPA's Proposed Bins for Trailer Aerodynamic Technologies, But Adjustments Are
Needed for Bin VIII
To evaluate performance and cost of certain aerodynamic technologies, EPA and NHTSA identified
"packages" of individual or combined technologies that are being sold today on box trailers. The
agencies also identified distinct performance levels, or "bins," for these technologies based on EPA's
aerodynamic testing. Table IV-4 in the Phase 2 Proposed Rule illustrates the bin structure that EPA and
NHTSA are proposing for trailer compliance. Sample technologies for a 53-foot dry van in each bin
include: (1) Bin I - No Aero Devices; (2) Bin II - Gap Reducer; (3) Bin III - Basic Skirt or Basic Tail;
(4) Bin IV - Advanced Skirt or Tail; (5) Bin V - Basic Combinations; (6) Bin VI - Advanced
Combinations (including SmartWay Elite); (7) Bin VII- Optimized Combinations; and (8) Bin VIII—
Changes to Trailer Construction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 14]
With respect to Bin VIII, EPA must recognize that potential changes to trailer construction are limited
by other regulatory requirements, including NHTSA safety standards and Department of Transportation
("DOT") length and height requirements. Trailer manufacturers' design innovations are limited both by
regulatory requirements and by the market demand that payload capacity not be reduced. On the other
hand, trailer manufacturers are able to introduce some innovations within those constraints and should
be rewarded for doing so. Manufacturers should have the option to demonstrate their improved designs
and be able to enter different inputs into GEM accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 14]
Response:
The agencies have reevaluated our proposed aerodynamic bin structure for trailers based on the use of
wind-averaged CdA and new test results obtained following the publication of the NPRM. The most
notable difference is that we expanded the width of the lower bins. The NPRM Bins III, IV and V were
reduced to two bins. Bins V, VI, and VII are identical to the highest bins from the NPRM (NPRM bins
-------
VI, VII, and VIII). See Chapter 2.10.2.1.3 of the RIA. See our response to CARB in Section 5.3 on
page 980 for an expanded description of our bin adjustments. In adjusting the bins, we have also better
aligned the technologies we expect will fit in those bins based on our test results.
We are maintaining a "future" aerodynamic bin (Bin VII), but we are not aware of any current
technology packages that can achieve the performance of such future designs. These designs may be
changes to construction, within the limits of existing regulations, or could be newly designed
components. The final trailer standards are not predicated on the use of any such future aerodynamic
design changes. We did not propose, but are finalizing an off-cycle option for trailer manufacturers that
wish to demonstrate design improvements by means not currently available in GEM. We have outlined
steps for evaluating lightweight components or designs that are not listed in our current lightweighting
tables. Additionally, manufacturers have the option to use a different test procedure, with advance EPA
approval, that they believe will effectively capture the benefits of any new designs. See 40 CFR
1037.610.
5.5 Exclusions and Less-Stringent Standards
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Short and non-box trailers
The proposal requires 4.8% and 4.6% fuel consumption reduction in 2027 from short dry vans and short
reefers, respectively. The agencies projected 2027 adoption of 95% Level II tires and automatic tire
inflation (ATI) can provide almost 3% fuel savings, more than half of the 2027 target. At the same time,
based on industry effectiveness estimates16 and the agencies' bin adoption assumptions (30%, 60% and
10% for Bin II, III, and IV, respectively), these short trailers can achieve 4.4% fuel savings in 2027.
Thus the 2027 requirements can be nearly met with aero technologies alone. Hence the total potential
for fuel consumption from improvements in short trailers exceeds the proposed standard by more than
50%, and we would encourage the agencies to strengthen the 2027 requirements in order to drive
advanced aero technologies for these trailers. With regard to non-box trailers, the proposed standards for
2027 would require improvement only in tires. We urge the agencies to consider adopting basic aero
devices for non-box trailers in this timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1280-A1 p. 18]
16 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/techreport/epdo ve tech report.pdf (P. III-4)
Response:
See our response to CARB's comment on the updated bin structure in Section 5.3 on page 980 and
Chapter 2.10.2.1.3 of the RIA. It is important to clarify that the projections of adoption rates on which
we base our performance standards are not "requirements" for box vans. The standards are designed to
give manufacturers the flexibility to choose from multiple technology combination options to comply.
It is possible that, in some model years, a manufacturer will be able to meet the required performance
standard without certain technologies (i.e., large amounts of weight reduction, tires with very low
rolling resistance, and ATIS could make up for use of aerodynamic improvements). See our memo to
-------
the docket outlining possible combinations that can be used to meet the MY 2018 and MY 2027
standards.161
The agencies adjusted our short trailer aerodynamic technology adoption rates based on test data
obtained following the NPRM. Our final MY 2027 standards for short box vans are based on 60%
adoption of technologies in the new Bin IV, which is equivalent to NPRM Bin V and a significant
strengthening of the stringency from that proposed. While we did not observe any technology
combinations that meet this bin in our testing, we note that our short box van results are based on a
limited number of data points. We believe that additional technology combinations already exist in the
market, beyond what we evaluated in our testing, that perform close to Bin IV and it would only be a
matter of optimizing those combinations to fully achieve Bin IV. Since many of the current
technologies are simply modified from versions of those made for 5 3-foot vans, we are confident that,
over the next 10 years, this program will provide an incentive for trailer and aerodynamic device
manufacturers to develop new technologies specific to short box vans that can achieve Bin IV. We also
reiterate that the adoption rates projected by the agencies are only one option manufacturers can use to
meet these performance standards. Weight reduction, which is more effective on short box vans, can be
used in place of aerodynamic improvements, or that less aerodynamic improvement than projected
could be used with weight reduction making up the difference. See Chapter 2.10.2.5 of the RIA.
We did not propose standards predicated on aerodynamic technologies for non-box trailers. The
agencies concluded that much more information would be needed to have proposed such technologies
that are in their infancy, but we will continue to consider them as a part of potential future action. See
our response to UCS in Section 5.4 on page 1026.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Additional Trailer Exclusions are Needed for:
Jeep. Dolly, and Load Divider: A trailer composed of a trailer chassis and one or more axles, with no
solid bed, body, or container attached, and which is designed exclusively to support a portion of the load
on a trailer or truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.25]
Heavy-Haul: Any trailer that has a gross vehicle weight rating ("GVWR") of more than 120,000 pounds
or any trailer equipped with an axle that has a gross axle weight rating ("GAWR") of 29,000 pounds or
more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.25]
Expandable: Any trailer that has a width of more than 102.36 inches with extendable equipment in the
fully retracted position and is equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.25]
Extendable: Any trailer that has air lines designed to allow extension of the vehicle frame or load deck.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.25]
Modular: Any trailer that has air lines designed to allow separation and removal of deck sections or
insertion of deck sections to create longer or shorter load carrying areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1243-A1 p.25]
161 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. "Example Compliance Scenarios for the Final HD GHG
Phase 2 Trailer Program" August 2016.
-------
Sliding: Any trailer that has an undercarriage system designed to move forward or back to allow the
load deck to tilt, slide, or adjust into a position that facilitates the loading or unloading of equipment but
must return to original position for transport. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.25]
Multi-Axle: Any trailer that has two or more permanently attached axles (including lift axles) and
designed to accept additional removable axles, flip axles, and/or load transferring boosters; both
mechanical, hydraulic, or air (or other gas). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.25]
Dump: An open-topped trailer having a load-bearing container body structure with a hydraulic cylinder
that allows the container to be tilted to discharge its contents through an open tailgate that is used in
short-haul transport of construction, paving, demolition and other bulk materials such as sand, gravel,
asphalt, sludge, scrap metal, farm products etc., from off-road mine/pit loading sites to off-road
construction unloading sites. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.25]
Refuse Transfer: A usually open-topped trailer having a load-bearing container body structure that can
be tilted on an external hydraulic tipping platform or equipped with a self-unloading floor to discharge
its contents through an open tailgate that is used in short-haul transport of refuse material (garbage)
from off-road transfer station loading sites to off-road landfill unloading sites. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1 p.26]
Lift Gate Equipped: Rail lift and lift gate equipped trailers operate at low speeds and perform local
deliveries. As such, they ought to be classified as "non-aero" based solely on the inclusion of a lift.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.26]
Multi-Temp Food Service: Typically has a compartment in the nose of the trailer that takes up the full
width with two narrow compartments behind it. The two narrow compartments can be unloaded through
the rear door but the front compartment requires unloading through a side door. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1 p.26]
Roll-Up Doors: Trailers utilizing rear roll-up doors should be given a partial or qualified exclusion from
the aerodynamic requirements until an effective, durable and cost efficient product is available which is
compatible with these types of rear frame designs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.26]
Response:
We recognize that many trailers in the proposed non-box subcategory have unique physical
characteristics for specialized operations that may make use of lower rolling resistance (LRR) tires
and/or tire pressure systems difficult or infeasible. Instead of focusing on trailer characteristics that
indicated off-highway use, the agencies have identified three specific types of non-box trailers that
represent the majority of non-box trailers that we believe are designed for and mostly used in on-road
applications: tanks, flatbeds, and container chassis. We believe that customers purchasing tanks,
flatbeds, and container chassis will see an in-use benefit from using these tire technologies.
Consequently, the final program as it applies to non-box trailers is limited to tanks, flatbeds, and
container chassis. All other non-box trailers, about half of the non-box trailers produced, are excluded
from the Phase 2 trailer program, with no regulatory requirements.
Most of the trailer examples provided in the commenter's list would be excluded under these final
provisions. However, the comment did not include sufficient information to justify a blanket exclusion
of trailers with GAWR of 29,000 lbs, lift gates, multi-temp compartments, or roll-up doors. We do not
know an average axle weight rating of different trailer types or the fraction of the industry that exceed
-------
29,000 lbs today to determine whether customers would simply ask for a greater weight rating to avoid
standards. Similarly, the comment did not provide data to support the claim that lift gates and multi-
temp compartments indicate trailers commonly used at lower speeds where no technologies would be
useful.
As noted in our responses to STEMCO in Section 5.2 (page 976) and FedEx in Section 5.4 (page 999),
we are adopting an interim provision to recognize roll-up doors as work-performing equipment until
MY 2024. We expect this provision will provide an incentive for device manufacturers to continue to
develop and improve aerodynamic technologies that are appropriate for roll-up doors, but will allow
manufacturers time to obtain, become familiar with, and prepare to market these technologies to their
customers.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
We are also concerned that the decision to exempt container trailers from the standards would create a
potential loophole that could erode the overall benefits of the trailer program. The number of container
trailers is growing and becoming a larger percentage of total trailer miles, with containers being used for
longer delivery routes, displacing the use of traditional trailers. We understand the challenges of
including containers under the standards, but we encourage the Agencies to develop a workable solution
to this problem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.36]
Response:
The agencies are adopting design standards for non-box trailers, which include container chassis of all
lengths, based on adoption of LRR tires and tire pressure systems. See also our response to the TTMA
comment relating to container chassis in Section 5.4 on page 1023.
Organization: Great Dane
While we recognize that many fleets successfully employ skirts, we agree with the agencies that certain
fleet specifications lead to the use of "work performing devices" (WPD's) such as sidedoor steps,
platforms, ramps and liftgates that preclude the use of skirts, and this does not afford those operators the
opportunity to utilize skirts for fuel savings. We further note a high correlation of trailers with these
specific WPD's in the population of trailers used in "foodservice" applications delivering to restaurants,
schools, hospitals and other commercial establishments. These food service trailers are generally built to
allow transportation of goods at multiple temperatures. This usually requires side doors and other
associated WPD's to operate efficiently and avoid delivery by multiple single temperature trailers. Our
records indicate that there is a high correlation between trailers utilizing multiple refrigeration
evaporators and side doors, and those specific WPD's to allow "multi temp" food service operations
involving the delivery and unloading of goods thru the trailers' side door or side doors from the trailers'
interior compartments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.2]
We note that most food service fleets specify trailers with overhead or "roll up" rear doors as opposed to
the more common swinging type doors. We believe that these fleets purchase and maintain these rear
doors at a premium over swing type doors in order to be able to deliver goods thru the rear door
opening, typically via a "walk ramp" used by the driver or assistant when the trailer is in tight confines
such as alleyways and parking lots. Such trailer specifications do not lend themselves to the use of rear
aero devices or treatments, and we believe that food service fleets operate their trailers in local or at
longest regional and then local delivery modes at generally lower speeds than traveled by longhaul
fleets. Thus, we believe that food service trailers as characterized by multiple refrigeration system
-------
evaporators should be exempted from any trailer aero requirements, as the WPD's generally present on
both the sides and rear of these trailers in addition to the roll-up doors and low speed operations we
believe to be typical in those fleets hinder or preclude cost effective aero use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1219-A1 p.3]
We agree with language in the proposed regulations that states there is consideration by the agencies of
trailers "that have work-performing devices in two locations such that they inhibit the use of all
(emphasis added) practical aerodynamic devices be considered "non-aero" box trailers." We note that
these WPD's, whether installed by the trailer OEM, the customer or a third party, are there to increase
the efficiency of the trailer and agree that such trailers should be exempted from aero requirements.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p. 3]
The agencies have calculated and analyzed the impact on the industry based their understanding of the
costs of the technologies, expected market penetrations and the fleet operational parameters such as
speeds and distances traveled. As noted above we believe that certain trailers operate in regional or local
delivery modes and thus we do not believe that such trailers benefit substantially from trailer aero,
negating those fleets' abilities to achieve sufficient return on those investments. We note that some
trailers are equipped with rear mounted lift devices, installed by the trailer OEM, a third party or by the
customer, to allow loading or unloading of freight independent of a loading dock. We believe that such
trailers operate primarily in lower speed operations than fleet long haul operations and we believe that
such trailers should be exempted from any trailer aero requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-
A1 p.3-4]
Response:
The trailer program recognizes the potential for trailer WPDs to interfere with or prevent the use of
some aerodynamic devices, and provides for trailers with WPDs to be designated as partial-aero or non-
aero and be subject to less stringent standards. The agencies expect many box vans with roll-up doors
will include additional features that would quality these trailers for a partial- or non-aero designation.
However, as noted in our responses to STEMCO in Section 5.2 (page 976) and FedEx in Section 5.4
(page 999), we are adopting an interim provision to recognize roll-up doors as work-performing
equipment until MY 2024. We expect this provision will provide an incentive for device manufacturers
to continue to develop and improve aerodynamic technologies that are appropriate for roll-up doors, but
will allow manufacturers time to obtain, become familiar with, and prepare to market these technologies
to their customers.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Compliance and real-world validation
Per agency discussion within the proposed rulemaking, there appear to be some discrepancies across
various companies regarding the precise times when model years fall within a given calendar year (e.g.,
engines within tractors could have differing model years). Importantly, the agencies' analysis is based
on a thorough investigation of the ability to introduce, and deploy in larger percentages, technologies in
future years. We support the agencies approach to technology implementation timing, without including
any delay in implementation due to industry-adopted convention for model years that differs across
various regulated vehicle and engine manufacturers. Especially considering companies' latitude in
selling products of given model years, that are independent of calendar year, any delay in technology
deployment or stringency determination due to how companies' decisions about naming and marketing
products by model year would be unwarranted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4]
-------
Response:
Consistent with Clean Air Act requirements and implementing rules162 EPA's vehicle certification is an
annual process. EPA C02 emissions standards start to apply for trailers built on or after January 1,
2018, with later standards being introduced by model year. Under the Clean Air Act, the term "model
year" refers to a manufacturer's annual production period. Manufacturers may use the calendar year as
the model year, or may choose a different period of production that includes January 1 of that year.
Thus, manufacturers have the option to choose any year-long period of production that begins on or
before January 1 of the named model year, but no sooner than January 2 of the previous calendar year.
For example, at certification, a manufacturer could specify the 2021 model year production period to be
July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. We believe this definition provides manufacturers some flexibility
in the release date of their new trailers, but ensures a level of consistency between manufacturers for
regulatory purposes.
Organization: SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC
Likewise, the agencies propose using several yaw angles to better approximate highway and wind
conditions that introduce drag on the side areas of the vehicle. It is particularly important to account for
lateral yaw in this rulemaking because of the relatively large lateral areas of a tractor-trailer
combination. As Exa Corporation testified at the Long Beach public hearing: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1207-A1 p.3]
Because of the significant impact to real world efficiencies due to wind yaw effects; we feel it is
imperative that wind effects be part of the standard ...4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1207-A1 p.3]
The agencies note that a 'wind averaged drag coefficient is about 15 percent higher than the zero degree
coefficient of drag.' This is directionally consistent with findings from SABIC's work with Exa to model
the aerodynamic benefits of the optimized Class 8 Day Cab roof fairing.6 That research showed an 8-10
percent higher wind-averaged drag coefficient, based on the use of both zero degree and 6 degree yaw in
CFD modelling.7 We believe the proposal to include yaw effects in CFD modelling for Phase 2 will
result in more realistic estimates of on-road aerodynamic performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1207-A1 p.3-4]
4 Testimony of Kevin Golsch, Exa Corporation, U.S EPA Public Hearing on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles, August 18, 2015.
6 Pereira, C. et al., Drag Reduction through Optimization of an Aerodynamic Day Cab Roof
Fairing, SAE 2015 Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress, October 6-8, 2015, 15CVA-0026 2015-
012892 PPRES.
7 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (Phase II), Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis, EPA-420-D-15-900 (June 2015), pp. 2-19 and 2-20.
162 See, e.g. CAA section 206 (a) requiring certification for section 202 standards; since the standards
here apply model year by model year, annual certification is required.
-------
Response:
The agencies evaluated the aerodynamic test data for our trailer program and concluded (consistent with
this comment) that wind-averaging is able to better capture aerodynamic improvements from many
devices, including several small-scale devices. We are adopting a wind-averaged approach for
aerodynamic testing in the trailer program. See RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.2.3.
Organization: STEMCO
STEMCO supports excluding trailers with work-performing devices from a portion of the compliance
requirements as long as those devices are purchased primarily for their work performing purpose. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.2]
Work-performing devices
STEMCO agrees that work-performing devices such as rear-mounted lift gates and drop-deck trailer
designs should qualify a trailer for a reduced "partial aero" compliance level. In addition to "partially
interfering with the installation and effectiveness of some aerodynamic devices," trailers with work-
performing devices typically travel fewer highway miles each year and are therefore not as suited to
receive aerodynamic devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1259-A1 p.9]
We have a small concern that a reduced "partial aero" compliance level could allow an unneeded work-
performing device to be purchased specifically to reduce the aerodynamic device compliance standard
in that region of the trailer. This scenario is highly unlikely because work-performing devices are
generally more expensive and fleets do not want to pay more for zero (or substantially reduced) fuel
savings, but there could be an example where steps for side-door access are purchased, but not used, by
a fleet as a compliance alternative to sideskirts or another approved underbody aerodynamic device. It
may not be necessary, but to mitigate this potential loophole, we simply suggest adding wording to the
final regulation saying work-performing devices should be intended for work-performing purposes in
that specific trailer's application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.9-10]
Long van trailers with roll-up doors
STEMCO asks EPA and NHTSA to confirm in the final regulation that long van trailers with roll-up
doors are subject to the "full aero" compliance level. We believe that the long van roll-up door subset of
the industry contributes significant potential to the environmental goals sought by this regulation, with a
conservative estimate of 23% of long van trailer highway miles being driven by trailers with roll-up
doors each year8. We also believe that maintaining long roll-up door trailers in the "full aero"
compliance level will spur additional research and development and have a significant effect on
bringing aerodynamic technology advances to market in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1259-A1 p. 10]
Response:
The agencies are adopting reduced standards for box vans designated as partial- or non-aero box vans.
Because the types of work-performing equipment identified generally add significant cost and weight to
a trailer, we believe that the reduced standards available for trailers using this equipment are unlikely to
provide an incentive for manufacturers to install them simply as a way to avoid the full aero standards.
-------
As noted in our previous STEMCO response in Section 5.2 (page 976) and our response to FedEx in
Section 5.4 (page 999), we are adopting an interim provision to recognize roll-up doors as work-
performing equipment until MY 2024. We expect this provision will provide an incentive for device
manufacturers to continue to develop and improve aerodynamic technologies that are appropriate for
roll-up doors, but will allow manufacturers time to obtain, become familiar with, and prepare to market
these technologies to their customers.
Organization: Stoughton Trailers
2. Exempt portion of production Volume:
Official request for consideration of a graduated level of production volume subject to the regulation.
The trailer industry has historically never been subject to regulation to the extent the GHG2 proposal of
topic. The schedule is a declining progression from 20% to 5% over the period defined within the
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.l]
25% 2018-2020
20% 2021-2023
15% 2024-2027
10% 2027
Request 2: direct this type of graduation to allow for experience within the regulatory realm, in order to
minimize potential non-compliance levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1212-A2 p.l]
Response:
The agencies are not finalizing the proposed provisions that would have allowed manufacturers to
comply with the trailer standards using averaging before MY 2027. As a result, in the absence of
mitigating provisions, manufacturers would need to comply with the applicable standards for all of their
trailers. The agencies received comment, primarily from trailer manufacturers, that, without the
flexibility of averaging, trailer manufacturers should be allowed to "carve-out" a set percentage of their
sales that would not be required to meet the standards. In this comment, Stoughton Trailers suggests an
up-to-20 percent carve-out.
The agencies considered this concept and this final program provides each manufacturer with a limited
"allowance" of trailers that do not need to meet the standards. In determining an appropriate value for
this allowance, the agencies sought to balance the need for some degree of flexibility in the absence of
averaging while minimizing changes in the competitive relationships among larger and smaller trailer
manufacturers. An allowance of 20 percent, as suggested by Stoughton, is problematic, since the annual
production for individual trailer manufacturers varies so widely. An allowance of 20 percent for a very
large manufacturer could very well represent the same volume of trailers as an entire year's sales for a
small manufacturer. This in turn could result in a situation where a large number of non-complying
trailers would be on the market, potentially attracting customers away from smaller manufacturers that
needed to market complying trailers.
Because of this, the agencies estimated a representative volume of trailers based on the 2015 Trailer
Production Figures published by Trailer-BodyBuilders.com. The smallest box van manufacturer in the
list produced 1800 dry freight vans in 2015. Twenty percent of that production is 360 trailers. Based on
-------
this calculation, the trailer program includes an interim provision providing box van manufacturers an
allowance of 20 percent of their production, up to a maximum of 350 units (i.e., rounding to the nearest
50 trailers) that are not required to meet the standards for model years 2018 through 2026, when the
program does not include averaging and manufacturers are becoming familiar with the technologies and
the program in general. All lengths of box vans, including both dry and refrigerated, produced by a
given manufacturer count toward the allowance.
While averaging does not apply for partial- and non-aero box vans at any point in the program, the
agencies recognize that manufacturers could also benefit from the ability to exempt some trailers from
these subcategories in the early years as they transition into the full program. For this reason, for MY
2018 through 2026, the trailer program provides for manufacturers to choose to include partial- and non-
aero box trailers in their 350 box-van allowance. By MY 2027, we expect that manufacturers of partial-
and non-aero box vans will be able to meet the reduced standards for all vans in their given
subcategories, and thus the program ends the allowance provision at that time.
Non-box trailers have design-based tire standards and averaging does not apply for this subcategory at
any point in the program. Similar to the case of the partial- and non-aero box vans, we also conclude
that non-box manufacturers can benefit from a transitional exemption allowance. For this reason, the
trailer program also includes a separate allowance for non-box trailers, but a separate one because their
production volumes differ and many non-box trailer manufacturers do not build box vans. Using the
same trailer production figures referenced above, we found that the smallest non-box trailer
manufacturer in the list produced 1325 trailers in 2015, and twenty percent of that production is 265
trailers. Accordingly, from MY 2018 through 2026, non-box trailer manufacturers can exempt 20
percent or 250 trailers (again, rounded to the nearest 50 trailers) from the applicable tire standards. By
MY 2027, we expect that all non-box trailers will be able to incorporate the tire technologies required
by the design standards.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
6 - Further Areas Requiring Exclusion/Exemption
The proposal asks for input on the merits of exclusion versus exemption of various trailer types. Our
objections to the agencies' authority notwithstanding, we feel that all regulations should be crafted in
such a way as to minimize unnecessary negative impact on manufacturers. Tracking and reporting
burdens are very real costs, and should only be used by the agencies when there is a definite social gain
to be had. There is no gain to be had by requiring reporting and tracking for classes of trailers that are
not the subject of this proposal, so we encourage the agencies to maximize the use of exclusions
wherever practicable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.9]
TTMA recognizes that the agencies have made great strides in gaining an understanding of the trailer
industry and have laid forth certain types of trailers which should be excluded from the proposal.18
There are certain problems with the classification of some trailers and other types that also ought to be
excluded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 10]
Heavy Haul Exclusion
The proposal intended to exclude trailers designed for heavy-haul applications, but apparently used a
simplistic combination of length and axle count to define a heavy-haul trailer. While such a metric is a
useful test, it omits several other design characteristics that define certain heavy-haul trailers that
-------
otherwise would not pass the proposal's "Trailers shorter than 35 feet in length with three axles, and all
trailers with four or more axles (including any lift axles)." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 10]
Heavy-haul style trailers are designed to carry equipment used for construction, agricultural, mining,
logging, power generation and other industries, specialized loads generally not transported on a regular
basis, high center of gravity loads, and over-sized (length, width, height, and/or weight) loads. Most of
these trailers operate in either very small fleets (two to three trailers) or are owner-operated where
requirements for specific tire and equipment types would cause a larger financial burden than the
perceived benefit of reduced fuel use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 10]
The following recommendations for exclusion are based on specific physical characteristics that are
designed into each trailer type in order for it to perform its intended function. These trailers are not
intended for nor are they used for over-the-highway long haul operations or at highway speeds for
extended periods of time. These trailers will operate both on and off road, at various speeds, and in
various terrains. There are not specific design characteristics that indicate that this trailer should operate
at low speeds or on a specific type of terrain, but, these are physical characteristics that can distinguish
heavy-haul style trailers from other trailer types. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 10]
"Jeep; Dolly, Load Divider"
As defined in 49 CFR 571.121 S4, a load divider dolly means a trailer composed of a trailer chassis and
one or more axles, with no solid bed, body, or container attached, and which is designed exclusively to
support a portion of the load on a trailer or truck excluded from all the requirements of this standard.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 10]
"Heavy Haul"
Any trailer that has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 120,000 pounds or any trailer
equipped with an axle that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 29,000 pounds or more. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 10]
"Expandable"
As defined in 49 CFR 571.121 S3.(a), any trailer that has a width of more than 102.36 inches with
extendable equipment in the fully retracted position and is equipped with two short track axles in a line
across the width of the trailer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 10]
"Extendable"
Any trailer that has air lines designed to allow extension of the vehicle frame or load deck. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 10]
"Modular"
Any trailer that has air lines designed to allow separation and removal of deck sections or insertion of
deck sections to create longer or shorter load carrying areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 11]
"Sliding"
-------
Any trailer that has an undercarriage system designed to move forward or back to allow the load deck to
tilt, slide, or adjust into a position that facilitates the loading or unloading of equipment but must return
to original position for transport. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 11]
"Multi-Axle"
Any trailer that has two or more permanently attached axles (including lift axles) and designed to accept
additional removable axles, flip axles, and/or load transferring boosters; both mechanical, hydraulic, or
air (or other gas). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 11]
Dump Trailer Exclusion:
There are a variety of trailer designs that nominally appear to be simple box trailers, but due to the
design being used for in-field operations and short haul/low speed operations almost exclusively, should
be excluded from the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 11]
"Dump trailer"
An open-topped trailer having a load-bearing container body structure with a hydraulic cylinder that
allows the container to be tilted to discharge its contents through an open tailgate or equipped with
special doors/gates to allow discharge of contents by gravity that is used in short-haul transport of
construction, paving, demolition and other bulk materials such as sand, gravel, asphalt, sludge, scrap
metal, farm products etcetera from off-road mine/pit loading sites to off-road construction unloading
sites. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 11]
"Refuse transfer trailer"
A usually open-topped trailer having a load-bearing container body structure that can be tilted on an
external hydraulic tipping platform or equipped with a self-unloading floor to discharge its contents
through an open tailgate that is used in short-haul transport of refuse material (garbage) from off-road
transfer station loading sites to off-road landfill unloading sites. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1
p.ll]
ATIS Exemption:
Certain tires/loads have working pressures is excess of what tractors can provide. These trailers should
be exempt from the ATIS requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.ll]
Lift Gate Equipped Trailers:
Rail Lift & Lift Gate equipped trailers operate at low speeds and perform local deliveries. As such, they
ought to be classified as "non-aero" based solely on the inclusion of a lift, however a better approach
non-aero trailer classification will be discussed below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 11]
Response:
The trailer program includes provisions that exclude a large fraction of non-box trailers, as discussed in
our response to the similar comment from ATA at the beginning of this Section 5.5 on page 1040.
Similar to the list provided by ATA, many of the trailer examples in this TTMA's list are now excluded
-------
from the Phase 2 trailer program, with exceptions noted in the ATA response. In terms of TTMA's
additional ATIS exemption request, the comment did not include sufficient information on which to
base an exemption, such as an appropriate working pressure threshold, or the number or type of trailers
that would require these pressures. However, this concern should be largely addressed by the provision
in the final trailer program allowing manufacturers to choose to comply with TPMS, and for
manufacturers of box vans subject to performance standards to choose to comply with no tire pressure
systems at all if offset by higher-performing aerodynamic or LRR tire technologies.
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
7 - Non-Aero Box Trailers
TTMA recognizes that the agencies have tried to account for the variety of trailer designs and the
various sorts of service they are put in by creating a "non-aero box" category of trailer that is defined by
the deployment of certain equipment or design features similar to our call for a "work performing
equipment" exclusion in our October 16, 2014 letter.19 Unfortunately, the way that the proposal crafts
this, it fails to capture the full extent of trailers that are operated at low speeds and for short trips. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 12]
Consulting Figure 1-5 from the draft RIA20 a significant fraction of the trailers are used on short trips
and are therefore predominantly operated according to what the Agencies term "transiently." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 12]
[Figure 1-5 'Tractor-Trailer Primary Trip Length' can be found on p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1]
As written, the proposal neglects the fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions associated outside of
operations on the trailer. The rule needs to account for the GHG and energy consumption of various
devices during the entire lifetime of the component; construction, delivery, use and disposal, rather than
just highway use as they do now. Although not required by statute, it would be foolish to require the use
of devices whose GHG savings in use are small compared to the GHG emissions used during
production, delivery, disposal, and necessary uses outside of running down the highway such as
maintenance, retreading, etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 12]
For aero-devices, estimating the carbon footprint of manufacture, distribution, service and disposal is
difficult. One approach is to use a simplified cost of goods calculation based on the carbon footprint of
the general automobile industry. This gives a rate of 460 kgC02/$l,00021 Therefore, for a van trailer
operated in a transient mode but still required to have $900 of aero-devices fitted, there will be a C02
penalty of $900*(460/$1000) = 414 kg C02 over the useful life of the aero-device. Additionally, this
device will need to be hauled itself, its 2501b or l/8th ton, would lend an additional 1 lg per mile
(baseline emissions of 85 per ton mile times . 125 ton, this would be higher on short trailers with their
higher baseline). This in addition to the .15% decrease in performance from the effect of displaced cargo
when operating at or near weigh-out conditions as described under "Safety Impact." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 12-13]
For these transiently operated trailers, what benefit is available would come from LRR Tires and ATIS.
As described above, applying aero treatments to these trailers will result in an increase of GHG
emissions/fuel consumption relative to an untreated trailer with LRR tires and ATIS rather than the
desired reduction. The appropriate solution here is to recognize that trailers operated in transient service
are more appropriately categorized as "non-aero box trailers." The agencies can and should recognize
-------
some fraction of the annual tractor-trailer combinations of each category as non-aero. End users eager to
reap the rewards of aero-treatment payback, if it is realistic for their uses, can be counted on to select the
correct type for their particular trip use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 13]
While we recognize the steps the proposal made to define a non-aero box trailer by certain devices fitted
to it, by focusing solely on these items rather than on usage, you could create a situation where the
market drives increased adoption of features to move trailers intended to be used transiently into the
non-aero box category despite those devices not otherwise being needed to complete the job. An
unneeded rear lift gate or side-mounted pull-out platform would have all the negative consequences of
an unneeded skirt in terms of weight impact creating both a safety hazard and increased emissions
described above. By allowing a fraction of tractor-trailer combinations with applicable trailers (Long vs
Short/Dry vs Refrigerated) to be designated as "non-aero," you eliminate these perversities that would
arise between the proposed regulation and market forces and instead allow regulators and industry to
focus on maximizing improvement. By removing the fraction of trailers that are used transiently, the
standards that are set for the remaining trailers could possibly be raised from the proposed values and on
a faster timetable. But this would only be possible with reasonable levels of non-aero box van
classification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 13]
18 80 FR 40259: "(5) Exclusions and Less-Stringent Standards"
19 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0146
20 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0243
21 How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything: puts the carbon emission of
automobile manufacture at720 kgC02/£ 1,000. Converting to dollars gets the quoted figure.
Response:
The agencies did not include a separate lifecycle analysis for trailer technologies in this rulemaking.
However, we disagree with the lifecycle calculations provided in this comment. First, TTMA suggests
that the carbon footprint of a relatively simple aerodynamic device is on the same order as a much more
complex automobile with a rate of 460 kgC02/$1000. Considering a typical device may be constructed
of 10 separate components, while an automobile consists of hundreds of components, an aerodynamic
device may be 10% of this value. But even if we apply the 414 kgC02 calculated as the C02 produced
by a device, we are confident that a trailer that applies this device will save more C02 during its use.
The rule estimates that a full-aero trailer would save 4.8 g C02/ton-mi with a skirt and tire technologies
in MY 2018 compared to a no-control trailer. If a trailer travels just 20,000 miles/year carrying 10 tons
of payload, this trailer would save 960 kgC02/year, more than double the lifecycle C02. If we assume
that the technology is half as effective for this particular trailer (2.4 gC02/ton-mi) and factor in that the
trailer must carry 250 lb less payload because of the device (payload is now 9.875 tons), the trailer will
still save 474 kgC02/year and the lifecycle C02 would be made up in the first year of very limited
operation. Trailers with additional devices in later years of the program will arguably be more effective,
and overcome the C02 generated in the devices' production sooner.
In terms of the comment suggesting a program based on usage, EPA's authority is limited to the
manufacture of new vehicles. We do not have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Because of
this, we can only establish criteria for reduced standards or exemptions based on characteristics of the
-------
trailer that can be determined at the time of manufacture. While we expect that most trailers exclusively
performing local deliveries will have work-performing devices that will qualify them for partial- or non-
aero designation, we recognize that some local delivery trailers will not have these features. Because
the types of work-performing equipment identified generally add significant cost and weight to a trailer
(beyond the cost and weight of the aerodynamic devices themselves), we believe that the reduced
standards available for trailers using this equipment are unlikely to provide an incentive for
manufacturers to install them simply as a way to avoid the full aero standards.
See also our response to Utility in Section 5.1 (page 973) for our estimate of the C02 impact of
additional weight of aerodynamic devices, and our response to the TTMA comment about potential
safety implications of the weight addition of aerodynamic devices in Section 5.4 on page 1019.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The Agencies should develop clear use and category exemptions.
The Agencies' Proposed Rule recognized that the proposed aerodynamic modifications are incompatible
with certain trailer designs. For example, trailer tails are not designed to work on roll-up doors, and
skirts are often incompatible with storage boxes and tire carriers mounted under the trailers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 19]
In addition to exempting such trailers from the Proposed Rule, Utility Trailer urges the Agencies to
establish clear exemptions for trailers that would be used in certain operations. In these operations, the
technologies are either incompatible with the options most often selected for that use, or the anticipated
benefit from the technologies is extremely low due to the environment in which the trailers will operate.
The trailer manufacturer would install a label on every manufactured trailer within this category, which
would certify both the customer's representation as to the use of the trailer and as permanent
identification that the trailer is exempt. If the trailer's use changed, or the customer sold the trailer to
another user, the label would be removed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 19]
Specifically, the following categories / uses of trailers should be exempted: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1183-A1 p.20]
• Short-haul trailers that will travel fewer than 100 miles per day. Even California recognizes that
aerodynamic regulation of such trailers is not cost-beneficial, as it exempts them from the side-
skirt requirement in California. A similar exemption from the Proposed Rule's requirements is
appropriate.
• Local delivery operations, particularly those in urban environments. A significant number of
these trailers are outfitted with devices - such as roll-up doors, liftgates, or side ramps -
incompatible with the aerodynamic technologies. Additionally, these trailers usually operate at
lower average speeds, negating any anticipated aerodynamic savings. Finally, as noted earlier,
low-rolling-resistance tires are not a good fit for these applications, as they lead to increased
scrubbing and damage.
• Trailers with greater than 121" axle spreads should avoid low-rolling-resistance tires, as the
large axle spread causes increased scrubbing, particularly with the stiffer tread formulations in
those tires. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.20]
Response:
-------
The EPA's authority is limited to the manufacture of new vehicles. We do not have the authority to
regulate the use of vehicles. California has its own authority under the CAA and they are able to
regulate in-use vehicles. We do not have a means of determining or ensuring the number of miles per
day a vehicle may travel, and we rely on physical characteristics of a trailer at manufacture to identify
those that are likely to be used in urban or low-speed operations. This is part of the reason why the final
trailer program completely excludes large numbers of non-box trailers that are not designed for primary
use in highway applications. Also, the program provides reduced standards for trailers with certain
work-performing equipment (either partial- or non-aero designation) and we expect many trailers that
frequently operate in urban environments will qualify for these designations.
While some box vans may be operated transiently without work-performing equipment that would
qualify them for partial- or non-aero designation, we expect these trailer will spend at least some time at
speeds above 55 mph where trailers will see considerable benefit from aerodynamic improvements. See
RIA Chapter 10.2.1.1. As noted in our response to Stoughton in Section 5.1 (page 965) and RIA
Chapter 2.10.2.1.1, long box vans with skirts are expected to see reductions of 4% or more and short
trailers with skirts could see 1% or more at speeds of 55 mph.
The agencies recognize that axle spread can indicate higher potential for scrubbing, but it is our
understanding that axle spread can be a variable setting. The program excludes trailers from our
regulations if their axle spreads cannot be set below 120-inches. However, trailers that have the ability
to change their axle spread below 120-inches are included in the program. See 40 CFR 1037.5(h).
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
Wabash supports improvements in fuel efficiency as part of an overarching goal of improving overall
freight efficiency. Wabash believes in two core principles with respect to the proposed regulations: (1)
maximum compliance flexibility and (2) simplicity in compliance. The agencies should offer
opportunities for compliance flexibility, including allowing for exemptions when the proposed measures
are not economically feasible, and thus will not contribute to freight efficiency. Such exemptions are
valid, and do not suggest that the industry is trying to avoid compliance, but instead represent common-
sense and cost-effective regulation. Given that the composition and operation of the trailer industry is
quite different from the engine and vehicle manufacturing industries, simplicity of regulation is
essential. History has shown that the trailer industry has proactively and voluntarily embraced
innovations when the fuel economy benefits are demonstrated, even without regulatory pressures. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.8]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 89-90.]
Two, not all trailer types or freight carriers will benefit from adopting fuel efficiency technologies. For
example, tank trailers, flatbed trailers, and other specialty trailer types will not necessarily see benefits
from the addition of aerodynamic devices, and for that, Wabash supports the EPA and NHTSA decision
to exempt these trailers from aero requirements.
In addition, even some fleets operating nothing but van semi-trailers will not see benefits from the
adoption of aerodynamic devices. This is because these types of trailers and fleets might operate in
different duty cycles created by variations in operating locations and geographies, they may haul locally
or regionally, and infrequently reach highway speeds, which is where aerodynamic devices provide
payback. And they may have unique freight hauling requirements or operate off road for portions of the
time.
-------
The reality is some fleets and some trailer types simply will never demonstrate fuel savings through the
use of aerodynamic devices. Thus, sensible final regulations should include exemptions for particular
types of trailers or fleets whether through a fleet exception approval process or by including an
extensive list of trailer characteristics that would define an aerodynamic exemption.
Response:
The trailer program is designed with a number of provisions that provide the kinds of compliance
flexibility and simplification advocated by the commenter. For example, the agencies are adopting
design standards for non-box trailer (tanks, flatbeds and container chassis) that are based on tire
technologies only. The agencies also proposed a list of work-performing equipment (WPE) that we
concluded impeded use of aerodynamic technologies and also indicated that they are more likely to be
driven in short-haul operations. Trailers with these WPE can be designated partial-aero with reduced
standards that are now based on adoption of a single aerodynamic device in the final program or non-
aero with design standards based on tire technologies only. We are also offering a set allowance of
trailers from each manufacturer that do not have to meet the standards in the years without averaging
prior to MY 2027. Trailer manufacturers will determine which of their trailers would be included in this
allowance. In MY 2027 and later, manufacturers can take advantage of our averaging provisions to
allow some trailers in their production to meet lower standards.
The agencies are not adopting a provision for case-by-case exemption based on economic impact, as
suggested by the commenter. Among other things, such an exemption leads to procedural
complications, uncertainty ('am I exempt or not'), and delay, at odds with the commenter's (desirable)
goal of simplicity and flexibility. In addition, the agencies have carefully considered costs in developing
the final standards (including costs to small businesses) and have documented why the costs of the
standard are reasonable. See Section IV.D. 3 of the Preamble. As we describe above, we have also
tailored the rules, via exemptions, simplified compliance procedures, and tire-based design standards, to
reduce cost impacts on trailer manufacturers.
Organization: XL Specialized Trailers
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 203-205.]
As the current proposed regulations are presented, a very small list of exclusions and less stringent
standards are laid out. We appreciate the regulatory agencies' proposal allowing of this list, but we ask
the agencies to also consider a much broader breakdown to a specific characteristic of what defines a
heavy haul trailer. Most of these trailers are not intended nor are they used for over the highway long
haul operations or at highway speeds for extended periods of time.
These trailers will operate both on and off road at various speeds and in various terrains. There is not
specific design characteristics that indicate that this trailer should operate at low speeds on a specific
type of train, but there are physical characteristics that can distinguish heavy haul style trailers from
other trailer types.
Heavy haul style trailers are designed to carry equipment used for construction, agriculture, mining,
logging, power generation, and other industries, specialized loads generally not transported on a regular
basis, high center gravity loads, and oversized length, width, height, and/or weight loads. Generally
speaking, the trailer is a tool to move the primary pieces of equipment which is then used as a primary
revenue generator for the end user.
-------
Most of these trailers operate in very small fleets of a few trailers for a single tractor, or are owner
operated where requirements for specific mandatory design standards for tires and specialty equipment
types would cause a larger financial burden than the perceived benefit of reduced fuel use. This
definition list will be submitted as a written comment, and we are asking the agencies to seriously
consider this while developing the language for this regulation.
Response:
As the commenter observes, the proposed program was designed to include nearly all trailer types, with
a limited number of exemptions or exclusions. We recognize that many trailers in the proposed non-box
subcategory have unique physical characteristics for specialized operations that may make use of lower
rolling resistance (LRR) tires and/or tire pressure systems difficult or infeasible. Instead of focusing on
trailer characteristics that indicated off-highway use, the agencies have identified three specific types of
non-box trailers that represent the majority of non-box trailers that we believe are designed for and
mostly used in on-road applications: tanks, flatbeds, and container chassis. Based on this additional
consideration and comments like this one, the final program as it applies to non-box trailers is limited to
tanks, flatbeds, and container chassis. All other non-box trailers, about half of the non-box trailers
produced, are excluded from the Phase 2 trailer program, with no regulatory requirements.
Tank trailers are defined for the trailer program as enclosed trailers designed to transport liquids or
gases. For example, DOT 406, DOT 407, and DOT 412 tanks would fit this definition. These non-box
trailers can be pressurized or designed for atmospheric pressure. Tanks that are infrequently used in
transport and primarily function as storage vessels for liquids or gases (e.g., frac tanks) are not included
in our definition of tank trailers and are excluded from the program.
Flatbed trailers for purposes of the trailer program are platform trailers with a single, continuous load-
bearing surface that runs from the rear of the trailer to at least the trailer's kingpin. Flatbed trailers are
designed to accommodate side-loading cargo, and this definition includes trailers that use bulkheads,
one or more walls, curtains, straps or other devices to restrain or protect cargo while underway. Note
that drop deck and lowboy platform trailers are not considered continuous load-bearing surfaces.
Finally, in the trailer program, container chassis are trailers designed to transport temporary containers.
The standards apply to all lengths of container chassis, including expandable versions. The regulations
do not apply to the containers being transported, unless they are permanently mounted on the chassis.
All non-box trailers that do not meet the definitions above are excluded and have no regulatory
requirements. In addition, the rule excludes trailers intended to haul very heavy loads, as indicated by
the number of axles. Specifically, the rules exclude all trailers with four or more axles, and trailers less
than 35 feet long with three axles. We also exclude trailers with axle spreads that are set to be greater
than 120 inches, and trailers intended for temporary or permanent residence, office space, or other work
space, such as campers, mobile homes, and carnival trailers.
5.6 Compliance Provisions and Flexibilities for Trailer Standards
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Standard tractor for trailer certification
The Phase 2 proposal would permit manufacturers to test their trailers with tractors meeting Phase 2 Bin
III or better (p. 40280). This will allow trailer manufacturers to gain credit for integration with tractors
as both tractor and trailer aerodynamics evolve. Above we recommend that tractor manufacturers be
given a comparable flexibility in their choice of test trailer while noting that a trailer already certified to
-------
a higher delta CdA by virtue of such integration would negate any integration benefits on the tractor
side. This is appropriate, since double counted of integration benefits cannot be permitted. However,
tractor manufacturers may be far more likely than trailer manufacturers to pursue the development of
integrated tractor-trailer aerodynamic designs, so the availability of an integration credit on the trailer
side does not diminish the need for such a credit on the tractor side. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-
A1 p.18-19]
Recommendations: Trailers
Consider strengthening the trailer standards for 2027 in order to increase the adoption of advanced aero
technologies for both long and short dry vans and reefers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 19]
Promote aero technologies for non-box trailers by revising the 2027 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p. 19]
Response:
Tractor and trailer manufacturers that wish to include tractor-trailer integration strategies for compliance
can use our off-cycle provisions to evaluate their performance. The individual tractor and trailer test
programs are designed to maintain consistency between tests and be representative of tractor-trailers in
use. The trailer program requires use of a standard tractor with minimum aerodynamic performance
(Bin III) to ensure a poor performing tractor is not used to exaggerate the aerodynamic benefits of trailer
devices (and to mirror real world conditions, where some effort is made to pair suitable tractors and
trailers). We are not requiring that tractors of the same performance be used throughout the program,
because we cannot guarantee that they will be available in the future.
Regarding the stringency of the trailer standards, based on the analyses for this final rule, we believe
that the final standards in the program, as informed by all of the comments and slightly revised from the
proposed Alternative 3 standards, are appropriate and represent the maximum feasible standards. Our
final MY 2027 standards do include a small increase in adoption of high-performing aerodynamic
technologies for the full-aero short and long box vans. For example, we proposed MY 2027 long box
van standards based on 40% adoption of aerodynamic technologies that performed one bin higher than
those we tested (Bin VII of the NPRM). The final MY 2027 full-aero long box van standards are based
on 70% adoption of this level of performance (Bin VI in the updated FRM bins). Similarly, the final
MY 2027 standards for full-aero short box vans are predicated on 60% adoption of technologies that
perform in a bin higher than those we tested (Bin IV in the updated FRM bins). The agencies cannot
predict the future technologies or trailer design changes that may be used to meet these standards.
However, we are confident that the trailer industry has sufficient incentive to improve existing trailer
performance in the timeframe of this rulemaking.
As explained in our response to UCS on page 1026, the final trailer program does not predicate the
standards on the expectation that manufacturers will incorporate aerodynamic technologies on non-box
trailers and we are adopting design-based tire technology standards for non-box trailers, as proposed.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Establishing a Trailer ABT Program Will Provide Fleets More Flexibility
ATA supports the use of Averaging, Banking, and Trading ("ABT") by trailer OEM's for a number of
reasons. Fleets are wary of each trailer having to achieve a given compliance standard. As mentioned
throughout these comments, maintaining fleet flexibility in spec'ing equipment is vital for our industry.
-------
Fleets are best situated to determine what combinations of technologies perform effectively within their
operational models and financial means. While it is certainly more convenient to conduct trailer
compliance audits if each and every trailer were to hit a specific efficiency target, averaging will help
maintain flexibility in purchasing decisions and promote greater acceptance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1 p.24]
Response:
The agencies recognize that averaging, banking and trading have historically provided opportunities for
vehicle manufacturers to maintain flexibility in complying with EPA's standards, which, in turn,
provided some level of flexibility for customers purchasing those vehicles. However, the trailer
industry is unique compared to other vehicle sectors.
The final program includes averaging, but limits the option for trailer manufacturers to apply averaging
exclusively to MYs 2027 and later for full-aero box vans only. We believe this delay provides the box
van manufacturers sufficient time to develop, evaluate and market new technologies and to become
familiar with the compliance process and possible benefits of averaging. This will also allow customers
to become more familiar with the technologies and to recognize their benefits. This approach attempts
to balance the advantage of an averaging program to allow for introduction of the most reasonably
stringent standards for trailers, with the concerns articulated by manufacturers.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Compliance requirements for trailers, trailer classification systems; Add aero
requirements for non-box trailers; Change 50-foot demarcation to 47-feet; Remove belly boxes
from the list of work-performing devices that inhibit the use of aerodynamic devices
The NPRM includes U.S. EPA and NHTSA's proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions associated
with trailers for the first time. The regulation will affect most trailers designed for use on highways. The
proposed regulation requires that all affected trailers use LRR tires and ATIS, and that most box van
trailers also use aerodynamic technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p.69]
Although most aerodynamic technologies developed up until now have been designed for box van
trailers, other trailer types, such as tanker trailers and flatbed trailers also stand to gain appreciable fuel
economy benefits from these technologies. In wind tunnel testing conducted at the Auto Research
Center in conjunction with Freight Wing, adding side skirts to a flatbed trailer reduced its wind-average
drag coefficient by 8 to 9 percent at 50 mph, equivalent to a fuel savings of 3.5 to 4 percent at 50 mph,
with larger savings possible at higher speeds.30 Manufacturers are working on developing technologies
for these trailers. For example, Wabash has already released its DuraPlate Tanker AeroSkirt product.
CARB staff believes that there are significant benefits from the use of aerodynamic equipment on non-
box trailer types, especially for longer non-drop-deck flatbed trailers (greater than 50 feet in length). For
this reason, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA consider adding aerodynamic
equipment requirements on certain non-box trailers. For example, as part of Alternative 4, longer non-
drop-deck flatbed trailers should start with a 5 percent adoption rate of Bin III technology by the 2021
MY, increasing to 15 percent by the 2024 MY. CARB staff believes that this standard for long non-
drop-deck flatbed trailers is feasible given the relatively low adoption rate of 5 percent combined with
the extra lead time by starting the requirements in 2021, three years after aerodynamic equipment
requirements will have taken effect for box van trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.69-70]
-------
Response:
The agencies are aware that some side skirts have been adapted for the non-box trailers considered in
this rule (e.g., tank trailers, flatbed trailers, and container chassis), and appreciate the information that
CARB submitted that notes that some of these technologies have shown potential for large reductions in
drag. However, technology effectiveness is only one factor that we must consider when developing our
non-box standards. Please see our response to UCS in Section 5.4 (page 1026). Consequently, we are
adopting design-based tire technology standards for non-box trailers, as proposed. Non-box trailer
manufacturers may choose to include aerodynamic improvements in their future trailer designs, but non-
box trailer aerodynamic devices cannot be used for compliance at any point in the Phase 2 program as
now constituted.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
In addition to distinguishing between box van trailers and non-box trailers, the proposed regulation also
subdivides box van trailers into nine subcategories, each with different standards. The division of box
van trailers is based on whether the trailer is a dry or refrigerated van, whether it is long (over 50 feet) or
short (50 feet and below), and whether positions where aerodynamic equipment are typically installed
are occupied by a work-performing device. CARB staff is supportive of this classification system to
determine the stringency of the requirements to which a trailer is subjected since it recognizes the fact
that there is a greater availability of aerodynamic technologies designed for long box van trailers and
also takes into account the presence of work-performing devices that may partially restrict the
installation of aerodynamic devices. However, CARB staff recommends two changes to this
classification system. First, CARB staff believes that the 50-foot demarcation should be changed to a
47-foot demarcation to account for the fact that 48-foot trailers are much more similar to 53-foot trailers
than they are to 28-foot trailers in terms of length and available aerodynamic technologies; and 28-foot
trailers are typically used in tandem, limiting their ability to use rear aerodynamic technologies, unlike
with 48-foot trailers. 48-foot dry van trailers constitute nearly 6 percent31 of the dry van trailer
population. Hence, including 48-foot van trailers in the long box van trailer category, which essentially
lowers the standard for these trailers by 42 to 45 percent, can lower overall emissions attributed to long
and short dry box van trailers by about 2.5 percent, a significant amount. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.70]
Response:
The agencies have included an analysis of trailer length in a memo to the docket of this rulemaking.163
While 48-foot vans are aerodynamically similar to longer vans and capable of adopting additional
technologies, the agencies do not believe aerodynamic performance potential alone justifies a change in
our proposed 50-foot demarcation for long and short box vans in the Phase 2 trailer program. In the
analysis we show that 48-foot vans are more likely to travel fewer annual miles and their shorter trips
indicate they are likely traveling at slower average speeds. These slower speeds would result in lower
real-world performance, yet these trailers would need to adopt additional technologies compared to a
53-foot trailer in order to meet the same long box van standards. In addition, 48-foot trailers are
estimated to make up less than 10 percent of the van trailer population and the additional C02 and fuel
consumption benefits would be a relatively small improvement with more stringent standards. The
agencies do not believe that standards predicated on the use of more effective aerodynamic technologies
on 48-foot vans will provide a substantial enough additional reduction in C02 emissions and fuel
163 Memorandum to the Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827: Evaluation of 50-Foot Trailer Length Demarcation to
Distinguish between Long and Short Box Vans. July 2016.
-------
consumption to justify more stringent standards for those trailers. For these reasons, the agencies are
maintaining the proposed 50-foot demarcation between long and short box vans.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Second, U.S. EPA and NHTSA should remove belly boxes from the list of work-performing devices
that inhibit the use of aerodynamic devices where the belly box is located. The NPRM defines "non-
aero" and "partial-aero" trailers as trailers that have at least one of the work-performing features listed
in paragraph (a)(l)(i) of the proposed 40 CFR 1037.107 in the redline version of U.S. EPA regulation.
By including belly boxes on the list of work-performing devices, it is possible that certain fleets may
exploit this as a loophole by specifying a small belly box in their trailer order instead of having side
aerodynamic equipment installed. From CARB's experience in implementing the Tractor-Trailer GHG
Regulation, we know it is feasible to install a modified trailer skirt around the belly box. A wind tunnel
testing project conducted jointly by Kentucky Trailer and Freight Wing at Auto Research Center
showed that adding a modified trailer skirt around the belly box actually resulted in increases in fuel
savings compared to the same trailer with unmodified trailer skirts and no belly box.32 As a result,
CARB has modified its "Implementation Guidance for the Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation"33 to allow
the addition of a modified trailer skirt, as a CARB pre-approved modification, around a belly box. Pre-
approval is based on testing demonstrating that a particular modification increases the wind averaged
coefficient of drag (Cdw) by no more than 10 percent of the difference between the Cdw of the zero
equipment baseline and the Cdw of the same trailer with the skirt. CARB staff has not experienced any
difficulties implementing this provision, and recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA remove belly
boxes from the list of work-performing devices that inhibit the installation of an aerodynamic device at
the location where the belly box is located. Instead, U.S. EPA and NHTSA should identify belly boxes
as a work performing feature that may require the installation of an aerodynamic device modified
according to predetermined guidelines to be fitted around the belly box. This may require the
preparation of an aerodynamic modification guidance document similar to that of CARB. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.70-71]
Response:
The agencies agree that aerodynamic devices are feasible with smaller belly boxes. For the final
regulations, we specify that to be eligible for "partial aero" or "non-aero" designation and the associated
reduced standards, a trailer's belly box needs to occupy at least half the length of both sides of the trailer
between the centerline of the landing gear and the leading edge of the front wheels. Trailers with belly
boxes that do not meet these criteria will not be eligible for the reduced standards for non-aero trailers.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment -Exclusively using zero-yaw testing for trailer aerodynamic performance
U.S. EPA and NHTSA are proposing to determine the delta CdA for trailer aerodynamics using only the
zero-yaw (or head-on wind) values for coefficient of drag. U.S. EPA and NHTSA are not proposing a
reference method (i.e., the coastdown procedure in the tractor program). Instead, they are proposing to
allow manufacturers to perform any of the proposed test procedures (e.g. coastdown, constant-speed,
wind tunnel, computational fluid dynamics (CFD)) to establish a delta CdA. Since the proposed
coastdown and constant speed procedures include wind restrictions, U.S. EPA and NHTSA are
proposing to only accept the zero-yaw values from aerodynamic evaluation techniques that are capable
-------
of measuring drag at multiple yaw angles (e.g., wind tunnels and CFD) to allow cross-method
comparison and certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.75]
CARB staff is concerned that using only the delta of the zero-yaw values to determine the delta CdA for
trailer aerodynamics may not accurately reflect the aerodynamic benefit from improved trailer
aerodynamics. U.S. EPA and NHTSA recognize that the benefits of aerodynamic devices for trailers can
be better seen when measured considering multiple yaw angles. This is illustrated in Figure 22 from the
RIA (shown below - Figure 4). The wind- average results were calculated at 55 mph vehicle speeds,
consistent with the procedures in 40 CFR 1037.810. The wind-averaged analysis consistently results in a
larger improvement (i.e., delta CdA) than the zero-yaw results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.75]
Therefore, CARB staff is recommending that U.S. EPA and NHTSA reestablish the performance bins
and resulting proposed trailer standards based on wind-averaged drag results. Making this change is
critical if the trailer standards are to reflect real-world gains in fuel efficiency and GHG reduction. In the
real world, it is unreasonable to assume that tractor-trailers always travel when winds are coming
straight at the vehicle. If the test method does not reflect wind-averaged drag, manufacturers run the
danger of developing aerodynamic products that result in meeting standards that result in minimal or no
benefit in real-world conditions. The opposite could also be true, where a technology that shows
minimal benefit under zero yaw analysis can show measurable benefit when wind-averaging over
multiple yaw angles are considered. This is illustrated in Figure 22 (shown below - Figure 4) for the gap
fairing technology tested. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.76]
CARB staff agrees with U.S. EPA and NHTSA decision to not require a reference test method, in order
to reduce the test burden for manufacturers and allow them to choose an appropriate test method for
their need and resources. However, the test method used must be capable of measuring wind-averaged
drag. Wind tunnel testing and CFD are two viable methods. The use of reduced scale wind tunnel
testing to evaluate the wind-averaged drag of aerodynamic technologies is common practice amongst
trailer manufacturers. Several such manufacturers have submitted wind tunnel test results to CARB staff
in accordance with requirements of California's Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.76]
[Figure 4 can be found on p.76 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - The use of Class 8 tractors for compliance simulation as well as performance testing
The NPRM requests comment on the use of class 8 tractors when tractor-trailer combinations are used
for compliance simulation as well as performance testing. We agree with the expediency of
standardizing use of the class 8 tractors for determining trailer compliance even though the tractors
pulling some trailer categories include a small portion of class 7 tractors. This approach will simplify
compliance, and the differences between the results for a class 8 tractor pulling a trailer and a class 7
tractor pulling that same trailer are relatively minor. We recommend that this assumption be revisited if
class 7 tractors grow in popularity or if the class 7 vs. class 8 tractor difference for tested trailers
becomes significantly different due to evolving technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 106]
-------
Response:
The agencies evaluated the aerodynamic test data for our trailer program and concluded (consistent with
this comment) that wind-averaging is able to better capture aerodynamic improvements from many
devices, including several small-scale devices. We are adopting a wind-averaged approach for
aerodynamic testing in the trailer program. See RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.2.3.
Regarding the second comment, the final trailer program uses a Class 8 tractor for testing long box vans,
as proposed. However, we allow short box vans to use either a Class 8 or Class 7 day cab tractor with a
4x2 axle configuration. The proposed 6x4 axle configuration was found to interfere with the landing
gear of some trailers, which did not allow the tractor-trailer test vehicle achieve the regulation-specified
gap spacing. We are confident that a 4x2 axle configuration will avoid similar interference and we
based our short box van standards on aerodynamic testing with a Class 7 4x2 day cab tractor.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - Requirements for emission control labels for trailers
CARB staff supports the proposal that emission control system identifiers be included on trailer labels.
Having the emission control system identifiers on the emission control label is a simple and effective
way of verifying that a vehicle is in a certified configuration, and is the most commonly used method of
making a compliance determination during a vehicle inspection. CARB staff does recommend that an
additional requirement be included to make labels readily visible to the average person (for example,
amend 40 CFR 1037.135(b) to include: "Attached in a location where the label will be readily visible to
the average person after the vehicle manufacture is complete.") [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 110]
Response:
The labeling provision that CARB suggests is already part of EPA's regulations and we are making a
minor adjustment to clarify that it applies to trailers. (40 CFR 1068.45 and 1037.135).
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - A to B testing for trailer aerodynamic performance - the issue of varying
performance for devices across the range of short van lengths, full credit for aerodynamic
improvement
The NPRM requests comment on approaches to address the issue of varying performance for devices
across the range of short van lengths. CARB staff supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA's proposed grouping
approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.l 18]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Trailer aerodynamic compliance testing; pros and cons of exclusive use of zero-yaw
data, allowing the use of wind-averaged results for compliance, strategy, supporting data
-------
The NPRM requests comment regarding the pros and cons of exclusive use of zero-yaw data from
trailer aerodynamic testing. CARB staff believes that there are advantages of using zero-yaw data. The
primary advantage is that zero-yaw data is more reproducible than non-zero-yaw (multiple yaw angles)
data. If U.S. EPA and NHTSA provide the option of using either zero-yaw or multiple yaw angle data,
the same yaw angle must be chosen for both A and B cases to properly attribute aerodynamic benefits.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 119]
30 See Attachment 5 for Freight Wing ARC Wind Tunnel Flatbed Testing Summary
Results [Attachment 5 can be found on p.37 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1268-A1]
31 (ICCT, 2014) The International Council on Clean Transportation, "Recommendations for Regulatory
Design, Testing, and Certification for Integrating Trailers into the Phase 2 U.S. Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Regulation," February 2014,
.
32 See Attachment 6 for Auto Research Center, Class Eight Semi Truck Aerodynamic Fuel Economy
Component Test, 2011.
[Attachment 6 can be found on p.38 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1268-A1]
33 (CARB, 2012) California Air Resources Board, "Implementation Guidance for the Tractor-Trailer
GHG Regulation," October 2012. .
35 Figure 22 from the RIA, page 2-162
Response:
The trailer program incorporates aerodynamic test procedures for trailers that require wind-averaged
delta CdA values, as represented by an average of results from +4.5 and -4.5 degree yaw angles, for
compliance. We are adopting wind tunnel as our primary test procedure with interim provisions
allowing CFD to be used without adjustment (see 40 CFR 1037.150(x)). We are tightening the
allowable yaw angle difference between A and B tests to within 1 degree for the limited number of
trailers that may be tested using the coastdown procedures, and the interim provisions also allow these
near-zero values to be used without adjustment, noting that the delta CdA results from coastdown were
found to be similar to wind tunnel results for most devices in our testing. Manufacturers that do wish to
correct their coastdown results to a wind-averaged value, have the option to work with EPA to identify a
proper adjustment method.
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
With the addition of a trailer ABT program in Phase 2, Cummins supports creation of a trailer averaging
set such that no exchange of credits between engines, vehicles and trailers can occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p.31]
Response:
-------
The limited provisions for averaging in the later years of the phase-in of the trailer program do not allow
exchange of trailer credits with credits generated by engine, tractor, or vocational vehicle manufacturers.
Organization: Exa Corporation
Because of the significant impact of real-world efficiencies due to the wind yaw effects, we feel it is
imperative that wind effects be part of the standard for both tractors and trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1420 p.265]
The negative consequences of not adopting wind effects into the standard for tractors and trailers
include truck and trailer buyers, not realizing the fuel savings implied by the levels of which the truck
and trailers are certified and the overall emission reductions promised for the program will not be
achieved.
Some of the proposals attempt to address the inadequacies of the coast-down results by adjusting the
coast-down results through the use of alternate tools for when they have the drag. We feel, as stated
above, that the variations of wind average drag between the tools and facilities themselves is too
significant and it would be an adverse consequence to allowing alternative tools for adjusting coast-
down results. A standard that holds all the tools accountable to a real-world measure of the wind
average drag performance of a vehicle, such as constant speed aerodynamic testing, is imperative in
ensuring predictable behavior.
Response:
As noted in our response to CARB previously in this section on page 1061, the agencies are adopting
aerodynamic test procedures based on wing-averaged values. Also see RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.2.3.
We are adopting wind tunnel as our primary test procedure for trailer aerodynamic testing with interim
provisions allowing CFD to be used without adjustment (see 40 CFR 1037.150(x)). We are tightening
the allowable yaw angle difference between A and B tests to within 1 degree for the limited number of
trailers that may be tested using the coastdown procedures, and the interim provisions also allow these
near-zero values to be used without adjustment, noting that the delta CdA results from coastdown were
found to be similar to wind tunnel results for most devices in our testing. Manufacturers that do wish to
correct their coastdown results to a wind-averaged value, have the option to work with EPA to identify a
proper adjustment method. See RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.2.4. The agencies conducted a significant amount
of constant speed testing, but were unable to develop a robust constant speed test procedure in time for
the final Phase 2 rule. We do not anticipate device or trailer manufacturers will prefer constant speed
testing to the other test options available in the trailer program, but a constant speed procedure is
available for use, subject to the approval provisions outlined in 40 CFR 1037.526.
Organization: Great Dane
While we do furnish and install both LRR tires and ATIS on a customer-specified basis, we do not
manufacture these items. As such we rely on the individual manufacturers of the devices and system by
"passing thru" the warranties on these items. We are unaware of any trailer OEM that manufactures
these items and we believe that other manufacturers also pass thru individual warranties as offered by
the device producers. We further note that tire warranties vary greatly depending on the tires and
application, and that to our knowledge the warranties provided by the popular ATIS do not exceed three
years in length. This contrasts with the intent of the NPRM for trailer OEMs to offer warranties on these
-------
technologies for up to one half of the useful life of the vehicle, which the agencies presume to be 10
years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.2]
The agencies have proposed to allow trailer manufacturers to "pass thru" certification data generated by
the providers of fuel saving tire and aero technologies. We believe that the methodology of certification
under the EPA SmartWay program is efficient and cost effective and should be continued and available
to the trailer manufacturers as needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.4]
We note that under the proposed regulation that trailer manufacturers will be held responsible for the
correctness of the compliance information being passed thru by the trailer OEM and in the event
information from the technology supplier is found to be incorrect the trailer manufacturer will be held
responsible. Under the proposed rule a trailer manufacturer installing a technology found to be
unintentionally misreported could be forced to recall trailers and may be subject to substantial fines on a
per trailer basis. Under such a scenario we believe that any such recall obligations related to compliance
correction should be borne by the supplier of the technology, with assistance by the trailer manufacturer
as would be the case in a NHTSA safety recall, and any applicable fines should be paid by the device
manufacturer as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.4]
As stated above we note that the agencies propose that the trailer manufacturer should offer a warranty
on fuel saving technologies for one half of the useful life of the trailer, which the agencies assume to be
10 years. Since in many cases the trailer manufacturers will not be designing, or actually manufacturing
the technology we believe that such a warranty obligation should fall on the device manufacturer. We
further note that the operational characteristics of the trailers principally benefiting from these
technologies are in many cases long haul operations and thus, issues with devices or systems that are
actually warrantable would be administered by a great variety of local service providers. Many of those
service providers will not have any affiliation with the trailer manufacturer that produced the trailer.
Thus, the warranty model potentially resulting from the proposed regulation for these technologies
differs considerably from the typical automotive model where the automobile OEM specifies,
manufactures, warranties and services emission controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.4]
Finally, we understand that many of our competitors do not support the adoption of averaging
provisions under the proposed rule, for various reasons. We at Great Dane believe that averaging may
be an option that is necessary for trailer manufacturers to continue to supply cost effective and fuel
efficient equipment to certain customers due to their equipment specification needs as a result of their
operations. Thus Great Dane believes that averaging is an option that trailer manufacturers need
depending on the definitions of exceptions and exclusions, and we recommend that averaging options be
included in any final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.4]
Response:
Section 207 (a) of the CAA requires manufacturers to warrant their products to be free from defects that
could otherwise cause non-compliance with emission standards. For purposes of the trailer program,
EPA requires trailer manufacturers to warrant all components that form the basis of the certification to
the C02 emission standards. The emission-related warranty thus covers all aerodynamic devices, lower
rolling resistance tires, tire pressure systems, and other components that may be included in the
certification application. Note that the emission-related warranty is completely separate from any other
warranties a manufacturer might offer.
The trailer manufacturer needs to warrant that these emission-related components and systems are
designed to remain functional for the warranty period. Based on the historical practice of requiring
-------
emissions warranties to apply for half of the useful life, we are adopting a warranty period for trailers of
five years for everything except tires. For trailer tires, we apply a warranty period of one year. We
view the warranty of third-party components, such as ATIS, as a business decision by those
manufacturers, rather than as a reflection of the actual durability of the systems. With proper
maintenance, we are aware of no reason that these systems would be unable to meet the durability
requirements of the trailer program. The agencies believe these systems (and similarly, the TPMS)
should be designed to last the full useful life of the trailer if properly maintained. We believe a five year
emission-related warranty is justified, but we note that trailer manufacturers can specify that this
warranty depends on the proper maintenance of components. NHTSA is not adopting any warranty
requirements relating to its trailer fuel consumption program.
The commenter notes that the current operational characteristics of the trailer industry differs from the
automotive industry where customers can relatively easily bring their vehicles to an appropriate
dealership for warranty-related issues. The statute and our regulations (see 40 CFR 1037.120) require
manufacturers to provide warranty coverage without specifying the business arrangements for making
that happen. Manufacturers will presumably continue similar business arrangements already in place
for warranties unrelated to emission control. Manufacturers may develop their own procedure for
providing emissions-related warranty coverage (e.g., setup contractual agreements with dealers or
distributers, limit warranty coverage to a network of authorized service providers, and/or arrange
payment to independent shops acting on behalf of the manufacturer), as long as the owner's manual
provides specific instructions describing how customers can get warranty coverage.
Similar to the proposal and EPA's SmartWay technology verification program, the final trailer program
provides for trailer aerodynamic device manufacturers to seek preliminary approval of the performance
of their devices (or combinations of devices) based on the same performance tests described previously.
Trailer manufacturers could then choose to use these devices and apply the approved performance levels
in the certification application for their trailer families. A device manufacturer would need to perform
the required A to B testing of their device(s) on a trailer that meets the requirements specified in 40 CFR
1037.211 and 1037.525 and submit the performance results, in terms of delta CdA, directly to EPA.
Once a device manufacturer has obtained this preliminary approval, it could supply the same
information to any trailer manufacturers that wish to install its devices. Note that both device
manufacturers and trailer manufacturers are subject to 40 CFR part 1068, including the recall provisions
described in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart F. In the event a device manufacturer submits false or inaccurate
data to EPA, it could incur liability for causing a regulated entity to commit a prohibited act. See 40
CFR 1068.101(c). This same potential liability exists with respect to information provided by a device
manufacturer directly to a trailer manufacturer.
As a result of the many comments opposing averaging from trailer manufacturers- the very stakeholders
meant to benefit from an averaging program - the agencies have reconsidered how averaging is
incorporated into the program. The final program does not allow averaging as a compliance option in
the early years of the program, in MY 2018 through MY 2026. In those years, all box vans sold
(beyond a manufacturer's allowance of non-complying trailers) must meet the standards using any
combination of available technologies.
However, the agencies have concluded that by late in the program, the value of an averaging option to
many trailer manufacturers may well outweigh the concerns they have expressed. Therefore, the final
program will provide a limited optional averaging program for MY2027 and later trailers. By that time,
we believe that the trailer manufacturers will be experienced and comfortable with the program and the
industry will be more familiar with the technologies. In addition, the final stage of the phase-in of the
-------
standards for MY 2027 represents the most stringent standards in the program, and additional flexibility
may be welcome by trailer manufacturers.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Trailer procedures
While this proposal for trailer standards lays a solid foundation, there are certain areas where
modifications are warranted in order to close potential loopholes, increase compliance flexibility, and
safeguard the expected fuel and emissions benefits from this portion of the Phase 2 program. The
following topics are discussed in this section: (1) Averaging versus design-based compliance pathways;
(2) Test procedure requirements; and (3) Aerodynamic performance assuming zero yaw versus wind-
averaged yaw [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 15]
Averaging. In general, the ICCT is supportive of compliance based on sales-weighted averaging, as this
gives manufacturers maximum flexibility to meet the standards using the technology deployment path
that best matches their overall business strategy. If the agencies consider eliminating averaging-based
compliance for a design-based approach, it is critical that the agencies maintain at least the same
technology penetration for any alternative standards to avoid compromising the environmental benefits.
This is clear, based on the facts that the technologies for the proposed standards are available and cost-
effective, and have been already found to be highly attractive by leading fleets (e.g., see Sharpe and
Roeth, 2014; Sharpe, Delgado, and Lutsey, 2015). In an attachment to our comments, we propose a
concept for a design-based standard that would result in fuel and emissions reductions that are equal—
or more—to the savings that could be achieved under the proposed averaging-based standards (Sharpe,
2015c). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 15]
Response:
As proposed, the trailer program provides for manufacturers to comply with the box van standards
through a combination of aerodynamic, tire, and tire pressure technologies of their choosing (or any
other technologies), so long as the overall standard is met. We are limiting averaging to MY 2027 for
full-aero box vans, where we have increased the stringency of the standards based on comments.
Standards in the years prior to MY 2027, are similar to those proposed, indicating similar stringency and
technology adoption. Design standards generally apply for trailer types where aerodynamic
technologies provide little benefit.
The commenter also provides specific suggestions for flexibility if averaging is not available, as is the
case in the final trailer program before MY 2027. The program addresses this concern through the
allowances provided each manufacturer for a certain number of non-complying trailers. (See our
response to Stoughton in Section 5.5 on page 1045).
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Test procedure requirements. For assessing the aerodynamic performance of trailers, the agencies have
proposed that manufacturers have the ability to use their choice of coastdown testing, wind tunnel
testing, or computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software. Although there are merits to test procedure
flexibility (e.g., among track testing, wind tunnel, or CFD) the lack of a 'reference' test method could
open up opportunities for gaming. One of the important drawbacks of wind tunnel and CFD evaluation
is that technologies are modeled as idealized versions, rather than the actual technologies themselves.
For example, in wind tunnel or CFD testing, an aerodynamic device can be modeled as being
-------
completely smooth and flush with the edges of the trailer, while in reality, there are small gaps and
irregularities that affect the air flow and the overall performance of the trailer with the device. In
addition, device vibrations that are part of normal operation and can take away from the efficiency
benefits are all but eliminated in wind tunnel and CFD testing. Because of these inherent discrepancies
between evaluating a modeled version of the device versus the actual device itself, there would ideally
be a requirement to do at least one track test. This is aligned with the requirements for tractor
manufacturers, who must perform at least one enhanced coastdown test and then can use wind tunnel or
CFD testing for other models, provided that they adjust their results using a correlation factor that is
linked to the coastdown results. We believe that requiring trailer manufacturers and device suppliers to
also do track testing will decrease the opportunities for 'cherry-picking' the best results, which may not
be reasonably representative of real-world conditions. We also recommend that the agencies consider
allowing the SAE J1321 "Type II" fuel consumption test procedure, as it has been required for many
years for SmartWay verification testing and is most familiar to the trailer industry. Trailer
manufacturers would ideally be required to do at least one track test (coastdown or J1321) for each
aerodynamic drag area (i.e., tractor-trailer gap, side or underbody, and rear) where they would like to
certify products. We include further details in the associated memo attachment (Sharpe, 2015c). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 15]
Response:
See our responses to CARB (page 1061) and Exa (page 1062) describing our use of wind-averaged drag
results in the trailer program and the applicable test procedures. The protocols for coastdown, wind
tunnel, and computational fluid dynamics analyses result in a CdA value. Note that SmartWay's 2014
protocols allow SAE J1321 Type 2 track testing, which generates fuel consumption results, not CdA
values. Commenters did not suggest a means of converting from the fuel consumption results to an
appropriate delta CdA value for use in compliance. As a result and as proposed, the final program does
not accept J1321 data for pre-approval.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Zero versus wind-averaged yaw. The Phase 2 regulation is meant to drive technologies into the market
that provide real-world benefits to fleets and society as a whole. As such, trailer manufacturers would
ideally have the option to certify their products under wind-averaged yaw conditions. The agencies
acknowledge that evaluating under various yaw angles is a more realistic assessment of how the
technology will perform on the road when faced with wind directions that can vary greatly. However,
the agencies have proposed that aerodynamic performance be solely determined using zero yaw
conditions. We propose that manufacturers be allowed to use wind-averaged results from wind tunnel or
CFD testing, provided that these results are correlated back to the coastdown or J1321 results. We
include further details in an associated memo attachment that we also submit to the docket (Sharpe,
2015c). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 15]
Response:
As noted in our response to CARB on page 1061, we are adopting wind-averaged results using a
surrogate yaw angle of the average of +4.5 and -4.5 degrees. Wind tunnel and CFD results must be
submitted as wind-averaged values. Coastdown results can be submitted as near-zero values, or
manufacturers can contact EPA to determine an appropriate adjustment factor to a wind-averaged result
for technologies that are sensitive to yaw angle.
Organization: Michelin North America, Inc.
-------
Trailer aerodynamic inputs to the GEM P2 vl.O a.
Trailer yaw angle at 0° vs Tractor yaw angle at 0° — 6°
The NPRM appropriately proposes the inclusion of the 'total vehicle' for the tractor-trailer combination
in the GHG and FE standards since that vehicle configuration makes up the majority of the commercial
vehicles in use. In this NPRM, the trailer is now required to be part of the assessments and
certifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.6
The NPRM states that tractor aerodynamic drag is determined by testing is conducted over a range of
0° — 6°yaw and averaged for the GEM P2 vl.O input. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.6]
The NPRM requires only a trailer aerodynamic drag delta CDA for trailer aerodynamics using the zero-
yaw, e.g. 0° (or head-on wind) values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.6]
For a realistic and complete assessment of the overall trailer aerodynamic performance, a range of yaw
angles, e.g. 0° — 6°, needs to be included for an averaged aerodynamic drag delta CdA GEM input, i.e.
effects of real world cross winds on such tractor-trailer combinations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-
A1 p.6]
Michelin supports the use of wind averaging result for aerodynamic inputs into both the tractor and the
trailer GEM models. From simulation results it has been found that different aero devices behave
significantly different at changing yaw angles. While some devices do tend to improve their value as
yaw angle increases, this is not always the case. Many devices improve, some remain constant, and
others actually have a degradation of performance under cross wind conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1286-A1 p.6-7]
The following chart is the normalized change of drag reduction for a number of aero devices going from
a 0° yaw angle to a 6° yaw angle. The range of performance difference seen is 6% or approximately 3%
fuel savings. This makes the yaw performance an important input to the GEM calculation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.7]
[Graph, 'Normalized change of drag reduction when going from 0 degree yaw to 6 degree yaw', can be
found on p.7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1]
Actual inversions of total performance have been seen between two designs of comparable devices
when 0° yaw is used instead of wind average results as shown in the following figure. Without the use
of wind averaged results designs would sacrifice cross wind performance to improve the 0° yaw
condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.7]
[Graph, 'Drag reduction performance of two comparable devices', can be found on p.7 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1]
In light of this understanding we also support Fait-aero being centered about the wind averaged case rather
than be centered about the 0° yaw condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.8]
Therefore, the range of yaw performance of aerodynamic devices is a major design factor and the
averaged aerodynamic drag delta, CdA, GEM input should be considered in trailer aerodynamic
performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.8]
-------
Response:
As mentioned in our response to CARB (page 1061), we are adopting provisions to incorporate wind-
averaged aerodynamic results into the trailer program.
Organization: Michelin North America, Inc.
Aerodynamic Formula for Adding Trailer Components
As stated in a. above, the trailer is now required to be part of the assessments and certifications. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.8]
The proposed drag formula provides a method for adding individual trailer components together that are
not actually tested together. It provides 100% of the benefit of the most fuel saving device 90% of the
savings of the 2nd and 80% of the savings for the devices added thereafter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1286-A1 p.8]
Aerodynamics is a system, not just a collection of parts. As such, all too often devices do not work well
together and the data supports this. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.8]
Devices that have been tested together, and some designed to work together, have been shown to have
less total benefit than the proposed formula. From our testing, the proposed formula favors a collection
of devices that may only be effective when tested alone, and does not provide for integrated
aerodynamic systems testing to assess the combined systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.8]
One example would be using trailer skirts in addition to under-tray devices which would yield less
savings than the EPA formula indicates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.8]
As an example, one of the best total performance combinations simulated was a particularly high
performance trailer skirt and boat tail device. Each was also tested independently and their combined
savings were significantly less than the EPA formula. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.8]
For this example the second device only yielded 78% of the savings instead of 90% as currently
proposed. In this example the end result may indeed be attractive as it does offer large fuel savings, but
the proposed formula yields differing expectations and does not encourage the testing of these devices
together. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.8]
[Graphs, Simulations of skirts and other aerodynamic devices compared to EPA formulas, can be found
on p.9-10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 ]
In another example, trailer skirts and a device designed for use with trailer skirts were simulated
separately and together. Despite the design intent, actual simulation results of the paired devices
returned only 69% of the second device's individually tested fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1286-A1 p.9]
A final example was a trailer skirt and a device frequently used in the market with trailer skirts. In this
case the second device returned less than 53% of the individually tested fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1286-A1 p.9]
-------
Therefore, the testing of combined systems will provide fleets with expected savings. If a formula for
adding devices is included such as in the NPRM aerodynamic formula, it should provide an incentive to
also test combined solutions, and which may modify the proposed percentage factors when the devices
are tested individually. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p. 10]
Response:
Our wind-averaged test data, which is summarized in Chapter 2.10.2.1.2.5, shows that combinations of
devices perform better than the sum of their individual effectiveness. Use of our proposed device
discounting strategy with individual device effectiveness values ranged from 10-20% worse than the
performance observed when the same devices were tested in combination, suggesting that our
discounting strategy is a conservative estimate of the performance of device combinations, and we are
finalizing this approach to provide incentive for packages of devices to be tested together for pre-
approval.
Additionally, we specifically indicate that devices may be used in combination subject to good
engineering judgment. Manufacturers using combinations of devices from the agencies' pre-approved
test data would be required to indicate which individual devices were combined in their certification
application and the agencies' compliance representatives would be able to see if inappropriate device
combinations, such as skirts and an underbody device, were used.
Organization: SmartTruck
A component-specific validation structure would also allow the EPA opportunity to clarify how it
intends to apply "family" designations to component manufacturers. In providing aero-device
manufacturers the ability to identify components, and combinations of such, into aerodynamic bin
categories, as outlined in the NPRM, the EPA gives the trailer OEM the ability to create families based
on a mix of multiple aerodynamic devices, manufactured by a variety of companies. We believe this
structure is more in line with the current framework which allows the customers of trailer OEMs to
designate the type of aerodynamic technology they would like to purchase and provides a more efficient
reporting system. This also allows trailer OEMs to balance their families with different technologies in
the event that a particular device fails the requirements of validation testing. The current designation of
how families will be integrated into testing for component manufacturers needs to be clarified. A unique
SEA and confirmatory testing structure should also disqualify trailer OEMs from using their own test
results to validate or eliminate an aerodynamic device manufactured by potential competitors in the
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1923-A1 p.5]
Response:
In the trailer program, the concept of "families" is associated with the trailer certification process and
applies to trailer manufacturers. The program provides for aerodynamic data generated from testing of
components to be pre-approved, but trailer manufacturers decide how to apply data for their individual
compliance strategies. We are not adopting provisions outlining steps to retract pre-approval of test data
submitted to EPA. However, we note that EPA may request more information or may perform our own
confirmatory testing if needed prior to pre-approval. Similarly, we cannot prohibit OEMs from
performing independent testing of devices and, while we would not directly use such test results to
retract approval, we may use it to justify our own follow-up testing.
Organization: STEMCO
-------
STEMCO requests the addition of an early adoption incentive for trailers that meet the MY2027
compliance level in MY2018. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.2]
[Note: The docket for this rulemaking includes several footnoted references from STEMCO's comments
that are not included here.]
• STEMCO requests the addition of an early adoption incentive for trailers that meet the MY2027
compliance level in MY2018.
Early Adoption Incentive
STEMCO recommends that the EPA and NHTSA provide a financial reward for fleets who purchase
MY2027 (or MY2024 in Alternative 4) compliance-level trailers in MY2018, the initial program year.
From decades of experience selling into the trucking industry, we project that even a small financial
incentive such as reimbursing the Federal Excise Tax (FET) on the cost of aerodynamic fairings not
officially required until MY2027 will push a large segment of the industry to voluntarily achieve the
program's end goals nine years in advance of regulation (or six years ahead of the Alternative 4
schedule). If calculating MY2027 level device incremental cost on a per trailer basis is too cumbersome
to implement for any reason, we suggest a simplified solution of a $140 reduction in FET for each
trailer3 that achieves MY2027 greenhouse gas emission reductions in MY2018. We suggest that this
reward apply only to trailers who achieve a MY2027 performance level at the "full aero" level, such that
a "partial aero" trailer or trailer with work-performing devices would not qualify for the reward if it
achieves its MY2027 compliance level in MY2018 through reduced standards. We also suggest that this
reward only be available in MY2018 (i.e. not MY2019, MY2020, etc.). Finally, we ask the EPA and
NHTSA to consider a weight exemption for these over-complying aerodynamic devices in MY2018.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.4-5]
We believe that this MY2018 incentive achieves two fundamental EPA and NHTSA program goals
while significantly building on the desired two-way partnership with industry. First, the program's
environmental and economic achievements would significantly accelerate - each trailer that qualifies for
this reward signifies 5-7% additional fuel savings and reduced green-house emissions4. Second,
voluntary over-compliance in MY2018 further ensures that a suite of properly-designed, high-
performing, and industry-proven technologies are available to fleets at the onset of full compliance
standards. Table IV-13 estimates that long box trailer adoption of Bin VII Aerodynamic Technologies
will jump from 0% to 40% in between MY2026 and MY2027 and we believe that is highly
advantageous to reduce this single year adoption spike by accruing industry experience and acceptance
of these technologies years prior to this regulated milestone. Early adopter trucking fleets will expose
any needed design or quality modifications before full industry adoption and a small financial reward, in
addition to the initial competitive advantage early adopter fleets receive from lower fuel costs, will
encourage them to continue leading industry adoption. The lost revenue opportunity to the U.S.
Government from this one-time FET reduction should be minimal - Table IV-13 estimates that 0% of
trailers will achieve MY2027 compliance in MY2018, so these unsold aerodynamic devices would not
have generated tax revenue in 2018 anyway. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.5]
Response:
While the agencies agree in principle that incentives for early compliance can sometimes be useful, in
the case of trailers, there no appropriate mechanism for such an incentive in this program. Within the
trailer program, an incentive system would require a credit banking program in the early stages to
manage the offsetting of early compliance credits for some trailer families with appropriate non-
-------
compliance of other families. However, for reasons discussed elsewhere in this and the other
rulemaking documents, the final trailer program does not include banking, and reserves the availability
of averaging provisions for MYs 2027 and later. In the early years, without averaging, manufacturers
have the option to install high-performing aerodynamic technologies on their box vans, allowing them
to avoid installing tire or weight reduction technologies, or they could simply sell an over-compliant
trailer if that is what their customer desired. An early-adoption incentive for the trailer program would
require some kind of mechanism for trailer manufacturers to generate early credits and then use them
later. Because the program does not incorporate a banking system (per the requests of many industry
commenters), early credits are not possible.
Regarding other potential incentives like FET reduction or a weight exemption, these approaches are
outside the scope of this rule, as discussed in section 15.10 of this Response to Comments document.
[ ]
Organization: STEMCO
Trailer Aerodynamic Performance Testing
• STEMCO requests and recommends more stringency in the testing procedures used to certify
trailer aerodynamic device performance (delta CDA value) in this regulation. We are
particularly concerned that reduced-scale models and computer simulations can and do falsely
represent the device rigidity required in the real world to achieve the stated reductions in fuel
use. We believe at least a single full-scale test with a production model and two separate test
methods should be required to achieve an EPA and NHTSA certified delta CDA value.
• STEMCO requests that on-road Type II testing, the most familiar method for trailer
aerodynamic device manufacturers, be included as an acceptable testing procedure option. We
also ask the EPA and NHTSA to clearly define a step-by-step process as a part of this regulation
that will create a road map for approving additional aerodynamic testing procedures that are
currently under development.
Number of test procedures needed to achieve approved CDA value
STEMCO requests that EPA and NHTSA require a trailer aerodynamic device be evaluated using two
different test procedures before it achieves an approved CDA value. We further request requiring at
least one of those two test procedures be conducted using a full-scale production unit of that
aerodynamic device (as opposed to a computer simulation or scaled-down model). According to EPA
and NHTSA's current proposal, it is our understanding that this would require either a coastdown or
constant speed test (STEMCO is requesting the allowance of additional full-scale test procedures in a
later section), and then either a wind tunnel, computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling, or a
different type of full-scale testing could be used as the other test procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1259-A1 p.5]
Establishing accurate and credible CDA values is of the utmost importance to the overall goals of this
regulation. No single testing procedure is perfect or evaluates all types of devices equally - the National
Research Council (NRC) has identified the drawbacks of approximate physics in CFD, approximate
boundary conditions in wind tunnels, and approximate measurements in road/track testing5. In
particular, coastdown testing measurement "uncertainties can exceed CD bin sizes." STEMCO believes
that only aerodynamic devices that can repeat their fuel saving results across multiple testing methods
should be fully embraced by industry. We believe that the single greatest threat to the environmental
goals of this regulation is if a lower-cost but under-achieving trailer aerodynamic device were to achieve
-------
an inflated delta CDA value in a single test (either accidentally or mendaciously) and then be recognized
by EPA and NHTSA as a valid compliance option. This aerodynamic device would instantly become an
enticing option for trucking fleets interested only in regulatory compliance due to its low price, which
would lead to a potentially significant percentage of trailers complying with this regulation but
significantly underachieving C02 and fuel savings in real-world use. In an extreme (but not impossible)
example, a 1% fuel saving aerodynamic device incorrectly labeled as 4% would weaken this portion of
the regulation's environmental goals by 75% every time it is installed on a trailer. Requiring two
separate test procedures does not completely eliminate this risk, but it would create a significant safety
net in case an unforeseen testing loophole was discovered in a single test procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1259-A1 p.5-6]
We are also specifically asking to require at least one full-scale testing procedure because, despite the
existence of highly-calibrated wind tunnel and CFD facilities, both test procedures are limited by using
device models instead of actual commercial devices. These device models are extremely rigid replicas
and do not simulate the aerodynamic consequences of device movement or flutter during on-road travel.
For example, a sideskirt or boat tail made out of a very thin, inexpensive material would not deform in
CFD or wind tunnel testing, but it would most likely flutter during real-world travel, disrupting laminar
air flow, and achieving much lower real-world drag reductions. It is important to note that if this device
were accepted as a viable option for regulatory compliance, it would probably sell well in a very cost-
constrained industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.7]
As part of a two testing procedure compliance program, a trailer aerodynamic device would now have
two delta CDA values - we recommend accepting the higher value as long as the lower value is at least
90% of that higher value. For example, if a sideskirt achieved a delta CDA value of 0.70 in coast down
testing and a delta CDA value of 0.65 in wind tunnel testing, that sideskirt would receive an
EPA/NHTSA approved delta CDA value of 0.7 because 0.65 is 93% of 0.7. However, we suggest that
the lower delta CDA value be used when both values are not within 10% of each other. Therefore, if a
sideskirt achieved a delta CDA of 0.80 in coast down testing and a delta CDA of 0.65 in wind tunnel
testing, the EPA/NHTSA approved delta CDA value would only be 0.65. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1259-A1 p.6]
While this additional testing requirement would add to the financial burden placed on trailer
aerodynamic device manufacturers, those companies, including STEMCO, will presumably benefit
financially from increased sales of their aerodynamic devices as a result of this regulation, and
therefore, this additional upfront testing investment should not be considered an undue burden. No
additional burden would be placed on trailer manufacturers because the Aerodynamic Device Testing
Alternative allows them to select devices that have been pre-approved by trailer aerodynamic device
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1259-A1 p.6]
Accepted trailer aerodynamic test procedures
In addition to coastdown, constant speed, wind tunnel, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
modeling, STEMCO requests that Type II Fuel Consumption testing (the SmartWay 2015 Verification
Protocol version) be accepted as a procedure for generating the EPA and NHTSA's approved delta
CDA value for a trailer aerodynamic device. We also request that, in the final regulation, EPA and
NHTSA clearly define a review process to allow for the inclusion of additional testing procedures, so
that newer but promising test procedures, such as alternating, short duration on-road testing (discussed
later in this section), can be included in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.6]
-------
Type II (also known as SAE Type II or SAE1321, although there are protocol differences6) is the test
procedure used by 80% of Verified Trailer Aerodynamic Devices currently listed on the EPA SmartWay
website. In the previous section of these comments, we presented the merits of requiring at least one
full-scale device test and because both coastdown and constant speed tests are unproven and unfamiliar
within the trailer aerodynamic device manufacturer community, we feel that it would be imprudent to
eliminate Type II as an option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.7]
The rationale often presented for excluding Type II testing has been that it presents a "percent fuel
saved" result instead of "delta CDA." This can be easily overcome by applying the correlation between
delta CDA and percent fuel saved already established in Table IV-9. As an example, if a sideskirt for a
long dry van trailer achieved 5% fuel savings in a Type II test, it would receive a delta CDA value of
0.7 and qualify for Bin V. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.7]
Alternating, short duration on-road testing is a methodology where a single vehicle drives a series of
short laps (either on a closed track or public highway) while alternating between using an aerodynamic
device and a baseline configuration. Engine data is used and analyzed instead of weighing auxiliary fuel
tanks. Boat tails can quickly alternate between a deployed and baseline configuration by simply folding
the tail closed, allowing 6-8 "A-to-B" lap sets to be generated in a single day (additional data and
information are included as Confidential Business Information). Bolted-on sideskirts would not be as
quick to "install" and "uninstall" as a boat tail, but because this testing is an inexpensive alternative to
the other approved procedures, it would be financially feasible to hire a team of 10-15 technicians that
could remove or reinstall a sideskirt in less than 5 minutes multiple times throughout a single day.
STEMCO has been using this test procedure for the past 12 months with trucking fleets and we believe
it to be even more reliable than Type II testing. The experimental design of short timed laps (<30
minutes) and alternating between two aerodynamic states minimizes the variability due to changing
external variables and provides a smaller time effect than any currently accepted on-road test.
Additionally, the method of data collection via the CAN Bus allows for a more granular data analysis of
speed and operating condition effects than can be achieved through the single data point generated by
weighing fuel tanks on a scale. We specifically request comment from the EPA and NHTSA on which
steps STEMCO would need to take to get alternating, short duration on-road testing recognized as an
accepted test procedure for this regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.7]
Response:
The agencies agree that no single test procedure is perfect for all devices. The final trailer program is
designed to allow manufacturers to choose an appropriate test procedure for their device and resources.
As described in Section IV.F.3.b of the Preamble to this rulemaking, we have structured our final
regulations to make wind tunnel testing our primary method for measuring trailer aerodynamic
performance as wind-averaged drag, but are adopting interim provisions that allow a manufacture to use
wind-averaged CFD results or near-zero yaw coastdown testing without adjustment (see 40 CFR
1037.150(x)). Our test results in Chapter 2.10.2.1.2.4 and 2.10.2.1.3 of the RIA, show that most device
performance from these three test methods are similar within the same aerodynamic bin. For devices
that may be sensitive to yaw angle, manufacturers can work with EPA to establish an appropriate yaw
adjustment for their coastdown results.
The protocols for coastdown, wind tunnel, and CFD analyses result in a CdA value. Note that
SmartWay's 2014 protocols allow SAE J1321 Type 2 track testing, which generates fuel consumption
results, not CdA values. Commenters did not suggest a means of converting from the fuel consumption
results to an appropriate delta CdA value for use in compliance. As a result, the final program does not
accept J1321 data for pre-approval, as proposed.
-------
Organization: STEMCO
• STEMCO requests that wind-averaged CDA values be used instead of zero-yaw CDA values.
Yaw and wind-averaged drag
STEMCO requests that trailer aerodynamic device manufacturers be allowed to use wind-averaged delta
CDA drag values. As noted in EPA/NHTSA's proposal, many trailer aerodynamic devices increase in
efficiency at higher yaw angles and crosswinds7 and we believe that an accurate delta CDA drag value
for regulatory purposes should reflect the full spectrum of real-world conditions. Not only would zero-
yaw assessments be an unfair penalty to existing devices that have already been optimized for
crosswinds, we believe a dangerous priority shift would occur in future research and development,
potentially creating a next generation of aerodynamic devices whose zero-yaw delta CDA values (EPA
and NHTSA's metric for environmental benefit) are substantially higher than their wind-averaged delta
CDA values (real-world environmental benefit). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.7]
EPA and NHTSA mention the benefit of cross-method comparison and certification as a rationale for
only accepting zero-yaw values for wind tunnels and CFD. We believe that this cross-method
comparison can still be accomplished by simply requiring trailer aerodynamic device manufacturers to
submit both their zero-yaw and wind-averaged drag values. No additional testing is required and the
zero-yaw value can be compared against coastdown, constant speed, or other wind-restricted
procedures, while the wind-averaged drag value can be used as the official compliance value. If the EPA
and NHTSA desire to apply a correction factor (such as "Fait,aero") to a zero-yaw value, that same
correction factor (x 1.10 was an example used in the proposal) could also be applied to the wind-
averaged drag value. We are also encouraged by recent research and efforts by the National Research
Council (NRC) to develop a wind-averaged drag method for coast down testing, so it is possible that in
the coming years an accurate direct cross-method comparison can be made using wind-averaged drag
values directly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.8]
Response:
As noted in our response to CARB on page 1061, we are adopting a wind-averaged approach for trailer
aerodynamic testing.
Organization: STEMCO
• STEMCO requests that the EPA and NHTSA publish the testing methods and vehicle settings
used to achieve certification by each approved trailer aerodynamic device.
Publishing test procedure settings for all certified trailer aerodynamic devices
STEMCO requests that the EPA and NHTSA publish online the aerodynamic test procedure settings for
all trailer aerodynamic devices that have been awarded a certified delta CDA value. Examples of test
procedure settings include, but are not limited to: test procedure method, testing facility name and
location, tractor make/model/year used as the standard tractor, and trailer make/model/year used as the
standard trailer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.8]
Prior to the SmartWay 2014 update, there was no visibility into the test settings used for a verified
trailer aerodynamic device on their website. It has been suggested that certain testing advantages could
be achieved by using specific tractors, trailers, or tractor-trailer gap settings, but without publishing
-------
these specifics for each verified device, those potential advantages became more trade secret than public
knowledge. Although the test procedures presented here by the EPA and NHTSA appear more stringent,
we believe test settings should be public information to better facilitate apples-to-apples device
comparisons and to easily allow device manufacturers to match test settings with other high-achieving
devices. This hopefully creates a level-playing field where the best aerodynamic devices rise to the top
of EPA and NHTSA's delta CDA value rankings and not the aerodynamic devices that were tested with
the most favorable standard vehicle and/or using the most favorable test procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1259-A1 p.8]
Response:
The agencies agree that there could be value in an online repository for aerodynamic test settings and
data. However, requiring, collecting, presenting, and maintaining information at the level of detail
suggested by the commenter would go well beyond what we have done historically in our motor vehicle
programs, and we cannot commit to publication of such information at this time. We encourage
industry stakeholders to investigate other options for such publication; perhaps through applicable
associations or technical groups.
Organization: STEMCO
• STEMCO supports the Aerodynamic Device Testing Alternative because it minimizes the
testing and certification burden placed on trailer manufacturers and ensures that aerodynamic
device manufacturers have full control over the testing and certification of their own products.
• STEMCO recommends an EPA and NHTSA created website for computing the Trailer
Compliance Equation and submitting compliance data, which will reduce the reporting and fleet
education burden placed on trailer manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.2]
Use of the Compliance Equation for Trailer Compliance
STEMCO appreciates EPA and NHTSA's desire to minimize compliance reporting paperwork for the
industry (trailer manufacturers, trucking fleets, and aerodynamic device manufacturers). We request
additional details on how reporting would be completed and submitted and present a specific suggestion
below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.8]
First, EPA and NHTSA could create a website prior to 2018 that interactively computes overall trailer
C02 and fuel consumption using the Trailer GEM-Based Compliance Equation (IV-1). This website
would display a pick-able list of approved trailer aerodynamic devices, tires, automatic tire inflation
(ATI) systems, and light-weighting options, allowing a trailer manufacturer or trucking fleet to easily
experiment with how different product choices can best satisfy regulatory compliance for their
application. This website would also include, and make visible, the EPA and NHTSA's discounting
equation for combining multiple aerodynamic devices that is outlined on pages 312 and 313 of the
proposal. This website should also include approved trailer types and work-performing devices that
allow for a lower "partial-aero" compliance standard. For example, a visitor to this website should be
able to select a drop-frame trailer, which would lower the compliance standard in the 2027 Alternative 3
timeframe (or the 2024 Alternative 4 timeframe). Lastly, once the resulting overall trailer C02 and fuel
consumption level has been computed, we request a color or message box that clearly indicates the
model year of compliance achieved (ex. "Compliant with MY2021 but not MY2024"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1259-A1 p.8-9]
-------
By functioning as a central repository, this website would ensure alignment throughout the industry and
assist trailer manufacturers when selling MY2018 and later new trailers to trucking fleets. A salesperson
would be better equipped to show a trucking fleet the EPA and NHTSA website and let them choose a
suite of options until the box at the bottom "goes green" than to perform the arithmetic outlined in the
Trailer GEM-Based Compliance Equation. In the event that the EPA and NHTSA choose to allow the
averaging option, this website could include an "over-compliance" indicator to inform trailer
manufacturers about a surplus that may be applied to offset an under-complying trailer order. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.9]
Second, this website could be used directly (or indirectly) as the end of year reporting submission tool
for trailer manufacturers. Ideally, a trailer manufacturing representative would enter a password or
manufacturer's code to access additional cells to type in the number of trailers (and possibly VIN
numbers) and then press a button to officially submit a batch of C02 and fuel consumption values to the
EPA and NHTSA. If this website was successful, it would allow trailer manufacturers to get in the
regular habit of quickly submitting data every time they fulfill a trailer order, eliminating the need for
end-of-year reporting. As an added advantage, the EPA, NHTSA, and the trailer manufacturer would be
informed in real-time about their compliance progress for the year (we don't recommend changing the
three-year catch-up compliance provision, however). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.9]
It is imperative that this website be well-built and easy-to-operate because taking more than a few
minutes per order submission would quickly become an undue burden for trailer manufacturers. We also
defer to trailer manufacturers if they would prefer to lump reporting into a year-end activity instead of
this as-you-go basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.9]
We are not aware of the complexity and burden that creating and maintaining this website would place
on the EPA and NHTSA, but we believe that it is both a needed step and one whose cost may be offset
by a reduction in the workload placed on each EPA and NHTSA compliance representative assigned to
a trailer manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.9]
Response:
The agencies have outlined the general steps for reporting in the Preamble to this rulemaking. The
complete list of compliance steps for trailer manufacturers can be found in the regulations (40 CFR
Subparts G through I, starting with 1037.601). The process for obtaining preliminary approval of test
data for aerodynamic device manufacturers is outlined in 40 CFR 1037.211. As noted in our previous
response, we agree that there could value in an online repository for aerodynamic device performance,
including the test setting requested previously. However, we cannot commit to publication of such
information at this time. We encourage the industry to investigate other options for such publication;
perhaps through applicable associations or technical groups. EPA's Compliance Division has an
established, secure database system for submitting compliance information. To maintain consistency,
we cannot justify conversion to a new system when EPA's staff and all of the currently regulated
industries are familiar with the existing system.
Organization: Stoughton Trailers
The regulation document is written to allow for several types of tests to establish the coefficient of drag
related to a product and it's incorporation of drag reducing aerodynamic devices. The variables
associated with each test raise question as to the validity of the reported outcome. Many devices have
been tested numerous times in order to reach the opportune conditions required to allow performance at
-------
the claimed level. An additional means of submitting data for consideration is the CFD program. This
program is based on the ability of the model creation and applied conditions to replicate a real world
condition. Simply stated the use of CFD is a valuable tool to consider iteration of design which may
lead to an advantageous coefficient of drag result, but it is too easily gamed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1212-A2 p.2]
Request 6: Since coefficient of drag is the measurement being used for aerodynamic consideration,
please restrict the submission of data to a format requiring wind tunnel testing alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1212-A2p.2]
Response:
As noted previously in our response to Exa (page 1062), and described in Section IV.F.3.b of the
Preamble to this rulemaking, we have structured our final regulations to make wind tunnel testing our
primary method for measuring trailer aerodynamic performance as wind-averaged drag, but are
adopting interim provisions that allow a manufacture to use wind-averaged CFD results or near-zero
yaw coastdown testing without adjustment (see 40 CFR 1037.150(x)).
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
In our "Averaging" section (8), we discuss the problems with the proposal's averaging provisions and
how what the agencies regard as beneficial to industry would actually be harmful to the trailer industry.
We discourage the agencies from using this scheme in regard to trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1172-A1 p.2]
8 - Averaging
While we understand that the agencies view Averaging, Banking and Trading programs as beneficial to
the regulated industry, it's important to realize that the trailer industry is not the automobile industry.
The six year annual production average for trailers is 187,666 while for cars, it is 13,906,666. It would
take the trailer industry 74 years to build what the automobile industry builds in a single year. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 13]
Averaging will cause unnecessary disruption in the trailer industry. Currently, most trailers are built to
customer specification and most customers have found a preferred manufacturer to build to that
specification. With averaging, a given manufacturer may find that the mix of customers in a given year
does not allow them to meet their target, which would require that manufacturer to turn away customers
and force customers to seek new vendors for established trailers. Manufacturers who specialize in
making trailers that are typically used transiently, such as trailers used for intra-city distribution, would
be particularly hard hit; the trailer they specialize in would have little to no real-world gains in
efficiency while it would have many real-world penalties. Customers would be quick to recognize this
and when the specialist manufacturers had to stop selling optimal trailers to meet the averages in the
proposal, the customers would have to seek out a new trailer supplier. Large manufacturers aren't
looking forward to this either, as a flood of new customers looking for these trailers would skew their
numbers and create problems for the larger customers they focus on. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-
A1 p.13-14]
Rather than do this, we would prefer that averaging be done away with entirely: each trailer subject to
regulation should be required to meet a given standard. This will require that certain users will have to
change their specifications, but will cause minimal disruption to the industry. To do this with minimal
-------
disruption to the greater freight industry, careful thought will be needed to be given to trailers that are
excluded as mentioned above. The best option would be to allow market forces to work on the situation
with the voluntary SmartWay program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 14]
More importantly, however, we request that the agencies demonstrate the commercial feasibility of the
proposed rules before they can take effect -i.e., that EPA and NHTSA provide reliable evidence that the
technologies imposed by the proposed regulations can be successfully marketed to motor carriers, given
that these technologies already exist as options but are not being widely purchased by many motor
carriers because their mix of drop-and-hook operations and multiple short, low-speed deliveries does not
generate measurable fuel savings benefits. The proposed rules do not require motor carriers to purchase
specific equipment or to attain specific fuel efficiency goals. Instead, the proposed rules will require
trailer manufacturers to sell this equipment to an increasing majority of their customers whether these
customers want it or not. More accurately, the proposed rules will require the larger manufacturers to
sell this equipment, while exempting smaller manufacturers from that requirement at the outset, an
exemption that will certainly divert sales to the smaller trailer manufacturers in early years and thereby
fail to achieve the agencies' desired goals while arbitrarily and unreasonably imposing the sales
obligation on the larger manufacturers. As noted above, however, the reality is that all trailer
manufacturers are small manufacturers when compared to the manufacturers of the millions of other
motor vehicles sold in the United States annually, which, because of those huge volumes, have the
ability to sell expensive and highly fuel efficient vehicles at little or no profit in order to offset sales of
more popular less fuel efficient vehicles. Trailer manufacturers, by contrast, do not have the sales
volumes needed to absorb trailer sales that produce little or no profit, which will certainly be the effect
of requiring them to install equipment that their customers have so far refused to purchase and which
those customers will simply refuse to pay for if the new rules take effect. The EPA and NHTSA have
produced no reliable, measurable evidence that those motor carriers can be forced to pay for the
required technologies, and instead the agencies are proposing to put (some) trailer manufacturers in the
completely unreasonable position of insisting that their customers pay for equipment that is not wanted
or accept delivery of unwanted equipment at the trailer manufacturer's expense. In the latter instance,
the cost of the proposed regulations, which are purportedly justified achieve a national benefit, will be
arbitrarily and unreasonably (and in many cases impossibly) imposed solely on (some) trailer
manufacturers and not passed on to the motor carriers and then on to their customers, the shippers and
the public at large. Therefore, for the proposed rules to satisfy the legal requirements that they be
reasonably drawn and achievable in fact, their commercial feasibility must be proven and not merely
assumed, and the proposed rules must not establish unreasonable and arbitrary distinctions and sales
requirements that disproportionately burden a minority of market participants. Alternatively, the legal
requirements to purchase and install the desired equipment should be imposed on the motor carriers
directly so that the free market for trailer sales will not be arbitrarily segmented and defeated. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 14]
Response:
The agencies recognize that the trailer industry differs from other heavy-duty vehicles and we designed
much of the Phase 2 trailer program to address these differences. As noted in our response to Great
Dane (page 1063) the final program includes averaging, but the option is limited to MYs 2027 and later
for full-aero box vans only. In the years prior to MY 2027, all trailers must meet their respective
standards, consistent with this comment. In MY 2027 and later, when the standards for full-aero box
vans are the most stringent, manufacturers have the option to average as an additional flexibility, but
averaging is never a requirement. See our memo to the docket outlining possible technology packages
-------
that can be used to meet the MY 2027 standards with and without averaging.164 We are also adopting a
minimum performance level (equivalent to MY 2018 standards) that box vans in an averaging program
must meet to prevent manufactures with higher production volume or more diverse products from
generating sufficient emissions credits to produce trailers with no emissions controls. This minimum
performance level may also help manufacturers manage their relationships with customers seeking no-
control trailers. Note that all non-box trailers and any box vans designated non-aero or partial-aero
cannot be averaged at any point in the program, which partially aligns with this comment.
The partial- and non-aero designations, and their accompanying reduced standards, are intended to
capture a majority of the box vans that are frequently used exclusively in urban environments where
they would have less benefit from aerodynamic devices. Some box vans may also be used in urban
environments, but may not have work-performing equipment that qualifies them for these designations.
However, we expect they will spend at least some time at speeds of 55-mph or faster, where they will
see a 1% or more benefit from aerodynamic devices (see our response to Stoughton on page 965, and
RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.1). We thus do not accept the premise of the comment that aerodynamic devices
will be installed on trailers for no benefit and hence that trailer manufacturers will bear all of the cost
because customers will not pay for devices which do not pay back.
The comment also makes note of the one-year delay for small business manufacturers, and claims that
business will be diverted from large manufacturers to small manufacturers during that time. As seen in
Figure 1-3 of Chapter 1 in our RIA, the cumulative annual production of all of the small business box
trailer manufacturers is estimated to be less than 15 percent of the industry's total production, which is
significantly less than the annual production of the four largest manufacturers. Small businesses do not
have the same resources available to become familiar with the regulations, make process and staffing
changings, or evaluate and market new technologies as their larger counterparts. We believe a one-year
delay provides additional time for small businesses to address these issues, without a large C02 and fuel
consumption impact or substantial negative competitive effects.
The agencies regard the costs of the trailer program as reasonable. First, the trailer standards are cost
effective, even without considering payback. See Section IV.C.3 of the Preamble to the final rule and
Chapter 7.2.5 of the RIA. The $36 per C02eq reduction presented for tractor-trailers compares
favorably with the levels of cost effectiveness found reasonable for light-duty trucks (see 77 FR 62922).
We present combined tractor-trailer values, because tractors and trailers are inherently used together in
the real world. However, we understand that it may be of interest to ensure the tractor and trailer
programs are individually cost effective as well. As described in a memo to the docket, we estimate the
cost effectiveness of trailers in calendar year 2030 to be $21 per C02eq and tractors to be $39 per
C02eq, suggesting that these programs are cost effective and provide significant net benefits both
individually and combined.165
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The EPA's various test methods for establishing aerodynamic-drag coefficient are not repeatable.
The scientific method requires that test results be repeatable, verified by third parties, and that
equivalent tests yield equivalent results, all within reasonable margins of error. Coastdown, constant-
164 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. "Example Compliance Scenarios for the Final HD GHG
Phase 2 Trailer Program" August 2016.
165 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. "Tractor-Trailer Cost per Ton Values" August 2016
-------
speed, and various wind-tunnel test results - which the EPA used - are not necessarily repeatable over
time and by third parties. This is especially likely for tests that use human drivers. Utility Trailer has
conducted fuel-savings tests of the same model side skirt at different times at the same facility, and at
different test facilities. Although Utility Trailer employed identical test protocols, the results varied
significantly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.12]
A vetted computational fluid dynamic (CFD) test controls for these variations. Utility Trailer employed
Exa Corporation (the same entity used by the EPA) to perform CFD tests on the proposed aerodynamic
devices. Exa Corporation advised Utility Trailer to increase the aerodynamic drag area provided by the
EPA's Table 2-76 by 25% to match the CFD model to the EPA's coastdown test results. Although this
adjustment roughly approximated the results the EPA achieves from the coastdown test, it does not
produce equivalently acceptable results for the constant-speed or wind tunnel method of computing the
aerodynamic-drag coefficient. This calls into question the validity of the EPA's tests used to establish
the aerodynamic-drag coefficient. The Agency has failed to provide a proper analysis of equating the
various test methods to one another; it also has not confirmed the results by independent, valid testing.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 12]
The Agencies should permit manufacturers to submit efficiency numbers for their aerodynamic
technologies that include realistic yaw angles.
The Proposed Rules permit manufacturers and suppliers to use alternative devices to achieve the
required greenhouse-gas emission reductions, provided they establish the efficiency of those devices.
The GEM model, however, requires that the efficiency be established at 0-degrees yaw - in other words,
without cross winds. And for model years 2021 and beyond, the EPA requires that all aerodynamic
devices be qualified again with 0-degree yaw angle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.21]
This requirement was done purely for the sake of the GEM model, regardless of the very significant and
varying effect yaw angle has on the different aerodynamic device efficiencies. This is unrealistic and
does not involve the real world, where crosswinds are more common than not. Constant-speed and
coastdown tests all permit some amount of wind. This biases their results as compared with other test
methods of determining aerodynamic-drag coefficients. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.21-22]
Utility Trailer has performed computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis of many of the EPA
SmartWay-approved trailer aerodynamic devices, using the same testing agency (Exa Corporation) that
the EPA has employed for some of its tests. The EPA SmartWay-approved trailer side skirt reduce the
tractor/trailer aerodynamic drag coefficient the most, especially with cross winds or with a significant
yaw angle. As Utility Trailer and other manufacturers develop new devices and configurations to
increase aerodynamic efficiencies, Utility Trailer urges the Agencies to permit the manufacturers to
perform sufficiently sophisticated testing to account for the effect of yaw angle (crosswinds) on those
devices. This will permit the proposed savings to better represent actual anticipated fuel efficiency
savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.22]
Response:
The agencies are aware that individual, absolute CdA values may differ between aerodynamic test
methods, wind tunnel facilities, or CFD packages. The tractor aerodynamic test program is designed to
apply a correction factor to a reference test method to address these differences. However, our results
(as shown in RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.2) indicate that the variability in delta CdA results are much smaller.
The trailer program is designed such that we are measuring the improvement in aerodynamic
performance, and that improvement is nearly the same for all three test methods.
-------
The agencies proposed to determine the delta CdA for trailer aerodynamic performance using the zero-
yaw (or head-on wind) values from any of the approved test procedures. However, based on comments
received, including the comment above, we are revising the final program to be based on wind-averaged
results, similar to the tractor program. We thus agree with the comment that effects of wind must be
accounted for in aerodynamic testing. We also note that our GEM vehicle simulation does not require a
zero-yaw value. In fact, the tractor program, which uses the same model for compliance, requires wind-
averaged CdA values from its aerodynamic testing and GEM appropriately applies those results in its
calculations. Our proposal to use zero-yaw values in the trailer program was for simplicity and to avoid
the need to perform any corrections to wind-averaged values.
We received no comments in support of use of zero-yaw results for the trailer program, and several
supporting the use of wind-averaged values. Additionally, comments directed to the tractor program
indicated that the average of results from +4.5 and -4.5 degrees is a representative surrogate for wind-
averaged results, which would maintain simplicity for wind tunnel and CFD testing. While our final
trailer program does consider wind tunnel testing to be our primary test method, we are adopting interim
provisions that do not require a correction to wind tunnel results. Our aerodynamic testing (summarized
in Chapter 2.10.2.1.2 of the RIA) shows that similar devices perform within the aerodynamic bins of the
program, including many coastdown results from tests performed at near-zero yaw angles. Some
devices did display a yaw dependence and their coastdown values were notably lower than wind-
averaged results. Consequently, we are adopting interim provisions to allow manufacturers that choose
to perform coastdown tests to work with EPA to identify an appropriate means of converting to wind-
averaged values. Our interim provisions related to trailer aerodynamic testing can be found in 40 CFR
1037.150(x).
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The Agencies' Compliance Program is Flawed; the Proposed Rule Should Delete Averaging and
Bins from its Compliance Models as the Model as Drafted Imposes a Significant Administrative
Burden and Allows Customers to Game the System
As noted earlier, Utility Trailer does not believe the Agencies' Proposed Rule is necessary. The free
market is quite capable of continuing to obtain increasing fuel efficiencies while allocating as
appropriate the resources needed to accomplish those goals. Operators and trailers that would benefit
from installing the technologies - or that would achieve the EPA's estimated two-year payback - should
install those technologies. The Agencies have not offered any explanation as to why the free market is
incapable of producing the desired results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 18-19]
But Utility Trailer also recognizes the political reality that the Agencies are unlikely at this point to rely
on the free market to continue to solve this problem. Utility Trailer therefore offers the following
suggestions to improve any Rule the Agencies adopt. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.19]
The compliance program - with its system of averaging and bins - is unduly complex and unsuited to
the trailer industry. Utility Trailer urges the Agencies to streamline the compliance aspects of the
program in a way that will decrease the administrative burden on the trailer manufacturers while
providing the Agencies with the level of compliance desired. Specifically, the compliance program
should be modified as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 19] [[These comments can also
be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.220.]]
-------
• Develop clear categories of trailers that will be exempt from the Proposed Rules. These
categories should include considerations of trailer configuration and the use that will be made of
the trailer, including the environments and areas in which it will operate. Exemptions could
relate only to some of the technologies required by the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1183-A1 p. 19]
• Allow manufacturers to certify by label that the trailers manufactured comply with applicable
Agency regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p. 19]
The Agencies should delete the bin-and-averaging approach currently described in the Proposed
Rule and permit manufacturers to certify their compliance with the Rule rather than obtaining
Agency approval for each plan year.
The Agencies' proposed bin-and-averaging compliance model is unmanageable in the trailer-
manufacturing industry. Utility Trailer and the other major manufacturers build semi-custom trailers.
Although orders start with a base model and standard options, customers routinely add a large number
of customer-specific options. Additionally, customers make numerous specification and quantity
changes throughout the process, often up to the time actual manufacture of the unit begins. Some of
these option changes, as noted previously, conflict with the aerodynamic devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1183-A1 p.20] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, p.220.]]
Utility Trailer urges the Agencies to adopt a simpler, more straightforward approach: require the
original equipment manufacturer to install specific approved devices on all non-exempt trailers. This
provides the following advantages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.20]
First, it is manageable. The administrative burden required by the Proposed Rule is oppressive. The
Proposed Rule would require each manufacturer to obtain Agency approval before the start of each year
of a plan for weighted average compliance to the GEM formula for all production. Then, at the end of
the year, the manufacturer would need to obtain Agency approval of the actual production results and
for rollover into the next year. Also significant is the administrative burden associated with scheduling
production slots and allocating those requiring different complying devices throughout the year.
Because of the assembly-line manufacturing process, it is far more efficient to avoid changing
technologies from order to order, to the extent practical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.21]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.220.]]
Far simpler and equally effective would be to require each manufacturer to install a label on each trailer
certifying to that compliance and to keep records of the weighted averages to achieve compliance if the
averaging approach is part of the Rule. The Agency, if it desired, could inspect those records as needed.
This would be approximately the same system as trailer manufacturers use to comply with the
NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This is a time-proven, successful system. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.21]
Second, eliminating averaging avoids gaming the system. The Agencies' one-size-fits-all approach is
unworkable in the trailer industry. For many operators, the aerodynamic devices are unworkable or
undesirable. But because the Proposed Rule requires the manufacturer to achieve an average specified
reduction in aerodynamic and rolling-resistance drag (i.e., some of its trailers will have a grouping of
the devices (bins); others wouldn't), the manufacturer will be placed in the position of deciding which
customers must buy the devices and which ones will be exempt. This provides huge incentives for larger
fleets to use their market pressure to force the manufacturer to exempt them from purchasing the devices
the larger fleets do not want, leaving the smaller customers without market power to purchase a
-------
disproportionate amount of the technology. This, of course, would also increase costs for the smaller
competitors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.21]
Thus, we urge the Agencies to modify the requirements from a maximum C02 output in grams per ton-
mile as currently proposed. Rather, the requirements should be written to specify types of drag-reducing
devices that meet specific qualification requirements for all non-exempt trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1183-A1 p.21]
Response:
The commenter supports a simplified compliance approach that would be based on the agencies
requiring trailer manufacturers to install specific devices, an approach that we generally call a "design-
based standard." However, an important principle of all of our motor vehicle programs is to focus on
emissions or fuel consumption performance, and thus "performance-based standards" whenever
possible. By focusing on performance, the agencies try to avoid pre-judging or restricting manufacturer
choice in determining the best mix of technologies for a company and its specific applications in
achieving the emission and fuel consumption reduction goals of the program. In some ways, it is the
commenter's preferred design-based approach which is one size fits all. Although the program applies
design-based standards (specific tire and tire pressure technologies) to some trailer types for which
aerodynamic technologies are generally not appropriate, manufacturers of most trailers covered by the
program (i.e., box vans) comply by choosing whichever mix of aerodynamic, tire, and weight reduction
technologies they believe best. The commenter expresses concerns about the additional administrative
burdens potentially associated with performance-based standards, we have designed a unique
compliance program for trailers (chief facets of which are the GEM equation, eliminating banking and
trading, and limiting the option to average until MY 2027) that we believe provides an appropriate
balance between manufacturer flexibility and reasonable compliance burden.
The commenter also proposes that the trailer compliance program not involve averaging. In response to
suggestions elsewhere in this Response to Comments document from this commenter and others, final
program includes averaging, but only late in the program, limiting the option for trailer manufacturers to
apply averaging to MYs 2027 and later exclusively, and for full-aero box vans only. The commenter
suggests a large customer may use its market pressure in an averaging program to purchase all of a
manufacturer's allotted trailers with limited technologies. This situation is avoided during the early
years of the program when we do not allow averaging (i.e., all trailers sold will have to meet their
respective standards using some combination of technologies). As noted in our response to TTMA
(page 1078), if a manufacturer opts into the averaging program in MYs 2027 or later, we are adopting
an minimum level of performance (based on MY 2018 standards) that each trailer must meet, which
prevents a customer from requesting a no-control trailer.
The commenter requests that the agencies provide "clear categories" of trailers that will be exempt. In
response to these and other comments, the final program applies to many fewer trailer types than did the
proposed program. Only three types of non-box trailers are covered, with all other trailer types
completely excluded from any requirements of the trailer program.
To clarify, the aerodynamic bins of the trailer program are similar to the performance metric used by
EPA's SmartWay technology verification program. Instead of levels of 1%, 4%, 5% and 9% fuel
savings as used by SmartWay, the Phase 2 trailer program has seven aerodynamic performance
thresholds measured as delta CdA. The bins are designed to account for variability between test
procedures, device manufacturers, and tractor-trailer combinations in testing, and the performance
values obtained from testing are used as an input to the GEM-based trailer compliance equation. We do
-------
not have aerodynamic requirements, but the performance standards for box vans were designed using a
reasonable combination of technologies, including some level of aerodynamic improvements each
phase. These performance standards could be met with very little aerodynamic improvements if
manufacturers can remove sufficient weight, install tire inflation systems, and adopt tires with very low
rolling resistances. Manufacturers can use the equation to evaluate what technology performances will
result in the desired C02 reductions.
We note that aerodynamic bins are unrelated to averaging. All manufacturers evaluate their overall
trailer performance by applying the technology performance values (including aerodynamic bin values
if aerodynamic improvements were made) in the compliance equation to get a C02 emissions rate in
grams C02/ton-mile. This emissions value is submitted for compliance. Manufacturers that opt to use
averaging in MY 2027 or later would calculate a production-weighted average of all of their overall
trailer performances (i.e., the C02 results) according to 40 CFR 1037.107(5). This average may include
some trailers that do not meet their standard and others that over-comply with the standard, as long as
the standard is met on average based on production volumes.
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
[Note: Wabash's full comments placed in the docket include several footnoted references that do not
appear in this summary.]
The Proposed Averaging Program Is Unnecessary, Unduly Complex, and
Hinders Innovation
EPA has proposed an "averaging" compliance program for trailers. Manufacturers could average the
emissions of all their trailers in a given subcategory model year of trailers to comply with the proposed
C02 emissions standards. Thus, a manufacturer could produce some individual trailers that fail to
comply with the proposed standards when other trailers in the subcategory "over-comply," such that, on
average, the over-compliant trailers "make up" for any shortfall in the remaining trailers. The
subcategory of trailers that EPA has proposed for averaging are "full-aero" trailers, i.e., short and long
dry and refrigerated box trailers capable of accommodating aerodynamic technologies.9 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.9-10]
The proposed averaging scheme for trailers is a truncated version of an averaging, banking, and trading
("ABT") program. For several years, EPA has used ABT programs to assist engine and vehicle
manufacturers in complying with emissions programs under Title II of the Clean Air Act. In an ABT
program, manufacturers may create "credits" from over-compliance that can be (1) used to achieve
"average" compliance in a given model year, (2) banked for use in future years, or (3) traded to third-
party manufacturers for their own compliance purposes. The Proposal limits averaging to a single model
year, except compliance deficits could be made up within three years. Neither credit banking, nor
trading, would be permissible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 10]
A. The Proposed Averaging Program Is Impracticable and Creates Barriers to Innovation
Wabash appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's good faith efforts to develop alternative
compliance methods for trailer manufacturers. Respectfully, however, Wabash opposes averaging
because it is unworkable in the trailer industry. As EPA acknowledges in the Proposal, the "reality" of
the trailer market "can limit the value of the flexibility that averaging could provide to trailer
manufacturing] . . .." "Compared to other industry sectors," trailer manufacturers "have little control
-------
over their customers' demands and thus limited ability to manage the mix and volume of different
products."12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 10]
Wabash strongly agrees with EPA's observations about the trailer market. The reality is that an
averaging program would fail to provide any flexibility, hinder compliance, and act as a drag on
innovation. As the leading trailer manufacturer in the United States, Wabash provides these additional
insights into the market to aid EPA's decision on whether to include averaging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1242-A2 p. 10]
• The theoretical flexibility offered by averaging is illusory because of the unique customization
of trailers. While ABT programs have provided needed flexibility for engine and vehicle
manufacturers, the trailer market differs markedly from those sectors. Engine makers and
vehicle manufacturers typically produce a standard or base configuration of their products,
which is then offered to customers with only limited customization. As a consequence, engine
makers and vehicle manufacturers possess a high degree of control over the products they offer
into the market. The reverse is true in the trailer market: trailers are highly customized and built
to customers' specifications. Customers dictate the features for trailer applications, and in many
cases, customers supply parts for the trailers they order—e.g., tires and aerodynamic devices.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 10-11]
• Market dynamics preclude reliable annual predictions of trailer sales needed for averaging.
Averaging presupposes that a trailer manufacturer may predict with a reasonable degree of
certainty the mix of trailers sold over a year, the relevant compliance period for purposes of
EPA's emission standard. In other words, averaging assumes that a trailer manufacturer could
plan in advance a year's worth of "over-compliant" and "under-compliant" trailers, so that, on
average, the emission standard is met. However, such predictions would be impracticable
because of the dynamic nature of the trailer market. The lead time for trailer design and
manufacturing is far less than for engines and vehicles, providing customers flexibility in timing
their trailer orders.13 Trailer orders are taken year-round, but early spring and fall tend to be the
busiest ordering seasons for the next year's production. Even after orders are made for trailers,
order cancellations are common in the industry. Accordingly, trailer manufacturers are unable to
reliably predict the product mix they will sell in a given year. Cancellation of large orders, for
example, could easily derail a compliance strategy built on averaging. Additionally, the trailer
industry is highly cyclical, with history demonstrating that it is common for manufacturers to
experience 100-200% swings in sales volumes from one year to the next. Such large swings in
yearly order volume would also upset any compliance strategy built on averaging. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 11],
• Averaging could act as a barrier to innovation to aerodynamic trailers. Averaging creates a
barrier to trailer innovation. While aerodynamic trailers provide fuel savings, the trailer
customer may not reap those savings when the trailer is pulled by a tractor owned by another
company.14 Averaging entrenches this barrier to aerodynamic trailers because demand may
cause all manufacturers to produce at least some conventional trailers regardless of whether
averaging is optional. The continuing production of conventional trailers risks three scenarios
that could impede progress toward advances in aerodynamic technologies: (1) customers may
demand the conventional, non-compliant trailers that averaging allows; (2) customers could
refuse to pay for the aerodynamic devices and the trailer manufacturer would have to absorb the
costs, further reducing the profit margin in an already small operating margin business
(typically less than 5%, and even less than 1% in some years); or (3) customers could take their
business to another trailer manufacturer.15 A single federal standard would best promote the
market for innovative aerodynamic technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 12-13]
-------
B. EPA Precedent Supports Forgoing an Averaging Program for Trailers
Declining to create an averaging program for trailers would be consistent with agency precedent on
ABT programs. Nothing in the Clean Air Act, or EPA's regulations, requires an ABT program for every
mobile source regulation. EPA has declined to create ABT options where it would be unnecessary or
inappropriate for a particular segment of the engine or vehicle industry.16 In deciding whether to
promulgate an ABT program, EPA has cited factors such as manufacturer interest in ABT and the
impact of ABT on innovations and compliance, all of which cut against an averaging program for
trailers 17 [EPA"H(2"°AR"2014"0827"1242"A2 p-121
C. CARB'S Tractor-Trailer Regulation Shows Averaging Is Unnecessary
The experience with California's trailer greenhouse gas regulation shows that averaging is unnecessary.
In 2008, the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") enacted the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation,
which became effective in 2010. The CARB regulation applies to long-haul tractor-trailers in California,
specifically all model year 53-foot or longer dry van and refrigerated van trailers and the tractors that
pull them. Covered trailers must be SmartWay certified or retrofitted with SmartWay aerodynamic
devices (including skirts and end fairings) and use specified low rolling resistance tires.18 Averaging is
not an option under CARB's regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 12-13]
Despite the lack of averaging, EPA approved CARB's tractor-trailer regulation last year. The Clean Air
Act preempts California's motor vehicle regulations unless EPA approves a waiver of preemption
pursuant to Section 209(b), as it did for the tractor-trailer regulation. In granting the waiver, the agency
found that CARB's tractor-trailer regulation is consistent with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the
same authority that EPA relies upon in proposing the Phase 2 rule at issue. EPA also determined that
CARB's regulation was reasonable and protective of human health and the environment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 13]
D. Averaging Imposes Undue Burdens on Trailer Manufacturers
Averaging would be burdensome. As EPA recognizes, "an averaging program would inherently require
a higher degree of data management, record keeping, and reporting than one without averaging," and
specifically requested comment on whether "the burden of managing an averaging program could be
more trouble than the flexibility is worth." As explained in detail below, the costs of setting up and
maintaining compliance systems would be far higher than EPA suggests. The Phase 2 Proposed Rule
represents EPA's first attempt to regulate trailer-related emissions. As trailer manufacturers enter the
regulatory program, compliance would be facilitated by simplicity and clarity. To that end, EPA should
require that trailers meeting specific characteristics meet a minimum stringency level without averaging.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 13]
Response:
As noted in our response to Great Dane on page 1063 and elsewhere, we are limiting the option for
trailer manufacturers to apply averaging to MYs 2027 and later for full-aero box vans only. This
approach attempts to balance the advantage of an averaging program to allow for introduction of the
most reasonably stringent standards for trailers, with the concerns articulated by manufacturers.
The commenter proposes that the trailer compliance program not involve averaging. In particular, the
comments notes that it would be difficult for trailer manufacturers to reliably predict their next years'
sales. In the event that a manufacturer opts into the averaging program, the agencies understand that it
-------
is possible for them to misjudge production and come up short at the end of the model year. While we
are not adopting banking provisions as part of the final trailer program, the program provides for a
manufacturer to generate a credit deficit that would need to be resolved through over-compliance within
the following three years.
The comment refers to averaging as a "barrier to innovation" noting that some trailer manufacturers
may continue to produce no-control trailers if they have sufficient demand for higher-performing
trailers. As we described in our response to TTMA on page 1078, we are setting a minimum level of
performance for trailers (based on MY 2018 standards) if manufacturers opt into an averaging program
in the later years. While MY 2018 standards are relatively low performing trailers, they provide a level
of confidence that some improvements will be made for all future trailers.
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
E. The Final Rule Should Provide a Flexible and Simplified Exemption Process
Additionally, EPA should provide a simplified process for obtaining exemptions, rather than simply
having an exclusive list of exemptions in the proposed regulations. This could be accomplished by
specifying certain criteria, which, if met, would result in an automatic exemption for the proposed trailer
configuration, or by establishing a process by which trailer manufacturers may petition EPA for
additional exemptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 13]
A similar process exists under the CARB tractor-trailer regulation. CARB allows "modified" SmartWay
aerodynamic devices on trailers without prior approval where the modifications only have a "minimal"
impact on aerodynamic surfaces. Additionally, CARB has pre-approved several modifications based on
"necessity" and whether the modification had a "significant" impact on aerodynamic drag. As a third
option, CARB allows companies to seek approval of new modifications to aerodynamic devices based
on a description of the modification and wind tunnel testing.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2
p.13-14]
Having a similar program for federal exemptions would assist the trailer industry in complying while
meeting customer needs. It is impossible to predict in a rule all of the possible modifications and other
issues that may arise in the trailer industry because it is a highly customized manufacturing process.
Flexibility is necessary to allow for the future advancement of aerodynamic technologies and to address
the development of currently unforeseen scenarios. Allowing for such exemptions would also be
consistent with past regulatory approaches, including the Phase 1 provisions allowing off-road vehicle
manufacturers to petition for an exemption for off-road vehicles that do not meet the listed exemption
criteria in the regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1242-A2 p. 14]
Response:
As noted previously in our responses to ATA (page 1040) and XL Specialized (page 1054), the final
program completely excludes all non-box trailers except flatbeds, tanks, and container chassis, as well
as a small number of other specific exclusions. Specific definitions of the trailers excluded from the
program are available in 40 CFR 1037.5. Although we believe that a formal process for excluding
individual trailer models would be resource-intensive and would not be appropriate, the program does
encourage trailer manufacturers to discuss any situations where the criteria for exclusion identified in
the program may be unclear for specific trailer models before production begins.
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
-------
Light-Weighting Deserves Greater Credit and Compliance Flexibility
EPA and NHTSA recognize that reduction in trailer tare weight can reduce fuel consumption in two
ways: (1) for applications where payload is not limited by weight restrictions, the overall weight of the
trailer would be reduced, improving fuel efficiency, and (2) for applications where payload is limited by
weight restrictions, the lower trailer weight would allow a corresponding increase in payload, thereby
reducing emissions and fuel consumption on a ton-mile basis. The agencies note the weight reduction
opportunities available in both the structural components of trailers and in the wheels/tires. Replacing
heavier weight materials such as steel with aluminum or lighter-weight composites is currently feasible
for trailer components such as roof bows, side and corner posts, cross members, floor joists, floors, and
van sidewalls. Similar material substitution is feasible for wheels, and replacing two dual tires with
single wide-based tires can also reduce weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 15]
Because there is no clear baseline for current trailer weight against which lower-weight designs could be
compared for regulatory purposes, EPA and NHTSA do not believe it would be appropriate or fair
across the industry to apply overall weight reductions toward compliance. Instead, the agencies are
proposing to allow manufacturers to account for weight reductions involving substitution of very
specific, traditionally heavier components with lower-weight options that are not currently widely
adopted in the trailer industry. EPA and NHTSA are proposing compliance provisions that would limit
the weight-reduction options to the substitution of specified components and have identified several
conventional components with available lighter-weight substitutes (e.g., substituting conventional dual
tires mounted on steel wheels with wide-based single tires mounted on aluminum wheels). The agencies
are proposing values for the associated weight-related savings from these substitutions that would be
used in GEM for compliance purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1242-A2 p. 15]
The agencies should give greater credit for light-weighting and include a process for manufacturers to
add to the list of qualifying components and materials. As currently proposed, the equation for trailer
compliance gives a 1% credit per 1,000 pounds of weight. The agencies appear to be unnecessarily
discounting light-weighting by assuming that one-third of it goes to increase payload capacity. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 15]
Instead, the agencies should award greater credit to light-weighting—2% per 1,000 pounds, consistent
with the 2011 research by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ("ORNL") examining the effect of weight
on the fuel economy of Class 8 freight trucks.30 ORNL used the extensive database of information
collected in the Department of Energy Heavy-Truck Duty Cycle ("HTDC") project, which, in 2006-
2008, had collected real-world performance and situational data for long-haul operations of Class 8
trucks from a fleet engaged in normal freight operations. The HTDC data was parsed by roadway grade
categories (e.g., severe and mild upslope, severe and mild downslope, and flat terrain), vehicle speed
intervals (of 1 and 2 mph), and vehicle weight levels going from tractor-only to fully loaded vehicles by
5,000 lb. For two of the terrain categories (i.e., flat terrain and mild upslope terrain), which cover over
70% of the total miles logged in the HTDC project, ORNL investigated the effect of vehicle weight and
vehicle speed on fuel economy using the parsed data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.15]
In addition, EPA should incentivize the development of new weight-reduction technologies by
providing credit for them, rather than relying on an exclusive list of eligible technologies in the
regulations. In the Proposal, EPA lists only 11 trailer components with lighter weight options—only one
of which includes a material other than aluminum: structure for suspension assembly, hub and drum (per
axle), floor (aluminum and wood/plastic composite), floor crossmembers, landing gear, rear door, rear
door surround, roof bows, side posts, slider box, and upper coupler assembly. EPA should incorporate a
process for adding to the list either by specifying certain criteria, which, if met, would result in the
-------
additional materials automatically receiving credit, or by establishing a process by which trailer
manufacturers could petition and EPA would approve additional components and materials for inclusion
in the list. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 16]
A flexible approval process for new light-weight materials would be consistent with EPA and CARB
precedent. In Phase 1 of this rule, the agencies allowed manufacturers to petition for innovative
technology, or "off-cycle," credits for components not measured in GEM. The agencies recognized that
emerging and innovative technologies in various stages of development with C02 emissions and fuel
consumption reduction potential existed that might not be adequately captured on the final certification
test cycles or are not inputs to the GEM, and that some of these technologies would merit additional
credit-generating potential for the manufacturer. Because light-weight materials are an innovative and
emerging technology for trailers, the CARB GHG tractor-trailer rule also provides a petition process for
obtaining approval for trailer technologies not previously verified through the SmartWay process. No
reasonable basis exists for providing trailer manufacturers less flexibility than companies regulated
under Phase 1 of this rule and CARB's tractor-trailer rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 16]
Response:
The comment requests that the agencies remove the distribution of weight reduction applied in GEM.
For tractors and trailers, GEM assigns 1/3 of any weight reduction applied to increase the payload and
the remaining 2/3 reduce the overall vehicle weight. The agencies apply this strategy to account for the
nearly 1/3 of tractor-trailers that reach their weight limit before they reach the volume capacity of their
trailer (weigh-out). The commenter interpreted this strategy as a penalty, noting that the full weight
reduction is not being applied to the vehicle and the model would not predict sufficient benefit.
However, the standards adopted in this rulemaking account for payload (i.e., g C02/ton-mi and
gallons/1000 ton-mi). We created a memo to the docket to demonstrate that this weight reduction
distribution will not negatively impact the results from the model, and in some cases will even provide
an additional benefit versus simply reducing the overall vehicle weight.166
In light of this comment and further consideration of the issue, the agencies believe that the off-cycle
technology process is an appropriate way for box van manufacturers to receive credit for future
lightweighting or other technologies that are not recognized in the compliance equation. For this
reason, we have incorporated trailers into the existing off-cycle provisions. (See Preamble Section
IV.F.5.d). In the case of lightweighting, a measured difference in trailer weight could substitute for the
weight component of the compliance equation, for other such technologies (should any exist), the
general off-cycle provision apply. See 40 CFR 1037.515(e).
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
VIII. The Proposed Warranty, Labeling, and Owner's Manual Requirements Are Unduly
Complex and Burdensome
Wabash has concerns with EPA's proposed requirements for trailer warranties, emission control labels,
and owner's manuals. EPA must recognize that the composition and operation of the trailer industry is
quite different from the engine and vehicle manufacturing industries, and adjust its regulatory
requirements accordingly, as explained below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1242-A2 p. 16]
166 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. "Evaluation of Weight Reduction Distribution in
Response to Public Comments from Wabash National Corporation". July 2016.
-------
A. Warranty
EPA's proposed regulations would require trailer manufacturers to provide a five-year warranty on
aerodynamic devices and a one-year warranty on tires. The warranty "covers these components even if
another company produces the component." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.36]
Imposing the warranty burden on trailer manufacturers ignores the fundamental realities of the trailer
manufacturing process, which differs substantially from auto, truck, or engine manufacturing sectors. In
those industries, OEMs choose their suppliers and have a modicum of choice and commercial control
over the devices installed in their vehicles (or engines). In the trailer industry, by contrast, aerodynamic
devices and tires are frequently purchased directly by customers and shipped to the trailer manufacturer
for installation, or in the case of aerodynamic devices, often installed by the customer at a later time. As
a result, the warranties on these parts are extended to customers directly by the part manufacturers, with
no involvement by the trailer manufacturer. Thus, the trailer manufacturer does not design, test, certify,
or purchase the equipment. As a practical matter, trailer manufacturers cannot reasonably provide
warranties on any potential third-party part which a customer happens to ask to be installed on a trailer.
This is similar to a situation where a vocational vehicle is assembled in multiple stages under a
customer's direction and according to their specifications. A cab-chassis manufacturer would provide a
warranty on the components it assembled, as would the body-builder. Suppliers providing other
components, e.g., safety technology and air suspension and control systems, would extend their
warranties for those components directly to the customer. The cab-chassis manufacturer would not be
expected to provide warranties for those components for which it had no responsibility. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 17]
EPA should re-orient the warranty program for trailers to place the obligation on suppliers who provide
customers with aerodynamic devices or tires for installation on trailers. Trailer manufacturers would
collect information on the parts and warranties provided by the suppliers and share that information with
EPA. Those part manufacturers would then be responsible for the warranties they provide. Shifting the
point of warranty obligation to the parts suppliers would simplify the warranty system, facilitate prompt
remediation of warranty claims, and make compliance and enforcement more direct and expedient.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 17]
Response:
Section 207 (a) of the CAA requires manufacturers to warrant their products to be free from defects that
could otherwise cause non-compliance with emission standards. For purposes of the trailer program,
EPA requires trailer manufacturers to warrant all components that form the basis of the certification to
the C02 emission standards. The emission-related warranty covers all aerodynamic devices, lower
rolling resistance tires, tire pressure systems, and other components that may be included in the
certification application. In response to this comment, we would note that the emission-related warranty
is completely separate from any other warranties a manufacturer might offer. The trailer manufacturer
needs to warrant that these emission-related components and systems are designed to remain functional
for the warranty period.
To further clarify, we view commercial warranties offered by component manufacturers as business
decisions rather than as a reflection of the actual durability of the systems. With proper maintenance,
we are aware of no reason that the technologies that we anticipate that trailer manufacturers will use for
compliance would be unable to meet the durability requirements of the trailer program. The agencies
believe these components, including tire pressure systems, should be designed to last the full useful life
of the trailer if properly maintained. We believe a five year emission-related warranty is justified, but
-------
we note that trailer manufacturers can specify that their warranty depends on the proper maintenance of
components. NHTSA is not adopting any warranty requirements relating to its trailer fuel consumption
program.
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
C. Owner's Manual
EPA is proposing to require that an owner's manual be provided for, and remain with, each trailer that is
manufactured. This requirement simply does not fit the trailer industry. Again, each trailer is custom, so
a unique owner's manual would be required for each potential configuration. Further, ensuring that a
manual remains with the trailer would be difficult. Customers frequently create their own owner's
manual, expressly outlining the information they wish their operators to have access to and limiting their
access to other information that is not in keeping with the customer's business and operational practices.
Wabash recommends omitting this requirement from the Phase 2 Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1242-A2 p. 18]
Response:
Our regulatory provisions were designed assuming vehicle manufacturers have an existing owner's
manual. The agencies acknowledge that currently it is not common for trailer manufacturers to provide
printed owner's manuals to their customers. We are not requiring manufacturers to create a
comprehensive manual describing all aspects of each individual trailer produced. However, it is
important for customers to have access to information about emissions-related components added to
their trailers for compliance with our Phase 2 program, such that they can adequately maintain, repair,
and possibly replace these components. We believe that with the new requirements of the trailer
program, trailer manufacturers should be capable of providing basic information related to compliance
to their customers. Additionally, we note that the "owner's manual" need not be a physical document,
but can be made available on line.
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
IX. The Compliance Costs of the Proposal Far Exceed EPA's Estimates
EPA appropriately recognized that "[t]railer manufacturers, who would be subject to C02 and fuel
consumption standards for the first time, would have to put in place entirely new testing programs,
reporting, labeling, and recordkeeping systems." Unfortunately, EPA severely underestimated the costs
of these compliance systems. EPA estimated a 2017 compliance cost of $127,000 for each large trailer
manufacturer, which would then increase slightly to $128,000 per year beginning in 2018, the first year
trailers must comply with the rule. These total cost estimates include three components: (1) labor costs;
(2) start-up and capital costs of acquiring test equipment, information management systems for
recordkeeping, labeling, and reporting; and (3) operations and maintenance for laboratory time, use of
test equipment, and other supplies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 18]
EPA's analysis of labor costs is flawed. EPA used outdated 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics' estimates
of labor costs, rather than the current version of those estimates.40 Unsurprisingly, the current labor costs
are materially higher than the 2009 estimates. As an illustration, the mean hourly rate of an engineering
manager increased from $50.71 an hour in 2009 to $66.69 in the latest estimate.41 EPA also assumed
that lawyers would need to assist trailer manufacturers in complying with the rule, but used hourly rates
-------
of $66 to $138. In Clean Air Act litigation, EPA has stipulated to hourly rates in fee awards that far
exceed those used in the Proposal.43 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p. 19]
EPA's analysis of the other cost categories is equally problematic. Without any real-world data, the
agency assumed that a large trailer manufacturer would only spend about $50,000 on the software,
testing equipment, and other infrastructure needed to comply with the rule. This cost estimate appears to
assume that manufacturers need to incur only start-up costs for trailer certification and labeling, but that
ignores several categories of additional costs, including (1) the costs of owner's manuals, (2) the
significant cost of developing training programs, and (3) the quality control procedures that must be
developed and integrated into a manufacturer's compliance systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-
A2 p. 19]
In addition to these start-up costs, EPA grossly underestimated ongoing operations and maintenance
costs. Perhaps the best illustration is that EPA calculated a $3,000 total annual cost to prepare a
certification application for each model year of trailer, including engineering fees, testing fees, and legal
fees. In the engine and auto context, the cost of certification applications can range from $25,000 for
simple applications that build on existing testing to several hundred thousand dollars.
To provide EPA a sense of how much it underestimated costs, Wabash submits a confidential estimate
of its compliance costs for the Phase 2 Proposal.46 This estimate should be treated as confidential
business information under 40 CFR Part 2 and 49 CFR Part 512 and not placed in the docket for the
Proposal. Nonetheless, it will give EPA and OMB insight into the real-world costs of complying with
the Phase 2 Proposed Rule and provide a basis for further due diligence on the agencies' part for
investigating the true costs of compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1242-A2 p.19]
Response:
For the final rule, the agencies updated the cost assumptions from the proposal, as discussed in Chapter
7.2.1.2 of the RIA and our Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request (ICR) with this
rulemaking.167 In the NPRM, the agencies assumed $1.2 million for testing, reporting, and capital costs
for the trailer manufacturing industry. In the NPRM, these estimated costs were increased to $7 million.
The new compliance costs now include updated labor costs, increased initial capital costs that include
computer software, labeling equipment, and infrastructure upgrades, and updated operational costs
considering the information provided in this comment. These updates are summarized in the ICR, but
we also refer the commenter to the calculations for our small business economic burden estimates.168
The attached spreadsheet includes the cost estimates for both small and large manufacturers on which
we based our ICR costs and general compliance costs.
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
XIII. EPA Must Ensure a Level Playing Field Between Domestic and Imported Trailers
Wabash's strong domestic manufacturing presence depends on a level playing field with importers. Yet
the rule only makes a single, passing reference to importers' obligation to follow the rule. The scant
167 Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request. EPA ICR Tracking Number 2394.05. Draft as of
July 12,2016. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
168 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. "Small Business Economic Burden Calculations for
Trailer SISNOSE Analysis", July 2016.
-------
attention paid to this issue is deeply disturbing because, as EPA knows, a flood of illegally imported
engines and vehicles have been streaming into the U.S. since at least 2008. EPA must proactively
engage on this import issue to prevent a pattern of similar violations from developing in the trailer
industry. Otherwise, the ability of domestic manufacturers to fairly compete would be undermined.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.23]
A. The Final Rule Must Clearly and Unequivocally Cover Importers
The final rule should make clear that imported trailers must comply with the Phase 2 emissions and fuel
economy requirements. Despite stretching 629 pages, the Proposal makes only one indirect reference to
the fact that imported trailers must comply with the rule.64 The scant attention paid to the issue of
imported trailers may lead some companies to misunderstand the rule's coverage of imports or seek to
circumvent it. As a leading domestic manufacturer of trailers, Wabash depends on a level playing field
with importers to ensure fair competition. To put to rest any argument about the scope of the rule,
Wabash respectfully requests a few modest changes to the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2
p.23-24]
First, it would be helpful to have the agencies discuss their authority to regulate emissions and fuel
economy of imported trailers under the CAA and Energy Independence Security Act ("EISA"). Section
203(a) of the CAA prohibits the importation of new motor vehicles or engines unless covered by a valid
emissions certificate of conformity. Likewise, the fuel economy requirements under EISA extend to
importers of new motor vehicles. Explaining how these import provisions extend to trailers as motor
vehicles would assist the regulated community in understanding its legal obligation to comply with the
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.24]
Second, the definitions used in the text of the final rule should reflect the coverage of imported trailers.
EPA's definition of "motor vehicle" should specifically reference that it includes trailers, particularly
the proposed definitions found at 40 C.F.R. §§ 1037.801 and 85.1703. EPA's definition of
"manufacturer" should be revised as follows: "Manufacturer... covers includes importers who import
vehicles or vehicles for resale (including trailers) and entities that assemble glider kits." NHTSA's
Proposal cross-references the statutory definitions of "manufacture" and "manufacturer" in EISA, which
includes imports, but does not make specific reference to trailers. A regulatory definition of
"manufacture" and "manufacturer" that includes "importers of heavy-duty trailers" would provide
greater clarity to the regulated community. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.24]
Third, EPA's Part 1068 rules on mobile source enforcement and compliance should mention trailers,
including imported trailers. NHTSA's proposed fuel economy regulation expressly states that it
"includ[es] trailers" as do EPA's Part 1037 regulations that set emissions standards for trailers. In
contrast, EPA's Part 1068 enforcement rules make no specific mention of trailers, but instead contain
broad cross-references to numerous other EPA rules, one of which—Part 1037—includes trailers. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.24-25]
Wabash recommends that EPA amend Part 1068 in the following respects to make clear that it covers
imported trailers:
• Reference trailers in the general applicability section of Part 1068. 40 C.F.R. § 1068.1(2), 80
Fed. Reg. at 40,714: "This part 1068 applies for to heavy-duty motor vehicles certified under 40
CFR part 1037, subject to the provisions of 40 CFR parts 85 and 1037., including trailers
subject to part 1037." rEPA-HO-OAR-2014-Q827-1242-A2 p.251
-------
• Add a definition of "trailer" in Part 1068 that incorporates the proposed definition in Part 1037.
See 40 C.F.R. § 1068.30, 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,715; 40 C.F.R. § 1037.801, 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,665
(proposed definition of "trailer"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.25]
• Emphasize that each illegally imported trailer may result in a potential statutory maximum civil
penalty of $37,500 per trailer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.25]
• Reference trailers in other import provisions of Part 1068. See 40 C.F.R. § 1068.101(a)(1), 80
Fed. Reg. at 40,719-20 ("You may not sell, offer for sale, or introduce into commerce in the
United States or import into the United States any new engine/equipment (including trailers)
after emission standards take effect for the engine/equipment, unless it is covered by a valid
certificate of conformity for its model year and has the required label or tag."); 40 C.F.R. §
1068.101(a)(5), 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,7120 ("You may not import an uncertified engine or piece of
equipment (including trailers) if it is defined to be new in the standard setting part with a
model year for which emission standards applied."); 40 C.F.R. § 1068.301, 80 Fed. Reg. at
40,7128 ("In general, engines/equipment (including trailers) that you import must be covered
by a certificate of conformity unless they were built before emission standards started to
apply.").72 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.25]
B. Enforcement Is Critical for Imported Trailers
In addition to these textual changes to the rule, Wabash supports a vigorous enforcement program for
imported trailers to ensure that domestic trailer manufacturing remains an important source of good-
paying jobs in our nation. Import violations are a chronic issue for EPA's mobile source programs. As
EPA has noted, "there has been a steady flow" of illegally imported engines and vehicles into the United
States.73 Nearly all of the mobile source civil settlements in 2015 involved import violations: importers
failed to obtain valid certificates of conformity, install emission controls, or take other actions to comply
with the CAA.74 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.25-26]
EPA's mobile source enforcement against importers has been hampered by several factors. Importers
have relied on falsified certificates of conformity for engines and vehicles, making detection of
violations more difficult.75 When violations have been discovered, EPA has frequently been unable to
locate U.S. registered agents and assets.76 Importers that have vehicles and engines seized at port "often
change the port of entry for subsequent shipments."77 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.26]
In light of ongoing compliance problems with imports, EPA should incorporate "Next Generation
Compliance" into the final rule in order to enhance enforcement against import violations, particularly
those involving trailers. EPA's Strategic Plan on Next Generation Compliance takes advantage of new
tools and strategies to leverage greater compliance, including electronic reporting, data transparency,
and data analytics.78 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.26]
Consistent with these principles of Next Generation Compliance, the final rule should require
declaration forms and other import documents to be electronically submitted and publicly available in
an EPA-maintained database.79 Access to electronic data on imports would allow agency staff and the
public to better detect non-compliance patterns, identify repeat violators who shift from port-to-port,
and deter fraud. Importers should also be required to electronically file annual reports certifying under
oath compliance with the CAA for the past year, and disclosing the names of the test labs or consultants
used to support the certificates of conformity for imported trailers. Certifying compliance would
potentially provide an additional measure of deterrence for future violations, while disclosure of test
labs would help validate that certificates of conformity resulted from legitimate testing. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2 p.26-27]
-------
Response:
The agencies acknowledge that enforcement of emission standards for new trailers that are imported
into the United States poses unique challenges at the point of entry, because new trailers may be
carrying cargo and are therefore nearly indistinguishable from trailers that have already been imported
or otherwise placed into service. We are not adopting any new or different compliance provisions in
this rulemaking to address this; however, we intend to work cooperatively with Customs and Border
Protection and other agencies to ensure that first-time state registration of new trailers includes
verification that the trailer manufacturers have certified them to meet U.S. emission and fuel
consumption standards. We expect this to be similar to the current system for ensuring that new,
imported trailers meet NHTSA safety standards.
A related concern applies for foreign-based trailers traveling in the United States for importing or
exporting cargo. Such trailers are not subject to emission and fuel consumption standards unless they
are considered imported into the United States. U.S. cabotage law prohibits foreign truck drivers from
carrying product from one point to another within the United States. Effective enforcement of this
cabotage law will help prevent manufacturers of noncompliant foreign-produced trailers from gaining a
competitive advantage over manufacturers of compliant domestic trailers.
EPA is revising the definition of "manufacturer" in 86 CFR 1037 and the applicability language in 86
CFR 1068.1 to reinforce that manufacturers that import trailers into the U.S. are covered by the trailer
program.
5.7 Proposed Non-C02 GHG Standards for Trailers
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Non-C02 GHG emissions from trailers
The NPRM requests comment on the issue of HFCs refrigerant leakage from transport refrigeration
units (TRU). U.S. EPA and NHTSA believe TRU refrigerant leakage is insignificant because they
contend that trailer TRU owners have a strong incentive to limit this leakage in order to maintain the
operability of the trailer's refrigeration unit and avoid financial liability for damage to perishable freight
due to failure to maintain the agreed-upon temperature and humidity conditions. Also, U.S. EPA and
NHTSA believe that refrigerated van units represent a relatively small fraction of new trailers. U.S. EPA
and NHTSA also asked for data on typical TRU charge capacity and the frequency of HFC leakage.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 146-147]
Overall, CARB staff believes U.S. EPA and NHTSA are underestimating potential refrigerant leakage
from TRUs. CARB staff recommends, as discussed further below, that 1) U.S. EPA and NHTSA
establish an HFC refrigerant usage monitoring program for TRUs to inform future "cause and contribute
findings" and decisions to regulate refrigerants used in TRUs, and 2) U.S. EPA and NHTSA provide
incentive funding for zero- and near-zero-emission transport refrigerators, such as cryogenic transport
refrigerators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 147]
CARB staff believes U.S. EPA and NHTSA may be overly optimistic when it comes to TRU owners
proactively preventing and repairing refrigerant leaks. That may be partially true for the first generation
owners, but many TRUs receive less maintenance as they age and their second, third, or fourth
-------
generation owners are not financially able to pay for repairs. CARB staff believes that for a considerable
number of TRU owners, repairs and maintenance issues are typically addressed only when there is a
performance issue with the TRU. Excluding TRUs from leakage requirements shifts the responsibility
for these systems to the users, leaving manufacturers free to develop systems that may be more prone to
leakage. TRU manufacturers should be held accountable for manufacturing quality products that are not
prone to leakage. CARB staff is not aware of any tracking programs for HFC usage to recharge leaky
TRU systems or determine leakage frequency; but, those types of programs should be considered to
provide the data that is needed to assess the impact on climate change due to TRU refrigerant leakage.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 147]
TRU models that use open-drive refrigeration compressors are more susceptible to shaft seal leakage as
they age. Many TRU models still use open-drive refrigeration compressors. Hermetically sealed
refrigeration compressors do not have shaft seal refrigerant leakage issues because the electric drive
motor is enclosed inside a housing with the refrigeration compressor. Unfortunately, hermetically sealed
refrigeration compressors have not been incorporated into all TRU platforms. When used in conjunction
with more energy efficient scroll compressors, GHG emissions are greatly reduced through a
combination of lower fossil fuel use and the elimination of high-GWP refrigerant leakage from shaft
seals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 147]
A quick review of current, on-line TRU specification sheets revealed refrigerant charge capacities are
13 to 16 lbs per trailer TRU. Previous to 2013, when both of the major TRU manufacturers re-designed
and optimized their trailer TRU platforms, refrigerant charges averaged about 20 lbs per unit. This value
is consistent with the value reported in Table S4 (page S8) of the Supporting Information Document for
the article titled "High Global Warming Potential F-Gas Emissions in California: Comparison of
Ambient-based verses Inventory-Based Emission Estimates, and Implications of Refined Estimates" by
Glenn Gallagher, et al.54 This document also includes average annual leakage rates for TRUs (18.3
percent). The data sources and methodology for TRU refrigerant emissions are explained on pages S19-
S21. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p.148]
ACT Research estimates there are over 370,000 refrigerated trailers in the U.S. in 2015 and the average
fleet age is 5.63 years.55 This means that the total TRU refrigerant charge in the U.S. subject to potential
leakage could range from 2,405 short tons to 3,700 short tons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.148]
Refrigerant emissions may be small compared to some other commercial and industrial sectors, but
significant emission reductions in this sector can be achieved by adopting lower GWP refrigerants.
CARB staff believes it is hard to rationalize refrigerant leaks on the basis of small sector numbers when
the GWP is so high for currently used TRU refrigerants (R-404A, used in trailer TRUs, has a GWP of
3,922) and near "drop-in" refrigerants, such as R-452A, has a GWP of 2,141. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.148]
Refrigerant R-452A is a blend of the hydrofluoro-olefin (HFO) R-1234yf that has a very low-GWP of 4
and higher GWP HFCs. Blends with greater R-1234yf cause reduced refrigeration capacity. Lost
capacity could be offset by improvements in refrigeration system efficiency (requiring less energy) and
more thermally efficient insulated cargo vans (requiring less refrigeration capacity). Integrated designs
that balance these effects and produce net improvements in total equivalent warming impact are needed.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p. 148]
In the long-term, natural refrigerants, such as C02, may become viable if associated energy use rates
can be reduced through continued design optimization. C02 systems have been demonstrated in Europe
-------
for refrigerated shipping containers but industry has been slow to adopt them because costs are still high
as a result of low production numbers and economies of scale. Incentive programs are needed to
encourage adoption of existing C02 refrigerant systems for shipping containers and to develop C02
refrigerant systems for higher ambient temperature conditions and larger capacity systems needed for 53
foot trailer TRU applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 149]
Cryogenic transport refrigerators also offer an alternative to vapor compression refrigeration systems
that use high-GWP refrigerants. A cryogenic fluid, such as liquid nitrogen, liquid C02 or liquid air, is
used to provide cooling to the cargo space. There are some GHG emissions associated with the
production of these cryogenic fluids. For liquid nitrogen, the most common type of cryogenic transport
refrigerator, well-to-wheel (WTW) GHG emission reductions are 50 to 60 percent less than a
conventional TRU. This technology, as well as other zero- and near-zero-emission technologies, is
discussed in CARB's Technology Assessment: Transport Refrigerators 56 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 149]
In addition to establishing an HFC refrigerant usage monitoring program and providing incentive
funding for zero- and near-zero-emission transport refrigerators, CARB staff also recommends that U.S.
EPA use its SNAP program to phase out high-GWP refrigerants, such as R404A, as soon as it
determines that viable alternative are available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 149]
Support Comment
Comment - Refrigerated Trailer Problems
CARB staff agrees with U.S. EPA and NHTSA's statements: "Over time, refrigerated trailers can also
develop problems that interfere with their ability to keep freight temperature-controlled. For example
the insulating material inside a refrigerated trailer's walls can gradually lose its thermal capabilities due
to aging or damage from forklift punctures. The door seals on a refrigerated trailer can also become
damaged or loose with age, which greatly affects the insulating characteristics of the trailer." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 150]
The refrigerated transport industry is well aware of the thermal performance degradation that insulated
trailers go through as a result of blowing agent outgassing, moisture intrusion, insulation breakdown
caused by road-induced vibration and panel flexing, forklift damage, tree side-swiping damage, and
other normal wear-and-tear. Low permeability barriers can be used to slow down outgassing. Aluminum
and stainless steel sheets, various types of polymeric films, laminated foil/plastic films, metalized films,
fiberglass, glass mat, and composite liners are offered as options to prevent damage and subsequent
moisture intrusion. Great Dane has published charts that show up to 40 percent degradation of insulation
performance over several years and much slower degradation when various options are used to conserve
insulation performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 150]
There are no standards in the U.S. to ensure all refrigerated trailers meet minimum thermal performance
standards when they are new. There are also no standards in the U.S. that measure thermal performance
as an insulated trailer ages to ensure they are retired or delegated to less demanding service when
thermal performance degrades. As this performance degrades, energy efficiency is compromised and
TRU engines must run harder and longer to maintain temperature set points, resulting in greater GHG
emissions. Market forces drive the thermal efficiency of refrigerated trailer designs in the U.S. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 150]
-------
CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to look at the regulatory requirements that must be met
in Europe regarding refrigerated van insulation. The 26 members of the European Union and 23 other
European, former Soviet Union, North African and Middle Eastern counties have signed on as
contracting parties to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's (UNECE) standards
under the Agreement on the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs and on Special Equipment
to be Used on Such Carriage (ATP). ATP requires testing and certification of the insulation and cooling
capacity of refrigerated transport equipment, and provides for separate testing of TRUs. France, Italy,
Russia, and Spain apply ATP standards to domestic transportation within their borders. Although the
U.S. is a contracting party to ATP, the U.S. made a declaration under article 10 of the International
Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs Act of 1982 and the implementing regulations at title 7 Code of
Federal Registration (CFR) 3300. resulting in ATP standards being voluntary in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 150-151]
Under the ATP, samples of new-model insulated vans are tested to ensure they meet the appropriate
overall heat transfer coefficient standard (K-value). Passing models are certified for six years.
Certification of insulated vans may be renewed at six year intervals by inspecting and/or testing a
sample of aged insulated vans to determine if they still meet the ATP K-value standard. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 151]
In addition, market forces are at work in Europe, because diesel fuel typically costs two to three times
more than U.S. fuel due to differences in government subsidies, taxes, and other influences. Greater
thermal efficiency in truck and trailer vans makes legal and economic sense in the Europe, so insulation
is generally thicker there (side walls are typically about four inches thick compared to two inches thick
in the U.S.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 151]
The high cost of diesel fuel, the above-mentioned thermal efficiency standards, and greater prevalence
of noise ordinances have also made European refrigerated fleets more open to trying new or alternative
transport refrigeration technologies. For example, there is greater use of cryogenic transport
refrigerators, all-electric, and hybrid electric TRUs with various range extender strategies in Europe.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 151]
CARB staff recommends U.S. EPA and NHTSA continue to evaluate appropriate technologies and
approaches that can achieve substantial emission reductions for TRUs and insulated trailers. CARB's
Technology Assessment: Transport Refrigerators57 provides information on zero- and near-zero-
emission technologies and includes a discussion on energy efficiency for refrigeration systems and
thermal efficiency for insulated cargo vans. Incentive programs are needed to transition these
technologies to commercial readiness so they can be included in later phases of GHG rules. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 151]
54 (Gallagher et al., 2014) Gallagher et al., "Supporting Information - High Global Warming Potential F-
Gas Emissions in California: Comparison of Ambient-based verses Inventory-Based Emission
Estimates, and Implications of Refined Estimates," Environmental Science & Technology. Available for
download at: htto://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/ 10.1021/es403447v.
55 (ACT, 2014) Kenny Vieth (ACT Research), personal communication with Rodney Hill (California
Air Resources Board), November 24,2014, at ACT Research Co., LLC, U.S. Trailer Model, Reefer Van
Population Outputs, 2014.
-------
56 (CARB, 2015d) California Air Resources Board, "Technology Assessment: Transport Refrigerators,"
August 2015.
57 (CARB, 2015d) California Air Resources Board, "Technology Assessment: Transport Refrigerators,"
August 2015. .
Organization: Idle AIR
ELECTRIFIED PARKING SPACES PROVIDE A CRITICAL NETWORK FOR
ELECTRIFIED TRANSPORT REFRIGERATED UNITS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Long range Transport Refrigerated Units (TRUs) are cooled by unfiltered diesel compressors that idle
24-hours per day. IdleAir and other EPS providers are establishing a network for refrigerated fleets to be
able to plug in and power down while the trailer is at rest. To the extent the TRU contains battery or
solar, it can offset idling during drive time as well. Long Range TRU fleets are unlikely to abandon
diesel backup, but more than 70% of TRU idling can be addressed with hybrid electric TRUs that can
connect to our charging stations at the terminals of the largest refrigerated fleets in the country, their
customer facilities, and public truck stops. The existing EPS network will prop up this nascent industry
of TRU conversions to hybrid units, but only if EPS providers are in business long enough to reach the
tipping point. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1250-A2 p.3]
Response:
In addition to the impact of trailer design on the C02 emissions of tractor-trailer vehicles, EPA
recognizes that refrigerated trailers can also be a source of emissions of HFCs. Specifically, HFC
refrigerants that are used in transport refrigeration units (TRUs) have the potential to leak into the
atmosphere. When powered by internal combustion engines, TRUs also emit criteria pollutants and
C02 and consume fuel.
In their comments, CARB said they believe that EPA has underestimated the potential for TRU
refrigerant leakage. However, CARB and other commenters did not provide sufficient information for
EPA to introduce new regulatory requirements for TRUs at this time. EPA did not propose any action
related to TRUs in this rule and does not take such action in the final program. In general, however,
EPA will continue to monitor the state of TRU technology and operation, and may pursue appropriate
action if warranted in the future. Similarly, regarding incentives for lower-emission TRUs, EPA is
unaware of financial or regulatory mechanisms at this point that could be implanted to encourage such a
market shift. We will continue to monitor both the potential need for and mechanisms for such
incentives.
We also note that EPA has separately proposed a regulation under Title VI of the CAA, specifically
section 608. See 80 FR 69457 (November 9, 2015). This proposal would extend existing regulations on
ozone depleting refrigerants to many alternative refrigerants, such as HFCs, which are the most common
refrigerants used in TRUs. If finalized as proposed, EPA would require that appliances like TRUs be
subject to the applicable requirements of 40 CFR subpart F, including requirements for servicing by a
certified technician using certified recovery equipment and for recordkeeping by technicians disposing
of such appliances with a charge size between five and fifty pounds, which would include TRUs, to help
ensure that the refrigerant is not vented.
-------
In response to the comment about the phase-out of high-GWP refrigerants, under Section 612 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program reviews substitutes
within a comparative risk framework in the following industrial sectors: Adhesives, Coatings & Inks;
Aerosols; Cleaning Solvents; Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection; Foam Blowing Agents;
Refrigeration & Air Conditioning; Sterilants; and Tobacco Expansion. Section 612 also provides that
EPA must prohibit the use of a substitute where EPA has determined that there are other available
substitutes that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment. The SNAP program does not
provide a static list of alternatives but instead, evolves the list as EPA makes decisions that are informed
by its overall understanding of the environmental and human health impacts as well as its current
knowledge about available substitutes. EPA will continue to review the availability of alternatives for
the refrigerated transport end-use, including TRUs.
Finally regarding the CARB comment about the deterioration of insulating efficiency, the passage that
they quote from the proposed rule was a general observation about factors contributing to trailer aging
and replacement. We are not aware specific data relating to such impacts on TRU fuel use, and,
regardless, are not addressing TRU emission or fuel consumption issues in this Phase 2 program.
5.8 Trailer-Specific Small Business Concerns
Organization: Wabash National Corporation
Creating Exceptions for "Small" Trailer Manufacturers Discourages Innovation and Breaks from
the Clean Air Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to
evaluate the impact of the proposed Phase 2 emissions requirements on small businesses, including
small trailer manufacturers. Based on the Panel Report, EPA proposes a one-year delay in the
compliance deadlines for small manufacturers and invited comment on additional compliance delays.50
In defining a "small" trailer manufacturer, EPA relied on a Small Business Administration ("SBA")
regulatory definition of a manufacturer with 500 or fewer employees.51 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1242-A2 p.20-21]
A. EPA's Proposed "Small" Trailer Manufacturer Exemptions Are Overly Broad and Punish
Innovation
EPA's proposed approach for small trailer manufacturers appears overly broad and creates disincentives
for technological innovation to address climate change. Trailer manufacturing is far less labor-intensive
than other segments of the heavy-duty sector such as engine manufacturing, cab chassis manufacturing,
and other vehicle production.52 As a result, over 80% of trailer manufacturers would qualify as small
businesses under EPA's proposed definition.53 Delaying compliance for most of the manufacturers in
the trailer industry would unfairly punish Wabash and other forward-leaning companies that worked
with EPA, NHTSA, and the technical community to improve fuel economy and reduce C02 emissions.
As the agencies are well aware, Wabash has spent years of effort and devoted substantial resources to
developing innovations in trailers, particularly industry-leading aerodynamic devices. EPA's Proposal
ignores those efforts and would potentially distort the market in favor of companies that had neither the
inclination, nor the resources, to move the industry forward. The Proposal therefore runs counter to
EPA's longtime position that emissions standards under CAA Section 202 should encourage the
development of new technologies in the motor vehicle industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1242-A2
P-21]
-------
Response:
The agencies have provided a one-year delay for small businesses but have not established a small
business trailer manufacturer exemption from the regulatory requirements for the remainder of the
Phase 2 program. The agencies agree with Wabash that including small businesses in the regulation is
important to the introduction of fuel efficiency improving trailer technologies. At the same time, we
have heard from small businesses that they do not have the same resources available to become familiar
with the regulations, make process and staffing changings, or evaluate and market new technologies as
their larger counterparts. We believe a one-year delay provides sufficient time for small businesses to
address these issues, without a large C02 and fuel consumption impact. The cumulative annual
production of all of the small business box trailer manufacturers is estimated to be less than 15 percent
of the industry's total production (Figure 1-3 of Chapter 1 in our RIA), which is significantly less than
the annual production of the four largest manufacturers. We expect any diverted sales for this one year
will be a small fraction of the large manufacturers' production and we are finalizing the one-year delay
for all small business trailer manufacturers.
-------
6 Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
6.1 General Comments
6.1.1 NOx from Idling Emissions
Allison Transmission
NOx Benefit from Stop-Start and Idle Reduction Technologies
The agencies have requested comment regarding whether there may be a NOx co-benefit to Stop-Start
idle reduction technologies, e-PTO, and neutral idle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.47]
With respect to such co-benefits, Allison has confirmed an engine Stop-Start system NOx and after
treatment temperature co-benefit. During powertrain testing of a hybrid bus powertrain on the OCTA
cycle, Allison documented an average 7% NOx decrease with engine Stop-Start vs. NOx baseline with no
engine Stop-Start. The testing also showed an increase in average after treatment temperatures over the
drive cycle and a slight increase in Fuel Economy. The following chart shows data taken from that
testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.47]
[Chart, 'Data summary average of samples', can be found on p.47 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Odyne believes co-benefits beyond fuel efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas reductions, like
Odyne technologies' verified ability to reduce NOx emissions, should be valued in the Phase Two
rulemaking, especially given potential future regulatory actions from EPA and current developments from
CARB on NOx. Most of the benefits that Odyne achieved in the reduction of NOx came from the hybrid
power take off (PTO) activities (stationary / work site). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p. 12]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
NOx Emissions From Idling - Note that all of our engines meet the ARB's 30 g NOx/hr idle level.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.28]
NOx Benefit from Stop-Start Technologies - The agencies state a belief there may be a NOX co-benefit
to stop-start idle reduction technologies, e-PTO, and possibly also to neutral idle. For this to be true, the
benefits of reduced fuel consumption and retained aftertreatment temperature would have to outweigh any
extra emissions due to re-starts. The agencies requested comments regarding this issue. DTNA is also
investigating the potential for this technology in lighter classes of HDV applications as a measure to
improve fuel efficiency. DTNA also recognizes and is investigating the potential for improving heat
retention in the SCR system via stop-start but because of early stages of development cannot verify or
quantify actual benefits. That said, EPA should allow manufacturers to demonstrate reduced NOx levels
on transient FTP test procedures, from implementation of this technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p.29]
-------
Response:
The agencies will retain this preliminary information provided by commenters on the relationship
between NOx emissions from vocational vehicles and workday idle reduction technologies. The agencies
also conducted independent NOx testing of engines at idle; however, the data are not conclusive enough
for the agencies to quantify the NOx co-benefits of vocational workday idle reduction as part of this
rulemaking. As part of the final Phase 2 program, NOx emissions will be measured and reported as a part
of powertrain testing. This will allow EPA to monitor NOx performance. The information collected will
also be used to inform EPA as to the merits of future rulemaking.
6.1.2 Comments Generally Supporting Stronger Standards
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Increase the stringency of the standards. NRDC believes standards that achieve fuel consumption and
emissions reductions of at least 24 percent by 2024 and at least 31 percent by 2027 relative to Phase 1
would meet the agency obligations for setting standards that are maximum feasible (for NHTSA) and
appropriate (for EPA). Important areas where the Phase 2 program stringency can be improved
significantly include the standards for tractor diesel engines and for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1220-A1 p.2]
Organization: Proterra
Proterra supports the proposed Phase 2 standards that, for vocational vehicles, would achieve up to 16%
lower C02 emissions and fuel consumption compared to Phase 1 by the year 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1160-A1 p.2]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
At a minimum, we would recommend the EPA increase full compliance fuel consumption and emission
reductions for the vocational sector beyond the 16%, to at least 20% or higher - as recommended by
groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists in their comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1
p.4-5] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-08267-1372, pp.230-231.]]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
Vocational vehicles range from delivery vans to city buses and from bucket trucks to garbage trucks. This
complexity makes it one of the most difficult segments to regulate. In Phase 1, the agencies chose to
regulate these vehicles primarily through separate vocational engine standards. In Phase 2, the agencies
have added significant complexity and identified a much broader array of viable fuel consumption
reduction technologies in this sector. In the following sections, we focus on ways in which the agencies
can strengthen the regulation, both with increased stringency and increased flexibility for manufacturers.
The agencies' proposal must be 'technology-forcing' and achieve the 'maximum feasible' reductions in the
timeframe of the rule. To do this, the agencies must strengthen Alternative 4 by: Increasing the stringency
for gasoline-powered vocational vehicles by 7.8 percent and those for diesel-powered vocational vehicles
by 3.6 percent in 2024 to fully reflect the ability for conventional technologies to reduce fuel use from
this sector, while incentivizing the adoption of more advanced technologies where appropriate; [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.27]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
-------
Class 2b-8 vocational trucks, which include a broad variety of trucks that have many different functions,
consume about 20% of the fuel used by the heavy-duty vehicle sector. EPA and NTSA proposed vehicle
standards that would result in about a 16% fuel consumption reduction from diesel-powered trucks and
about a 13% reduction for gasoline-powered trucks, by 2027. The difference in stringency is explained by
the fact that the agencies did not update standards for gasoline engines. In addition to finalizing a fuel
neutral engine standard, the vehicle standards can also be strengthened. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-
A1 p.37]
Weak standards for this segment send a negative signal to the emerging market for advanced technologies
and discourage on-going investment and development. We strongly encourage the agencies to finalize
more protective standards for vocational vehicles that include a meaningful role for advanced
technologies such as hybrid and electric vehicles, and promote innovative companies that can provide
high quality jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.38]
Organization: McNicols
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 271-272.]
Specifically, the sub-category for vocational vehicles and multiple route applications makes the
regulations more clear and progress more easily identified.
However, regarding the vocational vehicles target improvements, the proposed requirement of 16 percent
improvement may fall short of bringing about the necessary technologies to significantly impact this
sector. With roughly 30 percent of the greenhouse gas pollutants coming from the vocational vehicle and
medium and heavy duty pickup truck sector, a greater percentage should be considered to drive the
innovation even higher.
Organization: Motiv Power Systems
We applaud the agencies for their commitment to work with manufacturers and craft the strongest
standards to reduce fuel usage, save fleets money, and minimize the environmental impacts of the
trucking sector. The agencies have taken some key first steps to build upon the success of Phase 1, and
we look forward to working with EPA and NHTSA to ensure that the regulation adequately captures and
incentivizes the levels of fuel consumption and emissions reductions we know can be achieved in this
timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1184-A1 p.2-3]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff recommends that Alternative 4 be chosen, with the regulation proposing standards out to MY
2024 vehicles. CARB staff believes the proposed rule in its current framework is conservative and leaves
obtainable emission benefits on the table. CARB staff does not believe that the current stringencies
require the additional three years of lead time that is proposed in Alternate 3. Multiple manufacturers
have made it clear to CARB staff that the proposed stringencies can easily be met in the MY 2024
compliance time frame. In the current Alternative 3 framework, most technologies do not see significant
changes in penetration from MY 2024 to MY 2027.
The NPRM proposes an overall 16 percent C02 emission benefit for the final MY vocational vehicles.
The additional stringencies recommended by CARB staff result in additional incremental C02 benefits of
about 2.5 percent for vocational vehicles. CARB staff therefore recommends U.S. EPA and NHTSA
-------
pursue Alternative 4 with a final stringency level of approximately 18.5 percent for vocational vehicles.26
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 5 6]
• Alternative 4 achieves greater emission benefits and greater net societal benefits than Alternative 3. As
summarized in Table 10 below, Alternative 4 for vocational vehicles would achieve 33.5 more total MMT
C02 reductions and a $5.2 billion greater total societal benefit nationally through MY 2029.
• The projected payback period for Alternative 4 is still acceptable and within the same year as the
projected payback period for Alternative 3. [Table 10 can be found on p.54 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
Organization: CALSTART
As we shared at the Long Beach workshop, CALSTART recently published a report, titled "Higher Fuel
Efficiency: Working for Fleets," which assessed the business case for fleets from higher fuel efficiency
trucks that might be driven by a new fuel economy rule. This report has highlighted two core issues: that
there are achievable technologies that can provide higher efficiency on the rule timeline, and that these
technologies on whole can be cost-effective and provide reasonable payback to fleets using them. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 152.]]
To understand the payback issue we took a different approach from the agencies. We worked with a cross
section of fleets representing various applications and truck types nationwide to validate the key
components of a fleet business case assessment model, collaborating with the NAFA Fleet Management
Association and its fleets.
In developing the model, we also surveyed fleets on their support for and concerns about increased fuel
efficiency.
- Interestingly, we found 87-percent of fleet managers responding supported rules driving higher fuel
efficiency.
- Their primary concern was cost; though 89-percent said they would be willing to pay more up front for
fuel efficient trucks if they knew they would pay back over their life.
- They also expressed concern about reliability and maintenance costs. This does have relevance for the
rule duration.
We looked at different technology packages that were most applicable to each use profile, assembling
packages that could achieve up to a 40 percent reduction of fuel use over 2010 baseline trucks. These
packages, and their projected costs, were adapted from National Research Council and Transportation
Research Board studies.
Our top level findings were these:
- We found there is a reasonable business case payback, based on fleet-validated cost assessment tools,
for higher fuel economy trucks at levels proposed in the rules.
-------
- The stringency levels we modeled in the report were, in most cases, actually higher than those proposed
in the Alternative 3 language.
- We saw the potential for higher fuel economy targets than those proposed in several use profiles -
particularly urban trucks, regional trucks and those vehicles with high work site idle time.
- The biggest variables for payback were utilization - the mileage and fuel used - and the upfront cost of
the technology.
- Fleets have suggested that modeling payback sensitivity to maintenance cost would be helpful and we
encourage the agencies to develop this information to address fleet concerns.
As mentioned, the report used different - and generally higher - assumptions for stringency than those
recommended in the agencies' preferred Alternative 3. Below we highlight the comparisons between the
segments we studied, the corresponding segment in the rule (where there is one), and the stringency
proposed in the draft rules compared with those studied in the report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-
Alp.3]
[Table of segments studied and results can be found on p. 3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1190-A1]
We are concerned that the vocational segments as proposed do not meet the same level of reduction path
and we believe they could, while still providing fleet users with the functionality they need and a payback
they can afford.
In shaping the final rule, we believe the agencies' payback projections from efficiency are reasonable and
real. Indeed, we see a strong case for higher efficiency targets than those currently called for particularly
in several vocational segments. We also see the ability to further push improvements in engine technology
than proposed while still making sure those engines are a component of a full vehicle strategy. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.9] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, pp. 155-156.]]
We strongly support increasing the stringency requirements of these vocational segments, with a
minimum target of 20% (though varied by different segment). In terms of the rule timeline, we remain
sensitive to both OEM and fleet desires for a longer investment horizon and a more measured, stair-step
regulatory approach to ensure quality product delivery. However, we believe any longer regulatory
timeline (2027) would only make sense in the context of increased stringency, with some commensurate
added flexibility.
Response:
We have carefully considered all the comments asking the agencies to adopt more stringent standards for
vocational vehicles than proposed. Please see Section 8.2.1 for responses to comments related to the pace
of phasing in the Phase 2 standards. See also Section 1.5 for responses to comments on the need for lead
time for some technologies. In the sections below where we address specific comments on individual
technologies, we describe the ways in which we have adjusted technology adoption rates and
-------
effectiveness projections to form the basis for the final vocational vehicle standards that are more
stringent than we proposed, but still afford sufficient lead time to achieve those standards.169
6.1.3 Other General Comments
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The agencies should not proceed with the Proposed Phase 2 Standards for vocational vehicles for the
many reasons previously noted. The agencies are proposing an inordinately complex, flawed and
ultimately infeasible Phase 2 Program for vocational vehicles. As explained below, the agencies need to
make fundamental changes to that proposal. Other reasons relating to the agencies' underlying
assumptions regarding available technologies for vocational vehicles support this conclusion as well.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 5 9]
The agencies' proposed segmentation of the vocational market, the assumed deployment and penetration
rates of the envisioned GHG-related technologies, and the "normalization" process that the agencies are
using to align the relative stringency of the various proposed vocational vehicle standards are all
extremely problematic. The net result is an uncertain and unworkable proposal that fails to meet the basic
requirements of an administrative rulemaking. Given this untenable situation, EMA recommends that the
agencies consider the option of maintaining the Phase 1 program for vocational vehicle standards until
such time as a better-reasoned and better-designed Phase 2 program can be developed. Deferring the
Phase 2 standards for vocational vehicles will also allow manufacturers to focus their efforts on the
successful implementation of the Phase 2 program for Class 7 and 8 tractors, the heavy-duty vehicles that
represent more than 80% of the modeled benefits from the pending rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.4-5]
The net result is that the agencies' Proposed Phase 2 Standards for vocational vehicles are unworkable
and infeasible in their current form. The applicable duty cycles, vehicle subcategory definitions and GEM
"normalization" for vocational vehicles are all still moving parts in the agencies' still-evolving proposal.
Moreover, given the agencies' announced schedule for finalizing the Phase 2 Standards, there is not
enough time for manufacturers to develop detailed comments on how an appropriate, fully integrated
Phase 2 program for vocational vehicles - a program based on more accurate methods, baseline
assumptions and efficiency targets - should be structured and implemented. Rather, the agencies should
consider the option of undertaking a new rulemaking process to craft that type of a fully integrated Phase
2 program for vocational vehicles. EMA is committed to cooperating with the agencies in such a
supplemental rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.32]
In the interim, the agencies could maintain the Phase 1 program for vocational vehicles, with potential
additions to the GHG technology drop-down menu to include a broader range of available GEM credits
(broader than just tires) for features such as anti-idle technologies and improved transmissions.
Simplifying the vocational vehicle program in this manner could allow manufactures to focus their
nearer-term efforts on the successful implementation of the Phase 2 standards for line-haul vehicles, the
vehicles that use more than 80% of the fuel consumed by the heavy-duty and medium-duty vehicle
segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.32]
169 However, we note an error in UCS' assertion that standards under CAA section 202 (a)(1) and (2) must be
technology forcing. This is not correct, although standards adopted pursuant to this authority may permissibly be
technology forcing (i.e. based on performance of technologies not yet on the market but available with sufficient
lead time). See 76 FR 57129-130 (Sept. 15,2011).
-------
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Remaining Fundamental Uncertainty Regarding the Vocational Vehicle Program
The inclusion in the NODA of new data developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
("NREL") regarding vocational vehicle duty cycles still fails to sufficiently fill the significant gaps that
continue to exist with respect to the Proposed Phase 2 Standards for vocational vehicles. The manner in
which the agencies intend to divide and categorize vocational vehicles, the fuel efficiency technologies
and percentage improvements that the agencies are ascribing to those different segments of vocational
vehicles, the assumed respective penetration rates of those various technologies, and the derivation of
potential unique "carveouts" from the vocational vehicle program (e.g., for certain custom chassis, such
as cement mixers) are all still unknown, undefined, and unvalidated. The agencies have not articulated
how vocational vehicles will be segmented under the Phase 2 Standards, what the Phase 2 Standards will
be for those various vehicle segments, or how those standards were derived. GEM does not yet contain
sufficiently certain inputs to conduct any assessment of the Phase 2 program for vocational vehicles, the
stringency targets for which remain unknown. That makes it difficult for interested parties to provide
meaningful comment on the agencies' proposal for vocational vehicles, and calls into question whether
the agencies have fulfilled the necessary requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") and
Section 307 of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1891-A1 p.2-3]
Organization: Association for the Work Truck Industry (NTEA)
Regulatory Structure
The NTEA supports the agencies' structural approach to the rules. It is logical to separate out the four
vehicle categories as they tend to be both built and utilized in different manners. Of the categories,
vocational trucks will be the most diverse vehicle population, as noted by the possible chassis, body and
equipment configurations available in the marketplace. This diversity also continues in the manufacture
process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1187-A1 p.2]
In order to complete a vocational truck, multiple manufacturing companies may be involved from the
engine manufacturer, chassis manufacturer, intermediate stage manufacturers (perhaps adding axles) to
the final stage manufacturer who completes the vehicle for final delivery. Also included in the
manufacture chain are the body and equipment manufacturers who separately build products to be
mounted on the vehicles for completion. Lastly, there can be what are known as "alterers" who work on
completed (but neither titled nor sold yet at retail). Alterers, for instance, might take a completed pickup
truck, remove the bed and replace it with another body type prior to the first retail sale. Another common
alteration would be installation of a snow plow on an appropriate truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1187-A1 p.2]
The proposed regulatory structure recognizes the manufacturing complexity of vocational trucks and
attempts to regulate in a less complex manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.3]
Due to the complexity of the vocational truck industry, longer lead times and regulatory consistency is
valued. Having regulatory certainty to 2027 is helpful as would be a consistent, national program. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.3]
We do believe that some alterations to the proposed standards with regard to vocational trucks may be
appropriate given the cost to industry and the stated benefits from increased fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.3]
-------
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Some of Navistar's most significant concerns regarding the feasibility of the Proposed Rule itself are
directly related to the provisions applicable to vocational vehicles. While Navistar supports the agencies'
general intent to expand the reach of the GEM model to vocational vehicles, we have serious concerns
that the Proposed Rule, as written, is simply not ready or feasible as it pertains to vocational vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.31]
As we pointed out in our NPRM Comments, Navistar believes that the vocational regulations as proposed
are not feasible or even fully conceptualized.2 Vocational vehicles are an extremely complex and diverse
portion of the heavy duty sector, while also small volume relative to tractors. This complexity and
relatively small volume potentially magnifies the impact of any distortion created by the rules. The
potential for tilting the playing field through an ill-conceived rule is very real and very concerning. With
the NODA (as well as EPA documents contemporaneous in the docket but not in the NODA), the
agencies have increased the risk of adverse impacts. In short, the new materials in the docket actually
increase rather than reduce the uncertainty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.2]
Navistar's NPRM Comments stated that the "[t]he vocational vehicle standards must start from the actual
baseline MY17 standards and must be simplified and revised throughout." Specifically Navistar felt like
the vocational rule was not ready and needed significant work. The NODA included a revised Greenhouse
Gas Emission Model ("GEM") and NREL report which will significantly impact the Vocational standards
and technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.2]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Class 5-7 vehicles are in an averaging set with either no tractors or few tractors; therefore, it is critical that
the Vocational regulations be achievable. Navistar had significant concerns with the NRPM technology
penetrations and continues to be concerned as the agency have not shared any additional details of the
structure, baseline, or standards for Vocational. We believe that the agencies must work with the industry
to avoid all unintended consequences and for the agency to design a high quality rule that does not disrupt
the market or force specifications inappropriate to the task a specific vehicle is to perform. Navistar is
committed to helping develop a high quality rule, but we believe that agencies should take more time to
do so and delay the inclusion of the vocational rule in the final rulemaking until these issues can be
resolved adequately. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.3]
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
WM has significant experience testing new technologies on our vocational refuse vehicles in the field. We
have learned a great deal from those road tests, where we can evaluate equipment while operating in the
various duty cycles that we use in serving our customers. Refuse vehicles are not typical of most
vocational fleet vehicles. They are extremely heavy and have difficult duty cycles that place substantial
demands on the vehicle. We have found that it is often necessary to test new technologies using a typical
refuse duty cycle to assess whether they can achieve the advertised fuel or GHG reductions, or even
operate properly in our work environment. We are very concerned that expediting the compliance
schedule by three years would preclude much of the valuable field-testing time that we need to assure
ourselves that we are purchasing vehicles and equipment that can serve our and our customer's needs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.6]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
-------
Of all of these problems we noted above, the biggest problem is that we are unable to repeat and verify
the agencies' stringency analysis. Ideally, for us to do so, the agencies would provide an updated
spreadsheet that outlines their assumptions for baseline setting and stringency setting vehicles (because
the assumptions have changed since the NPRM). Unfortunately, we were only provided information
about baseline vehicles on March 24, giving us too little time to do the analysis necessary to respond to
the agencies. In particular, we have received only limited feedback from the agencies regarding our
concerns about expected technology benefits and penetrations used for stringency setting in the NPRM.
We therefore cannot yet conclude that the agencies' stringency analysis is correct or even reasonable.
There may be significant errors, but we do not know. We will try to respond to the agencies promptly on
GEM and the stringency analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.3]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Alternative Vocational Vehicle Standards Considered - The agencies request comment on risks or
challenges associated with Alternative 4 for vocational vehicles. 80 FR 40289. Because some of the
technologies on which the agencies premised the vocational standards are not yet developed to the level
that is necessary for the heavy-duty vehicle industry, and because there is such a diverse array of vehicles
for which technologies need to be developed and tested, we agree that Alternative 4 presents too grave a
risk of unintended consequences such as unreliable performance of the new technologies. The agencies
should follow a measured approach in forcing improvements only when it is clear that such improvements
are 'achievable' (quoting the Clean Air Act's mandate to the EPA, CAA § 202(a)(3)(A)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-Alp.74]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Unique Characteristics of MD/HD Market Preclude Alternative 4
The MD/HD vocational vehicle market is comprised of primarily vehicles that do work. Fleets in this
market tend to be conservative with respect to the adoption of new technologies and they have a long
memory for market failures. Prior to the widespread adoption of new technology, fleets will either test
vehicles themselves in fleet operations, or require information from a third party or another fleet with
whom they previously relied on for technology assessments. EPA's and NHTSA's Phase 2 rulemaking
will not change these market dynamics. Instead the prime purchasers of new vehicles may be even more
careful in verifying the performance and integration of multiple, new technologies and their suitability for
the actual work demands that will be placed upon them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p. 10]
The Phase 2 proposal will require adoption of several new technologies across a wide variety of vehicle
and engine components in order to achieve 16% lower C02 levels in 2027 compared with C02 emissions
in the 2017 baseline. Given the aggressive nature of these requirements which are layered on top of GHG
improvements made in the Phase 1 rule, Allison expects that the adoption of many new components to be
viewed as a "high risk" by fleet operators. This becomes problematic for the assumed adoption rates since
fleet operators have been historically concerned to keep the up-time (i.e., availability) of their vehicles at
high levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.10]
Second, the projected payback for incorporation of fuel efficient technologies is not until the 6th year.
Many fleets turn trucks over in normal buying cycles of less than 6 years ~ so they will either not realize
a payback or not factor this payback into their initial purchase decisions. As a result, the long payback
period (coupled with perceived technology risks) is likely to result in an increase of pre-buys and in
delayed purchases to allow fleets to run existing trucks longer than originally projected. The 2010 NAS
-------
Report (see Regulatory Impact Analysis ("RIA") Section 8.4.2) also recognizes this dynamic in the
MD/HD market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 10]
Overall, as compared with Alternative 3, Alternative 4 carries with it a much higher risk of market
disruption. As noted above, under Alternative 4 there could be a surge in vocational truck sales, followed
by a depressed market. Employment levels would follow suit. That is, employment levels would be
increased to meet the pre-buy demand, only to rapidly fall due to an ensuing period of weak demand. In
this situation, manufacturing companies who strive to manage cost and quality through stable production
volumes and employment levels, would be negatively impacted. If the depressed demand were to be
extended for a long time, then some businesses might not be able to continue operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.11]
The RIA recognizes the possibility of a pre-buy, but the analysis concentrates only on what is viewed as
favorable fuel costs and savings that will be recognized by vehicle owners. Specifically, the agencies "are
not projecting a change in fleet turnover characteristics due to this regulation."10 Allison recommends a
more thorough analysis of the market history to predict behaviors and economic impact due to the
technology risks that are inherent in the proposed rule. Based on that analysis, changes in timing or
stringency levels may have merit. For example, fuel costs per mile were calculated using EIA's 2014
Annual Energy Outlook for diesel prices. Yet more recent EIA projections indicate a substantial decline.11
This is significant since the agencies' assumptions concerning "pre-buy" are that the value of saving
money in future fuel purchases will outweigh the upfront additional costs of new vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 11]
Organization: Association for the Work Truck Industry (NTEA)
Fuel Efficiency Payback
The NTEA requests that standards similar to those described as "Alternative 2" be considered for the
vocational truck segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1187-A1 p.3]
While we conceptually agree with the proposed application of the same general certification procedures
for Phase 2 as are currently being used for certifying to the Phase 1 standards, we are concerned, about
the expected payback period for vocational trucks using the "preferred" Alternative 3.
With regard to Alternative 3, in 2027 when the standard is fully phased in, heavy-duty vehicles across all
classes would achieve up to 16 percent emissions and fuel use reductions for vocational vehicles when
compared to Phase 1 standards. Further, the proposal calculates figures for expected payback periods
based on the additional costs associated with the proposed standards and the economic savings based on
the increased fuel efficiency expected with Alternative 3. The proposal estimates "Reasonable Payback
Periods for the Trucking Industry In model year 2027," for the buyer of a new vehicle. The notice states
that the buyer would recoup the extra cost of technology used to achieve the standard (Alternative 3)
within 6 years for vocational vehicles such as garbage trucks, buses and on-road construction trucks (e.g.
cement mixers, dump trucks, etc.), which are typically used longer than vehicles in other heavy duty
sectors.
The expected payback period of 6 years for vocational vehicles is not acceptable.
The NTEA surveyed over 40 vocational fleet companies with regard to fuel efficiency investment. More
than 80% of the surveyed fleets said that a payback period beyond 6 years for 16% fuel efficiency gain
that cost $3,500 would not be acceptable.
-------
More than 50% of the surveyed fleets found a 3 year payback period acceptable. Additionally, almost
one-fourth of the respondents noted that the useful life of their Class 3-7 vocational trucks was less than 6
years. On the average, each of these fleets operated over 3,400 Class 3-7 vocational trucks.
The NTEA supports the overall regulatory structure of the proposed standards. We believe that the burden
faced by vocational truck owners is out of proportion to their fuel use and the agencies should consider
ways to reduce that burden such as provided by Alternative 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.5]
Organization: National School Transportation Association (NSTA)
We understand that the proposal aims to establish a comprehensive Phase 2 Heavy-Duty National
Program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption for new on-road heavy-duty vehicles.
In addition, we note that this program would phase in over the long-term, beginning in 2018 model year
and culminating in standards for model year 2027. Our comments are specific to school buses, which fall
under vocational vehicles, and do not speak to any of the other vehicles addressed in this proposal. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1301-A1 p.2]
NSTA is proud to be part of the largest and safest transportation system in the country. The nation's fleet
of 480,000 yellow school buses provides safe, fuel-efficient and environmentally-friendly transportation
to school children across the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1301-A 1 p.2]
NSTA members welcome efforts to improve fuel economy for school buses, but efforts to improve fuel
economy should not come at the expense of reducing safety for school children riding the school bus.
There can be no higher priority than protecting our precious cargo. While catastrophic school bus crashes
have occurred, they are rare events. Most school bus crashes are minor, and in most crashes involving
passenger cars and light trucks, the school bus has the advantage of its larger size and weight. That larger
size and weight helps protect occupants, but may also exist at the expense of fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1301-A1 p.2]
Yellow school buses are designed to protect students with special safety features not available on any
other vehicle. These features include their recognizable color and size, height, reinforced sides, protective
passenger seating, crash protected fuel systems, flashing red lights, cross view mirrors and crossing and
stop sign arms to ensure children are protected and secure on and off the bus. School bus drivers also
receive specialized training in student behavior management, loading and unloading security emergency
medical procedures. Drivers receive driving record checks, criminal background checks and pre-
employment and random drug and alcohol testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1301-A1 p.2]
The typical school bus is not only the safest vehicle on the road, but it also achieves significant fuel
economy and emission reduction benefits. New diesel engine standards make today's buses 98% cleaner
than buses manufactured two decades ago. Additionally, thousands of older buses have been modified
with high-tech filters and catalysts to reduce emissions. In addition, school bus transportation eases the
traffic congestion surrounding schools each morning and afternoon by keeping millions of cars off roads.
Encouraging school bus use can achieve significant fuel economy and greenhouse gas reduction benefits.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 01 -A 1 p.2]
We are concerned, however, with the extremely aggressive timeline suggested by NHTSA and EPA in
this proposal. We are aware that our manufacturer partners have significant concerns with meeting the
requirements outlined in the proposal. We urge NHTSA and EPA to continue the dialogue on these
requirements to ensure that the manufacturing industry can meet the requirements and not disrupt
production in the process. To be effective, efficient and safe, school transportation is reliant upon the
-------
availability of school buses. Any requirement which could potentially affect the availability of school
buses could affect a provider's ability to secure enough vehicles to effectively manage their fleet. As
currently proposed, we fear a significant effect on our ability to manage fleets and secure additional
vehicles when needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1301 -A 1 p.2-3]
OshKosh
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 166-171.]
The Phase 2 plan mandates a 16 percent improvement for heavy vocational trucks, four percent of this
coming from the engine. The remaining 12 percent is expected to come from applying seven
technologies. Of these seven check the box technologies, none of them can be practically applied to most
vocational applications.
The Phase 2 proposal requires that vocational vehicle manufacturers check these boxes on the seven
technologies in order to show compliance. As we can see, these boxes either can't be checked, or if they
are checked, doing so will not result in actual real world improvements. Besides being ineffectual, the
checkbox approach creates an unfair hardship for those manufacturers whose only products are vocational
in nature. Large truck manufacturers have the option to offset noncompliant vocational trucks with credits
from line haul products. This is not possible if you only produce vocational products.
This dilemma deals a double whammy to business, vocational only manufacturers will be out of the
business and new entrepreneurial ventures will be blocked. We propose the following solution. We
suggest that the U.S. Congress and the EPA acknowledge the fact that the laws of physics simply do not
allow heavy vocational work trucks the same potential for C02 and fuel economy improvements as is
possible for the higher speed line haul application. Slower speeds, low volumes, off road operation,
complex duty cycles, lack of engine and transmission supplier market drivers, and the nature of the work
being performed all work against the vocational product.
The Phase 2 regulations should, therefore, continue the current Phase 1 tire regulations as is and limit
further mandates to whatever can be gleaned from the engine improvements alone.
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
The UAW recognizes and supports the high level of communication and collaboration between
regulators, the industry, and other stakeholders in crafting a very complex standard. We urge all parties to
continue working together to solve outstanding issues before regulations are finalized.
It is also critically important to have flexible and adaptable regulations for vocational vehicles. This is a
complex and difficult task as this class of vehicles have a wide array of applications and have not
previously been subject to stringent emission standards. This is why the viability of certain technologies
on vocational vehicles needs to be carefully considered.
Organization: Autocar, LLC
Autocar Requests an Extension of the NODA Comment Period and an Official Notice and
Comment Period on the Memorandum.
-------
Autocar requests additional time to review and comment on the documents under the NODA and requests
formal notice and opportunity to comment further on the Memorandum, as set forth in Appendix 2.
[Appendix 2 can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A2][EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1885-A1 p.13]
Autocar requests that the agencies open a comment period with respect to EPA's February 12, 2016
memorandum entitled "Vocational Vehicle Technology Packages for Custom Chassis." EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1719. The memorandum purports to establish technology based packages and adoption rates
for custom chassis vehicles. In response to comments from stakeholders indicating such standards were
not currently feasible, the memorandum includes a "specific technical feasibility analysis ... for vehicles
in seven vocations," including refuse trucks, which Autocar manufactures. However, the agencies have
not provided a formal opportunity to comment on the memorandum or the information contained therein.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1869-A1 p.3]
Because this information (i) will likely affect the present rulemaking and (ii) is new, the public must be
allowed an opportunity to provide substantive input. It is well settled that agencies must afford interested
stakeholders the opportunity to comment on new data integral to a rulemaking. See generally Kern
County Farm Bureau v. Allen, 450 F.3d 1072, 107677 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ("[I]in this case, the Agency's final conclusions are far
from the 'logical outgrowth' of the preceding notice and comment process and instead are the result of a
complex mix of controversial and uncommented upon data and calculations. Given the lengths that the
Agency must travel to justify its revisions between the interim and final stages, we cannot be sure that
further and ultimately convincing public criticism of those changes would not have been forthcoming had
it been invited by the Agency." (emphasis supplied) (citation omitted)); cf. Crawford v. F.C.C., 417 F.3d
1289, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("Whether the 'logical outgrowth' test is satisfied depends, in turn, on
whether the affected party 'should have anticipated' the agency's final course in light of the initial
notice."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1869-A1 p.3]
Here the information included in EPA's February memorandum is highly technical, applies to a variety of
vehicle types (while excluding others), and will likely have significant repercussions for various
manufacturers including Autocar. Again, the agencies only provided this memorandum in February and
have not invited comment upon it. To ensure that any final rule mandating technology packages for
custom chassis complies with established administrative procedural requirements, Autocar and other
stakeholders must be afforded the opportunity to respond to the technical and data-based analysis
underlying and set forth in EPA's memorandum. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1869-A1 p.4]
As detailed in our October 1, 2015 comments, Autocar, LLC and Autocar Industries, LLC (Autocar1) are
small, privately-owned Indiana vocational chassis assemblers producing specialized heavy-duty
vocational trucks and tractors used in America to collect solid waste, sweep streets and shunt freight at
warehouses, railroads and harbors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.l]
Autocar submits these supplemental comments to object to recent compliance proposals that appear to
indicate that Autocar's small business impact comments have not been fully considered and that our
request for extension will not be granted. We also request additional time to review and comment on the
Memorandum and the underlying research set forth in documents included in the NODA. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.2]
Organization: Volvo Group
-------
Heavy-duty trucks are commercial vehicles purchased to enhance the profitability of a business.
Purchasers must consider the initial cost (including Federal Excise Tax and state tax), operating and
maintenance costs, plus any cost of vehicle downtime. Class 8 tractors, in particular, are generally
purchased for regional or long-haul operation accumulating 100,000 or more miles annually. Most fleets
require payback for efficiency technology in 18-24 months to cover the risk factors (actual efficiency
delivered, maintenance and downtime costs, etc.), recoup their investment, and to provide a profit margin
within their 4-5 year trade cycle. Fleets are particularly leery of complex new systems with unproven
reliability and unknown maintenance cost. Rather than purchase such technology, fleets have delayed new
purchases by extending the life of older equipment and/or pre-buying vehicles before such systems were
forced into the market. This was amply demonstrated in 2007 when diesel particulate traps were forced
into the market by PM emissions targets. Factories ran at full capacity at the end of 2006 only to nearly
shut down for long periods in 2007. Production was then further curtailed by the severe recession in 2008.
Vehicle manufacturers' and suppliers' employees suffered from lay-offs, pay reductions, and lack of
work. One major supplier, Caterpillar, dropped out of the on-road engine business. Since 2010, the
increased cost and complexity of emissions technology has spawned a booming business in trucks built
from glider kits, a completely new truck chassis and body that is up-fitted with a rebuilt engine, driveline
and axle, skirting emissions and efficiency regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 18]
We find a number of the technology assumptions in the NPRM are not justified because the technology is
not demonstrated, does not deliver the assumed efficiency, or cannot be forced into the market at the
agencies' assumed penetration rates. These include aerodynamic drag reduction, start/stop technology,
neutral idle, low rolling resistance tires, 6x2 axles, new transmissions, idle shutdown, vehicle speed
limiters, hybridization, "deep integration" of driveline, and vehicle weight reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.19]
Response:
In response to the above comments that express concern about expediting market adoption of technology
as described in the proposed Alternative 4, the agencies have adjusted lead times and technology adoption
rates to reflect the feasibility of developing technologies as described below in the sections for individual
technologies. See Section 8 for further discussion of comments related to more stringent alternatives.
In response to the comments above that express concerns about the complexity of the vocational vehicle
program and the standard-setting process, the agencies are adopting a final vocational vehicle program
structure that is more straightforward than was proposed, as discussed in Section 6.2.2 below. Navistar
noted particular concerns regarding the structure and feasibility of the vocational vehicle standards.
Specific issues relating to duty cycle-based subcategorization are addressed in Section 6.1.4 below and in
the Preamble at V.B. l.a. We appreciate that the medium heavy-duty averaging set has challenges distinct
from HHD vehicles, and in addition to revisiting the technology adoption rates in response to comments
(discussed in Section 6.3 below), we are adopting program flexibilities that should address Navistar's
concerns with respect to transitioning from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Specifically, we are adopting extended
credit life for LHD and MHD averaging sets so that all credits generated in these averaging sets in MY
2018 and later will last at least until MY 2027 (see Section 1.4.6 of this RTC and Section I.C.(l)(b)(i) of
the Preamble). We note further that these are issues the agencies have analyzed carefully, and analyzed
carefully with EMA members, including Navistar, as discussed in the next paragraph.
In response to the comments that express concerns about opportunity for notice and comment, the
agencies conducted timely outreach to affected stakeholders. The agencies did so both during the public
-------
comment period, and thereafter. These meetings including sharing interim information about program
revisions being considered in response to the initial round of public comments.170 As explained in detail in
the meeting log in the docket, EPA and NHTSA staff met repeatedly with EMA representatives, and with
representatives of EMA member companies (including Daimler and Navistar whose comments appear
above), both before and after the proposal to discuss details of many aspects of the rulemaking, including
potential standards for vocational vehicles.171 We also spoke and met with Autocar on multiple occasions
between August 2015 and June 2016.172 Among the issues discussed with Autocar were the structure of
the vocational vehicle program and feasible technologies for special-purpose vehicles. The agencies also
provided public notice of potential changes from proposal in a Notice of Data Availability (81 FR 10824,
March 2, 2016)) which presented information, among other issues, of further modification to the GEM
compliance tool (used for vocational vehicle standard compliance), and a draft report from NREL with
analysis of drive cycles and segmentation recommendations. In addition, EPA held a web conference for
chassis manufacturers on March 22, 2016 to discuss our evolved thinking with respect to several types of
special-purpose vehicles.
In sum, many face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences were held during the deliberative phase,
providing actual notice and opportunity for stakeholder feedback throughout this process. The
commenters are therefore mistaken in asserting that the agencies provided inadequate notice and public
comment opportunities. Meetings between EPA staff, EMA, Autocar and other significant stakeholders
regarding the structure of the vocational vehicle standards continued up until a few weeks before
promulgation. See Section 15.5 for further discussion of responses to comments related to public
participation in the rulemaking process.
In response to comments requesting less stringent vocational vehicle standards with less upfront costs and
a faster payback period, the agencies have made revisions to projections of technology adoption rates as
well as incremental technology costs. These changes are described in more detail below in Section 6.3 for
each technology, but in general the average vocational vehicle package costs have decreased slightly
since proposal for vehicles certified as Urban and Multipurpose, and average package costs have
increased slightly for vehicles certified as Regional. We anticipate that Regional vehicles would be those
most likely to accumulate the most miles among the vocational fleet, while Urban and Multi-purpose
vehicles are likely to accumulate fewer miles. Therefore we believe the revised average technology
package costs should shift the payback period in a more favorable position for many vehicle owners.
While the average payback is now projected to be closer to four years than six years as it was at proposal,
vehicle owners may see different actual cost recovery periods, as payback periods are calculated on a
hypothetical fleet-average vehicle. Moreover, payback is calculated assuming all vocational vehicles are
certified under the primary program, a very conservative assumption. See Preamble Section V.C:
"[u]sing this assumption, the vocational vehicle type with the shortest payback is intercity buses (less than
one year), while most other vehicles (with the exception of school buses and motor homes) are projected
to see paybacks in the fourth year or sooner. See Section 6.2.3 below for some ranges of estimated
technology package costs for custom chassis. We expect that manufacturers will certify to the optional
custom chassis standards where it is more cost-effective to do so; therefore, our analysis may be overly
conservative where it indicates very long paybacks for some vocational vehicles." See also the Preamble
to this rule at Section IX.M, the RIA Chapter 7.2.4, and Section 11.13 of this response to comments
document for further discussion of incremental costs and payback periods.
170 See Heavy-Duty Phase 2 Stakeholder Meeting Log, August 2016; see also Heavy-Duty Phase 2 FRM Phone and E-
Mail Log.
171 See Memo to Docket, "Summary of Meetings and Conference Calls with the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association to Discuss the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG Rulemaking," August 2016
172 See Emails between EPA and Autocar from August 2015 to June 2016.
-------
6.1.4 Framework: Duty Cycles
Organization: Volvo Group
Volvo's extensive database shows thatNREL's study does not provide representative duty cycle
weighting factors for Class 8 vehicles. We believe this is because of NREL's limited inclusion of
representative Class 8 vocational vehicles. This has biased the data towards more low-speed operation not
representative of typical Class 8 vocational duty cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 7]
As noted in the NREL report1, the population used for the NREL analysis was a total of 754 vocational
vehicles comprising 10,765 daily drive cycles (see figure 1). Assuming an average of 200 miles per day
the total mileage accumulation would be approximately 2.2 million miles for the Class 2b-8 vocational
vehicle population. This results in an average of 2,855 miles of data per vehicle. In addition to the limited
sample size for Class 8 vocational vehicles, NREL aggregated all weight classes in their determination of
drive cycle weightings for each cluster (see figures 2 and 3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.7]
[Figures 1-3 can be found on p.8 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1]2'3 1/ Duran,
Phillips, Wood, Konan, Kelly, and Gonder, "The Development of Vocational Vehicle Drive Cycles and
Segmentation" Draft, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, EPA Docket I.D. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1621121 It is not made clear in the NREL report what types of vehicles are represented by "N/A,"
though this author assumes they represent the 108 long-haul tractors in Figure 1.13/ It is not made clear in
the NREL report what weight classes distribution is represented by the "N/A" vehicles.
Volvo performed analysis utilizing data from over 12,000 in-fleet Class 8 vocational vehicles representing
over 1.3 billion miles of operation, with an average data accumulation of approximately 110,000 miles
per vehicle. The Volvo in-fleet vehicle data is represented by refuse trucks, vocational construction
straight trucks (dumps, mixers, etc.), and vocational tractors. The data do not include transit buses or
motor coaches; however, the volumes are so low as to have minimal impact on the resulting distribution.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.9]
It is not entirely clear from the NREL report whether the results were based on the full Fleet DNA
population, or the resampled population, but it is clear that, when compared to the large data set utilized
by Volvo, Volvo's data is far more representative of Class 8 vocational vehicle operation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.9]
Volvo performed analysis based on two segmentation methods. First, as seen in Table 1, we performed
segmentation as proposed in the NPRM (1037.510 (c)(2)). Second, as seen in table 2, we performed
segmentation based on our understanding of our vehicle models and their applications and where we
believed they would fall in the EPA's intended segmentation sub-categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1928-A1 p.9][Tables 1-2 can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1]
The comparative results are shown in Table 3. Based on Volvo's two segmentation methods we believe
that the NREL derived vocational duty cycle weightings in EPA's GEM P2v2.1 are more representative
of vocational vehicle operation than the NPRM values, though we find that the proposal does not provide
for sufficient 65 mph operation in multi-purpose and urban duty cycles. From this we conclude that the
NREL result does not fully match real-world operational characteristics for Class 8 vocational vehicles,
suggesting the need for HHD unique vocational duty-cycle weightings. In addition, we find limited
differences in duty cycle weighting between the two segmentation methods used in Volvo's analysis. As
such, we recommend finalization of vocational duty cycle weightings with either unique HHD
-------
weightings, or additional distance at 65 mph as noted above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.9]
[Table 3 can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1]
• As with the newly proposed GEM P2V2.1 urban cycle weighting, Volvo does not believe the Refuse
cycle is representative and needs additional high speed operation.
Volvo Group has been actively sharing Class 8 vehicle duty cycle information with EPA. We provided
data on the operation of over 11,000 vocational trucks and motor coaches downloaded from the electronic
control systems on our vehicles, spanning the full range of Class 8 vocational vehicles. This data showed
that the actual vocational duty cycles for all segments included far less low speed transient and much
more high speed operation (with a significant amount over 65 MPH) than the duty cycles proposed in the
NPRM. In addition the in-use data showed higher idle time than the proposed duty cycles. Since the
effectiveness of various efficiency technologies is highly dependent on duty cycles, it is essential that the
regulatory duty cycles mirror actual vehicle usage as closely as possible. It is our understanding that the
proposed vocational duty cycles are based on very limited data. Therefore, the agencies must take into
account the submitted data to adjust the regulatory duty cycles, the technologies effectiveness, application
rates, and standards for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.43]
The tractor duty cycles are the same as for the Phase 1 rule, except for the addition of grade to the
highway portions that make up the bulk of the cycles. In addition, the speed targets and grades are
expressed as a function of distance travelled. We support both of these changes since the addition of grade
is essential to exercise the engine over its torque/speed range and the transmission shifting in response to
steep grades. By using distance as the independent variable (rather than time), the simulation ensures that
all vehicle cover the full distance even if the target speed is not always achieved. We do note that many
tractors spend significant time above 65 MPH, which is the maximum speed in the regulatory cycles.
However, we also note that NHTSA has stated their intention to promulgate a mandatory maximum road
speed limit that would presumably limit speeds somewhere in the range just above 65 MPH. The final
GHG/Efficiency rule should incorporate duty cycles with maximum speeds that correlate with the speed
that NHTSA chooses for the mandatory limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.43-44]
Motor Coach Duty Cycle
Volvo Group has provided motor coach duty cycle data to EPA that shows these vehicles run
predominantly highway duty cycles. 65% of the distance was run above 65 mph and 10% between 55 and
65 mph, with the balance (25%) below 55 mph. Idle time was 38%. These vehicles do most of their travel
on interstate highways with some time in cities for tour groups or to access bus stations. Many of them
are used for high-end motor homes with very limited time in cities. Extensive idling is done to maintain
cabin comfort. Accessory loads are much higher due to air conditioning, electrical, and cooling fan loads
(limited ram air available in rear engine configuration). Technologies such as stop-start and hybrid are not
feasible. With motor coach volume quite limited, there is not a large staff available for product
development, even though the vehicle requirements are quite unique from other commercial vehicles. The
agencies should consider the unique requirements of this segment rather than lumping motor coaches in
with other vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.44]
We also note that motor coaches are an extremely efficient means of transporting people. The agencies
should be encouraging this mode of travel and must be careful to avoid creating disincentives to coach
travel. In particular, reliability problems and down-time are not tolerated by travelers, so complex systems
that increase failure rates have a large negative impact. This is already a problem with the US 10 criteria
emissions technology. In fact, we request that EPA consider less rigorous requirements for motor coach
-------
emissions systems that cause increased downtime, such as SCR inducements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.44]
Buses
Urban buses have a unique duty cycles, but we have little detail data since Volvo buses in the US do not
currently use Volvo powertrains and therefore are not part of our vehicle data collection system. We do
note that this is the one heavy duty vehicle segment that has been utilizing some level of hybrid
powertrains. But it is significant that we have not even certified our bus hybrid system under the Phase 1
rule due to the complexity and cost of coordinating testing of an engine and hybrid system from different
suppliers, combined with the low sales volume. Unfortunately, one of the realities of the heavy duty
market is that unique solutions are demanded for different market segments so this situation (low volume,
multiple suppliers) means that few if any hybrid systems will ever be GHG certified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.44]
Buses offer the same opportunity for very efficiently transporting people as motor coaches and should
also be incentivized in the larger scheme of reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption. The same
concerns are raised relative to complex systems reducing reliability, driving up cost, and resulting in rider
dissatisfaction due to failures. As we did for motor coaches, we request that EPA consider less rigorous
requirements for bus emissions systems that increase downtime, such as SCR inducements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.44-45]
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
While actually driving, motorhome owners report that they spend about 53% of the time cruising at 55
mph and 32% of the time cruising at 65 mph.9 Time spent idling is 16%. Given these numbers, we
support putting motorhomes in the regional cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.9]
Organization: Effenco Hybrid Solutions
Our main concern regards the proposed composite cycle weightings for the three vocational vehicle duty-
cycle-based subcategories: Urban, Multi-Purpose, and Regional. Indeed, the weighting of idle between 10
and 20% depending of the composite test cycles is very much lower than what can be observed with the
publicly available data published by NREL (http://www.nrel.gov/transportation/fleettest_fleet_dna.html)
as well as with the data collected by Effenco over years of activities. In section 2.9.3.4 of the draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis, it is however recognized that the data used to establish the proposed
weightings are not representative of the national vocational vehicle fleet and that EPA has entered into an
interagency agreement with NREL to further characterize workday idle among vocational vehicles. Still,
it is mentioned that the preliminary range of daily idle operation per vehicle indicated by this work is
about 18 to 33 percent when combining the data from all available vehicles. We reviewed the data
published by NREL on the Fleet DNA webpage and summarized below the proportion of idle for
different vocations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1148-A1 p.2]
[Tables of NREL and EFFENCO data, 'Immobile Time as a Proportion of Operating Time', can be found
on p.2-3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1148-A1 ]
Furthermore, the statistics above, coming from Effenco's own data base, suggest higher proportion at idle
as well. As these numbers show, the daily idle operation per vehicle included in the Proposed Rules is far
below was can be observed in real operating conditions for vocational vehicles. We suggest that the idle
-------
weightings should rather be 35, 45 and 55% for the Regional, Multi-Purposes and Urban composite
cycles, respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1148-A1 p.3]
Organization: Motiv Power Systems
Further Refine Duty Cycles to More Fully Capture Technology Benefits
Despite significant improvement to the duty cycle, particularly for urban and multipurpose vehicles that
spend much of the day parked or in transient operation, further improvements can be made to ensure that
the broad spectrum of vocational vehicles is adequately represented and that the regulation drives the full
spectrum of fuel consumption reduction technologies applicable to such a diverse fleet. Work trucks
frequently experience idle time exceeding those of even the urban vehicle category, and emissions from
such idle operations are not fully recognized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1184-A1 p.2]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
The Phase 1 rule's segmentation of vocational trucks is based on weight class only and does not reflect
vehicle use. Inadequate segmentation of vocational vehicle prevented the Phase 1 standards from
promoting technologies that provide major benefits for only a subset of vocational duty cycles. ACEEE
applauds the agencies' segmentation of vocational vehicles into nine subcategories in Phase 2, reflecting
both weight and usage profile, together with the appropriate reweighting of cycles to capture these usage
profiles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 19] We also support the agencies' proposal to include an
idle cycle in vocational vehicle certification. The three cycles used in the Phase 1 program could not
properly represent the operation of certain vocational vehicles in the real-world. Many vocational
vehicles, including urban buses have average speed less than 10 miles per hour. Consequently, the
transient cycle, with 15 mph average speed, and J5-mph and <5J-mph constant speed cycles could not
reproduce the appropriate average speed. Inclusion of an idle cycle will resolve this problem in Phase 2.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 19]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
Recent information included in the docket provides additional research on the diversity of the vocational
vehicle fleet and the real world behavior of these vehicles, many of which may be certified as incomplete.
It is our assessment that this new information not only strengthens the case for increasing the stringency
of the regulation of this class of vehicles but necessitates it in order to ensure the environmental benefits
of a "maximum feasible" and "technology forcing" standard.
The National Renewable Energy Lab study utilizes its Fleet DNA database to show that vehicles largely
fall into two classes of operation, high- and low-speed, with a much smaller fraction of vehicles bridging
the two duty cycles.12 The study finds that the high-speed vehicles spend a much higher fraction of time at
cruise speeds above 55 mph than the weightings of the vocational regional category from the proposal,
while all vehicles spend a much higher fraction of time at idle than the idle cycle weighting in the
proposal.13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.5]
Organization: Isuzu Motors Limited
The duty cycles for Regional, Multi-Purpose, and Urban use are not accurate compared to real world data.
Isuzu would like to work with the agencies and submit data to help generate more accurate duty cycles for
the final rule.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1263-Al p.3]
-------
Organization: National Waste & Recycle Association
Route distance and number of stops: The distance a refuse truck travels in a day varies primarily by
population density. In a densely populated urban area the truck can travel as little as 50 miles from the
time it leaves the fleet yard to its return at the end of the day. In less densely populated suburban and rural
areas, the daily route can be longer due to the longer distances between individual "stops." [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0071-A1 p.3]
More importantly, refuse trucks constantly stop and go while on-route in order to collect a load of waste
or recyclables. This constant stopping and going has a major impact on fuel consumption. As an example
of the number of daily stops, residential routes normally have somewhere between 800 and 1200 stops per
day. Some automated collection routes, however, are capable of as many as 1500 stops in a day.
Commercial routes tend to have fewer stops than residential routes, but can easily have well over 100
stops. Moreover, those stops often involve more backing up and maneuvering to obtain access to the
container. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.3]
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
'Given the relationship between vehicle speed and technology benefits, it is imperative that EPA and
NHTSA develop drive cycle weightings that are representative of real-world operating conditions. The
agencies should contact the Federal Highway Administration and American Transportation Research
Institute to determine how available data can be used to characterize the speeds at which trucks actually
operate and incorporate this information into the speed weightings and technology assessments. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 11 -12]
Organization: CALSTART
Using the life cycle cost model we validated with fleets we assessed business cases in seven specific truck
use profiles including Class 8 Regional Haul and three medium duty use profiles: Urban, rural/intra-city
and work site support.
While structured before your draft rules were released, the categories are very similar to the three
vocational segments you are proposing and which we do support. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1
p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.153.]]
Organization: CALSTART
Coupled with the segmentation changes, we support as well changes to the test process that incorporate a
larger component of transient operation, idle operation as well as the addition of an idle-only cycle. These
changes to the regulatory test cycles better reflect the diversity of the vocational fleet and the duty cycles
and general use profiles of end users, which will help identify the appropriate technology solutions for
reducing fuel use from this sector. However, we believe that even the current draft cycles do not
adequately reflect the percentage of driving idle time and are working with industry partners to share data
they have that quantifies this. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.5]
An important consideration around the idling and speed component, however, involves accounting for the
transition to and from idling states. While we applaud the agencies' inclusion of more idling time and
openness to expanding it as data justifies, simply adding in an idle element to the cycle is still misleading.
By its very nature, idling occurs during a driving cycle, not in a vacuum - it is connected to the driving.
This means there are deceleration and acceleration events surrounding them that have an impact on
-------
average speed, engine transients, and fuel used that are important to the strategies to address them. Just
"dropping" idle in and providing it with more time in the cycle is insufficient to understand its impacts.
This is clearly most important to vocational cycles, though not unimportant to Class 8 tractors. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.5]
Additionally, there is a separate category of idling we will call "work site idle" that carries a very
different characteristic and duration that we do not believe is at all captured in the driving cycle but also
may not be effectively captured by the "off-cycle" credit process. Work site idle is generally characterized
by higher idle RPM and therefore higher fuel use as the engine is driving pumps or other devices to
operate equipment or tool circuits. Examples include underground compressor trucks, overhead crane or
boom trucks, and cement mixer vehicles. The duration of such high-idling is measured in minutes and
hours, not seconds, in contrast with driving idle events. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.5]
Organization: CALSTART
Segmentation and Duty Cycles. We support changes made relative to Phase 1 in the proposed Phase 2
regulation in providing additional market segmentation options for the vocational segment. Overall, we
believe the agencies' have reasonably captured a more useful description of the high level differences in
how trucks are used in the vocational truck space while still keeping complexity to a minimum. While not
perfect, it is sensitive to the multi-stage manufacturing nature of the vocational segment - OEMs do not
always know exactly in what vocation a truck will end up. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.4]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
Dividing vocational vehicles into three distinct duty cycles is a reasonable compromise with the
complexity and diversity of real world duty cycles experienced by these vehicles, and it represents a
substantial improvement over Phase 1. Acknowledging the diversity of vehicle operation and including
cycles with a significantly higher fraction of low-speed, transient operation will help incentivize a broader
selection of technologies. Furthermore, acknowledging the high fraction of idle with a separate idle cycle
will similarly incentivize idle reduction technologies that reduce fuel usage and emissions from these
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1329-A2 p.23]
However, there are still classes of vehicle that are not necessarily well-represented by this
characterization of the vocational vehicle sector, which may mean that the rules are not necessarily fully
incentivizing all technologies applicable to the sector. Refuse trucks, for example, undergo extremely
heavy stop-start operation beyond what is captured in the transient cycle and use a lot of fuel running the
compactor from the PTO. Many other vehicles use a tremendous amount of fuel during worksite idling,
which can be a high-speed idle that is not currently modeled by GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-
A2 p.23]
Work site usage is currently only captured under the hybrid PTO test procedure. While this will help
incentivize technologies designed to reduce such usage, the agencies have not considered this in setting
their stringency, and therefore they may also not be accurately assessing the fuel use from this sector,
which would affect the total benefits of these regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.23-24]
Organization: Autocar, LLC
The NREL draft report is intended to support the final rulemaking with respect to vocational vehicle drive
cycle weightings. However, Autocar has identified deficiencies in the study that warrant further analysis.
For instance, the NREL report summarizes data collected from 57 refuse trucks. Autocar believes that it
-------
has collected similar data sets from its trucks in the field, and that Autocar's data and resulting analysis
differs significantly from what is reflected in the report. Thus, Autocar requests that the agencies provide
the underlying refuse truck drive cycle data for review, and also take the opportunity to receive and
review Autocar's data and analysis, to determine whether the agencies are using appropriate data and
analysis as the basis for its rulemaking. Autocar plans to submit its readily available data in response to
the NREL report later this week. Additional time will allow Autocar to provide other drive cycle data sets
developed during the testing and development of hybrid drives for refuse trucks, which will be important
in assessing the validity of the NREL data and the analysis of those data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1869-A1 p.2-3]
Autocar's Data Contradicts the Limited Data Set Presented by the NREL Report.
1.1 Autocar Has Identified Two Sources of Data on Refuse Truck Drive Cycles. As set forth in Autocar's
request for an extension of time to review and comment on the Vocational Custom Chassis Memorandum
(the 'Memorandum')2 and the Notice of Data Availability (the 'NODA')3 (see Section 4 of these
comments, below), Autocar has data which contradicts the drive cycle data presented in the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory report (the "NREL Report').4 Further, Autocar believes that the
manufacturer of its hybrid-drive powertrain may be a source of additional data which accurately
represents the drive cycle of refuse trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-18 85-A 1 p.4]
1.2 The Data in the NREL Report on Refuse Vehicle's Operational Duty Cycles Are Not Representative
of Refuse Trucks. In Tables 3 and 4 of the NREL Report, the number of Mean Stops noted for refuse
trucks indicates that the data were collected on urban and commercial, high-density routes, which does
not reflect the diversity of refuse chassis' operation (city and suburban residential collection in particular).
Additionally, while the NREL Report noted high average RPM relative to low speed, there is no mention
of stational PTO5 operation, a staple of virtually every refuse truck and a drive cycle factor that renders
workday idle-reduction technologies useless. Finally, the performance of work trucks such as refuse
trucks is measured in hours, not miles, and thus none of the 'per mile' metrics are relevant or informative.
Autocar recognizes the difficulty of accurately plotting the drive cycle in heavy-duty refuse trucks but
believes that ignoring these particular factors has led to an impossible proposed compliance requirement
for refuse. In the limited time available for review and reaction to the NREL Report, Autocar assembled
its own test data on drive cycle and offers the informative and analysis set forth in Appendix 1. [Appendix
1 can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-18 85-A2] Autocar believes that this more
representative data demonstrates that the drive cycles of refuse trucks in particular are so unique that they
cannot be held to the same standards and compliance structure as other vocational and heavy-duty trucks.
As set forth in the request for extension of the comment period on the NODA, Autocar welcomes the
opportunity to review its data and analysis with the agencies, in an effort to ensure appropriate data is
used as a basis for the regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.4]
Autocar footnotes: 2 Vocational Vehicle Technology Packages for Custom Chasses Memorandum, From
Lauren Steele, EPA Environmental Engineer, OTAQ/ASD (Feb. 12, 2016), No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1719.
3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles - Phase 2 (the 'Proposed Regulations') - Notice of Data Availability, 81 Fed. Reg. 10822 (March
2, 2016).
4 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, The Development of Vocational Vehicle Drive Cycles and
Segmentation, p. 11 (Feb. 2016).
-------
5 'PTO,' or power take-off, refers to drawing power from the engine to run auxiliary systems or functions
such as compacting trash, dumping carts, loading and unloading roll-off containers or mixing or pumping
concrete. The engine may operate at high RPMs during the PTO operation.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The agencies request comment on a National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL") study of
vocational vehicle segmentation by drive cycle and weight.5 A drive cycle is a data set that shows the
speed versus time of a vehicle during its route, including stops. It is important here because the assumed
drive cycles in GEM directly impact a vehicle's GEM score. Apparently the agencies intend to use this
data analysis to support "ongoing refinement" of the proposed rule and GEM, the sole means to determine
a vehicle's emission level. It does not appear that NREL collected new data for this study, but analyzed
existing data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.3]
Navistar's initial issue is whether the data used to generate the NREL study is representative. The NREL
study is based on data from its Fleet DNA database, which appears to be based on voluntary submissions
of data for the drive cycles for particular vehicles that happen to have been submitted to NREL by fleets
and others. A primary concern is sample size. For example, in the NREL study the refuse truck population
in Class 6/7 was a mere 2 trucks and only 55 in Class 8. The total refuse truck population has been
estimated by EPA to be approximately 176,000.6 For aggregated drive cycles to be minimally
representative, they should at least reflect urban, suburban and rural conditions and flat, hilly and
mountainous terrain and combinations of the foregoing. It is impossible for the agencies to have a truly
representative sample from only two Class 6/7 refuse trucks driving their individual routes. Without
accurate drive cycle data, the ultimate GEM-derived emission level could be wildly inaccurate based
simply on differences between the way a vehicle is driven on real world routes and the assumptions built
into GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.3-4]
It also appears that this data comes largely if not entirely from voluntary submissions from various fleets.
This means that it is largely self-selected, coming from fleets and others that choose to provide
information and do so accurately. Moreover, it seems likely that much of this data comes from multiple
vehicles in one fleet. A fleet may very well operate in a limited geographical area and have similar drive
cycles, which means that the representative nature of this data with respect to the national fleet may be
highly suspect and could be skewed by only a few fleets that have chosen to contribute data. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.4]
The agencies, nonetheless, propose significant changes from the original NPRM based on the data. EPA
concluded from the NREL vehicle study that "[t]wo distinct clusters were identified: one with fewer stops
and higher avg speeds, other with more stops and lower avg speeds. A third exhibits characteristics of
each: multimodal vehicles." Observations such as this from the NREL limited vehicle dataset have led the
agencies to propose a very different weighting scheme for the vocational drive cycles. The major changes
are significantly more idle time and a shift in the split for each category regarding % miles for 65, 55 and
transient.7 The new GEM on the docket provides results that are no longer comparable to anything
included in the NPRM for vocational as the technology benefits are significantly revised. These changes
are significant and require additional clarification with respect to the segmentation and standards in order
to assess the impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.4]
Unfortunately, the NREL study does not clarify the uncertainties with regard to the vocational portion of
the proposed rule. We remain very concerned that the agencies do not have sufficient data to revise the
rule in a manner that is not wholly arbitrary. Beyond that, as we discussed above related to the
Memorandum, we know very little about how the agencies intend to use this data. As such, we reiterate
-------
our request that the agencies postpone finalization of the vocational rule until they have an appropriate
amount of real-world data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.4]
2 NPRM Comments at 31.
5 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1621.
6 Environmental Protection Agency, Population and Activity of On-road Vehicles in MOVES2014, EPA-
420-R-16003a (March 2016). The MOVES2014 report does not break out vehicle class from the total
176,000. However, the total population in the NREL study was a sample of 57 to represent 176,000
vehicles, only .0003% of the actual population.
7 Included with the docket entry referenced in the immediately preceding footnote was a document
entitled "Vocational Strawman" in the form of a powerpoint presentation. It appears that this may be a
rough outline of revisions to the proposed rule.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - Proposed composite test cycle weightings (in percent) for vocational vehicles
The Composite Test Cycle is weighted based on the CARB transient cycle, 55 mph cruise with road grade
cycle, and 65 mph cruise with road grade cycle. The idling portion is already included in those three
cycles. But in the NPRM's Table V-2, it appears that idling is additional to the three cycles. And if the
percentages in each row in Table V-2 are added up, they sum to higher than 100 percent. For example,
under urban conditions, the table indicates 94 percent CARB transient, 6 percent 55 mph cruise, and 20
percent idle. CARB staff recommends clarification on how these percentages will be used. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 121-122]
Allison Transmission:
The agencies have requested comment regarding "the nature of vocational workday idle operation,
including how much of it is in traffic and how much is while the vehicle is parked." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.42]
Allison is the largest supplier of transmissions for vocational vehicles in North America. We routinely
capture and analyze actual work day duty cycles for numerous different vocations. In support of the Phase
2 GHG initiative, we randomly selected 240 North American duty cycles covering vocations such as
Airport Refoeler; Bus (Transit, Commuter, Shuttle, Tour Coach, School), City Delivery (Armored Car,
Beverage, Van, Walk-In Van), Construction (Concrete Mixer, Dump, Snow Plow, Equipment Hauler),
Farm, Straddle Carrier, Line Haul, Log Hauler, Oil Field (Draw Works, Pumping), Refuse (Landfill, No
Landfill, Recycling, Transfer), Utility (Municipal Maintenance, Public Utility, Street Sweeper), Wrecker,
and Dock Spotter. These duty cycles averaged 7.6 hours in length and generally represented a full
workday of operation. The stop time data for a representative sample of the data are summarized below:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.42]
[Tables of stop time data can be found on p.43 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1]
-------
This data does not differentiate between stopped in traffic and parked. Knowing the ARB Transient cycle
has 16% time at a stop and there is an idle cycle of various percentages, the agencies have proposed that
the vocational weightings result in the following equivalent stop time percentage: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.43]
With the exception of the concrete mixer vocation, the stop time percentages from the current EPA
weightings appear reasonable and reflect Allison's own analysis of percentage stopped time for the cross
section of the wide variety of vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.43]
Organization: New Flyer of America Inc.
As an example of differences in the vocational driving cycles, the FTA requires transit bus manufactures
to complete fuel economy testing. This test program is prescribed under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) under the Bus Test Program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1306-A1 p.l]
There are three test phases to replicate the operating conditions of a transit bus: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1306-A1 p.2]
1. A central business district (CBD) phase of 2 miles with 7 stops per mile and a top speed of 20 mph.
2. An arterial phase of 2 miles with 2 stops per mile and a top speed of 40 mph
3. A commuter phase of 4 miles with 1 stop and a maximum speed of 40 mph.
Transit bus manufacturers optimize fuel economy performance to the FTA standard test procedures.
These test results are commonly used by transit authorities during bus procurements for product
performance comparisons. While it's quantitatively unknown the magnitude of GHG and fuel
consumptions differences between the FTA driving cycle and the proposed vocational and fuel economy
drive cycle, New Flyer is concerned the categorization of transit buses into the larger segment of
vocational trucks may yield a further economic burden to bus manufacturers and transit agencies. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1306-A1 p.2]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Odyne has found that our customers drive an average of 25 miles a day (1.5 hrs). Outside of the benefits
that hybrids provide to the driving portion (MPG improvements), reductions in idling can be significant.
Idle time is currently broken into two categories: traffic and parked. Odyne believes that the parked idle
should also be broken down to normal and work (jobsite) idle. Normal idle occurs around 750RPM and
work idle is typically much higher and can range from 800 to 2000RPM, which has a greater impact on
fuel consumption and emissions. It is also important to account for the amount and type of work being
done since that relates to work being done on the IC engine or replaced by the hybrid system. We have
found that the typical duty cycle of the total time in work mode (PTO mode, work load) relative to the
actual time running the application is around 20%. Based on our customers' workday we see an average
of 1.6 hours just parked (non-PTO) and an additional 2.8 hours parked in the work mode (PTO, e-PTO).
Fuel consumption during parked and work idle is also dramatically different. We have found that parked
idle can consume up to 1 gals/hr, whereas work idle can consume as much as 2 gals/hr during high RPMs
and load. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.22-23]
-------
This information comes from the fleet data we collected using our telematics. Based on this information
Odyne feels that the percentage of idle time that is being proposed for the vocational drive cycles
(Regional, Multi-purpose, Urban) is not high enough and is not weighted properly. The Urban drive cycle
- proposed at 20% - would be used for our application, and our data shows that the percent idle time can
be significantly higher. Using our daily averages we found a typical workday to be 6 hours (this doesn't
account for other things like startup, shutdown and lunch). In general, we've found that driving is only
25% of the workday and time at the parked/jobsite accounts for the remaining 75%. Then when looking at
idle time over the workday and breaking it down into each component, we've found the full workday to
represent 3% idle while driving (11 min., transmission in drive, brake pedal applied, vehicle at 0 MPH),
26% idle while parked (1.6 hrs., parking brake on, in neutral, no PTO) and 46% idle (2.8 hrs., parking
brake on, in neutral, and PTO engaged) while parked in work mode (e-PTO). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1920-A2 p. 11-12]
Odyne strongly believes that it is important to account for the full workday vocational vehicle duty cycle:
including driving, idling, and stationary operation of truck-mounted equipment through a Power Take-off
(PTO). Then relative to idle it is very important to break it down into the three categories mentioned
above and properly weight them. We believe that the worksite idle is the most important aspect of idle
reduction and has the most benefit for vocational work truck applications. Since most of the vocational
vehicles monitored were observed to spend most of their time at the jobsite in the work mode it should be
weighted more heavily. For additional details you can reference our testimony at the public hearing in
August at Chicago and our comments submitted for the main proposal under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827 in October. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p. 16-17]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Comments on docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1621:
The draft report entitled "The Development of Vocational Vehicle Drive Cycles and Segmentation" helps
to advance the understanding of vocational vehicle duty cycles, an important aspect in developing
appropriate Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for medium- and heavy-duty
engines and vehicles. The report has helped to identify and characterize various vocational vehicle
segments and the typical drive cycles for those segments. Odyne agrees it is very important to use
appropriate drive cycles when evaluating vehicle performance, since there is such a wide range of
applications for vocational medium and heavy duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p.4]
Based upon Odyne's work with the U.S. Department of Energy, the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) and various state agencies within California (SCAQMD, CEC and CARB), please see report:
http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002006566, the
company recommends that the entire duty cycle, not just the vehicle drive cycle, should be incorporated
into future regulations and testing, especially for medium and heavy duty vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p.4]
Odyne considers the "drive cycle" of a medium or heavy duty vehicle as the portion of vehicle operation
that occurs when the vehicle utilizes propulsion to drive from location to location. The "drive cycle"
includes the operation of the vehicle when it is moving and when it is stationary along the route, such as
at a stop sign, stop light or in stop and go traffic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1920-A2 p.4-5]
Odyne considers the entire duty cycle to include both the "drive cycle" and operation of the vehicle when
it provides power during stationary activities (such as operation of the engine to power HVAC during
delivery of goods or to power equipment often mounted to a vocational vehicle at a work site). The entire
vehicle duty cycle may be composed of several modes of operation that create GHG emissions. Those
modes include driving, engine idle while in drive (such as when at a stop sign or when in stop and go
-------
traffic), engine idle while in neutral (such as when a vocation vehicle is stationary and operating engine
powered HVAC and/or has continuing low voltage loads, such as warning lights that are on at a work
site), and engine idle while using Power Take-off (PTO) (such as when operating the prime mover to
power truck mounted hydraulic equipment). In some circumstances an additional vehicle mounted engine
might also be consuming fuel, such as an independent engine powered electrical generator or engine
powered a welder. The various types of engine idle in aggregate can compose a very significant percent of
overall GHG emissions for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1920-A2 p.5]
Based upon testing performed at SwRI and CE-CERT, fuel consumption at idle can vary significantly
depending on the operation of the stationary vehicle. Engine idle in neutral may consume less than one
gallon of diesel fuel per hour, or the same engine may consume over 2 gallons per hour in a high idle
mode when providing power to equipment through a PTO. Due to the significant variation in fuel
consumption at idle, the large number of hours in idle per year and the large number of vehicles that idle,
Odyne encourages the EPA to characterize non-propulsion operation of the engine carefully. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p.5-6]
Inaccurate test results may be produced if the testing was performed the same way for significantly
different applications due to differences in duty cycles and fuel consumption. The NREL study helps to
reinforce this point, especially in terms of drive cycles, but it was not clear that differences between
driving and stationary (work / job site) impacts were adequately measured and segmented. Odyne
recommends that testing be developed to accurately reflect the fuel consumption of vocational vehicles
that occurs over the entire day, especially if vehicles typically operate engines for extended periods of
time to power equipment at work sites. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p.6]
As an example, referring to Figure 1, page 8 of the report entitled "Vocational Strawman," while Odyne
supports the increase in the percent of time at zero mph (24%, 52% and 47%) for the possible composite
test cycle revisions, because the higher percentages generally are supported by Odyne's own 1 Hz
telematics measurements of over 100 vocational vehicles in the field that show a high percent of
stationary engine operation, Odyne has concerns about the type of idle that is incurred and what type of
test will be used to assess various efficiency solutions. It is not clear to Odyne whether the increased idle
time percentages in the possible composite test cycle revisions were incurred when the vehicle was in
drive (such as when an engine is typically spinning a torque converter on an automatic transmission but
the vehicle brakes keep the vehicle stationary at a stop light), or whether a significant amount of time was
spent with very little load on the idling engine (such as during delivery of goods with the transmission in
neutral and the parking brake applied) or whether the engine was under high load in idle with the PTO
engaged. Odyne requests that the EPA specify if the idle time would be tested with the transmission in
drive (which might favor an engine stop/start system or electrically powered de-fueling solution such as
that described in U.S. patent 9,061,680), or if it would be tested with the transmission in neutral with the
parking braking applied (which might favor an idle reduction system focused on HVAC and 12 volt
power), or if it would be tested with the transmission in neutral with the parking brake applied and a
significant load on the Power Take-off (PTO) (which might favor a hybrid, PHEV or ePTO solution that
can power the PTO with the engine off). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1920-A2 p.6-7] [Figure 1 can be
found on p. 8 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1920-A2]
The population of vocational trucks that have a power take-off is very significant and often appears to be
treated as a small minority of overall sales for testing and regulatory purposes. Odyne recommends
making it easier for efficiency solutions that provide power to the PTO to gain credit for GHG reductions.
Based upon work performed with input from the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), Odyne
estimates that over 145,000 Power Take-off units (PTOs) are typically installed on medium and heavy
duty trucks annually (please see the original Odyne submission for details and / or contact NTEA's
Director of market data and research, Steve Latin-Kasper at 248-489-8193 or via email at
stevelk@ntea.com). Based upon the estimated number of class 4-8 straight truck chassis sales (box-off)
-------
sold in 2015, which closely represents total medium and heavy duty vocation truck sales, PTO's may be
installed on approximately 50% of vehicles within that range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p.8-
9]
Odyne encourages the EPA to include accurate PTO modeling in GEM and encourages the further
characterization of entire duty cycles (both driving and stationary operation) for vocational vehicles. The
modeling of hybrid and ePTO solutions should include a variety of factors in addition to inputs affecting
propulsion efficiency already in the model, including: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p.9]
• Increase or decrease in fuel efficiency during driving due to work site efficiency solution
o Odyne has demonstrated increases in driving efficiency of over 40% during high charge deplete
operation of plug-in hybrid systems that interface through the PTO with unmodified fully automatic
transmissions (please see EPRI report:
http://www.eDri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002006566 for details).
Those inputs should be recognized, but should also factor into worksite efficiency modeling. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p.9]
o Certain ePTO systems that are designed to only provide electric power for equipment when the vehicle
is stationary, actually reduce driving fuel efficiency. ePTO systems add weight to the vehicle without
providing a propulsion benefit, decreasing driving efficiency, and may charge the ePTO battery system
when the vehicle is in motion, further reducing driving efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2
p.9]
• Loads (power and energy) to be supplied during stationary operation of the vehicle by hybrid, ePTO or
export power systems
o Odyne recommends better characterization of the loads typically requiring power during stationary
work site operations. Those loads may include power to operate electrical HVAC for the cab, low voltage
loads including lights or small inverters for electronics, mechanical loads due to the operation of
hydraulic pumps and air compressors, and electrical loads to provide 120V/240V power for tools or
equipment. Overall power and energy should be characterized so that various efficiency solutions can be
accurately tested. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1920-A2 p. 10]
o Capabilities of the hybrid, ePTO or other work site solution in terms of its ability to provide power and
energy with the engine off. Battery size of various systems can differ, a smaller battery may result in
greater engine operation at the work site. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1920-A2 p. 10]
Testing and Verification
Testing truck emissions requires a concise understanding of the full workday for all classes of trucks and
vocation. For vocational vehicles, with their myriad of applications, this can be a difficult task. However,
Odyne has been tracking full day duty cycles for Utility work trucks covering Aerial / Compressor /
Digger / Underground applications for the past 5 years, alongside leading organizations including EPRI,
DOE, CEC, and SCAQMD. Odyne appreciates the EPA's focus on the importance of accurate modeling
here. We have also done testing at facilities like SWRI and CE-CERT to verify fuel economy and
emission benefits. The EPA has done well in identifying the importance of the full workday (real world
usage) and separating it into driving (traffic) and stationary (parked). Our system impacts both categories
and needs to be accounted for appropriately since we are not just an idle reduction technology. Our
understanding is that the EPA has chosen the HDT drive cycle for the transient portion of testing, and
CARB has chosen the UDDS drive cycle; both drive cycles represent how our customers drive their
vehicles. Odyne would highly suggest having a common drive cycle used by CARB and EPA (preferably
the HDT cycle) to be used across all testing and it is important to evaluate this over a realistic period of
time or distance instead of just the single drive cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.21-22]
-------
Current regulations are focused on engine certification and some consideration for vehicle or powertrain
testing under specific drive cycles. In Odyne's work truck applications, driving does occur, though this is
a small portion of activity compared to the time spent at the jobsite idling at higher speeds and loads (in
addition to normal idle when they are not working). So we feel it is very important to evaluate fuel
consumption and emissions based on a full workday instead of only driving. Just as it is important to test
driving conditions with the appropriate type of drive cycle it is also important to test the stationary with
the appropriate cycle. The workday test cycle needs to account for the appropriate type of driving and
stationary to have a better correlation to real world usage and impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-
A1 p. 22]
Response:
The agencies are relying on work conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), as well as the duty cycle information provided in these public comments, in
establishing the weighting factors for the test cycles to be used in the certification of heavy-duty
vocational vehicles to the final Phase 2 standards. We disagree that we have not provided adequate notice
of these cycles. At proposal we included analysis in the docket on the possible impact of an increased
weighting of the idle cycle on vehicle emissions as represented in GEM.173 Further, the NREL report
released with the NODA was not a surprise, as we had signaled intent to rely on that work at the time of
the proposal (80 FR 40288), and some manufacturers voluntarily shared data with NREL as part of this
process. In any case, the NODA afforded opportunity to comment on the data, an opportunity of which
commenters vigorously availed themselves.
Based on available fleet data, NREL identified three general clusters of vehicle behavior: one cluster of
vehicles most often driving with slower speeds and frequent stops; one with higher average speeds and
fewer stops; and one multi-modal cluster with vehicles that may operate similarly to either of the other
clusters on any given day. In response to concerns expressed by some commenters that the vehicles from
which NREL collected data for the cycle may not be representative of the overall vocational vehicle fleet,
we are confident any discrepancies are sufficiently small to allow us to use the NREL work to establish
weighting factors for three general driving patterns. NREL's Fleet DNA database contains millions of
miles of historical real world drive cycle data captured from medium- and heavy vehicles operating across
the United States.174 The database encompasses data from existing DOE activities as well as contributions
from valued industry stakeholder participants. The agencies consequently do not accept the criticism in
comments that this database is arbitrarily self-selected. For the vocational vehicle project, NREL
examined data drawn from the Fleet DNA database representing 913 unique vehicles comprising 16,250
days of operation. The Fleet DNA data used as a source for the NREL analysis has been collected from a
total of 30 unique fleets/data providers operating across 22 unique geographic locations spread across the
United States. This includes locations with topology ranging from the foothills of Denver, Colorado to the
flats of Miami, Florida. The range of fleets, geographic locations, and total number of vehicles analyzed
ensures results which include the influence of these factors. While no analysis will be perfect without
unlimited resources and data, it is the researchers' understanding that the Fleet DNA database is the
largest and most thorough publicly accessible vocational vehicle usage database currently in operation.
Further, the NREL cluster analysis was performed on the data and the NREL staff examined the results
along vocational and weight class parameters. As the analysis was focused on characterizing driving
behavior independent of vehicle configuration, the results of the analysis and aggregation of the weight
classes is representative of the vehicles demonstrating similar driving behavior regardless of weight
173 See Memo to Docket, "Analysis of Possible Vocational Vehicle Standards Based on Alternative Idle Cycle
Weightings", May 8, 2015, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0117
174 See http://www.nrel.gov/transportation/fleettest fleet dna.html
-------
class. NREL performed additional analysis attempting to subdivide the results into a greater number of
clusters (see Chapter 2.3 of the NREL drive cycle report) and provided no superior findings.
Although the agencies have attempted to develop these factors to accurately represent average vehicle
behavior, failure to do so would not necessarily make the cycles invalid. Just as the in-use effectiveness
of engine technologies can be reasonably evaluated using testing that is limited to 68-86°F, the
effectiveness of vehicle technologies could be reasonably evaluated using duty cycles that reflect
operation different than the average vehicles. We believe the more relevant question is whether or not the
final duty cycles exercise the technologies over enough of the range of in-use operation to effect in-use
reductions. In this context, the weighting factors and duty-cycles are fully adequate as we now go on to
discuss.
Public comments as well as the NREL work supported stronger weighting of idle in the test cycles. At
proposal and even at the time of the NODA we had not yet received analysis from NREL on how to
distinguish parked idle from driving idle operation. We have since conducted extensive outreach to
affected stakeholders including interim releases of GEM, to provide opportunity for comment on the
regulatory impacts of distinguishing parked idle from driving idle. Statistical summaries of vehicles in
the three NREL clusters demonstrated that on average, vehicles in all three clusters operated between 22
and 28 percent of a work day in a parked idle state. As explained in Section 1.5 of the NREL report, one
of the drive cycle metrics that was analyzed was percentage of operating time at zero speed. That
statistical metric was identified for each cluster initially, which essentially represented a combination of
both parked idle and drive idle conditions. NREL found that vehicles in the Multipurpose and Urban
clusters statistically experience an engine-on zero-speed condition between 47 and 52 percent of a work
day. Effenco's comments are corroborative of these data, where their comment suggested the range of
total zero speed time might be between 35 and 55 percent. The further work to distinguish different types
of zero speed operation (parked vs drive) is described in Section 5.5 of the NREL report. In response to
compelling comments from Allison, time at zero speed during the ARB transient cycle is now accounted
for when assigning weights to the drive idle cycle. By using these statistical targets along with the
histograms of distance accumulated while operating within 2-mph speed bins, the agencies assigned
weighting factors for each composite test cycle. We incorporated information from Volvo regarding
percent of distance accumulated at speeds above 55 mph into the composite weighting factors for
Multipurpose and Urban class 8 vocational vehicles. See discussion in the RIA Chapter 3.4.3.1. The
Volvo information does show that the vehicles they produce with low cab forward configurations do
accumulate more miles above 55 mph than those in NREL's dataset, and the vehicles they identify as
VHD/GU designed for construction applications do accumulate more miles above 65 mph than those in
NREL's dataset. Although both NREL and Volvo data showed vehicles whose behavior would logically
be classified as Urban, accumulating some miles (from one to seven percent) in the 65 mph range, the
agencies are applying a zero weighting factor to the 65 mph cycle for all Urban vehicles for certification
purposes. The accumulated miles above 65 mph have instead been applied to the composite weighting of
the 55 mph test cycle. This is because we believe it is important to have a test cycle available in the
primary program for vehicles that may regularly drive on urban or local highways, but are not expected
(or designed) to drive on rural highways. The final weighting factors of the composite test cycles are
shown in Table 6-1.
The agencies do not agree with the comment that refuse vehicles are underrepresented in the NREL
database. Indeed, because the full NREL database also contains over five percent refuse trucks and our
MOVES model estimates that refuse trucks comprise only three percent of newly manufactured
vocational vehicles each year, we directed NREL to remove excess refuse trucks from their final analysis,
to avoid skewing the data by over-representing refuse trucks. We expect that manufacturers seeking to
certify refuse trucks (in the primary program) that will have greater highway use than is represented by
the Urban test cycle may certify in the Multipurpose subcategory. For refuse trucks certified to the
-------
optional custom chassis standards, GEM will apply the Urban cycle weightings. Custom chassis
manufacturers wishing to be recognized for applying cycle-dependent technologies such as driveline
improvements may certify to the primary standards and select the most appropriate test cycle.
Table 6-1 Composite Test Cycle Weightings (in Percent) for Vocational Vehicles
ARB
Transient
55 mph Cruise
with Road
Grade 3
65 mph Cruise
with Road
Grade 11
Parked Idle
Drive Idle
Regional
0.20
0.24
0.56
0.25
0.00
Multi-Purpose (2b-
7)
0.54
0.29
0.17
0.25
0.17
Multi-Purpose
(class 8)
0.54
0.23
0.23
0.25
0.17
Urban (2b-7)
0.92
0.08
0.00
0.25
0.15
Urban (class 8)
0.90
0.10
0.00
0.25
0.15
When vocational vehicles are tested over the parked idle cycle, their emissions and fuel consumption will
be measured while in a low idle state, without torque applied from an automatic transmission in gear, for
example. During the drive idle test cycle, the transmission torque will be applied unless the transmission
is a manual, AMT, or an automatic with a neutral idle feature activated. The parked idle cycle does not
include high-idle PTO operation. Although we agree with the commenter from Odyne that this is a mode
during which significant GHG emissions and fuel consumption can occur for some vocational vehicles,
we do not agree that the standard test procedure needs to include this mode for all vocational vehicles.
Our reasons for reaching this conclusion are outlined in the Preamble at Section V.C. l.c.iii. In our
partnership with NREL, we have characterized the operation of utility vehicles with PTO, and the results
are somewhat similar to those described by Odyne. Of over 1,500 work days analyzed for over 80 trucks,
NREL observed the average fraction of a work day spent driving is 34 percent, with average 36 percent in
PTO mode, and average 30 percent in low (parked) idle. The fraction of low parked idle is consistent with
the fraction observed for other vocational vehicles and is consistent with the test cycle weightings in
Table 6-1. Below in Section 6.3.6.3 we address comments requesting the agencies to recognize
technologies that can reduce emissions during high-idle PTO mode operation. This is also addressed in
the Preamble at Section V.C. l.c.iii.
The agencies have determined that it is impractical, from a regulatory perspective, to establish separate,
unique test cycles for other vehicles such as transit buses, coach buses, or refuse trucks (although the
optional custom chassis standards provide flexibilities consistent with these vehicles' duty cycles). In
considering the challenges of such an undertaking, as well as the market structure of manufacturers who
produce such vehicles, the agencies are instead adopting separate standards for transit buses and refuse
trucks as part of the final Phase 2 program for custom vocational chassis, as described in Section 6.2.3.
Further discussion of comments related to creation of separate regulatory subcategories for some vehicles
is found below in Section 6.1.5.
In the final weeks before promulgation of the Phase 2 rules, the agencies received significant new
comments from vehicle manufacturers, which suggest there is some uncertainty with respect to the three
drive cycle structure being adopted. The agencies will continue to analyze this new information and any
other new information we receive, and we will continue to actively engage with manufacturers and other
stakeholders to determine if future revisions to the vocational vehicle program structure are warranted. In
Chapter 2.2 of the NREL report, an alternate bi-modal clustering analysis is also presented, where instead
of having a distinct middle cluster, vehicles with highly variable driving patterns are grouped as either
-------
high speed or low speed. A preliminary update provided by NREL includes cycle weightings that
correspond with this two cluster depiction of vehicle behavior.175 Based on the NREL report and other
information, the agencies believe it is appropriate to finalize a regulatory subcategory structure that
includes a drive cycle appropriate for mixed use vehicles (a middle cluster); especially considering that
the ultimate application of incomplete chassis is largely unknown at the time of certification. In other
words, we are adopting a program structure that follows NREL's three cluster depiction of vehicle
behavior, although the record shows that a two cluster structure could have been chosen for one or more
vehicle weight classes. It is possible that further analysis of new data could lead us to consider proposing
amendments to adopt the two cluster approach for one or more vehicle weight classes, or to consider
amending the regulatory constraints limiting the choice of drive cycle subcategory that we are adopting to
prevent potential adverse impacts of vehicle misclassification (See Section 6.5.1 below). However, at this
time the final program structure will remain in place unless and until the agencies determine that revisions
to the vocational vehicle program structure are warranted. See Section V.b. l.a of the Preamble for further
discussion of this issue.
6.1.5 Framework: Regulatory Subcategories
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Further vocational vehicle segments and more realistic test cycles. The more extensive segmentation
of vocational vehicles and the accompanying cycle re-weightings will better reflect these vehicles'
operating characteristics. Test cycles will match vehicles' real-world duty cycles much better than they do
in the Phase 1 program, especially with the addition of an idle cycle. Inclusion of road grade on the 55-
and 65-mph steady-state cycles in Phase 2 will better reflect real-world driving. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.5] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp.55-56.]]
Organization: BYD Motors
The agencies have made significant improvements compared to the MY2014-2018 standards, particularly
in providing additional market segmentation options that reflect a larger share of transient operation as
well as the addition of an idle-only cycle. These changes to the regulatory test cycles better reflect the
diversity of the vocational fleet and the duty cycles of our customers and will help identify the appropriate
technology solutions for reducing fuel use from this sector.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-l 182-A1 p. 1]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.227.]]
Organization: ABC Bus Companies, Inc.
Comments on proposed method of assigning vocational chassis to regulatory subcategories. A category
for Passenger Carrier Vehicle, (PCV) could be defined. The GEM User Guide overview mentions
Intercity Motorcoach operation should be classified under the Regional Duty Cycle. Given the nature of
motorcoach designs as outlined in above comments, Fuel mapping, idling, ADA lift operations, etc.
standards of these vehicles should have its own categories. The NREL should consider the PCV
operation as described above to help define this vocational vehicle test cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1430-A2 p.3-4]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
175 See memorandum dated July 2016 titled, "NREL Bi-Modal Vocational Vehicle Cluster Information."
-------
PACCAR has evaluated and is still evaluating the Phase 2 vocational vehicle segmentation scheme that is
in the NPRM. The early results of this analysis questions the value of the normalization approach that is
used. Although it is included by the agencies to mitigate purposeful attempts by OEMs or customers to
switch between segments, the normalization may not be needed to accomplish that task. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1204-A1 p.22]
The spec changes to move a vehicle from the middle of the Multi-purpose segment to Urban, for example,
require significant changes to the rear axle ratio to the point that the vehicle will be rendered incapable of
efficient operation in the intended application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.22]
PACCAR recommends that the agencies consider returning to a Phase 1-style program for vocational
categories since emissions reduction opportunities are smaller than on tractors and the segmentation
approach does not seem to be rendering the value that was expected. In addition, it seems that the
segmentation may not provide substantial benefit, so one vocational category for each major weight class
grouping may be sufficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.22]
Organization: School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
The School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council (SBMTC) applauds the joint efforts of NHTSA and the
EPA to develop a Phase 2 Heavy-Duty (HD) National Program that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and fuel consumption for new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. We would also like to use the
opportunity to comment on this regulation and point out how school buses are very different and unique
from all other types of motor vehicles and how some of the proposed regulations may create significant
challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1287-A1 p.l]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
The duty cycles of vocational vehicles range from significant over-the-road operation, to periodic over-
the-road operation, to stop and start low speed operation, to limited over-the-road and significant "at rest"
operation, to off-road-operations, and to every combination thereof. The complexity of vocational truck
design, production, and use makes it a challenge to set out categorical fuel use and GHG reduction
strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.9]
Organization: New Flyer of America Inc.
With our sustained commitment towards GHG and fuel consumption reduction, New Flyer is respectfully
requesting the EPA and NHTSA to reconsider the classification of transit buses as Vocational Vehicles
with the proposed standards. Transit buses are currently grouped into a broad category of purpose built
vocational trucks which includes delivery trucks, utility trucks, refuse haulers and cement and dump
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1306-A1 p.l]
The applicable technologies and design requirements for transit buses differs significantly from the
aforementioned commercial vehicles. Unlike the larger volume commercial truck market (where OEMs
have a high percentage of proprietary engines and drivetrains, and dedicated organizations and resources
equipped to support ongoing emissions and fuel economy testing), transit bus manufactures in North
America assemble purchased drivetrain components, purchase diesel and gas engines from one industry
supplier (Cummins Inc.), and have access to a limited number of commercially available transmissions
and powertrain systems certified for the transit bus market segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1306-A1
p.2]
-------
In our discussions with other transit bus manufacturers (including Gillig LLC) and the American Public
Transit Association (APTA), we share aligned concerns on other aspects of the program which are related
to vocational classification, including air conditioning leakage (transit buses have significantly larger and
more complex air conditioning systems than trucks), and payload. New Flyer believes the differences in
vehicle systems and the operating characteristics warrant distinctive classification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1306-A1 p.2]
Similar to the standalone categorization proposed by the EPA and NHTSA for emergency type vehicles,
New Flyer encourages the EPA/NHTSA to consider separate GHG and fuel consumption reduction
requirements for transit buses by creating a separate categorization with simpler testing and compliance
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1306-A1 p.2]
New Flyer encourages further dialog between the EPA/NHTSA and APTA members (including OEMs,
powertrain suppliers, and end-user transit agencies) to finalize the GHG and fuel consumption reduction
standards that support the shared clean air and more fuel-efficient objectives for the transit bus vehicle
segment. New Flyer is committed to participating and supporting these discussions and proving additional
information to the EPA and NHTSA as needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1306-A1 p.2]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA Should Adopt Subcategorization of Vocational Vehicles With Changes to
Address Several Types of Vehicles
The Proposed Rule contains nine different subcategories for vocational vehicles. These categories are
intended to allow for the assignment of vehicles into categories based on use patterns; the proposed rule
would utilize final drive ratios of vocational vehicles for this purpose. Subcategorization using the multi-
purpose duty cycle would be presumed unless "some criteria were met that indicated either the Regional
or Urban cycle could be more appropriate." EPA and NHTSA have requested comment on the method for
assigning vocational chassis to these regulatory subcategories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.39]
In general, Allison believes that EPA and NHTSA are proposing a reasonable approach to subcategorize
vocational vehicles. We agree with the agencies that most vehicles should be classified as being Multi-
Purpose and our analysis of the proposal indicates that this is likely to occur. As detailed below, however,
we do have several issues concerning how the Proposed Rule would operate with respect to certain
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.39]
Allison Transmission
Our comments are based on a memorandum placed into the docket in connection with this NODA.1 In
this regard, Allison first commends EPA and NHTSA for the consideration of the small, custom chassis
manufacturers in the Phase 2 rulemaking and generally supports the approach described in the
memorandum.
Table 1 Custom Chassis Types
Allison recommends that EPA and NHTSA acknowledge that the custom chassis distinguishable features
are not all-inclusive for each custom chassis listed and that the custom chassis definition is not limited to
the narrow definition provided in Table 1. Instead, Allison would recommend that EPA and NHTSA
provide additional vehicle uses as well as operational requirements for the vehicle classifications as noted
in the attached table. For example, depending on the price range and whether they are built for comfort or
-------
utility, everything from coach to RV to school bus chassis is used as the basis for an upfitted specialty
vehicle, including entertainment travel, bookmobile, bloodmobile, mobile command station, etc. Yet the
current Table 1 makes no mention of such vehicles. We would therefore suggest that a final Table 1 be
supplemented and expanded as below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1892-A1 p.3]
[Table 1 can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA Should Create Subcategory for Transit Buses
Finally, EPA and NHTSA should address transit buses in the final rule apart from the presumptive
classification based on gear ratio. That is, under the Proposed Rule, a typical transit bus configuration will
result in a Multi-Purpose subcategorization, instead of Urban subcategorization. But changing the
transmission from a 6 speed to a 4 speed would change this result and produce a classification of the
transit bus as an Urban vehicle. Doing so, however, carries with it the downside of reducing fuel
efficiency and increasing C02 emissions. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA and NHTSA should avoid this
"incentive" and instead treat all transit buses as Urban. This alternation is both rational - given the
vehicle's intended use and low prospects that it will be converted to other uses - and would avoid the
unintended consequence of reduced transmission speeds to change the regulatory sub-classification.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.41]
EPA and NHTSA should also consider a sub-category for transit buses. Transit buses operate in urban
areas and have a duty cycle of frequent starts and stops, with no 65 mph operation and very limited 55
mph operation so the current vocational test cycle does not represent how they operate. Transit buses are
manufactured by few companies and are purchased with public funds, typically through a bidding
process. They do not have a secondary use for anything other than a transit bus. Transit buses have unique
construction from other vocational vehicles and incorporate specialized accessories which result in
different losses and efficiencies. They are also good candidates for future hybridization and
electrification. Allison believes that these reasons warrant a separate sub-category in Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.41]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA Should Incorporate Different Standards for Motor Homes
Motor Homes ("MHs") present different usage patterns than many other types of MD/HD vehicles
primarily due to the fact that such vehicles are normally consumer-owned and not a vehicle that does
vocational work. Therefore, EPA's assumptions that underlie its estimation of the emissions output of
such vehicles are incorrect since usage is intermittent. MHs are seldom driven over the course of a year;
they tend to be stored over the winter, and then driven to various locations during the spring and summer
months. MHs may also be parked for long periods of time and interstate driving, as a function of their
overall use, is relatively small. MHs have a low number of idling events given their design elements to
connect to the electric grid at campgrounds and other locations. Therefore, EPA and NHTSA should
consider simplified compliance methods to MHs similar to those that may be applied to emergency
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.49]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
-------
EPA and NHTSA should recognize that torque converter based ATs can launch with lower numerical
axles than transmissions with clutch based launching systems. The lower numerical axles in conjunction
with significant overdrives allow these vehicles to run lower engine speeds at the 65 and 55 mph cruise
cycles - resulting in lower fuel consumption. The downside of the Proposed Rule subcategorization for
vocational vehicles is that these configurations may be classified as Regional when the majority of their
duty cycle is Multi-Purpose. Again, reducing the breakpoint from 75 to 70 would help to mitigate such
concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.40]1137
Organization: CALSTART
That said, there may be some categories still worthy of customized approaches. Refuse may be one
because of its extreme duty cycle and sufficient volumes to justify monitoring. The other is transit bus.
The transit bus segment has traditionally been the launch point of advanced technologies for air quality
and efficiency, including natural gas, hybrid, electric and now fuel cell systems. There are myriad reasons
for this leadership, including the higher visibility of transit buses in urban centers, the federal funding
process which underwrites 80 percent of the capital costs of new buses, and the operational profiles which
have been conducive to controlled introduction and use of new fuels and technology. As a result, the
segment could serve as a leader for the rest of the heavy-duty industry in terms of higher GHG reduction
potential. It can also serve as a laboratory for credit structures supporting the introduction of low carbon
technology. While we have no specific proposal to offer, we would request additional exploration of how
to leverage the leadership of the transit segment in considerations of flexibility. Transit bus makers able to
sell their credits to other HD OEMs for advanced bus over-compliance can be useful in paying for their
investments, if stringency levels help create the need for such credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-
A1 p.4]
Organization: GILLIG LLC
We have tried to address below two main areas of concern we have with the new rule. First, areas where
we see a significant number of the underpinning assumptions for vocational vehicles in both the proposed
GEM model and the Standards as not applicable to transit buses. Second, the business impacts associated
with the certification process, limited compliance flexibility, burden of compliance, and the stockpiling
rule. It is our belief that transit vehicles are designed, built and operated very differently from other
vocational vehicles, and that the compliance process/burden has potentially devastating impacts for our
business, employees and customers. GILLIG is very interested in pursuing a simplified compliance
procedure and less stringent Phase 2 standards specific for transit buses and asks that the agencies
consider establishing a separate subcategory for transit buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p. 1-2]
GILLIG produces approximately 1800 MHD and HHD transit buses each year. These buses are
configured with diesel, CNG and diesel/hybrid powertrains. Transit buses are purpose built, uniquely
configured to each end users specific needs. Typical duty cycles are run in urban areas, and characterized
by a significant number of stops and starts, high idle times, very low average speeds, limited operation
above 55 mph, and a high percentage of the time run significantly under the fully loaded condition. The
vast majority of these transit buses are sold to municipalities through a bidding process and are funded by
federal (FTA), state and local governments with public tax dollars. We believe that significant differences
between transit buses and the other vehicles in the vocational vehicle category necessitate a need for the
agencies to consider establishing a separate subcategory for transit buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1156-A1 p.l]
GILLIG only produces HD transit buses. Annual volumes are approximately 1600 HHD transit buses and
200 MHD transit buses. The same engine models, hp, and fuel options (diesel, CNG, and diesel/hybrid)
-------
are available in both weight classes. Our product line is so narrow that averaging does not provide much
compliance flexibility. We request the agencies consider a separate subcategory for transit buses to
address this. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.4-5]
Organization: National Waste & Recycle Association
The National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) is the trade association representing private sector
waste services companies. Our members collect municipal solid waste; own and operate waste transfer
stations and landfills; collect and process recyclables; and collect and compost organic waste in cities and
counties throughout the United States. We play an essential part in protecting America's public health and
environment. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.l]
Our industry has a vital stake in ensuring that the Phase 2 rules will result in trucks that allow us to
continue to protect America's public health and environment as efficiently as possible. To manage
America's solid waste stream, our industry has a fleet of more than 100,000 refuse, recycling and
compost collection trucks. We are constantly looking for ways to lower fuel consumption. In fact, our
desire to conserve energy and lower emissions has lead us to be the leading heavy-duty truck user of non-
diesel, alternative fuel vehicles. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.l]
We are disappointed that the two agencies continue to lump all the many kinds of vocational vehicles
together instead of creating standards for each kind of vehicle. As we note in subsequent comments,
refuse trucks are vastly different from other vocational vehicles, yet the agencies persist in treating all
vocational vehicles as if they are the same. This unfortunate one-kind-fits-all approach will fail to achieve
the results that uniquely-tailored standards would achieve. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A 1 p. 1-2]
The solid waste industry truck fleet: overview
In order to manage America's solid waste, we are not just a public health industry. We also are a trucking
industry with a large and highly diverse fleet of trucks that serve unique purposes and are different from
each other in design and operation. The fleet includes, but is by no means limited to, garbage and
recycling collection trucks, roll-off trucks, container delivery trucks and grapple trucks. These trucks are
primarily Class 8 heavy-duty vocational vehicles. The industry also uses tractor trailers to haul solid
waste from transfer stations to disposal facilities and pickups and similar lighter duty vehicles used by the
industry. All of these trucks require off-road capability at some point. They are different in design and
use, however, from the strictly off-road trucks used to manage waste at landfills. Most of the tractor
trailers are owned and operated by contractors. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.2]
The solid waste industry fleet: garbage and recycling collection trucks
The garbage and recycling collection trucks that stop at virtually every American house and business
every week are the most recognized part of the solid waste fleet. Most Americans know a garbage truck
when they see one. These are unique, highly specialized vehicles, almost all of which are classified in this
regulatory proposal as heavy-duty vocational vehicles. They are totally unlike the other trucks in this
subcategory in terms of their design, operation and function. Because garbage and recycling trucks are
virtually identical in most respects, the generic term "refuse truck" will be used for both vehicles. Yard
waste can be collected by either type of truck. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A 1 p.2]
Fuel consumption is determined by a variety of factors including the truck's total weight, the use of
compaction equipment, structural needs, route distance, the extraordinarily high number of stops and
starts a truck makes in a day (and a week and a month and a year) and the extensive use of power take-off
-------
units while the truck is stopped, but is still working. Virtually all refuse trucks use an automatic
transmission. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071 -A 1 p.2-3]
Loading and compaction: A refuse truck can be loaded manually or automatically in its front, rear or side,
depending on the truck. Automatic loading can be accomplished by the use of an automated arm on side
loaders, a cart tipper at the rear or side of a truck or a set of automated forks on its front. In the latter case,
the forks go into sleeves on the sides of a container and then lift the container up and over the truck and
deposit its contents into the truck's hopper. Fuel is used to power the loading equipment. At some point,
the material is compacted by a moving blade that presses against the wall of the hopper. Compaction is
used because it allows the truck to compress garbage and thus, collect more. This lowers the numbers of
trucks on the road. The truck is stopped while the material is being loaded. Compaction can occur while
the truck is stopped or moving. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.3]
The solid waste industry fleet: roll-off container and other trucks
A roll-off container truck is a heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicle designed to take empty "detachable
containers" to waste generator sites. When those containers are full, they will be replaced with an empty
container. The full container will be taken to a disposal facility, unloaded, and returned to the fleet yard to
be cleaned and placed at another generator's site. These are large containers, usually ranging in size from
10 to 40 cubic yards, primarily used at factories, construction and demolition sites and large commercial
accounts such as shopping malls. They can hold a variety of materials, ranging from lightweight pallets
generated at a factory to concrete generated at a construction or demolition site. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0071-A 1 p.4]
The truck will raise its hydraulically operated bed allowing the empty container to roll off the bed and be
lowered by means of a cable or hook lift. When the container is full, the process is reversed and the
container is placed back on the truck. These trucks are subject to the same weight limits as are refuse
trucks. When the truck is stopped and moving a container on or off its bed, the truck is still consuming
fuel. These trucks often drive down alleys and go off-road, especially at construction sites. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0071-A1 p.4]
The solid waste industry also has other specialized equipment such as grapple trucks and container
delivery trucks. Grapple trucks use specially mounted grapples to lift bulky waste such as logs, yard waste
or debris and place them into a container on the truck. Container delivery trucks are used to deliver small
containers to a commercial customer such as a gas station or restaurant, when a container needs to be
repaired or when service is terminated. These vehicles are subject to the constraints of truck weight laws.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0071 -A 1 p.4]
The trucks used by our industry are in the "vocational vehicle" category in both the Phase 1 rule and the
Phase 2 proposal. As they did with the Phase 1 proposal, EPA and NHTSA continue to ignore the advice
of the National Academies of Science (NAS). In its study, "Technologies and Approaches to Reducing
the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicles" (2010), NAS highlighted the wide
differences between different types of vocational vehicles. In the press release accompanying the release
of the study, NAS pointed out that "NHTSA will need to establish standards tied to the task associated
with a particular type of vehicle; garbage trucks might be held to a different standard than transit buses,
for example." The failure of the agencies to heed that advice and to instead lump all vocational vehicles
together with only minimal differences in regulatory approach, results in a proposal that fails to recognize
their differences and that will accomplish far less than an approach tailored to each different kind of
vocational vehicle. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A 1 p.6]
-------
Phase 2, nonetheless, is a slight improvement over Phase 1 because it divides groups of vocational vehicle
chassis into subcategories based on vehicle use patterns in which C02 emissions and fuel efficiency
standards vary. We appreciate that the agencies recognize this distinction. However we are concerned that
the very example supplied in the discussion of the test cycles for these proposed subcategories (see page
40288, second column, first paragraph) does not understand the operational realities affecting "a
neighborhood collection refuse truck" and a "roll-off straight/dump truck that makes daily highway trips
to a landfill." The agencies discussion implies that these are significant differences between the two types
of trucks. In reality many "neighborhood collection refuse trucks" make daily trips on highways to either
transfer stations or landfills. Many roll-off and dump trucks never go directly to a landfill. Yet the
agencies are proposing to require manufacturers to classify the intended test cycles without knowing
where or how the purchasers of their trucks will use those vehicles. As a result, we suspect those
manufacturers will opt for the "multi-purpose" cycle as a compromise between "urban" and "regional."
[NHTS A-2014-0132-0071 -A 1 p.6]
The agencies have chosen to cover all medium- and heavy-duty trucks in this regulatory proposal. We
understand their reasoning as applied to most pickup and tractor trailers. We do not, however, understand
this logic as applied to the tremendous diversity among vocational vehicles. Unlike pickup trucks and
tractor trailers, vocational vehicles come in an extraordinary array of design, sizes, functions,
configurations, weights, and duties. Instead of recognizing this diversity and crafting regulations that
distinguish among, for instance, refuse trucks, fire trucks, septic tank trucks and motor coaches, EPA and
NHTSA continue to support a procrustean, "one size fits all" approach for vocational vehicles. In effect,
the agencies are proposing rules for a truck that does not exist. If that truck existed, it would not resemble
any truck used by the waste services industry. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A 1 p.7]
We look forward to working closely with EPA and NHTSA as they proceed with this rulemaking and
with further regulatory actions in this area. As we stated in the beginning of our comments, our industry is
constantly looking for ways to lower fuel consumption. We are a public health industry. We support
lowering greenhouse gas emissions. We also believe that the public is best served by regulations that will
reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gases in the real world, not in a computer simulation that
ignores the real world realities created by Federal and state truck weight limits [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0071-A1 p.7-8]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
Vocational Vehicle Duty Cycles Vary Dramatically - Vocational vehicle duty cycles vary considerably,
both between vocations, and within the same vocation. The most important factor to consider is that most
vocational vehicles do not perform the majority of their work by transporting cargo, rather they perform
work at a job sight, an emergency scene, or on the roadway. Consider the following examples: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.2]
Utility Bucket Trucks - The cargo carried by a utility truck is typically limited to lineman's tools. Once on
site, the bucket truck will idle just to run the hydraulics that operate the bucket while the lineman
performs his/her work on the overhead lines. Mechanics Trucks Mechanics trucks carry tools, spare parts,
and lubricants for repairing equipment in the field. The truck may idle to keep it warm during cold
weather. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1162-A2 p.2]
Recovery Vehicle - Recovery vehicles, or "wreckers" will spend some amount of time on the road towing
disabled vehicles, and some time operating the recovery equipment (winches, cranes, and towing
devices). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.2]
-------
Concrete Placement - Ready mix concrete trucks spend approximately half their time driving to the
delivery site, and half their time dispensing the load. Part of this time will be spent waiting for the crew to
be ready for the pour, and the other portion of time is spent pouring concrete. If the pour is a remote site,
the concrete may be moved from the truck to the site via wheelbarrows or other means. In this case the
wait time will be considerable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.2]
We do not envision Table V-17 through V-19 representing an attainable regulation for vocations such as
Ready-Mix Concrete trucks. As evident from the following comparison, even assuming that tire
improvements are possible and practical, the actual improvements are limited to not much more than
whatever can be accomplished with engine improvements alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2
p.5] [Table can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2]
Refuse Truck - Refuse trucks come in a variety of configurations. Roll-on-Roll-off vehicles will pick up a
single container and haul it to the land fill. Type T container haulers will pick up loads from many
containers. A large type T container can take 10 minutes to empty with the truck at high idle most of the
time. Residential trucks will have aggressive stop-drive cycles while loading, and then some period of
mixed urban and country driving to reach the land fill. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.2]
Snow Plows - The snow plow may carry a load of sand or salt while plowing at the same time. Some of
the engine power goes into hauling the load, but a significant amount of power is consumed pushing the
snow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.3]
Communications Vehicles - Electronic news gathering and incident command vehicles carry
communications transmission equipment as well as audio and video processing capability. These vehicles
become on-site production or emergency response offices that idle for long periods of time to provide
power and climate control for the occupants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.3]
Tree Trimming - Similarly to utility trucks, the tree-trimming industry uses bucket trucks to obtain
overhead access to their work. Tree trucks will spend most of the day logging no road miles, but running
the truck engine for hydraulic power to operate the bucket. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.3]
Fire Apparatus - Fire apparatus typically drive a short distance and then run at the scene to pump water,
generate power, or operate aerial devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.3]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 166]
Heavy vocational trucks are characterized by niche applications, low volumes, and special purpose
designs. Example segments include dump, plows, utility, refuse, fire, and concrete delivery. Within each
segment, there are often widely varying vehicle types. There are, for instance, seven unique types of
refuse collection vehicles as one example. This extreme variability and complexity renders a design
prescriptive regulation untenable.
Response:
We are keeping the phase 1 subcategory boundaries of vehicle weight class, with three groups in ranges
of GVWR. Applying the three general duty cycles described above in Section 6.1.4 to these three weight
class groups, we have created nine vehicle subcategories in the primary program. We believe that this
additional level of segmentation with different duty cycles is necessary to recognize the vehicle
technologies that are duty cycle dependent, especially transmission technologies and idle reduction.
-------
This structure enables the technologies that perform best at highway speeds and those that perform best in
urban driving to each be fairly recognized over appropriate test cycles, while avoiding the unintended
consequence of forcing vocational vehicles that are designed to serve in different applications to be
measured against a single baseline. The agencies believe these three duty cycle groups balance the
competing pressures to recognize the varying performance of technologies, serve the varying needs of
customers, and maintain reasonable regulatory simplicity.
We recognize that by adopting a few meaningful duty cycles that "bound" how vocational vehicles are
generally used, we cannot perfectly match how every vocational vehicle is actually used. We agree with
commenters that there are some vehicle applications for which these general cycles are likely to be poorly
representative, and for which unique chassis characteristics are unlike those in the reference GEM
vehicles used to establish the subcategory baselines. The agencies have determined that it is impractical,
from a regulatory perspective, to establish separate, unique test cycles for all the vocational vehicle
applications for which commenters requested separate treatment. In order to determine an appropriate
path, we spoke with stakeholders and obtained information about many businesses that produce the
chassis mentioned in the comments as well as other purpose-built chassis produced in low sales volumes.
In considering whether to create additional subcategories, the agencies have taken into account the fact
that many manufacturers of chassis for which special consideration has been
requested do not have diversified products. For manufacturers offering a narrow range of
products, averaging is not of practical value as a compliance flexibility, and there are not large sales
volumes over which to distribute technology development costs. Based on the comments received and
extensive stakeholder outreach, the agencies have identified over a dozen chassis manufacturers serving
the U.S. vocational market who produce a narrow spectrum of vehicles for which many technologies
underlying the primary standards will either be less effective than projected, or are infeasible. We do not
believe it is warranted to force any of these specialized manufacturers to certify their narrow product line
of vehicles to the primary standards, where stringency is premised on performance of some technologies
unsuited for their specialized type of vehicle. Thus, the agencies have developed optional standards
derived using separate subcategories tailored for seven chassis types we are describing as custom
chassis. Further discussion of the optional program for custom vocational chassis can be found below in
Section 6.2.3.
6.2 Vocational Vehicle Standards for C02 and Fuel Consumption
6.2.1 Baselines
Organization: Isuzu Motors Limited
Isuzu has several issues with the proposed rulemaking, specifically with vocational vehicles which is the
primary vehicle segment Isuzu participates in North America. These potential issues could affect our
future product offerings and potentially limit the applications that we could certify. While Isuzu believes
the GEM model is capable of accurately representing our vehicles, we note that it has several technically
significant limitations and inaccuracies due to the fact that the user-defined parameters are limited. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1263-A1 p.2]
Organization: GILLIG LLC
The standard engine for GILLIG MHD and HHD transit buses is an 8.9L 280 hp diesel engine. A diesel-
electric hybrid is the only configuration, MHD or HHD, where a 6.7L 280 hp diesel engine is used. We
are concerned that differences in the fuel maps between these transit specific engines and the urban duty
cycle engines used to establish the baseline vocational vehicles used to create the standards may make it
-------
appreciably more difficult for transit buses to meet the Phase 2 standards. We feel the best way to address
this is with a unique subcategory for transit buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.3]
In the GEM HHD and MHD predefined modeling parameters, the payload figures are high relative to
what a typical Class 7 or 8 transit bus normally carry. A typical 40' Class 8 transit bus total passenger
capacity is around 73 people, and a typical 30' Class 7 transit bus passenger capacity is around 48 people.
Feedback from some end users have placed the operating time at full capacity at less than 5%. Transit bus
payload is very transient throughout the service day and much different than other vocational vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.2]
In the GEM predefined modeling parameters for all vocational vehicles electrical power draw is modeled
at 300W. In comparison, the vast majority of our transit buses are capable of producing 14kW to power
lights, air conditioning fans, information systems, electric engine cooling fans, etc. Additionally,
mechanical losses are modeled in GEM at 1000W, but on transit buses refrigerant compressors can pull
18kW and on buses with hydraulic engine cooling fan systems the pump can pull 37kW. Transit buses
have significantly different system losses compared to other vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1156-A1 p.2]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Simulating Axles for Vehicle Certification - Whether this pre-specified efficiency is reasonable. (Fixed
axle ratio energy efficiency of 95.5 %). The proposed fixed axle ratio is reasonable at the baseline with
the option of the truck manufacturer to input its own value if superior to the baseline. 80 FR 40185.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.62]
Organization: Navistar, Inc
Navistar feels the following are key areas the agencies must address: The vocational vehicle standards
must start from the actual MY 17 standards as the baseline and must be simplified and revised throughout.
[NHTS A-2014-0132-0094-A1 p.2]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
For vocational vehicles, the 1.3kW constant power accessory load is unrealistically low and
unrealistically constant. Further, to use this accessory load for engines of all sizes is an oversimplification.
The Allison best practice for estimating engine accessory loads is the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.28]
- Fan power is 6.5% of peak engine power at peak engine power speed and varies cubically with engine
speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.28]
- Air compressor power is 0.5% of peak engine power and is constant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-
A1 p.28]
- Alternator/generator power is 1.0% of peak engine power at peak engine power speed and varies
proportionally with engine speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.28]
- Steering pump power is 1.0% of peak engine power at peak engine power speed and varies
proportionally with engine speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.28]
-------
Although Allison includes a few vocationally specific exceptions, this is the general characterization used
to estimate engine accessories. The figure below shows the Allison estimated accessory loads for the EPA
sample engines, in contrast with the EPA estimated accessory loads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-
A1 p.28]
[Charts, plotting speed against power for Allison estimated accessory loads versus EPA estimated
accessory loads, can be found on p.28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1]
Revising the load upwards would be more consistent with EPA and NHTSA's generally conservative
approach to estimation of the GHG and fuel efficiency benefits of this rulemaking. Such a revision,
coupled with the corresponding stringency adjustments, would better characterize accessory losses and
more accurately demonstrate the impact of engine downspeeding. Therefore, Allison recommends GEM
utilize a higher and variable power accessory load which is scaled to each engine in the manner described
above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.29]
Allison recognizes the need to simplify the quantity of pre-defined modeling parameter sets; however,
there are some discrepancies in the typical configurations EPA has defined in Table 8. Specifically:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.5]
• In the case of Coach Bus: HHD Regional, the transmission forward gear ratios shown are "wide" ratio,
and a bus would have a "close" ratio set. A better definition would be 3.51, 1.91, 1.43, 1.00, 0.74, 0.64.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.5]
• In the case of Transit, Refuse, Mixer, Emergency: HHD Urban, the ratios shown are "wide" ratio which
would not be used for a transit bus. The "close" ratios used in a bus would be 3.51, 1.91, 1.43, 1.00, 0.74.
It should also be noted that this collection of vehicle types would not all be 5-speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1892-A1 p.5]
Organization: Autocar, LLC
The agencies' proposed baselines and standards are not suitable for Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles.
Autocar does not have the ability to comment on the agencies' proposed baselines and GHG and fuel
consumption standards, but the Company believes a fundamental disconnect exists with respect to the
baselines and standards applied to Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles: The agencies propose to measure
C02 emissions in grams per ton-mile and fuel consumption in gallons per ton-mile for these trucks, and
yet recognize these types of trucks generally are low-mileage vehicles (80 Fed. Reg. 40286). The refuse
and sweeper industries appropriately track fuel consumption in gallons per hour. The extreme variation in
payload that refuse vehicles carry throughout a day (from zero load to full, one or more cycles per day),4
and the relatively low number of miles per unit of work for these vehicles, makes any ton-mile metric
inappropriate for trying to measure fuel efficiency and GHG emissions per unit of work. Refuse vehicles
can travel as little as 50 miles in an entire day on a collection route, and such vehicles expend fuel even
while stationary to power compaction and loading mechanisms that run on engine power from a PTO.
Thus, gallons per hour is the only logical and appropriate measure of fuel efficiency, and the current
proposed standards - measured in grams per ton-mile and gallons per ton-mile - are not appropriate for
Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.8-9
Organization: Volvo Group
When setting stringencies the agencies have made errors in their assumptions regarding transmission
applicability and penetrations, most egregiously in assuming the baseline vocational vehicles in all but the
-------
HHD Regional subcategories are equipped with automatic transmissions (AT) and that there is no
penetration of other transmission types (reference Preamble Section V.C.2.a). Chapters 2 and 4 of the
RIA and Section V of the Preamble make no mention of why these subcategories utilized an AT as the
baseline with an assumed 100% penetration. The results of this assumption are over-inflated baselines and
stringencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.25]
Volvo Group finds this error to be large and the assumption unsubstantiated. For Volvo Group N.A.
production for the years 2013 and 2014 (the first two full years of production for Phase 1) the Volvo
Group built more than 20,000 units of the Mack Granite, Titan, and TerraPro and Volvo VHD HHD
vocational models. These truck models are designed and optimized solely as vocational vehicles for either
on/off-road or refuse operation. Of these trucks, just over 60% were equipped with ATs, while just under
40% were equipped with manual transmissions (MT). This does not include volumes of AT and MT in
other highway optimized models that are sold into vocational applications where the volumes of AT are
very low in favor of MT or automated manual transmissions (AMT). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.25]
Additionally, ATs increase heat rejection requirements on HHD vocational vehicles. In many cases it is
necessary to restrict AT offerings on vehicles with specific packaging constraints or with high torque
engines due to the inability to package additional cooling capacity. These constraints would primarily
impact vehicles performing more shifts and/or operating at a higher percentage of time at heavier load,
such as an increased percentage of transient operation. Thus, the assumption of 100% penetration of
automatic transmissions in the agencies' proposed Urban and Multipurpose subcategories is not justified.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.25-26]
Response:
In response to comments on the chassis specifications for the baseline GEM configurations, the agencies
have revised many vehicle characteristics since the NPRM. In response to comments from manufacturers
of LHD vocational chassis including Isuzu, the agencies have revised downward the default aerodynamic
drag area for all LHD vocational vehicles. In response to comments from transmission suppliers and
engine manufacturers noting that unloaded idle speeds were too low, we have revised upward the default
mechanical and electrical accessory loads for vocational vehicles in all subcategories. Other changes
made in response to comment include the gears of the transmissions on coach buses and transit buses and
the axle ratios and tire revs/mi of LHD and MHD vehicles.176 The most significant changes to the HHD
baselines are in establishing blended baselines for HHD Regional and Multipurpose vehicles.
These blended baselines have been created in response to information received during meetings with
EMA using a weighted average of the GEM performance of two very different vehicles: one with a 10-
speed manual transmission and one with a 6-speed automatic transmission.177 See RIA Chapter 2.9.2. We
believe that these changes enable the final Phase 2 program to better measure the improvements in fleet
performance beyond that being achieved by today's vehicles.
In response to comments that the metric of the standard, grams per ton-mile and gallons per ton-mile, is
inappropriate for some vehicles, we have determined that the simplification of a single metric for all
vehicles is warranted. In Phase 1 the agencies considered other metrics, in view of the fact that not all
176 See memorandum dated July 2016 titled, "Summary of Comments on Vocational Vehicle Baselines."
177 See Memo to Docket, "Summary of Meetings and Conference Calls with the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association to Discuss the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG Rulemaking," August 2016.
-------
vehicles have a primary purpose to haul freight.178 Some vehicles carry passengers and others conduct
work while in stationary mode sometimes operating a device through use of a PTO. Nonetheless, we are
adopting Phase 2 standards using the same metrics we adopted in Phase 1. Based on NAS's
recommendation and feedback from the heavy-duty truck industry, NHTSA and EPA are adopting
standards for vocational vehicles that are expressed in terms of moving a ton of payload over one mile.
Thus, NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards for these trucks are represented as gallons of fuel used
to move one ton of payload one thousand miles, or gal/1,000 ton-mile. EPA's final C02 vehicle standards
are represented as grams of C02 per ton-mile. The agencies note that the commenter claims that a
payload-based metric is not appropriate for all types of vocational vehicles, specifically buses and waste
haulers. The agencies recognize that a payload-based approach may not be the most representative of an
individual vocational application; however, it best represents the broad vocational category, and is
appropriate for this phase of standards. Furthermore, by creating two new idle cycles with emissions and
fuel consumption measured per hour over those cycles, we are in essence incorporating an alternate
metric as part of the standard-setting process. Furthermore, a more differentiated metric would not affect
the technology choices for vocational vehicles. Thus, the agencies are adopting the proposed metric, but
will revisit the issue of metrics in any future action, if required, depending on the breadth of each
standard.
6.2.2 Comments on the Standard-Setting Process
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In developing their multi-subcategory approach, the agencies apparently became concerned that the
differing proposed standards for the different vehicle subcategories might incentivize vehicle
manufacturers to certify their vehicles in certain categories over others. For example, if the relative
stringency and cost of the proposed standards for the heavy-duty Urban subcategory are deemed more
onerous than for the Regional and Multi-Purpose subcategories (given the differing underlying
assumptions, including those regarding hybrid penetration rates and other factors), there is a perceived
risk that manufacturers might try to avoid having to certify vehicles within that subcategory. This
prospect for potential "gaming" of the proposed regulatory scheme - in itself, an unrealistic concern - has
led the agencies to introduce a "normalization" process that is overly-complex and fundamentally
problematic - in effect, resulting in an unreasonable "solution" to an unlikely problem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.29-30]
In their "normalization" process - ostensibly designed to help ensure that all of the proposed vocational
standards reflect the same relative stringency - the agencies have assumed that a certain percentage of
vehicles in each weight category will fall into each of the three cycle-based subcategories. For example,
the agencies have assumed that the medium heavy-duty category is comprised of 25% Regional vehicles,
50% Multi-Purpose vehicles, and 25% Urban vehicles. The agencies then used that assumed mix of cycle-
based categories to derive GHG/FE targets for where the Proposed Phase 2 Standards should be set, again
premised on assumptions regarding available technologies and forecasted penetration rates. However, the
agencies' multistage layering of multiple assumptions has created significant risks of error at each stage
of the assumption-building process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 30]
Beyond the likelihood of incorrect baseline assumptions about the nine vehicle subcategories, the numeric
output of the agencies' "normalization" process - which according to the agencies' own admissions is
178 Responses to comments on the metric of the Phase 1 standard may be found beginning on page 230 of the Phase
1 response to comments document, available at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420rl 1004.pdf
-------
still subject to substantial revision - is fundamentally incorrect as well. For example, the GEM-based
output for determining where the Phase 2 Standard should be set for the heavy heavy-duty Urban vehicle
subcategory is 219 g C02/ton-mile. That is the result obtained if the full GHG technology mix as
predicted by the agencies is fully deployed for heavy heavy-duty Urban vocational vehicles. However, the
"normalized" output for determining the Phase 2 Standards for that same type of vehicle is 209 g
C02/ton-mile, a result that is more stringent than the GEM-based approach, and thus, on its face
inherently infeasible. A manufacturer cannot be expected to achieve a Phase 2 GHG/FE result that is
better than the fully optimized GEM-based result. Consequently, a "normalization" process that makes
achieving the Urban-cycle-based Phase 2 standards even less feasible will not reduce manufacturers'
incentives to avoid the Urban category; it will increase them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.30]
It is fundamentally insufficient and unreasonable for the agencies to try to rely on potential future
averaging, banking and trading ("AB&T") credits in support of infeasible vocational vehicle standards. In
that regard, the agencies state as follows at page 40308 of the NPRM: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.30]
"We are aware that in this approach, some of the projected technology packages would not provide a
direct path to compliance for manufacturers, such as in the example of the MHD Regional vehicle. Using
the technologies adopted at projected rates, it would still fall short of the standard by 1.5 percent. The
agencies believe that the Phase 2 program has enough regulatory flexibility (averaging, banking and
trading provisions in particular) to enable such a vehicle to be certified." (80 FR at 40308). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.30]
That rationale cannot sustain an infeasible rulemaking. AB&T provisions are not a substitute for the
logical and transparent development of well-reasoned and feasible standards. Moreover, AB&T credits
are inherently dependent upon achieving product mixes and over-compliance capabilities that may not
occur. Consequently, while the agencies may "believe" that their Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards are
feasible, that belief, divorced from the necessary real-world demonstration, cannot sustain a federal
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.31]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
As noted, one fundamental problem with the NRPM is that the Proposed Phase 2 Standards for vocational
vehicles are still subject to ongoing revision as the agencies are continuing to modify the "normalization"
process that they are using to try to "align" the relative stringency of the proposed standards, as assessed
under the proposed Urban, Multi-Purpose and Regional test cycles. Apparently, the agencies are
endeavoring to "normalize" the results obtained from GEM, and thus the relative stringency of the
proposed standards, under each of the Urban, Multi-Purpose and Regional cycles, so manufacturers are
not incentivized to classify their vocational vehicles as one type over another. For example, if it is
perceived to be harder for a vocational vehicle tested under the Urban test cycle to meet its targeted
standards than it is for a vehicle tested under the Multi-Purpose cycle, manufacturers may skew their
vocational vehicle subcategories accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.40]
The problem is that the agencies' "normalization" process is not complete. Nor is it transparent or logical.
In fact, it seems that the agencies are still trying to figure out how best to "balance" the different results
obtained from the different vocational test cycles. Consequently, manufacturers are being forced to
comment on the stringency of standards that remain subject to change as a result of "normalization." That
is neither fair nor in accordance with requisite rulemaking procedure. If the Proposed Phase 2 Standards
for vocational vehicles were still subject to further internal review and modification by the agencies,
promulgation of the NPRM as it pertains to those vehicles should have awaited completion of the pending
-------
"normalization" process. Simply stated, manufacturers should not be required to assess and comment on
moving regulatory targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.40]
It is not a sufficient answer for the agencies to claim that changes to the GEM-based determination of
"normalized" GHG/FE standards would not amount to changes to the stringency of the proposed
standards. They would, and they are. Manufacturers must have the ability to assess compliance with fixed
numeric standards in order to determine whether their available and projected technology packages, along
with their unique product mixes within the proposed subcategories of vocational vehicles, can meet those
fixed numeric standards. Otherwise, any feasibility assessment becomes a theoretical exercise divorced
from the certainty required under a proper notice-and-comment rulemaking process. In sum, in the
absence of fully fixed vocational vehicle standards, manufacturers cannot properly assess the potential
infeasibility of those standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.40]
Moreover, the agencies' assumptions regarding the percentages of vocational vehicles that would fall into
each category are dramatically different from the percentages based on manufacturers' experience, which
indicates additional fundamental errors in the agencies' "normalization" process. On top of that, the
applicable vocational duty cycles are not yet settled. Those cycles are integral to determining the potential
GHG/FE impacts of available technologies and the appropriate stringency of the Phase 2 Standards.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Normalization and Equalization Must Be Eliminated - The agencies discuss additional vocational
vehicle categories and the manner for baselining then request comment on whether the proposed
configurations adequately represent a reasonable range of vocational chassis configurations likely to be
manufactured in the implementation years of the Phase 2 program. 80 FR 40308. We comment elsewhere
on the additional categories. As we have discussed in meetings with the agencies, we think that the
baselines and the normalization/equalization processes are inappropriate. In particular, with the baselines,
we find that the agencies' technology packages do not meet the emission standards and FE requirements
because of these normalization and equalization processes. In other words, the processes make otherwise
feasible technologies incapable of meeting the standards. That is not appropriate. The agencies should
choose categories of vehicles correctly and should eliminated normalization and equalization. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.74-75]
Further, we are unable to provide any meaningful input to the agencies on the vocational vehicle portion
of the program, even at this late stage in the rulemaking. The agencies have not yet clarified (for example)
how vehicles will be categorized and how problems like normalization and equalization will be
eliminated. We understand from discussions with the agencies that the NPRM's proposal for a "deep
integration" benefit, which (as we explained in our response to the NPRM) was unclear and (as far as we
can tell) not related to an actual facet of vehicle engineering, and which would have required onerous
powertrain testing, has been eliminated from the proposal—a correct choice. And we understand that the
agencies' analysis of drive cycles for vocational vehicles shows a much greater value of idle-reduction
technologies, which seems consistent with real-world data we have seen. Beyond this, we are unable to
actually model our vocational vehicles in GEM to provide any meaningful comments to the agencies on
their proposed regulations. With regard to the agencies' investigation of the benefit of hybrid technology
we like to point out that there is a difference between the energy that could potentially recuperated and the
energy that can actually be recuperated. Once actual conversion efficiencies and other system limitations
(i.e. how fast can the battery absorb and discharge energy) come into play, hybrids should be expected to
perform significantly worse than the agencies expected. That is why we strongly urge the agencies to
incorporate these considerations into any projection of potential hybrid savings. Otherwise this will lead
-------
to an inaccurate assessment of hybrid benefits and unrealistic expectations of C02 reductions that cannot
be met in the real world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.2]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
As briefly noted above, the NPRM contains a proposal for vocational vehicles that has been developed
with a "normalization" process utilized to adjust the MY2017 standard baseline and thus adjust the
current standards accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.31]
The NPRM contains only a reference to the RIA, which contains only one paragraph and a table that
explains this process. The process sets out a set of assumptions that the agencies applied to "normalize"
across vocational vehicle categories to adjust the baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.31]
The process uses assumed populations for various classifications, including urban, regional and
multipurpose, to which apparently arbitrary population percentages are then applied. The resulting
proportions are then applied to the 2017 emission baseline (the 2017 standard), resulting in modified
beginning points. As a result, the starting point is not where it should be, the MY2017 vehicle emission
standards, but instead reflects some adjusted standard. No significant explanation is given as to why
certain numbers were chosen, including the percentage of vehicles assigned to various cycles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.31]
It is difficult if not impossible to adequately comment on this portion of the proposal. From what we can
tell, the proposal uses arbitrary populations and adjustments and cites no actual data in support of its
percentages. It also appears that this proposal seriously misrepresents the actual classification of vehicles.
This results in a seriously skewed starting point, since the assumptions that an emission limit can be met
are based on assumptions about penetration rates for new technologies in various vehicle classifications.
If those assumptions are wrong, the bases for the emission standards are wrong and, therefore, the
standards themselves are wrong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.31]
In particular, we think the normalization incorrectly stated the populations. Currently, we think that the
percentages are off as much as 20% in some categories. This will inappropriately penalize some
manufacturers and benefit others, based on their particular mix. Some manufacturers, because of this mix,
may adopt all of the technologies assumed in the RIA yet still not reach compliant levels because of the
arbitrary normalization, which skews the actual emissions goals based on incorrect assumptions of the
current product mix for the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.31-32]
Normalization or equalization could benefit one manufacturer over another based on their mix. It is likely
that the unknown elements of the regulation could translate into a rule that drives customers to the
incorrect specification for their application or to avoid upgrading their vehicles entirely.4 This
normalization should be eliminated from the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.32]
Organization: Volvo Group
In setting stringencies for the Phase 2 regulation the agencies have included technologies, penetration
rates and processes such as "normalization" that, by their own admission (see below), result in targets that
are not attainable even using the proposed technology packages and penetration rates. Volvo Group
agrees that the Averaging, Banking and Trading (AB&T) flexibility provision is necessary to help meet
individual customer needs and to offset any one OEM's product mix and market share in each segment.
However, we also believe that stringencies for any one market segment must not be based on the
-------
expectation that credits can be transferred from another market segment, since this creates an unleveled
playing field based on OEM market mix. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.30]
This is best illustrated within the vocational vehicle subcategories, where the agencies have set
stringencies that cannot be attained with their own technology packages, let alone after accounting for
realistic penetration rates. One example of this is the normalization process that the agencies used,
supposedly to avoid an incentive to certify vocational vehicles in a less stringent subcategory. The
agencies state in Section V.C.2.b of the Preamble that they "are aware that in this approach, some of the
projected technology packages would not provide a direct path to compliance for manufacturers...Using
the technologies adopted at projected rates, it would fall short of the standard," but that the "Agencies
believe that the Phase 2 program has enough regulatory flexibility (averaging, banking, and trading
provisions in particular) to enable such a vehicle to be certified."[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-Al
p.30-31]
Indeed, any vehicle can be certified regardless of its performance when compared to the standard.
However, it is completely unacceptable that the Agencies promulgate a regulation where an entire class
(regulatory subcategory) of vehicles is known and intentionally targeted beforehand to be incapable of
meeting the standard for that subcategory when utilizing the full technology package and the expected
penetration rates used to set the standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.31]
Another example of this is found in the very first paragraph of the aforementioned section of the
Preamble where the Agencies state "the proposed standard stringency does reflect, to some extent, the
ability of manufacturers to utilize credits. For example, we project that hybrid vehicles would generally
be certified in the urban subcategory and would generate emission credits that would most likely be used
in the other subcategories within the weight class group." This is compounded by the Agencies' inclusion
of the same 18% penetration rate of hybrids in the vocational Multi-purpose subcategory as they have
assumed in the urban subcategory, even with the aforementioned statement around their projection of
most hybrids being certified in the urban subcategory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.31]
The Agencies' position leaves OEMs susceptible to non-compliance if they cannot offset a negative
balance of credits within three years. This will, given the Agencies' position, put OEMs at the mercy of
their product mix and market strength across the vehicle subcategories. Per the Agencies' example in the
referenced section if an OEM is dominant in the MHD Regional subcategory in MY2021 and had little
participation in the other MHD vocational subcategories then that OEM would have no way to accrue an
average positive credit. The only way an OEM can meet the normalized standards given the Agencies
technology packages and penetration rates is to match the 25%-50%-25% vocational product mix in the
Regional, Multipurpose, and Urban subcategories respectively, or to over-comply, which few, if any,
OEMs will be able to do. Volvo Group's sales do not match this assumed mix, nor have the Agencies
provided any data to support their assertion that the general market matches this mix. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.31]
As requested elsewhere in this document and within the EMA comments, we request that the standards
set for each regulatory subcategory be set based on the ability to meet the standard for that regulatory
subcategory with a reasonable penetration of technically and commercially feasible technologies for that
subcategory, and that subcategory alone, in the timeframe of the regulation and its' individual stringency
steps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.31]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
-------
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA re-examine the weighting procedure used to set
equivalent standards for the three subcategories of vocational vehicles in the NPRM. CARB staff agrees it
is important to set the standards so manufacturers do not have an incentive to purposely "misclassify"
their vehicles. However, CARB staff is concerned that the method described on page 40308 of the NPRM
may inadvertently present just such an incentive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.52]
In the example on page 40308, the NPRM explains that for one technology that would provide a 5 percent
benefit for regional vehicles, 7 percent for multipurpose vehicles, and 8 percent for urban vehicles, when
setting the proposed standards, they weighted the reductions and assumed 6.6 percent benefit for all three
subcategories. CARB staff is concerned that a manufacturer using such a technology would have an
incentive to classify their vehicle as urban (to show an 8 percent benefit) even if their vehicle actually
would fit more appropriately in the regional or multipurpose subcategories (where the device would show
only a 5 to 7 percent benefit). CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to re-examine whether it
may be more appropriate to set differing standards for the differing vocational vehicle subcategories, to
remove this potential incentive for misclassification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.52-53]
Response:
At proposal our standard-setting process included a process described as 'normalizing', where the GEM-
derived baseline values were adjusted prior to applying improvements, as well as an equalization process
where subcategory-specific technology-based improvements were averaged before applying reductions to
the adjusted baselines. The agencies have carefully considered all comments and we have reconsidered
our standard-setting process. Now that we have revised our baselines in response to comment (as
described above in section 6.2.1), we are more confident that we are reasonably representing the MY
2018 vocational vehicle fleet without needing to "normalize" the baseline GEM values. We also have
revised our standard setting process to no longer include equalization. The stringency of the final standard
for each of the subcategories is derived directly from the final technology package found to be feasible in
each subcategory, without any fleet mix assumptions (i.e. equalizing assumptions) baked into the
equation. We agree with comments noting that the equalization approach at proposal could have
inappropriately benefitted one manufacturer over another based on their product mix. We also note that
the equalization process as proposed would have made the standards for the Regional vehicles
unattainable using the technology pathway identified by the agencies, thus motivating manufacturers to
select less appropriate test cycles for vehicles that are designed for Regional service.
In comparing our relative stringencies in each subcategory with each respective baseline, the Regional
vehicles are generally able to achieve the smallest percent improvement from the lowest (cleanest)
baseline. By contrast, the Urban vehicles are generally able to achieve the greatest percent improvement
from the highest (dirtiest) baseline.
The proposed normalization/equalization approach was motivated in part by a legitimate desire to avoid
inappropriate subcategorization. In the final process to establish numerical standards, we conclude we
have found a way to prevent enabling reasonably efficient vehicles in today's fleet from avoiding
installing any technology simply by certifying in an inappropriate subcategory. We do so by specifying
certain equipment-related constraints - if a vocational vehicle is equipped with certain equipment then it
cannot certify in a specified subcategory. The constraints we are adopting on selection of subcategory at
the time of certification are discussed below in Section 6.5.1. Preamble Section V.C also discusses recent
information relating to program structure and constraints on choice of duty-cycle and the agencies'
intention to continue discussions on these issues.
6.2.3 General Comments on Custom Chassis Standards
-------
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
Custom Chassis Manufacturer Issues
Beginning on page 40294 of the NPRM, EPA recognizes the dilemma caused by smaller manufacturers
who produce vehicles on their own chassis. The flexibility inherent in the Phase II regulations are not
available to small volume manufactures as they do not have other categories of vehicles to average over.
EPA suggests setting less stringent targets, or providing additional time to meet the targets, would be a
way of addressing this dilemma. They also suggest limiting the volume over which this relief would be
provided. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.6]
The dilemma here is caused, not by the size or method of manufacturing, but by the almost certain fact
that vocational vehicles cannot be designed to practically comply with the proposed regulations. If a large
manufacture can produce a compliant truck for a specific vocation, then a small manufacturer can do the
same. In anticipating the problem custom chassis manufacturers will have in meeting the Phase II criteria,
EPA is essentially admitting that the criteria is unlikely to be attainable without the averaging component
of the regulation. Large manufactures will not make compliant vocational vehicles, they will simply rely
on credits from their high production models make up the difference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-
A2 p.7]
We suggest that the Phase II regulations must limit mandates to realistic and practical improvements that
can be met for each vocation, and then applied equally to all manufacturers. The NRPM has two
suggested solutions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.7]
1) Provide relief through less stringent regulation of low volume vocational vehicles, but place a limit on
the sales volume. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.7]
2) Provide extra time to meet the more stringent regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.7]
We believe that both of these approaches are flawed. If more stringent regulations are impractical and
cannot be met, then less stringent regulations on a limited production volume stifles a custom chassis
manufacturers' opportunity to grow their business. Providing extra time to meet an impossible target
simply delays the inevitable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.7]
It is an inherent fact that most efficiency related innovations in heavy vehicle components come first on
high volume applications. This is natural because the large fleets who purchase high volume trucks are
most sensitive to fuel economy improvements, and component suppliers have a greater incentive to invest
in new product development when the potential sales volume is greater. Vocational vehicle manufactures
are therefore not in a position to influence components such as engines, transmissions, axles, tires,
wheels, drivelines, etc... where the EPA is presuming the majority of efficiency improvements will come
from. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.7]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
While not part of the NODA, an agency memorandum on alternative approaches to certifying specialty
vocational vehicles, or custom chassis, has recently been added to the docket.16 The two approaches are a
simplified model of GEM similar to Phase 1 and a minimum applied technology package. The vehicles
that these could be applied to are motor homes, intercity coaches, school buses, transit buses, refuse
trucks, cement mixers, and emergency vehicles. These vehicles together represent around 20 percent of
-------
vocational vehicle sales, with motor homes being the largest contingent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1896-A1 p.5]
The standard for these vehicles proposed in the memorandum is significantly weaker than the proposal for
every single class of vehicle, by an average of between 5 and 7 percent.17 This means that if
manufacturers take advantage of this approach for the 20 percent of the fleet that is eligible, the
vocational vehicle standard would need to be strengthened by more than 1 percent, on average, to offset
the application of these standards and maintain the environmental benefits of the proposal. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.6]
If manufacturers are able to identify these specialized classes of vehicle as would be required to take
advantage of this proposal, then they should also then be able to take advantage of the most appropriate
fuel-saving technologies for that unique duty cycle (e.g., aerodynamic improvements for motorcoaches
that spend extensive time at high speed cruise). The ability for manufacturers to identify these
applications should therefore result in a more stringent vocational vehicle target for these custom chassis,
not less. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.6]
Furthermore, the simplified compliance pathway eliminates incentives for technologies directly
applicable to these vehicles, including transmission improvements and hybridization. This is especially
concerning for intercity buses, school buses, and refuse trucks, all of which are ideal applications for
powertrain improvements that would not be captured or incentivized under this approach. This could
significantly undermine the vocational vehicle target and erode benefits of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1896-A1 p.6]
Simulating the technology packages identified in the memo with GEM P2vl. 1 resulted in a shortfall for
the vehicles ranging from 3 to 17 percent, which yielded an approximate sales-weighted average of 7
percent. Accounting for the reweighted drive cycles would reduce this average to 5 percent, with only
motor homes having a standard that is as strong as the proposed vocational vehicle target for its class.
Organization: Autocar, LLC
EPA's Memorandum Proposes an Ineffective and Costly Compliance Scheme.
Simplified GEM Misses the Mark. Autocar disagrees with EPA's conclusions and compliance suggestions
in the Memorandum and is seeking an opportunity to provide formal comments to this substantive rule
proposal that appears to be largely based on the data in the NODA. Although Autocar appreciates EPA's
attempt to provide a more manageable compliance construct for vocational custom chassis manufacturers,
the diversity of the applications, and the unique characteristics of refuse drive cycles and payload needs in
particular, render the data and the proposed technologies unusable, as set forth in this section. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.5]
If Adopted. EPA's Proposal Will Require Autocar to Certify Some of its Vocational Chassis to the Full
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model ('GEM'), while Refuse Chassis Will Have only Limited Variables to
Certify to in Simplified GEM. Autocar acknowledges that EPA is attempting to address certain of
Autocar's concerns set forth in its October 1, 2015 Comments, incorporated herein,6 in proposing an
alternative compliance scheme to full GEM certification. In particular, Autocar appreciates EPA's
willingness to develop separate standards for vocational vehicles manufactured as custom chassis, and
EPA's recognition in the Memorandum that certain manufacturers in these vocational segments will not
be able to avail themselves of banking and averaging credits to comply with the Proposed Regulations.7
However, Autocar respectfully notes that some of the suggestions in the Memorandum, while well-
-------
intended toward small-volume manufacturers like Autocar, have certain negative unintended
consequences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.5] 161 Comment submitted by James M. Johnston,
President, Autocar, LLC and Autocar Industries, LLC, No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014_0827-1233. Ill
Memorandum at pp. 1, 3, and 4.
EPA's Proposal for Simplified GEM as a Compliance Path Does Not Include Conventional Refuse
Trucks. Street Sweepers. Concrete Pumpers or Other Vocational Custom Chassis. If Simplified GEM is
available only for Autocar's refuse chassis, and not for its chassis that are final-stage manufactured into
street sweepers, asphalt patchers, stripers and blasters, concrete pumpers and conveyers, aircraft deicers,
refuelers and stackers and sewage suction trucks, then Autocar will still be burdened with full GEM
compliance obligations, for these highly customized and low-volume chassis applications.8 Assuming this
bifurcated compliance structure was not intended, the agencies have no basis to exclude these applications
as vehicle types covered by the Memorandum because these other vocational applications have operating
characteristics that are similar to some of the vehicle types covered by the Memorandum (i.e., low-
speed/frequent-stop PTO usage)., Had the NREL Report mapped these applications' drive cycles, it would
have provided an adequate basis for crafting standards and determining compliance technologies for these
vehicle types (see Section 1.2 for further discussion of this issue). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1
p.5-6] /8/ All of these applications together constitute less than 130 annual chassis sales for Autocar.
EPA's Proposal for Simplified GEM Allows Refuse Trucks Merely Seven Input Variables. Only Two of
Which May Be Useful in the Refuse Segment. Tables 4-6 of the Memorandum indicate that refuse custom
chassis will have to comply with Phase 2 through certification in Simplified GEM and specific adoption
rates of five technology packages. Table 3 of the Memorandum suggests GEM inputs for Simplified
GEM, and allows refuse chassis only seven technology package inputs, while the most significant fuel-
efficient and emission-reducing technologies - certified engines and transmissions - are made a default
(requirement), with no credit toward GEM compliance. Of the technology packages listed, only two are
arguably useful in refuse truck applications: Low Rolling Resistance ('LRR') Tires, and Tire Pressure
Monitoring.
As noted in Figure 1, whether LRR tires can successfully reduce fuel consumption, and whether weight
reduction can be achieved, are largely dependent upon the truck owner and the body builder, respectively,
neither of whom are subject to the regulations. Other than engine and transmission producers, body
builders may have the greatest potential for reducing GHG emissions by improving or changing PTO
performance (PTOs are generally specified, procured and installed by body builders) and reducing
weight, but there is no allowance for that possibility in the instant proposal. And with respect to
vocational customers, who are likely to enjoy much less fuel-cost savings with these proposed technology
packages than their long-haul tractor-trailer colleagues gain with their compliance requirements, they will
not likely voluntarily seek these features. This puts Autocar in the position of having to market any
components the agencies may compel, and that reduces its ability to comply because it cannot average,
bank and trade credits. The agencies should consider the need to communicate the requirements for the
proposed technologies to customers and additionally take measures to prohibit their removal or disabling
after purchase. [Figure 1 can be found on p.7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1]
2.2.5 Compliance Efforts for Refuse Trucks May Be Futile. Using the information in the Memorandum
and additional guidance9 provided by its author, Lauren Steele, but without the benefit of reviewing an
actual Simplified GEM file (see Appendix 2 for Autocar's request for extension), Autocar attempted a
refuse truck GEM simulation, using the defaults provided in Table 810 and the proposed technologies
listed in Tables 4-6 of the Memorandum. [Appendix 2 can be found on p. 8 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1885-A2] TPMS and ATIS were not available in the model. "Neutral at Idle' provided
only a 2.8% improvement in emissions and consumption. 'Low Rolling Resistance Tires' provided only a
-------
1.4% improvement in emissions and consumption. Even with the addition of either (but not both) TPMS
or ATIS, the only remaining technologies available, it appears that any attempt to reach the required fuel
savings and tailpipe GHG emissions reductions under the proposed compliance scheme is futile.11 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.8] 191 This additional guidance was provided in the form of a sample
input file for use with the Phase 2 GEM, where certain rows indicated the types of vehicle configurations
the agencies anticipate using to set the baseline 2018 performance levels for regular vocational vehicles
using the full GEM program, and other rows indicated the types of vehicle configurations the agencies
anticipate using to set the baseline 2018 performance levels for custom vocational vehicles using
Simplified GEM. /10/ Although notably, the default engine in Table 8 is not available for Autocar's refuse
trucks. /11/ The apparent impossibility of compliance under the Simplified GEM with the available
proposed technologies may result from the non-representative drive cycle data and inappropriate defaults.
Autocar believes it is similarly impossible to have default engines, transmissions, weight and payload for
such diverse vocational vehicles.
2.3 With the Instant Proposal. Autocar Has Little Control Of Its Destiny. Regulations requiring the
integration of certain technologies make Autocar entirely dependent on third party suppliers for
compliance. This is a particularly precarious position for a small, low-volume business, subjecting it to
the mercy of the suppliers with regard to lead time and pricing. Autocar is not vertically integrated and
only installs suppliers' components; thus, Autocar does not enjoy the real flexibility EPA likely intended
with technology-based packages. Also, refuse truck customers almost always specify desired components
and may resist purchasing them at the adoption rates EPA suggested in Tables 4-6 of the Memorandum.
In fact, specifying adoption rates less than 50% for certain technologies virtually assures the failure of this
compliance scheme, as Autocar will be forced to market and sell to some customers more expense and
payload-displacing components, in order to obtain the required averages. Larger, more diversified chassis
manufacturers could achieve these levels using credits from other vehicles, creating a lopsided market
incentive. Unless all custom chassis makers are required to install the mandated technology packages on
all vocational trucks, the agencies will have created a commercial imbalance in which a certain number of
Autocar refuse customers, for example, will have to choose between buying a more expensive and
component-laden Autocar chassis, or a non-compliant, but cheaper and lighter, competitive brand. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.8-9]
3.5 Some Small Businesses Received Greater Flexibilities. In the Memorandum, EPA exempted
manufacturers of emergency vehicles and cement mixers from compliance with Phase 2, requiring only
that they install LRR tires on their vehicles. Manufacturers of recreational vehicles also have a lesser
compliance burden than other vocational vehicle types. Neither the Memorandum nor the documents
included in the NODA explain why emergency vehicles, cement mixers and recreational vehicles should
be exempt, but not refuse vehicles. Moreover, Autocar and other small volume manufacturers assemble
custom chassis in other heavy-duty vocational applications that are not addressed in the Memorandum,
such as conventional (non-cab-over-engine) refuse trucks, concrete pumpers, street sweepers, tank trunks
and sewer cleaners. Without explanation, these similar applications have been excluded from the
proposed Simplified compliance scheme, and presumably require full GEM certification. This bifurcated
approach will further unnecessarily burden small businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p. 12]
3.6 If EPA's Proposal is Used. It Must Not Allow Any Refuse Trucks to be Sold Without the Proposed
Technologies. Given the questionable effectiveness of the proposed technologies to provide fuel savings
to refuse truck owners (see Section 2.2.2 above), if the final regulations reflect the compliance scheme
described in the Memorandum, then it is imperative that every vehicle of the same vehicle type be
required to be sold with the same proposed technologies; meaning, the adoption rate of the proposed
technologies must be 100%. If a customer knows it can purchase a vocational vehicle without ATIS, for
example, it will find a manufacturer who will sell the truck without ATIS. That means that larger
-------
manufacturers will have an advantage over small manufacturers, who cannot average, bank or trade
credits, and that must be prevented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p. 12]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
We are unable to provide meaningful input to the agencies on the proposal to allow a stripped-down GEM
or to allow certification without use of GEM at all for certain types of vocational vehicles classified as
"custom chassis." The reduced procedural requirements may be beneficial to certain small or
unsophisticated custom chassis manufacturers. But the primary issues are 1) whether all manufacturers,
small or large, sophisticated or not, get to use the procedures and 2) what the substance of the program is,
specifically, the actual emission standards. Regarding the first issue, we recommend that the agencies not
create inequity in custom chassis markets by allowing some manufacturers of a type of vehicle to use a
simplified procedure or meet a relaxed standard, while requiring other manufacturers of the same type of
vehicle to play by other rules. Rather, it should be the type of vehicle, and not the type of manufacturer,
that determines the rules that apply. Regarding the second issue, in proposing the reduced procedural
burdens (e.g., at a webinar on March 22), the agencies described example standards a manufacturer might
have to meet if it opted for the reduced procedural burdens (e.g., a set tire rolling resistance, Crr). It was
not clear whether those standards are meant only as examples or as the actual standards, nor was it clear
whether those standards are achievable by the various types of custom chassis. For example, the Crr's
were considerably lower than those on vocational vehicles built today, and it is not clear that new tire
technology is being developed that will allow vocational operation while meeting the agencies' proposed
Crr's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-A2 p.3]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
In a memorandum posted to the docket in February 2016, but not included in the NODA,3 ("Vocational
Memorandum") EPA is proposing a regulatory scheme that is completely new and appears to carve out a
less stringent rule for some vehicles based on the identity of the manufacturer. Even so, the proposal is
only very roughly sketched out, and inadequate for meaningful comment. The NODA was an opportunity
for EPA to share additional information on this portion of the rule, but the baseline, segmentation,
structure, standards, and other key elements are still unknown. Although the GEM includes the
technologies, it is uncertain what EPA's stringency will be for any category, as GEM and the duty cycle
weightings have changed so substantially since the NPRM. The Vocational rule covers an extremely
diverse group of vehicles with hundreds of downstream equipment manufacturers. It is important that this
portion of the regulation be structured correctly to ensure no adverse consequences. The custom program
with a simplified GEM could provide an unlevel playing field for manufacturers.
Another key element is missing, as there is virtually no additional examination of costs as a result of this
major potential change to the original proposal. The entire examination of costs is one sentence, in which
EPA concludes that the average cost for custom vehicles would be less than the average for the rest of the
vocational sector (presumably regulated by the proposal in the NPRM) under the scheme set out in the
Vocational Memorandum. No explanation is given as to why this is the case or how this analysis was
conducted. More distressingly, no explanation is given as to why this should be the case. No basis is
given for dividing vocational vehicles into sectors with resultant differing manufacturing costs. As near as
we can tell, the difference appears to be based on whether a company is diversified or not, although no
meaningful explanation is given as to the basis for that division or any justification for the division. It
appears to be a completely arbitrary distinction, between different vehicles presumably based on certain
undefined aspects of the company that manufactured them, rather than the vehicles themselves. Navistar
objects to such an arbitrary reclassification. This clearly has the potential to cause significant disruption in
-------
this portion of the industry and to arbitrarily advantage some manufacturers over others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1919-A2 p.2-3]
Navistar is also concerned with that the NODA did not call attention to these potentially major changes.
The Memorandum, dated February 12, 2016, discussing the custom chassis was not listed in the NODA
as something for which the agencies are seeking comment. It appeared in the docket on February 25,
2016, which likely means there was sufficient time for it to be listed for additional comment in the
NODA. As such, it appears that the agencies are contemplating a wholesale restructuring of the
vocational program, and yet not seeking comment on the key document. While the NODA did seek
comment on vocational segmentation in one document, this statement by EPA itself was not
highlighted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1919-A2 p.3]
3 Memorandum, Vocational Vehicle Technology Packages for Custom Chassis, February 12, 2016. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-1719. We would also note that some level of customization is extremely common among
all manufacturers, diverse or not.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The agencies' proposal to create separate Phase 2 Standards for seven categories of custom-chassis
vehicles could result in an unlevel regulatory playing field for larger integrated manufacturers that
provide non-custom chassis for the targeted vehicle applications (e.g., school buses). The agencies need to
provide more details regarding this proposal to enable meaningful public comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1891-A1 p.4]
Organization: Volvo Group
Technology Packages for Custom Chassis - EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-827-1719
Volvo's Opposition To The Custom Chassis Optional Standard
Based on the limited information available at present about the vocational vehicle program, the Volvo
Group does not believe that an optional standard is warranted for small manufacturers, even if it is
extended to larger OEMs. To the contrary, Volvo believes that the base vocational vehicle standards
should be set such that all manufacturers can comply. This approach would also limit compliance burden,
as well as provide for a level playing field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 12]
Under "Industry Characterization" on page 2 of the Custom Chassis document the agencies note that "it
would be likely that the single-type (non-diversified) manufacturers would be able to certify their
products as custom vocational vehicles, while only some of the multiple-type manufacturers (diversified)
would have sufficient knowledge about, or control over, the intended use of their products to certify one
or more types as custom vocational vehicles." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.12]
This explicitly states the agencies' belief that most large OEMs would not be able to certify their vehicles
to the simplified and less stringent standard, thus creating an un-level playing field that would give
smaller manufacturers the ability to produce less technically complex, more reliable, and less expensive
options for end-users. For this reason, the Volvo Group finds this provision completely unacceptable in its
current form. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 12]
A Manufacturer's Ability To Comply Is Subject To Its Supplier's Offering
-------
The agencies' purpose for the custom chassis flexibility is to allow small manufacturers who cannot
average over a larger mix of vehicle types the ability to meet the requirements of the Phase II GHG
regulation without the need for credit averaging, banking and trading. This approach allows these
manufacturers the ability to meet a simplified set of requirements, according to the agencies; however, it
is not entirely clear whether this will actually be the case, as none of the targeted manufacturers produce
their own components and, therefore, their ability to comply is subject to the product offering provided by
their supplier base. As noted in the following section, this may result in an inability to provide a reliable
and durable stop-start engine offering. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 12]
Response:
At proposal the only type of vocational vehicle for which we proposed any less stringent standard was
emergency vehicles. Although we asked for comments that could lead us to adopt separate standards for
other vehicle types (80 FR 40294), the proposal on its face would have held all non-emergency and non-
exempt vocational vehicles to the proposed standards that were predicated in part on significant adoption
of a large menu of technologies that, on average, could improve the fuel efficiency of the U.S. vocational
vehicle fleet by 12 to 16 percent. Thus, at proposal, we gave notice that we could finalize standards with
that level of stringency and those associated costs for nearly all vehicles. If we had done so, any business
that could not reasonably have applied a set of cost-effective technologies at adoption rates leading to
compliance for any reason would have either had to purchase credits from a competitor or accrue a credit
deficit.
During the course of the comment period and subsequent months of stakeholder outreach, we became
aware that this outcome could be realized for some non-diversified manufacturers and we began to
develop options with intent to prevent this. Upon careful consideration of all the comments related to
vocational vehicle chassis manufacturers who produce non-diversified products, we are adopting optional
standards for seven applications of vocational vehicles that we are calling custom chassis.
Although we had received informed comment regarding which technologies would not be cost-effective
for each of these custom chassis in response to notice of what could be thought of as a worst-case
scenario (higher costs and stronger technology packages than we intended to finalize), we decided to
provide actual notice to manufacturers who build and certify chassis for these vocational applications, in
the form of a memorandum to the docket along with a public web conference.179 By doing so, we offered
another opportunity for affected manufacturers to weigh in on the reasonableness of the direction we were
moving as we responded to previous comments. Commenters are correct that the memorandum provided
only draft technology packages with adoption rates, without technology-specific effectiveness values or
costs. The technology effectiveness and cost values were the same as those used in the proposed rules.
Using this available information, preliminary package costs and stringencies for custom chassis could
have been easily estimated by stakeholders. We thus disagree with Navistar that the memorandum was
inadequate for meaningful comment. In fact, as evidenced by the detailed comments from UCS and other
stakeholders found in the administrative record, we received ample comment and have been able to
further refine the program in response.
We agree with the commenter that if manufacturers are able to identify that a chassis will be finished as
one of the vehicle applications that are eligible to certify under the custom chassis program, then they
179 See record of Webinar on Vocational Custom Chassis, March 2016, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1944;
see also memorandum dated February 2016 on Vocational Vehicle Technology Packages for Custom Chassis,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1719.
-------
should also be able to take advantage of the most appropriate fuel-saving technologies for that unique
duty cycle. The optional standards for custom chassis are predicated on that exact premise.
Although the memorandum indicated that we were exploring adoption of three levels of standards with
the same implementation years as the primary program (MYs 2021, 2024, 2027), we are not adopting any
MY 2024 custom chassis standards in the final rules. Our reasons for this are related to regulatory
stability and incremental technology improvements. First, for those small businesses that may begin in
MY 2022, having a new standard in MY 2024 would only provide two years of stability between sets of
standards. Second, as presented in the Preamble Section V.B.2.b.ii, there are relatively small incremental
changes between MY 2021 and MY 2027 standards in terms of technologies that are within the control of
the vehicle manufacturer. We appreciate the comments from OshKosh and Volvo emphasizing the point
that the ability of a custom chassis manufacturer to comply is subject to the product offering provided by
its supplier base. Considering that the custom chassis user inputs exclude engine data, we have
established the numerical standards for both model years using default engines that meet the MY 2027
engine standard. This promotes better transparency because the incremental difference between the MY
2021 and MY 2027 numerical standard for each custom chassis subcategory is due solely to vehicle-level
technologies. By comparing the values in Preamble Tables V-12 or V-13, manufacturers choosing to
certify emergency vehicles, concrete mixers, motor homes, or coach buses under this optional path will
see that the incremental difference in stringency between MY 2021 and MY 2027 is two percent or less,
excluding the engine. Manufacturers choosing to certify transit buses or refuse trucks under this optional
path will see that the incremental difference in stringency between MY 2021 and MY 2027 is five percent
or less, excluding the engine. Manufacturers choosing to certify school buses under this optional path
will see that the incremental difference in stringency between MY 2021 and MY 2027 is less than seven
percent, excluding the engine.
Given that the GEM-based numerical standard is a target for manufacturers to meet on average, it thus
does not appear worth the extra programmatic complexity to set an intermediate target with a very small
incremental improvement. Even for school buses, where the incremental improvement is the largest, it
does not appear to be worth the extra programmatic complexity to have one custom chassis subcategory
with a MY 2024 standard where others do not.
As requested by commenters, we have estimated ranges of package costs for each of the custom chassis,
and simplified cost summaries are presented in Table 7 in the Executive Summary of the RIA. The
values shown below in Table 6-2 are taken from those tables. The ranges represent variations in cost that
are relative to different vehicle and engine weight classes.
-------
Table 6-2 Incremental Costs for Custom Chassis Technology Packages
Regulatory
Subcategory
Average
Incremental Cost
per Custom
Chassis Vehicle
Relative to Phase
1 Costs in Model
Year 20213
Average
Incremental Cost
of Comparable
Subcategories in
MY 2021
Average
Incremental Cost
per Custom
Chassis Vehicle
Relative to Phase
1 Costs in
Model Year 2027
a
Average
Incremental Cost
of Comparable
Subcategories in
MY 2027
Coach Bus
700-900
900-2,600
1,100-1,400
1,500-5,700
Motor Home
600-800
900-2,600
800-1,000
1,500-5,700
School Bus
700-1,000
1,100-1,300
1,300-1,800
2,500-4,200
Transit
800-1,000
1,100-1,300
1,400-1,800
2,500-4,200
Refuse
600-700
1,100-1,300
1,000-1,300
2,500-4,200
Mixer
300
1,100-1,300
600
2,500-4,200
Emergency
300-400
1,100-1,300
500-600
2,500-4,200
^ote:
3 Diesel engine costs are included in average vehicle costs. These costs are based on our projected
market adoption rates of various technologies and these costs include indirect costs via markups along
with learning impacts. For a description of the markups and learning impacts considered in this analysis
and how it impacts technology costs for other years, refer to Chapter 2 of the RIA (see RIA 2.11).
In response to the comment about whether the technology packages for custom chassis are feasible, we
note that this comment is from Daimler, which provided sufficient information in its MY 2014 production
report for the agencies to identify different vocational applications including motor homes. We have
determined from these reports that of the nearly 6,000 class 6-8 motor homes certified by Daimler in
2014, they have an average drive and steer tire CRR of 6.1 kg/ton. Thus, it is reasonable that we predicate
the MY 2021 Phase 2 motor home standards on adoption of LRR tires with CRR of 6.1 kg/ton and MY
2027 standards that are based on CRR improvements even slightly beyond that level.
In response to Volvo's comment against offering an optional standard for a selection of vocational
applications even if it is extended to larger OEMs, and setting a standard "such that all manufacturers can
comply," we interpret this comment to mean that the mandatory standards for all vocational vehicles
should have a stringency on the order of the proposed Alternative 2. In that alternative, no transmission-
related technologies would have been considered, instead the standards would have been predicated on
adoption of lower rolling resistance tires, neutral idle, and axle lubricants. See Section 8.4 for responses
to comments on consideration of less stringent alternatives.
In the final Phase 2 program, simplified GEM means that for some subcategories the full Phase 2 GEM is
run with some input fields populated with agency defaults instead of user inputs. These defaults include
the engine maps, transmission, drive axle ratio, tire revs/mile, and aerodynamic drag area improvement.
In response to comments from Autocar and others, the available inputs for custom chassis have been
expanded since release of the docket memo and the accompanying stakeholder outreach. In particular,
manufacturers certifying vehicles to the optional custom chassis standards may now enter inputs in GEM
for vehicle speed limiters, improvements over the separate hybrid PTO test, and electrified accessories, in
addition to automatic engine shutdown that has since become available to all manufacturers. The
simplified GEM has far more user inputs than the Phase 1 GEM, and allows for fair and reasonable
-------
recognition of many feasible vehicle technologies with a lower certification burden than with use of full
Phase 2 GEM.
We disagree with Autocar that the custom chassis standards are not achievable. With the standards being
predicated on use of a different set of technologies than the standards of the primary program, the
stringency is adjusted accordingly. For example, the refuse truck stringency in MY 2027 is 12 percent
below the 2017 baseline, which includes a certified engine plus about six percent reductions attributable
to vehicle technologies beyond the engine improvements. With the final drive cycle weightings in GEM
and the characteristics of refuse truck baselines, applying neutral idle would result in reduced emissions in
GEM of about 5 percent. If TPMS were added with a defined improvement of 0.9 percent, this could
easily represent a path to compliance for a custom chassis refuse truck. Autocar is mistaken that the final
rule mandates use of any particular technologies for custom chassis (or, indeed, any vocational vehicle),
and we are not inclined to agree with their comment requesting that we mandate specific technologies on
vehicles. The agencies have been promulgating performance-based standards for decades, and have
found that this offers many benefits over a design-based approach, especially with respect to product
variability and opportunity for manufacturer innovation. Even with excellent input from manufacturers
and suppliers, we are not equipped to mandate specific technologies to be installed on any subcategory of
vocational vehicles for the next decade or more. There are multiple feasible pathways for custom chassis
manufacturers to attain the performance standards, even with a default driveline in GEM.
Furthermore, we disagree with Autocar that having a default driveline creates any sort of disadvantage.
On the contrary, with a default driveline, vocational vehicles within a subcategory may be compared
solely on the basis of the allowed user inputs, which facilitates a level playing field where some
applications necessarily have features needed for vehicle utility that do not improve fuel efficiency in
GEM. For example, the driveline gearing on a refuse truck may be such that its emissions over the Urban
cycle could be higher than that of a typical urban work truck (See comments from Allison at EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.45), putting it at a disadvantage in terms of the amount of additional
technology needed to comply. In this case, having an optional standard where refuse trucks are compared
on the basis of tire rolling resistance, workday idle reduction, and tire pressure systems (excluding engine,
axle and transmission) minimizes any disadvantage associated with the driveline. If a manufacturer
decides that the most cost-effective pathway to complying with Phase 2 is by certifying to the primary
program where engine and driveline technologies may be recognized, that is an option for any refuse
vehicle family in any year, for any manufacturer. Finally, the entire Phase 1 program is structured with
default engines, transmissions, weight and payload where each subcategory of vocational vehicles is
compared solely on the basis of tire rolling resistance. The use of defaults does not mean that vehicles are
actually built similarly; rather, it provides freedom to build widely varying products without affecting
regulatory status.
Use of simplified GEM as an optional certification tool is most easily justified in cases where either the
typical duty cycle of the vocational application is poorly represented by any of the three final test cycles,
or where we find that the default GEM vehicle characteristics are so different from real world
characteristics (for example engine power to vehicle weight ratio) that use of full GEM with active
simulation of actual driveline parameters would not reasonably test the effectiveness of applied
technologies. Furthermore, use of a simplified GEM as an optional certification tool can also be justified
where the certifying manufacturer produces small volumes of vocational chassis using a non-integrated
business model where driveline optimization is not feasible and other transmission improvements would
either be ineffective or not cost-effective. See Section 6.4.1 for responses to specific comments related to
this issue.
In response to the comment requesting clarification on our reasons for adopting a non-GEM design
standard option for motor homes, cement mixers, and emergency vehicle chassis, this is because we have
-------
determined these vehicles have the least number of feasible technologies that can be applied in Phase 2.
Emergency vehicles and concrete mixers have been determined by the agencies to essentially need only to
apply low rolling resistance tires in addition to certified engines and low leakage air conditioning (i.e.
stringency of the custom chassis standard for these vehicles is predicated on use of only these
technologies). Motor homes have been determined to apply these technologies as well as tire pressure
systems. Where a manufacturer of these vehicles is able to apply the same technology on all of its
production without averaging, we offer the non-GEM option as a compliance flexibility to avoid the
certification burden associated with running GEM. We were unable to identify other custom chassis
technology packages that we believed could be applied at a 100 percent adoption rate; thus, averaging
(and use of GEM) was deemed necessary for other vehicles.
We disagree with commenters that we need to explicitly include a large list of miscellaneous vocational
vehicles in the custom chassis program. First, we have crafted definitions in the regulations that allow
vehicles of similar characteristics to be reasonably certified to the custom chassis standards. For example,
we would allow a bookmobile built on a motor home chassis to be certified as a motor home. Further, we
believe that many of the low speed/off-road vehicles described in the above comments would likely be
eligible for exclusion from vehicle-level GHG requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 1037.631. However, we
agree with commenters that some of the vehicles described in the comments may legitimately have a need
to travel at highway speeds or may need to conduct work that does not require an affixed component
designed for doing off-road work. In response, the agencies have adopted additional flexibility whereby a
vehicle partly meeting the criteria may optionally certify to the custom chassis standard established for
concrete mixers.180 This approach does not allow such vehicles to be excluded from applying any
vehicle-level technologies, but does not require use of the full GEM certification path for vehicles where
the full suite of technologies is not feasible. See Section 6.4.2 for further responses to comments on issues
related to low speed/off road vehicles. Please see Section 6.4.1 below for more detailed responses to
comments related to small volume manufacturers and small businesses.
In response to comments expressing concerns about the Phase 2 creating an unlevel playing field, we
believe that forcing non-diversified manufacturers to certify to the primary standards that are predicated
in part on use of technologies that are not universally feasible would create a disruptively unlevel playing
field and potentially infeasible standards. By providing an optional path to compliance for those types of
vocational vehicles that are either poorly represented by our regulatory baselines or for which reasonable
technology options are severely limited, the agencies have created a regime allowing these specialized
vehicles to certify based on standards most likely to result in real world benefits by setting appropriate
standards. In addition, by creating this type of potential compliance path for the non-diversified
manufacturers and permitting diversified manufacturers to choose this option where the end use of the
vehicle is known at the time of certification, we believe we have structured Phase 2 to minimize the
potential market disruptions due to this program.
Technology-Specific Comments
We believe that some custom chassis manufacturers are better positioned than others to adopt
transmission technology to improve fuel efficiency. Most have little or no in-house research capacity, and
purchase off-the-shelf transmissions. We agree with commenters that businesses that purchase
components such as transmissions in the hundreds instead of thousands have less leveraging power and
tend to pay higher prices. Some, such as Gillig and Autocar, have partnered with suppliers to successfully
implement hybrids on their vehicles. Some bus chassis manufacturers are exploring the benefits of
applying transmissions with additional gears. In real world driving, vehicles with a lot of transient
180 Vehicles must meet either 40 CFR 1037. 631(a)(1) or. 1037.631(a)(2) but need not meet both.
-------
operation including custom chassis with urban driving patterns, can see real fuel savings from adoption of
improved transmissions, including those with more efficient gears and advanced shift strategies. We
expect that suppliers will continue to develop improved transmissions for vocational vehicles including
some custom chassis, and that manufacturers will continue to select transmissions that deliver reliable
products to fuel-conscious customers. Specifically, we believe that bus manufacturers will continue to
have choices of competing products that offer performance characteristics that improve over time.
However, we believe that a final Phase 2 program that is impartial to these transmission-based
improvements for custom chassis will avoid adverse unintended consequences for reasons similar to those
given in response to Allison's refuse example above.
Because we agree with commenters that motorcoach buses and school buses can reasonably apply
transmissions with a higher number of gears (with wider spread of gear ratios), we have revised the
regulations applicable to manufacturers opting to use simplified GEM to permit recognition of this
technology in a simplified manner. Below in Section 6.3.3 we explain how we have addressed comments
specifically related to adoption and effectiveness of transmission technologies on custom chassis.
We disagree with commenters that locking out the driveline inhibits adoption of hybrids for custom
chassis. In fact, we believe it may offer an incentive in some cases. In the final Phase 2 program, all
hybrid systems certified with full GEM must undergo the complete set of tests for engine mapping
(including powertrain testing as applicable) and must meet OBD requirements as well. However,
manufacturers certifying hybrid vehicles with simplified GEM need not undergo such testing, and where
the certified configuration does not rely on functioning of the hybrid system to comply, it need not meet
the hybrid OBD requirements of 40 CFR 86.010-18(q). Further, where the hybrid system includes a stop-
start function, the manufacturer may select "Yes" as a GEM input for this feature and obtain reduction
emissions in GEM as determined by the default engine. As a result, custom chassis manufacturers have a
pathway to sell vehicles with hybrids that is similar in many ways to current practice under Phase 1, with
opportunity for stop-start emissions credit without an unduly high certification burden.
We disagree with commenters that there is no allowance for weight reduction at the body builder level.
The intended path to credit weight reduction is the table of lookup values for chassis components using
preapproved values. However, the off-cycle approach is available for manufacturers who are able to
demonstrate a lightweighting improvement over a baseline value, either on a component-specific basis or
a system basis as approved. If the lightweighting for which certification credit is sought will be completed
by a downstream manufacturer, the delegated assembly provisions may apply. See Section 6.3.9 for
discussion of other comments on weight reduction, and Section 1.4.4 for discussion of comments on
delegated assembly.
We disagree with commenters that the simplified GEM must recognize aerodynamic improvements for
custom chassis. Although motorcoach buses do operate frequently at speeds where aerodynamic drag
forces are strong, those vehicle bodies are so different from typical freight trucks that to improve the
aerodynamics from buses, a very different set of technologies would need to be considered than the bolt-
on fairings reviewed by the agencies in these rules. We imagine that some improvements could possibly
be made through streamlining mirrors and redesigning frontal areas, however we have no information on
the availability, cost or effectiveness of any such technologies. Thus, we have not identified any
technologies likely to provide in-use benefit to coach buses, even in the primary program with full GEM.
The types of aerodynamic technologies listed by the agencies as available for non-custom vocational
vehicles are bolt-on fairings for which an improvement value may be entered in GEM to reduce the
default drag area. Further, the default drag area in our baselines may not be reasonably similar to the drag
area of a coach bus. If a coach bus or motor home chassis manufacturer were to conduct A to B testing
pursuant to the test procedures of 40 CFR 1037.527, it may obtain an improvement value under the
-------
primary program. Below in Section 6.3.10 we explain how we have addressed comments specifically
related to adoption and effectiveness of aerodynamic technologies on vocational vehicles.
We disagree with claims made by commenters expressing concerns with respect to a shortfall or gap in
emissions reductions between the primary vocational vehicle program and the custom chassis program.
Some commenters have attempted to quantify a difference in stringency by comparing select technology
packages for custom chassis described in a February 2016 memorandum with the proposed technology
packages for comparable subcategories. Because most of the baseline configurations for the custom
chassis are tailored for each vocational vehicle, the only vehicle types where this comparison is
straightforward is school buses and motor homes. In comparing the MY 2027 stringency of the medium
heavy-duty Urban subcategory with the optional MY 2027 standard for school buses, for example, it can
be seen that diesel vehicles in the primary program are projected to achieve 22 percent improvement on
average, while school buses are expected to achieve 18 percent improvement on average. This is nowhere
near the gap posited by the commenter. The differences are due to the documented different projections
of technology feasibility, which are discussed in more detail in the Preamble Section V and below in
Section 6.3.
This comparison is not straightforward for motorcoaches and other custom chassis types, however,
because the baselines are different and the vehicle attributes are not similar. For example, our baseline
configuration for coach buses includes a 350 hp 11-liter engine with a 6-speed automatic transmission.
However, the primary program includes a baseline for heavy heavy-duty Regional vehicles that is a
weighted average of 95% with 455 hp 15-liter engine with 10-speed manual transmission and 5% with a
350 hp 11-liter engine with a 6-speed automatic transmission. As an example of a technology difference,
we have determined that regular HHD_R chassis may reasonably apply AES on average at a rate of 90
percent by MY 2027, whereas we find that AES is not feasible at all for a conventional coach bus. A
diversified manufacturer choosing to certify a coach bus in the HHDR subcategory with full GEM is
likely to need credits from other types of vehicles to meet the standard on average. A non-diversified
coach bus manufacturer would be unlikely to achieve the HHD R primary program standard unless some
very advanced technology is applied. Therefore we do not believe it is accurate to draw a comparison
between the HHD_R primary program stringency of 16 percent and the coach bus MY 2027 stringency of
11 percent.
6.2.3.1 UCS Custom Chassis Recommendations
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
On May 9, 2016, UCS emailed a 15-page document to EPA with recommendations regarding the custom
chassis program, with the following introductory paragraph; "Our analysis of the proposal indicates that
in the form outlined in the memo included in the docket, this provision would significantly undermine the
vocational vehicle program under the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle standards. Furthermore, our
analysis of the technology available to these vehicle classes indicates that even these specialized vehicles
would be capable of achieving the average vocational vehicle standard by 2027. Therefore, we
recommend that any provision focused on custom chassis be focused on small business considerations
with an appropriate volume cap, preserving the integrity of rule while recognizing the complexity of the
vocational vehicle market." This comment document is available in the docket.181
181 See UCS Custom Chassis Recommendations, May 2016
-------
Response:
We appreciate the thoughtful comments from UCS on custom chassis. While we have several areas of
disagreement, the industry characterization with respect to manufacturers, vehicle miles traveled, and
sales volumes are significant contributions to the record for this rule. We are not directly responding to
the aspects of this comment document where UCS estimated percent reductions, emissions in grams per
ton-mile and metric tons, or perceived "shortfalls" (other than select examples above). This is because
the final Phase 2 GEM, including duty cycles, final technology packages, and other program revisions
since the time of the NODA have rendered such comparisons no longer relevant. We appreciate that UCS
offers these comments in the spirit of helping to answer the questions of what a reasonable cost-effective
technology package might be, and whether market constraints prevent companies from competing
effectively where some lack an ability to average (UCS page 1). Although we have strengthened the
custom chassis program in many ways in response to compelling comment, we have not seen persuasive
evidence that any of these vehicle types should be excluded from the custom chassis program.
School Buses
• We agree with UCS on stop-start. The 30% adoption rate on which the final (optional) standard
is predicated is what UCS recommended and is more than the 15% penetration rate set out in the
memo. Custom chassis may select 'Yes' in GEM for neutral idle where a DCT is installed. Also,
we are including a 70% adoption pathway of AES.
• We disagree on aero. NREL found that operating patterns associated with school buses have low
average speeds with frequent stops and high amounts of zero speed time, which is not consistent
with driving patterns associated with vehicles likely to benefit from aerodynamic improvements.
This is noted by UCS in its comment on page 4. If a bus OEM has a customer that intends to use
these in a regional driving pattern and wants to get credit for aero they may elect to certify to the
primary program.
• We disagree on weight. The bus OEMs submitted comment cautioning us against predicating the
standard on weight reduction due to constraints of safety standards. If a bus OEM uses
lightweight wheels, this may be included as part of a compliance strategy.
• We partially agree on transmissions:
o Although we disagree that we should predicate the standard on use of DCT, one of the
benefits of current MHD DCT is the wide gear spread offered by 7 forward gears. We
have finalized a path to partially recognize the benefit of transmissions with additional
gears, using a fixed technology improvement and an adoption rate of 15%.
o We disagree that shift strategy/integration is feasible for these. Sales volume is not a
sufficient criterion for deciding if this is feasible. It would take a business partnership
between the engine OEM and transmission supplier to develop the integrated product,
who would then sell it to the independent chassis manufacturer. Although these buses
may seem to be high volume compared to some other types of custom chassis, this is still
a niche market.
• We disagree with the suggestion to predicate the standard on use of natural gas or downsized
engines. We did not even predicate the primary vocational vehicle standards on either of these
technologies. See Section 12 for responses to comments on natural gas. See Sections 3 and 4 for
discussion of downspeeding for engines and tractors.
• Although we have several areas of disagreement with UCS, we have made the final standards for
school buses more stringent than first presented in response to compelling comment, including a
simplified method for recognizing transmission technology, increasing adoption of stop-start in
-------
the projected compliance pathway, and including 70% adoption of AES. These buses now have
the most stringent of all the custom chassis standards.
Transit Buses
• We partially disagree on idle. Although we are applying an adoption rate of stop-start at 30% in
the FRM (less than the 50% requested), this is the same as in the primary program for MHD-
Urban and is more stringent than the 20% in HHD-Urban. Transit bus is the only subcategory
where adoption of drive idle reduction technologies (neutral idle plus stop-start) add up to 100%.
• We partially agree on weight. We disagree that the package should be 2,000-3,000 lbs. That
would involve components beyond the chassis for which we do not have data. The same
lightweighting package that is considered as part of the primary program standards is now applied
for transit buses in the final rules. Where a bus OEM wishes to gain credit for lightweighting a
component that is not listed in our regulations, it may apply for off-cycle credit.
• We disagree that we should predicate the standard on use of 10-speed automated manual
transmissions. AMT are generally not suited for urban applications, and as noted above, most
transit buses service urban routes. Express commuter buses may drive in regional patterns;
however, the bus OEM's have told us that they do not design buses differently for these
applications (essentially most are designed to be multi-purpose) because transit authorities may
re-assign any bus on any day to a different route.
• We have altered the axle configuration in the baseline as recommended by UCS, so that transit
buses in the custom chassis program will have their performance measured against a reference
vehicle with a 4x2 axle configuration, rather than a 6x4 axle (UCS Note 16, page 5).
• We note with interest that commenter does not recommend including hybrids in the stringency of
the standard for transit buses. We support this conclusion, although from a pure cost
effectiveness perspective, hybrids appear equivalent to lightweighting. According to the source
that UCS cites (TIAX 2009), the cost of UCS' recommended 3,000-lb lightweighting package is
on the order of $30,000.182 TIAX estimates this could provide three percent fuel efficiency
benefit. TIAX also reports that unsubsidized costs of hybrid systems for transit buses are on the
order of $200,000, likely providing at least 20% fuel efficiency. Both of these technologies thus
fall in the range of $10,000 per percent improvement. By contrast, none of the technologies
projected as part of the compliance pathway in the final rules for the primary Phase 2 vocational
vehicle program exceed $3,000 per percent improvement.
• We disagree with the UCS claim that a sales cap of 200 vehicles per year would cover 80 percent
of this market. Gillig certified over 1,700 class 6-8 vehicles in MY 2014.
• Although we have several areas of disagreement with UCS, we have strengthened the transit bus
standards in response to compelling comment, including addition of modest weight reduction and
defining a more representative baseline. With the improved baseline and more stringent
standards, the opportunity for windfall credits is reduced.
Coach Buses
• Although we disagree that we should predicate the standard on use of AMT, commenters provide
compelling evidence that applying transmissions with more than 6 gears can be a cost-effective
182 See Table 3-7 of TIAX 2009, indicating a cost of $ 10/lb for lightweighting packages over 2,000 lb.
-------
technology for these vehicles. We have finalized a path to partially recognize the benefit of
transmissions with additional gears, using a fixed technology improvement and an adoption rate
of 15%.
• Although coach buses do have regional driving patterns, as noted earlier in this response, we are
not convinced that the bolt-on technologies identified for box trucks could be feasible for buses.
If a coach bus manufacturer wants to get credit for aero, it may elect to certify to the primary
program and conduct A to B testing to demonstrate a fuel efficiency improvement.
• We partially agree on axles:
o We have altered our baseline as recommended by UCS, so that coach buses in the custom
chassis program will have their performance measured against a reference vehicle with a
6x2 axle configuration, rather than a 6x4 axle (UCS page 7).
o We disagree that we should predicate the standard on use of a lower numerical axle ratio.
We have not applied downspeeding in any of the primary vocational vehicle standards.
• We wish to note an omission in the industry characterization for coach buses. Although the
chassis manufacturers are large businesses, some coach buses are foreign-made and the importers
are small businesses. These importers have a great deal of responsibility in the certification
process, and the burden on them should not be ignored.
• Although we have several areas of disagreement with UCS, we have strengthened the coach bus
standards in response to compelling comment, including use of a simplified method for
recognizing transmission technology and defining a more representative baseline. With the
improved baseline and more stringent standards, the opportunity for windfall credits is reduced.
Refuse Trucks
• We disagree that we should predicate the standard on transmissions with more than 6 gears.
Refuse trucks with neighborhood collection routes may rarely use a 6th gear, and would not see
real world benefits from additional gears.
• Although we agree that weight reduction is feasible for refuse trucks, we see this as simply
regulating the status quo. As noted by OshKosh in its comments on weight reduction (see 6.3.9
below), less weight is a huge market driver in the refuse sector. However, we have not concluded
that lightweighting has occurred to such an extent that it should be considered in the vocational
vehicle Phase 2 baseline.
• Disagree on Axles: We disagree that we should predicate the standard on use of a lower
numerical axle ratio. We have not applied downspeeding in any of the primary program
standards.
• Disagree on idle: in response to other compelling comment, we have reduced the adoption (i.e.
projected technology penetration rate on which stringency is calculated) of stop-start from 50% in
the memo to 20% in the FRM. This is now the same adoption rate as for HHD Urban vehicles in
the primary program. Because we believe it is appropriate to offer a PTO over-ride for stop-start
systems, and many refuse trucks use PTO to compact while driving, a relatively small fraction of
refuse trucks are likely to see real world benefits from stop-start systems that are not part of a
strong hybrid or enhanced stop-start system that offers e-PTO function.
• We disagree with UCS comments with respect to Autocar. Although we note Autocar's
comments that indicate their annual sales have a 5-year average of over 50% of vehicles with
advanced drivetrains including natural gas and hybrids, we disagree that an annual sales cap of
200 would provide any degree of flexibility for Autocar's conventional vehicles. First, a 5-year
average of 50 percent could still mean that in any single year less than 10 percent of their 2,000
-------
refuse trucks had advanced drivelines. Further, prior to producing vehicles (when certification
occurs), Autocar will not know how many will actually be sold; they may simply know if they
plan to certify one family in the primary program and one family in the custom program. For
these reasons and others as outlined in Section 6, we disagree that refuse trucks should be forced
to certify in the primary program, and we disagree that a sales cap is appropriate for custom
chassis refuse trucks.
• Based on compelling comment from manufacturers, we have relaxed the refuse truck standards
including less projected penetration of stop-start and ATIS.
Motor Homes
• Disagree on transmissions: With a regional drive cycle and very low annual miles driven, we do
not agree that adopting advanced transmissions (such as 7-speed DCT as suggested by UCS) for
motor homes would provide any benefit to the vehicle owner.
• Disagree on aero. Although motor homes do have regional driving patterns, we are not convinced
that the bolt-on technologies identified for box trucks could be feasible for RV's. If a
manufacturer wants to get credit for aero, it may elect to certify to the primary program and
conduct A to B testing to demonstrate a fuel efficiency improvement.
• We have considered UCS' recommendation to differentiate between Class A, B, and C motor
homes. We agree that Class A vehicles have many similarities with coach buses, although the
VMT is much smaller and they tend to be manufactured in very small numbers, some less than
100 per year. However, we believe the UCS industry characterization of Class B and C motor
homes is in error with respect to the manufacturers of these vehicles. The certifying chassis
manufacturer is generally not any of those listed; rather, it would more likely be Ford, Daimler, or
Spartan. Because our final custom chassis regulations require that the certifying entity identify
the vehicle type up front, we believe this presents a challenge for large diversified manufacturers.
Because we believe that the motor homes sold by large diversified manufacturers could
reasonably apply the same technology package as those sold by specialty manufacturers, we
expect that these could be credit-using vehicles in large diversified fleets where manufacturers are
unable or unwilling to track this production separately. Although it was not our intention to
disadvantage large businesses, we believe it is acceptable in that having this flexibility be less
accessible by large manufacturers than small businesses is protective of the environment.
Cement Mixers
• Although we agree that weight reduction is feasible for cement mixers, we see this as simply
regulating the status quo. As noted by OshKosh in its comments on weight reduction (see 6.3.9
below), less weight is a huge market driver for cement mixers. However, we have not concluded that
lightweighting has occurred to such an extent that it should be considered in the vocational vehicle
Phase 2 baseline.
6.3 Projected Vocational Vehicle Technologies, Effectiveness, and Cost
6.3.1 General Comments about Vocational Technologies
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
-------
CARB staff notes that stop-start and transmission market penetrations are significantly affected by a
switch from Alternative 3 to Alternative 4. However, these technologies are either already starting to
penetrate the vocational marketplace or have prototypes and demonstrations in place as of today;
therefore, CARB staff views the nine years of lead time until 2024 as ample time to meet the penetration
goals that U.S. EPA and NHTSA have proposed.
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Additional analysis by UCS describes opportunities for fuel consumption reductions with transmission
improvements and aerodynamic device applications among regionally-operated vocational vehicles.
When considered along with improvements to diesel and gasoline engines and hybrid effectiveness, the
UCS analysis finds that vocational vehicles can reduce fuel consumption and emissions by at least 20
percent, a significant gain from reductions in the proposal of up to 16 percent.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1220-A1 p.6] 1151 Analysis presented in UCS comments to the proposal.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
As illustrated below (Table 5), the current levels of stringency can be met entirely with conventional
technologies, which is inconsistent both with the agencies' proposed pathway and their obligation under
the Clean Air Act and Energy Independence and Security Act to set technology-forcing and maximum
feasible standards, respectively. The agencies must therefore increase the stringency of the regulations.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 19]
Diesel-powered vehicles can be improved by 20.6 percent over the Phase 1 baseline (compared to an
NPRM value of 15.8 percent). Gasoline-powered vocational vehicles can be improved by 21.9 percent
over the Phase 1 baseline (compared to an NPRM value of 13.4 percent).2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1329-A2 p. 19] [Table 5, 'Recommended Vocation Vehicle Technology Penetration and Effectiveness in
2027', can be found on p.20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2]
Organization: CALSTART
We believe vocational segments could cost-effectively accommodate higher efficiency than is proposed
and could be prime segments for some advanced technology implementation [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1190-A1 p.l]
Because of the simplified structure of the Phase 1 regulations and the shorter lead-time, most advanced
technologies, including strategies such as hybrid, plug-in and electric powertrains important to the NOx
emissions strategies of such regions as California, were not included to set the stringency of the rule. In
the Alternative 3 proposed for Phase 2, the agencies assume for the assessment calculations that some
advanced technologies will penetrate the medium- and heavy-duty truck fleet in the timeframe of the rule,
notably start-stop systems and some hybridization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p. 3-4]
Some of the technology that could provide greater efficiency and carbon reductions - such as plug-in
hybrid and electric systems - will likely not be needed at current stringency targets, even though they are
critical to goals in California and some other regions. These technologies can provide payback in the
correct applications already identified in the Phase 2 segmentation approach; and these technologies, in
their second generation and dropping in price, can provide life cycle paybacks to fleets that fall within the
agencies' assessment framework. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.9-10]
-------
However, we are very concerned that the vehicle segments most conducive to these technologies, such as
urban vocational, are the ones whose stringency levels are least likely to drive their use. Feedback we
have received from multiple suppliers developing such technology is that they share this concern: the
proposed stringency will not require their use. While we support the agencies' performance-based rules
and technology-neutrality, the issue being raised here is not the need to drive any one technology, but
rather the fact that achievable reductions are being left off the table. Interestingly, in discussions with
suppliers about what mechanisms, including rule credit tools, could most help them bring such
technology forward, most strongly felt higher stringency was what would most effectively "pull" their
technology forward. Indeed, they believe credits are meaningless in the absence of any need for their use,
which is driven by greater reduction requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.4]
Organization: XL Hybrids
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 242.]
By contrast, we feel that vocational cost targets are reasonable because the weight scalings become a
more significant factor there.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
We recommend that the agencies set more rigorous standards for vocational vehicles that meaningfully
encourage advanced technologies like hybridization and electrification. The vehicle standard should be
strengthened by reflecting the innovation of these manufacturers and recognizing transmission
improvements possible in the timeframe of the standards [as well as many technologies extracted from
this comment and placed elsewhere]. If all of these technologies are combined, the standards could be
improved by about 7%.166 A robust vocational vehicle standard in 2027 would provide plenty of lead -
time to develop and test these advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.38]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
As discussed in the sections above, the assumptions that underlie the feasibility for vocational emission
standards in the Proposed Rules are extremely optimistic. We have significant concerns regarding the
assumed technology packages and penetration rates underlying the emission standards for vocational
vehicles. As noted, there are entire applications for which there will be virtually no adoption of certain
technologies. Refuse trucks and cement mixers simply cannot stop the engine during their operations. To
assume any penetration in those applications is incorrect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.40]
Beyond that, the NPRM and RIA do not clearly identify the necessary steps in the technology
development nor do they identify why the agencies believe that these technologies will be ready in the
time allotted. The absence of this information is particularly notable in light of the additional uncertainties
that come with the lack of clarity in this Proposed Rule stemming from the baseline changes and model
year start date differences between vehicle and engine, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.40]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The agencies' assumed penetration rates for hybrid powertrain systems are unrealistic. Manufacturers also
question whether neutral-idle systems can be deployed at the agencies' assumed rates, and, if so, the
adverse impact they will have on vehicle and engine component wear. Similarly, there are questions and
concerns regarding the application of stop-start systems in HHD vehicles, including the deterioration of
-------
certain components, the availability of other systems to maintain cabin comfort and starter systems, and
various OBD implications. Vocational vehicles also cannot effectively utilize 6x2 axle configurations
given the vehicles' need for traction and operation in tight spaces. In fact, almost all of the agencies'
foundational premises and methods for establishing the proposed vocational vehicle standards are flawed.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.31]
Organization: Motiv Power Systems
The agencies have made significant improvements compared to the MY2014-2018 standards, particularly
in providing additional market segmentation options that reflect a larger share of transient operation as
well as the addition of an idle-only cycle. These changes to the regulatory test cycles better reflect the
diversity of the vocational fleet and the duty cycles of our customers and will help identify the appropriate
technology solutions for reducing fuel use from this sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1184-A1 p. 1]
Nonetheless, there are several modifications that should be made to the proposal to more effectively
incorporate hybrid and plug-in powertrains in the future vision of the medium- and heavy-duty truck
sector, thereby more significantly reducing oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1184-A1 p.l]
The agencies' pathway to meet the standards under the preferred alternative underestimates the potential
reductions from conventional technologies, particularly integrated powertrains, which are most
advantageous in transient operation. It also underestimates the potential reductions from hybrids—fleets
often achieve levels of reduction exceeding the approximately 25% effectiveness assumed in the
agencies' analysis of hybrids on the GEM certification cycle. And, finally, the agencies have completely
excluded plug-in electric technologies in the preferred alternative. Underestimating the potential
reductions from the vocational vehicle fleet across the board has thus led to a stringency level that is
significantly lower than what the industry can achieve in the timeframe of the rule. Motiv, in particular,
plans to have thousands of all-electric vocational vehicles on the road within the timeframe of this rule,
and without greater stringency in the vocational vehicle segment, there will be no value to the credits
these vehicles could otherwise generate. As shown with Tesla, credits for zero-emission vehicles can be a
major influencing factor in the market development of clean, zero-emission technology because they
allow for some re-capture of the benefits provided by these vehicles to the general population. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1184-A1 p.l]
The conservative target in the agencies' preferred alternative can be met purely with conventional
technology. However, advanced technology vehicles are available today and should see a continued
growth in market share as component prices fall and fuel price volatility continues to remain a fleet
concern. The proposed rule, as currently crafted, misses an opportunity to fully capitalize on the oil and
emission reductions that our technologies offer by not appropriately accounting for these technologies in
the overall stringency of vocational vehicles. Therefore, the stringency of the vocational vehicle standard
should be increased by at least 20% or more to help ensure the investments needed for moving beyond
incremental improvements to conventional technology and promote the adoption of advanced alternative
powertrain vehicles. Furthermore without increased stringency, the effectiveness of advanced technology
credits is severely limited as there isn't a market for such credits when the standard is easily obtainable.
Without stricter regulations driving investment and innovation, only incremental improvements will be
captured despite the potential for broad emission reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1184-A1 p.2]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
Vocational Vehicle GEM Inputs are Too Optimistic
-------
The Phase IINPRM suggests a laundry list of items in Table V-17 through V-19 that manufacturers
would use to meet the more stringent vehicle standards. EPA suggests that there may be additional
technologies, but we believe that if there were viable and practical additional technologies, they would
already be on the list. The fact is that major improvements to basic heavy duty vehicle components take a
long time and significant funding to develop. The components required to transfer rotating power from an
engine to the road have not changed significantly, in part because the laws of physics have been well
understood for many years. Unlike engine improvements where advanced controls can be applied to a
combustion cycle, the nature of gears, shafts, and bearings do not lend themselves to revolutionary
change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1162-A2 p.3]
Heavy duty vocational vehicles provide essential services hauling heavy loads at moderate speeds and in
mixed on/off highway conditions. Vehicle configurations are not conducive to aerodynamic
improvements, and low production volumes relative to line-haul vehicles limit the incentive for
component suppliers to invest in improvements. It is clear that idle reduction technologies cannot be used
in many vocational vehicles where the engine is needed to continue ancillary equipment operation even
when the vehicle is stopped. Large Allison transmissions used in these applications already incorporate
electronic controls and torque converter lock-up technologies. We therefore urge EPA to limit Phase II
vocational vehicle mandates to those improvements that can be gained from the engine alone. If
significant improvements in the efficiency of other major components such as transmissions or axles
become available over the next decade, then further regulation can be considered in Phase III. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.7]
Response:
The agencies have established final vocational vehicle standards that carefully evaluate and balance the
competing views of the commenters on the issue of how strongly to promote advanced technologies. In
the subsections that follow, we describe how we have strengthened the final standards in a robust way that
is supported by a strong technical analysis and relies partly on adoption of mild hybrid systems, although
the technology path we identify to achieve each standard is only one of many paths that may be chosen by
manufacturers. As discussed in Section 6.2.2 above, we are not setting the same average percent
stringencies for each subcategory as was proposed, and thus projected improvements in the Urban
subcategories are generally greater than in Regional or Multipurpose (albeit from a higher-emitting
baseline). This should establish a strong regulatory driver for technologies that perform best over this
cycle. In addition, we have made revisions in response to comments that we believe have lowered some
barriers to entry for manufacturers of developing technologies, including clarifications on obligations of
secondary manufacturers (See RTC Section 1.4), improvements to test procedures for hybrid systems (see
Section 2.4), and special provisions for some types of hybrid systems to have a lower hurdle in terms of
OBD compliance (see Preamble XIII.A. 1). Further, in addition to the final standards being more stringent
than proposed, we are adopting larger advanced technology credit multipliers than the Phase 1 multipliers
(See Section 1.4). We also note that for many vocational chassis manufacturers this Phase 2 program
represents the first time they have been regulated (such as for small businesses). Even those who are
complying with Phase 1 using a single off-the-shelf technology may need to plan for significant changes
to meet the Phase 2 performance standards. In view of these factors, we have determined it would not be
reasonable to adopt more aggressive standards than those in the final rule. See Section 6.3.3.3 for
responses to comments specifically on hybrids, Section 6.3.6.1 for responses to comments on zero-
emission vehicles, and Section 6.3.6.3 for responses to comments on plug-in hybrid PTO systems.
Regarding the specific comment about cement mixers and refuse trucks not being able to turn off their
engines, we are adopting allowable over-rides for AES and stop-start technologies that include PTO
operation. In the HHD Urban subcategory the projected adoption rate of AES in MY 2027 is only 70
percent recognizing that some heavy urban vehicles will encounter too many over-ride conditions to make
-------
this technology feasible. For similar reasons, this subcategory has an adoption rate of stop-start in MY
2027 of 30%. This recognizes that the development of stop-start technology by MY 2027 is not expected
to have progressed to an extent that it will be acceptable to the majority of owners whose vehicles are
classified in this subcategory. Further discussion of on idle reduction is located in Section 6.3.4.
6.3.2 SI Vehicle Standards
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Baseline SI Vocational Engine and Vehicle Performance - The agencies commented on the simplified
manner in which the agencies set the HHD Si-powered vocational vehicle standards and requested
comment on the merits of developing separate baseline levels and numerical standards for HHD
vocational vehicles powered by SI engines, including any benefits that could be obtained by establishing a
more representative baseline in order to avoid the risk of orphaning an SI vocational vehicle. 80 FR
40305. We share the agencies' concern about an orphaned vehicle. The Si-powered HHD vehicles are
generally low volume, low cost products for limited applications. Too stringent a standard could drive
such vehicles out of the market, leaving low cost buyers to keep old vehicles in service much longer than
they would have otherwise. We would be happy to work with the agencies in a confidential setting to
characterize our current Si-powered products so that the agencies can develop a baseline. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.76]
Response:
The agencies are not finalizing any HHD SI vocational vehicle standards. In response to comments
expressing concern about orphaned vehicles as well as concerns about mismatched engine and vehicle
useful life, we are finalizing six subcategories for SI vocational vehicles: three LHD and three MHD.
Where a manufacturer wishes to certify a SI vocational vehicle with a GVWR over 33,000 lbs, the final
regulations allow that vehicle to be certified in one of the MHD subcategories. Please see Section 1.4 for
further discussion of comments related to mismatched engine and vehicle useful lives. Please see Section
3.3.2 for the agencies' response to comments on the stringency of the separate SI engine standard. See
further information on SI engines in vocational vehicles in the Preamble at Section V.C. 1 b, and in the
RIA Chapter 2.9.1.2.1.
6.3.3 Transmission Technologies
Organization: Allison Transmission
EPA and NHTSA Should Account for Secondary Shift Schedules
In the Proposed Rule, EPA and NHTSA have identified the final drive ratio as a possible attribute that
could be used to identify how a vocational vehicle is intended to be used and hence, what regulatory
subcategory the vehicle would be assigned to. The Proposed Rule provides that vehicles will be certified
over the Multipurpose Duty Cycle, unless certain conditions warrant its certification under the Regional
or Urban Cycles. One element of this determination (Equation V-l) is axle ratio (the drive ratio entered
into GEM) another element is the transmission ratio, or the ratio of the top transmission gear that is not
permanently locked out. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.44]
Allison produces ATs that can program two distinct shift schedules into the Transmission Control Module
("TCM"). This is used to limit top vehicle speed in specialty vehicles during part of its normal operation.
Consequently, this also raises the issue with respect to how vehicles that utilize such transmissions should
-------
be classified. For example, Allison transmissions are widely utilized in dual station refuse trucks. Side
load dual station refuse trucks have the ability to be driven from either the right or left sides, depending
on the needs of the route. The left hand drive is used when driving the truck to or from the refuse pickup
neighborhood. Once the truck reaches the neighborhood, the operator will switch to the right hand side
drive. This allows the operator to closely line the truck up with the trash can and the side loader will
automatically pick the can up and dump it in the truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.44]
Since it is desirable to not allow these trucks to be driven at high speed on the road from the right hand
station, the transmission for these vehicles is calibrated to limit the vehicle to a maximum of 3rd gear
while the right hand station is active. When the left hand drive station is active, the transmission is
calibrated to allow the transmission to be a 6-speed. In 2015, Allison is on pace to sell over 2500
transmissions configured in this manner. Although the primary use of secondary shift schedules is found
in refuse trucks, Allison is also aware of this capability being used in concrete mixers and some airport
emergency vehicles. Over the timeframe of this rulemaking, it is also possible that other uses could
emerge. If one of the criteria to decide a vehicle's regulatory subcategory is based on which top range is
used most often, then the Proposed Rule would appear to require use of 3rd gear. With a 3-speed shift
calibration, however, these vehicles would be assigned to the Urban classification. However, the Urban
duty cycles are not consistent with the usage of the vehicle when not in the residential neighborhood. A 3
speed calibration will likely not be able to reach 55 mph. And, the top speeds of the transient portion of
the cycle are significantly above the typical maximum operating speed in this mode. The result is the
GEM determined C02 metric will be unrealistic and significantly above the standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.44-45]
Below is a chart that depicts how refuse trucks built in May and June of this year would fare with the
current version of GEM. A refuse vehicle configured with an Allison 4500 Wide Ratio, 0.49 Loaded Tire
Radius, 4.30 Axle Ratio and 6 speed calibration would be classified as Multi-Purpose. The GEM run for
this configuration results in 217.6 gC02/ton-mile. With the 2021 regulatory standard of 200, this
configuration is 17.6 gC02/ton-mile above the standard. That same vehicle with a 3 speed calibration,
however, would be classified as Urban. The GEM run for this configuration results in 252.6 gC02/ton-
mile. With the 2021 regulatory standard of 198, this configuration is 54.6 gC02/ton-mile above the
standard; it would be impossible for other improvements to the vehicle itself to overcome this deficit.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.45]
[Chart, 'Refuse Vehicle Evaluation - 6 speeds vs. 3 speeds', can be found on p.46 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 ]
To address this situation, Allison would recommend that where there are vehicles with significantly
different shift schedules between primary and secondary modes, EPA and NHTSA should provide a
regulatory exception. Specifically, such vehicles with top gears greater than 1:1 would be classified via
the calibration with the lowest gear ratio (highest speed) regardless of the predominance of which shift
schedule is used most often. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.46]
Response:
The method of assignment to subcategories in the final rules is not a function of final drive ratio as was
proposed. The examples of vehicles using secondary shift schedules in the comment are concrete mixers,
emergency vehicles and refuse trucks. As stated above in 6.2.3, one reason the agencies are adopting
optional standards using simplified GEM is for cases where the typical duty cycle of the vocational
application is poorly represented by the final test cycles, especially for non-diversified manufacturers. We
believe that the examples given by the commenter fit this reasoning. If a manufacturer certifies a vehicle
with a secondary shift schedule to the primary Phase 2 standards using full GEM, it may be to the
-------
manufacturer's advantage to conduct powertrain testing. If a regular transmission input file is used instead
of powertrain testing, GEM should be run using a transmission input file with all the available gears of
the shift schedule that is expected to be engaged for the greatest driving distance. This is consistent with
the final regulations for vehicles with two-speed axles. The regulations also include a provision where in
unusual circumstances, a manufacturer may ask to submit weighted average results of multiple GEM
runs, as an off-cycle credit, to represent special technologies that no single GEM run can accurately
reflect.
6.3.3.1 Architectural Improvements
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The agencies also have failed to account properly for the use of AMT instead of manual transmissions in
vocational vehicles. More specifically, GEM is not currently configured to treat AMT any more favorably
than a manual transmission system. This is at odds with the agencies' representations and efficiency
projections in the NPRM. (See 80 FR at 40297). It is also unclear whether (and why) the agencies are
assuming that the use of AMT will require that a vocational vehicle be placed in the "Regional" category.
This is another example indicating that the agencies' Phase 2 program for vocational vehicles may not be
sufficiently developed to be included in any final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.31-32]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA has noted that adding two gears (e.g., an 8-speed AT vs. a 6-speed AT) is expected to have better
fuel economy than the current transmissions.68 While you can just add additional ranges within the
current gear ratio spread of a 6-speed transmission, a larger improvement can be achieved by increasing
the total ratio spread of the 8-speed configuration. Allison configured an 8-speed transmission with a
reasonably larger ratio spread, an appropriate engine and an appropriate axle ratio that would maintain
equivalent vehicle performance.
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA lack a rational basis to provide more credits to automated manual ("AMT") and dual
clutch transmissions ("DCTs") than fully automatic transmissions. Allison's real world studies indicate
that automatic transmissions ("ATs") are as good as or better than AMT or DCTs in terms of greenhouse
gas emissions and impact on fuel efficiency in most vocational applications and many tractor
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.2]
While the agencies have made considerable efforts to determine the costs of various technological
pathways, there are unfortunate errors of such a magnitude so as to affect EPA and NHTSA's evaluation
of how soon a technology may be reasonably projected to be integrated into the medium- and heavy-duty
market. For example, in the RIA for this rulemaking it is indicated that "[f]or vocational heavy HD
regional vehicles, we have estimated the cost of a [dual clutch transmission ("DCT")], relative to a
manual transmission as being equal to the move from a manual transmission to an AMT or $3694 ([Direct
Material Cost ("DMC")), 2012$, in 2018, see 2.12.3.2 above)."21 Allison believes this cost estimate is not
correct. The DMC for a DCT in tractors in 2018 is $12,676.22 Allison believes this is a more realistic
estimate for Class 8 vehicles. For other vehicle classes, the DCT's DMC is considered to be equal to the
AT. Furthermore, the Volvo I-Shift DCT is substantially heavier and longer than the I-Shift AMT.23
Therefore, even if all other factors are ignored, the costs would be higher just due to the weight and size
increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 13]
-------
EPA and NHTSA have requested comment on "all aspects" of the feasibility analysis that underlies the
regulatory alternatives presented in the Proposed Rule. With respect to the projections of the relative
emission impact of various transmission technologies, the agencies are proposing a 2% technology input
for ATs, AMTs and DCTs for Class 7 and 8 vehicles. While Allison ATs can exceed this level (versus the
baseline contained in the Proposed Rule) we believe it is a reasonable level to apply based on the record
for this rulemaking for ATs and AMTs. Moreover, we do not believe that EPA and NHTSA have
articulated any basis in the Proposed Rule to differentiate between the technology inputs that should be
available to ATs and AMTs.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 16] [This comment can also be
found in section 4.3 of this comment summary]
The Proposed Rule includes a 2.3% emission reduction credit for Class 8 vocational vehicles that are
certified with the regional duty cycle if these vehicles include an AMT or DCT. ATs that are used in the
same vehicles, however, would not qualify for any emission reduction credit. EPA and NHTSA do not
have sufficient data or information in the record for this rulemaking to support this differential treatment
between AMTs and ATs and, further, do not have any basis to grant DCTs a 2.3% credit since there is no
data or technical assessment which supports such a credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 17]
Although the basis for this difference is not entirely clear in the Proposed Rule, since AMTs and MTs
share the same architecture Allison assumes that the 2.3% credit is due to the "automation" (i.e. consistent
shift speeds) of the AMT transmission when compared to the MT transmission baseline. Allison ATs,
however, control shifts in a consistent manner similar to an AMT and thus would result in at least the
same or greater reductions in C02 emissions. Moreover, while there are efficiency differences between an
AMT and an AT, these differences are already captured in the GEM simulation model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.17]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Phase 2 does not prescribe technology and provides a flexible structure that allows OEM's to use
advanced powertrains, and their significant potential to save fuel, for regulatory compliance. Eaton
believes that deep engine-transmission integration, Dual Clutch Technologies and ultra-efficient
transmissions are cost-effective methods to save fuel and achieve compliance, without adding the weight,
cost and complexity common to some new and/or un-tested technologies. Technologies available to the
market today are only partially accounted for in the pathways to compliance and cost analysis. We believe
that they offer OEMs increased flexibility to achieve the standards in the NPRM without any significant
additional cost, thus reducing the technology and reliability risks required to comply with the proposed
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.5][This comment can also be found in section 4.3 of
this comment summary]
Organization: GILLIG LLC
The agencies have placed considerable emphasis on continuous improvements in transmission technology
in setting the standards for 2021, 2024 and 2027. The total U.S. transit market has been very consistent at
about 5000 units annually. For GILLIG this is fragmented on the component side by three different
engines, three conventional transmissions and two main hybrid system offerings. Other transit
bus manufacturers have major powertrain component options different from GILLIG. Investment in
technology by all these powertrain component manufacturers is already considerable. Investment over
and above todays levels not to mention the development time involved for 'Deep Integration' for this
multitude of powertrain combinations for the low volume transit market will be difficult for these
component suppliers to justify. The exit of Detroit Diesel engines from the transit market, leaving just one
engine supplier, should serve as a reminder of what can happen when the cost of development and
-------
compliance outweigh the business opportunities in a low volume market. There are only three automatic
transmission suppliers currently in transit, we surely don't want to see one of them exit the industry under
similar pressures. We feel the agencies adoption rate of improvements brought about through 'Deep
Integration' are overly optimistic for transit buses. We feel the same about the agencies projected adoption
rates of 8 speed, AMT, DCT and Strong Hybrid technology in transit buses. We are unaware of 8 speed,
AMT or DCT technology programs underway that are specifically targeted for the rigors/duty cycle/life
expectations of the U.S. transit bus market. Strong Hybrids have been a decreasing portion of our annual
production every year since 2010 and now constitute less than 10% of the vehicles produced. The cost of
these systems have steadily increased since inception and are many times the cost the agencies assumed in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis. Overly optimistic fuel economy projections, high system costs and
increasing system complexity have limited hybrid adoption in transit buses. With continually declining
hybrid volumes in transit buses GILLIG questions if the market can continue to support both suppliers we
use and if increased levels of required investment will be the tipping point for one of them to exit. We
request the agencies again review their assumptions on technology improvements and adoption rates
applicable specifically to transit buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.3-4]
Phase 2 GEM accounts for additional vocational vehicle technologies to reduce C02 and fuel
consumption but unfortunately the majority are not improvements available to aid transit buses in meeting
the new standards. The proposed rule only allows AMT and DCT transmission options for tractors and
regional duty cycles, neither apply to transit and additionally we are unaware of either of these
technologies being developed for transit buses where severe duty cycles and heavy retarder operation are
the norm.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The assumed adoption rate of Dual Clutch Transmissions (DCT) in the Vocational HHD Regional family,
starting at agencies' estimated 22% in MY2021, is unrealistic. No HHD DCT is currently in production
North America, nor has one even been announced. Furthermore, by the agencies' own statement for
Regional LHD and MHD: The low projected adoption rates of DCT reflect the fact that this is a relatively
new technology for the heavy-duty sector, and it is likely that broader market acceptance would be
achieved once fleets have gained experience with the technology.
The DCT penetration rate should be adjusted. It is also unrealistic to assume 99% adoption of electronic
transmissions in MY2024 for the Vocational HHD Regional family. This conflicts with the statement that
"75 percent of the transmissions would be either automated or automatic (upgraded from a manual)." It
appears that DCT transmissions were left out of the summation of electrified transmissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.38]
Organization: Volvo Group
Given the current and expected continuing high penetration rate of manual transmissions within Volvo
Group's vocational vehicles, as noted above, Volvo Group does not agree with either the baseline
configuration or the stringency levels set for the HHD Urban and Multipurpose vocational subcategories
that are incorrectly predicated on 100% penetration of ATs. The result of this is that both the baseline and
the vehicles used to set stringency in these subcategories are erroneously presumed to include the full 2%
improvement for the AT over the MT (as noted in the Preamble - section III.D.2.b.v). The baseline for
HHD vocational vehicles should have a penetration weighting factor applied to the 2% credit attributed to
an AT vs. an MT. Stringencies could then be set assuming some reasonable increased penetration of AT
(or more likely, AT, AMT and DCT). Although Volvo Group questions the use of unsubstantiated
penetration rates as a basis for setting stringency levels, given their inherent uncertainty, at a minimum
-------
EPA should use similar penetration rates of MT, AT, AMT and dual-clutch transmissions (DCT) for
setting HHD vocational stringencies as were used for Class 7 and 8 tractors (reference Tables III-8 to III-
10 of the Preamble) and weighting the transmission penetration accordingly in establishing all stringency
levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.26]
Organization: Volvo Group
| This comment was submitted in the context of the custom chassis program]: "Need assurance that
Manual and Automated Manual Transmissions will not only receive credit for neutral idle improvement,
but also for efficiency benefit over an Automatic Transmission."
Response:
We agree that adding gears to transmissions for transit buses is not practical, especially for those with
exclusively inner-city drive cycles. We have adopted optional standards for transit buses that are largely
blind to transmission improvements, for reasons described in above in Section 6.2.3 and RIA Chapter
2.9.3.
We appreciate Eaton's comment about the cost-effectiveness of transmission improvements. We agree
and it's one reason that projected driveline improvements are a central part of the Phase 2 vocational
vehicle program. We expect that with customers' demands for reliable, durable products in this sector,
advanced transmissions will be popular choices among manufacturers as they select technologies to apply
in future years.
In response to comments, the fraction of manual transmissions in the HHD vocational baselines has been
adjusted. See Section 6.2.1 above and Chapter 2.9.2 and 2.9.5.1.1 of the RIA. The agencies are projecting
that the fraction of vocational vehicles that are sold with manual transmissions will decrease from nearly
40 percent today to under five percent by MY 2027. This translates to an 80 percent adoption rate of
AMT, AT and DCT in the HHD Regional subcategory, which is less aggressive than at proposal where,
as commenters noted, we projected 99 percent of the manual transmissions would be upgraded. The final
projected adoption rates are based on an expectation183 that by MY 2027, any vehicles with manual
transmissions will be certified in the Regional subcategory, as the projected adoption rate of non-manuals
in Multipurpose reaches 100% in MY 2024. In the HHD Regional and Multipurpose subcategories where
we project adoption rates of automated transmissions as upgrades to manuals, we project a technology
effectiveness value of 2 percent over the driving cycles and zero at idle. Unlike at proposal, this is now
applied as a penalty when simulating manual transmissions, not as an improvement when simulating
AMT. In response to comments from Volvo and others, no fixed adjustment is applied to automatic
transmissions or AMT in the final program. This relative performance difference between AMT, AT, and
manuals is the subject of many comments for both tractors and vocational vehicles. See Section 4.3 of
this response to comments and RIA Chapter 2.8.2.5 for further discussion of HHD manuals compared
with equivalently spec'd automated manual transmissions. For reasons discussed in Section 6.5.1, we are
constraining certification of MT and AMT in vocational vehicles only to Regional and Multipurpose
subcategories (i.e. vocational vehicles with AMTs can certify only in the Regional and Multipurpose
subcategories).
183 The final rule in fact contains constraints on certifying vocational vehicles with MTs in anything but the Regional
subcategory.
-------
Although we had predicated the proposed standards in part on adoption of dual clutch transmissions in all
subcategories, the final vocational vehicle standards do not rely on adoption of DCT for purposes of
establishing stringency. The agencies agree with Allison: we have been unable to obtain conclusive data
that could justify a final vocational vehicle standard predicated on adoption of a DCT with a supportable
level of improvement over an AT. Dual clutch transmissions have very recently become available for
medium heavy-duty vocational vehicles and very little data are available on their design or performance.
We anticipate that in the future, some designs may have features that make them perform similarly to
AMT's while others may have features that make them more similar to automatics with torque converters.
The final vocational vehicle program thus allows chassis with DCT to be certified in any subcategory
(including custom chassis), except that a vehicle with DCT may be certified using full GEM in the Urban
subcategories only if certain criteria related to power-shifting are met (see Section 6.5.1).
Similar to our conclusions with respect to DCT, the agencies agree with Allison and have not been able to
obtain conclusive data that could support a final vocational vehicle standard predicated on adoption of an
AMT with a predictable level of improvement over an AT. Where we project adoption of automated
transmissions in the two subcategories described above, we apply a cost associated with a HHD AMT
compared with a manual, as well as an effectiveness that presumes the reference case is a vehicle with a
manual transmission. As described in RIA Chapter 2.8.2.5, the agencies have evaluated Allison's TC10
automatic transmission for use in tractors. Overall, the C02 emissions and fuel consumption have been
found to be equivalent to a comparable Eaton AMT. However, because the TC10 efficiency is
significantly greater than the average heavy-duty vocational automatic transmission in the market today,
the agencies have selected default losses in GEM for vocational automatic transmissions that are higher
than the losses in a TCI0. Some vocational vehicles that utilize automatic transmissions with similar
efficiency to the TCI0 transmission may achieve similar C02 emissions and fuel consumption as a 10-
speed HHD AMT by either using the results of the optional powertrain test (40 CFR 1037.550) or the
optional transmission efficiency test (40 CFR 1037.565).
As at proposal, we are predicating the final vocational vehicle standards in part on adoption of
transmissions with added gears in all subcategories except HHD Regional, because this subcategory is
predominantly modeled with a 10-speed transmission, and vehicles already using that number of gears are
not expected to see any real world improvement by increasing the number of available gears. School and
coach buses certified as custom chassis using simplified GEM may enter a fixed improvement value for
applying a transmission with a greater number of gears than in the baseline, because we project this
technology to be feasible on these vehicles but not on the other custom chassis types. We have adjusted
our projected effectiveness for this technology since proposal. As proposed, we are allowing GEM to
determine the improvement, where manufacturers will enter the number of gears and gear ratios and the
model will simulate the efficiency over the applicable test cycle. The agencies have revised GEM based
on comment, and we are confident that it fairly represents the fuel efficiency of transmissions with
different gear ratios. We have run GEM simulations comparing 5-speed, 6-speed, 7-speed, and 8-speed
automatic transmissions where some cases hold the total spread constant, some hold the high end ratio
constant, and some hold the low-end ratio constant, where all cases use a third gear lockup and axle ratios
are held constant. We have observed mixed results, with some improvements over the highway cruise
cycles as high as six percent, and some cases where additional gears increased fuel consumption. We are
therefore using engineering calculations to estimate that two extra gears offers one percent improvement
during transient driving and two percent improvement during highway driving. Weighting these
improvements using our final composite duty cycles (zero improvement at idle), for purposes of setting
stringency, we are estimating that this technology will improve vocational vehicle efficiency between 0.9
and 1.7 percent. See the RIA at Chapter 2.9.3.1.
In response to the comment about certifying custom chassis in simplified GEM with manual and
automated manual transmissions, the agencies will allow manufacturers to select Yes in the input field for
-------
neutral idle when certifying custom chassis in simplified GEM with manual and automated manual
transmissions, and an improvement will be calculated based on the default engine and the default
automatic transmission embedded in the model. However the only other transmission-related
improvement available for custom chassis is that associated with additional gears as mentioned above for
school and coach buses.
6.3.3.2 Integration/Optimization
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The Proposed Phase 2 Standards assume that, at least with respect to many vocational vehicles, the
powertrain test for certification will be used as manufacturers try to achieve the assumed fuel efficiency
benefits (5%- 7%) from "deep integration" of advanced engine and transmission systems. In those cases,
then, the powertrain test will not be optional if manufacturers hope to achieve certification to the stringent
vehicle emissions targets that the agencies have proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.39]
The agencies have not provided sufficient clarity on how "deep integration" is accomplished, nor have
they demonstrated that it can achieve the assumed reductions in GHG remissions and fuel consumption.
The assumption that as of 2027 70% or more of vocational vehicles will utilize "deep integration" (Table
V-15 references 100%) to achieve 5%-7% GHG/FE improvements grossly overestimates the penetration
rate for deep integration - which is undefined and would require that nearly all vocational vehicles use the
powertrain test for certification, which cannot and will not happen - and similarly overestimates the
potential GHG/FE benefits from "deep integration," and so is unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.71]
The agencies assume that the powertrain test will be used extensively to take advantage of "deep
integration" (a concept that the agencies do not define) between engine and transmission systems. As a
result, the extensive use of "deep integration" and powertrain testing - which the agencies assume will
increase to a 70% penetration rate by MY 2027 (see 80 FR at 40308; R1A, p. 2-137) - is another
foundational assumption underlying the Proposed Phase 2 Standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.31]
That assumption, however, is not appropriate, as the agencies have grossly underestimated the burdens
associated with the powertrain test. Manufacturers have estimated that they would have to conduct
powertrain tests of more than 100 combinations of engines and transmissions (not 20 as the agencies
assert) to find the combinations that could actually generate the proposed GHG/FE credits (5% to 7%) for
"deep integration." Moreover, that testing burden would increase by a factor of 10 if manufacturers
sought to identify the best performing combinations (as opposed to worst-case baseline combinations for
potential certification purposes). Additional increases to the testing burden would result from the testing
required to support any running changes that could impact an engine family's fuel consumption/GHG
emissions. Thus, the agencies' proposed standards, to the extent they are premised on the expanded use of
powertrain testing (all to chase down a potential 5%-7% efficiency improvement from "deep integration")
are simply unworkable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.31]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
There is also insufficient evidence that the deep integration benefits of powertrain testing are applicable
across the board or even possible. The RIA does not explain in detail, other than to state that some
-------
manufacturers, but presumably not others, can take advantage of this optimization. It seems highly
speculative to assume substantial transmission improvements based on the record in the RIA.
The scope has been small and has not been applied across an entire population of trucks. We see this as a
potential risk; and should the assumed benefits not be found via powertrain testing, this leaves
manufacturers in a position where there will be little to fill the gap, specifically in the vocational vehicle
segment. In any event, it clearly falls short of the obligation the agencies have to clearly set out the
technical pathway that is achievable within the timeframe set in the Proposed Rule.
The agencies assume that this integration can achieve as much as 7% improvement; however, as the
agencies at one point project that this can create improvements from 3.5 to 4.8 percent but then refer to a
table that shows 4.7-6.7%, this appears to be inconsistent. In addition, we note that the RIA appears to
double count some of the elements considered in deep integration. For example, the addition of two gears
to a transmission may reduce the benefit of deep integration, as the transmission will inherently achieve a
more optimal operation state due the greater number of gears. We estimate that the addition of two
additional gears to a deeply integrated system would not achieve the 2% benefit described in the RIA, but
would instead only achieve a 1% improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.35-36]
It is unreasonable to assume greater than 90% of electronic transmissions in the Vocational HHD
Regional family will be Transmission Improved in MY2027. This contrasts with an adoption rate closer
to 50% as reflected in the statement "75 percent of the transmissions would be either automated or
automatic (upgraded from a manual) with 70 percent of those also being deeply integrated by MY
2027." Presumably, this has resulted in a double counting of the potential benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p.38-39]
Organization: GILLIG LLC
GILLIG requests the agencies reconsider the Phase 2 proposed requirement for testing to quantify the
C02 and fuel economy improvements from transmission driveline optimization, architectural
improvements and hybrid powertrain systems. Considering the low volume nature of the transit bus
business and the multiple powertrain configurations (noted above), the cost and time to run these tests not
just once but continually as the technologies evolve will be onerous. GILLIG has no emissions test cells
and no emissions testing team. If we were to embark on this endeavor significant initial capital investment
and ongoing operations costs would be incurred. Alternatively, this work would have to fall to the
transmission and hybrid suppliers or a third party. Ultimately, with limited production volume over which
to spread these costs, either path leads to significant cost increases to our end users and additional
financial burden for tax payers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.4]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
The first and most optimistic technology is advanced transmission and engine integration. This approach
matches the transmission control algorithms to the engine performance tailored to a specific duty cycle.
While this may be practical for high volume line haul applications, we believe it is unlikely to succeed in
the low volume vocational world. The myriad range of vocations lead to a corresponding myriad of duty
cycles, engine and transmission makes, models, and power ratings. Creating specialized engine and
transmission integration algorithms takes time, money, testing effort, and a market driver. Engine and
transmission suppliers will have little interest in creating the literally hundreds of optimizations needed to
cover the low volumes that each combination will represent.
-------
The GEM calculation for 2027 assumes an 8.9% improvement in fuel efficiency coming from either
making the transmission more efficient, or by optimizing the shifting coordination between the engine
and transmission. Many heavy duty vocational trucks use an Allison automatic transmission to improve
performance and reduce driver fatigue. This is especially true for vocations with a lot of stop-start
activities. Allison has improved the efficiency of their transmission over the past decade by providing
lockup capability and reducing the amount of time the transmission remains in torque converter mode. In
discussions with Allison they do not believe that much further efficiency can be gained beyond what they
have already attained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2p.3-4]
As for the engine/transmission match optimization, we find several factors working against significant
efficiency improvement.
-With the advent of electronically controlled transmissions, significant improvements have already been
achieved.
-Optimization requiring hardware changes such as modified gearing ratios are unlikely based on the
relatively low volume represented by each vocation, and the very high capital investment required to
make new automatic transmission configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A1 p.4]
-Software changes to tweak each vocation may produce some benefit, but the sheer number of low-
volume vocational duty cycles and engine/transmission combinations make it doubtful that the engine and
transmission suppliers would be willing to invest the time for so many optimizations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1162-A2p.4]
-The control algorithms that will optimize fuel economy are diametrically opposed to those that optimize
performance. A sluggish "economy" mode will not be acceptable to nearly all vocations that rely on good
acceleration. Optimized performance for a bus, pickup and delivery truck, or waste collection vehicle is
crucial to profitability. Optimized performance in a heavy truck or bus does not mean it is beating other
vehicles off the starting line, it means it does not lag behind passenger cars as much as it otherwise would.
When profitability hinges on the number of packages you deliver, the passenger schedule you keep, or the
number of residential refuse containers you collect, the relatively small energy savings obtained by
operating in economy mode will be far outweighed in the lost productivity of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.4]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
The agencies' estimate of 5% efficiency improvement, on average, from transmission integration (p.
40296), irrespective of transmission types, is too low. Such a blanket assumption fails to distinguish
among the different transmission architectures and thus does not promote the most efficient technologies.
Assign technology-specific effectiveness values for transmission and integration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.19]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
The average of a 6 percent improvement of the transmission measured via powertrain testing is much
lower than is achievable in this timeframe. These levels are based on a comparison between Allison's 6-
speed AT and Eaton's 7-speed DCT with the same axle—this assumption leads to a degradation in the
performance of the Eaton transmission and is therefore incorrect. Comparing each transmission in its
optimal configuration increases the average improvement by 1 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-
A2 p.21]
-------
However, this comparison does not further account for the difference between the baseline transmission
(5-speed AT) and the 6-speed AT, nor does it account for any future improvements to Eaton's DCT (e.g.,
an 8-speed DCT under development). In their analysis, the agencies note an improvement of 2 percent
simply for the addition of 2 gears—this should be a reasonable estimate of these two improvements.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.21]
Correcting the data to reflect the appropriate powertrain results and accounting for improved gearing
would raise the average powertrain improvement from 5.5 percent to 8.4 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p.21]
Organization: Volvo Group
Regarding vocational vehicles, the RIA states: "The agencies thus project that transmission and driveline
optimization would yield a substantial proportion of vocational vehicle fuel efficiency improvements for
Phase 2. On average, we anticipate that efficiency improvements of about five percent can be achieved
from optimization, sometimes called deep integration, of drivelines."9 No further detail is offered as to
what "deep integration" is or how it is achieved to substantiate the efficiency claim. Although we have
been able to demonstrate on-highway tractor efficiency via engine-driveline integration, we have no such
experience with vocational applications in transient operating conditions nor have we demonstrated
anything close to 5% efficiency improvement. Since the agencies have offered no evidence beyond
supposition that "deep integration" is either feasible or effective for vocational applications, it cannot be
expected as a means to achieve the vocational vehicle standards nor should it be included in setting these
targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.26]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc
The proposed powertrain integration testing requirements are significantly more burdensome than the
agencies' estimate, particularly for PACCAR's mix of vehicles. PACCAR has a minimum of 130 unique
hardware combinations of powertrain and transmission, not counting engine ratings and transmission
calibrations that would have to be considered for tested under the proposed rule. The cost of conducting
such a large number of powertrain integration tests would be prohibitive. In the proposal, EPA estimated
an average test cost of approximately $69,000 per test. If 70% of the 130 combinations needed to be
tested to reach the 2027 vocational vehicle compliance, over $6.25 million of testing would be required
every model year, as compared to the much lower 20 configurations or $1.4 million that the agencies'
estimate. The OEM burden will increase each time a mid-year calibration change impacts engine fuel
consumption or transmission shift strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.21]
Response:
At proposal the agencies included shift strategy, aggressive torque converter lockup, and a high efficiency
gearbox among the technologies defined as driveline integration that would only be recognized by use of
powertrain testing. The agencies continue to believe that an effective way to derive efficiency
improvements from a transmission is by optimizing it with the engine and other driveline components to
balance both performance needs and fuel savings. In considering the comments and available information,
we believe it is reasonable to project that transmissions may feature advanced shift strategies where they
make use of an additional sensor to improve fuel efficiency by, for example, detecting payload or road
grade. The final rules provide separate procedures for recognizing aggressive torque converter lockup or
use of a high efficiency gearbox, so these are considered separately for purposes of setting standard
stringency. As at proposal, we project that adoption of an advanced shift strategy can provide
improvements over a powertrain test of seven percent over the transient cycle and two percent over each
of the highway cycles.
-------
Volvo maintained that the agencies did not set forth any reasoning to justify the efficiency improvements
attributed to advanced shift strategies (i.e. deep integration). The agencies' justification is fully set out in
RIA Chapter 2.9.3.1.1. For example, as stated there, "[u]sing engineering calculations to estimate the
benefits that can be demonstrated over the powertrain test, the agencies project that transmission shift
strategies, including those that make use of enhanced communication between engine and driveline, can
yield efficiency improvements ranging from three percent for Regional vehicles to nearly six percent for
Urban vehicles. The calculation is an energy-weighted and cycle-weighted average improvement using
cycle-specific C02 emissions reported in the GEM output file for baseline vehicles."
One change in effectiveness we have made since proposal is accounting for zero effectiveness at idle. The
way we have done this is to expand the energy-weighting approach described in RIA Chapter 2.9.3.1 that
was used at proposal to also account for fuel burned at idle. The file documenting these calculations is
available in the docket.184 In this way, each transmission technology effectiveness is subcategory -
specific, including use of separate values for gasoline and diesel powertrains. The revised composite
drive cycle weightings have also affected our estimates of the benefits of transmission technologies. In
sum, since proposal the range of cycle-average effectiveness of driveline integration (aka shift strategy)
has changed from 4.7-6.7 percent at proposal to 3.1-5.8 percent in the final rules. We do not agree with
commenters that we need to set different effectiveness values for applying this type of upgrade to
different types of transmission architectures. We believe these improvements are reasonable estimates of
what can be achieved for AMT, DCT or AT. The next paragraph addresses our response regarding
combining this with other technologies such as added gears.
The agencies have been careful to project adoption rates and effectiveness of transmission technologies in
a way that that avoids over-estimating the achievable reductions. For example, as we developed the
packages, we reduced the adoption rate of advanced shift strategy by the adoption rate of integrated
hybrids, and we reduced the adoption rate of transmission gear efficiency by the amount of non-integrated
hybrids. This is because we do not project that any driveline will undergo testing over both the
powertrain test and the separate transmission efficiency test. Because we have projected adoption of
combinations of transmission technologies in some subcategories, the sum of adoption rates of individual
transmission technologies may exceed 100 percent in some cases. Transmission improvements are
central to the Phase 2 vocational vehicle program, second only to idle reduction. We are projecting that
many vehicles will apply more than one technology that improves vehicle efficiency with respect to the
transmission. For example, with a 50 percent adoption rate of torque converter lockup and a 70 percent
adoption of high efficiency gearbox for Regional vehicles in MY 2027, some vehicles may need to - and
could reasonably - apply both. We are careful not to double count benefits in our analysis. To avoid
doing so for technologies that are not simulated in GEM, we have estimated effectiveness values using
conservative values and have made them subcategory-specific using an energy-weighting approach
described in the RIA Chapter 2.9.3.1. In addition, where we have used GEM to determine effectiveness,
we have run test cases with vehicles that have other improvements already applied (including future
engines, LRR tires, and lightweighting), so that the physics inherent to GEM will produce results that
reflect vehicle-level dis-synergies; meaning the incremental improvement of adding first gear lockup, for
example, is smaller on an improved vehicle than on a baseline vehicle. Further, instead of summing the
combined efficiencies, we combine multiplicatively. Thus, we have fairly accounted for dis-synergies of
effectiveness where multiple technologies are applied to a similar vehicle system (including in Navistar's
example of driveline integration adding a lesser benefit to a transmission with additional gears).
184 See spreadsheet file dated July 2016 titled, "FRM_Vocational-Standards_GEMpostprocess.xls."
-------
We disagree with OshKosh that transmissions programmed for economy mode must necessarily have
sluggish acceleration. Acceleration rate management is only one of many possible strategies that could be
employed by transmission manufacturers, and some technologies may be combined to maintain utility
such as shift strategy plus additional gears. Also with respect to the comment that electronically
controlled transmissions have already brought significant improvements to this sector, we agree in part;
however, as with engines, this is a major vehicle component for which manufacturers are continually
seeking to make improvements over time. Just because we were able to establish Phase 1 diesel
vocational engine standards that sought to improve engines over the MY 2010 baseline by nine percent
didn't mean that we couldn't project an additional four percent improvement for those same engines in
Phase 2.
We proposed a 70 percent adoption rate of driveline integration in MY 2027 on the basis that this
approach to improving fuel efficiency is highly cost-effective and technically feasible in a wide range of
applications, and that the additional lead time would enable manufacturers to overcome barriers related to
the non-integrated nature of businesses serving this sector. We received persuasive comments from
manufacturers emphasizing the diversity of their product lines and the extent of testing that would be
needed to apply this technology to 70 percent of their sales, and as a result we have reduced our projected
adoption rate for this technology to 30 percent in MY 2027. In cases where an advanced shift strategy
can be applied to a popular powertrain, manufacturers may be able to sell a significant amount of their
vehicles with this technology without needing to undergo development and testing for a large number of
powertrain families. Also in response to comments, we are adopting a transmission efficiency test to
recognize improved mechanical gear efficiency and reduced transmission friction, where the test results
can be submitted as GEM inputs to override the default efficiency values. Because this test can be
conducted with a bare transmission without needing to be paired with an engine, each test will be valid
for a much broader range of vehicle configurations than are test results for a powertrain test (See Section
2.4.2 for responses to comments on powertrain families), and thus it is reasonable to project an adoption
rate for high-efficiency vocational transmissions in MY 2027 of nearly 70 percent. The agencies project
vehicle fuel efficiency can be improved by one percent from improved transmission gear efficiency in all
cycles except idle (no improvement). Actual test results are likely to show that some gears have more
room for improvement than others, especially where a direct drive gear is already highly efficient.
Commenters requested that the minimum torque converter lockup gear be enabled as a GEM input
without requiring powertrain testing. In response, final GEM also includes an input field for torque
converter lockup gear. The agencies project vehicle fuel efficiency can be improved up to three percent
on a cycle average for torque converter lockup in first gear compared with lockup in third gear. Using the
library of agency transmission files, GEM gives a different effectiveness value in every subcategory,
reasonably reflecting the gear ratios, drive cycle, and torque converter specifications. Manufacturers will
obtain slightly different results with their own driveline specifications.
We agree with the commenter that transmission suppliers are unlikely to invest R&D funds into
optimization of low volume drivelines. That is one reason why we are not projecting any adoption of
advanced shift strategy/driveline optimization for vehicles in the custom chassis program. However, we
do expect that transmission manufacturers will be able to design improved gear efficiencies in some
products for which the cost of driveline optimization would not be reasonable. These may be recognized
during certification through the separate transmission efficiency test procedure.
In response to comments about the cost of powertrain testing, the agencies have updated our estimates of
a per-test cost, as described in the Preamble to this rulemaking in Section IX and the RIA Chapter 7.1.1.2
and RIA Chapter 7.2.1.2. At proposal the agencies estimated the capital costs of new test cells and test
cell upgrades at $16.6 million, representing 6 test cell upgrades and 5 new powertrain testing facilities.
-------
For the final rules we are retaining these estimates and have adjusted the dollar year to $2013 so the new
estimate is $16.8 million for one-time expenses incurred at the beginning of the Phase 2 program.
At proposal we estimated the operating costs of powertrain testing at $69,000 per test, and we projected
three manufacturers would each conduct 20 tests per year for an annual operating cost associated with
powertrain testing of $4.1 million (see draft RIA at 7.1.1.2). In estimating compliance costs for the final
rules, we have considered information from commenters and revised downward the per-test cost to
$40,000 for powertrain testing, which is an average value that includes some in-house testing (costing
less) and some contracted testing (costing more). In estimating the operating costs associated with annual
powertrain testing for the final rules, we have determined that a 30 percent average adoption rate by MY
2027 can be achieved with 10 tests annually beginning with the first implementation year of Phase 2 for
an annual total of $400,000 for vocational powertrain testing. We believe this is reasonable, not a vast
underestimation as claimed by commenters, because the final standards do not rely as heavily on
advanced shift strategy/driveline optimization as was proposed, and this path to compliance will likely be
chosen only by a few manufacturers. Also, manufacturers who pursue this path will gain experience each
year and learn how best to apply this technology to their products, so even if we underestimate early-year
testing costs, we do not expect the average annual testing costs to greatly exceed $400,000 for vocational
powertrain testing.
Because we estimate manufacturers will be able to apply test results from the transmission efficiency test
more broadly than results from the powertrain test, we have estimated these costs using an annual
frequency of 11 tests at a per-test cost of $24,600, for an annual total of $270,600 for vocational
transmission testing. These compliance costs as well as compliance costs estimated for the tractor
program are described in the final RIA at Chapter 7.1.1.2 and RIA Chapter 7.2.1.2.
Please see Section 2.4.2 of this response to comment document to read our responses on comments
related to the powertrain test procedure itself.
6.3.3.3 Hybrids
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Currently, XL Hybrids and Crosspoint Kinetics have commercially-available hybrid systems for both new
purchases and existing vehicle conversions. XL Hybrids currently has hybrid systems for box trucks
(Ford E-350/E-450 cutaway, Ford E-450 strip chassis), Reach walk-in commercial vans
(Isuzu/Utilimaster), cargo vans and passenger wagons (Chevy Express 2500/3500, GMC Savana
2500/3500, Ford E-150/E-250/E-350, Ford Transit), shuttle buses (Ford E-350/E-450 cutaway, Ford E-
450 strip chassis, GM 3500/4500 cutaway (available September 2015)), and commercial stripped chassis
(F59 super duty) for walk-in van fleets. Crosspoint Kinetics currently has hybrid systems for a variety of
new class 3-7 trucks and buses, including a retrofit option for existing vehicles. Their systems have been
tested and approved at Altoona and have been certified by the Federal Transit Administration.
CARB staff believes that if there is a projected demand created by regulatory Phase 2 (Alternative 4)
requirements, these two companies, and likely other companies, would make additional hybrid systems
available for the targeted heavy-duty truck and van sector. Since the basic hybrid system designs from XL
Hybrids and Crosspoint Kinetics have been proven in actual fleet operations, additional demands for their
products would lower the price of hybrid technologies due to increased production. The technology could
also be more economically designed for other vehicle platforms, creating additional growth and
development for hybrids in general. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.68]
-------
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
The specific market penetration rates that concern UPS, given our particular fleet, are listed below and
UPS strongly recommends reduction of these MPRs: Certain Market Penetration Rates for MHD
Vocational Vehicles are Questionable
Electrification and Hybridization (18% in 2027)
UPS agrees with ATA's following comments on this point: 'To date, the only heavy-duty vocational
applications that have demonstrated commercial viability are urban bus applications where public dollars
are available. Despite several manufacturers developing hybrid technology that is production-ready,
potential customers who had positive experience with demonstrators could not make the business case for
additional purchases due to exorbitant costs. Hybridization remains the most expensive technology option
under Phase 2 ranging from $23,904 to $18,534 in 2021 and 2027 respectively. Heavy-duty hybrid
penetration is essentially non-existent outside the municipal arena. If the agencies still wish to include
vocational vehicle hybridization market penetration rates, ATA recommends treating these technologies
as advanced technologies and not assess specific MPRs under the rule. ATA further expands upon the
need for the agencies to retain advanced technology credits under the Phase 2 Rule below.'
UPS also agrees that EPA/NHTSA should treat these technologies as advanced technologies, not assign
them MPRs, and should give them advanced technology credits. We would add in this category natural
gas and software controlled, engine/transmission uncoupling. The latter technology is potentially very
low-cost and yet impressive in improving fuel efficiency. Note that the use of natural gas should be
viewed in light of the possible use of pipeline ready bio-methane, which UPS is already doing. If an
adoption rate is truly needed, then UPS would suggest an adoption rate for natural gas of about 5.5%.
UPS urges EPA to adopt a broad flexible definition of'hybrid'. The definition of that term should include
launch assist, and electric generation by an internal combustion engine that only operates when the
vehicle is stationary or that is 'geo-fenced' to comply with urban emission/congestion requirements. (UPS
is procuring such stationary electric generation and geo-fenced electric hybrid vehicles now). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1262-A1 p.6]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Hybrids. The agencies have assumed hybrid technology will be adopted by the vocational vehicle sector
for compliance, and that up to 18 percent of vehicles certified in the Multi-Purpose and Urban
subcategories will have this technology by 2027 (See page 40309). In addition the agencies note that
hybridization is estimated to range between $15,000 and $40,000 per vehicle for vocational vehicles (See
page 40313). In general, hybrids have proven to be much too costly relative to their benefit and should not
be considered a viable technology in Phase 2.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.5]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
While there was much excitement over the potential for hybridization in heavy trucks during the early
2000s, enthusiasm for hybrid technology in the commercial sector has ail-but disappeared. The TMC
Hybrid Truck Task Force of the American Trucking Association tracked the hybrid trends in vocational
trucks biannually over the past 15 years. This task force officially disbanded this fall due to an almost
total lack of interest. Fleets that adopted hybrid chassis found that projections of fuel economy
improvements were over-stated, and increases in initial investment and maintenance costs made the
business case untenable. The business case fell apart the minute government tax advantages ran out. Even
-------
with the tax breaks, the case for heavy truck hybrids did not make business sense. Additional weight,
complexity, cost, and maintenance all detracts from the potential savings in fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1162-A2p.5]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
The agencies requested comment on the expected costs to accelerate hybrid development to meet the
projected adoption rates of Alternative 4. 80 FR 40320. As we comment elsewhere, we recently dropped
out of the hybrid market. The systems proved too costly relative to their benefit, and the hybrid OBD
certification obstacles were too great. In light of this history, we think it unlikely that we would be able to
meet the expected sales volume of hybrids in Alternative 3, much less Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-Alp.75]
Organization: National Waste & Recycle Association
The solid waste industry is extensively pursuing technologies to lower fuel consumption such as hybrid
power trains. The Phase 2 proposal, page 40297, left column, states that refuse haulers are well suited for
hybrid powertrains because of the significant amount of stop-and-go activity, engine idling and PTO
usage. While the adoption of hybrid powertrains has moved slowly in this industry due to cost and
technological limitations, the industry continues to pursue this option and encourages the agencies to
consider creating viable incentives for truck owners to make the investment in this technology. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0071-A1 p.7]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Alternative 3 also presumes extremely aggressive technology adoption rates. This is particularly the case
for the use of hybrid powertrains in the vocational vehicle sector. The NPRM is based on 18% of urban
and 18% of multi-purpose vocational vehicles utilizing hybrid powertrains by 2027. As we note in our
discussion on hybrids, this is not likely to be feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 18]
The adoption rate for hybrid vocational vehicles is essentially zero today because of low fuel prices and
the significant regulatory burden that hybridization faces in the commercial vehicle space. As one of the
first companies to market commercial hybrid vehicles, we know there is little evidence to suggest our
customers will be willing to buy vocational hybrids in sufficient numbers to meet the standard in 2027. In
fact, at its highest, the penetration rate for hybrids never exceeded 1%. Predicating this alternative on the
assumption that hybrid adoption rates will reach 18% by 2024, instead of 2027 will inject significant risk
into the technology path that the NPRM lays out for vocational vehicles to achieve compliance. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.18]
Navistar led the initial development and deployment of electric and hybrid vehicles beginning in 2007.
Navistar's leadership in this area is defined by introduction of the first commercially available plug in
hybrid school bus, as well as an all-electric Class 4 pick-up and delivery vehicle (eStar) and a range of
hybrid electric trucks equipped with the recently newly developed Eaton AMT/Hybrid system. Navistar
was the only manufacturer to certify for sale, diesel hybrid vehicles under the stringent CARB interim
hybrid certification procedure. This experience has provided Navistar with a unique perspective on the
issues and opportunities facing hybrid vehicle development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.39]
Navistar respects the agencies' desire to promote strong hybrid systems; however, hybrid applications are
limited by their considerable cost and inability to optimize for the diverse vocational applications
segment. This limitation is acknowledged in the Agency's response in the RIA37. This segment represents
-------
the broadest range of combined mobile, stationary (EPTO) applications and duty cycles. The resulting
complexity makes it difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate the proposed GHG differential
improvement of 25% for urban vocational vehicles and 22% for Multi-Purpose vocational vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.39]
Customer demand for these products will be tempered by the cost, packaging, payload and range tradeoffs
for a given vocational application. Generally with the increase in differential fuel economy, these
tradeoffs become more costly, complex and specialized for a given fleet. Underlying in each of these
permutations is the NOx compliance risk, and potential warranty obligation associated with the ability to
maintain adequate aftertreatment conversion temperature. While it is possible to optimize an
aftertreatment system for a given hybrid application, production volumes may not be sufficient to justify
the considerable expense of performing a full certification and deterioration factor determination exercise.
These costs will naturally increase as the proliferation of hybrid options increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1199-A1 p.39]
Finally, the cost of any hybrid system must compete directly with alternative fuel options (CNG, LNG
and LPG) which offer competitive or better cost per mile fuel economy savings along with reduced GHG
emissions. In many cases the resulting payback interval and warranty cost exposure are lower than
equivalent hybrid systems. This is supported by Navistar's previous experience when hybrid sales
volumes peaked in 2009 and 2010 when fuel prices were reaching historic levels, then declined as fuel
prices decreased and with the increased availability of alternative fuel options. For these reasons Navistar
believes the agencies' expectation for hybrid vehicle penetration are overstated and do not account for the
cost, complexity, warranty exposure and alternative fuel vehicle options currently available in the market.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.40]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
The agencies should make several changes related to hybrid vehicles. Assumed adoption rates for this
technology are overstated. At the same time, EPA and NHTSA should be careful not to create new
regulatory barriers for hybrids, including onboard diagnostic requirements and additional testing for
nitrogen oxides ("NOx"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.3]
Allison has several concerns in this area. First, the likelihood of a 5% adoption of hybrid technologies in
the MD/HD sector must be seen as remote. Early adopters had poor experiences with initial market
entrants that led to several hybrid manufacturers withdrawing from the market. This has resulted in a
general reluctance by vehicle manufacturers to offer a hybrid powertrain given low market demand. Even
if EPA and NHTSA seek to promulgate "technology forcing" regulations, there will be a lingering
resistance to adopting hybrids due to what is widely perceived as market failure. The 2010 NAS Report
validated the history ofthese market behaviors.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.10]
Allison supports provisions of the Proposed Rule that would end specific Phase 1 incentives for hybrids,
fuel cell and electric vehicles ("EVs"). We concur with the agencies that the potentially large credits that
may be available for such vehicles through certification of very low emission rates should provide
sufficient incentive for improved introduction of such vehicles into the commercial MD/HD fleet. In
addition, Allison believes that hybrid vehicles should be certified on a duty cycle on the same basis as
non-hybrid vehicles because the vehicles must perform the same work regardless of the powertrain
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.51]
As the agencies indicate at the beginning of the Proposed Rule, the Phase 2 standards are intended to be
technology-forcing. While the agencies' ability to require technology-forcing standards is not
-------
unbounded,82 manufacturers should not receive what could amount to a "double credit" of meeting their
compliance obligations through hybrids, fuel cell and electric vehicles are receiving additional credits on
account of this action. In addition, we would note that expanded delegated assembly for vehicles is an
additional avenue whereby new technologies can be introduced into the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.51]
With regard to comparable certification, the agencies recognize that vocational vehicle GEM test cycles
are "expected to better recognize hybrid technology effectiveness than the Phase 1 hybrid test cycle,
especially in the Urban subcategory." EPA and NHTSA are proposing to remove the chassis test option
for the Phase 2 rule (although proposed regulations would allow for the generation of advance technology
credits through "A" to "B" chassis testing). Allison believes the best course of action to integrate hybrid
vehicles into the fleet is to implement equivalent testing and certification of hybrid and non-hybrid
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.51-52]
Assumed Hybrid Adoption Rates in Alternative 4 Are Unreasonable and Unsupported
EPA and NHTSA have requested comments on the expected costs to accelerate hybrid development in
order to meet the projected adoption rates in Alternative 4, i.e., a 5% overall penetration rate in 2024 for
hybrids in vocational vehicles. To achieve an overall 5% adoption rate of hybrid technology, the
economics of the hybrid ownership would have to substantially change over the period of time covered by
this rulemaking. Sustained progress in reducing battery costs would be needed along with decreases in
motor costs, and progress in reducing inverter costs. In addition, other external elements would be needed
such as a significant increase in fuel cost (to increase demand) and/or additional subsidies for hybrid
vehicle purchases. Past history concerning hybrid adoption should breed caution. For example, even
though transit buses have had hybrid systems available for over a decade (supported in many cases by
subsidies), the adoption rate of hybrids in the U.S. transit bus market is only 13.2%.85 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.52]
In their report "Strategic Analysis of the Global Hybrid and Electric Medium-and Heavy duty Truck
Market," Frost and Sullivan published that supplier-level costs for batteries were $600-650/kWh in 2014
and predicts $400-450/kWh in 2022. This cost level requires passenger car production volumes and a
plug-in sized battery. Additionally, batteries for non-plug-in hybrids are more expensive per kWh.
Inverter and controller costs are expected to increase from 2014 levels "due to a shift in propulsive power
from diesel engine to electric motor, thereby increasing complexity of power management in trucks."
(This report, NE0C-18, was published in December 2014). With respect to motors, Frost and Sullivan
predict a slight to no reduction from 2014 to 2022. EPA must consider that motor costs are largely driven
by the cost of copper and permanent magnet rare earth materials (or their replacement materials which are
under development for future motor applications). These raw material costs are not controllable by hybrid
vehicle manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.52]
A significant investment is required to reduce the cost of batteries, which are a key system cost driver.
Battery cost predictions over the past decade have been optimistic and Allison has doubt as to the future
projections being achieved for HDV. Batteries do not follow Moore's Law and there is no accepted model
for predicting battery costs over time. Cost data is not publicly available; however, the MSRP of a
replacement Toyota battery pack has remained at $2588 ($1976/kWh) since September, 2008.86 Also, a
global consulting firm retained by Allison, reported in 2008 that the Eaton hybrid battery and battery
management system cost $4000/kWh and its costs would substantially decline in the future. Instead of
Eaton realizing a large cost reduction for batteries, they exited the U.S. hybrid market in 2014. Since EPA
is projecting far into the future, there is great uncertainty based on not realizing prior projections as to the
realistic cost and volumes that will be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 p.52-53]
-------
Additionally, EPA and NHTSA should recognize that many of the cost reductions from the automotive
industry are not directly scalable to the heavy duty manufacturers. As discussed in other sections of our
comments, a heavy-duty vehicle has a very demanding duty cycle, which in turn, requires much more
challenging design requirements for robustness. Also, the emissions regulatory life of HDVs is much
longer than LDVs. The economies of scale from volume are not realized in a relatively low volume
market. Allison's hybrid experience is that the cost levels expected from scaling automotive cost levels
are not achievable in heavy-duty hybrid systems. To illustrate this point, the MSRP of a non-plug-in
Toyota Prius battery pack is $2589. Scaling that same battery pack to account for the additional modules
and controllers of an HHD vocational vehicle would be $20,712, but the MSRP is $45,884.88 The battery
pack alone is higher than the DMC for a strong hybrid as shown in Table 2-182 of the RIA. Allison
believes that a factor of 2-4X would be more appropriate for non-plug-in hybrids and 1.5-2X for plug-in
hybrids when scaling DMC from LDV to HDV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.53]
Organization: Parker Hannifin
Parker Hannifin appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on this important matter. For all of the
reasons stated above, Parker urges the EPA to increase the expectations of efficiency standards and
include hydraulic hybrid technology in the equation to better the consumers, industry, and environmental
impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725-A 1 p.3]
It is important to note that the 40% reduction in fuel consumption and emissions in Class 6-8 vehicles
proposed in the new rule is not something for the future. It is happening now. Parker has developed and
is actively marketing a hydraulic hybrid medium- and heavy-duty vehicle transmission that is currently
achieving and surpassing the 40% reduction in fuel consumption and emissions sought in the new rule.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725 -A 1 p.2]
Parker's hydraulic hybrid transmission replaces a conventional transmission to propel the vehicle by
mechanical and hydraulic power. Every time the driver presses the brakes, the hydraulic hybrid
transmission system captures and stores that energy. When the driver presses the throttle, the stored
energy is used to propel the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725-A1 p.2]
Parker's hydraulic hybrid transmissions are in use in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in municipalities
and large fleets across the country. These refuse fleets are averaging 43% reduction in fuel consumption
and emissions, with some individual fleets exceeding 50% in fuel consumption and emissions
reductions. Vehicles with the Parker transmission are operating in large fleets (like UPS and FedEx) and
smaller fleets (like Waste Industries), as well as with municipalities as diverse as Orlando, FL, Tacoma,
WA, Baltimore, MD, Oberlin, OH, and Loveland, CO. A total of 246 such systems are on the road today.
Weather and climate have no impact on the superior performance of Class 6 to Class 8 vehicles using the
Parker transmission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725-A1 p.2]
Other direct benefits these fleets have realized from using vehicles with the Parker transmission include:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725 -A 1 p.2]
-Virtual elimination of brake dust (a harmful bi-product) from the air because the hydraulic hybrid
transmission controls truck speed instead of the brakes; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725-A1 p.2]
-Scheduled brake replacements changed from once every four months to once every six years (or more),
saving ten thousand dollars or more per year per vehicle; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725-A1 p.2]
-------
-Duty cycle efficiency improvements of 5-10%, meaning vehicles with Parker's drivetrain do more work
in the same amount of time as vehicles with traditional diesel drivetrains or the same amount of work can
be done with fewer vehicles; and [EPA- HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725-A1 p.2]
-No infrastructure investment required to operate the system [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725-A1 p.2]
Parker's hydraulic hybrid transmission is based on proven technology. There are more than 200 medium-
and heavy-duty vehicles (parcel delivery and refuse) operating with the Parker transmission today. They
have collectively accumulated more than 250,000 hours of run time and 1.5 million miles on the
road. The fuel consumption and emissions reductions results are real-world, on-road results, not
theoretical or lab-based. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0725-A1 p.2]
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Vocational vehicles stringency should be strengthened to account for improvements available in
hybridization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.5]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Wrightspeed currently has the capacity to convert diesel-and-automatic-transmission powertrain to a
turbine-electric, plug-in series hybrid. These innovative trucks hold the potential- today- to "save 50% to
90% in fuel over a straight diesel powertrain."162 XL Hybrid recently announced its XL3 Hybrid System
for Ford Transit vans. The hybrid electric drive system offers fuel and greenhouse gas emission savings-
today- of 20%.163
162 See http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/story/2015/06/tantalizing-turbine-electric.aspx
163 See http://www.businesswire.eom/news/home/20150504005280/en/XL-Hybrids-Introduces-Hybrid-
Electric-F ord-T ransit#. Vg 1YK Jf9moU
Organization: Autocar, LLC
CNG and Hybrid Power. As set forth in the introduction to this letter, Autocar is an industry leader in the
integration of fuel-efficient CNG engines and hybrid power units11 in refuse trucks and street sweepers.
The positive effects of CNG and hybrid technology on fuel efficiency and pollutant emissions are widely
recognized and are acknowledged in the Proposed Regulations. Autocar's applications may be more
suited to CNG and hybrid power than other vocational applications. But these sophisticated technologies
come with a significantly higher purchase price. Autocar and its customers actively participate in CNG
and hybrid incentive programs from coast to coast. These programs have been successful in bridging the
cost gap between diesel trucks and CNG or hybrid trucks and infrastructure. We encourage the agencies
to build on that proven success and provide additional incentives for the purchase of CNG and hybrid
trucks, for Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles as well as other vocational and non-vocational vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233 -A 1 p. 15]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Electrification and Hybridization (18% in 2027)
-------
To date, the only heavy-duty vocational applications that have demonstrated commercial viability are
urban bus applications where public dollars are available. Despite several manufacturers developing
hybrid technology that is production-ready, potential customers who had positive experience with
demonstration projects could not make the business case for additional purchases due to exorbitant costs.
Hybridization remains the most expensive technology option under Phase 2 ranging from $23,904 to
$18,534 in 2021 and 2027 respectively. Heavy-duty hybrid penetration is essentially non-existent outside
the municipal arena. If the agencies still wish to include vocational vehicle hybridization market
penetration rates, ATA recommends treating these technologies as advanced technologies and not assess
specific MPRs under the rule. ATA further expands upon the need for the agencies to retain advanced
technology credits under the Phase 2 Rule below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.9]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The assumptions of a 22-25% fuel efficiency improvement from hybrid systems over the powertrain test
(which has not been run by many manufacturers), and an overall hybrid system adoption rate of 10% for
vocational vehicles (stemming from an adoption rate of 18% in the Multi-Purpose and Urban vehicle
subcategories) are grossly over-stated, premised on significantly underestimated costs, and not supported
by current data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.71-72]
The agencies' Proposed Phase 2 Standards for vocational vehicles are premised on the significant
development and utilization of "strong hybrid" systems. The agencies define strong hybrid systems as
those that combine two significant sources of propulsion, one using a combustible fuel (like diesel fuel or
gasoline) and one that is rechargeable, either during operation (such as through regenerative braking) or
through a supplemental power source (for battery recharging at the end of the vehicle's work day). As the
agencies note in the RIA (at page 2-34): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.60]
A hybrid drive unit is complex and consists of discrete components, such as the electric traction motor,
transmission, generator, inverter, controller and cooling devices. Certain types of drive units may work
better than others for specific vehicle applications or performance requirements....Despite the significant
future potential for hybrids, there are no simple solutions applicable for each heavy-duty hybrid
application due to the large vocational fleet variation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.60]
Despite noting the very substantial complexities and costs associated with deploying hybrid systems in
vocational vehicles, the agencies have proceeded to significantly overestimate the future market
penetration of hybrid systems in crafting the Proposed Phase 2 Standards for vocational vehicles. More
specifically, the agencies are assuming the following penetration rates and unit costs for "strong hybrid"
systems: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.60]
Vocational Vehicles
2021
2024
2027
(Urban and Multi-Purpose)
LHD
4%
($15,207)
7%
($12,578)
18%
($11,791)
MHD
4%
($23,904)
7%
($19,771)
18%
($18,534)
HHD
4%
($39,919)
7%
($33,017)
18%
($ 30,952)
The agencies are further assuming that, where deployed, the hybrid systems will generate efficiency gains
of 25% for Urban vocational vehicles, and 22% for Multi-Purpose vocational vehicles. The assumed
efficiency gains are premised on unrealistic vocational duty cycles that significantly over-estimate the
amount of transient operation, at least with respect to Class 8 vocational vehicles (for which detailed field
data have been provided to the agencies). Nevertheless, the agencies have incorporated those projected
-------
efficiency gains into the agencies' determination of the Proposed Phase 2 Standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.60]
The agencies' assumptions regarding the deployment and penetration rate of strong hybrid systems in
heavy-duty vocational vehicles also are not realistic. Thus, to the extent that the Proposed Phase 2
Standards for vocational vehicles are premised on those assumptions, those standards are unrealistic as
well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.60]
To date, the only heavy-duty application where hybrid systems have been deployed with any measure of
success is for urban buses. However, that application is truly unique, since a wide array of public funds
are available to cover the very significant incremental costs associated with hybrid systems. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.60]
At the same time, it is very telling that hybrid systems have not been deployed successfully to any
significant measure in residential refuse haulers. That is an application seemingly well-suited to the
deployment of hybrid systems, since refuse haulers function primarily over a transient cycle with almost
constant stop-start operations to support energy recovery with regenerative braking. Even so, and by way
of example, the New York City Department of Sanitation, which has run a number of demonstration
programs with hybrid systems provided by a major manufacturer, could not make a viable business case
for operating a hybrid fleet due to overall cost considerations. Indeed, given the total incremental launch
costs for heavy-duty hybrid vocational vehicles - in the range of $60,000 to $100,000 per vehicle - it is
unrealistic to assume any large scale cost-effective penetration of hybrid systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.61]
In that regard, it is important to recognize that a refuse hauler's typical payload is approximately 11 tons
or 22,000 pounds. At the same time, a strong hybrid system's net weight (net of transmission
replacement) is approximately 2,000 pounds, resulting in a payload loss of roughly 10%. The net result to
fleet operators is very significant. In essence, 11 hybrid waste haulers are required to carry the same
aggregate payload of 10 non-hybrid waste haulers. This calls into question EPA's postulated 25% gains in
overall efficiency, as well as EPA's cost estimates, which failed to account for the need for additional
vehicles and the related additional maintenance and labor costs. The Agency also failed to account for the
corollary 10% increase in criteria pollutants from the resultant increased number of hybrid vehicles in
operation, which is yet another offset against the Agency's assumptions. Lastly, refuse haulers that have a
reduced payload would need to make more frequent trips to landfills to dump their reduced loads. Those
more frequent on-highway drive cycles mean that the refuse hauler would spend less time in the stop-go
duty cycle that is well-suited to hybrid operation. All of these factors lead to the clear conclusion that the
agencies are significantly overestimating the assumed penetration rates for hybrid systems in vocational
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.61]
The passenger car experience informs this issue as well. In light-duty applications, the weight impacts of
hybrid systems can be readily offset by their fuel savings, and there are no vocational work constraints or
heavy loads that need to be accounted for. Nonetheless, even in the passenger car market, the penetration
rate for hybrids is still only approximately 3% of U.S. sales, notwithstanding more than 17 years of
product availability. Given this 3% penetration rate in the much more favorable light-duty market, it is
difficult to accept as either reasonable or realistic the agencies' assumed 18% penetration rate for
vocational hybrid vehicles over a 6-year time period (2021-2027). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
P-61]
Another factor that the agencies have not fully accounted for is the potential impact that hybrid systems
can have on NOx emissions. In particular, hybrid systems can result in a heavy-duty vehicle's operation at
-------
lower average power. Such operation can impact the function of SCR systems. Moreover, with the
increasing focus on NOx, it can be anticipated that even greater optimization of SCR systems will be
necessary, which will make the countervailing impacts of hybrid systems that much more difficult to
accept. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.61]
In sum, the agencies' assumed penetration rates for hybrid systems deployed in vocational vehicles are
not realistic. To the extent that the Proposed Phase 2 Standards are premised on those assumptions, those
standards will be similarly unrealistic and unreasonable as well. Consequently, and as noted previously,
the unrealistic assumptions behind the agencies proposed standards for vocational vehicles lend additional
support to the conclusion that the agencies should consider the option of maintaining the Phase 1 program
for vocational vehicles until a better-reasoned supplemental rulemaking process can be undertaken. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.61-62]
Organization: PACCAR
Another technology that offers improvements in both fuel efficiency and emission reduction is
hybridization. PACCAR's history with hybrid technology was a niche market application appealing to
"green" companies as long as incentives offset the cost of the technology. The low volumes was not
based on performance, but rather the combination of the payback of the high initial cost based on the
limited number of gallons saved in low mileage pick up-and-delivery applications and on the concern
over resale value, since at some point in the vehicle's life the battery must be replaced at a significant cost
to the owner. Many potential purchasers are reluctant to become the second or third owner of these
vehicles, particularly if the battery has not already been replaced, as this is viewed as an extremely high
cost of ownership that makes non-hybrid used vehicles more attractive. Based on this experience and
feedback from our customers, PACCAR is not optimistic that this technology will gain anything but
marginal acceptance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.3]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Adoption Rates for Hybrids in Alternative 4 - The agencies requested comment on the expected costs to
accelerate hybrid development to meet the projected adoption rates of Alternative 4. 80 FR 40320. As we
comment above, we recently dropped out of the hybrid market. The systems proved too costly relative to
their benefit, and the hybrid OBD certification obstacles were too great. In light of this history, we think it
unlikely that we would be able to meet the expected sales volume of hybrids in Alternative 3, much less
Alternative 4. Therefore, we recommend against Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p. 97] Hybrids - In section 2.4.4.5 of the RIA, the agencies state that "industry is currently developing
many variations of hybrid powertrain systems." We think that is a mischaracterization of the market,
given that most major manufacturers have pulled out of the hybrid market due to a lack of business
partners and purchasers—quite the opposite of developing (new) variations. We did develop a hybrid
system for our Super Truck vehicle but found it infeasible for production. In conclusion, we disagree with
the agencies' characterization of the hybrid market, and we think that hybrids should not be used as the
premise for vehicle standards. 2.4.4.5 of RIA [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 97]
Costs of Hybrids are Underestimated - The agencies seem to dramatically underestimate the costs of
hybrids. In particular, when we used to sell hybrid vehicles, the full-vehicle up-charge for the hybrid
system was between [redacted], depending on the vehicle and its features. So the agencies' estimate of
$5,571 is less than [redacted]% of the price. Although we prefer not to use the agencies' method of
ignoring the per-vehicle up-charge for technologies and instead spreading that cost across the entire fleet
of vehicles, at an 18% penetration rate (the agencies' assumed rate) the hybrid cost should be at least
$ [redacted] ,000 (18% x $[redacted],000). Even under this analysis, the cost-benefit analysis is much
-------
different than the agencies assumed. But under a more realistic analysis, where the entire hybrid cost is
borne by the hybrid purchaser and not spread across the fleet, the cost-benefit is far worse. For this
reason, we recommend against including hybrids in standard setting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-
A1 p.97]
FCRs for Hybrids - We have several concerns about the way that the agencies developed FCRs for
hybrids, especially considering how heavily the hybrid FCRs factor into standard setting. First, the
agencies assumed a hybrid FCR of 22 to 25% on the Phase 2 test cycles based upon NREL measurement
of 28% on the NYC Composite Test Cycle. 80 FR 40297. This test cycle has a very high kinetic intensity,
such that it may overestimate achievable FCRs for hybrids. Similarly the use of HTUF4 data may fail to
capture the actual fuel savings possible on the agencies' test cycles. We recommend that if the agencies
intend to continue to premise the standards on hybrids that the agencies base FCR values on tests using
the correct duty cycles. Second, we recommend that the agencies perform these tests with batteries aged
to represent the worst-case FCR over the vehicles' useful lives, as the agencies would require
manufacturers to certify. Taking optimal test data to represent full useful life emissions is not appropriate.
Third, and similarly, we recommend that the agencies not measure the optimal hybrid configurations for
generating FCR numbers, as manufacturers will be unable to do so. Rather, manufacturers will have to
certify the worst-case configuration of a family of hybrid vehicles. So while the best tests might show 22
to 25% FCRs, if the worst show 10%, then the standards must be set based on 10% as that is how
manufacturers will certify. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.81]
Organization: Volvo Group
As part of the NoDA release the agencies proposed a simplified model for evaluating the benefit of hybrid
systems (HD GHG Simple Hybrid Model v4 - EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1725). In our review of the
simplified model, Volvo noted two primary concerns. First, the agencies have assumed 100% efficiency
for the batteries ability to absorb and release energy, as well as not accounting for additional electrical
system inefficiencies. Second, the agencies' accounting for drag and friction appear to only account for
tire rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag, without accounting for the additional mechanical
inefficiencies such as oil churning, gear efficiencies, etc. Without accounting for the noted concerns
Volvo does not believe this model is acceptable as a calculation tool for use in stringency determination.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.20]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
ACEEE strongly supports the inclusion of a modest number of hybrid vehicles in the compliance package
for the vocational vehicle standards. Many vocational vehicles spend a significant amount of time in
idling and in stop-and-go operation, making them suitable candidates for hybridization. We agree with
the agencies' estimate of 22-25% improvement from hybridization using the powertrain test (p. 40297).
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
The agencies recently uploaded a physics-based simple hybrid model, which can be used to quickly
estimate the potential fuel savings for different vocational hybrid designs.15 It is clear from this model that
there is a wide range of hybrids that can result in significant fuel savings, even those with relatively small
batteries as would be found in a mild hybrid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.5]
Mild hybrids were not discussed in the proposal as part of the compliance package; however, as is evident
from this modeling, these cheaper hybrid variants could offer much of the same benefit in certain
applications at reduced cost. We strongly encourage the agencies to include mild hybridization as part of
-------
its compliance package in addition to cost-effective full hybrid application, as already identified in the
proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1896-A1 p.5]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Hybrids did not penetrate the commercial vehicle landscape, in spite of the Phase 1 ATC program. This is
due to a combination of high battery costs and low fuel prices. According to the current EIA analysis, fuel
prices are expected to stay low in the foreseeable future. However, the Hybrids potential to reduce fuel
consumption and C02 emissions still exists, and under specific economic and regulatory circumstances,
hybrid sales thrive, e.g., in China. For the US market, we see a combination of factors needed to re-ignite
the hybrids business: lower battery costs and increased efficiency of the hybrid systems for Class 6-8,
lower cost mild hybrid powertrains in Class 3-5, and continued regulatory pull. Our market penetration
assumptions for the end of this decade are pessimistic. We are encouraged by steady progress in battery
costs driven by light duty applications, but we also observed recently a reduction in sales in that segment,
putting in question the timing of lower cost battery availability. On the other hand, the proposed standards
in the vocational space are likely to drive significant hybrid adoption as the conventional powertrain
improvements are realistically limited to approximately 10-12% fuel consumption reduction in the Mixed
and Urban categories, while the MY2027 standards call for a 1416% overall fuel consumption reduction.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 17]
For Class 3-5 vehicles, it is possible replace Diesel engines with downsized hybrid gasoline powertrains.
A form of mild hybridization for such situations is described [Benjey 2015]2, where a low-voltage and
low-power system (48V and 6kW) is used to provide significant electrically generated boost at low
engine speed. This enables 12% fuel consumption reduction over a baseline MD diesel powertrain under
drive conditions, with the further added value of an engine-off at idle. Because of the low voltage system
and simplified emissions controls of gasoline engines, such systems should not increase vehicle cost.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A 1 p. 18]
In the Class 6-7 urban segment, there is a potential to further increase the MD hybrid system value
through deeper integration with the vehicle controls and the use of predictive methods to optimize the
electrical versus engine power distribution. This enables a 10-15% improvement of the hybrid fuel
savings through advanced controls, i.e., without incremental costs of weight to the conventional hybrid
system [Patil 2015]3.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p. 18]
From a regulatory perspective, we agree with the EPA approach to Hybrids, namely that these should be
powertrain tested for actual fuel consumption. We believe that while the EPA is looking at not continuing
the Advanced Technology Credits program for Hybrids after 2021, the Hybrid market is still very fragile
and driven by the cost of fuel. As we look toward a long period of lower cost fuel as predicted by the EIA,
we do not see market conditions improving for Hybrid commercial vehicles except for a few mild Hybrid
applications in the Class 3-4 segment. We are not optimistic that Hybrid technology will evolve
significantly before the rule comes into effect, a situation similar to 2012-13 when the slump in Hybrid
sales occurred. We believe contributing factors included hybrid OBD requirements during the low-
volume phase of commercialization and unclear battery warrantee associated with useful life requirements
that shifted development resources away from Hybrid cost reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-
A1 p.18-19]
Recommendation: The EPA and CARB should develop an OBD and battery warrantee strategy for
Hybrids that should stay in place until sufficient numbers of Hybrid-equipped vehicles are on the road. As
the NPRM requires powertrain testing for Hybrids, it may be opportune that OBD requirements are
-------
replaced with the requirement to demonstrate there is no backsliding in criteria emissions on the
powertrain test data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.19]
Odyne
Odyne believes that improvements in drivetrain, hybrid control system optimization - both from
technology advancements and increased data incorporation of workday assumptions, and duty-cycle
optimization - along with continually decreasing costs for components (as EPA has very accurately
estimated going forward) and continuing volatility in fossil fuel prices will drive the value proposition for
hybrid deployment in the coming years. Odyne believes hybrids will play a larger role in fleet
procurement in the next decade at efficiency rates higher than is currently modeled in Scenario Three's
assumptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.4] [This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-08267-1372, p.230.]
In addition, the accounting for the efficiency improvements from hybrid technology is not as clear as it
could be in the proposed GEM model. Odyne would welcome the opportunity to work with the EPA on
best practices and potential pathways for modeling fuel efficiency increases from various applications of
hybrid PTO mode, in addition to hybrid propulsion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.6-7] [This
comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-08267-1372, p.232.]
Odyne believes that future hybrid systems will be capable of reducing fuel consumption and GHG
emissions by 50% or greater at paybacks of 3 years by 2021 and 2 years by 2027 for vocational
multipurpose, urban, and potentially other classes of trucks. We believe that hybrid projections assumed
by the EPA in its draft rule - including effectiveness rates of—25% and paybacks from 4-6 years - can
and should be strengthened in light of this and other stakeholder data and analysis. We welcome the
opportunity to work with the EPA on assumptions made in the final rulemaking from cost projections and
performance data Odyne can offer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 17]
EPA: Mild hybrid - A small, engine driven (through a belt or other mechanism) electric
motor/generator/battery combination to enable features such as start-stop, energy recovery, and launch
assist. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.35]
Or
EPA: Mild hybrid electric vehicle means a hybrid electric vehicle that has start/ stop capability and
regenerative braking capability, where the recovered energy over the Federal Test Procedure is at least 15
percent but less than 65 percent of the total braking energy, as measured and calculated according to §
600.116-12(d). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.35]
EPA Strong hybrid - A powerful electric motor/generator/battery system coupled to the powertrain to
enable features such as start-stop, and significant levels of launch assist, electric operation, and brake
energy recovery. For HD pickups and vans, the engine coupled with the strong hybrid system would
remain unchanged in power and torque to ensure vehicle performance at all times, even if the hybrid
battery is depleted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.35]
Or
EPA Strong hybrid electric vehicle means a hybrid electric vehicle that has start/stop capability and
regenerative braking capability, where the recovered energy over the Federal Test Procedure is at least 65
-------
percent of the total braking energy, as measured and calculated according to § 600.116—12(d). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.35]
Odyne: If changes reflected in our comments above on start/stop are made, then changes are not needed
for hybrids. Otherwise, we would suggest adding "or other means to eliminate fuel consumption when the
vehicle is stopped." The same considerations for Mild Hybrid should be applied to Strong Hybrid and it
should mention heavy-duty trucks as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.35-36]
Response:
The agencies are including hybrid powertrains as a technology on which some of the vocational vehicle
standards are predicated. We proposed ten percent overall adoption of strong hybrids by MY 2027, which
meant approximately 18 percent adoption in the Multipurpose and Urban subcategories in that model
year. The agencies also discussed mild hybrid availability in the Preamble (80 FR 40298). In
consideration of comments from Eaton, ACEEE, UPS, Odyne and others expressing familiarity with and
support for consideration of mild hybrids in the standards, we have determined that mild hybrids are more
likely than strong hybrids to succeed initially in the vocational sector. Accordingly, the stringency of the
final standards is not predicated on use of strong hybrids, but does reflect deployment of mild hybrid
systems at a rate of 14 percent in the Multipurpose and Urban subcategories in MY 2027.
We appreciate the comments from manufacturers of hybrids including Odyne, Parker, XL Hybrids, Eaton,
and others who supported including hybrids in the stringency of the Phase 2 vocational vehicle program.
We believe that the drive cycles and test procedures for recognizing hybrids in the final program are
significantly improved since Phase 1, and should provide good opportunities for marketing these
products. We appreciate comments in support of hybrids from those with the fleet perspective, including
UPS and CalStart, as these customers can give the true measure of whether the products are worthwhile.
We recognize the concerns of commenters who cautioned against consideration of hybrids in developing
standard stringency, including OshKosh, Daimler, Allison, TRALA, EMA, Paccar, and Navistar. In
particular, the comments from Navistar provide an excellent summary of the challenges presented by this
technology. In considering all these comments as well as other supporting information, we believe that
manufacturers and suppliers will be able to overcome these challenges to a large extent in the timeframe
of Phase 2. Furthermore, the technology path we have identified is only one of many that may be
pursued.
We are projecting adoption of two types of mild hybrids, defined using system parameters based on actual
systems commercially available in the market today. We have taken into consideration the concerns of
secondary manufacturers by assuming that some mild hybrid systems will be integrated with an engine
sufficient to enable use of an engine stop-start feature, while some mild hybrids will not be integrated and
these "bolt-on" systems will only provide transient benefits (i.e. benefits under transient operating
conditions) related to regenerative braking. We also have reconsidered our effectiveness estimation
method as a result of comments. Instead of relying on previously published road tests over varying drive
cycles, we are applying engineering calculations to account for defined hybrid system capacities and
inefficiencies over our certification test cycle. We are using a spreadsheet model that calculates the
recovered energy of a hybrid system using road loads of the default baseline GEM vehicles over the ARB
Transient test cycle. See RIA Chapter 2.9.3.1.3 for details regarding the assumed motor and battery
capacity, swing in the state of charge, and system inefficiencies. We appreciate the comments from
Volvo and ACEEE regarding the agencies' analysis of mild hybrid effectiveness as detailed in the draft
-------
spreadsheet model that was released around the time of the NODA.185 In response to comments, we have
amended the model to include additional inefficiencies.186 The projected cycle-weighted effectiveness
reflects an assumption of zero effectiveness under highway cycles. For the non-integrated models, the
same system was assessed for all weight classes (not scaled up for heavier vehicles); however, for the
integrated models with stop-start we have scaled up the system specifications to account for the larger
road loads, to ensure the projected effectiveness is not decreased for systems on heavier vehicles relative
to that projected for lighter vehicles. As described in the RIA Chapter 2.11.7.2, these costs have been
scaled up by the curb weight of the vehicles. However, in analyzing different system designs using the
spreadsheet model we found that some systems were limited only by the motor, and costs of motors may
not need scaling to the same degree as other components. Therefore, we believe that our hybrid system
manufacturing costs are conservative. In considering the costs relative to the technology effectiveness, we
estimate the cost per percent reduction of mild hybrids to be on the order of the cost per percent of adding
two gears for Class 8 Urban vocational vehicles. For Class 6-7 Urban vocational vehicles we estimate the
cost per percent of an integrated mild hybrid with stop-start to be on the order of the cost per percent of
advanced shift strategy for a conventional powertrain, and the non-integrated bolt-on to be on the order of
adding two transmission gears. For class 2b-5 Urban vocational vehicles we estimate the cost per percent
of an integrated mild hybrid with stop-start to be about half of the cost per percent of advanced shift
strategy for a conventional powertrain, and the non-integrated bolt-on to be on the order of electrified
accessories. Actual cost-effectiveness for the individual user will depend on many things including the
annual miles driven by the vehicle owner under transient conditions.
We received many comments on the feasibility of hybrids for refuse trucks. The National Waste &
Recycle Association, Parker, and Autocar commented in support of hybrids for the refuse sector, while
EMA's comments point out examples where hybrids have failed to meet expectations for refuse fleets.
We believe these conflicting viewpoints can be reconciled by consideration of technology and duty
cycles. In a meeting with Effenco, the agencies discussed confidential information based on telematics
data obtained from refuse fleets indicating that some refuse drive cycles have such low kinetic intensity
that the energy available for recapture from regenerative braking was not worth pursuing. Importantly,
the efficiency with which a system captures and reuses braking energy depends on its design ~ including
whether it is battery-electric, capacitor-based, or hydraulic. Further, for drive cycles where the speed
between stops is under 10 miles/hr, Effenco found capacitor-based stop-start technology to be more cost-
effective than its previously-tested hybrid systems. Effenco observed these low-speed driving patterns for
some neighborhood refuse collection trucks and some inner-city transit buses.187 Effenco's comments on
stop-start systems can be found in Section 6.3.4, below. As noted by OshKosh in its comments above
(see Section 6.1.5), there are many types of refuse trucks with many duty cycles serving a variety of
purposes related to collecting and hauling refuse and recycled materials in communities across the U.S.
Therefore it is entirely possible that some portions of the refuse fleet may be well suited to various hybrid
systems and/or stop-start systems, and some may not be. For discussion of comments related to hybrids
on vehicles certified to the optional custom chassis standards, see Section 6.2.3.
Although the final Phase 2 vocational vehicle program reflects certain estimates that are more stringent
than those proposed, the projected hybrid adoption rate is less aggressive than proposed. The Alternative
4 path would have projected 10 percent strong hybrids overall by MY 2024, which at proposal was
estimated at 18 percent in the Multipurpose and Urban subcategories. Although we agree with CARB
that there are companies selling small volumes of hybrids today, we disagree that projecting an optimistic
185 See spreadsheet file dated February 2016 titled, "HD GHG Simple Hybrid Model v4.xlsx, Docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1725.
186 See spreadsheet file titled, "HD GHG Simple Hybrid Model v7.xlsx".
187 See docket memo with meeting log, specifically Web Conference with Effenco, August 31, 2015.
-------
hybrid adoption rate in the early years of the Phase 2 program would induce higher sales of those systems
in the short term. There are complex market barriers to adoption of hybrids, not the least of which is that
few if any chassis OEM's build these, and business relationships with second stage manufacturers are
virtually nonexistent today. As noted by Daimler in its comments, one of the reasons it dropped out of
the hybrid market was related to the hybrid OBD certification obstacles. See Section 14.3.1 and 14.3.3
for responses to comments about hybrid OBD. Although there is a (costly and time-consuming) path that
has been successfully navigated by some manufacturers to obtain hybrid OBD approval, this will likely
remain a significant market barrier to hybrid adoption for many years.
Responses to comments on hybrid PTO systems are found in section 6.3.6.3 below. Where a hybrid
system is capable of improving vehicle efficiency while driving as well as while parked in PTO mode, the
certifying manufacturer may submit powertrain test data as well as data from the hybrid PTO test
procedure, and would be eligible for both types of credits. See Section 6.1.1 for responses to comments
on NOx emissions from workday idle, see Section 15.8 for responses to comments on NOx from hybrids.
6.3.4 Workday Idle Reduction Technologies
This section addresses comments relating to three workday idle reduction technologies: neutral idle, stop-
start, and automatic engine shutdown. See Section 6.3.6.3 for comments relating to electrified power take-
off systems, which reduce high-idle emissions through electrification of the PTO function.
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA Should Not Assume Adoption of Idle Reduction Technologies For Emergency
Vehicles
EPA and NHTSA have requested comment on whether the agencies should assume any market adoption
rate for idle reduction technologies for emergency vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.48]
Allison does not support inclusion of an adoption rate for idle reduction technologies in emergency
vehicles; instead we would urge a large degree of caution in this area due to the possible introduction of
operational risk. For example, it could be possible for emergency lights and sirens to drain batteries to the
point where a restart of the engine could not be commanded. The existence of such risks weighs heavily
against any incremental gains that might accrue through reduction emissions from such specialized
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.48]
Additionally, a typical emergency vehicle duty cycle would result in much less use of the idle reduction
technologies than for vehicles in the commercial sector. For a typical duty cycle, when vehicles are "on
their way to an emergency," stops are not made and distances may not be long given the practice of
dispatching nearby vehicles. Although there can be "normal" driving on the return trip from an
emergency run, as well as some routine daily driving daily to ensure all equipment is working, the unique
use pattern of these vehicles would prevent a significant amount of the benefits to be derived from idle
reduction technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.48]
Allison's OEM customers, who manufacture safety and emergency vehicles, have also conveyed their
concern for implementing idle reduction technologies that may introduce this operational risk for their
end-user customers. Emergency responders always expect to be able to promptly complete every
emergency run; the best course of action in this rulemaking would be to not assume any adoption rate for
idle reduction technologies and instead, allow the emergency vehicle market to consider when such
technology is useable with acceptable levels of any risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.48]
-------
Organization: Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association (FAMA)
FAMA does not support idle reduction technology in fire apparatus for the following reasons: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.l]
- Shutting off the engine at every stop will not be practical for fire apparatus where every second counts
on the way to an emergency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.l]
- HVAC is powered by the engine and used to keep the occupant areas warm in the winter and cool in the
summer. This provides an essential place for fire fighters to recover after exposure to the elements. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.l]
- Firefighters keep the engine running to maintain pump pressure so that it is available when needed.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163 -A 1 p. 1 ]
- The water pump is powered by the engine. Pump water circulation in cold weather keeps the water in
the tank and lines from freezing [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.l]
- Hydraulic pumps for aerial operator are powered by the engine. Hydraulic fluid circulation keeps the
fluid warm and avoids sluggish aerial device operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.2]
- Engine idling maintains battery charge when operating warning lights, communication equipment, and
other current draw at the scene. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.2]
FAMA does not support idle reduction technology in ambulances for the following reasons: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.2]
- Shutting off the engine at every stop will not be practical for ambulances where every second counts on
the way to an emergency and while in transit to the hospital. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.2]
- HVAC is powered by the engine and used to keep the cab and patient compartment warm in the winter
and cool in the summer. This is critical for patient care. HVAC in ambulances also includes air filtering
and decontamination that protects patients and EMTs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.2]
- Engine idling maintains battery charge when operating warning lights, communication equipment,
medical equipment and other current draw at the scene. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p.2]
Response:
We agree with commenters that the workday idle technologies considered in this rulemaking are not
feasible on emergency vehicles. For an idle reduction technology to match the needs of an emergency
vehicle, it would need to perform additional battery load management functions. If an emergency vehicle
were to be built with such a system, and if it met the criteria in the regulations for AES, the manufacturer
may obtain certification credit for it in GEM. Otherwise, off-cycle credit may be requested.
6.3.4.1 Stop Start
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
-------
GEM Inputs for Stop-Start Technologies - We are not certain that we understand how GEM credits
stop-start. As we understand: First, for any engine, there are two idle points in the fuel map, one with no
load and one with torque converter load. If the engine has stop-start functionality, then the fuel rate is
zero at idle points. If we understand correctly, then the stop-start approach may overestimate fuel savings,
in that any stop-start system will take some time to shut off (based on light-duty vehicle experience). How
to properly credit that technology, without over-crediting it, is something we should discuss with the
agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.63]
Criteria for Stop-Start Approval - The agencies request comment on an appropriate definition of stop-
start technologies for vocational vehicles. 80 FR 40300. Recognizing that there are no heavy-duty stop-
start technologies on the market right now, we think that it might be difficult to perfectly define the
qualifying criteria. However, we wish to avoid the scenario like we had with innovative technology
certification in Phase 1, when we had to go through numerous lengthy discussions with [redacted] To
avoid unnecessary certification burden, and to avoid the error of failing to qualify a truly fuel-saving
technology for the credit it deserves, we recommend that the agencies stick to a simple definition. For
example, a vehicle should get stop-start credit if its engine will automatically stop itself rather than idle
under some conditions and will turn itself back on when the driver requests torque. The agencies need not
define what the conditions are, given that manufacturers might need to limit the stopping functionality
under different sets of conditions, such as when the air conditioner is operating or when a hydraulic
system demands power for on-vehicle vocational work. Although the agencies might be concerned that
the engine will not shut off in all instances of zero torque demand, the agencies should rest assured that if
a manufacturer installs a starter system, electrical system, HVAC, etc. capable of operating when the
engine is off, then the manufacturer will try to return the vehicle owner's investment by maximizing the
associated fuel savings. In short, the agencies should use as generic a definition as possible, because they
are safe in the knowledge that the systems will maximize fuel savings to the extent technically possible.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.67]
Organization: GILLIG LLC
Regarding the Stop/Start Idle Reduction Strategy, we see this as a strong hybrid only strategy at this point
and only with some modifications to how long and how frequently after zero vehicle speed it can be
employed. Transit buses transport people in extreme hot and cold environments and maintaining
conditioned air in the bus at layovers or extended bus stops for passenger comfort and safety is essential.
Currently, idling the engine or drawing power from a sizeable battery pack such as those employed with
strong hybrids are our only options for maintaining interior climate control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1156-A1 p.2-3]
Organization: Bosch
Stop-Start - Bosch supports the inclusion of an Idle Cycle, such as the one outlined in the draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) section 3.4.2.3, to recognize the benefits of stop-start technology for
Vocational Vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p. 10]
Bosch further suggests that recognition of the benefit of stop-start for other vehicles, such as urban
delivery vehicles, should be included in the regulation. In cases where lower fuel rates during idle cannot
be easily quantified on these vehicles, for inclusion in the Greenhouse Gas Emission Model (GEM), an
off-cycle credit should be assigned. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p. 10]
Organization: Effenco Hybrid Solutions
-------
Another comment regards the cost estimates for stop-start technologies. While "Stop-start systems can be
viewed as having a place on the low-cost end of the hybridization continuum" as it is mentioned in the
RIA section 2.9.3.4, one can appreciate that a minimum of additional hardware is required to deliver
enough power to frequently and seamlessly restart a large engine as well as to keep accessories and
equipment operational with the engine turned off. We believe that with volume and integration, the
incremental costs of stop-start technologies for vocational vehicles will range between $5,000 and
$10,000 in MY 2027 vs the $1,374 estimated by the agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1148-A1 p.3]
Finally, the fuel efficiency improvements that we measured on the field with our Active Stop-Start
technology range between 11 and 30% depending on duty cycles. We would be glad to provide the
agencies with additional data on this matter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1148-A1 p.3]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
The technological adoption rates for Alternative 3 are too ambitious in several areas, in addition to the
rate that is assumed for adoption of Stop-Start technology. Thus, Alternative 4 should be rejected and
Alternative 3 modified to account for slower adoption of Stop-Start technology than projected. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 15]
Allison also believes the DMC is understated for engine Stop-Start in all three of the vocational
categories, LHD, MHD, and HHD vehicles. The 25% upward scaling factor is insufficient to address the
differences between LDV and HDV. The duty cycle for a work truck is much more severe than HD
pickups and vans which results in larger components. Also, the vocational vehicle volume is much lower
than HD pickups and vans so the economies of scale are not able to be realized. Costs will increase from
LDV's due to the high degree of design and integration of new components among the vehicle
manufacturer, engine manufacturer, and transmission manufacturer to assure that the system is reliable,
but more importantly, safe. It is anticipated that many components will need to be redesigned to be
durable based on the number of additional cycles imposed by Stop-Start operation. The 25% upward
scaling factor from each vehicle size to the next is believed to be too low due to the non-linearity of cost
as vehicle size increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 14]
Allison believes the costs associated with an adoption rate of 70% are also understated. Vocational
vehicles that operate in climates with temperature extremes have situations where a truck operates at idle
in order to provide heating and/or air conditioning for the work crew. In these situations, the cost of
additional technology to provide power for the HVAC system is not included in EPA's and NHTSA's
analyses. Energetics Incorporated conducted an idle-reduction study in vehicles operated by New York
Department of Transportation. This study reported that costs for a system to provide cab heat was $8995.
A basic system with only Stop-Start capability, i.e. no heat or exportable power, cost $1995, which is
consistent with Allison's projections for an entry-level system for an LHDV. Most vehicles had a payback
in excess of 5 years, with approximately half of the vehicles studied, having a payback less than 10
years.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 14]
Allison is aware of a stop-start system that is used with the 3000 Series and 4000 Series TM
transmissions in Class 8 refuse trucks and terminal tractors. Effenco's Active Stop-StartTM system's
current installed cost is in the $30,000-$35,000 range. Although Effenco plans to reduce this cost by half,
it is still reflective of the complexity to implement this technology on HHD vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.14]
In addition, while Allison does not have data that would confirm whether 70% of vocational vehicles
could adopt Stop-Start technologies without impacting their specific work functions, Energetics was also
-------
not able to draw a conclusion for the NYSDOT fleet. Instead, this review noted that "[l]ong-term
monitoring may also provide a clearer picture of which vehicles need certain auxiliary vehicle functions
that requires the engines running to perform their job."26 Even so, it is clear that certain vehicles, such as
refuse packers, fire trucks, concrete mixers and other specialized vehicles are very unlikely to adopt
technology to turn off engines at stop. Although Stop-Start equipment may be theoretically available to
such vehicles, the energy requirements of the vehicles are so large as to preclude electrified options at
reasonable costs. This calls into question the ability to reach a 70% penetration rate assumed by the
agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 15]
Allison Transmission
Consistent with comments that Allison submitted with respect to the Proposed Rule, we are concerned
that EPA has projected overly-aggressive adoption rates for stop-start [for custom chassis] based on the
technology reach and the high costs of start-stop systems in the time frame of Phase 2 rules. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.5]
There are two factors which make these assumed rates overly optimistic. First, given the nature of the
heavy-duty industry, high technology adoption rates require close cooperation between vehicle OEMs,
engine manufacturers, major component suppliers and body builders. It is simply unrealistic to believe
that the high projected adoption rates for engine stop-start are feasible given these interactions and the
fact that the end market for vehicles drives production. Second, for at least some vehicles, high adoption
rates for engine stop-start may not be possible in the time frames projected. For example, projecting that
refuse vehicles will achieve 50% penetration by Model Year 2027 does not account for the large increase
in the cost and weight of such vehicles since some energy storage is expected to be required to power the
pack cycle. Other types of heavy heavy-duty ("HHD") vehicles may have relatively low annual
production volumes, making it difficult to recoup the added cost of engine stop-start technology. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.5]
EPA and NHTSA Should Incorporate Regulatory Definition of Stop-Start Technologies
Within the discussion of workday idle reduction technologies, EPA and NHTSA have requested comment
concerning an appropriate definition of Stop-Start technologies for vocational vehicles. Allison
recommends that the agencies incorporate a specific definition for Stop-Start technologies. We believe
that such technologies can be defined in a straightforward manner as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.46]
Stop-Start Technology means (a) a computer controlled event that occurs when a vehicle is stopped with
no (or low) driver demand for propulsion torque and when fuel is not flowing to the engine; (b) which
allows for restart of the engine; and (c) is capable of being off for the entire stopped time in the ARB
Transient and regulatory Idle Cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.47]
EPA must recognize that some conditions as determined by a computer may prevent the engine from
stopping each time the conditions defined above are met. This may include, but not be limited to extreme
grades, engine and transmission operating temperatures, and emission control-related parameters. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.47]
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
WM is Concerned that EPA Assumptions Regarding Technology Penetration May not be Reflective
of Vocational Refuse Fleets
-------
As discussed above, heavy-duty refuse trucks are not typical of most vocational fleet vehicles. Some of
the technologies that the agencies assume will penetrate all vocational vehicle fleets may not be workable
for refuse trucks. For example, start/stop technology would be highly problematic for our operations.
When a refuse vehicle stops and idles, the vehicle is still engaging in significant work lifting heavy loads,
and operating a trash compactor and heavy doors. The trucks stop often, with commercial refuse vehicles
averaging about 100 stops per day, while residential refuse vehicles may make between 800-1200 stops
per day. Our trucks burn more than 30 percent of the total fuel used while stopped and operating heavy
vehicle accessories to service the customer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.7]
The agencies need to recognize that vehicles with a significant power take-off (PTO) load will not be able
to accommodate start/stop technology. In section 3.7.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the agencies
assert that "typical PTO systems require no more than 19 kW at any time." WM disagrees with this
assertion in regard to refuse trucks. Our refuse trucks routinely require a range of 36kW to 80kW power
level to supply significant hydraulic system demands. While some vocational vehicles might be able to
use start/stop technology in combination with electric PTO (ePTO) to operate smaller accessories or lift
lighter loads, a refuse vehicle will require a large electric motor and a large battery with significant
storage capacity to enable the vehicle to lift heavy dumpsters or operate a heavy-duty compactor. Such
additions to a refuse truck might offset the benefits of weight reduction technologies and significantly
increase vehicle costs. We also note that ePTO technologies are not used anywhere in our fleet or by any
major refuse company that we are aware of. Therefore, we believe that assuming significant penetration
of ePTO technology or start/stop technology into the refuse sector would be overly optimistic. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.7]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Stop-start technology is defined under proposed section 1037.520(f)(8) as a vehicle system that shuts off
the engine under idle conditions within 30 seconds of a vehicle coming to a stop. The application and
benefits of stop-start- strategies must carefully weigh the fuel savings benefit against the impact on
durability and operator safety of engine emissions components. These strategies must have sufficient
engine, aftertreatment and occupant protections in place such that any fuel cost savings are a net benefit
for the owner/operator without compromising safety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.32-33]
There are certain operating conditions in which a stop-start strategy are not recommended for mission-
critical operations, these would include any PTO operation, emergency vehicle, utility truck, concrete
mixer, refuse applications and many off road applications including utility and digger derrick. Loss of
power to the PTO during normal mobile or stationary work operations can have severe safety implications
for the driver/operator and or passenger/worker. In such cases a PTO inhibitor would preclude any start
stop operation and associated fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.33]
Engine and aftertreatment durability protections should inhibit or aggressively control start stop
operation. For example, the periods during a DPF regeneration or when an aftertreatment warm up
strategy is in process each represent normal operating modes when maintaining fuel and or exhaust flow
to the aftertreatment system is critical to ensuring long term durability and effective emissions
conversion. These limits would need to account for other engine parameters, such as coolant, oil and
ambient air temperature where it is important to achieve and maintain normal operating temperature.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.33]
Engine turbocharger failures due to coking can occur during a high load, hot shut down events when the
cooling and lubricating oil is removed. When this occurs the lubricating oil can partially volatilize leaving
a layer of coked oil on the bearing surfaces. With repeated occurrences the bearing clearances and
-------
turbocharger performance decrease. This in turn affects the turbocharger efficiency and by extension
engine efficiency, as well as durability. With the cost and complexity of turbocharger systems increasing,
the impact of a single turbocharger failure can add several thousand dollars and can easily offset any fuel
economy benefit to be gained from an aggressive stop-start strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1
p.33]
Assurance of customer comfort (heat/AC/other accessories), as well as safety for vehicles operating on
steep grades, off road and for vehicles using air brakes must be taken into consideration. Advisable steps
might include allowing start/stop strategies to monitor the vehicle orientation, battery state of charge and
accessory power loads and adjust start/stop operation accordingly. This would ensure there is sufficient
power to operate any engine-off accessories up to a point where the battery capacity has reached a critical
point. At that critical point the engine would need to be restarted automatically to maintain normal vehicle
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.33]
In some cases where the stationary electrical demands are high, customers may elect to install additional
batteries to ensure that their extended engine off operation does not compromise the ability to restart the
vehicle. This added weight may partially negate the fuel efficiency impact of any stop-start system.
Finally, underlying all of these durability and safety concerns is the cost of upgrading or replacing engine
starters which need to be resized to accommodate the higher frequency of starting events. Additional costs
of upgrading alternators and battery capacity would also need to be addressed depending on the
application and on customer demands. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.33-34]
As previously mentioned air brake equipped vehicles will need sufficient inhibit features to allow the
application or release of the service brakes in order to operate the vehicle safely. The threshold limit
would need to be set reasonably high to account for vehicle foundation brakes as well as any trailers and
associated system leakage. In addition some fleets-e.g. heavy haul, refuse, mixer trucks and tow trucks-
may elect to have this feature set as a programmable parameter to ensure maximum safety is maintained.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.34]
In every instance, the concept of increasing fuel economy by adding seemingly simple features like
engine stop-start comes with a broad range of concerns that can impact vehicle safety, functionality,
engine and emissions component durability and passenger comfort. An integrated approach must be taken
to develop this functionality in order to ensure that any incremental fuel economy benefit is achievable
without any underlying customer cost or inconvenience. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.34]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The assumptions that as of 2027 70% of Class 7 and 8 vocational vehicles will utilize stop-start
technologies and 30% of those vehicles will utilize neutral-idle technologies are grossly overstated and
not supported by current data, and so are unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.71]
"Stop-start" technology is defined under proposed section 1037.520(f)(8) as a vehicle system that shuts
off the engine under idle conditions within 30 seconds.3 Proposed section 1036.501(g)(2) also would
allow manufacturers to run emissions tests of engines with the engine turned off during the idle portions
of test cycles, based on good engineering judgment, if the engine is to be used in a vehicle with stop-start
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.48] EPA anticipates that stop-start technology will
reduce fuel consumption from 0.5% to nearly 7%, depending on duty cycle, with the greatest reduction
over the Urban duty cycle. In the NPRM, the agencies assume that stop-start systems will be deployed in
100% of vocational vehicles in MY 2024-2027. However, a detailed spread sheet from the RIA shows
that the agencies actually project that start-stop technologies will be applied at varying penetration rates
-------
significantly less than 100% (i.e., ranging from 5% to 85%) in the several different vocational vehicle
categories over the 2021-2027 time period.
Application of stop-start technology is more challenging for HHD vehicles than for MHD vehicles where
systems are more likely to be implemented. In Table 2-177 of the RIA, the agencies provide cost
estimates for stop-start technology for HHD vehicles, starting at $1444 in MY 2024, and reducing to
$1374 in MY 2027. The agencies' cost estimates, however, have not fully considered the impacts on
engine or vehicle components for HHD vocational vehicles. For example, previous HHD engine tests
with high numbers of stop-start cycles have resulted in high wear of various engine components,
particularly main and rod bearings. In addition, an enhanced starter system may be required and, even
then, replacement of the system could be anticipated one or more times during the HHD vehicle's full
useful life. There would need to be alternative power sources to support not just power steering, cabin
heat, and transmission pressure, but also cabin cooling, lights and other functions - recognizing that idle
times can be quite extended for vocational vehicles waiting to perform their functions. Given all of this,
the actual cost for stop-start technologies in HHD vocational vehicles could be materially higher than the
agencies' estimate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.49]
Due to the lack of fully-demonstrated stop-start technologies in heavy-duty vehicles, an expectation of
significant deployment - let alone up to 85% - appears to be unreasonable. Moreover, since a significant
part of the vocational vehicle fuel savings is predicated on uncertain rates of deployment of start-stop
systems, attaining compliance with the Proposed Phase 2 standards for vocational vehicles will be
uncertain to that same extent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.49][Tables V-13 thru V-15 from FR
and an EPA spreadsheet on Alternative 3 Vocational Target Derivation can be found on p. 50-52 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1] /3/ A number of over-rides and exemptions will need to be
provided in the "stop-start" definition to account for ambient temperatures and other relevant factors, and
the agencies and manufacturers will need to define more clearly the operative entry and exit conditions
for stop-start systems.
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
By 2027, the table V-19 plan assumes a 70% adoption rate in the multi-purpose category. The NPRM
suggests a savings of 3%: "Based on these projected adoption rates and the effectiveness values described
above in this section, we expect overall GHG and fuel consumption reductions from workday idle on
vocational vehicles to be approximately three percent in MY 2027." While this approach may be practical
in some vocations, it will be completely impossible in others leading us to believe that the percent savings
is overstated. For example, shutting off a concrete mixer engine will stop the drum from rotating and risk
the concrete setting up in the drum. Shutting off the engine at every stop will not be practical for fire
apparatus where every second counts on the way to the emergency. Refuse trucks need the engine
running when they stop to operate collection and packing equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-
A2 p.4]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
EPA has development definitions for various technologies and processes included in the draft Phase Two
rule, and has requested comment on the draft definitions. Odyne has proposed definition changes on a
number of these as described below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.33]
EPA: Seeking comment on a definition for Start / Stop technology, "equivalent technology that eliminates
fuel consumption when the truck is in drive but stopped." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.33]
-------
Odyne: A start-stop system, or stop-start system, automatically shuts down and restarts the internal
combustion engine to reduce the amount of time the engine spends idling, or reduces the load on the
engine during the idle event, thereby reducing or eliminating fuel consumption and emissions when the
vehicle's motion is stopped. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.33]
Odyne would like the flexibility to electrically power the rotation of the prime mover without consuming
fuel during stops in order to continue powering accessories such as the transmission fluid pump, oil
pump, brakes, HVAC, steering or other systems that may derive their power from the rotating engine.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.33]
EPA:(i) Stop-start technology for vocational vehicles. Phase Two vocational vehicles qualify for reduced
emissions in GEM modeling if the engine shuts down no more than 30 seconds after the onset of any of
the following conditions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.34]
(A) The vehicle's brake is depressed at a zero-speed condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1
p.34]
(B) A vehicle with automatic transmission goes into "Park." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.34]
(ii) Neutral-idle technology for vocational vehicles. A Phase Two vocational vehicle with an automatic
transmission qualifies for reduced emissions in GEM modeling if the vehicle goes into neutral (or reduces
torque equivalent to being in neutral) at a zero-speed condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1
p.34]
(iii)Extended-idle reduction. If your sleeper cab is equipped with idle reduction technology meeting the
requirements of § 1037.660 that will automatically shut off the main engine after 300 seconds or less.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.34]
Odyne: In item (i) we recommend focusing on the desire to reduce fuel and emissions and not focus on
how that is actually accomplished. As we described in the proposed definition for Start / Stop load could
be reduced on the engine instead of stopping it. This would allow the engine to keep turning and reduce
the need for electrification of the engine driven components and still accomplish the same results. This
would be similar to how the transmission reduces the load on the engine except for it would be handled
by another system (i.e. - hybrid system). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.34]
Organization: Volvo Group
Throughout the regulatory process Volvo has continually stated objection to engine start-stop feasibility
for Heavy-Heavy Duty engines. In Volvo's comments to the NPRM we stated: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1928-A1 p.12]
"Test of less than 50,000 stop-start cycles [on Heavy-Heavy Duty engines] have resulted in failures of
critical engine bearings and overhead systems. We don't even know the range of problems that will
surface with this mode of operation, much less if there are feasible solutions. At a minimum, we must
anticipate a need for improvements (that have not been developed) to all bearing surfaces, lubrication, and
starter systems... Engine development costs will be very high since stop-start cycling tests can only be
accelerated by a limited amount before the failure mechanisms are altered." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1928-A1 p. 12-13]
-------
The agencies' assessment of this technology does not consider impacts on engine durability, reliability, or
even suitability for a specific weight class. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 13]
In section 2.9.5.1.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis to the NPRM the agencies state
"We are projecting a five percent adoption rate of stop-start in the six MHD and LHD subcategories for
MY 2021 and zero for the HHD vehicles, because this technology is still developing for vocational
vehicles and is most likely to be feasible in the early years of Phase 2 for vehicles with lower power
demands and lower engine inertia. Stopping a heavy-duty engine is not challenging. The real challenge is
designing a robust system that can deliver multiple smooth restarts daily without loss of function while
the engine is off. Many current light-duty products offer this feature, and some heavy-duty manufacturers
are exploring this.146 The agencies are projecting an adoption rate of 15 percent stop-start across all
subcategories in the intermediate year of MY 2024. The agencies are projecting this technology to have a
relatively high adoption rate (70 percent as stated above) by MY 2027 because we see it being technically
feasible on the majority of vocational vehicles, and especially effective on those with the most time at idle
in their workday operation. Although we are not prepared to predict what fraction of vehicles would adopt
stop-start in the absence of Phase 2, above in draft RIA Chapter 2.9.3 the agencies explain why we are
confident that this technology, which is on the entry-level side of the hybrid and electrification spectrum,
will be widely available in the Phase 2 time frame." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 13]
"146 See Ford announcement December 2013,
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2013/12/12/70-percent-of-ford-lineup-to-have-
auto-startstop-by-2017--fuel-.html. See also Allison-Cummins announcement July
2014, http://www.oemoffhighway.com/press_release/12000208/allison-
stopstart?utm_source=OOH+Industry+News+eNL&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=RCL14072300
6"
The agencies use the press releases in footnote 146 to Chapter 2 as evidence that stop-start technology
will be feasible during the regulatory period for all heavy-duty engines and applications. The referenced
Ford press release from December of 2013 references Ford Motor Company's target to have stop-start
engine technology on 70% of vehicles by 2017, while the Allison-Cummins announcement of July 2014
is in reference to a "demonstration" of stop-start technology on a Cummins Ethos 2.8L spark ignited
engine running on E85 and backed by an Allison 2000 series automatic transmission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1928-A1 p.13]
Ford Motor Company's 2015 monthly sales volume reports for the U.S.4 can be seen in the table below.
From these reports it is noted that Ford Motor Company's total U.S. volume for its Ford and Lincoln
Brands was over 2.6 million vehicles. Ford Heavy Trucks and Transit vans would all be subject to
the Phase II heavy duty GHG rule. Only a portion of the F-series and E-series vehicles would meet the
definition of a heavy-duty vehicle given in 40 CFR 1037.801 and not be excluded from the rule by 40
CFR 1037.5. Unfortunately, it was not possible to discern how many of the F- and E-series vehicles
would be certified to 40 CFR 1037; however, even assuming that the excluded Ford F-150 accounted for
50% of the total F-series population and the all E-series vans were included, the resultant percentage of
Ford Motor Company's 2015 U.S. sales that would be subject to the HD GHG rule would be slightly less
than 22% of the total. Since the Ford Motor Company is targeting 70% of their total U.S. sales volume to
have stop-start engine technology, their entire vehicle population covered under the HD GHG Phase II
regulation would not be affected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 13-14]
[Table 4 can be found on p. 14 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1]
-------
In the case of the Allison-Cummins announcement, it is a significant stretch to associate demonstration of
a technology on a Light-Heavy Duty spark ignition engine with commercial feasibility on a Heavy-Heavy
Duty compression ignition engine. According to the release, Cummins accumulated only 1,500 hours of
operation over a 2 Vz year period. In addition, the release notes that "to complete on-road validation
testing" the vehicle was subjected to a two-month demonstration on California roads; if this testing were
additional to the 1,500 hours we could estimate an additional -650 hours (12 hours per day, 6 days per
week, for 9 weeks). It must be noted that a single engine or vehicle, even approximating 2,150 hours of
operation, is not a statistically valid sample to determine either reliability or durability to meet the
demands of a mature production technology. In short, the continued reference in the release to a
"demonstration" shows this effort was to show the technology could provide a benefit, not that it was
reliable or durable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 14]
In addition, the agencies have not investigated what would be required to develop HHD engine systems to
withstand the potential 10-times, or more, increase in engine start cycles. The only discussion noted in the
RIA or Preamble to the Proposed Rule was around additional battery capacity (see also RIA Section
2.4.8.2). As such, Volvo still asserts that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that stop-start engine
technology is feasible on a Heavy-Heavy Duty engine at any time within the regulatory period. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 14]
As noted in the RIA section quoted above and repeated in Preamble Chapter V(C)(2)(b)(iv) and Table V-
17, the agencies are not projecting penetration of engine stop-start in HHD vehicles for 2021. Their
reasoning is that the technology is "still developing" and is "most likely feasible" only for LHD and
MHD in the early years of Phase II; however, they have predicated Custom Chassis compliance on
penetrations of stop-start technology in 2021 for transit buses, school buses, and refuse, all of which have
a high percentage of Class 8 volumes. It is not then acceptable to require Custom Chassis manufacturers
with no ability to average outside a Custom Chassis sub-category to meet any penetration of a technology
without which they would either need to have substantially higher penetrations of other credited
technologies, or would not be able to comply. This will be further compounded by the agencies' increase
in idle times for vocational duty cycles, as the NPRM value for stop-start improvement factor was 7%
under the NPRM urban duty cycle, which will substantially increase under increased idle. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 14]
For all of these reasons Volvo does not believe that start-stop engine technology is feasible in any Heavy-
Heavy Duty context and further asserts that, even if the technology were proven feasible, it should not be
relied upon in the Custom Chassis proposal due to the limited GEM inputs available for compliance.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A 1 p. 15]
Organization: Volvo Group
Start/stop technology is described as: '...the engine shuts down no more than 30 seconds after the onset of
any of the following conditions:
(A) The vehicle's brake is depressed at a zero-speed condition.
(B) A vehicle with automatic transmission goes into "Park."'
No Class 8 vehicle or engine has ever demonstrated capability of running in this mode for even a
reasonable portion of its full expected lifetime of more than one million miles. A vocational vehicle could
easily be subjected to hundreds or more such events in a full day of operation (UPS reports more than
1000 such stops per day for delivery vehicles in urban traffic) and millions of cycles in its life. No tests
-------
have ever been documented to demonstrate continued functionality over even 10% of these cycles. Test of
less than 50,000 stop-start cycles have resulted in failures of critical engine bearings and overhead
systems. We don't even know the range of problems that will surface with this mode of operation, much
less if there are feasible solutions. At a minimum, we must anticipate a need for improvements (that have
not been developed) to all bearing surfaces, lubrication, and starter systems. In addition, unless provision
is made to allow continued engine operation when air conditioning is deployed, auxiliary AC systems will
need to be deployed. Engine development costs will be very high since stop-start cycling tests can only be
accelerated by a limited amount before the failure mechanisms are altered. None of this has been
considered in the casual assumptions that such systems are readily available for deployment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.20]
Response:
The agencies proposed to predicate the vocational vehicle standards in part on 70 percent adoption of
stop-start in MY 2027. Our assessment of workday idle reduction technologies has been refined since
proposal, and part of this refinement includes less reliance on adoption of stop-start than at proposal.
Stop-start is a technology that requires an integration between engine and vehicle systems, and is seeing
increasing acceptance in today's passenger vehicle market. The agencies are aware that for a vocational
vehicle's engine to turn off during workday driving conditions, there must be a minimal reserve source of
energy to maintain engine-protection and safety functions such as power steering, transmission pressure,
engine lubrication and cooling, among others. As such, stop-start systems can be viewed as having a
place on the low-cost end of the hybridization continuum. 80 FR 40300. However we must be clear to
distinguish this technology from the AES described below. Stop-start technologies will be recognized
only over the drive idle cycle and the transient cycle in GEM, not the parked idle cycle. This is a change
since proposal because we had proposed only a single idle cycle during which a stop-start system could
have qualified for reduced emissions during modeling if it turned off the engine either while stopped in
traffic or while parked. The addition of a second idle cycle (i.e. both parked idle and drive idle) has
allowed us to distinguish stop-start from AES as two very different technologies with different test cycles,
different over-rides, different costs, and different effectiveness.
In the final rules, there are differences between drive idle and parked idle in many respects. See RIA
Chapter 2.9.3.4, RIA Chapter 3.4.2, and the NREL duty cycle report for more information about the
different idle cycles. One example of a difference in over-rides is that stop-start does not have an over-
ride related to ambient temperature, because the period of zero speed during which the engine may be off
is relatively short, on the order of seconds to minutes, compared with the period of parked idle engine off
that could be on the order of minutes to hours. The different over-rides may be reviewed in the
regulations at 40 CFR 1037.660. Another example of a difference is in the fueling rate. During the
parked idle cycle the fueling rate represents the vehicle being out of gear, either in neutral or park
depending on the transmission type. This fueling rate can be significantly lower for some vehicles than
the fueling rate that occurs while stopping in traffic in a drive idle situation, because of the torque applied
by some transmissions when in gear. Another difference is in effectiveness, where stop-start is assumed
to have a 90% effectiveness over the drive idle cycle, and AES is assumed to have an 80% effectiveness
over the parked idle cycle. See RIA Chapter 3.4.2.3.
For stop-start in the final rules, the purpose of the additional hardware is to protect the engine for short
duration stops such as at traffic lights, not to power accessories such as HVAC systems while the vehicle
is parked. We are not aware of stop-start systems that are commercially available for conventional
vocational vehicles today, but this feature is available as part of some current hybrid systems. Effenco is
a supplier who is demonstrating today a capacitor-based stop-start system with on-board electronics
-------
sufficient to protect a HHD engine and even power a PTO. Allison correctly noted that Effenco's system
is currently selling for prices that are more expensive than we are projecting. Effenco's comment
suggests that by MY 2027 the incremental manufacturing costs will be in a range that is three to six times
the agencies' estimate for stop-start systems on class 8 vehicles. However, Effenco's system delivers
more sophisticated functions than we believe are necessary for most vocational vehicles, especially with
the over-rides that we are allowing. See Section 11.3 for responses to comments on the agencies' cost
analysis including R&D and markups.
Volvo's comments about the feasibility of stop-start for HHD engines (generally 11L and larger) include
concerns about engine development costs for durability testing and other challenges; however, they do not
actually show the technology to be infeasible. We appreciate these comments that help us understand that
before this technology can be made widely available, testing must be conducted to show reliability of
systems and components including starters, lubrication, and bearing surfaces. It's possible that some time
may also be needed for development work where manufacturers elect to shift away from reliance on
batteries for starting the engine and begin to rely instead on ultracapacitors, which do not have the same
problems with cold weather operation and long term fatigue as do batteries.188 We agree with
commenters that this type of development work would likely be part of bringing this technology to the
vocational vehicle market, and thus we have included costs for similar upgrades to those described for all
sizes of engines, not just for those over 11L. In the event that an engine manufacturer needs to delay
adoption of stop start to roll these changes into a planned engine platform redesign, we believe our
relatively modest adoption rates of 20 to 30 percent in MY 2027 will accommodate this.
Volvo is inaccurate in claiming in its comments that we had cited press releases for stop-start on light-
duty vehicles and LHD demonstration vehicles as evidence that stop-start will be feasible for all
vocational vehicles. We cited Ford's announcement as evidence that this technology is currently
available on light-duty vehicles, and we cited the Cummins-Allison press release as evidence that some
HD manufacturers are exploring this technology (See 80 FR 40310). At proposal we reasoned that those
developments and other facts led us to conclude that stop-start would be technically feasible on a majority
of vocational vehicles by MY 2027. After considering comments and accounting for the revised idle
cycles, the agencies are projecting only 20 percent adoption of stop-start for HHD vehicles other than
Regional, and 30 percent for non-Regional LHD and MHD vehicles in MY 2027. We are confident
heavy-duty stop-start systems for conventional vehicles will be feasible on these vehicles at these rates in
the time frame of Phase 2. Where stop-start is relied upon as part of a certified configuration with
components installed by a secondary manufacturer, these will be subject to specifications and installation
instructions of the certifying manufacturer (See 40 CFR 1037.621 and 1037.622).
The effectiveness of stop-start as recognized in GEM will be evaluated on an engine-specific basis, with a
five second shutoff assumed as it is run in GEM during the transient cycle. During the separate drive idle
cycle a 90 percent effectiveness is assumed. This addresses commenters' concern about over-estimating
the effectiveness of this technology, and is appropriate because we expect a wide variety of stop-start
solutions to be deployed in the vocational vehicle market, and we anticipate modest use of over-ride
conditions, which include an over-ride for PTO use. Setting a shorter duration before shutdown could
over-estimate the reductions achieved by this technology in use. We believe this is a fair way to represent
that the system may not have the designed effectiveness under all conditions. As with neutral idle and
AES technologies, stop-start can reasonably be applied for vocational vehicles where this feature would
not frequently encounter an over-ride condition. Vehicles with very little driving in transient conditions
188 Maxwell Technologies, How Ultracapacitors Improve Starting Reliability for Truck Fleets, 2016, available from
http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/products/whitepapers/detail/how-ultracapacitors-improve-starting-reliability-
for-truck-fleets. aspx.
-------
or with high PTO operation can apply this technology, although they would see reduced effectiveness in
use.
As noted above, we are projecting zero adoption of stop-start for Regional vocational vehicles, and this
also includes motor homes and coach buses certified to the optional custom chassis standards, as these
vehicles have characteristically regional driving patterns. Cement mixers must continually rotate the
drum using the PTO while underway, and we are not aware of any electrified PTO system that could meet
the performance needs of a cement mixer without adding an unacceptable amount of weight to a vehicle
in this highly weight-sensitive application. Emergency vehicles have sophisticated onboard electronics
that would make designing a stop-start system very complex, and because these vehicles accumulate so
few miles, it does not seem cost-effective to develop this technology for this application. For the other
custom chassis that typically have urban driving patterns, we have determined that stop-start is feasible
for school buses, transit buses, and refuse trucks. See Preamble at V.C.2.b. For school buses, we
concluded that the reasoning we applied to determine that MHD Urban vehicles in the primary program
can adopt this at a rate of 30 percent in MY 2027 is also valid for school buses.
Although Gillig commented that current market offerings of stop-start for transit buses are only available
as part of a full hybrid package, our reasoning pertaining to development of this technology in the time
frame of Phase 2 also applies to transit buses. Engines for transit buses are typically medium heavy-duty
9-liter engines, and because commenters primarily raised concerns about lead time in the context of HHD
engines, we expect MHD engines will need less lead time than HHD engines in terms of developing
robust non-hybrid stop-start systems. This makes sense because the smaller engines have less rotational
inertia and thus may not need as many engineering design upgrades, and with shorter regulatory useful
lives these may not need as extensive durability testing as HHD engines. Further, where a hybrid system
with a stop-start feature is installed on a transit bus using the custom chassis option, the manufacturer will
be eligible to obtain reduced emissions for stop-start without needing to perform powertrain testing,
because the technology may be credited in GEM via the default engine. We thus believe it is reasonable
to project that by MY 2027, 30 percent of custom chassis transit buses will have stop-start systems that
are part of either conventional or hybrid drivelines.
Refuse trucks that routinely compact waste throughout their neighborhood collection activity would likely
either experience the PTO over-ride condition too frequently to make stop-start cost-effective, or
manufacturers may elect to install a system similar to Effenco's that has been designed with the refuse
vocational vehicle in mind. As noted above in Section 6.3.3.3, there are a wide variety of refuse drive
cycles, and some may lend themselves to stop-start better than others. Along with the variety of duty
cycles comes a variety of engines typically powering refuse trucks, from 9 to 13 liters, some of which
may need less lead time than others in terms of developing robust non-hybrid stop-start systems. As with
transit buses, chassis manufacturers certifying refuse trucks to the optional custom chassis standards may
enter Yes in the input field in GEM for stop-start (whether part of a conventional or hybrid system) and
the effectiveness will be computed based on the default 350 hp engine with 5-speed HHD automatic
transmission. We thus believe it is reasonable to project that by MY 2027, 20 percent of custom chassis
refuse trucks will have stop-start systems that are part of either conventional or hybrid drivelines.
6.3.4.2 Neutral Idle
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Allison believes that the Direct Material Cost ("DMC") assumptions for Neutral-Idle are understated.
EPA assumes that no additional hardware is required for this capability.24 At the time when the
transmission baseline configuration was established, however, all fully automatic transmissions did not
-------
have the hardware needed for Neutral-Idle. Thus, there is obviously an increased cost associated with this
capability. Specifically, a vehicle sensor is also necessary to assure the brakes are "on" in order to activate
Neutral-Idle. Allison believes that a more appropriate DMC assumption is $100. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.14]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
GEM Inputs for Neutral Idle
We are not certain that we understand how GEM credits neutral idle. As we understand: First, for any
engine, there are two idle points in the fuel map, one with no load and one with torque converter load. If
the transmission has a neutral idle, then at any idle time-step in GEM, the fuel consumption rate is the no
load rate; otherwise, it is the loaded rate. If we understand correctly, then the neutral idle approach is
correct. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.63]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
With respect to Neutral Idle, the NPRM states that "Based on GEM simulations using the currently
proposed vocational vehicle test cycles, the agencies estimate neutral idle for automatic transmissions to
provide fuel efficiency improvements ranging from one percent to nearly four percent, depending on the
regulatory subcategory." This approach shifts the transmission to neutral whenever the engine is at idle.
Certain vocational trucks spend a lot of time at idle, but the transmission is already in neutral, and the
engine power is performing work at that time. This technology is not feasible for Concrete and Refuse for
the same reasons described in our comments under stop-start. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.5]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The assumptions that as of 2027 30% of Class 7 and 8 vocational vehicles will utilize neutral-idle
technologies are grossly overstated and not supported by current data, and so are unreasonable. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.71]
"Neutral-idle" is also described in that proposed regulatory section, and refers to a system that
automatically shifts a vehicle "into neutral (or reduces torque equivalent to being in neutral) at zero-speed
condition." Apparently, the agencies anticipate that neutral-idle technology will be offered by one or more
automatic transmission suppliers in the timeframe for the Phase 2 Standards, but it is unclear by which
suppliers, at what cost, and with what restrictions on vehicle operations.
As an initial matter, vehicle manufacturers should not be held responsible for determining whether a
particular transmission meets the agencies' rather vague definition of "neutral-idle" systems. Rather, the
agencies should require transmission manufacturers to provide a certification that a given transmission
system meets the "neutral-idle" criteria. Similarly, the agencies should hold the transmission
manufacturer responsible if that certification later proves to be incorrect, just as pertains with respect to
tire manufacturers under Phase 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.48]
EPA estimates that neutral-idle will reduce fuel consumption by 1% to 4% for vocational vehicles. In the
NPRM, the agencies assume that neutral-idle will be used in 100% of vocational vehicles in MY 2021
(although it is only applicable to automatic transmissions). (See Tables V13 through V-15, reproduced
below). However, a detailed spread sheet from the RIA shows that the agencies actually project that
neutral-idle technologies will be applied at varying penetration rates significantly less than 100% (i.e.,
ranging from 5% to 85%) in the several different vocational vehicle categories over the 2021-2027 time
-------
period. A screen shot of the agencies' spread sheet is included below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.49]
Organization: Volvo Group
Although we have some indication that a "neutral idle" automatic transmission may be available from one
manufacturer, we do not know the cost, reliability, or performance of this product. With this situation, we
cannot endorse or support the contention that all automatic transmissions can offer this feature by MY
2021. In addition, it is unclear as to how a vehicle manufacturer could ensure that any particular
transmission meets the requirements for neutral idle, stated as: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
P-21]
"A Phase 2 vocational vehicle with an automatic transmission qualifies for reduced emissions in GEM
modeling if the vehicle goes into neutral (or reduces torque equivalent to being in neutral) at a zero-speed
condition."
If the agencies intend to provide credit for this technology and to include it in stringency expectations,
provision should be made for suppliers to certify that the technology is approved for the credit. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.21]
Response:
Neutral idle may be programmed on any automatic transmission, and can reasonably be applied for
vocational vehicles where this feature would not frequently encounter an over-ride condition. The
adoption rates we project for this technology are described in Section V.C.2.b (iv) of the Preamble and
RIA Chapter 2.9.5.1.4. Neutral idle is essentially a transmission technology, but it also requires a
compatible engine calibration. Torque converter automatic transmissions traditionally place a load on
engines when a vehicle applies the brake while in drive, which we call curb idle transmission torque
(CITT). When an engine is paired with a manual or automated manual transmission, the CITT is
naturally lower than when paired with an automatic, as a clutch disengagement must occur for the vehicle
to stop without stalling the engine. The engineering required to program sensors to detect the brake
position and vehicle speed, and enable a smooth re-engagement when the brake pedal is released makes
this a relatively low complexity technology that can be deployed broadly. Allison provided information
in its comments that the agencies' cost estimates for neutral idle were too low. We have revised our costs
upward for neutral idle in response to Allison's comment and specifically have included the cost of a
sensor.
Allison has publically available information about its transmissions that feature neutral at stop, including
its FuelSense Plus and FuelSense Max products.189 The only concern we have heard from stakeholders
about performance is that without some engineering adjustments, a re-engagement bump when returning
to drive from neutral may produce a minor driver annoyance. Based on currently available information,
we expect neutral idle technology to be available in the near term for many vehicles, and we expect
technology or engineering to minimize a re-engagement bump should not meaningfully increase the lead
time or cost of this technology.
An example of an allowable override is if a vehicle is stopped on a hill. Skilled drivers operating manual
transmissions can safely engage a forward gear from neutral when stopped on upslopes with minimal roll-
189 See http://www.allisontransmission.com/docs/default-source/marketing-materials/sa7567en-vocational-model-
guide. pdf? sfvrsn=4
-------
back. With an AT, the vehicle's computer would need to handle such situations automatically. In
addition, engagement of the PTO while driving will be an allowable over-ride condition. In the Phase 2
certification process, transmission suppliers will attest whether the transmission has this feature present
and active, and certifying entities will be able to enter Yes or No as a GEM input for the applicable field.
The effectiveness of the neutral idle technology will be calculated using data points collected during the
engine test, using the appropriate fueling over the drive idle cycle and the transient cycle. This technology
has no effect on the parked idle cycle, thus it need not have any effect on vehicle operation while parked
to qualify in GEM.
We agree with OshKosh that this technology is not feasible for cement mixers. As this is a drive idle
technology and cement mixers must rotate the drum at all times while underway, a reduced torque at zero
vehicle speed would not be possible without a very advanced (and prohibitively costly) e-PTO system.
However, we disagree with OshKosh with respect to refuse trucks. There are a wide variety of refuse
drive cycles. Refuse vehicles that may benefit from neutral idle may be front loaders and those that must
convey a fully compacted load across town after completing a neighborhood collection route. We are
projecting 50 percent adoption of neutral idle on refuse trucks in the custom chassis program by MY
2027, which is considerably less than the 70 percent adoption projected for HHD Urban vehicles in the
primary program. See Preamble at V.C.2.b.
Because we are considering stop-start and neutral idle to be mutually exclusive on a per-vehicle basis (see
RIA Chapter 2.9.5.1.4), the sum of adoption rates for these two technologies does not exceed 90 percent
in MY 2027. Neutral idle adoption rates start at 50 percent in MY 2021 because we expect this
technology will not need much lead time, if any (given that the technology already exists, is commercially
available, and does not present significant engineering challenges). By MY 2027 the adoption rate of
neutral idle does not exceed 70 percent because we are not projecting it to be combined with stop-start on
a vehicle. Although these may be combined in GEM, any additional effectiveness during the ARB
transient and drive idle cycles would be very small.190 An exception to the projected 90 percent
maximum adoption rate is transit buses, where we believe all vehicles of this type can reasonably apply
some form of drive idle reduction technology.
6.3.4.3 Automatic Engine Shutdown
Organization: Alliance of Idle Mitigation Technologies
Idling is an activity that occurs in the off duty cycle. A more comprehensive scheme is needed to ensure
that the credit awarded for vehicle efficiency reflects what happens in the real world, and that unintended
consequences do not extinguish the businesses that are already doing a great job reducing the very waste
that the rule intends to curb - and our business are quickly growing. The Alliance is not directly regulated
by the fuel efficiency standard, but it deserves a seat at the table. The agencies did confer with a diverse
group of industry and stakeholders, however, our companies were not part of that dialogue, nor were we
permitted to attend the Small Business Administration roundtable created to evaluate the unintended
effects ofthe proposed rule, in as much as we are not OEMs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1311-A1 p.l]
Fuel efficiency standards are a relatively straightforward calculus involving only OEMs, until it
endeavors to regulate the off-duty cycle behavior of idling. We believe that extra participation of the idle
reduction industry is required in order to form the most effective method of addressing the wasteful
190 The final GEM input file allows users to apply multiple idle reduction technologies within a single vehicle
configuration.
-------
practice of idling. Please consider further deliberations with us prior to adoption of the final rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1311-A1 p.2]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
The real world use of idle shutdown on cement mixers must be taken into account in the final regulations.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1 p.3]
Organization: ABC Bus Companies, Inc.
The climate control of passenger compartments during the loading or unloading process is
essential in Passenger Carrying Vehicles just as it is on airplanes or trains. Extreme seasonal
weather conditions and temperatures can dictate vehicle idling operations to ensure the health and
welfare of passengers being transported in these vehicles. Putting passengers on an extremely
HOT or COLD could prove harmful to passengers. In addition, ADA wheel chair lift operation
can require that engines be running while these passengers are loaded and unloaded into a
motorcoach. Most over-the-road coaches also have to provide rest room facilities for passengers.
Mandating AES standards for (PCV's) could adversely affect the health of the traveling public.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.3]
The NREL should consider the PCV operation as described above to help define this vocational vehicle
test cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1430-A2 p.3]
Response:
Automatic engine shutdown (AES) is an engine technology that is widely available in the market today,
but has seen more adoption in the tractor market than for vocational vehicles. Although we did not
propose to include this technology as part of the technology packages used to develop standard stringency
and cost, we received many comments suggesting that it would be appropriate to do so. Some
commenters may have conflated the concept of stop-start with AES, such as a comment we received
asking us to consider the on-board need to power accessories while the vehicle is in stationary mode. We
believe that automatic engine shutdown is effective and feasible for many different types of vehicles,
depending on how significant a portion of the work day is spent while parked. Most truck operators are
aware of the cost of fuel consumed while idling, and importantly, the wear on the engine due to idling.
Engine manufacturers caution owners to monitor the extent of idling that occurs for each work truck and
to reduce the oil change interval if the idle time exceeds ten percent of the work day. Accordingly, many
utility truck operators track their oil change intervals in engine hours rather than in miles. The agencies
are adopting an allowable AES over-ride for PTO use. We are also adopting an allowable AES over-ride
if the battery state of charge drops below a safe threshold. This would ensure there is sufficient power to
operate any engine-off accessories up to a point where the battery capacity has reached a critical point.
Where a vocational vehicle has such extensive stationary accessory demands that an auxiliary power
source is impractical or that an over-ride condition would be experienced frequently, we do not consider
AES to be feasible. Examples include coach buses, motor homes, transit buses, refuse trucks, concrete
mixers, and emergency vehicles. To make AES practical for a coach or transit bus, for example, a much
larger auxiliary power source would be needed than the one projected as part of this rulemaking. We
have based the school bus standards in part on adoption of AES because although many school buses
have voluntarily adopted idle reduction strategies for other reasons, we do not believe many have tamper-
proof automatic shutdown systems. See Section V.C.2.b (iv) of the Preamble and RIA Chapter 2.9.5.1.4.
-------
In the Phase 2 certification process, engine suppliers will attest whether this feature is present and tamper-
proof, and certifying entities will be able to enter Yes or No as a GEM input for the applicable field.191
As with neutral idle described above, the effectiveness of AES will be calculated in GEM using data
obtained through engine testing. The appropriate data points over the parked idle cycle will be used for
calculating the fueling.
6.3.5 Lower Rolling Resistance Tires
Organization: Daimler
Lower Rolling Resistance Tires - The agencies request comment on the use of the adjustment factor for
LT tires. We have no comment on this topic except to say that the agencies should now have enough
information to set tire Crr targets for each regulatory sub-category based on the RSCs' needs and without
extrapolation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.79]
Organization: GILLIG LLC
We believe with regard to tire rolling resistance that transit buses should be treated separately from the
rest of the vocational vehicles. The average speed of transit buses is lower than the other vehicles in the
vocational vehicle category. If Phase 2 is going to continue to use tire rolling resistance as a GEM input,
then the decrease in tire rolling resistance associated with lower vehicle speeds needs to be accounted for
in the GEM calculation for C02 and fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.3]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
The Phase 2 proposal significantly overestimates the potential for vocational vehicle LRRTs uptake. For
those vocational customers where LRRT use may be technologically acceptable, their higher cost may not
be, given the number of miles and speeds driven. For example, many vocational vehicle purchasers spec
tires with heavy-duty sidewalls designed to resist damage in stop/go, urban, heavy-load, bad weather, and
off-road operating conditions. Since LRRTs often trade sidewall durability and traction for lower weight,
they are not appropriate for vocational customers whose operations place a premium on durability,
traction and/or safety. Given these constraints, NADA/ATD suggests that the projected MY 2027
vocational vehicle LRRT MRP be reduced by half. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.9]
Organization: National Waste & Recycle Association
We are disappointed in the agencies continued advocacy of low rolling resistance tires as the primary fuel
efficiency solution for vocational vehicles in the face of evidence that these tires do not offer fuel
efficiency benefits for refuse vehicles. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A 1 p.2]
The agencies continue to place great reliance on the use of low rolling resistance tires to achieve the fuel
consumption standard for the universe of vocational vehicles. Yet the NAS report noted that low rolling
resistance tires "do not generate the same level of fuel savings for drive cycles that include frequent stops
and starts as for drive cycles with minimal amounts of braking" and that as a result of these factors, the
contribution of rolling resistance to truck fuel use is less in delivery trucks and still less in refuse
haulers..." (see NAS, page 115) and that "the use of low rolling resistance tires has some application in
191 We will consider non-tamper-proof AES as off-cycle technologies for a lesser credit. See 40 CFR 1037.610.
-------
refuse packers, but their low vehicle speed profile and the need for good traction makes the application
questionable" (see NAS, page 141). [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.7]
Nonetheless, the agencies state, see page 40299, right column, that "vocational vehicles are likely to see
the most benefits from reduced tire rolling resistance with they are driving at 55 mph" and that "both
vocational vehicles tested had greater benefits of LRR tires at 100 percent payload than when empty." As
noted above, refuse trucks have patterns of extensive stopping. In addition, while those trucks can travel
at 55 mph on the way to a transfer station or landfill, highway driving provides a small percentage of their
road travel time. Finally, refuse trucks fill up throughout the day and only achieve 100 percent legal
payload at the end of the route. As a result, we do not anticipate any fuel efficiency savings from lower
rolling resistance tires. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.7]
Organization: Michelin North America, Inc.
The 'conventional wide base' (sometimes known as 'wide base singles' or 'super singles' sizes), e.g.
385/65, 425/65 and 445/65, are different from the NGWBS75 mph speed rated tire technology in use
today. These 'conventional wide base singles' or 'super singles' are not typically known for fuel efficiency
and long haul highway applications in the North American market and have speed ratings of 62, 65 or 68
mph. They are mostly targeted for vocational on-off road and urban applications where they offer a larger
single mount load capacity (steer) or some weight reduction on drive and trailer applications. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.3]
The above clarification will assist users to select the appropriate tires for their needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1286-A1 p.3]
Organization: UPS
UPS fully supports the following excerpt from ATA's comments and notes that our concern focuses on
Class 6 truck tires. We approve taking weight out of the tread, but not from the tire casing: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.6]
'Tire rolling resistance must be tailored to each vehicle subcategory. This especially holds true with
respect to Class 4-6 vocational vehicles. SmartWay tire verification focuses on in-use highway
applications — not vocational operations. Class 6 tires currently have a heavy-rub band on the sidewall to
prevent sidewall damage largely caused by excessive scrubbing against curbs during urbanized hauls.
Thicker sidewalls help maintain casing integrity and affords fleets the ability to get close to four
subsequent retreads. LRRTs typically do-away with thicker side bands to lower tire weight (in the range
of 30%) and get better fuel economy test track results. Unfortunately, fleets do not deliver goods on test
tracks and even the best drivers have contact with curbs throughout their delivery schedules. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.6]
'The four tire levels set out under the rule will have shorter useful lives and will minimize recap
opportunities. As referenced prior, it takes 23 gallons of oil to manufacture a new tire and only 8 gallons
to retread — a statistic that cannot be ignored in undertaking both carbon and fuel use analyses under the
proposal. If better tire rolling resistance levels can in fact be achieved while maintaining heavy-rub bands
needed for greater casing integrity and durability, ATA would be in a better position to support the
vocational tire requirements set out under the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.6]
'Finally, many vocational applications need to go off-road at construction sites, mining operations,
landfills, and similar locales. The transition to LLRTs would not satisfy customer needs for adequate
-------
traction in these environments. ATA requests that the agencies conduct independent and robust studies of
new LRRT generation tires in advance of their entry into the marketplace to assess safety, traction, and
availability.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.6]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The Phase 2 proposal for emergency vehicles allows emergency vehicles to continue to use tires meeting
only Phase 1-level Crr performance. While CARB staff understands the unique functionality,
performance, and reliability criteria applicable to emergency vehicles, it also believes that as tires with
Phase 2-level Crr values become more readily available in the market place and at a lower cost,
emergency vehicle manufacturers will be able to overcome remaining technical challenges associated
with the use of lower-rolling resistance tires in the emergency vehicle sector, particularly in the latter
years of the Phase 2 program. As such, CARB staff proposes U.S. EPA and NHTSA to consider
provisions, utilizing a phase-in approach, to require the use of tires meeting lower Crr levels than required
by Phase 1, in the emergency vehicle sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 139]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Lower Low Rolling-Resistance Tires (50% 6.9 Crr Steer Tires in 2027; 15% 6.5 Crr Drive Tires in
2027)
Tire rolling resistance must be tailored to each vehicle subcategory. This especially holds true with
respect to Class 4-6 vocational vehicles. SmartWay tire verification focuses on in-use highway
applications - not vocational operations. Class 6 tires currently have a heavy-rub band on the sidewall to
prevent sidewall damage largely caused by excessive scrubbing against curbs during urbanized hauls.
Thicker sidewalls help maintain casing integrity and affords fleets the ability to get close to four
subsequent retreads. LRRTs typically do away with thicker side bands to lower tire weight (in the range
of 30%) and get better fuel economy test track results. Unfortunately, fleets do not deliver goods on test
tracks and even the best drivers have contact with curbs throughout their delivery schedules. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.9]
The four tire levels set out under the rule will have shorter useful lives and will minimize recap
opportunities. It takes 23 gallons of oil to manufacture a new tire and only 8 gallons to retread - a statistic
that cannot be ignored in undertaking both carbon and fuel use analyses under the proposal. If better tire
rolling resistance levels can be achieved while maintaining heavy-rub bands needed for greater casing
integrity and durability, ATA would be in a better position to support the vocational tire requirements set
out under the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.9]
Finally, many vocational applications need to go off-road at construction sites, mining operations,
landfills, and similar locales. The transition to LRRTs would not satisfy customer needs for adequate
traction in these environments. ATA requests that the agencies conduct independent and robust studies of
new generation LRRTs in advance of their entry into the marketplace to assess safety, traction, and
availability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.9]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
Phase 1 is already mandating improvements, and we believe that by 2017, further rolling resistance
improvements will not be possible without degrading the traction capabilities that most vocational trucks
require. Even if rolling resistance could be reduced without sacrificing traction, the proposal correctly
-------
points out that the tire manufacturers have little incentive to put research into those tire sizes appropriate,
only for low volume vocational applications.
The 2027 upper limit values of 6.4 for steer tires and 7.0 for drive tires are lower than the averages we
currently see for our concrete mixer tires. Since concrete mixers must often operate off-road in muddy job
sites, it is essential that maximum traction be maintained. A number of other vocational vehicles must
also be able to operate both on-road and off-road. Further rolling resistance improvements may not be
possible without degrading the traction capabilities beyond an acceptable range. Even if rolling resistance
could be reduced without sacrificing traction, the NPRM points out correctly that tire manufacturers have
little incentive to put research into those tire sizes appropriate for low-volume vocational applications
only. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.5]
Since implementation of Phase I, we have not seen any vocational vehicle tire changes from suppliers.
The CRR values provided at the beginning of Phase I are still the same values provided today. Consider
that the larger market for truck tires is not those purchased by the OEM for new vehicles, but rather the
replacement and re-tread markets. Neither the OEM nor the EPA can control the tires purchased for
replacement, so tire manufacturers can continue to see significant market sales of current high CRR tires
regardless of pressure by small volume vocational truck OEMs. We question whether implementation of
Phase II will cause tire suppliers to place any emphasis on CRR improvements for the low-volume tire
models that serve our vocations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.5]
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
RMA Evaluation of GEM Inputs for Tires (non-speed restricted) for Vocational Vehicle Fitments
RMA appreciates that the agencies collected data to better understand the rolling resistance performance
of tires that are equipped on vocational vehicles for purposes of this rule. Yet, the data collected does not
represent the breadth of vocational vehicle applications and appropriate tire fitments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1304-A1 p.16]
Some tire fitments in the vocational vehicle segment are designed for low speed, heavy load applications
where rolling resistance is not a key design parameter since typical use would not yield meaningful fuel
economy benefits and other tire performances are more critical. After evaluation of member company
data showing rolling resistance of tires for certain vocational fitments, RMA concludes that the same
GEM inputs should not be used for all tires used on vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p. 16]
RMA collected rolling resistance data from its member companies for several tire size and load range
combinations for both steer/all-position and drive tires. In particular, RMA evaluated tires with rim
diameters of 17.5 to 24.5 inches across several load ranges where current rolling resistance performance
may not be equivalent to the proposed GEM tire inputs for vocational vehicles. After its review, RMA
recommends that the agencies consider adjusting the GEM inputs and resulting fuel economy and
resulting GHG emission limitations for drive tires installed on vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1304-A1 p.16]
The Agencies' Proposed GEM Inputs for Steer/All-position Tires (non-speed restricted) are
Appropriate
Figures 7 and 8 show the rolling resistance coefficients for each of the tire size/load range combinations
evaluated for steer/all-position tires. Based on the data in Figure 7 and Figure 8, RMA concludes that the
-------
proposed GEM inputs for steer/all-position tires are appropriate. Although not all current tires will meet
the 2021 GEM input value (7.1 kg/T), it seems achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 17]
[Figure 7, 'Distribution of Rolling Resistance Values of Steer/All-Position Tires for Vocational Vehicles',
p. 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1304-A1]
[Figure 8, 'Analysis of Rolling Resistance Values for Steer/All-Position Tires for Vocational Vehicles',
can be found on p.18 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1]
The Agencies Should Adjust the GEM Inputs for Drive Tires (non speed- restricted) and Resulting
Limits for Vocational Vehicles
RMA also collected rolling resistance data for drive tires used in vocational vehicle applications,
presented in Figures 9 and 10. Of significance, nearly half of the values are higher than the baseline value
(7.7 kg/T) proposed by the Agency. The vast majority of products represented would require major
redesign in order to meet the proposed GEM Inputs for 2021, 2024 and 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1304-A1 p.18]
RMA believes the drive tire GEM inputs are not appropriate, given the performance demands placed on
these tires. As shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, the average RRc for many current vocational drive tires
do not meet even the 2017 baseline target. That is because the design parameters for drive tires, and
especially for certain types of vocational drive tires, inherently cause them to have significantly higher
rolling resistance than their all position counterparts. In order to perform their intended function of
providing driving traction, drive tires are designed with tread block or lug type tread patterns that tend to
increase rolling resistance and with tread depths that are substantially (up to 50%) deeper than for
comparable all position tires. Furthermore, a number of tires that are considered "vocational" are designed
for on/off road applications, with heavier tire constructions and with tread compounds designed to resist
cutting and tearing, which inherently cause higher rolling resistance than typical highway treads. Because
of the very nature of what makes a drive tire a functional drive tire, we propose that the agencies revise
the GEM inputs for drive tires for vocational applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.19]
[Figure 9, 'Distribution of Rolling Resistance of Drive Tires for Vocational Vehicles', can be found on
p. 19 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1]
[Figure 10, 'Analysis of Rolling Resistance Values for Drive Tires for Vocational Vehicles', can be found
on p.20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 04-A1]
In order to assess what revised GEM inputs might be more appropriate for drive tires used in vocational
vehicle applications, RMA used the steer/all-position data it collected as a guide. RMA evaluated the
percentage of products surveyed that would meet the baseline targets and the various GEM inputs for
2021, 2024 and 2027. RMA then compared the steer/all-position percentages with the percent of drive
tires that would meet the baseline and GEM inputs proposed. Figure 11 shows the results of this analysis.
It is apparent that the proposed GEM inputs would be much more severe, in terms of impact to the
industry, for drive tires than for steer/all-position tires. As discussed above, due to the performance
demands on drive tires, it would be very difficult to meet the proposed GEM input levels. RMA proposes
that the Agency set the GEM inputs for drive tires for vocational vehicles by targeting a similar
percentage of current products that can meet the GEM inputs set for future model years 2021 and 2024, or
8.3 and 8.1 kg/T respectively. This proposal is shown in green in Figure 11. For 2027, RMA does not
believe this same approach is warranted, given the performance needs of drive tires for vocational
-------
vehicles. Instead it recommends that the 2027 GEM input target be set at a level where roughly 50 percent
of current products could meet the level, 7.5 kg/T. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 04-A1 p.20-21]
[Figure 11, 'Percent of Current Steer and Drive Tires that Would Meet Proposed GEM Inputs for
Vocational Tires', can be found on p.21 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1]
Vocational trucks and non-van type trailers, and by extension the tires on them, are designed for
specialized kinds of work over a wide range of specialties. Expectations will be that the tires will continue
to perform in a manner that facilitates the truck performing its tasks effectively. In other words, it is not
generally acceptable to trade off one performance parameter in order to improve another such as rolling
resistance. These tires are designed with features that enable them to perform effectively in their
specialized applications, and a number of those features add to the tire's rolling resistance. It will take
significant time and effort to identify or develop new materials and design features that can reduce rolling
resistance and still maintain current dynamic performances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.34]
Organization: Volvo Group
In the technology packages anticipated to set Phase 2 stringency levels, the agencies have further relied
on unreasonable expectations for lower rolling resistance tires in all regulatory subcategories. Tire
manufacturers have continued to claim that they are able to balance tire life, safety, and traction concerns;
however, as the agencies have noted in the Regulatory Impact Analysis section 2.4.3.1, tires with higher
rolling resistance are likely designed to address only some of these concerns. We continue to hear
customer feedback that low rolling resistance tires often lack adequate traction. The reality is that many of
the features that provide for traction, especially deep lugs and pliable sidewalls, also create high rolling
resistance, but without these features many customers are finding that attaining adequate traction is nearly
impossible under many of the demanding conditions that trucks and tractors experience, such as snow and
off-road. Customers have stated that, in some cases, they are being pushed into low rolling resistance tires
at the point of sale only to be left with no choice but to replace the tires with higher rolling resistance,
traction tires immediately after taking delivery of the new vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
P-21]
In addition, heavy-duty fleets expect to retread tires as many as five times and have concerns that tire
casing durability may be compromised with low rolling resistance (LRR) tires. Retreading saves cost and
about two thirds of the oil required to produce a new tire (reported to be between 22 and 44 gallons
depending on tire size). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.21]
In the Preamble section V(C)(l)(a)(iii), the agencies again note the trade-offs between low rolling
resistance and traction, as well as the fact that in vocational applications many customers value traction
over decreased rolling resistance. The agencies go on to state, however, that input from tire manufacturers
indicates that performance parameters will not be affected by Phase 2 LRR tires. It is unclear how these
claims have been validated, but given the tire manufacturers' inability to deliver on these same claims for
Phase 1 it is not likely there will be significant advancement made prior to the implementation of Phase 2
to justify the levels used to set stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.21-22]
After the promulgation of the Phase 1 regulation the agencies performed independent testing of tire
coefficient of rolling resistance (CRR) values and determined that the average values for vocational tires
were 7.8 for drive tires and 6.7 for steer, with tires available at approximately +/- 20% of these values,
including wide based singles suitable for vocational applications. The agencies did not, however, discuss
the feasibility of these tires across the staggering array of vocational vehicle types and applications in the
regulated vehicle range from Class 2b to 8. The agencies only offer what they deemed as a conservative
-------
assessment of projected adoption rates that does not differ by weight class. As a solely HHD vocational
vehicle manufacturer the Volvo Group in North America does not believe that a tire appropriate in one
weight class may be appropriate for another, or that a tire appropriate for a highway box truck (of which
Volvo Group manufactures few) is suitable for use in an on/off-road HHD vocational vehicle. Due to
these concerns Volvo Group does not believe the proposed adoption rates in Table 2-54 of the RIA are
feasible for the Volvo Group product mix nor do we believe that the AB&T flexibility should be
construed as a means to meet stringency requirements within a regulatory subcategory of vehicles, e.g.
Class 8 urban vocational, when those stringencies are predicated on a mix of technologies deployed
across the entire range of weight classes and vocational subcategories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p. 22]
Tables 2-188 and 2-190 of the RIA show Alternative 3 HHD vocational tire package costs calculated with
a penetration of "Level 3" and "Level 4" steer tires from 2021 and 2024 respectively and drive tire
penetrations from 2024 and 2027. Section III.D.iii of the Preamble defines tire CRR "levels" as follows:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.22]
• "Level 1 rolling resistance performance represents the threshold used to develop SmartWay
designated tires for long haul tractors."
• "Level 2 threshold represents an incremental step for improvements beyond today's SmartWay
level and represents the best in class rolling resistance of tires we tested."
• "Level 3 values represent the long-term rolling resistance value that the agencies predicts (sic)
could be achieved in the 2025 timeframe." This last step provides a 25% improvement over Level
2.
No definition of "Level 4" was provided in either the RIA or the Preamble to the regulation and there was
no inclusion in the tractor cost or stringency tables of any Level 4 penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.22]
It is unclear from the cost determinations whether these levels of tire CRR values were actually
considered in the penetration and stringency considerations. Table V-16 of the Preamble does not suggest
anything beyond a 20% improvement in steer CRR and a 15% improvement in Drive CRR for 2027.
Volvo Group requests clarification of this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.22]
With respect to highway tractor and heavy-haul tractor penetration and stringency setting the agencies
show penetration of Level 3 tires starting in MY 2021. It is unclear how this can be possible given the
agencies own determination that this technology "could" be achieved only in the 2025 timeframe. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A 1 p.22]
These comments were submitted by Volvo in the context of the custom chassis program: "Mixer tire Crr
levels are not appropriate for off-road use and should reflect the same level as Emergency vehicles. Need
to accommodate Crr averaging for Transit and Coach buses that have single drive and single drive/dead
axle configurations." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p. 15]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Similar to the tractor tires, vocational vehicles will not necessarily see the benefit from Level 2 and 3 low
rolling resistance tires and will trade-off other desired attributes such as traction for on-off highway
operation and durability. Therefore, achieving the predicted penetrations for these tire levels will be
extremely challenging for many applications [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.40]
-------
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
Two strategies in the Phase 2 proposal are of particular concern; tires and hybridization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1309-A1 p.9]
Response:
In consideration of comments, we are changing our projected adoption rates of LRR tires on vocational
vehicles from proposal, by differentiating the tire rolling resistance improvement level by both weight
class and duty cycle, recognizing that heavier vehicles designed for highway use can generally apply tires
with lower rolling resistance than other vehicle types, and will see a greater benefit during use. We
disagree there is a direct trade-off between traction and rolling resistance. As stated in the RIA Chapter
2.8.3.2, tire design requires balancing performance, since changes in design may change different
performance characteristics in opposing directions. A single performance parameter can easily be
enhanced, but an optimal balance of all the criteria would require improvements in materials and tread
design at a higher cost, as estimated by the agencies. We agree with Volvo and other commenters that
rolling resistance is less of a priority for some vehicles with off-highway duty cycles. Accordingly, the
final rules project adoption of tires with less advanced levels of CRR for vehicles in Urban and some
custom chassis subcategories, recognizing the special needs of these applications.
We include tire maintenance costs at intervals of 40,000 miles (vocational vehicles) and 200,000 miles
(tractors and trailers). Those maintenance costs include the same incremental costs as the new tire, so our
maintenance costs could potentially be conservative if the maintenance intervals are the same with
retreads as with new tires.
We disagree with comments questioning the ability to retread low rolling resistance tires. In discussions
with EPA's SmartWay team, tire manufacturers have claimed that their low rolling resistance tires are as
retreadable as those with higher rolling resistance. There is no evidence in the record indicating
otherwise. The comments themselves contain assertions which are not documented. EPA followed up
and asked fleets and others for data regarding this topic, but no data were provided. Although there may
be individual tire models that do not perform as well in terms of retreadability, we do not believe this is a
systematic issue related to low rolling resistance tires. If (contrary to our view) there is, in fact, a loss of
tire casing durability and, therefore, a need to replace tires earlier (rather than just replacing treads at the
same interval), then at most the agencies' costs may be slightly underestimated. See Section 5.3 for
responses to other comments related to tire maintenance. See Section 11.3 for responses to comments
about other types of maintenance costs.
The RMA comments included CRR values for a wide range of vocational vehicle tires, for rim sizes from
17.5 inches to 24.5 inches, for steer/all position tires as well as drive tires. The RMA data, while
illustrating a range of available tires, are not sales weighted. The 2014 certification data include actual
production volumes for each vehicle type, thus both steer and drive tire population-weighted data are
available for emergency vehicles, cement mixers, school buses, motor homes, coach buses, transit buses,
and other chassis cabs. The certification data are consistent with the RMA assessment of the range of tire
CRR currently available. We also agree with RMA's suggestion to set a future CRR level where a certain
percent of current products can meet future GEM targets. We disagree with RMA that the MY 2027
target should be a level that 50 percent of today's products can meet. With programmatic averaging, such
a level would mean essentially no improvements overall from tire rolling resistance, because today when
manufacturers comply on average, half their tires are above the target and half are below. Further, with
Phase 2 GEM requiring many more vehicle inputs than tire CRR, manufacturers have many more degrees
of freedom (i.e. available potential compliance paths) to meet the performance standard than they do in
-------
Phase 1. None of the rolling resistance levels projected for adoption in MY 2027 are lower than the 25th
percentile of tire CRR on actual vocational vehicles sold in MY 2014. Thus, we believe the
improvements will be achievable without need to develop new tires not yet available.
In the final rules, the agencies are usingError! Reference source not found, the descriptors lv through
5v to refer to levels of rolling resistance among the population of tires installed on vocational vehicles.
Level lv is considered a baseline level and ranges from 7.5 to 8.1 kg/ton. Level 5v represents the greatest
degree of improvement projected in this rulemaking and ranges from 5.8 to 6.29 kg/ton. Levels 2v, 3v,
and 4v fall in between, and the corresponding ranges are presented in Table V-15 of the Preamble. The
agencies have defined these levels for purposes of estimating the manufacturing costs associated with
applying improved tire rolling resistance to vocational vehicles. These levels are not applicable for
estimating degrees of improvement or costs of LRR tires on tractors, trailers, or HD pickups and vans as
part of this rulemaking. Furthermore, these levels do not represent the full range of tire CRR available for
vocational vehicles. There are both steer and drive tires on certified vocational vehicles today with CRR
ranging from 5 kg/ton to 15 kg/ton. This technology is also feasible on all custom chassis, with similarly
larger improvements feasible for coach buses and motor homes with typically regional drive cycles, and
similarly smaller improvements feasible for school and transit buses, refuse trucks, and concrete mixers
with typically urban drive cycles. Absent specific data on tires for refuse trucks, we have considered the
comments and are thus projecting LRR levels for refuse trucks that are equivalent to those projected for
transit buses: Level lv through MY 2026 and level 3v beginning in MY 2027.
In response to comments about the projected CRR levels for concrete mixers, these are based on actual
certification data from MY 2014 submitted by custom chassis manufacturers who manufacture these
vehicles and designated them as such in their production reports. They exhibited very different
characteristics than those observed for tires on emergency vehicles.192
With respect to the comment about averaging CRR values where a vehicle (such as transit or coach) has
either single drive and single drive/dead axle configurations, GEM will require CRR levels to be entered
in two places or three depending on the axle configuration specified (ie 4x2, 6x4). This is true for both
simplified as well as full GEM.
The final tire packages recognize the variety of tire purposes and performance levels in the vocational
vehicle market, and maintain choices for manufacturers to use the most efficient tires (i.e. those with
lowest rolling resistance) only where it makes sense given these vehicles' differing purposes and
applications.
6.3.6 Electrification
6.3.6.1 Zero-Emission Trucks & Buses (Battery-Electric & Fuel Cell)
Organization: CALSTART
Electric vehicles - The agencies proposed to allow certification of electric vehicles without testing and
without a cap on sales above which upstream emissions are counted. 80 FR 40331. We agree with the
agencies' approach. Electric heavy-duty vehicles are now and for the foreseeable future a low volume,
niche product. The agencies should smooth the way to their production with a minimum of certification
requirements and as relaxed of standards as possible. Similarly, the EPA proposed to continue to deem
192 See memorandum dated May 2016 on Vocational Vehicle Tire Rolling Resistance Certification Data
-------
electric vehicles as having zero C02, CH4, and N20 emissions as well as zero fuel consumption. 80 FR
40331. We think that this is the correct approach to best stimulate the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. 100]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF
Fully electric local delivery trucks are also viable today. Pepsi operates more than 250 of these trucks,164
including 176 Smith Electric trucks.165 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.37-38]
164 National Renewable Energy Laboratory fact sheet, Project Startup: Evaluating the Performance of
Frito Lay's Electric Delivery Trucks (April 2014). Available at:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl4osti/61455.pdf
165 Smith Electric website at: http://www.smithelectric.com/customer-stories/fritolav/
Organization: BYD Motors
The majority of electric vehicles will be deployed in the vocational vehicle segment of the rule. It is
BYD's belief that the proposed stringency level for vocational vehicles, in and of itself, will not result in
fleets investing the time and capital necessary to bring advanced technologies to market. Therefore, BYD
supports either increased stringency levels and/or more rapid implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1182-Alp.2]
The conservative target in the agencies' preferred alternative can be met purely with conventional
technology and therefore misses an opportunity to fully capitalize on the oil and emission reductions that
our electric trucks offer. BYD proposes that the stringency of the vocational vehicle standard should be
increased to at least 20% to help ensure the investments needed for moving beyond incremental
improvements to conventional technology and to promote the adoption of advanced alternative powertrain
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1182-A1 p.2]
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
We are encouraged to see that the Proposed Rule has significantly expanded the technologies that were
included in the standards for vocational vehicles beyond those in Phase 1, but there are still important
technologies that have been omitted. As the agencies note, vocational vehicles will benefit greatly from
use of strong hybrid powertrains. But technology is progressing rapidly: all-electric vocational vehicles
are quite literally around the corner. The recent CALSTART program, a program of the California Energy
Commission, has promoted low-GHG medium and heavy-duty vehicles in various capacities.37 One is an
all-electric, non-cabled bus with hands-free rapid charging.38 Furthermore, the California Air Resources
Board is actively working on a zero-emission bus rule, and a number of demonstration buses are already
on the road. 39 Notably, commercialization is predicted for 5 years from now - before the start date for
implementation of the Proposed Rule.40 Electric buses are not limited to California: there are close to 30
lines across the United States that currently use electric-propulsion buses.41 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1460-A1 p.9]
Buses are not the only vocational vehicles that benefit from battery electric technology. There are over
500 battery electric medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in California and about a 1000 nation-wide.42 These
as well as plug-in electric hybrid vocational vehicles are being used by a number of major companies,
including United Parcel Service ("UPS") and FedEx. These fleets have provided ample demonstration
-------
that electrification is a viable option for a wide range of vocational vehicles. Thus, the technology-forcing
nature of the statutes requires the agencies to include all-electric options for vocational vehicles in setting
the stringency of the medium- and heavy-duty truck standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1
p. 10]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
While a BEV does not require an engine, exhaust system, or emission controls, it does require the
addition of other components such as an electric motor, various electronics, and a battery pack. Of these,
the battery pack comprises the vast majority of the cost. Because of the battery pack, BEVs currently have
a substantial net incremental cost. The incremental cost is the cost of the BEV over and above the cost of
a comparable conventionally-fueled vehicle. U.S. EPA andNHTSA present the incremental costs (2012
dollar) of EVs, and projects how it anticipates these costs will change in the foreseeable future. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.96]
While U.S. EPA and NHTSA's anticipated cost reduction approach on the part of the balance-of-
components seems reasonable, CARB staff believes that significantly greater cost reductions will be
realized in the future due to declining battery costs. Over the last several years, battery costs have
declined substantially, and ongoing efforts on the part of academia and industry continue to reduce costs
through materials changes, manufacturing improvements, and cost reductions associated with increased
volumes, and are projected to continue to do so. CARB staff believes that U.S. EPA and NHTSA's cost
projections overestimate the likely costs of these vehicles in the post 2020 timeframe because of the
significant reductions in anticipated battery costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.96-97]
CARB staff believes that medium- and heavy-duty BEVs have a significant role to play in the near future,
especially for vehicles operating in the optimal duty cycle identified for BEVs (defined routes, lots of
starts and stops, high idle time, and lower average speeds). A variety of medium- and heavy-duty BEVs
are now available for purchase, including shuttle buses, school buses, and transit buses, and
demonstration vehicles are in use in drayage, garbage collection, and other applications. While CARB
staff agrees that BEVs are not yet suitable for long-haul trucking, more localized urban opportunities for
BEVs abound. CARB staff is currently pursuing battery electric and fuel cell electric requirements for
buses and last mile delivery trucks, and will continue to pursue the maximum feasible BEV penetration in
other applications. For more information, please see CARB's battery and fuel cell electric technology
assessment, which will be posted at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/report.htm when available. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.97]
CARB disagrees with US EPA and NHTSA's comment that electric trucks will not be widely
commercially available in the timeframe of the proposed rule, particularly with respect to urban and
miscellaneous vocational vehicles. U.S. EPA and NHTSA cite cost as one of the key factors in this
determination. While CARB staff agrees that higher up-front capital costs will be a significant deterrent to
zero emission truck and bus deployment in the coming decade, California is taking steps to address this
challenge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.97]
California must meet several air quality, climate, and petroleum reduction targets in the 2030 timeframe
that will require a broad transformation of our light-, medium- and heavy-duty fleets to utilize zero- and
near-zero-emission technologies. In recognition that this transformation will not come simply or cheaply,
California is investing hundreds of millions of dollars annually to develop and deploy zero-emission
vehicle technologies. Plug-in hybrid and zero-emission passenger car sales in our State have increased
dramatically in the past five years, from a few hundred in 2010 to over 200,000 sold as of mid-2015.
California Governor Jerry Brown's Executive Order B-16-2012 sets a target of deploying 1.5 million
-------
zero-emission vehicles by 2025, including zero-emission trucks and buses, and California's Zero-
Emission Vehicle Action Plan identifies implementation strategies and milestones for achieving this goal.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p.97-98]
While the heavy-duty sector will be much more challenging than the light-duty sector, we are
implementing key strategies needed to shift trucks and buses to utilize hybrid and zero-emission
technology where practical. California's Sustainable Freight Transport Initiative: Pathways to Zero- and
Near-Zero Emissions Discussion Document recognizes that in order to meet our public health mandates,
climate goals, and economic needs, the transition to a less-polluting, more efficient, modern freight
transport system is a preeminent policy objective for the State of California - and will continue to be so
for several decades to come. It will require us to make steady and continual progress in moving both
domestic and international cargo in California more efficiently, with zero emissions everywhere feasible,
and near-zero emissions with renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.98]
California Senate Bill 1204 (Lara, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2014) establishes the California Clean Truck,
Bus and Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Technology Program to fund development, demonstration,
pre-commercial pilot, and early commercial deployment of zero- and near-zero-emission technologies. In
June 2015, CARB approved a $350 million funding plan for fiscal year 2015-16 utilizing GHG Reduction
Fund and AQIP monies. The GHG Reduction Fund provides an ongoing source of funding which
California can invest in zero- and near-zero-emission transportation solutions. Previous year's
investments have resulted in over 2,000 hybrid and zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles now deployed in
California, mostly in delivery truck vocations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.98]
We believe the NPRM should recognize California's critical need for, and commitment to, accelerated
deployment of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle technologies. We anticipate California will address
capital cost and other barriers to zero-emission truck and bus deployment through a robust strategy
portfolio of targeted incentives, complementary regulations, and other approaches. CARB staff believes
that zero-emission trucks and buses will likely begin to be widely commercially available in California in
the Phase 2 timeframe, particular in urban and local delivery vocations. Given that California represents
about ten percent of the nation's truck and bus market, this is not an insignificant development, even in
the context of a federal Phase 2 program.
Other States and localities are also recognizing the need for zero-emission truck and bus technologies to
meet more stringent eight-hour ozone standards and local air quality and health goals. New York State
and the City of Chicago, for example, have followed California's lead by implementing similar funding
programs to accelerate deployment of zero-emission truck and bus technologies. While we expect
California will lead the nation in making zero-emission truck and bus technologies a reality, we also
anticipate, much like other states have "opted in" to California's light-duty passenger car zero-emission
vehicle program, our heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle program and strategies may also be a model for
other states. We recommend that U.S. EPA and NHTSA recognize California's needs for, and
commitment to, deployment of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe, with
the expectation for significant zero-emission truck and bus deployment in the urban vocational and
miscellaneous vehicle vocations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.99]
CARB staff believes the NPRM is overly pessimistic regarding the future of heavy-duty FCEVs. CARB
believes that zero-emission technologies will be able to demonstrate greater applications, range,
durability, and reliability by 2021. CARB staff is currently developing a fuel cell electric technology
assessment, which will be posted at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/report.htm when available. In
developing the fuel cell electric technology assessment, CARB staff has concluded heavy-duty FCEVs
have the potential to become a prime candidate for zero-emission transportation, especially for vehicle
-------
types that travel long distances. It is reasonable to expect that fuel cell electric technology will likely be
transferred to other heavy-duty applications in the near future, which will help foster broader
commercialization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 100]
Fuel cell electric buses are already in the early commercialization stage today and have demonstrated
robust service records. As detailed in Attachment 4 - Active and Planned Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
Demonstrations,41 various demonstrations of heavy-duty FCEVs have been funded through federal, state,
and local programs. Fuel cell electric transit buses have been demonstrated worldwide over the last two
decades, with promising results.42 Currently, there are 24 (of which 18 are in California) demonstrated
fuel cell electric buses and 22 (of which 8 are in California) planned demonstrations fuel cell electric
buses in the U.S.43 In addition, there are 45 (of which 22 are in California) fuel cell electric trucks that are
currently being demonstrated or are planned to be demonstrated in the U.S.44 To encourage further
development of fuel cell electric technology in other heavy-duty on-road applications, a number of
agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy, California Energy Commission, and South Coast Air
Quality Management District have recently and are currently funding heavy-duty fuel cell electric
demonstration projects, including demonstrations involving electric drayage trucks. CARB will make
available approximately $25 million for near-zero- and zero-emission drayage trucks and at least $25
million for zero-emission trucks and buses in 2015. By 2021, CARB staff expects heavy-duty FCEVs will
be in commercial or pre-commercial phases, depending on the vocation. However, as new technology is
often more expensive, it is important to provide adequate incentives to the market at the early stage. In
California, we have and will be utilizing a variety of financial incentives along with regulatory programs.
We urge U.S. EPA and NHTSA to consider a similar strategy to increase the volume of heavy-duty
FCEVs, reduce their cost, and establish corridor fueling networks. CARB is interested in working
collaboratively with U.S. EPA and NHTSA on this effort. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 100-
101]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - Current and future status of all BEV; standards should assume some use of all EVs
In the NPRM, U.S. EPA and NHTSA confirm that BEVs have advantages over their conventionally-
fueled counterparts in terms of efficiency, torque, regenerative braking opportunities, and low noise
characteristics, but also notes that they are limited by weight, range, and cost. Because of the high cost
and developing nature of this technology, U.S. EPA and NHTSA do not project that fully electric
vocational vehicles will be widely commercially available in the time frame of the proposed rules, and the
proposed standards are not based on any level of adoption of this technology. Yet U.S. EPA and NHTSA
do indeed project some use of these technologies as is noted "While the agencies have not premised the
proposed Heavy-Duty Phase 2 tractor standards on hybrid powertrains, FCEVs, or BEVs, we also foresee
some limited use of these technologies in 2021 and beyond." (page 40253 of the NPRM) In
acknowledging the projected use of BEVs but not including their use in setting appropriate emission
standards, U.S. EPA is leaving potential emission benefits on the table. CARB staff believes that the
GHG standards should incorporate limited penetration rates for these advanced technologies, particularly
for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.49]
While CARB staff agrees with U.S. EPA and NHTSA's assessment of the advantages and limitations of
current medium- and heavy-duty EVs, CARB staff is significantly more optimistic about the potential
penetration of BEVs into the market during the Phase 2 timeframe. CARB staff believes that the current
status of heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles is more advanced than U.S. EPA and NHTSA project. In the
NPRM, U.S. EPA and NHTSA state "[W]e have not found any all-electric heavy-duty vehicles that have
certified by 2014. As we look into the future, we project very limited adoption of all-EVs into the
-------
market." (page 40159 of the NPRM) "In our assessment, we have observed that the few all-electric heavy
duty vocational vehicles that have been certified are being produced in very small volumes in MY2014."
(page 40331 of the NPRM) "[T]he agencies do not project fully electric vocational vehicles to be widely
commercially available in the time frame of the proposed rules. For this reason, the agencies have not
based the proposed Phase 2 standards on adoption of full-electric vocational vehicles." (page 40304 of the
NPRM) CARB staff believes these assessments are not as optimistic as the status of the technology
indicates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.49-50]
In our medium- and heavy-duty BEV technology assessment, CARB staff investigated the current status
of the technology. We specifically looked at transit bus applications, school bus applications, medium-
duty trucks and shuttle buses (8,501-14,000 lbs GVWR and heavy-duty trucks (>14,000 lbs GVWR). We
found that battery all-electric transit buses are commercially available, with over 2,600 of battery all-
electric buses worldwide. New orders are placed regularly. Urban transit buses are an ideal application for
battery all-electric heavy-duty vehicles because they operate on fixed routes of normally short distances,
perform frequent stop and start driving which is needed for regenerative braking, maintain low average
speeds which helps to preserve the battery power, and return to a general base or facility at the end of the
day which enables overnight charging. Electric transit buses are currently available from BYD, New
Flyer, and Proterra, while Nova's new electric bus model is in demonstration. CARB is developing
advanced transit fleet requirements, which will be predicated on the widespread use of electric transit
buses. CARB staff believes that the Phase 2 GHG standards should assume the penetration of electric
transit buses into the nationwide fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.50
School buses are not yet as commercially available as transit buses. The TransTech SSTe type A school
bus is available for purchase, however, and Lion, a Canadian company, has recently released the eLion
type C school bus. Electric school buses have the potential for significant market penetration in the next 5
to 10 years, well within the timeframe of the Phase 2 GHG regulations. CARB has funded three electric
school bus demonstrations to date, starting in fiscal year 2011/12 and those projects have been completed,
with buses now transporting children daily. The final reports from these projects are posted on CARB's
Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) Advanced Technology Demonstration Project webpage at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/demo.htm. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.50]
There are hundreds of BEVs in the medium-duty (8,501-14,000 lbs GVWR) vocational category already
operating on California's roads; such vehicles are in the early commercialization stage. Vehicles in this
category are being utilized in an optimal duty cycle for BEVs, urban delivery, and have CARB incentives
to promote adoption. For example, to reduce the incremental costs of zero-emission vehicles, CARB has
been providing financial incentives to fleets statewide through programs such as California's Hybrid and
Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentives Project (HVIP). Since HVIP's launch in 2010, CARB
has provided over $10 million to funding nearly 400 heavy-duty BEVs.23 CARB staff expects widespread
penetration of BEVs into some parts of the market place in the next 5 to 10 years. Therefore, CARB staff
believes it would be appropriate to assume some market penetration of BEVs in this class in the
timeframe of the Phase 2 GHG regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.50-51
Expanding BEV technology into additional applications in the heavy-duty truck segment (other than
buses) will require further developments in battery technology and lower vehicle component costs overall.
It is not expected that BEVs will penetrate into the long-haul trucking market in the next several decades
without significant advances in battery energy density and BEV recharging technologies. CARB staff
agrees it is reasonable to presume no significant market penetration in the regulatory timeframe for long
haul class 7 and 8 tractors. There are electric drayage trucks in demonstration phases, as well as electric
refuse trucks, but CARB staff agrees it is likely that commercial BEV penetration in these applications
will be limited during the next decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.51]
-------
However, CARB staff believes it is appropriate to push technology development. Electric vocational
vehicles have been demonstrated effectively; stringent emission requirements would further promote their
use. CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to continue to evaluate appropriate different
technologies and approaches that can achieve substantial emission reductions. Over the past decade,
heavy duty fleets have made substantial investments to adopt modern, lower-emitting vehicles. Today, as
noted above, zero-emission vehicles such as battery electric and fuel cell electric buses are in the early
commercialization phase. Demonstrations are underway across the State in a wide array of heavy-duty
applications including drayage trucks, delivery trucks, and school buses. State incentives are in place that
are encouraging the development and adoption of these technologies, increasing production volumes,
fostering innovation, and reducing costs. For more information, please see CARB's battery and fuel cell
electric technology assessment that is currently in development and will be posted at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/report.htm when available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
P-51]
While CARB staff acknowledges that the present populations of medium- and heavy-duty vocational
BEVs are low, these numbers are expected to increase significantly in the Phase 2 timeframe. For
example, CARB staff plans to propose purchase zero-emission requirements for last-mile delivery
vehicles in 2020, which will significantly increase demand for these vehicles. Yet U.S. EPA and
NHTSA's proposed emission standards are not based on the inclusion of any zero-emission vehicles
under either Alternative 3 or the more accelerated Alternative 4. To assume no penetration in the selected
Alternative does not reflect market trends and results in a loss of potential GHG emission reductions by
setting the emission standard less stringent than would be appropriate with the inclusion of these vehicles.
CARB staff notes that even with the higher upfront capital cost of EVs, the anticipated savings in
operation and maintenance costs allows payback of the initial investment and significant market
penetration for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles operating in an "optimum" BEV duty cycle (defined
routes, lots of starts and stops, high idle time, and lower average speeds) can occur in the Phase 2
timeframe. Therefore, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA set emission standards that
are based on the inclusion of an electric vocational vehicle penetration rate of at least 1 percent, which is a
third of the rate projected for Alternative 5 in the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.52]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
In the NPRM, U.S. EPA and NHTSA confirm that BEVs have advantages over their conventionally-
fueled counterparts in terms of efficiency, torque, regenerative braking opportunities, and low noise
characteristics, but also notes that they are limited by weight, range, and cost. Because of the high cost
and developing nature of this technology, U.S. EPA and NHTSA do not project that fully electric
vocational vehicles will be widely commercially available in the time frame of the proposed rules, and the
proposed standards are not based on any level of adoption of this technology. Yet U.S. EPA and NHTSA
do indeed project some use of these technologies as is noted "While the agencies have not premised the
proposed Heavy-Duty Phase 2 tractor standards on hybrid powertrains, FCEVs, or BEVs, we also foresee
some limited use of these technologies in 2021 and beyond." (page 40253 of the NPRM) In
acknowledging the projected use of BEVs but not including their use in setting appropriate emission
standards, U.S. EPA is leaving potential emission benefits on the table. CARB staff believes that the
GHG standards should incorporate limited penetration rates for these advanced technologies, particularly
for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.49]
While CARB staff agrees with U.S. EPA and NHTSA's assessment of the advantages and limitations of
current medium- and heavy-duty EVs, CARB staff is significantly more optimistic about the potential
penetration of BEVs into the market during the Phase 2 timeframe. CARB staff believes that the current
status of heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles is more advanced than U.S. EPA and NHTSA project. In the
-------
NPRM, U.S. EPA and NHTSA state "[W]e have not found any all-electric heavy-duty vehicles that have
certified by 2014. As we look into the future, we project very limited adoption of all-EVs into the
market." (page 40159 of the NPRM) "In our assessment, we have observed that the few all-electric heavy
duty vocational vehicles that have been certified are being produced in very small volumes in MY2014."
(page 40331 of the NPRM) "[T]he agencies do not project fully electric vocational vehicles to be widely
commercially available in the time frame of the proposed rules. For this reason, the agencies have not
based the proposed Phase 2 standards on adoption of full-electric vocational vehicles." (page 40304 of the
NPRM) CARB staff believes these assessments are not as optimistic as the status of the technology
indicates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.49-50]
In our medium- and heavy-duty BEV technology assessment, CARB staff investigated the current status
of the technology. We specifically looked at transit bus applications, school bus applications, medium-
duty trucks and shuttle buses (8,501-14,000 lbs GVWR and heavy-duty trucks (>14,000 lbs GVWR). We
found that battery all-electric transit buses are commercially available, with over 2,600 of battery all-
electric buses worldwide. New orders are placed regularly. Urban transit buses are an ideal application for
battery all-electric heavy-duty vehicles because they operate on fixed routes of normally short distances,
perform frequent stop and start driving which is needed for regenerative braking, maintain low average
speeds which helps to preserve the battery power, and return to a general base or facility at the end of the
day which enables overnight charging. Electric transit buses are currently available from BYD, New
Flyer, and Proterra, while Nova's new electric bus model is in demonstration. CARB is developing
advanced transit fleet requirements, which will be predicated on the widespread use of electric transit
buses. CARB staff believes that the Phase 2 GHG standards should assume the penetration of electric
transit buses into the nationwide fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.50]
School buses are not yet as commercially available as transit buses. The TransTech SSTe type A school
bus is available for purchase, however, and Lion, a Canadian company, has recently released the eLion
type C school bus. Electric school buses have the potential for significant market penetration in the next 5
to 10 years, well within the timeframe of the Phase 2 GHG regulations. CARB has funded three electric
school bus demonstrations to date, starting in fiscal year 2011/12 and those projects have been completed,
with buses now transporting children daily. The final reports from these projects are posted on CARB's
Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) Advanced Technology Demonstration Project webpage at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/demo.htm. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.50]
There are hundreds of BEVs in the medium-duty (8,501-14,000 lbs GVWR) vocational category already
operating on California's roads; such vehicles are in the early commercialization stage. Vehicles in this
category are being utilized in an optimal duty cycle for BEVs, urban delivery, and have CARB incentives
to promote adoption. For example, to reduce the incremental costs of zero-emission vehicles, CARB has
been providing financial incentives to fleets statewide through programs such as California's Hybrid and
Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentives Project (HVIP). Since HVIP's launch in 2010, CARB
has provided over $10 million to funding nearly 400 heavy-duty BEVs.23 CARB staff expects widespread
penetration of BEVs into some parts of the market place in the next 5 to 10 years. Therefore, CARB staff
believes it would be appropriate to assume some market penetration of BEVs in this class in the
timeframe of the Phase 2 GHG regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.50-51]
Expanding BEV technology into additional applications in the heavy-duty truck segment (other than
buses) will require further developments in battery technology and lower vehicle component costs overall.
It is not expected that BEVs will penetrate into the long-haul trucking market in the next several decades
without significant advances in battery energy density and BEV recharging technologies. CARB staff
agrees it is reasonable to presume no significant market penetration in the regulatory timeframe for long
haul class 7 and 8 tractors. There are electric drayage trucks in demonstration phases, as well as electric
-------
refuse trucks, but CARB staff agrees it is likely that commercial BEV penetration in these applications
will be limited during the next decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.51]
However, CARB staff believes it is appropriate to push technology development. Electric vocational
vehicles have been demonstrated effectively; stringent emission requirements would further promote their
use. CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to continue to evaluate appropriate different
technologies and approaches that can achieve substantial emission reductions. Over the past decade,
heavy duty fleets have made substantial investments to adopt modern, lower-emitting vehicles. Today, as
noted above, zero-emission vehicles such as battery electric and fuel cell electric buses are in the early
commercialization phase. Demonstrations are underway across the State in a wide array of heavy-duty
applications including drayage trucks, delivery trucks, and school buses. State incentives are in place that
are encouraging the development and adoption of these technologies, increasing production volumes,
fostering innovation, and reducing costs. For more information, please see CARB's battery and fuel cell
electric technology assessment that is currently in development and will be posted
at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msDrog/tech/reDort.htm when available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
P-51]
While CARB staff acknowledges that the present populations of medium- and heavy-duty vocational
BEVs are low, these numbers are expected to increase significantly in the Phase 2 timeframe. For
example, CARB staff plans to propose purchase zero-emission requirements for last-mile delivery
vehicles in 2020, which will significantly increase demand for these vehicles. Yet U.S. EPA and
NHTSA's proposed emission standards are not based on the inclusion of any zero-emission vehicles
under either Alternative 3 or the more accelerated Alternative 4. To assume no penetration in the selected
Alternative does not reflect market trends and results in a loss of potential GHG emission reductions by
setting the emission standard less stringent than would be appropriate with the inclusion of these vehicles.
CARB staff notes that even with the higher upfront capital cost of EVs, the anticipated savings in
operation and maintenance costs allows payback of the initial investment and significant market
penetration for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles operating in an "optimum" BEV duty cycle (defined
routes, lots of starts and stops, high idle time, and lower average speeds) can occur in the Phase 2
timeframe. Therefore, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA set emission standards that
are based on the inclusion of an electric vocational vehicle penetration rate of at least 1 percent, which is a
third of the rate projected for Alternative 5 in the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.52]
A 1 percent penetration for zero-emission vocational vehicles in 2024 is reasonable, given that, as
detailed above, zero-emission vocational vehicles are already on the road in California (9 years ahead of
2024), and all-electric transit buses and delivery vehicles are in the early commercialization stage. Given
the long lead time of the Phase 2 regulation, CARB staff believes it is reasonable to include zero-emission
advanced technology vehicles in setting the stringency of the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.55-6]
CARB staff believes the NPRM is overly pessimistic regarding the future of heavy-duty FCEVs. CARB
believes that zero-emission technologies will be able to demonstrate greater applications, range,
durability, and reliability by 2021. CARB staff is currently developing a fuel cell electric technology
assessment, which will be posted at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/report.htm when available. In
developing the fuel cell electric technology assessment, CARB staff has concluded heavy-duty FCEVs
have the potential to become a prime candidate for zero-emission transportation, especially for vehicle
types that travel long distances. It is reasonable to expect that fuel cell electric technology will likely be
transferred to other heavy-duty applications in the near future, which will help foster broader
commercialization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 100]
-------
Fuel cell electric buses are already in the early commercialization stage today and have demonstrated
robust service records. As detailed in Attachment 4 - Active and Planned Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
Demonstrations,41 various demonstrations of heavy-duty FCEVs have been funded through federal, state,
and local programs. Fuel cell electric transit buses have been demonstrated worldwide over the last two
decades, with promising results.42 Currently, there are 24 (of which 18 are in California) demonstrated
fuel cell electric buses and 22 (of which 8 are in California) planned demonstrations fuel cell electric
buses in the U.S.43 In addition, there are 45 (of which 22 are in California) fuel cell electric trucks that are
currently being demonstrated or are planned to be demonstrated in the U.S.44 To encourage further
development of fuel cell electric technology in other heavy-duty on-road applications, a number of
agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy, California Energy Commission, and South Coast Air
Quality Management District have recently and are currently funding heavy-duty fuel cell electric
demonstration projects, including demonstrations involving electric drayage trucks. CARB will make
available approximately $25 million for near-zero- and zero-emission drayage trucks and at least $25
million for zero-emission trucks and buses in 2015. By 2021, CARB staff expects heavy-duty FCEVs will
be in commercial or pre-commercial phases, depending on the vocation. However, as new technology is
often more expensive, it is important to provide adequate incentives to the market at the early stage. In
California, we have and will be utilizing a variety of financial incentives along with regulatory programs.
We urge U.S. EPA and NHTSA to consider a similar strategy to increase the volume of heavy-duty
FCEVs, reduce their cost, and establish corridor fueling networks. CARB is interested in working
collaboratively with U.S. EPA and NHTSA on this effort. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 100-
101]
41 See Attachment 4 for Active and Planned Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles Demonstrations. [Attachment 4
can be found on p.27-36 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1268-A1]
42 (NREL, 2015c) Eudy, Leslie, and Matthew Post, "Zero Emission Bay Area (ZEBA) Fuel Cell Bus
Demonstration Results: Fourth Report," National Renewable Energy Laboratory, July
2015,
Response:
Given the high up-front costs and the developing nature of this technology, the agencies do not project
that it is feasible or reasonable for fully electric heavy-duty vocational vehicles to be widely
commercially available without heavy subsidies in the time frame of the final rules. The comment by
EDF that Pepsi operates a small number of zero-emission vehicles is not evidence that the technology is
cost-effective, commercially available, or technically feasible for a particular subcategory. Nor does this
comment indicate what the projected future adoption rate should be. This comment simply presents
evidence that a fleet owner is willing to test the vehicles on a demonstration basis. The commenter did
not mention whether Pepsi took this risk in the absence of monetary subsidies, or what level of
satisfaction Pepsi has had with the maintenance on these vehicles.
For these reasons, the agencies have not based the Phase 2 standards on adoption of full-electric
vocational vehicles. Although we agree that some vocational applications may see attractive long term
cost scenarios for electric trucks or buses when considering maintenance savings, we do not have
sufficient information to project a market adoption rate for any specific subcategory. Further, although
our final cost analysis does include maintenance savings from reduced oil changes for engine-off idle
reduction technologies, we have not quantified the maintenance savings of a full electric vehicle
compared to a conventional diesel. We appreciate the comments that provided information of this nature,
-------
and we expect that better dissemination of this information could lead to further adoption of this
technology in the market.
The agencies take the point that it is appropriate to create regulatory incentives for use of these advanced
electrification technologies. As described above in Section 1.4.1 and in the Preamble in Section I.C. l.(b),
we have adopted an advanced technology credit multiplier applicable to both BEVs and FCEVs, in
response to comment. In addition, to the extent these technologies are brought to market in the time frame
of the Phase 2 program, there is currently a certification path for these chassis from Phase 1, as described
in Section V.D of the Preamble, in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 1037.150 and NHTSA's regulations at
49 CFR 535.8.
6.3.6.2 Electrified Accessories
Organization: Autocar, LLC
Electric Components. Autocar submits that there is potential for certain chassis components to be
powered by the electrical system rather than the engine; however, we do not have access to research or
data proving that electrifying components such as cooling fans and A/C compressors would lead to an
improvement in fuel economy in a Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-
A1 p.15]
Bosch
Highly Efficient Alternators - Bosch proposes that recognition of the benefits of efficient electrical
charging systems (specifically alternators) should be included in the regulation. Bosch proposes creation
of a standard component-level test for alternators to determine their efficiency, and establishment of a
minimum efficiency level that must be attained, in order for an off-cycle credit to be applied. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1466-A2 p. 11]
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
MAC Efficiency in Class 7. Class 8. and Vocational Truck Regulations
EPA included fuel savings from improved air conditioner credits in setting the standards for Class 7 and
Class 8 heavy trucks, as well as vocational vehicles: "Compared to 2017MY air conditioners, air
conditioners with improved efficiency compressors will reduce C02 emissions by 0.5 percent." (80
Federal Register 40221). The difficulty of the standards was increased over time due to the forecast
phase-in of these improved MAC systems (80 Federal Register 40228). [EP A-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1 p. 18]
For regulatory compliance, an improvement factor of 0.5% is given to vehicles with "high-efficiency" air
conditioner compressors, defined as either electric compressors or improved mechanical compressors.
High-efficiency compressors are an input variable in the GEM model which results in a 0.5% fuel
consumption reduction, thereby de facto giving Class 7, Class 8 and vocational trucks the benefit of a pre-
defined and pre-approved off-cycle fuel consumption credit for these compressors (80 Federal Register
40631). (Note: reference to 86.1868-12(h)(5) in the NPRM appears to be incorrect since that section
covers improved evaporators and condensers whereas the correct reference would be to compressors with
reduced reheat 86.1868-12(h)(l)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.18]
-------
Clearly, the agencies recognize the environmental benefits that can be achieved from vehicle air
conditioner efficiency improvements, and has included incentives within this NPRM for Class 7, Class 8
and vocational truck regulations to achieve these benefits through a simple pre-defined credit.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - Emission credits for electrified accessories for vocational vehicles
U.S. EPA and NHTSA have not included electrified accessories as a component of the GEM model for
vocational vehicles and instead propose to only allow manufacturers to apply for off-cycle credits for the
technology. CARB staff sees electrified accessories as a viable technology to improve emissions in the
vocational sector and believes it should be included in the overall stringency standards and GEM model.
As stated in the NPRM, electrified accessories can result in a 2 to 4 percent fuel consumption benefit in
vocational applications. CARB's recently released report on heavy-duty drivetrain and vehicle efficiency
backs these findings up, suggesting a 1 to 3 percent benefit from electrified accessories. This technology
is feasible as it has already been demonstrated in various applications. With the long lead time of the
Phase 2 regulation, CARB staff believes that the production volumes for electrified accessories can
substantially increase if pushed by regulatory action, raising the production volumes and significantly
lowering the costs, which will make this technology a cost-effective approach to reduce C02 emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p.48]
U.S. EPA and NHTSA are proposing vocational stringencies of 16 percent fuel consumption
improvement by 2027. Electrified accessories could allow the proposed stringencies to be significantly
tightened in certain vocational applications and should be included in the final rule. By only allowing off-
cycle credits for electrified accessories, U.S. EPA and NHTSA are leaving out fuel reduction benefits
from a technology that will be readily available in the Phase 2 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.48]
The NPRM and CARB's Technology Assessment25 notes that electrified accessories can deliver a 1 to 3
percent fuel consumption benefit in vocational applications; however, U.S. EPA and NHTSA are
currently only allowing off-cycle credits for this technology. As U.S. EPA and NHTSA's Phase 1 rule did
not consider electrified accessories either, this full 1 to 3 percent benefit can be obtained in the Phase 2
rulemaking. CARB staff recommends a fuel consumption benefit of 2 percent be applied to electrified
accessories. CARB staff also notes that not every vocational application will be suited to best use this
technology, therefore, CARB staff recommends a conservative penetration rate of 50 percent in the final
MY stringency.
Response:
Although we did not propose to allow pre-defined credit for electrified accessories on vocational vehicles
as was proposed for tractors, we agree with commenters that this is appropriate for vocational vehicles.
Although the agencies are projecting that some electrified accessories will be necessary as part of the
development of stop-start idle reduction systems for vocational vehicles, we did not propose to account
for any efficiency improvements due to this electrification, only the improvements from turning the
engine off. The final vocational vehicle standards are predicated in part on adoption of electrified
accessories in all subcategories, where a pick list is available for manufacturers to choose applicable
technologies and to enter a fixed improvement value in GEM.
In addition to the comments provided by ICCT, the agencies are relying on the TIAX 2009 technology
report, CARB's Driveline Optimization report, and the 2010 NAS report to assign fixed improvement
-------
values for specific components for which we were able to quantify an improvement due to electrification.
Because there are numerous mechanical components on a HD vehicle that could be electrified and the
information from commenters and available literature does not generally identify the incremental
improvement from each component, the pick list is short. Because the GEM algorithm for determining the
fuel benefit of stop-start idle reduction does not account for any e-accessories, vehicles certified with
stop-start are also eligible to be certified using an improvement value in the "Other" column. By MY
2027 the projected adoption rate is 15 percent of electrified accessories that achieve one percent
improvement, applicable in all subcategories excluding custom chassis. Although we believe some
components could be electrified for some custom chassis, we do not have sufficient information to
estimate an incremental cost associated with electrifying the more complex systems on custom chassis
such as buses, or to project a specific adoption rate for this type of improvement.
6.3.6.3 E-PTO
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
We would like to see consideration and adoption of electric power-take-off (e-PTO) hybrids for certain
vocational segments. These e-PTO technologies can provide more than 10-14% additional savings,
provided they are accommodated with a hybrid-PTO test procedure, since their benefits cannot be
captured in a powertrain test. Consider including e-PTO hybrids in the compliance package for
appropriate vocational segments. This would support a stronger vocational vehicle standard for 2027.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p. 19]
Organization: Gaines, Linda
In my judgement, the proposed metrics are inappropriate. My main concern is that work trucks like
buckets are being rated on a g/t-mi basis, when their main product is work at a site rather than goods
movement. A more appropriate measure would evaluate emissions per hour of actual work, depending on
the type of equipment. Work trucks undergo many up-fits before they are put into use, and these can
impact the base engine's fuel economy. For instance, the truck may be up-fitted as a plug-in hybrid with a
battery (charged from the grid) that not only powers the bucket, but also supplies power during driving,
thus reducing fuel consumption on the road as well as during work at a site. The proposed regulations do
not recognize this type of actual fuel-economy improvements; the same truck could alternatively be
equipped with a bucket to be run by idling the main engine, emitting significantly more C02. The
proposed regulations would not distinguish between these very different trucks. It would be desirable to
provide an incentive for efficiency improvements that can be added onto work trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1357-A1 p.l]
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
In the vocational vehicle market, there is a significant opportunity for fuel consumption and carbon
pollution reductions from the application of hybrid systems, both as part of the drivetrain and for use as
power-takeoff (PTO) devices in non-driving applications, such as when bucket trucks are moving workers
and refuse trucks are gathering and compressing garbage. NRDC recommends that the Phase 2 standards
stringency incorporate the benefits from PTO application and use during vehicle certification where the
certifying manufacturer can show that the appropriate PTO technologies will be applied to the vehicle.
The agencies should also account for the PTO use in calculations of potential strong hybrid penetration. A
PTO device integrated to a hybrid drivetrain could improve the cost-effectiveness of a strong hybrid
application. The improved cost-effectiveness of the full system would lead to higher market penetration
-------
of hybrid and PTO systems overall and justify strengthening the vocational vehicle standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1220-A1 p.5-6]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Many vocational truck configurations are excellent candidates for these technologies, and are being
applied on vocational trucks today. Odyne, a Wisconsin-based manufacturer of electric and hybrid
electric propulsion systems for heavy trucks, currently produces a truck that promises annual fuel savings
of up to 50% for class 7 trucks with extensive use of the power take-off mode. This currently available
solution can cut fuel consumption by 1,750 gallons per year.161
161 See http://www.odyne.com/benefits/reduced-fuel-cost.html
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
The agency's effectiveness estimate comes from an assessment of hybrid effectiveness over the GEM
duty cycles using a powertrain test. In contrast, the NGO effectiveness estimate considers real world
operation. This is an especially important distinction because two of the classes of vehicle with which
both the agencies and the NGO community have identified as a primary application of hybrids (refuse
trucks and bucket trucks) use a significant fraction of fuel operating power-take-off (PTO) devices. The
agency did not consider hybrid or electric PTO operation when assessing the fuel savings potential of
hybridization. This has a significant impact on the effectiveness of hybridization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p. 19]
Hybrid PTO effectiveness. Vehicles with a hybrid or electric PTO (ePTO) do not use the powertrain test
but a separate "Hybrid PTO" test procedure. This would significantly change the assumed effectiveness
of a hybrid refuse or bucket truck. According to UCS analysis (Attachment A), ePTO would provide
additional effectiveness of 10.1 percent for multipurpose vehicles and 14.4 percent for urban vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 19]
It seems likely that many of the Urban Heavy-Duty vocational vehicles EPA and NHTSA have identified
as being hybridized in the timeframe of this rule will also have hybrid PTO operation. According to the
Vehicle In Use Survey (VIUS), 16.4 percent of light-heavy-, 38.2 percent of medium-heavy-, and 66.4
percent of heavy-heavy-duty vehicles have a PTO system (United States Census Bureau 2004). According
to our population assumptions, this yields a total fraction of vehicles with PTO of nearly 195,000.
Applying the fractions above just to the hybrids already assumed by EPA, combined with the increased
effectiveness for ePTO-enabled hybrids listed above, would increase the overall hybrid effectiveness from
between 22.9 and 25.6 percent up to 24.2 to 32.7 percent, depending on vehicle class and type. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p. 19 and p.21]
Changes to hybrid penetration. Incorporating the fuel economy benefit of the PTO operation will also
affect the uptake of these vehicles. Real world operation of refuse trucks has been shown to exceed 40%
effectiveness over its conventional powertrain equivalent, and by including only the test equivalent
effectiveness, the agencies have underestimated the overall cost-effectiveness, and therefore penetration,
of hybrids. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.21]
Using the increased effectiveness of the ePTO-enabled hybrids but matching the same marginal cost-per-
effectiveness ($/%) improvement of the agencies analysis for multipurpose and urban hybrids would
increase the penetration from 18 percent up to between 19 and 23 percent, again depending on vehicle
class and type. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.21]
-------
Organization: Edison Electric Institute
E-PTO Systems Have Entered Into Mainstream Procurement and Offer Significant Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings that Should Be Recognized in the Phase 2 Program
In section V.C.I .c.iv of the proposed Phase 2 Program, EPA and NHTSA seek "comment and data
relating to the population and energy storage capacity of plug-in e-PTO systems."35 In response, EEI
offers the following comments: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 15]
• e-PTO systems have entered into mainstream procurement: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2
P-15]
o EEI member companies committed to the Fleet Electrification Initiative reported
purchasing approximately 350 e-PTO systems for their 2015 procurement plans, all in the
Class 4-8 categories, with the majority in Class 5.36
o At least one of our member companies now purchases e-PTO systems for all applicable
work truck applications.
• e-PTO systems offer significant fuel and greenhouse gas savings: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1327-A2 p. 15]
o As EEI notes in its whitepaper Electric Transportation: Utility Fleets Leading the
Charge, e-PTO systems directly displace petroleum with grid-sourced electricity at a rate
of approximately 0.8 to 1.2 gallons of fuel per hour of idling.37
• e-PTO systems make business sense today: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 15]
o Given the fuel savings mentioned above, e-PTO systems can deliver payback periods
well within the useful life of the vehicle; the EEI white paper assumes a 5-year payback
in a Class 5 application and a 7-9 year payback in a class 7 application,
o Beyond the fuel savings, e-PTO systems offer a number of additional benefits including:
reduced maintenance costs due to reduced engine hours, quiet operation that allows
trucks to work in noise restricted locations, and eliminating the need for a worksite
electric generator due to exportable power capability.
• e-PTO systems are available from multiple vendors in a variety of capacities: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1327-A2 p.15-16]
o e-PTO systems without drivetrain integration are available from Terex and Altec e-PTO
systems with drivetrain integration (more commonly referred to as a "plug-in hybrid"
configuration) are available from Odyne, Eaton and Allison Transmissions
o To use one example, the Jobsite Energy Management System (JEMS) from Altec is
available in 6 kWh, 10 kWh, 15 kWh, and 18 kWh capacities
o Include e-PTO systems among the technologies used in the standard setting for
vocational vehicles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 16]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Estimate of annual sales of hybrid systems on vocational trucks with a PTO, with ROI of 3 years in 2021
andROI of 2 years in 2027
An estimated 145,000 PTOs were installed on medium and heavy duty vocational trucks in both 2012 and
2013 as described earlier. Odyne used the same number of PTO sales as an estimate in 2021 and 2027.
Based upon an ROI of 3 years and 2 years, the sales of hybrid systems should be significantly higher in
2021 and 2027 compared to current hybrid sales that have significantly longer ROI. Other desirable
operating characteristics including reduction in C02, reduction in NOx, quiet stationary operation of
-------
equipment due to keeping the engine off during PTO use, and better acceleration should help improve
user demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1239-A1 p.16]
Odyne estimates that approximately 7,500 units capable of 50% or greater GHG emission reductions in
2021 could be sold based upon the system prices shown in table 2, which equates to approximately 5% of
the overall PTO market of 145,000 units for medium and heavy duty vocational trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1239-A1 p.16]
Odyne estimates that approximately 15,000 units capable of 50% or greater GHG emission reductions in
2027 could be sold based upon the system prices shown in table 3, which equates to approximately 10%
of the overall PTO market of 145,000 units for medium and heavy-duty vocational trucks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 16]
[Table 3, 'Estimated Sales Volume Based on Price, ROI and Market Size', can be found on p. 18 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Odyne believes that by not building the proposed standard methodology for vocational vehicles on the use
of hybrid PTO mode (anti-idle technology), the EPA could miss out on a significant opportunity to
increase full workday fuel efficiency for vocational vehicles. The segment of the vocational chassis
market using Power Take-offs (PTOs) is significant. Odyne and other industry estimates put the annual
PTO-enabled vehicle market at between 145,000-195,000 annually, with the potential of upwards of 15%
of those vehicles being enabled with an e-PTO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.5-6] [[This
comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-08267-1372, pp.231-232.]]
For draft rule effectiveness and market penetration projections, by subjecting hybrid e-PTO enabled
vehicles to a separate test outside of the powertrain, this drastically reduces overall technology
effectiveness as assumed by EPA of the vehicle. According to analysis done by the Union of Concerned
Scientists, e-PTO would provide additional effectiveness of 10.1% for multipurpose vehicles and 14.4%
for urban vehicles. For Urban Heavy-Duty Vehicles that EPA assumes will be hybridized within
compliance periods of this rule, Odyne would imagine a large portion of these vehicles having PTO
operation. Additional analysis done by UCS shows that when incorporating additional effectiveness from
e-PTO operation in hybrids would improve overall hybrid effectiveness from 22.9-25.6% up to 24.2-
32.69%, depending on vehicle class and type. For market penetration, including the assumed
effectiveness improvements described above would increase market penetration for multipurpose and
urban hybrids from 18% up to 19-23%, again depending on vehicle class and type1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1239-A1 p.6]
Estimated Annual PTO Market
Odyne is pleased to provide additional information to the EPA regarding the number of new medium and
heavy duty vocational vehicles produced with installed power take-offs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1239-A1 p.7]
Medium and Heavy duty work trucks are defined by Odyne as vocational trucks over 14,000 pounds
GVWR that drive to one or more worksites and operate equipment that receives power from the truck at
the worksite. Work trucks typically use Power take-offs (PTOs) and idling engines (prime mover diesel
engines in most cases) to deliver power to equipment, but may also use independently operating engine
driven generators to supply electricity to tools or other equipment. Equipment maybe mounted to the
-------
truck, including but not limited to aerial bucket lifts, cranes, digger derricks, compressors, air handling
systems, pumps, refuse compactors, hydraulically powered dump bodies, etc. The PTOs deliver power
from the engine to truck mounted equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.7]
The number of PTOs installed annually on medium and heavy duty trucks represents a significant portion
of the number of vocational trucks sold annually that operate in both a driving mode and a stationary
worksite mode with at least one engine typically idling. Some trucks may power truck mounted
equipment by using an additional truck mounted engine, often a generator. Odyne recommends that the
fuel consumption and GHG emissions of additional vehicle mounted engines should be included in
regulations so that all technologies are evaluated equally and operators are not incentivized to use less
efficient options that fall outside of regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.7-8]
The number of medium and heavy duty vocational trucks sold with PTOs is large and presents an
excellent opportunity to deploy cost effective technology to reduce GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1239-A1 p.8]
According to Odyne estimates, there are an estimated 145,000 Vocational medium and heavy-duty
work trucks sold yearly with an installed PTO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.8]
According to the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) 2013 Annual Manufacturers Shipments
Survey, Power Take-off (PTO) shipments totaled approximately 277,000 units for both 2012 and 20132.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.8]
Of the total number of PTOs shipped per the survey, Odyne worked with the NTEA and used U.S. Census
Bureau, Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) data to estimate the total PTOs installed on new class
4-8 vocational trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.8]
Odyne used the following methodology to estimate that approximately 145,000 PTOs are installed on
new vocation trucks in the U.S. annually: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.9]
Based upon discussions with the NTEA, not all of the 277,000 PTOs that were shipped by PTO
manufacturers in both 2012 and 2013 were installed on new class 4-8 vocational trucks sold in the U.S.
In order to estimate the number of PTO units installed on new class 4-8 vocational trucks in the U.S.,
Odyne reviewed data from the most recent U.S. Census Bureau, Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey
(VIUS) working with the NTEA. The NTEA estimates that approximately 85% of PTO units sold per the
NTEA survey were sold in the U.S. Odyne multiplied the 277,279 units reported to be shipped in 2013
from the survey by 0.85 resulting in an estimated 235,687 PTO units that are sold in the U.S. Based on
conversations with the NTEA, approximately 2/3 of the PTOs shipped were installed on new trucks, the
remaining 1/3 were estimated to be used as service replacement PTO units. Odyne then multiplied the
235,687 estimated PTO units sold in the U.S. by 2/3 to arrive at an estimated 157,125 PTO units installed
on new vehicles in the U.S. The installed units are distributed among a variety of vocational vehicles in
different weight classes. In order to estimate the number of PTO units installed annually on new medium
and heavy duty vocational trucks, Odyne used data from the most recent U.S. Census Bureau3. According
to the Census Bureau survey, approximately 93% of PTOs in use are installed on class 4-8. Using that
ratio, Odyne then multiplied the 157,125 PTOs estimated to be installed on new trucks in the U.S. by
0.93, arriving at an estimated 146,342 PTO units installed in 2013 on new Class 4-8 vocational vehicles.
Finally Odyne rounded the total of 146,342 down to 145,000 units. The average number of PTO's
installed yearly will vary depending upon the number of Class 4-8 vocational trucks sold annually, the
intended use of those vehicles and other factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.9-10]
-------
In real world applications of vocational vehicles deployed with Odyne hybrid technology, we have seen
fuel efficiency improvements of 46% in driving alone, and 64% in fuel savings when accounting for the
average full workday; including driving, idling, and hybrid power take off (PTO) activities. Based on
testing paid for by the U.S. Department of Energy and the state of California, Odyne technology currently
delivers up to 64% lower C02 and 95% lower NOx emissions (based on a customer's full workday,
depending on vehicle configuration and duty cycle) than non-hybrid medium and heavy duty trucks
meeting current standards. Additional independent laboratory testing showed 51% and 41% reductions in
C02 and 71% and 80% reductions in NOx (based on average full workday, specific vehicle configuration
and duty cycle). Odyne believes co-benefits beyond fuel efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas
reductions, like Odyne technologies verified ability to reduce NOx emissions, should be valued in the
Phase Two rulemaking, especially given potential future regulatory actions from EPA and current
developments from CARB on NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.3-4] [This comment can also
be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-08267-1372, pp.229-230.]
Odyne has conducted internal market penetration and payback projections for its hybrid system based on
the full workday. Of a potential between 145,000 to 195,000 PTO-enabled vehicles sold annually (range
represents Odyne and other stakeholder estimates), we project at an average system cost of $10,000 and
ROI of 2 years by 2027, Odyne technology could capture upwards of 15% of the marketplace. Details on
assumptions made to reach these projections are included in the below section "Rule Methodology
Assumptions." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.4]
Analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Energy Project regarding the use of Plug-In Hybrid
Systems on Medium and Heavy Duty Vocational Vehicles showed that the average required Power and
Energy of the hybrid system needed to deliver a 50% reduction in GHG emissions for the applications in
the project was less than 10 kWh of energy at the worksite.4 Approximately 5 kWh was consumed to
provide an average of 2.8 hours of all electric PTO operation and the remainder provided energy for
reduced fuel consumption during driving and for idle reduction. In total, 10 kWh of energy from the
battery system provided an average of over 1.7 hours of operation without idle and 2.8 hours of engine off
time operating equipment, for a total of 4.5 hours of engine off savings. Power measurements during
testing and field operation showed that average electrical power requirements to meet the 50% reduction
in GHG emissions were 20 kW of sustained electrical power from the electrical motor for time periods
beyond 2 minutes and peak power of up to 31 kW for short periods during hybrid driving and stationary
modes, typically less than 2 minutes in duration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.10-11]
/4/ U.S. Department of Energy project entitled Plug-In Hybrid Medium-Duty Truck Demonstration and
Evaluation Program, with reference project number DOE FOA-28, award number EE0002549 and South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) contract number 10659. Please contact Mark
Kosowski at EPRI (mkosowski@epri.commailto:mkosowski@epri.com> ) or John Petras at Odyne
Systems, LLC (john.petras@odyne.commailto:john.petras@odyne.com> ) for additional information
about the DOE project.
The power and energy requirements to deliver a 50% reduction in GHG emissions for vocational work
trucks operating in a driving mode and a worksite stationary mode in the DOE project were typically
lower than the power and energy requirements required for similar savings in GHG emission for duty
cycles composed of all driving. Most of the vocational vehicles monitored were observed to have very
high idle times related to worksite operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 11-12]
Using the measured requirements of power and energy determined from the data provided by 1Hz
telematics units on over 100 operational plug-in hybrid systems on medium and heavy duty vocational
trucks, Odyne developed high-level component specifications that would match the power and energy
-------
requirements needed to attain the high GHG reductions and then worked with industry input to
approximate the cost of the system in 2020 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 12]
Projected component costs in 2020-2021 are shown in Table 2 below of a system that is capable of
providing savings of 12 to 15% of driving fuel consumption and a 100% savings in fuel consumed during
stationary operation of truck mounted equipment at worksites, resulting in a total savings of over 50% for
typical duty vocational duty cycles with truck mounted equipment. Daily fuels savings would be expected
to be over 4 gallons, which is similar to the results attained in the U.S. DOE project. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1239-A1 p.12]
[Table 1, 'Higher Voltage System year: 2021', can be found on p. 12-13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1239-A1]
Charge Depletion Versus Sustaining Testing
The current test procedure 40 CFR 1037.510/540 is a charge sustaining procedure. This procedure could
be sufficient for a HEV application, but not for a PHEV application. In Odyne's PHEV application we do
not charge the system all the way back to full in the field and handle charging primarily with plug-in
charging from the power grid. Odyne would recommend that the test procedures used in a final rule
account for scenarios with a charge depleting battery system, to be recharged from the grid in off hours,
results in real world overall fuel efficiency increases. We also recommend that the test procedure allow
flexibility to alter the test procedure as needed to account for the type of system/technology and its typical
workday (i.e. - drive cycle, duty cycle, application load, dyno/PEMS, etc.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1239-A1 p.24]
Response:
Although the primary program does not simulate vocational vehicles over a test cycle that includes PTO
operation, the agencies are adopting a revised hybrid-PTO test procedure. See 76 FR 57247 and 40 CFR
1037.540. Recall that we regulate vocational vehicles at the incomplete stage when a chassis
manufacturer may not know at the time of certification whether a PTO will be installed or how the vehicle
will be used. Chassis manufacturers may rarely know whether the PTO-enabled vehicle will use this
capability to maneuver a lift gate on a delivery vehicle, to operate a utility boom, or merely to keep it as a
reserve item to add value in the secondary market.
The work by NREL to characterize idle behavior of PTO-equipped vehicles indicates that for about 10
percent of workdays analyzed (165 of 1570 work days), zero PTO use was recorded. Further, for about
half of the work days, PTO utilization was one hour or less. Although these data are exclusively for trucks
working in utility applications, we would expect this subset to represent vehicles with a high likelihood of
using the PTO and an operating profile most likely to benefit from adoption of technologies that can
reduce PTO fuel use. In considering the difficulty of identifying these vehicles at the incomplete stage as
well as the available duty cycle information, we have concluded it would not be reasonable to require
every vocational vehicle to certify over a standard test procedure with a PTO cycle in it.
Thus, we are not basing the final standards on use of technology that reduces emissions in PTO mode. In
cases where a manufacturer can certify that a PTO with an idle-reduction technology will be installed
either by the chassis manufacturer or by a second stage manufacturer, the hybrid-PTO test cycle may be
utilized by the certifying manufacturer to measure an improvement factor over the GEM duty cycle that
otherwise applies to that vehicle. In addition, the delegated assembly provisions will apply (see Section
I.F.2 of the Preamble and Section 1.4.4 of this response to comments).
-------
The agencies agree with commenters that a charge-depleting test cycle is more appropriate where the
technology is essentially a plug-in hybrid. The calculations recognize fuel savings over a portion of the
test that is determined to be charge-sustaining as well as a portion that is determined to be charge-
depleting for systems that are designed to power a work truck during the day and return to the garage
where recharging from an external source occurs during off-hours. We partnered with DOE-NREL to
characterize the PTO operation of nearly 100 trucks with over 1,000 total operating days, and our final
regulations include a utility factor table based on these data for use in determining the effectiveness of a
hybrid PTO system. Manufacturers wishing to conduct testing as specified may apply for off-cycle
credits derived from e-PTO or hybrid PTO technologies. See RIA Chapter 3 for a discussion of the
revisions to the PTO test cycle.
6.3.7 Tire Pressure Systems
Organization: Autocar, LLC
Tire Pressure Monitoring. Autocar believes there is potential for increased fuel efficiency if automatic tire
pressure monitoring systems are developed for use in Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles. Although
current technology is designed for safety and reduced tire replacement cost (which also has a positive
environmental impact), future technology could be effective in maintaining optimum tire pressure. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 3-A1 p. 15]
Organization: Tirestamp, Inc.
It should be noted that automatic tire inflation systems plumbed through the axle are currently available
only for trailers. ATIS for trucks, tractors, and buses must be plumbed externally. Due to their high
maintenance and propensity for damage, they are not of interest to U.S. fleets. Advanced TPMS
integrated with telematics are ideal for these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1255-A1 p.4]
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Providing efficiency benefits to only ATIS technology neglects the benefits of correctly using TPMS. In
addition, both ATIS and TPMS should carry the same benefit in terms of C02 and fuel consumption
reduction. TPMS can also provide the applications to the other Class 2b - 6 medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles encompassed in the proposed Phase 2 fuel efficiency standards, in addition to the overall tire
performances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.30]
Organization: Cline (representing AIR CTI)
Then Tire Pressure Maintenance is the minimum that is must be fitted and regulated. The pressures must
be set to optimize the truck and trailer. Central Tire Inflation is required on trucks that travel empty
regularly, like dump trucks, bulk grain trucks, tankers, low loaders. When empty, semi trailers are
currently dangerous. Brake balance, significant overly braked, and ridiculously over inflated tires create a
condition that jack knifes are probable. Any truck working off highways needs CTI too. Either will
eliminate almost every blow out and alligators that litter our highways, if we're lucky, or kill, if not.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0803-A2 p.5]
Organization: Volvo Group
-------
In setting vehicle stringencies, the agencies have predicated the standards for tractors on adoption of
Automatic Tire Inflation Systems (ATIS), while giving no consideration to Tire Pressure Monitoring
Systems (TPMS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23][This comment can also be found in section
4.3 of this comment summary]
All commercial vehicle operators are well aware of the increased fuel consumption, maintenance costs,
downtime, and safety concerns associated with operating a heavy vehicle with under-inflated tires. These
concerns have been much more significant given the volatile diesel prices, the pricing pressure on fleets
due to an unstable economy and consolidation within the industry, the continued ratcheting of safety
regulations, and the rising costs of liability, all within the last decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.23]
In Section 2.4.3.3 of the RIA the agencies noted that "although most fleets understand the importance of
keeping tires inflated, it is likely that a substantial proportion of trucks on the road have one or more
underinflated tires." Their evidence of this assertion are two studies, one industry survey conducted by
checking pressures at a truck stop in 2002, and another study conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) in 2003. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23]
The agencies have based their lack of credit provisions for TPMS on this outdated data, as well as their
assertion that TPMS requires user interaction to re-inflate a tire to the appropriate pressure and therefore a
driver "may" continue to operate a vehicle with underinflated tires, even to their final destination.
However, in light of continually increasing pressures on fleets to reduce total costs of operation in order
to be profitable, Volvo Group disagrees that two studies dating from 12 to 13 years in the past are truly
relevant in the decision making process of today's fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23]
In addition, given the poor reliability of past ATIS systems, we are skeptical of supplier's claims of
current or future reliability improvements to these systems. Fleets are even more skeptical than truck
OEMs, as an ATIS air leak results in increased fuel consumption due to a compressor cycling more
frequently and also in potentially significant downtime of the vehicle, even more so than a tire blowout.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23]
To incentivize truck operators to maintain tire pressure on vehicles equipped with a TPMS system, fleets
have the ability to monitor fuel consumption remotely, including the ability to identify causes for
increased fuel consumption. This capability is expected to motivate drivers to properly maintain tire
pressure on TPMS equipped vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23]
For these reasons Volvo Group believes that the agencies should provide the same 1% efficiency credit
for TPMS as given to ATIS. Volvo Group does not believe this inclusion should be included in the
baseline efficiency assumptions or result in a stringency increase, as these systems are an alternative to
ATIS, are not credited today, and the evolution of the remote tracking systems has only recently made
them more likely to result in a positive corrective action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.23]
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
TPMS is already available as a factory installed option at all the major truck/tractor OEMs (including
Daimler, Kenworth, Navistar, Mack, Peterbilt and Volvo) as well as trailer, bus, and motorcoach
manufacturers.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
-------
TPMS have not historically been included in the EPA's SmartWay program since the agency had no way
to determine the effect these systems have on fuel economy unless each requesting fleet provided a clear
description of how it would respond to alerts. This information was necessary so that the EPA could
calculate the resulting fuel savings. However, much has transpired since the inception of the SmartWay
Program. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA") has studied TPMS since 2006. It
found that these systems accurately reported inflation pressure values within 2 to 3 psi of the measured
value and accurately warned of low pressure within 2 to 3 psi of the expected threshold. In 2007, the
performance and durability of TPMS was examined in a field test using transit buses. This study found
that TPMS-equipped buses did not experience increased average tire pressure due to diligent tire pressure
maintenance and the location of the TPMS display is essential to impact tire maintenance practices, fuel
economy, and tire life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 14]
Due to the advances that have been made in TPMS 2.0 systems and the impact they have on fuel economy
and greenhouse gas emissions, the Tire & Wheel (S.2) Study Group of ATA's Technology and
Maintenance Council ("TMC") requests that TPMS 2.0 systems, tire pressure monitoring systems that are
integrated with telematics, be included in the technology options provided under Phase 2. Without
inclusion of this technology, there will be no system available in the TMC standard to address tire
inflation pressure for powered vehicles since ATISs that are plumbed inside an axle (a market
requirement by US fleets) are currently only available for trailers and an advanced technology that can
seriously impact GHG emissions will be overlooked. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 15]
Certain tires loads, especially on heavy-hauls, have working tire pressures exceeding the capabilities of
on-board compressors. Additional on-board compressor tanks can cost $800 and add an additional 150
pounds of weight. Consideration should be given to exempt certain trailers from using ATIS and instead
allow the use of TPMS as previously discussed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.24]
Response:
The agencies did not propose to base the vocational vehicle standards on the performance of tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMS). However, we received comment that we should consider this technology.
In addition to similar comments related to tractors and trailers, RMA commented that TPMS can also
apply to the class 2b - 6 vehicles, and if the agencies add TPMS to the list of recognized technologies,
that this choice should also be made available to class 2b-6 vehicles. Bendix commented that TPMS is a
proven product, readily available from a number of truck, bus, and motorcoach OEMs. Autocar
commented that TPMS is useful for refuse truck applications. Tirestamp said that TPMS is ideal for
trucks and buses that are unable to apply ATIS due to difficulties plumbing air lines externally of the
axles. The agencies find these comments to be persuasive. As a result, we are finalizing vocational
vehicle standards that are predicated on the performance of TPMS in all subcategories, including all
custom chassis except emergency vehicles and concrete mixers. Available information indicates that it is
feasible to utilize TPMS on all vocational vehicles, though systems for heavy vehicles in duty cycles
where the air in the tires becomes very hot must be ruggedized so that the sensors are protected from this
heat. Such devices are commercially available, though they cost more. To account for this in our
analysis, we have projected a lower adoption rate for TPMS in Urban vehicles than for Regional or
Multipurpose vehicles, rather than by increasing the overall estimated cost and applying an equal
adoption rate.
The agencies did not propose to base the vocational vehicle standards on the performance of automatic
tire inflation systems (ATIS), otherwise known as central tire inflation (CTI). However, we did receive
comment indicating that it is feasible for some vocational vehicles to use this technology. Air CTI
commented that central tire inflation is not only feasible but enhances safety on vehicles such as dump
trucks and heavy haul vehicles that need higher tire pressures under certain driving conditions, such as
-------
when loaded, but need lower tire pressures when running empty or operating off-road. Tirestamp
commented that ATIS can be plumbed externally for trucks and buses, but such systems have a
propensity for damage and Autocar has provided information about how much extra weight this plumbing
adds to the chassis. ATA commented that some onboard air pressure systems may not be able to
pressurize tires sufficiently for very heavy vehicles. The primary vocational vehicle standards are not
predicated on any adoption of this because the agencies do not have sufficient information about which
chassis will have an onboard air supply for purposes of an air suspension or air brakes. ATIS would
logically only be adopted for vehicles that already need an onboard air supply for other reasons.
Comments received for custom chassis were supportive of standards predicated on ATIS for buses with
air suspensions. These comments are again persuasive. As a result, we are basing the optional standards
for refuse trucks, school buses, coach buses, and transit buses in part on the adoption of ATIS. Although
many motor homes have onboard air supply for other reasons making ATIS technically feasible, it is
sufficiently costly that it is not practically feasible. Furthermore, for the same reasons stated above about
the disadvantages of installing external plumbing for ATIS on some trucks and buses, we have
determined it is not feasible for emergency vehicles or concrete mixers. Nonetheless, we are allowing
vocational vehicles including all custom chassis to obtain credit for the performance of ATIS through a
GEM input.
We are assigning a fixed improvement in GEM for use of TPMS in vocational vehicles of one percent for
Regional vehicles including motor coaches and RV's (the same as for tractors and trailers) and 0.9
percent for Multipurpose, Urban, and other custom chassis vocational vehicles, recognizing that the
higher amount of idle is likely to reduce the overall effectiveness for these vehicles. We are assigning a
fixed improvement for ATIS of 1.2 percent for Regional vehicles including motor coaches and RV's (the
same as for tractors and trailers) and 1.1 percent for Multipurpose, Urban, and other custom chassis
vocational vehicles, recognizing that the higher amount of idle is likely to reduce the overall effectiveness
for these vehicles. (The difference in estimated effectiveness for TPMS and ATIS reflects the degree of
driver involvement necessary for TPMS). These values will be specified as GEM inputs in the column
designated for tire pressure systems.
6.3.8 Axle Technologies
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Axle Driveline Inputs - On whether the agencies should allow this choice. (Drive axle ratio would be a
user input). Agreed, make the drive axle a user input. 80 FR 40323. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p.62]
On whether we should require GEM to be run twice, once with each axle ratio, where the output over the
highway cycles would be used from the run with the lower axle ratio, and the output over the transient
cycle would be used from the run with the higher axle ratio. GEM should be run twice as the EPA
suggested, once with each axle ratio, where the output over the highway cycles would be used from the
run with lower axle ratio, and the output over the transient cycle would be used from the run with the
higher axle ratio. 80 FR 40323. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.62]
Axle Packages - The agencies assume 75% penetration in vocational vehicles of advanced axle lubricant
formulations and request comment any vocational vehicle applications for which use of advanced
lubricants would not be feasible. 80 FR 40320. Advanced lubricants for most 'normal' vocational
applications would likely provide sufficient coverage against axle damage. However we don't have
knowledge yet for severe vocational applications. Extreme conditions and vehicle applications like artic
oil field vehicles may need special fluids. Therefore, we agree with the agencies' proposal not to assume
-------
full penetration of advanced axle lubricant formulations, but we do not know that 75% is the right
penetration rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.97]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation
Higher-performing lubricants will play an important role in helping the OEMs comply with the Phase 2
Rule. Indeed, as shown in Figure 1 below, many of the technologies and strategies that will be used by the
OEMs will require HPLs to operate cleanly, efficiently, and without compromising equipment
performance and durability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.2][This comment can also be found
in section 1.4.2 and 4.3 of this comment summary] [Figure 1 can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1]
Organization: GILLIG LLC
Transit buses don't have tandem drive axles so the improvement options for Single Drive axle in a 6x2
and Part Time single drive axle in a 6x2 are not applicable to transit buses. More testing is required before
we will know if Low Friction Axle Lubricant, another technology improvement option, is viable for
transit for the same reasons. Transit bus duty cycles have a high number of stops and starts and significant
retarder/backside gear loading making lubricant viscosity at all temperatures very important to gear and
bearing life. To that point, transit bus end users expect 300k miles without a major axle overhaul.
Organization: Volvo
Relative to vocational 6x2 deployment, there are two key issues that preclude use of 6x2 axle
configurations. First, the vast majority of vocational vehicles use leaf springs rather than air springs. Axle
load shifting, essential to a functional 6x2 system, is accomplished via regulating the pressure in air
springs and is therefore infeasible when using leaf springs. Second, the vast majority of HHD vocational
trucks and tractors spend some time off-road. Less than 2% of Volvo Groups annual volume of HHD
straight trucks and vocational tractors are used solely on-highway, with the remaining percentage
spending some time off-road. In a HHD vocational application with any off-road operation the inability to
shift load makes a 6x2 axle configuration unacceptable unless the system is a part-time 6x2 with a
disconnect. Currently, such systems under development disconnect the inter-axle driveshaft, to gain
efficiency by bypassing the inter-axle differential. It is unclear how much benefit this type of system
would provide unless there were multiple disconnects (i.e. at the inter-axle driveshaft, and at each
differential output or wheel end) since, without multiple disconnects, the internals of the non-driven axle
would still rotate and cause churning and factional losses at likely the same levels as a driven axle. There
is no currently available system with this type of multiple disconnect architecture and it is unclear
whether this is a part of any major axle manufacturers' technical roadmaps. We are very concerned
however, that such a system would be very costly, heavy, fraught with reliability and durability problems,
and would require significant development rendering it infeasible in the vocational HHD Regional
subcategory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 P.29]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
The two axle-related improvements discussed in the NPRM are a switch from 6x4 to 6x2 configurations,
and improved efficiency from advanced lubricants.
While we have no data to either support or reject the potential for axle lubricant improvements, there is a
definite objection to expecting a shift to 6x2 configurations. This checkbox will not work for most
vocational trucks that spend part of their life in off road environments, such as job sites, landfills, power
-------
line paths, et cetera. The axle configuration is a customer-specified option, not a design selection by the
manufacturer. In our experience, customers do not specify a 6x4 configuration unless they need it for
mobility at job sites, emergency scenes, or for pushing snow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1162-A2 p.4]
Response:
In response to persuasive comment on the proposal to assign a fixed 0.5% improvement for use of low
friction axle lubricants, the agencies are adopting a separate axle efficiency test procedure that
manufacturers may perform to measure axle gear efficiency improvements. These test results may be
entered into GEM for an improved efficiency over the test cycles. Our market adoption rate for this
technology has decreased since proposal down to 30% in MY 2027, indicating that we expect axle
suppliers to only offer high-efficiency axles for their most high production volume products, especially
those that can serve both the tractor and vocational market. Therefore, we believe it is unlikely that high-
efficiency axles will be adopted in custom chassis applications. See responses to UCS comments above
in Section 6.2.3.1 for specific adjustments that have been made relative to axles on custom chassis. If a
custom chassis vehicle is certified to the primary program standards using full GEM, the alternate axle
efficiency GEM inputs will be available.
The agencies proposed to base the HHD vocational vehicle standard on some use of both part time and
full time 6x2 axles. In response to persuasive comment on the application of the permanent 6x2
configuration for vocational vehicles, we are predicating the final vocational vehicle standards in part on
use of the part-time 6x2 (axle disconnect) for vehicles in the primary program using full GEM. The
disconnect configuration is one that keeps both drive axles engaged only during some types of vehicle
operation, such as when operating at construction sites or in transient driving where traction especially for
acceleration is vital. In response to comments, the final regulations require that the input and output of
the disconnectable axle must be mechanically disconnected from the drive shaft and the wheels to qualify.
Instead of calculating a fixed improvement as at proposal, the agencies have refined GEM to recognize
this configuration as an input, and the benefit will be actively simulated over the applicable drive cycle.
Effectiveness based on simulations with EPA axle files is projected to be as much as one percent for HHD
Regional vehicles. Based on CBI information from axle suppliers, we are confident this technology will
be commercially available in the time frame of this rulemaking.
In response to ACEEE comments and other stakeholder feedback about axle configurations on coach
buses, we are establishing a baseline for these vehicles in the custom chassis program with permanent 6x2
axle. To the extent that any motor homes and coach buses with GVWR over 33,000 lbs are built with two
rear axles, either the axle disconnect or permanent 6x2 could potentially be applied as technologies
because these vehicles generally operate on paved roads and may not need the traction of a 6x4. However
we have not included this in the technology package for motor homes because incurring the costs
associated with this technology did not appear justified for RV's based on the information before us.
In response to comments about two-speed axles, the agencies are adopting regulations to instruct a
manufacturer to enter the ratio that is expected to be engaged for the greatest driving distance. The
regulations also include a provision where in unusual circumstances, a manufacturer may ask to submit
weighted average results of multiple GEM runs to represent special technologies that no single GEM run
can accurately reflect.
6.3.9 Weight Reduction
Organization: PACCAR
-------
PACCAR is also supportive of the weight savings approach that is included in the NPRM for vocational
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.31]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Review Lightweighting in GEM [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.8]
Lightweighting - There are opportunities to further expand the options for lightweighting. Specifically,
MEMA recommends an adjustment to the GEM calculations for fully loaded applications, given that
1000 lb. of lightweighting in a vocational application can result in over 3 percent GHG emissions
avoidance through reduced trips. (Emissions avoidance due to lightweighting can be easily calculated by
dividing the weight reduction by the payload, then multiplying by the fully loaded service time, or, for a
vocational application, 0.5 x 1,000/15,000). Thus, this benefit should be accounted for appropriately in
the GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.8]
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
Regarding vocational vehicles, the agencies propose Phase 2 weight reduction technologies with specific
values for material type, but also do not indicate the derivation of this data. All of these values serve a
regulatory purpose by allowing a credit for different vehicle components, based on the type of vehicle
involved. They also implicitly apply a deficit to any materials or components that are not listed, or listed
incorrectly. Therefore, like the weight reduction options for trailers, EPA must supply a basis for these
values in the record for this rulemaking or it cannot incorporate them within a final rule. EPA's currently
proposed weight reduction values cannot be finalized given the lack of supporting technical analysis
regarding their calculation. In addition, EPA should review the research material we have submitted for
the docket with respect to the weight and performance benefits of lightweight steel components. While
much of this analysis involves components utilized in the LDV sector, we believe that comparable
components and parts in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles would demonstrate similar results. EPA
should therefore utilize this information to substantially adjust upward its estimates of the benefits of
lightweight steel components in Table V-29 of the draft proposed regulations. In the alternative, AISI
would recommend that EPA and NHTSA eliminate all weight reduction technology crediting for
component parts. As described above, the component parts for which it is proposed that GEM assign a
weight reduction benefit lack a sufficient technical basis in the record for this rulemaking. Values
contained in Table V-29 are not representative of realistic mass reductions. Among other deficiencies, the
table values do not scale weight reduction to the actual size of the part making them inherently arbitrary
in a rulemaking that covers a wide range of truck sizes, uses and GVWR. Thus, while we first believe that
EPA and NHTSA should incorporate life cycle analysis and adjust weighting accordingly, if this path is
not taken by the agencies, the only reasonable result should be to eliminate the weight reduction inputs in
their entirety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 15]
Organization: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA)
Finally, the proposal fails to accurately take into account heavy-duty, class 8, straight truck weight
challenges, such as concrete mixer trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1146-A1 p.2]
Organization: Newell Coach Corporation
Weight reduction benefits would be negligible given our GVWRs while costs would be high. Credits
from other manufacturers may not be available or, if available, be extremely expensive given the cost of
technology required for compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1319-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
-------
EPA and NHTSA must consider the weight of vehicle components in a consistent manner. The weight of
hybrid systems should be accounted for, including the weight differentials for different types of hybrids.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.3]
EPA and NHTSA Should Account For Weight of Hybrid Systems
EPA and NHTSA have proposed to continue the weight reduction approach contained in the Phase 1 rule
under which fixed weight reductions are prescribed for using certain lightweight materials in vehicle
components. A fixed weight increase is also proposed for natural gas-fueled vehicles to reflect the weight
increase associated with natural gas tanks. In order to be consistent in EPA's and NHTSA's regulatory
approach, however, the agencies must also assess and incorporate consideration of weight with regard to
hybrid vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.61-62]
Vocational vehicles exhibit a wide variation in weight when looking at differences based on the
powertrain. To illustrate this point, data from two transit bus manufacturers were compared based on
powertrain differences. For the New Flyer Xcelsior, the weight increase of going from a diesel to a
hybrid, and going from diesel to CNG range from 2500-3000 lb. Going from a diesel to EV is 5000 lb.
Gillig, on the other hand, downsizes the engine when going from a diesel to a hybrid, so effectively; there
is no weight increase with the hybrid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.62]
[Tables, 'Vehicle weights in pounds' and 'GILLIG Low floor BRT', can be found on p.62 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1284-A1 ]
Since buses are unique in their design and duty cycle when compared to other vocational vehicles, other
truck hybrid powertrains shown in RIA Table 2-49 were evaluated based on weight. All systems have at
least a 300 lb. weight penalty up through Class 5. Class 6-7 is estimated to be at least 800 pounds. The
data also suggests that hydraulic hybrids are heavier than battery electric systems. The hydraulic hybrids
in Class 2b-5 are 500-750 lb. heavier and the Class 6-7 system is 1650 lb. heavier than a conventional
powertrain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.62]
[Table, 'Hybrid system weight comparisons for trucks', can be found on p.63 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1]
Based on this data, Allison recommends that EPA include a weight penalty for hybrids and electric
vehicles in an equivalent manner as was proposed for natural gas vehicles. Allison also recommends that
if an engine is downsized through the use of technology, then this is recognized as a weight savings which
would offset the additional weight of the hybrid system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 63]
Transmission Housing Weight Reduction Values In Widespread Use Should Be Eliminated
The agencies have requested comment as to whether any lightweight vocational vehicle comments are in
such widespread use that they should be excluded from the list of components for which GEM could be
used to assign an improvement value. In this regard, Table V-29 Proposed Phase 2 Weight Reduction
Technologies for Vocational Vehicles includes a weight reduction for transmission cases to go to either
high strength steel or aluminum. The baseline vocational vehicle includes an automatic transmission for
all sub-categories except for HHD Regional. Automatic transmissions already include an aluminum case.
Allison recommends that the weight savings for the transmission housing, and clutch housing be
eliminated for these subcategories because the aluminum configuration has been standard for many years.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.64]
-------
Organization: GILLIG LLC
Also in the GEM predefined modeling parameters for all vocational vehicles, 50% of any weight
reduction claimed is added as additional capacity back into the payload. Transit buses don't have a typical
payload like other vocational vehicles might, they haul people and only so many people physically fit on a
transit bus. Any weight reductions claimed for transit buses should be credited fully to the vehicle for
C02 reduction and fuel economy gains unlike other vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1156-A1 p.2]
Organization: School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
In regards to weight reduction for school buses there are some things to consider. School buses are very
different than other motor vehicles in that they are subject not only to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (such as FMVSS 220 - School bus rollover protection specific to only school buses) but also to
individual State Specifications. Many of these state specifications require certain construction standards
and many state specifications dictate the material used and in some cases even require minimum material
thickness for different areas of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1287-A1 p. 1]
In addition to specific materials and construction standards some states have performance standards above
and beyond the federal standards. Some examples of performance standards in addition to FMVSS
include: Kentucky's side intrusion standard and Colorado's body racking load standard. These additional
and varying requirements above and beyond FMVSS could create some very unique challenges to reduce
the vehicle weight and still meet the desired performance standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1287-A1
p.1-2]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
School Buses and Implementation of Lightweight Materials - There are certain vehicle categories that
cannot necessarily use lighter materials (plastic or aluminum in lieu of steel) because of state
requirements that limit the material to be used. School buses would fall into this category and would not
benefit from these credits. School buses are governed by certain states as to which material can be used
for certain components. Some states will require the use of steel and also determine the minimum
thickness for a particular component. One example is from the state of North Carolina as referenced from
the following document "North Carolina School Bus and Activity Bus Specifications" (November 14,
2013), which states on page 40: "Construction - It is the intent of these specifications to describe a Type -
C school bus that shall be basically of all steel construction or of some other material which has at least
equivalent strength of all steel construction as certified by the bidder" (emphasis added). We recommend
the agencies remove the need of lightweight materials for school buses and adjust the emission target
accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.53]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Weight Reduction For Rotating Components - The agencies request comment on whether the HD
Phase 2 program should recognize that weight reduction of rotating components provides an enhanced
fuel efficiency benefit over weight reduction on static components. As opposed to just carrying around
weight from a static component, objects that rotate require energy for that rotation and should be treated
accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.51]
Weight Reduction Packages in Widespread Use - The agencies request comment on whether
any lightweight vocational vehicle components are in such widespread use that we should exclude them
-------
from the list of components for which a GEM improvement value would be available. We think that the
agencies captured a large number of inputs and perhaps captured all of them, without going too far to list
components that are in widespread use. Quite the opposite, we think that the agencies should continue the
practice established in Phase 1 where, if a manufacturer has a lighter component for which the
manufacturer wishes to get weight reduction credits, the manufacturer should simply make a showing that
the component is lighter than the agencies' baseline in order to get credits. 80 FR 40311. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p.51]
Weight Reduction Inputs - The agencies request comment on all aspects of weight reduction
approaches including potential weight increases as a byproduct of technology application. 80 FR 40324.
We think that it is appropriate for the agencies to factor into account weight increases that are a byproduct
of technologies. For example, with waste-heat recovery, the increased engine efficiency is eroded through
increased vehicle weight, and the agencies must factor this into account—particularly in standard setting.
In a confidential setting, we can give numbers from Super Truck for an estimate of a waste heat recovery
system. Similarly, with hybridization, the addition of batteries and motors will, all else equal, add weight
to the vehicle. (Clearly if the hybrid system allows for removal of, for instance, the alternator, then the
hybrid may be weight neutral. But the fact that omission of parts does not get weight credit reinforces the
flawed nature of the agencies' weight reduction proposal). In any case, the agencies overestimate hybrid
benefits without including this weight penalty in the regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
P-51]
Organization: ABC Bus Companies, Inc.
Motorcoaches have been mandated to implement Phase 1 Emission Standards, as well as ADA wheel
chair lift and wheel chair passenger restraint systems, ambulatory passenger seat belt Standards, just to
name a few. These mandated Standards have significant weight penalties and no allowances have been
made by Federal or State highway agencies of infrastructure limits to the motorcoach industry. Weight
penalties of Phase 2 have yet to be determined. These changes, along with Phase 1 changes, should
receive consideration from the National Highway System as related to weight standards, which are not
lumped in with truck weight standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.2]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
The seventh and last checkbox involves weight reduction. For applications like concrete or refuse, less
weight is already a huge market driver. The plan suggests a switch to aluminum rims as a most likely
possibility, but front discharge concrete mixers and fire apparatus already use 100 percent aluminum rims.
Another suggestion involves redesigning structural components using higher strength steel, but the
inherent thinner material are more rapidly degraded by corrosion and exacerbate a major problem in the
trucking industry already caused by the increased use of liquid de-icing agents.
Organization: National Waste & Recycle Association
Structural needs: Durability is an essential requirement for refuse trucks. The frame of the truck body
must be strong enough to withstand the pressures exerted internally when the compaction unit is
operating. In addition, a refuse truck must be durable enough to travel on a wide variety of roads
including residential and commercial streets, arterial highways, dirt or gravel roads in rural areas and
alleys that may or may not be paved. Road quality can range from newly constructed to badly pot-holed.
Roads can be slick or dry depending on weather conditions. Some refuse trucks are even pressed into duty
as snow plow trucks. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.3]
-------
Nonetheless, the truck must be able to travel these roads, collect its material and take it to a transfer
station or landfill for garbage, a materials recovery facility for recyclables or a compost facility for yard
waste. The heavy weight of a refuse truck is caused in part, by the need to meet these severe and varying
operational realities. As a result, refuse trucks have limited opportunities for weight reduction through the
use of lighter weight materials. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071 -A 1 p.3]
Organization: National Waste & Recycle Association
We are also disappointed that the agencies fail to recognize the impact of federal weight law on refuse
trucks. A refuse truck starts out empty and fills up. Due to the unique characteristics of the refuse truck,
the Federal truck weight laws impose a limited allowable "payload" for refuse. Unfortunately a number of
the options to reduce fuel consumption that are promoted by the agencies increase the empty weight of
the truck and therefore decrease the payload and will result in additional trucks on the road. To make
matters worse, NHTSA proposed increasing the weight of an empty refuse truck by 200 pounds in a
Federal Register proposal released ten days after the publication of this greenhouse gas and fuel
efficiency proposal. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.2]
Most importantly, new technologies add to the curb weight of the truck. A hybrid power train can add as
much as 3000 pounds to the curb weight of a refuse truck. The fuel tanks and other equipment for
alternate fuels add a smaller, but still significant amount of weight, as noted in Table V-29, page 40325.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0071 -A 1 p.4]
The unique impact of Federal truck weight regulations on refuse trucks
Under Federal law (see U.S. Code Title 23, chapter 1, subchapter 1, Section 127) commercial motor
vehicles are subject to Federal size and weight regulations. Long haul tractor trailers, for instance, can
have a gross weight of 80,000 pounds on the national highway system. Solid waste industry vehicles,
however, have a much lower weight limit because of their shorter wheelbase. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-
Alp.5]
The shorter wheelbase is an absolute necessity in order to meet the level of maneuverability demanded by
waste collection operations. These trucks must negotiate narrow alleys, residential cul-de-sacs and tight
areas within commercial and industrial sites. They must be able to place large containers in very precise
locations. In some cases such as compactor/containers, the placement tolerance is as little as several
inches. Yet this short wheelbase, combined with a need to avoid excessive flexural effects on bridges
caused by heavy, clustered, concentrated axle loads, also leads to very strict truck weight requirements
under Federal law. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.5]
Under the Federal Bridge Formula B, 51,000 pounds is the legal weight limit on the national highway
system for 3 axle waste industry collection vehicles. While some states have higher weight limits that
were "grandfathered" into the Federal law when it was first enacted in 1956, they are the exception, not
the rule. The practical reality is that the national highway system is so extensive and grandfathers are so
limited, that the legal weight limit for the vast majority of the solid waste fleet is approximately 51,000
pounds, even though their rated weight capacity is considerably higher. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1
p.5]
As a result, whenever additional weight is added to the empty weight of a solid waste collection truck,
whether as a result of additional emission control equipment, a hybrid power train to improve fuel
efficiency, tanks and other unique equipment necessary to use alternative fuels such as compressed or
liquid natural gas in place of diesel fuel, or equipment such as brake retarders used to improve braking
-------
performance, the empty weight of the truck is increased and the payload weight of the truck is decreased.
Additional collection trucks will be needed, more fuel will be consumed and more emissions created.
[NHTS A-2014-0132-0071 -A 1 p.5]
Meeting truck weight laws is an operational and legal imperative for the solid waste industry. We realize
that neither EPA nor NHTS A have regulatory authority over truck weight limits. Yet, the Phase 2
proposal shows a great deal of faith in the ability of refuse trucks to find weight savings. See, for instance,
page 40301, left paragraph "The agencies project that refuse trucks, construction vehicles, and weight-
limited regional delivery vehicles could reasonably apply material substitution for weight reduction." The
proposal goes on to say that "a reduction of 200 lbs may offer a fuel efficiency improvement of
approximately 1 to 2 percent." [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.5]
This industry has worked tirelessly with our suppliers to reduce the weight of our trucks with the hope of
increasing their productivity under existing truck weight laws. However, we would note that on July 23,
ten days after the Phase 2 proposal was printed in the Federal Register, NHTSA released in the Federal
Register a proposal concerning "Rear Impact Protection, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment, Single Unit Trucks" (see Federal Register, July 23, 2015, pages 43663 - 43694). According
to the agency, the proposed addition of rear underguard protection would add a "minimum to average
increment weight" of 169 - 210 pounds (see Table 2, page 43673). In other words, if adopted, this new
safety requirement would wipe out the potential fuel savings from weight reduction estimated by the
agencies in this proposal. Needless to say, we are frustrated by the conflicting signals sent by the agencies
in regard to the most desirable weight of a refuse truck. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A1 p.5-6]
Organization: Autocar, LLC
In addition to clean-engine technology, Autocar has adopted other methods to achieve fuel efficiency and
therefore reduce emissions, while meeting the particular vocational needs of its customers. For example,
Autocar provides the most weight-efficient configurations in its class to reduce fuel consumption while
allowing larger payloads (which therefore, require fewer trips to a landfill or transfer station). For the
customer teams that drive and maintain our products, Autocar provides extensive training tools for
operators, technicians and managers to ensure that emissions components function as designed and
remain compliant with emissions regulations. Consistent with EPA and NHTSA's advocacy for use of
available technologies, Autocar is releasing new telematics and tire inflation monitoring technology, and
continues weight reduction initiatives through improved body integration and use of alternative materials;
these initiatives have been embraced in our niche markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.6]
Organization: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA)
In the proposal, EPA and NHTSA suggest weight reduction as a viable method9 to meet the proposal's
requirements. While NRMCA does not disagree with this approach, NRMCA objects to its feasibility as
applied to ready mixed concrete trucks. Due to the reality of the necessary configuration of trucks hauling
ready mixed concrete, combined with current regulations from numerous other United States regulatory
bodies, weight poses a very unique and continuing challenge to the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1146-A1 p.4] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp.242-243.]]
The necessity for manufacturing a ready mixed concrete truck with the lowest possible weight has existed
as a market force since the inception of the federal bridge formula for truck weight restrictions on federal-
aid highways. Manufacturing a light-weight mixer truck that meets all regulatory compliance thresholds
and can still haul a full load remains a constant challenge of innovation and creativity. The proposal
makes assumptions about heavy-duty truck weights in order to make suggestions about how weight
-------
reduction can be applied to meeting the proposal's requirements. These assumptions, in the case of ready
mixed concrete trucks are incorrect and miss the reality of a mixer truck's true tare and payload weights
by thousands of pounds. For example, the maximum weight allowed on federal-aid highways is 80,000
lbs. spread over a calculated number of axles. However, due to structural design and specialized
equipment installed on mixer trucks for handling such a heavy product, under federal weight limits a
typical ready mixed concrete truck ends up weighing considerably less than the allowable threshold. The
realities of truck weight regulations leave little extra room for carrying payload. According to EPA's and
NHTSA's assumptions these tolerances are roughly 3,000 to 6,000 lbs. lighter10 than what is true for
mixer truck weights. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1146-A1 p.4-5] [[This comment can also be found in
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p.243.]]
In addition to the federal weight tolerances, structural designs and necessary specialized industry
equipment, along with previous emission regulation requirements that have added weight to mixer trucks,
the overall acceptable weight of mixer trucks has reached its limit. Not to mention, this current weight of
mixer trucks includes and takes into account the weight changes needed to comply with Phase I and all of
the alternative material suggestions mentioned in the Phase II proposal. All of these weight considerations
have pushed ready mixed concrete producers to running mixer trucks, in many cases, with a .002%
margin of weight threshold. Meaning, under such weight conditions, a truck merely getting dirty will put
it over legal weight limits and risk non-compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1146-A1 p.5] [[This
comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp.243-244.]]
Furthermore, the nature of hauling and delivering ready mixed concrete gives way to various driving
conditions, road conditions, weather conditions and construction site conditions. Due to such realities,
mixer trucks are designed to meet this inevitable rough and tough wear and tear atmosphere. Such a
design requires materials that can handle these stresses and keep trucks moving; these materials invariably
add weight to a ready mixed concrete truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1146-A1 p.5] [[This comment
can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp.244-245.]]
Many of the methods EPA and NHTSA suggest in both Phase I and Phase II for complying with the
proposal are already being implemented by the industry, and numerous other suggestions in Phase II are
simply not practical for mixer trucks, leaving technology that has yet to be invented or perfected the
method the industry most likely will have left at its disposal for complying with Phase II. To this end,
NRMCA recommends that EPA and NHTSA, instead of pushing weight reductions, advocate for
increased weight tolerances in amounts large enough to offset the weights of new equipment and
technology that will be employed for compliance with Phase II. NRMCA would like to remind EPA and
NHTSA that such a precedent already exists for auxiliary power units and idling-reduction technology in
many states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1146-A1 p.5-6] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1372, p.245 and p.246.]]
The consequence of adding more weight to mixer trucks for Phase 2 compliance results in achieving the
opposite goal of Phase 2. Simply put, if the industry is forced to reduce payload in order to meet low
weight tolerances, the industry will then be forced to use more trucks, making more trips to deliver the
same amount of ready mixed concrete. More trips means increased emissions, increased fuel
consumption, more trucks sitting in traffic, and longer hours for industry drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1146-A1 p.6] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 245-246.]]
Organization: Aluminum Association
The Aluminum Association is committed to producing high quality, accurate information for OEMs as
well as the EPA and other regulatory agencies on the benefits of aluminum lightweighting in the
-------
transportation sector. Mass reduction using aluminum has emerged as a proven and cost effective
technology for achieving improved road vehicle fuel economy and C02 emissions performance and in the
past 40 years aluminum use in light and heavy-duty vehicles has increased steadily. In the truck and
trailer market specifically, aluminum use has nearly doubled since the recession of 2009 and is trending
back toward record levels last seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Growth in the use of aluminum in
the truck and trailer market has been accommodated utilizing existing production capacity, and where
needed, with the addition of new capacity, and the aluminum industry has consistently demonstrated the
ability to match supply with demand, including the previous growth of aluminum demand in the
aerospace, packaging, and auto transportation sectors. In the auto transportation sector for example, the
aluminum industry has publicly announced over 1.5 billion pounds of capacity expansion to come on line
by 2018 to support that industry's growth. The long lead times in the proposed rule that require ultimate
compliance in the 2027 model year also provide ample opportunity for the alignment of aluminum
product supply with any potential for increased demand due to the implementation of lightweighting
opportunities in the truck and trailer market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p. l-2][This comment
can also be found in section 4.3 of this comment summary]
The aluminum industry is also continuously improving its product offering to the heavy truck and trailer
transportation market to maximize the benefits of using aluminum in lightweighting applications.
Recently, these have included - [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.2]
• Alcoa's introduction of the 'ULTRAx Ultra-ONE' forged aluminum wheel - This wheel is 47%
lighter than a comparably sized steel wheel and weighs in at only 40 pounds, thus enabling its
potential to save over 1400 pounds in Class 8 service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.2]
• Alcoa's introduction of a new aluminum alloy, 'Magna-Force' which is up to 17% stronger than
the 6061 alloy it replaces in transportation applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1
p.3]
• Novelis' introduction of the 'Advanz' 7000 series next generation high strength aluminum alloy
designed to enhance vehicle lightweighting and safety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.3]
• Sapa's development and introduction of new aluminum extrusion applications in a variety of
tractor componentry including sleeper cabs, seat frames, entry steps/deck plates, and aerodynamic
fairings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1260-A1 p.3]
• Rio Tinto's commissioning of their enhanced state-of-the-art aluminum smelting facility in
Kitimat, BC operating solely on clean, renewable, hydropower and using efficient AP40 pot
technology to supply aluminum to transportation and other markets in North America and around
the world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1260-A1 p.3]
The industry is also pursuing new aluminum joining methods that will enable increased integration of
aluminum and non-aluminum components into next generation vocational and heavy-duty vehicles. All
the activities noted above continue the aluminum industry's long history of working with transportation
market manufacturers throughout the supply chain to develop vehicle efficiency improvement solutions
and that work will continue and become ever more important under the recently proposed Phase 2
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1260-A1 p.3]
Lightweighting is well-recognized in the proposed rule as a means to increase trucking efficiency and
there are three primary ways that this occurs - [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.3]
1) It lowers rolling resistance, which means it takes less energy to start the vehicle moving and then
overcome the friction of its contact with the road, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.3]
-------
2) It allows carriers to add more cargo to each truck, which reduces the number of trucks on the road
and/or trips that need to be made, and, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-A1 p.3]
3) It facilitates the adoption of other efficiency technologies, such as trailer tails and side skirting, as it
can negate the concerns about the added weight of those technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1260-
Alp.3]
Response:
The agencies are predicating the final vocational vehicle standards in part on use of material substitution
for weight reduction. The agencies have created a menu of vocational chassis components with fixed
reductions in pounds that may be entered in GEM when substituting a component made of a more
lightweight material than the base component made of mild steel. The pre-defined weight reduction
values may be found in the regulations at 40 CFR 1037.520. We are adopting as proposed a GEM
allocation of half the weight reduction to payload and half to reduced chassis weight.
It is unclear whether the comment from MEMA is asking the agencies to allow manufacturers to get
credit for fleet owners loading vehicles fully instead of applying the default payloads that are not fully
loaded values. In order to allow use of non-standard payloads in a regulatory context such as GEM, the
agencies would have needed to give notice and take comment on recognition of technologies for
improving freight efficiency beyond the control of the vehicle manufacturer. These are out of scope of
this rulemaking. However, when a manufacturer replaces a conventional component with one made of a
lighter material, GEM calculates a benefit by increasing the payload of the vehicle as well as removing
weight from the chassis. See Section 2.2 for responses to comments on how GEM allocates weight
reduction inputs.
The menu of components with pre-defined weight reduction credit includes fewer items than proposed, in
response to comments from Allison that aluminum transmission cases and clutch housings are standard
for automatic transmissions. We have considered the comments from Meritor on the appropriate weight
reduction value for use of high strength steel brake drums, and the values in the lookup tables at 40 CFR
1037.520 have been updated accordingly for both tractors and vocational vehicles. See Section 4.3 of this
RTC for more discussion of those comments. The value for light weight wheels has increased since
proposal based on compelling comment from the Aluminum Association (See Section 5.4). In response
to the AISI comments with concerns that the values in the vocational weight reduction lookup table are
not justified, we have adjusted the values for some components. We were unable to find any data in the
supporting documents submitted as part of public comment from AISI that could support changing any of
the values in the regulatory weight reduction lookup tables for Phase 2 vocational vehicles. Instead, we
have relied on technical feedback from expert members of the Aluminum Transportation Group.193 We
interpret the AISI comments as generally desiring greater weight reduction values for high-strength steel
components on LHD and MHD vocational vehicles, as well as generally desiring less disparity between
values for similar components made of aluminum. We had great uncertainty at proposal in our approach
of scaling down weight reduction values from the HHD tractor values adopted in Phase 1 to all weight
classes of vocational vehicles. Because of this uncertainty, we had deviated from the recommendations of
the expert members of the Aluminum Transportation Group to propose conservatively small improvement
values for components on LHD and MHD vehicles. After reconsidering those early recommendations in
light of comments, we believe we had been overly conservative in some respects and have thus adopted
revised values in the final regulations that we believe are responsive to AISI comments with respect to
193 See email in the docket dated March 2015 with attached vocational lightweighting table.
-------
cross-members and frame rails. The manufacturers have the option of requesting off-cycle credits for
lightweighting technologies that are not included in 40 CFR 1037.520. To clarify Daimler's comment,
what we are allowing through this process is not a demonstration of the amount of weight by which the
new component is lighter than the agencies' baseline. Rather, the demonstration includes the weights of
both a baseline component and a lightweighted component.
The projected improvements due to weight reduction factored into the stringency of the final rules are
changed from proposal, where we believed lightweight components would be adopted more narrowly.
The final rules project that as many as 50 percent of vocational vehicles can apply aluminum wheels (or
reduce an equivalent weight) by MY2027. The agencies project that all vocational vehicles in the
primary program can reasonably apply this level of material substitution for weight reduction. Our
projected adoption rate is revised upward from the proposed adoption rate of less than 10 percent because
the technology package is smaller (fewer pounds removed than the proposed 400 lbs) and aluminum
wheels are widely feasible. We agree with commenters that concrete mixers and refuse trucks are very
weight-sensitive applications, and to a large extent have already lightweighted their chassis as much as
practicable. Upon consideration of the comments, the only custom chassis vehicle type for which we are
predicating standards on lightweighting is transit buses. Where a manufacturer has already applied
lightweighting in its current fleet, it will be eligible to enter an improved weight value in Phase 2 GEM
for use of components that are on our final menu in the regulations, and this menu is fully available for
custom chassis as well. Our Phase 2 vocational vehicle baseline configurations assume that no
lightweight materials are used, because the Phase 1 program did not recognize this technology. In
response to Gillig's comment that weight reduction should be allocated fully to a lighter chassis for transit
buses and not to increased payload due to the number of passengers not being dependent on chassis
weight, we agree in concept; however, this is a feature we were unable to program in GEM. Nonetheless,
manufacturers of transit buses will get full credit for any weight reduced because the value entered in
GEM will cause both the numerator to be reduced and the denominator increased. Thus, although the
method of calculation may not reflect real world bus payloads, the end result gives fair and full credit for
this technology.
In response to Daimler's comment requesting recognition of an enhanced fuel efficiency benefit for
weight reduction of rotating components over weight reduction on static components, the agencies were
unable to program this feature in GEM given the available information. In order to assign an appropriate
value, we would need to know the geometry of the component and whether it had any gearing between it
and the road. We would also need to know the absolute weight of the component, not just the relative
improvement as is done today. We would also need to change the method of allocating reduced weight to
the chassis and the payload, since the enhanced benefit would only apply to the chassis and not to the
payload. Manufacturers may instead apply for off-cycle credit for such technologies.
In response to comments asking for revisions to the regulations regarding weight penalties for certain
technologies, we are adopting a final program that differs from what we proposed. The agencies are not
finalizing a weight penalty for any components since this would require detailed information on
conventional and light-weight vehicle components to establish a baseline and the weight reduction
potential for each component. The agencies also are not providing a default weight reduction value to
transmission type due to the variety of transmissions in the vocational market today. Although we are not
requiring a weight penalty in GEM at the time of certification for any technology, the agencies have
accounted for increased weight due to projected adoption of some technologies (i.e. for vocational
vehicles we accounted for added weight in subcategories where hybrid systems are projected) as part of
our inventory modeling with the MOVES model.
6.3.10 Other Technologies
-------
Organization: CALSTART
Pick List for Vocational Segments. Another flexibility mechanism that is needed in the vocational space,
and for which there is precedence already in the rule structure, is the use of a defined "pick list" or menu
of technologies that can be included in the GEM model. Such lists exist and are called out for Class 7 and
8 but limitedly at best for vocational. We are aware of, and support, the major manufacturers of Class 2B
and 3 vehicles who will be proposing the use of and some specific technologies for a "pick list" in these
segments. Some of the technologies they are leveraging from light duty include high efficiency lighting,
engine heat recovery, active aerodynamic improvements, active engine warm up and engine start-stop.
We would strongly encourage and request the agencies to allow for the broader development of such
"pick lists" for other vocational segments. Indeed, this might be another approach to technologies such as
those mentioned earlier (work site idle) to be more easily included. An OEM could more easily take credit
for the later stage inclusion of such technologies if such a streamlined list was available, and it would
further motivate suppliers and chassis OEMs to connect on this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-
A1 p.7]
That said, because of the comprehensive nature of the rule and the limited timeline for study and
response, such a formal list has not yet been created or coordinated. CALSTART would be very willing
to assist with assembling or identifying such a list during the work to complete the final rule language.
Technologies might include such varied approaches as post transmission hybridization, work site idle
reduction, fuel-saving trash compaction strategies, etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.7]
However, we are also concerned with information we have heard that implies such a pick list is "locked"
and cannot easily change or be updated during the rule timeline. Given the pace of technology innovation,
and the long time horizon of the proposed rule (still functioning more than a decade from today), we
strongly urge the agencies to build in flexibility in the form of simplified provisions for regularly
updating or adding to the pick lists, without having to reopen the rule itself. We are concerned that
without such an ability to be periodically updated with new technologies, and only allowing what is
known today, the rule is further constrained from including innovation. We realize there are other ways to
bring in innovative technology, such as "off cycle" credits, but that can involve lengthy, costly and often
specialized testing that can be significant barriers to small manufacturers and suppliers, who are often the
ones bringing new capabilities forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.7-8]
Organization: Volvo Group
Need the ability to certify off-cycle technologies to assure compliance if the EPA's technology and
penetration assumptions are not correct.
Organization: Enevo Inc.
Enevo provides logistics solutions to the refuse management industry using sensors to report the fullness
level of commercial refuse dumpsters and public space containers. Refuse hauling collection routes can
be optimized based on the sensor data, so containers are collected at or near full. Enevo has managed to
increase efficiency of refuse hauling routes by 30-50% in the cities we operate in. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1285 p.l]
Enevo is a strong proponent of operating truck fleets in a more efficient manner and is in favor of the
Phase II greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks. We encourage
the EPA and fleet operators to look beyond the truck for additional fuel savings. Routing optimization and
logistics software is available for both delivery and collection routes for various types of commercial
-------
fleets. These innovative technologies are able to determine the most efficient route based on real-time
inputs and help navigate the driver to their destination. Less idle time, less time on the road and better use
of trucks will contribute to overall emissions reduction. We would like to see provisions for these types of
technologies included in the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1285 p.2]
Organization: Bosch
eHorizon - we support the inclusion of 3-5% credit for Electronic Horizon (eHorizon), technology,
depending on the algorithm developed by the end customer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p.9]
As currently designed, eHorizon systems consist of an integrated hardware and software module installed
in heavy commercial vehicles to mitigate fuel consumption. State-of-the-art eHorizon hardware and
Horizon data from highly accurate 3D maps (provided by Bosch) demonstrate on average a reduction in
fuel consumption of 4% during normal driving, along with a proportional reduction in GHG together with
eHorizon algorithm (developed by the OEM) to generate an ideal driving pattern for a given route. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p. 10]
Algorithms (developed by the OEM) calculate this ideal pattern using map data along with data from the
vehicle's engine and transmission control units (from Bosch), then instruct the vehicle's cruise control
system to adjust speed and gear switching to navigate the desired route in the most efficient way. A
vehicle equipped with the eHorizon module is able to recognize, for example, changes in altitude and road
curvature and make early adjustments to the driving pattern in anticipation of these changes which results
in fuel savings and reductions in GHG. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p. 10]
Simulations conducted by Bosch in the EU supports the finding of 4% average fuel savings with a
maximum 5% savings noted, with annual GHG emission reduction of 4.5 tons and 7.5 tons respectively.
Real data results from Bosch customers using large multi-axel trucks (40 tons) equipped with eHorizon
technology shows saving of up to 5% in fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p. 10]
Methods employed to reduce gasoline engine C02 output in passenger cars and light trucks should apply
similarly in the MD class. For instance, the application of direct injection and turbo charging combined
with downsizing has already been shown to be effective when applied in the light truck market. In
addition, the implementation of high speed transmissions in the MD segment (i.e., 8-10 speed automatic)
increases the opportunities for gasoline engines to run at the most efficient load points. Due to the high
cost of development of these specialized transmissions, it may be that some incentive is required to move
the market towards this solution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p. 11]
We further suggest an adaptable approach that incentivizes the transfer of new technologies designed for
light duty vehicles into MD/HD vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1466-A2 p. 11]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The flexibility provisions for class 4-8 vehicles include off-cycle credit provisions. Several technological
approaches have been identified that would seem to merit inclusion, whether incorporated as a line-item
in GEM or through available off-cycle credits. Solar controls are not specifically listed as they are for
class 2b/3, but the RIA clearly states (page 2-47 of the RIA) they could be considered for credits if the
effectiveness can be suitably demonstrated. CARB believes this is a reasonable approach. Because of the
uncertainties surrounding estimates of effectiveness of solar control approaches in the heavy-duty fleet, it
is appropriate to require demonstration of benefit in a specific case before granting credits for vehicles in
these vehicle classes. See CARB docket letter dated December 3, 201459 for a thorough discussion of
-------
issues involved in determining appropriate solar control credits for heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.153]
Response:
We agree with commenters suggesting that some technologies can be pre-defined for credit in GEM.
Where we have been able to define a fixed improvement value along with a qualifying definition for the
technology as improved over a known baseline, we are making this available for certification of Phase 2
vocational vehicles, such as is described in Section 6.3.6.2 for electrified accessories, in Section 6.3.7 for
tire pressure systems, and Section 6.3.10.1 for aerodynamic fairings.
For technologies where we have not been able to accurately ascertain a pre-defined credit amount,
manufacturers may request and demonstrate eligibility for off-cycle credits. In response to requests to
develop a streamlined path for off-cycle technology approval, we are not making fundamental changes
from the proposal at this time; however, we remain open to working with stakeholders to look for ways to
simplify the process. (The pre-defined list, itself, of course represents a significant simplification of the
off-cycle process). Just as some technologies that were considered off-cycle for Phase 1 are being adopted
as primary technologies in Phase 2, the agencies may revise the regulation in a future rulemaking to create
a more direct path to recognize technologies currently considered off-cycle. For example, although we are
including specific provisions to recognize electrified power steering pumps and air conditioning
compressors, recognizing other types of electrified accessories would require the manufacturer to go
through the off-cycle process. However, it is quite possible that the agencies could gather sufficient data
to allow us to adopt specific provisions in a future rulemaking to recognize other accessories in a simpler
manner. Please see Section 1.4.2 for complete responses to our comments on off-cycle credits, and see
Section 2.1 for responses to comments about future changes to GEM.
We are not able to recognize route optimization software in this rulemaking. This type of technology is
outside of the regulatory framework of this HD National Program.
Please see Section 4.3 for the agencies' response to comments on solar load management technologies.
6.3.10.1 Aerodynamics
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Phase 2 GEM 2b-5 Fixed Aerodynamics Improvement Credits
The Phase 2 2b-5 GEM model is structured such that there is little to no opportunity to reduce
aerodynamic loads beyond the 2017MY baseline of 5.4 m2CdA. See GEM user instructions page 17, table
8 & 9 for details. Given the importance of aerodynamic horsepower relative to the 55 mph and 65 mph
fuel consumption in GEM, AAPC recommends that an aerodynamic improvement option be added to the
Phase 2 GEM picklist with a scalable g C02/ton-mile improvement based upon the aerodynamic package
installed on the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.34]
The graph below illustrates C02 saving in gC02 / ton-mile vs Aerodynamic HorsePower reduction
relative to the '17MY 2b-5 vocational baseline on the 55, 65, and ARB cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.34] [Graph of C02 saving can be found on p.34 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1]
-------
Given that aerodynamic improvements upwards or in the range of 10 - 20 horsepower are possible on the
55mph and 65 mph cycles, AAPC suggests a scalable aerodynamic credit based on 1 HP Aerodynamic
Reduction for LHD and MHD vocational vehicles per the following table: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1 P.35] [Table of aerodynamic reduction can be found on p.35 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1238-A1]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF
The vehicle standard should be strengthened by incorporating more appropriate advanced aerodynamic
improvements on vehicles that travel at high speeds.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Aerodynamics for Vocational Vehicles - The agencies request comment on 1) allowing a manufacturer
to obtain an improved GEM result for vocational vehicles by certifying that a final vehicle configuration
will closely match one of the configurations on which the agencies' testing was conducted, and where the
improvement would be based on installation of specific aerodynamic devices for which the agencies have
pre-defined effectiveness through this testing program, and 2) this potential approach to providing credits
for aerodynamic aids to vocational box trucks. 80 FR 40303. We think that, given the agencies' approach
of regulating truck manufacturers (i.e., manufacturers of chassis cabs for vocational vehicles as opposed
to the final stage manufacturers), it would be inappropriate to regulate or reward aerodynamic treatments
on vocational vehicles. In other words, the regulated entities do not install the truck bodies (e.g., the boxes
of box vans); a large number of secondary manufacturers do. Therefore, truck manufacturers would have
to take out delegated assembly contracts with this large number of secondary manufacturers, which would
be a burden on truck manufacturers and would not be related to our business of building chassis cabs; it
would be inserting us into a different business. If the agencies want to regulate parts installed by body
builders, then the agencies should regulate body builders. And the agencies can do so with more authority
than we vehicle manufacturers can. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.60-61]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Research done at NREL shows that improved aerodynamics on vocational vehicles can result in
significant fuel consumption reductions as high as 8 percent during cruise cycles.24 CARB staff
recommends that a value of 3.5 percent be included in the vehicle stringency for regional vocational
vehicles and 1 percent for multipurpose vocational vehicles due to aerodynamic devices. These values are
in line with the observed fuel consumption benefit that front fairings and skirts achieved on the Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) test cycle and CARB staff transient test during the NREL study,
cycles similar to that of what Phase 2 proposes to use to simulate regional and multipurpose vocational
vehicles, respectively. CARB staff notes that the vocational subcategory contains a vast range of regional
and multipurpose vehicles and that while most regional vehicles will benefit from these technologies, not
all vehicles (such as urban vocational) will be able to take advantage of the improved fuel efficiency of
improved aerodynamics. Based on this fact and the research done at NREL, CARB staff believes that
almost all regional vocational vehicles can benefit from aerodynamics, whereas only about half of the
multipurpose subcategory can benefit from the aerodynamic devices, and is recommending penetration
rates of 90 percent for regional vehicles and 50 percent for multipurpose vehicles. Vocational
aerodynamic improvements are discussed further below under the comment entitled "Vocational
aerodynamics: credit for aerodynamic devices on vocational box trucks." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.55]
-------
The NPRM requests comment on the approach to provide credits for aerodynamic devices on vocational
box trucks. The Phase 1 standards did not address the aerodynamic characteristics of vocational vehicles;
instead, vocational vehicles were assumed in the GEM model to have default aerodynamic characteristics,
and manufacturers did not have the opportunity to obtain credits for installation of aerodynamic devices
on vocational vehicles. The Phase 2 proposal still includes only default aerodynamic characteristics for
vocational vehicles in GEM, but does allow manufacturers to apply for credit for some aerodynamic
improvements to some vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.56]
CARB staff appreciates and supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA offering vocational aerodynamic credits to
manufacturers in Phase 2; however, we recommend the proposed Phase 2 standards be modified to
include actual aerodynamic characteristics for the vocational vehicles that travel most at high speeds (the
regional and multipurpose subcategories), and we recommend aerodynamic improvements for these
vocational vehicles be included when setting the Phase 2 standards. CARB funded work to support Phase
2 development assessing various aerodynamic drag reduction technologies and proving their ability to
reduce fuel consumption. Aerodynamic devices such as skirts and fairings are readily available in the
marketplace for vocational vehicles; hence, there is no issue of technological feasibility. Not including
potential aerodynamic improvements for these vocational vehicles, which spend much of their operation
at high speeds where aerodynamics are important, represents a significant missed opportunity. As
discussed further below, aerodynamic improvements to regional vocational vehicles could yield up to an
8 percent C02 and fuel consumption reduction on some duty cycles, and 6 percent in real world
operation. Considering that U.S. EPA and NHTSA took into account improvements such as low friction
axle lubricants that get only a 0.5 percent benefit when setting the proposed standards, it seems
inappropriate to ignore potential aerodynamic improvements in standard setting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.56-57]
If U.S. EPA and NHTSA are unwilling to modify the Phase 2 standards for regional and multipurpose
vocational vehicles to include aerodynamic improvements, at a minimum, CARB staff recommends
allowing generation of aerodynamic improvement credits more broadly than proposed. As the proposal is
currently structured, such credits are allowed only in extremely narrow circumstances and CARB staff
believes the credits would offer little if any incentive for manufacturers to actually pursue such
aerodynamic improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.57]
The discussion below provides information on the following topics:
• Availability of aerodynamic improvements for vocational vehicles;
• Data on potential fuel consumption reductions achievable via use of aerodynamic improvements;
• Potential additional Phase 2 GHG reductions if vocational aerodynamics were included; and
• Why vocational aerodynamic credits should be offered more broadly than proposed.
Availability of aerodynamic improvements for vocational vehicles
The aerodynamics of vocational vehicles can be improved either through changes to the shape of the
vehicle during manufacture or through addition of aerodynamic devices such as skirts after manufacture.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 5 7]
As CARB staff has shared with U.S. EPA, at least one heavy-duty vocational truck manufacturer, Ford
Motor Company (Ford), the second largest U.S. manufacturer of class 3 trucks, is interested in improving
-------
aerodynamics of vocational vehicles. Ford has investigated potential drag reduction and fuel consumption
reduction achievable via improvements to some of their customers' vocational box trucks and has shared
that data with U.S. EPA and CARB staff. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p.58]
CARB staff also gathered information regarding aerodynamic devices and their applicability to vocational
vehicles through literature reviews and stakeholder discussions. We contacted vocational aerodynamic
technology manufacturers, including Deflecktor, Freightwing, Ridge Corporation, SOLUS, Vorblade,
Wabash Composites, Air Flow Deflector, Nose Cone, Laydon Composites, Fleet Engineers, Transtex, etc.
Most of them produce devices, specifically skirts, for use on trailers. However, many indicated their
devices could be customized to fit on vocational vehicles, and some have sold devices for use on these
types of vehicles. For example, Freightwing and Ridge Corporation, who sell side skirts for box trucks
intended to achieve a 2 to 4 percent reduction in fuel use, indicate their skirts can be used on any box
truck as long as equipment underneath, such as storage boxes, lifts, etc., does not interfere and there is
adequate space between axles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.58]
We also contacted vocational fleets, including Waste Management, Aramark, Cintas, U-haul, and
Pepsi/Frito Lay, to learn about their experience in using trucks with aerodynamic controls. Some had
purchased vocational trucks with aerodynamic controls for their fleets. For example, Pepsi/Frito Lay
reported that in the field their aerodynamic improvements had given them 1 to 1.5 percent fuel savings. In
its class 3 Sprinter truck design, Frito Lay changed the box geometry, added side skirts, and a front lip. In
its class 6 trucks, it installed nose cones. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p.58]
Data on potential fuel consumption reductions achievable via use of aerodynamic improvements
CARB staff gathered available data on the drag and fuel consumption reductions achievable via
aerodynamic improvements to vocational vehicles. For example, we obtained data from Auto Research
Center, a research facility in Indianapolis that provides various test services including but not limited to
wind tunnel testing and computational fluid dynamics. Auto Research Center met with us and discussed
their current fuel economy efforts specific to vehicle aerodynamics. Auto Research Center tested an
aerodynamic technologies package that included various aerodynamic devices such as side skirts, fairings,
and others for a class 5 box truck. The box truck was tested in a wind tunnel with data recorded at yaw
angles of 0, 3, and 6 degrees. The resulting percentage fuel economy savings at 55 mph were 2.5 percent
with top fairing, 1.3 percent with side skirts, 0.5 percent with wheel covers, and 2.2 percent with smooth
underfloor. We shared this data with U.S. EPA staff in June 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.58-59]
After gathering available data, we concluded there was a paucity of data concerning the effectiveness of
aerodynamic technologies for vocational vehicles. To help fill the gap, CARB contracted with U.S.
Department of Energy's NREL to perform coastdown and on-road test runs with and without
aerodynamic devices such as skirts, front and rear fairings, and wheel covers to quantify their potential
benefits for class 6 and class 4 box trucks. A report describing NREL's findings is attached. The most
important findings are summarized below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.59]
• All devices except wheel covers showed a benefit: There were six coastdown test configurations: 1)
baseline, no aerodynamic device, 2) wheel covers, 3) front fairing, 4) chassis skirts, 5) front fairing and
skirts, and 6) front fairing and skirts and wheel covers. All test configurations, except adding just wheel
covers, indicated a statistically significant change in total road load force in the 45-68 mph range. Front
fairings and chassis skirts were the most effect devices tested, with both showing improvements on the
order of 6 percent individually for total road load force. When front fairings and skirts were tested
together, the improvement increased to 8 to 10 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.59]
-------
• Emission benefits up to 8 percent, depending on duty cycle: To determine the significance of their
aerodynamic devices in real world operation of vocational vehicles, NREL applied their test results to a
variety of test cycles commonly used for vocational vehicles. As shown in the chart below, for vocational
cycles that contain a significant portion of high speed driving, the potential benefits of aerodynamic
devices can be significant, up to 8 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.59]
[Figure 3 can be found on p.60 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
CARB staff appreciates that U.S. EPA and NHTSA referenced the data from CARB and NREL testing in
the Phase 2 proposal. We encourage U.S. EPA and NHTSA to utilize other vocational aerodynamic data
that they have obtained from other sources (e.g., Ford and Auto Research Center data), which will help
particularly in the class 3 to 5 categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.60]
The potential emission reductions from use of aerodynamic devices on vocational vehicles are significant
and - in CARB staff s opinion - too large to ignore in Phase 2. To estimate the potential impact of
vocational aerodynamics on actual vocational vehicle emissions, we made an estimate of this impact in
two ways. First, we used actual duty cycle data from NREL's Fleet DNA (a database of commercial fleet
vehicle operating data) for 553 days of driving data from 36 delivery trucks and, as shown in Table 12
below, and detailed in the attached spreadsheets, found that these trucks could achieve more than a 5
percent reduction in fuel consumption via use of aerodynamic devices.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.60]
[Table 12 can be found on p.61 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
Next, we modeled potential reductions for vocational vehicles modeled in CARB's EMFAC database.
Using duty cycles for medium heavy-duty out-of-state and instate trucks with GVWR less than or equal
to 26,000 lbs, we arrived at similar results to those for the NREL fleet DNA data, potential fuel
consumption reductions of about 6 percent.28 Given that the total reductions from vocational vehicles for
the proposed Phase 2 program are only 16 percent, ignoring potential fuel consumption and emission
reductions of 6 percent is clearly a significant and regrettable missed opportunity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.61]
Why vocational aerodynamic credits should be offered more broadly than proposed
U.S. EPA and NHTSA have proposed that credits for aerodynamic improvements be available to
manufacturers only of trucks whose configuration and dimensions are essentially identical to those CARB
and NREL tested and only for aerodynamic devices of identical weight to those tested. U.S. EPA and
NHTSA neglected to consider other relevant data submitted to them during development of the Phase 2
standards (including data from Ford and Auto Research Center, mentioned above). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.61]
In addition, the proposed method is overly restrictive and will inappropriately limit the vehicles that could
receive any credit for using vocational devices to ones essentially identical to the two trucks CARB and
NREL tested. We believe this restriction would make the aerodynamic credit provisions unlikely to be
used widely, or at all, by vocational vehicle manufacturers. We also believe this restriction ignores the
physical reality that devices such as skirts are likely to provide fuel economy benefits for trucks of a
variety of frontal areas, lengths, and shapes. Although as discussed above CARB staff recommends that
aerodynamic improvements be included when setting the standards for vocational vehicles and in GEM,
should U.S. EPA and NHTSA decline to do that, at minimum, we recommend allowing credit for all class
3 to 7 straight trucks with a van or box shaped body. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.62]
-------
CARB staff believes the data available show convincingly that aerodynamic devices can reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions from vocational vehicles and believes credit for such devices should be
offered more broadly, not just to trucks identical to the two we tested. Especially given the diversity of
vocational vehicles offered in the market, it would not be feasible to perform testing on every possible
vehicle, coupled with every aerodynamic device, nor would such testing be a good use of scarce public
agency resources. NREL concluded, "as long as the box sits above the rear wheels without a wheel well,
there will likely be a spot for chassis skirts, and as long as the box extends above the front cab, there will
likely be an opportunity for a front fairing. These devices may vary in size and aerodynamic benefit for
different platforms, but the benefit likely has a closer tie to vehicle shape and body style rather than a
specific weight class or dimension."29 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.62]
Elsewhere in the Phase 2 rulemaking, U.S. EPA and NHTSA use similar logic to what we are proposing
to justify how aerodynamic data for 53-foot dry vans can be translated to vans and box trailers in lengths
different than 53 feet (page 40261 of the NPRM and 40 CFR 1037.501(g)). Putting aerodynamic devices
(i.e., skirts) on vocational trucks is similar to putting skirts on trailers, and hence it is unclear why U.S.
EPA and NHTSA did not apply this same logic to vocational aerodynamics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.62]
CARB staff also believes U.S. EPA and NHTSA are overly restrictive in limiting credit to devices of
equivalent weight to those tested. We recommend allowing credit for aerodynamic devices of differing
weights because their weight varies for various types of vehicles and brands of devices. We recommend
that U.S. EPA and NHTSA follow an approach for vocational aerodynamic devices similar to the
approach they describe on pages 40280 to 40281 of the published NPRM for trailer aerodynamic devices.
Under that approach, device manufacturers could certify their aerodynamic devices, then chassis
manufacturers, including secondary manufacturers, can install the aerodynamic devices and obtain credits
without having to retest for every individual vehicle. The approach also lays out the procedures for
combining the effects of several devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.62]
To facilitate application of the test data available to a broader variety of vehicles, we recommend U.S.
EPA and NHTSA consider use of a percent delta coefficient of drag x area (CdA) instead of a flat CdA.
CARB staff recommends using a ratio approach by applying a percent CdA change, not an m2 CdA. For
example, if we tested a vocational truck and found that a skirt could reduce CdA 6 percent, then a smaller
or bigger truck could apply that same percent change to their CdA. We encourage U.S. EPA and NHTSA
to consider this ratio approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.62-63]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
The agencies have identified the "delegated assembly" pathway as applicable to manufacturers of
aerodynamic devices—this means that chassis manufacturers can work with any of a number of
aerodynamic device manufacturers to get credit for the use of these devices in the right application. The
agencies have also submitted to the docket research that indicates the potential for up to 5.4 percent
improvement for light and medium heavy-duty vehicles that utilize aerodynamic devices. Since there is a
clear pathway for the inclusion of this cost-effective technology and evidence of its effectiveness, it
should be included in assessing the feasible level of reductions in the timeframe of this rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.22-23]
We have estimated the cost of the full aerodynamic package identified by agencies for Light and medium
heavy-duty vehicles to cost just under $2,500 (Table 7). This is lower than a previous estimate of $3,000
(TIAX 2009) but is consistent with the trend in trailer aerodynamic devices (Sharpe and Roeth 2014).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.23]
-------
However, because this package reflects differential costs greater than the average compliance pathway for
Class 3-7 vocational vehicles, it is clear that these technologies would only be applied to a subset of
vehicles for which the technology is cost-effective. According to VIUS, 6.2 percent of Class 3-7
vocational vehicles travel greater than 36,000 miles annually, averaging 52,657 miles. This average value
is more than twice the average for vocational vehicles overall, and these high mileage vehicles all would
qualify as "regional" vocational vehicles. The 5.1- to 5.4-percent additional improvement beyond what
the rule would achieve in 2027 would save these high mileage vocational vehicles hundreds of dollars in
fuel per year. At low fuel prices ($2.50/gallon), applying aerodynamic devices to a high mileage regional
Class 3-7 vocational vehicle in 2027 would still have a payback of under 5 years, discounting future
savings at 5 percent. At $3.50/gallon, that payback drops to between 2.5 and 3.5 years for Class 3-7
regional vehicles—and this is assuming today's prices for aerodynamic technology. These 6.2 percent of
Class 3-7 vehicles represent 25 percent of the regional vocational fleet of light and medium heavy-duty
vehicles. Incorporating the improvements from aerodynamic devices applied to these vehicles would
increase the overall stringency for vocational vehicles by 0.3 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-
A2 p.23]
[Table 7, 'Cost of Vehicle Aerodynamic Devices', can be found on p.23 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2]
Response:
-------
The agencies did not propose to include aerodynamic improvements as a basis for the Phase 2
vocational vehicle standards. However, we did request comment on an option to allow credits on a very
limited basis for use of aerodynamic devices such as fairings. We found public comments from AAPC
compelling in terms of adopting this as an optional credit. Because the method we are adopting for
recognizing this technology in GEM scales conservatively, we are able to accommodate comments from
AAPC and CARB requesting that aerodynamic reductions be recognized for a broader range of vehicles
than was proposed.
Based on testing supported by CARB, the agencies have developed a list of specific aerodynamic
devices with pre-defined improvement values (in delta CdA units). See Chapter 2.9.4.1 of the RIA and
the NREL report submitted by CARB.194 In response to comments, we are allowing a wider range of
vehicles to be eligible to use this option (and thus expanding credit opportunities, as suggested in the
comments). The final regulations specify that Regional vocational vehicles in any weight class may use
this option, as long as the frontal area and vehicle length are larger than the specified minimum (see 40
CFR 1037.520(m)). By basing the size restrictions on minimum values rather than a narrow range of
dimensions as was proposed, the final approach to this credit option is also better aligned with the
approach used in the trailer program. As discussed in the RIA Chapter 2.10.2.1.2.6, the performance of
aerodynamic devices on shorter trailers tends to be poorer than performance on longer trailers. As part
of the trailer analysis, the devices (such as skirts) were sized appropriately for the vehicles, so that
longer trailers had proportionately longer skirts. While we would expect this trend to also hold for
vocational vehicles, we do not have data on longer vehicles and therefore we are setting final
improvement values that are valid for vehicles at least as large as those tested, where we can be
confident the rules don't over-credit the use of pre-defined devices on larger/longer configurations.
Due to the small number of configurations and technologies tested, a fixed change in CDA is being
adopted for only three devices. Although we reviewed the wind tunnel data from ARC and Ford, we
were unable to make use of these other data sources in the final regulations. The data from ARC
included combined wind tunnel results for packages of aerodynamic improvements on a single vehicle
and were not device-specific. The Ford data were from wind tunnel testing of single devices as well as
combined packages of devices on two vehicles, neither of which are similar to the vehicles tested by
CARB. The Ford vehicles are smaller than the ones tested by CARB and the fairings are comparatively
smaller with corresponding effectiveness values. Although we are not adopting pre-defined
improvement values for devices and vehicles based on the data from Ford, we do consider the Ford data
to be corroborative of the approach being adopted.
Manufacturers using this credit provision may enter the specified delta CdA as an input to GEM for
eligible vehicles, and the simulation will determine the effectiveness over the drive cycle. Using this
approach, we do not need to set a scaled benefit for different sizes of vehicles. When a vehicle weight
class and subcategory are entered, a default chassis mass, payload, and C, ,A are simulated in GEM.
When the pre-defined delta CdA is entered as an input, the simulation returns a resulting improved
performance specific to the given chassis configuration. Using this approach, GEM will logically return
a smaller improvement for larger vehicles. If a percent CdA improvement value were used as requested
by CARB instead of delta CdA, then the simulated effectiveness on larger vehicles would likely not
diminish, and could even increase. This is because if GEM computed a given percent improvement of
the larger default CdA that is in GEM for a heavier vehicle, the change in CdA would be greater. This
would not be a conservative approach, and when extrapolating beyond test data, the agencies prefer to
194 See Attachment 1 of public comments from CARB, "Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Technologies Testing for
Heavy- Duty Vocational Vehicles, July 2015, NREL/TP-5400-64610, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1267
-------
be conservative. Manufacturers wishing to receive credit for other aerodynamic technologies or on
other vehicle configurations may seek credit by conducting A to B testing as specified in the regulations
at 40 CFR 1037.527. Although in actual operation the added weight of aerodynamic fairings may
reduce the operational benefits of these technologies when driving at low speeds, the agencies are not
applying any weight penalty as part of the certification process for vocational aerodynamic devices.
The final Regional composite duty cycle in GEM for vocational vehicles has a weighted average speed
of 38 mph, increased from the average speed at proposal due to a heftier 56 percent composite
weighting of the 65 mph drive cycle. The agencies have learned from the NREL duty cycle analysis
that vocational vehicles with operational behavior of a regional nature accumulate more miles at
highway speeds than previously assumed. Using GEM simulation results, the agencies estimate the fuel
efficiency benefit of improving the C, ,A of a Class 6 box truck by 0.6 m2 (approximately 11 percent
from a default CDA of 5.4 m2) at approximately five percent over the Regional composite test cycle.
This same delta CDA simulated in GEM on a class 8 Regional vocational vehicle results in an overall
improvement of less than four percent because the default CdA in GEM for class 8 vocational vehicles
is 6.86 m2 so the change in C, ,A is only nine percent.
We disagree with many of the requests and assertions in CARB's comments. First, we disagree that
there is no issue of technical feasibility for applying aerodynamic fairings just because they are
commercially available. Feasibility for rulemaking purposes must consider barriers to application such
as compatibility with a chassis configuration. CARB's comments include information gained from
conversations with suppliers who noted that skirts can be used on any box truck as long as equipment
underneath, such as storage boxes, lifts, etc., does not interfere and there is adequate space between
axles. These are real world barriers to adoption of this technology that must be considered. Further,
where a box truck chassis has a cab-over-engine design, some front fairings could interfere with tilting
the cab forward as needed to perform engine maintenance.
We similarly disagree with CARB's assertion that almost all Regional vocational vehicles can apply this
technology. UCS suggests that six percent of class 3-7 vocational vehicles could see real world benefits
from use of aerodynamic devices, based solely on the VIUS survey of miles travelled (estimated by
UCS to be 25 percent of LHD and MHD Regional vehicles). The agencies would need more specific
fleet information than this before projecting technology adoption rates. For example, if the devices we
are considering are bolt-on fairings rather than integrated redesigns, then eligible vehicles would be
those with chassis to which such fairings may be reasonably affixed. Coach buses (motorcoaches) are
clear examples of vehicles that would certify as Regional. However the typical bus design has low side
clearance chassis that often house under-carriage luggage compartments. Thus, bolt-on side skirts as
considered for box trucks would seem infeasible for these buses. Another example of a vehicle that has
frequently been characterized as having a Regional drive cycle is a drayage tractor. These typically haul
marine containers to and from rail yards using specialized chassis that are often owned by the shipping
company. These unusual boxes on unusual chassis may be incompatible with any of the aerodynamic
fairings considered by commenters. Before an adoption rate for a technology can be projected for
purposes of regulatory standard-setting, information about the fraction of the fleet that is compatible
with the technology must be available, and commenters have not provided this information; nor have the
agencies been able to develop such information.
We agree with CARB that the Phase 2 program includes many technologies that seem to offer small
improvements, such as axle lubricants. We have included many technologies in the vocational vehicle
technology packages that have high initial costs, and some will have smaller improvements in efficiency
than others. Although we have pointed to one possible pathway, we have set the performance-based
Phase 2 standards in a way that enables manufacturers to select the mix of technologies that will be most
suitable for their products. Using the cost estimate provided by UCS ($2,500) and an estimated
-------
effectiveness between four and six percent, the use of aerodynamic devices would likely fall in a range
of cost-effectiveness similar to ATIS for Regional vocational vehicles. ATIS is a technology that we
are also not projecting as part of standard-setting (except for custom chassis where more details are
known about the vehicles). All of the above reasons have led the agencies to conclude that aerodynamic
improvements should not be factored into the stringency of the Phase 2 program, and should be made
available only as an optional credit at this time.
In response to Daimler's concerns regarding delegated assembly, we agree that by regulating vocational
vehicles at the incomplete stage when a chassis manufacturer may not know what type of body will be
fitted on the chassis, this is a possible barrier to adoption of aerodynamic improvements. As described
in the NPRM, we are requiring chassis manufacturers employing this option to provide assurances to the
agencies that these devices will be installed as part of the certified configuration, even if the installation
is completed by another entity. We expect that this option will only be chosen by manufacturers that
can overcome these market barriers, which is another reason why it is not considered as part of
stringency. We received many comments on the requirements for secondary manufacturers as they
apply for vocational aerodynamics as well as other technologies that may be specified by a chassis
manufacturer but installed later. See Section 1.4.4 for responses to delegated assembly comments.
6.4 Exemptions and Exclusions
6.4.1 Small Businesses and Small Volume Producers
Organization: Innovus Enterprise LLC
Additional Comments: On page 40295, there is a discussion about chassis manufacturers, small volume
manufacturers and small businesses and a request for comments on alternate approach and sales volume
threshold. We can say this: There is often a convolution of the terms "small volume" and "small entity."
There are cases where a large manufacturer, with resources normally far exceeding that of the small
business, is as a small volume producer, offered flexibility on compliance issues. We are of the opinion
that only small volume producers who also qualify as a small entity be the thrust for regulatory
flexibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.7]
A request for comment was posed asking for a means to determine what would constitute the correct
quantity that amounts to "small volume." We suggest using a formula based on a percentage of market
sales in that particular industry; industry being the particular one that a certificate is sought. Actually, it
seems the same question is posed every time small volume flexibility is posed - what is the correct or
fair quantity? We have developed such a formula and parameters for a program which could apply to all
small volume conditions throughout the CAA program. We can share this with the Agency and further
discuss if they are interested. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.7]
On page 40545, paragraph (x) Custom Chassis Manufacturers, a request is made for suggestions as to a
low volume exception. We are fully supportive of this exemption for small entity/small volume custom
chassis manufacturers. We feel that a volume of 200 vehicles per year could be adequate since it is
consistent with the other like categories. Additionally, we think there could also be some qualifying
factor such as: The exemption is warranted when the feasibility to employ fuel saving and emission
reduction technologies are beyond the capability of the small entity to reasonably engineer. Or, the
vehicles operate in a manner essentially making them incompatible with fuel saving and emission
reduction technologies. The recordkeeping, reporting and labeling could follow along the line of that in
1037.631. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.7]
Organization: Association for the Work Truck Industry (NTEA)
-------
Emergency Vehicles
We agree with the concept of differing standards for emergency vehicles. This small population of
vehicles is critical to society. Ensuring their continued operation is a legitimate public safety issue.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.5]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA supports the proposed less stringent requirements for emergency vehicles, which requirements
would focus on the use of low rolling resistance tires. The unique performance requirements and
applications for emergency vehicles make it infeasible to implement the full Phase 2 program for those
vehicles. However, EPA should expand the definition of emergency vehicles beyond just ambulances
and fire trucks. EMA also requests that the agencies establish simplified consistent labeling
requirements for emergency vehicles (just as for non-emergency vehicles), including through the
elimination of requirements for emissions control identifiers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.45]
Organization: Volvo Group
It is unclear why motor homes, cement mixers, and emergency vehicle chassis could be certified to a
family not requiring use of GEM, while this option would not be available for other Custom Chassis
types.
Single weight class assumptions are not correct, as some Class 8 Motor Coaches are completed as
Motor Homes and thus a manufacturer could not average between the two if they were certified to Class
7.
Organization: E-ONE
Gliders are an important product in the emergency vehicle industry. An emergency vehicle, while
critical to saving lives in the event of an emergency; typically does not drive very many miles over the
lifetime of the vehicle. The industry standard of the lifetime of an emergency vehicle is 10 to 20 years
in which an emergency vehicle may only have traveled 10-50,000 miles, although it is not uncommon
for an emergency vehicle of 30+ years of service to have the same amount of miles. E-ONE has found
that the durability of engines in class 8 emergency vehicles far surpass the longevity of the chassis that
they power, this can be attributed to the extreme environment that these vehicles have to
endure. Having the ability to purchase a glider allows municipalities with limited financial resources
capable of maintain a fleet that is required to save lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1185-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association (FAMA)
Emergency Vehicle Proposal
FAMA supports the language in the Phase II proposal concerning emergency vehicles that limits
regulation of emergency vehicles to the Phase I levels. This approach works in the best interest of both
the users of emergency vehicles (fire fighters, EMTs, etc....) and members of the public who become
recipients of the services rendered using emergency vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1163-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
-------
Navistar supports the proposed requirements for emergency vehicles, which essentially vocational
vehicles. The unique performance requirements and applications for emergency vehicles make it
infeasible to implement the full Phase 2 program for those vehicles and we support this establishment of
this unique segment. Navistar also requests that the agencies establish simplified labeling requirements
for emergency vehicles (just as for non-emergency vehicles) as noted above in the discussion of
Labelling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.40-41]
1275
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Low Volume Exemption Should Allow for Deployment of Advanced Technologies
The agencies have requested comment on whether different standards and simplified compliance
procedures should apply to custom chassis manufacturers. Allison generally supports flexibility in
implementing Phase 2 standards in order to recognize the varied nature of the MD/HD market ~ there
are many specialized vehicles that may be "purpose-built" to perform certain tasks. The limited number
and specialized nature of such vehicles means that there would be marginal environmental gains from
regulating such vehicles on a comparable basis to higher volume production vehicles. In addition,
excessive burdens could inhibit innovation driven by some low-volume manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.49]
EPA and NHTSA Should Consider Limited, Low-Volume Exemption
Allison believes that providing a less stringent standard for small volume chassis manufacturers is
appropriate. Allison further believes the basis for this flexibility should be to allow small volume
manufacturers the ability to continue operations until they grow to a size where applying more stringent
standards is appropriate. Using the Phase 1 rule as a guide, a sales volume strategy similar to the Phase
1 three year rolling average of vocational tractor sales would be a reasonable approach (it is assumed the
threshold would be different). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.50]
Allison does not favor additional lead time as the only solution for flexibility for small volume
manufacturers. In our experience, the challenge for small volume manufacturers is typically a lack of
resources. If a small manufacturer lacks the resources (or ability to add resources) to address
increasingly stringent standards, the situation is unlikely to change simply based on allowing an
additional one or two years for compliance. Instead, additional lead time coupled with less stringent
standards represents a balanced approach to addressing this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
P-50]
The low overall volume of custom chassis manufacturers may inhibit their ability to benefit from
averaging, banking and trading ("ABT") systems. ABT systems work to provide flexibility if a
manufacturer has a number of different vehicles which may underrun or exceed regulatory standards. In
a low volume scenario, a specialty vehicle manufacturer simply may not be able to generate enough
credits within the time period required. In such a situation, a theoretical recourse would be to purchase
credits for compliance, but realistically, such might be unavailable since larger companies may desire to
retain such credits for their own future compliance or be otherwise reluctant to sell such credits to a
smaller competitor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.50]
In addition, EPA and NHTSA should consider the additional testing burden that might result from small
volume manufacturers creating different types of vehicles which may not have all attributes measurable
through GEM, thus necessitating powertrain testing in order to demonstrate compliance or generate
-------
credits. This additional testing would result in relatively higher costs per vehicle for the smaller volume
manufacturer. In order to accommodate such vehicles - and additionally to allow for further innovation
in vehicle construction ~ EPA and NHTSA should allow for a limited period of time whereby vehicles
incorporating new advanced technologies (independent of the type of manufacturer) can be sold under a
low volume exemption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.50]
EPA and NHTSA Should Consider Low-Volume Phase-In
The agencies should additionally consider providing for a limited period of time (e.g., 18 months) and a
limited volume (e.g. 500 vehicles) as a "phase-in" period for low-volume manufacturing of advanced
technology, during which time less stringent standards would apply. Under this concept, once the time
or volume limit was reached, the phase-in period would end and full compliance with the emission and
fuel efficiency standards established by the final rule would be required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p.50]
This flexibility should be allowed for all manufacturers, regardless of size or type since the object of the
phase-in period is to encourage innovation. Allowing for a phase-in period would improve the ability of
the marketplace to explore innovative technologies - and potentially large gains in emissions and fuel
efficiency performance - while limiting any potentially negative impacts on GHG emissions and fuel
use. The concept should not be confused with the simplified compliance procedures proposed for low
volume manufacturers. While these procedures are helpful, they do not fully address the multiple
barriers to entry faced by new technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.50-51]
Organization: School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
For the years of 2010-2014, the average number of large school buses produced each year was 26,368
units. Given the reasons stated above and the relatively small volume of school buses produced each
year, we respectfully request that the agencies consider allowing school buses to meet some of the less
stringent standards as being proposed for emergency type vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1287-
A1 p.2]
Organization: Autocar, LLC
Autocar is a small business that should be exempt from Phase 2. In 2011, the agencies determined that
its small size justified a deferral from compliance from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 1 regulations
("Phase 1") for Autocar. The relevant facts remain the same, and Autocar's size, volume and product
lines continue to justify an exemption or different standards for its vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1233-A1 p.2]
The estimated costs and payback for compliant technologies may inhibit industry adoption. Autocar
does not have access to data that would enable the Company to confirm assumptions and calculations of
incremental cost and payback for compliant technology for vocational vehicles in 2021, 2024 and 2027.
Assuming that the calculated costs per truck (for most Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles) of $1,998 in
2021, $3,332 in 2024 and $7,422 in 2027 are accurate for those vehicles, the costs are too high and
would likely discourage the adoption of compliant technology. The proposed payback of 6-7 years may
not be compelling to customers typically maintaining refuse and sweeper trucks in service for the 7-12
years recognized by the agencies at 80 Fed. Reg. 40286. Vocational truck buyers will view their
estimated costs and payback as unfair when compared to the lower costs and shorter payback for non-
vocational truck buyers. Truck owners will likely choose to defer purchases and extend the lives of old
-------
non-compliant trucks, rather than spending more to purchase new compliant trucks, threatening or
delaying the effectiveness of the GHG regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.9][This
comment can also be found in section 13.2.4 of this comment summary]
The agencies' analysis of. and reasons for, exempting small volume manufacturers of emergency
vehicles also applies to small volume manufacturers of Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles. Similar to
the rationale the agencies provided in granting the exceptions for small manufacturers of emergency
vehicle chassis, the agencies should similarly grant exceptions for small manufacturers of refuse truck,
street sweeper and other Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicle chassis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-
A1 p.13]
Manufacturer Diversity. Custom chassis manufacturers are a diverse group, even within particular truck
markets. For example, in the North American refuse truck chassis market, Autocar generally competes
with two very different manufacturers. As noted in Section 1.1, Autocar has less than 300 employees,
one plant and annual production of roughly 2,000 refuse trucks and 500 other trucks. Autocar's two
competitors also produce approximately 1,500-2,500 refuse trucks per year, but in contrast to Autocar,
they are large, publicly-held, worldwide corporations with thousands of employees, multiple plants,
multiple brands and annual production of tens of thousands of other trucks.9 Both of Autocar's major
competitors build and install their own engines, and at least one of them also builds and installs
proprietary transmissions in its own trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 13]
4.2.2 Compliance Burden. The compliance requirements of the Proposed Regulations would impose
burdens disproportionately high for a company that assembles small volumes of customized chassis and
no other product lines. The ability to benefit from averaging would be limited or non-existent, as would
be the ability to spread compliance costs across many vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1
P-13]
4.2.3 Reliability Requirements. Like emergency vehicles, refuse trucks perform a public health function
and therefore require a high level of reliability. Refuse trucks manage America's solid waste stream and
transport many recyclable materials. Some refuse trucks even serve double-duty as snow plows. Refuse
trucks serve a critical, "24/7" function in our society, and must continue to be made available and
affordable in the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 13]
4.2.4 Performance Requirements. Further, the refuse industry requires a high level of performance and
durability. Refuse trucks travel on residential and commercial streets, highways, dirt and gravel roads
and paved and unpaved alleys. The truck must be sturdy enough to carry a widely-variable payload and
to withstand the pressures exerted when the compaction unit is operating. The purpose-built features of
refuse trucks, such as the high steel content (and resulting weight), high-traction tires and high PTO-
running time limit the opportunities for GHG emissions reductions. These high-performance aspects
present technological feasibility issues beyond other vocational vehicles, and the severe duty cycles of
these vehicles (discussed above in Section 2.3) create constraints in terms of vehicle design and
application of technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.13-14]
4.2.5 Averaging. As discussed above in Section 2.4, certain GHG and fuel saving technologies can be
applied, but Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles are so different from other vocational vehicles that
keeping them in the same averaging sets as other vocational vehicles is not appropriate. Accordingly, a
separate standard, evaluated from a baseline specific to these vehicles, is warranted. Further, with all of
the standards being predicated on averages, an assembler of just a few types of vehicles may be
disproportionately impacted by its vehicles' actual standards being at the far end of the spectrum from
the averages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 14]
-------
4.2.6 Low Volume —> Low Impact. According to the International Council on Clean Transportation
(ICCT),10 less than one percent of all new heavy duty trucks from 2003 to 2007 were registered to
sanitation/refuse companies, and not all of those trucks were refuse vehicles (some were service trucks,
freight trucks and other trucks used by sanitation companies). The annual North American market for
refuse collection trucks, such as those assembled by Autocar, has averaged 6,000 new trucks over the
past 10 years. The agencies recognize that an aggregate industry count 5,700 new emergency vehicles
per year is too small to justify compliance with the Proposed Regulations (80 Fed. Reg. at 40,294), and
should consistently extend this conclusion to the similarly-sized refuse market. Because relatively few
of these vehicles exist, and they travel a relatively low number of miles, modified GHG and fuel
consumption standards would not detract from the greater objectives of the rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-123 3 -A 1 p. 14]
4.3 The exceptions granted should be limited to 5.000 chassis per year. Autocar proposes to set a 5,000-
vehicle limitation on the number of vehicles that a small chassis manufacturer may produce under this
exception annually. This figure is consistent with the small-volume vehicle manufacturer exemption for
NHTSA's TREAD reporting. See 49 C.F.R. § 579.27 (reporting requirements applicable to
manufacturers of fewer than 5,000 vehicles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 14]
The exception granted for emergency vehicles should be extended to similar Low-speed/Frequent-stop
Vehicles. In the Proposed Regulations, the agencies provide a simplified compliance procedure and less
stringent Phase 2 standards for emergency vehicles, and the agencies request comment on extending
those flexibilities to other custom chassis manufacturers.8 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,292-40,295. If the agencies
do not grant an exemption as proposed in Sections 2 and 3 of these Comments above, Autocar proposes
that small manufacturers of chassis of Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles be provided a simplified
compliance procedure and less stringent Phase 2 standards for their vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1233-A1 p.12-13]
The exceptions granted should provide for a simplified compliance model. In light of the different set of
feasible technologies discussed above in Section 4.4, it is appropriate to provide a simplified compliance
model, as is proposed for emergency vehicles. A Phase 1-style GEM interface with a default compliant
engine and transmission12 and a simpler set of vehicle-level standards and technologies may be
appropriate, but that would not sufficiently reduce the small custom chassis manufacturer's
administrative burden of running GEM simulations for thousands of custom configurations for its
customized chassis. We propose that installing certified engines should be sufficient proof of
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 16] /12/ Lacking vertical integration, a small
custom chassis manufacturer has no means by which to test engines or transmissions to obtain the maps
and other data needed to run GEM simulations, and in fact may be prohibited from doing so under its
contracts with suppliers
Additional lead time would not provide sufficient relief. Although Autocar appreciates the agencies'
willingness to consider providing additional lead time for compliance by small custom chassis
manufacturers, the Company believes that additional lead time would not remedy the difficulties faced
by such manufacturers in meeting the proposed standards or the negative consequences for the industry.
For example, the manufacturers would still have limited ability to benefit from averaging and to spread
compliance costs across many vehicles. We would still suffer from the shortage of technical compliance
expertise, and customers would still experience disruption to their businesses due to production delays,
upfront cost increases and increased continuing maintenance costs.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1
p. 16]
-------
2 Autocar's Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles include the following: residential and commercial refuse
collection trucks, street sweepers, asphalt patchers, stripers and blasters, concrete pumpers and
conveyers, aircraft deicers, refuelers and stackers and sewage suction trucks.
3 Autocar's class 8 heavy-duty terminal tractors (referred to as "yard hostlers" in the Proposed
Regulations) and Class 8 heavy-duty chassis for mobile cranes are "vocational tractors," exempt from
Phase 2 compliance under §1037.630, because terminal tractors and mobile cranes are intended for off-
road operation. The agencies correctly recognize that these machines do not operate at highway speeds
and would not benefit from the efficiency improvements designed for line-haul tractors. 80 Fed. Reg. at
40,654.
4 A typical average refuse vehicle payload is 10,000 pounds, and a typical maximum refuse vehicle
payload is 20,000 pounds.
5 Additionally, in the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, Autocar observed that the testing for
vocational vehicles was conducted using what is described as a "New Flyer refuse truck" with an "AT"
Eaton transmission. We are not aware that New Flyer ever produced a refuse truck, and do not believe
that the Eaton transmission is an AT, but rather an AMT. Autocar encourages the agencies to confirm
that the baselines and standards being asserted for refuse trucks based on this testing were actually
derived from a refuse truck, and not a New Flyer transit bus.
8 The agencies correctly recognize that small custom chassis manufacturers such as Autocar offer a
narrow range of products, such that averaging is not of practical value as a compliance flexibility. Such
companies do not have large sales volumes over which to distribute technology development costs and
would bear disproportionate compliance burdens in the event that the agencies require compliance with
the primary proposed Phase 2 standards. 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,294.
9 More specifically, according to recent SEC filings, one of Autocar's main competitors in 2014 sold
69,750 Class 8 trucks in the U.S. and Canada, had plants in seven countries, had over 23,000 employees
and spent $215 million on research and development. Autocar's other main competitor, which is part of
the world's second largest truck maker, sold 57,714 trucks in North America (92% of which had
proprietary engines), had plants in 19 countries, employed over 100,000 people and spent $1.96 billion
on research and development.
10 ICCT, June 2009, "Heavy-Duty Vehicle Market Analysis: Vehicle Characteristics & Fuel Use,
Manufacturer Market Shares."
11 As currently designed for use in refuse vehicles, hybrid technology captures normally-wasted energy
from braking, converting that energy into available power to accelerate or drive the vehicle, thus
reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Testing methodologies for this technology must
accommodate the braking, load and terrain factors that are integral to measuring the gains derived from
hybrid refuse vehicles. Dynamometer testing will not demonstrate actual improvements in GHG
emissions and fuel consumption.
12 Lacking vertical integration, a small custom chassis manufacturer has no means by which to test
engines or transmissions to obtain the maps and other data needed to run GEM simulations, and in fact
may be prohibited from doing so under its contracts with suppliers.
Supplemental comments from Autocar:
-------
In our October 1, 2015 comments, Autocar explained how the Proposed Regulations would adversely
affect this small business that already contributes to substantial GHG emissions reduction, because it
installs emissions-certified engines and transmissions1 and sells a high concentration of trucks with
compressed natural gas engines and hybrid-drive powertrains. Yet, the EPA's Vocational Custom
Chassis Memorandum (the 'Memorandum') and the underlying research set forth in documents included
in the agencies' recent Notice of Data Availability (the 'NODA') propose compliance schemes that do
not take into account:
• the impact of this complex compliance path on small, low-volume businesses like Autocar;
• the minimal emissions improvements achievable with the proposed technologies;
• the fact that Autocar only builds the chassis, and the body builder and vehicle owner make
considerable modifications to the truck before putting it into service, over which Autocar has no control;
nor
• the emissions-reduction effect Autocar already contributes by producing alternative-fuel vocational
trucks.
For these reasons, Autocar submits these comments to the NODA and the Memorandum and
respectfully renews its request for an exemption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.2]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff understands the unique nature and uses of emergency vehicles and supports the proposal's
provisions to allow emergency vehicles to certify to less stringent standards with reduced compliance
procedures than for other vocational vehicles. California Statute and many of CARB staff s in-use
regulations similarly have special provisions for emergency vehicles. CARB staff also understands that
current idle reduction technologies applicable to the Phase 2 vocational standards may not be sufficient
to power all of the on-board electronics required by emergency vehicles. Therefore, CARB supports
proposed emergency vehicle standards that do not require the use of specific idle reduction
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.64]
Additionally, because the proposed compliance method for emergency vehicles is simplified compared
to that of other Phase 2 vocational vehicles, emergency vehicle manufacturers would not follow the
otherwise applicable Phase 2 approach of entering an engine map into GEM. Instead, CARB staff
supports the proposed equation-based compliance approach using a Phase 1-style GEM interface with a
default engine simulated in GEM is appropriate for the emergency vehicle category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.64]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Fire/Emergency Vehicles and RVs - On 80 Fed. Reg. 40294-5, the agencies propose a scaled-down
certification procedure for emergency vehicles and RVs. For applications like firetrucks and RVs, which
drive little, spend little time idling, and have small volume production, a simplified compliance is
indeed warranted. We recommend that the agencies use the same certification and compliance
mechanisms and procedures as for all other vehicles, however, given that manufacturers cannot
implement different computer systems for each type of vehicle. Rather, for vehicle applications like
RVs, a GEM-based compliance mechanism that ensures compliance for vehicles built with certified
engines may suffice. For emergency vehicles, which may need high torque or power or high traction
-------
tires to react to emergencies, even if such needs result in temporarily high fuel consumption, compliance
through GEM may simply mean that the vehicle has a fuel map as good as a 2014 fuel map for such
emergency vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.75]
Possible Standards for Other Custom Chassis Manufacturers - On providing custom chassis
manufacturers with additional lead time to comply. 80 FR 40295. DTNA supports providing custom
chassis manufacturers with additional lead time to comply as long as the additional lead time is given to
all custom chassis manufacturers regardless of sales volumes or any other criteria which would not be in
the best interest of fair market competition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.75]
Lower Rolling Resistance Tires - The agencies proposed discontinuing the option to qualify for the
off-road or low speed exemption solely if the vehicle is fitted with tires that have a maximum speed
rating at or below 55 mph. 80 FR 40300. DTNA agrees with EPA that the qualifying criteria related to
the design and use of the vehicle should be retained. We agree that the speed rating of the tire is not as
reliable a factor as the other factors listed, GAWR of 29k lbs or more, speed attainable of not more than
33 mph in two miles, or speed attainable of not more than 45 mph in two miles with unloaded vehicle
weight not less than 95% of the GVWR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.79]
iv. RV & Custom Chassis
Possible Standards for Other Custom Chassis Manufacturers (Compliance Procedure) -
The agencies request comment on extending the above simplified compliance procedure and less
stringent Phase 2 standards to other custom chassis manufacturer. 80 FR 40294. DTNA does not believe
that it is fair or beneficial to the environment to allow simplified compliance procedures and less
stringent Phase 2 standards to certain manufacturers based solely on sales volumes. If the technology
exists for one manufacturer to meet the standard, then it exists for all manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 100]
Possible Standards for Other Custom Chassis Manufacturers (Stringency) - The agencies
request comment on the merits of offering less stringent standards to small volume chassis
manufacturers, and seek comment as well as to other factors the agencies should consider to ensure this
approach would have unintended consequences for business competing in the vocational vehicle market.
80 FR 40295. DTNA does not believe that it is fair or beneficial to the environment to allow simplified
compliance procedures and less stringent Phase 2 standards to certain manufacturers based solely on
sales volumes. If the technology exists for one manufacturer to meet the standard, then it exists for all
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.100-101]
Possible Standards for Other Custom Chassis Manufacturers (Sales Volume) - The
agencies request comment on an appropriate sales volume to qualify for these possible standards, and
also request comment as to whether the sale volume thresholds should be different for different markets.
80 FR 40295. DTNA does not believe that it is fair or beneficial to the environment to allow simplified
compliance procedures and less stringent Phase 2 standards to certain manufacturers based solely on
sales volumes. If the technology exists for one manufacturer to meet the standard, then it exists for all
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.101]
Possible Standards for Other Custom Chassis Manufacturers (Competitiveness) - The
agencies request comment on whether it could adversely affect business competitiveness if custom
chassis manufacturers were held to a different standard than commercial chassis manufacturers, and
whether the agencies should consider allowing commercial chassis manufacturers competing in the
markets to sell a limited number of chassis certified to a less stringent standard. 80 FR 40295. DTNA
-------
believes that having different and less stringent standards would undermine fair market competition. If
the technology exists for one manufacturer to meet the standard, then it exists for all manufacturers.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 101]
Possible Standards for Other Custom Chassis Manufacturers (Recreational Vehicles) - The
agencies request comment on whether we should develop separate standards for different vehicle types
such as recreational vehicles and buses. 80 FR 40295. DTNA would be supportive of less stringent
GHG standards for recreational vehicle products. Applicable technology package considerations should
be focused on 6-8 year payback periods based on typical RV duty cycles. Standard-setting technologies
for the RVs should be based on a study of the technology currently used in RVs, including a study of
RVs' Crr values. All vehicle labeling standards and requirements should be consistent regardless of any
specific application allowances or exemption status. The agencies should establish a pathway to
certification of vehicles using engines from small manufacturers, allowing the use of a default engine
fuel map without penalizing the vehicle manufacturers, until the time that small engine manufacturers
have their fuel maps measured and ready for use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 101]
Possible Standards for Other Custom Chassis Manufacturers (Vehicle Exemption) - The
agencies request comment on how to design a small business vocational vehicle exemption by means of
a custom chassis volume exemption and what sales volume would be an appropriate threshold. 80 FR
40295. DTNA does not believe that it is fair or beneficial to the environment to allow simplified
compliance procedures and less stringent Phase 2 standards to certain manufacturers based solely on
sales volumes. If the technology exists for one manufacturer to meet the standard, then it exists for all
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.101]
Custom chassis manufacturer: what is the definition of a custom chassis manufacturer? What
is the cut off in sales? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 102]
Proposed Standards for Emergency Vehicles - The agencies request comment on whether we
should include any market adoption rate of idle reduction technologies for emergency vehicles, as part
of the basis for the phase 2 emergency vocational vehicle standard. 80 FR 40162. In regards to adoption
rate of idle technologies for emergency vehicles, we believe that the rate will be 0. We do not plan on
providing any type of technology of idle reduction until it is demanded or requested by the industry as
we do not want to cause any disruptions when the vehicle needs to be operating at 100% in emergency
situations. If idle reduction is still necessary it should follow California's heavy duty diesel vehicle
idling regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 102]
Proposed Standards for Emergency Vehicles - The agencies request comment on the merits of
using equation-based compliance approach for emergency vehicle manufacturers, similar to the
approach proposed for trailer manufacturers. 80 FR 40293. DTNA believes the agencies should
continue using GEM as the source emergency vehicle compliance. This will continue to provide a
consistent methodology of compliance for all vehicles and not introduce additional complexities that
could arise from using the compliance equation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.102]
Aligning HDV Emergency Vehicles (Fire Trucks) Definition - The agencies request
comment on the merits and drawbacks of aligning the definition of emergency vehicle for purposes of
the Phase 2 program with the definition of emergency of the light duty GHG provisions under 40 CFR
86.1818, such as those used by law enforcement. We support the idea of aligning the definition of
emergency vehicle as we have the capability of running separate reports using specific data codes to
determine the amount of emergency vehicles that have been sold. The second option that we would like
-------
to propose is that the agencies adopt the same definition as defined in 13 CCR 1956.8(a)(6). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 102]
Organization: ABC Bus Companies, Inc.
Proposed Phase 2 Standards and Vocational Vehicles, states that the agencies have held dozens of
meetings with manufacturers, suppliers, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders. As
there are only 4 to 6 motorcoach manufacturers that currently supply motorcoaches to the United States,
it does not seem that this small group in the 'Vocational Vehicles' category was invited to provide
comments related to these proposed changes. As the commodity of the Motorcoach Industry is moving
people safely and comfortably, it seems that the majority of the Phase 2 text is geared to moving freight.
Passenger carrying vehicles demand additional constraints that will be described further in this
document. It is important to have these stakeholders' input regarding the current and past Phase 1
effects, to help determine the future effects of these Phase 2 proposals on this industry segment during
the drafting process. The costs of Phase 2 compliance in the Trucking Industry can be divided up
between hundreds of thousands of trucks, while there is less ability to absorb such costs for the
estimated 1,000 motorcoaches produced annually. It seems that the motorcoach manufacturers will be
left to deal with high compliance costs that could have an adverse effect on the Motorcoach Industry as
a whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.l]
There should be preemptive language in any new regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.2]
Many proposed NHTSA motorcoach 'Safety Standards', for example, coach Roll-Over Roof Structure,
Passenger Window Glazing, and Fire Protection requirements, etc. are still being drafted and will not be
finalized for some years to come. While motorcoach manufacturers are trying to prepare for the
implementation of these 'Safety Standards' many proposed Standards in Phase 2 could conflict with the
still unknown mandated 'Safety Standards'. AS NHTSA has had so much involvement in the Phase 2
proposals, we could not find where these future mandates were taken into consideration in any of the
current NHTSA/EPA proposed rules, or made any allowances for them? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1430-A2 p.2]
ABC Bus Companies note that the Preamble gives examples of Vocational Vehicles including: urban
delivery, refuse hauling, utility service, dump, concrete mixing, transit service, shuttle service, school
bus, emergency, motor homes, and tow trucks, but no mention of 'over the road' or motorcoach 'line-
run', or 'charter' service has been defined. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.3]
Organization: GILLIGLLC
The agencies requested comment on extending the simplified compliance procedure and less stringent
Phase 2 standards proposed for emergency vehicles to other custom chassis manufacturers. Many of the
reasons the agencies used in support of the separate emergency vehicle standard hold true for transit
buses: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.6]
-as technologies to improve powertrain efficiencies become more complex, the compliance burden is
disproportionately high for the low volume of transit buses produced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-
A1 p.6]
-with our narrow range of product offering, using averaging as a compliance flexibility is limited. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.6]
-------
-with approximately 1800 transit buses produced annually, GILLIG's ability to spread compliance costs
across a large number of vehicles is limited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.6]
-transit buses are designed, built and operated very differently than other vocational vehicles such as
dump trucks, tow trucks, cement mixers, refuse trucks, etc. making the proposed one size fits all
vocational standard inappropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.6]
The agencies went on to suggest that a possible approach for custom chassis manufactures would be
'predicated on a simpler set of technologies most likely lower rolling resistance tires and idle
reduction.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.6]
In summary, GILLIG would enthusiastically support Agency efforts for a simplified compliance
procedure and less stringent Phase 2 standards for transit buses. We would propose a simplified
compliance procedure for transit buses, a separate subcategory from other vocational vehicles, similar to
the emergency vehicle procedure, based on lower rolling resistance tire and neutral idle technologies.
We feel the neutral idle technology more so than the idle reduction technology is applicable to transit
buses for reasons mentioned above. GILLIG also requests the agencies to review again the potential
business impacts of the currently proposed Phase 2 rule with respect to the certification process, limited
compliance flexibility, the burden of compliance and the stockpiling rule as they relate to transit buses.
We believe that any one of these parts of the rule could have crippling business consequences for a
transit bus manufacturer, its employees and customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.6]
Organization: Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc.
II. Summary of Comments
It is our belief and contention that the EPA and NHTSA should reconsider how the Proposed
Regulations might apply to manufacturers such as Tiffin. If the regulations are adopted in their current
form, the chassis division of Tiffin does not see a path to compliance for chassis it manufactures. Using
Averaging, Banking and Trading provisions are not a feasible alternative for the chassis Tiffin
manufactures due to the low volume, and singular purpose of use. Further, the technologies proposed by
these rules do not provide a path to compliance even if all proposed technologies are applied. In order to
avoid the closing of our chassis production, we respectfully request that motorhomes (1) be exempted
from the proposed rules, or (2) that the EPA should establish separate regulations for motorhomes
taking into account their uniqueness in both design and use, similar to what the Agency is doing with
emergency vehicles. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.2]
III. Impact of the economy and cost on the industry
Tiffin, like the motorhome industry as a whole, was hit hard by the recession of 2008 which saw our
production drop from 13 motorhomes per day to 3 motorhomes per day. The chassis division suffered a
50% reduction in employment during this time. It was an extreme example of the volatility in the
Recreational Vehicle market. As a leisure item with retail costs from $120,000.00 to $650,000.00,
demand for Tiffin products drops precipitously when the overall economy significantly constricts or
slows down. The chassis division returned to its pre-2008 level in 2010, but the instability in the
national economy makes the motorhome market as whole somewhat uncertain. Unnecessary
regulations, with a high cost of implementation and a low impact on the environment, would add an
additional burden on the recovery that the company has experienced. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.3]
-------
It should also be noted that unlike commercial vehicles motorhomes do not generate income or increase
in value. They are generally used only for personal recreational use and are driven less than 5000 miles
per year resulting in significantly lower emissions than those produced by commercial vehicles. These
factors make the increased cost imposed by these regulations difficult to absorb, and lead to extended
payback periods, often beyond 20 years. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.3]
IV. Compliance with the proposed regulations using ABT is not possible or feasible for Tiffin
After a studied reading of the proposed regulations, it is not possible or feasible for Tiffin to meet the
proposed 2021, 2024 and 2027 standards using ABT. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.3]
The ABT provisions are not a viable alternative for Tiffin for two reasons. First and foremost, Tiffin
currently manufactures only two chassis models, one classified as a MHO, the other as an HHD. These
chassis are produced only for motorhomes, and exclusively for Tiffin. This narrow range or products
along with the low production volume provide a much lower level of compliance flexibility under the
ABT provisions. The annual production volumes for these chassis are; MHO 300-500 units per year,
and HHD 500-700 units per year. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.3-4]
V. Technologies proposed do not provide a path to compliance for Tiffin
The technologies proposed in this rule, if available, and fully implemented, do not achieve compliance
under this rule. The chart below shows the potential outcome using the proposed technologies.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.4]
[Chart can be found on p.4 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1]
As can be seen in this chart the proposed technologies when applied still leave a deficit to compliance of
almost 6%. This assumes that these technologies are available, and provide the proposed benefit. Our
low production volumes also provide less opportunity for Tiffin to spread the cost of developing these
new technologies across a large number of vehicles. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.4]
VI. Exemption
Tiffin acknowledges the need for new regulations in an effort to reduce GHG emissions. It is our belief
that it is appropriate and acceptable for small chassis manufactures to continue with rules similar to
those in Phase 1 of Heavy Duty GHG Standards where chassis are manufacture using LRR tirest and
compliant engines. We respectfully request and exemption from the remaining regulations proposed in
Phase 2 of these standards. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.5]
VII. If not exemption then less stringent standards
If the Agency is not willing to exempt small specialty chassis manufactures from the proposed Phase 2
regulations it is our belief that a less stringent standard is justifiable for these manufactures. We believe
a standard similar to what the Agency has done for the Emergency Vehicle industry would be a viable
alternative to provide a path to compliance for these manufactures. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0099-A1 p.5]
Organization: Newell Coach Corporation
-------
Looking forward, we are very concerned that compliance with the Phase 2 HI-ID vocational vehicles
standards could force us out of business since compliance with the standards do not appear to be
feasible for manufacturers like Newell who have no opportunity to utilize the agency's averaging,
banking and trading (ABT) provisions. In 2024, even if we were to install all the technology available in
the GEM model for regional cycle vocational vehicles (e.g., start stop and weight reduction), our chassis
would be far from compliant. Stop-start systems would provide very little benefit given our drive cycle
at a tremendous cost.
Given the above, we respectfully request an extension of the current SBA exception for small
manufacturers. In our view, a continuation of the current exemption for small businesses, if not for all
small businesses then at least for motorhome chassis, would be the simplest solution for small
companies like ours, and for EPA. However, if the EPA should conclude that a continuation of the SBA
exemption for motorhome chassis manufacturers is not appropriate, we believe that companies who
annually manufacture 500 or fewer Class 8 - HHD motorhome chassis should be provided the
opportunity to certify their chassis to a less stringent standard (similar to that which has been proposed
for emergency vehicles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1319-A1 p.2]
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
The motorhome industry is relatively unique within the motor vehicle sector. Motorhome vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and production volumes are relatively low, and the fact that these vehicles are for non-
commercial use mean there are no recoupment of costs or asset appreciation considerations available.
As we will explain in more detail below, the unique nature of these vehicles merits special consideration
under the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.3-4]
RVIA's comments also address EPA's request for information on custom chassis manufacturers and
recommend both a standard and a volume-based definition for the group, based on EPA precedent. Our
response, however, in no way changes our overall view that motorhomes should be exempt as a group
or at minimum subject to separate, more feasible standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.4]
In order to understand the unique nature of the motorhome industry and why the Proposed Regulations
inflict such disproportionate costs on the sector, it is important to provide some details on the sector.
General categories of motorhomes, prices and volumes
i. Motorhomes Types
Motorhomes are typically categorized by type of chassis as Type A, Type B or Type C. [pictures of
motorhomes included][EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-Al p.5]
Type A Motorhome
A Type A motorhome is built on a heavy-duty chassis with the engine located either in the rear or the
front. Virtually all are built on chassis designed specifically for motorhomes. Type A's fall into the light
heavy duty (LHD), medium heavy duty (MHD) or heavy-duty (HHD) vocational vehicle categories and
the average retail price is $180,000 for gasoline powered units, or $250,000 for a diesel pusher. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.5]
Type B Motorhome
-------
A Type B motorhome is built using a cargo van as the base. Most are built with a modified roof that is
high enough to allow occupants to stand up inside. Type B motorhomes fall into the LHD vocational
vehicle or work truck categories and the average retail price is $90,000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1 p.5]
Type C Motorhome
Type C motorhomes usually use an extended van or pickup truck chassis with an attached cab. The
Type C motorhome is known by many people as a "cab-over" motorhome, as most have an area that
hangs over the cabin with a mattress for sleeping. Type C motorhomes fall into the LHD, MHD, or
HHD vocational vehicle categories and have an average retail price of $89,000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1261-A1 p.6]
EPA's proposed regulations are not feasible for motorhomes and the regulations
impose unreasonable costs on manufacturers and consumers with little benefit to consumers or
the environment
For a number of reasons, RVIA believes that it would be inappropriate to apply the proposed vocational
vehicle standards to motorhomes.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 15]
Compliance is not feasible for most motorhomes, especially when ABT provisions cannot be utilized.
Moreover, the costs of compliance for motorhomes greatly exceed benefits to the environment and
consumers. In fact, the Proposed Rules will have significant negative impacts on consumers, motorhome
production, and American jobs.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 15]
a. Compliance is not feasible for most motorhomes
For motorhome chassis manufacturers, based on EPA's OWn analysis, compliance with the proposed
vocational vehicle standards is not feasible in many instances. RVIA carried out a compliance
assessment for all motorhome types against the proposed Alternative 3 regional vocational vehicle
compliance standards for 2021, 2024, and 2027.28 The results of this assessment are contained in
Appendix B to this submission. The table below summarizes the results of the assessment, with red
shading to indicate where compliance is not feasible based on EPA's own data. It shows the following:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p. 15 ]
• Compliance with the proposed 2027 standards is not feasible for any category of motorhomes
• Compliance with the proposed 2024 standards is not feasible for LHD gas motorhomes, MHD
diesel motorhomes, and HHD diesel motorhomes. Only LHD diesel and MHD gas motorhomes
could theoretically meet the required improvements commercially or economically available to
manufacturers.
• Compliance with the proposed 2021 standards is not feasible for LHD and MHD diesel
motorhomes. Only LHD and MHD gas and HHD diesel motorhomes could theoretically meet
the required improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 15]
[Chart, feasible versus needed GHG reductions for motorhomes, can be found on p. 16 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 ]
ABT provisions will not address the compliance feasibility problem for most motorhome chassis
manufacturers. Most manufacturers will not be able to average costs and credits across their own fleets
and would be forced to purchase credits corresponding to the relevant vocational vehicle weight groups
-------
elsewhere. However, credits will be limited and expensive and may not even be available. As set forth
above, the pool of chassis manufacturers is quite small and the motorhome market is very limited. There
are some motorhome chassis manufacturers that serve primarily the motorhome industry and they have
no opportunity to utilize the ABT provisions through averaging. There are some motorhome chassis
manufacturers that serve only the motorhome industry as well as otherwise exempt segments (e.g.,
emergency vehicle and military segments). They also have no opportunity to utilize the averaging
provisions of ABT. Both categories would have no choice but to compete for a limited pool of credits
that might be available from manufacturers of larger fleets, assuming such credits are available.
Significantly, EPA has made no analysis of the availability or price of such credits so cannot simply rely
on the expectation that such provisions would be available and at a reasonable cost. It is EPA's burden
to show its regulations impose reasonable costs. The significant cost numbers we provide below, for
example, do not even begin to include the potential costs of buying credits on the market. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p. 16-17]
There are also some chassis manufacturers that serve not only the motorhome industry but also multiple
truck industry segments and are part of larger entities with larger fleets. These manufacturers are
unlikely to utilize ABT to take care of motorhomes as doing so would increase the cost of chassis sold
to more important, larger and significantly more profitable business segments. Thus, for many
manufacturers of motorhome chassis, compliance with the Proposed Rules would hurt their ability to
compete in the more important, larger and more profitable segments that they rely on for the bulk of
their revenue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 17]
Moreover, it is our understanding that most vocational vehicle manufacturers will face their own
difficulties meeting the standards set by EPA, at least without significant changes to EPA's GEM model
for vocational vehicles. Given these circumstances, there may very well be no credits available for ABT
either within the larger manufacturers' fleets or from other regulated parties. Again, EPA has provided
no analysis of the availability of credits for averaging or trading within and among these manufacturers,
and simply assumes, without data, that such options will be available at reasonable cost. This kind of
assumption is insufficient to support the outcomes that would result with this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p. 17]
VII. If not exempt entirely, EPA should establish separate standards for motorhomes
In the event EPA concludes that it will not exempt motorhomes entirely to maintain harmonization with
the NHTSA exemption, see earlier discussion above in section IV, it is fair and reasonable that separate
and more feasible standards for motorhomes be established. Proposed standards are not feasible for
motorhome chassis manufacturers, as these entities are generally not in a position to utilize ABT to meet
the standards and the technologies are not cost-effective. For LHD motorhomes, we support adopting
only the 2021MY LHD vocational vehicle standards and maintaining those standards through 2027. For
MHD and HHD motorhomes, the adoption of standards that would only require MHD and HHD
motorhomes to be equipped with more efficient engines and tires could be adopted. As discussed by
EPA in the Proposed Rules, standards based on improved transmissions for MHD and HHD vocational
vehicles/motorhomes would not be feasible since the engine and transmission are manufactured by non-
integrated manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.23]
Complying with standards based on the above recommendations in lieu of those proposed would reduce
the incremental per vehicle cost of compliance by approximately 75% and this would reduce if not
eliminate the negative economic impacts seen in the four scenario analysis discussed in the previous
section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.24]
-------
VIII. Custom chassis manufacturer exemption
EPA has requested comment on whether "customs chassis manufacturers," like emergency vehicles,
should be exempt from some of the Proposed Rules and how that term should be defined. While we
believe that an exemption is appropriate for all motorhomes, or at minimum, separate standards, we will
provide some information in response to this request. However, RVIA strongly urges EPA not to take
the position that a custom chassis manufacturer exemption will resolve all the issues RVIA has raised in
this submission. While custom chassis manufacturers do deserve some special consideration, especially
since they particularly cannot use ABT provisions to meet infeasible standards or the costs of the
Proposed Rule, this does not mean other motorhome chassis manufacturers do not merit separate and
more achievable standards. This is especially true since these other motorhome chassis manufacturers
are also unlikely to be able to use ABT to solve their non-compliance problems due to the fact that most
other vocational vehicles that might generate credits for motorhome chassis manufacturers are also
unable to comply under the GEMS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p.24]
With the above qualifications in mind, RVIA would support a standard for custom chassis
manufacturers that would be solely based on fitting vehicles with more efficient engines and tires. This
is similar to that proposed for emergency vehicles. This would allow feasible and reasonable
technologies to be applied to reduce emissions rather than fully exempting customs chassis
manufacturers from all standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.24]
To reduce the potential for such a provision providing some smaller manufacturers with a competitive
advantage, RVIA proposes that all manufacturers, regardless of size, have the opportunity to certify a
motorhome chassis to the custom chassis manufacturer standards up to a specified volume threshold.
We suggest the following thresholds: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.24]
1,000 LHD (class 2b-5) motorhome chassis
1,000 MHD (class 6-7) motorhome chassis
2,500 HHD (class 8) motorhome chassis
We note that such a definition is consistent with prior EPA practice. EPA permits small volume test
groups to be certified as if they were small volume manufacturer test groups. See 40 C.F.R. § 86.183801
(Small volume manufacturer certification procedures). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.24]
The same logic should apply to large, multi-vehicle manufacturers who only produce low volumes of
chassis designed exclusively for use in the motorhome industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1
p.24]
EPA and NHTSA should recognize the unique nature of the motorhome sector, including its exceptional
cost-sensitivity, low mileage and low production of its vehicles, and its inability to absorb significant
and cumulative regulatory costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.27]
Given these costs, which exceed any benefits, EPA should put motorhomes in a category separate from
other vocational vehicles. If they are not exempt, they should be subject to a different and more feasible
set of regulations which impose more reasonable costs. Such standards could be: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1261-A1 p.28]
-------
-For LDH motorhomes, EPA should adopt only the MY 2021 LHD vocational vehicle standards and
continue them through MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.28]
-For MHD and HHD motorhomes, EPA should require only more efficient engines and tires. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.28]
Custom chassis manufactures merit special recognition given their low volumes and inability to average
vehicles across fleets or otherwise make economic use of the ABT provisions. These vehicles should
only be required to use more efficient engines and tires. Customs chassis should be defined by volume
of production set forth in section VIII to avoid unintended competitive harms, in accordance with EPA
precedent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.28]
26 RVIA does not assert that motorhomes belong in a separate regulatory category other than vocational,
but that, if regulated, it should have its own separate standards within the vocational group, just as
emergency vehicles are regulated separately.
27 The analysis below only focuses on Alternative 3 as presented in the Proposed Rules. Alternative 4
would be even more problematic, but for purposes of these comments, was not modeled.
28 Clearly, if requirements under Alternative 3 arte not feasible, imposition of Alternative 4 would be
even less feasible.
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
The motorhome industry is relatively unique within the motor vehicle sector. Motorhome vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and production volumes are relatively low, and the fact that these vehicles are for non-
commercial use mean there are no recoupment of costs or asset appreciation considerations available.
As we will explain in more detail below, the unique nature of these vehicles merits special consideration
under the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.3-4]
RVIA's comments also address EPA's request for information on custom chassis manufacturers and
recommend both a standard and a volume-based definition for the group, based on EPA precedent. Our
response, however, in no way changes our overall view that motorhomes should be exempt as a group
or at minimum subject to separate, more feasible standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.4]
In order to understand the unique nature of the motorhome industry and why the Proposed Regulations
inflict such disproportionate costs on the sector, it is important to provide some details on the sector.
General categories of motorhomes, prices and volumes
i. Motorhomes Types
Motorhomes are typically categorized by type of chassis as Type A, Type B or Type C. [pictures of
motorhomes included][EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-Al p.5]
Type A Motorhome
-------
A Type A motorhome is built on a heavy-duty chassis with the engine located either in the rear or the
front. Virtually all are built on chassis designed specifically for motorhomes. Type A's fall into the light
heavy duty (LHD), medium heavy duty (MHD) or heavy-duty (HHD) vocational vehicle categories and
the average retail price is $180,000 for gasoline powered units, or $250,000 for a diesel pusher. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.5]
Type B Motorhome
A Type B motorhome is built using a cargo van as the base. Most are built with a modified roof that is
high enough to allow occupants to stand up inside. Type B motorhomes fall into the LHD vocational
vehicle or work truck categories and the average retail price is $90,000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1 p.5]
Type C Motorhome
Type C motorhomes usually use an extended van or pickup truck chassis with an attached cab. The
Type C motorhome is known by many people as a "cab-over" motorhome, as most have an area that
hangs over the cabin with a mattress for sleeping. Type C motorhomes fall into the LHD, MHD, or
HHD vocational vehicle categories and have an average retail price of $89,000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1261-A1 p.6]
EPA's proposed regulations are not feasible for motorhomes and the regulations
impose unreasonable costs on manufacturers and consumers with little benefit to consumers or
the environment
For a number of reasons, RVIA believes that it would be inappropriate to apply the proposed vocational
vehicle standards to motorhomes.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 15]
Compliance is not feasible for most motorhomes, especially when ABT provisions cannot be utilized.
Moreover, the costs of compliance for motorhomes greatly exceed benefits to the environment and
consumers. In fact, the Proposed Rules will have significant negative impacts on consumers, motorhome
production, and American jobs.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 15]
a. Compliance is not feasible for most motorhomes
For motorhome chassis manufacturers, based on EPA's OWn analysis, compliance with the proposed
vocational vehicle standards is not feasible in many instances. RVIA carried out a compliance
assessment for all motorhome types against the proposed Alternative 3 regional vocational vehicle
compliance standards for 2021, 2024, and 2027.28 The results of this assessment are contained in
Appendix B to this submission. The table below summarizes the results of the assessment, with red
shading to indicate where compliance is not feasible based on EPA's own data. It shows the following:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p. 15 ]
• Compliance with the proposed 2027 standards is not feasible for any category of motorhomes
• Compliance with the proposed 2024 standards is not feasible for LHD gas motorhomes, MHD
diesel motorhomes, and HHD diesel motorhomes. Only LHD diesel and MHD gas motorhomes
could theoretically meet the required improvements commercially or economically available to
manufacturers.
-------
• Compliance with the proposed 2021 standards is not feasible for LHD and MHD diesel
motorhomes. Only LHD and MHD gas and HHD diesel motorhomes could theoretically meet
the required improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 15]
[Chart, feasible versus needed GHG reductions for motorhomes, can be found on p. 16 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 ]
ABT provisions will not address the compliance feasibility problem for most motorhome chassis
manufacturers. Most manufacturers will not be able to average costs and credits across their own fleets
and would be forced to purchase credits corresponding to the relevant vocational vehicle weight groups
elsewhere. However, credits will be limited and expensive and may not even be available. As set forth
above, the pool of chassis manufacturers is quite small and the motorhome market is very limited. There
are some motorhome chassis manufacturers that serve primarily the motorhome industry and they have
no opportunity to utilize the ABT provisions through averaging. There are some motorhome chassis
manufacturers that serve only the motorhome industry as well as otherwise exempt segments (e.g.,
emergency vehicle and military segments). They also have no opportunity to utilize the averaging
provisions of ABT. Both categories would have no choice but to compete for a limited pool of credits
that might be available from manufacturers of larger fleets, assuming such credits are available.
Significantly, EPA has made no analysis of the availability or price of such credits so cannot simply rely
on the expectation that such provisions would be available and at a reasonable cost. It is EPA's burden
to show its regulations impose reasonable costs. The significant cost numbers we provide below, for
example, do not even begin to include the potential costs of buying credits on the market. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p. 16-17]
There are also some chassis manufacturers that serve not only the motorhome industry but also multiple
truck industry segments and are part of larger entities with larger fleets. These manufacturers are
unlikely to utilize ABT to take care of motorhomes as doing so would increase the cost of chassis sold
to more important, larger and significantly more profitable business segments. Thus, for many
manufacturers of motorhome chassis, compliance with the Proposed Rules would hurt their ability to
compete in the more important, larger and more profitable segments that they rely on for the bulk of
their revenue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 17]
Moreover, it is our understanding that most vocational vehicle manufacturers will face their own
difficulties meeting the standards set by EPA, at least without significant changes to EPA's GEM model
for vocational vehicles. Given these circumstances, there may very well be no credits available for ABT
either within the larger manufacturers' fleets or from other regulated parties. Again, EPA has provided
no analysis of the availability of credits for averaging or trading within and among these manufacturers,
and simply assumes, without data, that such options will be available at reasonable cost. This kind of
assumption is insufficient to support the outcomes that would result with this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p. 17]
VII. If not exempt entirely, EPA should establish separate standards for motorhomes
In the event EPA concludes that it will not exempt motorhomes entirely to maintain harmonization with
the NHTSA exemption, see earlier discussion above in section IV, it is fair and reasonable that separate
and more feasible standards for motorhomes be established. Proposed standards are not feasible for
motorhome chassis manufacturers, as these entities are generally not in a position to utilize ABT to meet
the standards and the technologies are not cost-effective. For LHD motorhomes, we support adopting
only the 2021MY LHD vocational vehicle standards and maintaining those standards through 2027. For
MHD and HHD motorhomes, the adoption of standards that would only require MHD and HHD
-------
motorhomes to be equipped with more efficient engines and tires could be adopted. As discussed by
EPA in the Proposed Rules, standards based on improved transmissions for MHD and HHD vocational
vehicles/motorhomes would not be feasible since the engine and transmission are manufactured by non-
integrated manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.23]
Complying with standards based on the above recommendations in lieu of those proposed would reduce
the incremental per vehicle cost of compliance by approximately 75% and this would reduce if not
eliminate the negative economic impacts seen in the four scenario analysis discussed in the previous
section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.24]
VIII. Custom chassis manufacturer exemption
EPA has requested comment on whether "customs chassis manufacturers," like emergency vehicles,
should be exempt from some of the Proposed Rules and how that term should be defined. While we
believe that an exemption is appropriate for all motorhomes, or at minimum, separate standards, we will
provide some information in response to this request. However, RVIA strongly urges EPA not to take
the position that a custom chassis manufacturer exemption will resolve all the issues RVIA has raised in
this submission. While custom chassis manufacturers do deserve some special consideration, especially
since they particularly cannot use ABT provisions to meet infeasible standards or the costs of the
Proposed Rule, this does not mean other motorhome chassis manufacturers do not merit separate and
more achievable standards. This is especially true since these other motorhome chassis manufacturers
are also unlikely to be able to use ABT to solve their non-compliance problems due to the fact that most
other vocational vehicles that might generate credits for motorhome chassis manufacturers are also
unable to comply under the GEMS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p.24]
With the above qualifications in mind, RVIA would support a standard for custom chassis
manufacturers that would be solely based on fitting vehicles with more efficient engines and tires. This
is similar to that proposed for emergency vehicles. This would allow feasible and reasonable
technologies to be applied to reduce emissions rather than fully exempting customs chassis
manufacturers from all standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.24]
To reduce the potential for such a provision providing some smaller manufacturers with a competitive
advantage, RVIA proposes that all manufacturers, regardless of size, have the opportunity to certify a
motorhome chassis to the custom chassis manufacturer standards up to a specified volume threshold.
We suggest the following thresholds: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.24]
1,000 LHD (class 2b-5) motorhome chassis
1,000 MHD (class 6-7) motorhome chassis
2,500 HHD (class 8) motorhome chassis
We note that such a definition is consistent with prior EPA practice. EPA permits small volume test
groups to be certified as if they were small volume manufacturer test groups. See 40 C.F.R. § 86.183801
(Small volume manufacturer certification procedures). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.24]
The same logic should apply to large, multi-vehicle manufacturers who only produce low volumes of
chassis designed exclusively for use in the motorhome industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1
p.24]
-------
EPA and NHTSA should recognize the unique nature of the motorhome sector, including its exceptional
cost-sensitivity, low mileage and low production of its vehicles, and its inability to absorb significant
and cumulative regulatory costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.27]
Given these costs, which exceed any benefits, EPA should put motorhomes in a category separate from
other vocational vehicles. If they are not exempt, they should be subject to a different and more feasible
set of regulations which impose more reasonable costs. Such standards could be: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1261-A1 p.28]
-For LDH motorhomes, EPA should adopt only the MY 2021 LHD vocational vehicle standards and
continue them through MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.28]
-For MHD and HHD motorhomes, EPA should require only more efficient engines and tires. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.28]
Custom chassis manufactures merit special recognition given their low volumes and inability to average
vehicles across fleets or otherwise make economic use of the ABT provisions. These vehicles should
only be required to use more efficient engines and tires. Customs chassis should be defined by volume
of production set forth in section VIII to avoid unintended competitive harms, in accordance with EPA
precedent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.28]
26 RVIA does not assert that motorhomes belong in a separate regulatory category other than vocational,
but that, if regulated, it should have its own separate standards within the vocational group, just as
emergency vehicles are regulated separately.
27 The analysis below only focuses on Alternative 3 as presented in the Proposed Rules. Alternative 4
would be even more problematic, but for purposes of these comments, was not modeled.
28 Clearly, if requirements under Alternative 3 are not feasible, imposition of Alternative 4 would be
even less feasible.
Response:
The agencies' responses to comments related specifically to companies meeting the definition of small
business under SBA regulations are addressed in Section 15.4 of this response to comments document.
As was mentioned above in Section 6.2.3, use of simplified GEM as an optional certification tool can be
justified in cases where either the typical duty cycle of the vocational application is poorly represented
by any of the three final test cycles; where we find that the default GEM vehicle characteristics are so
different from real world characteristics (for example engine power to vehicle weight ratio) that use of
full GEM with active simulation of actual driveline parameters would not reasonably test the
effectiveness of applied technologies; and where the certifying manufacturer produces small volumes of
vocational chassis using a non-integrated business model where driveline optimization is not feasible
and other transmission improvements would either be ineffective or not cost-effective.
Upon careful consideration of all the comments related to vocational vehicle chassis manufacturers who
produce small volumes of specialized or non-diversified products, we are adopting optional standards
-------
for seven applications of vocational vehicles that we are calling custom chassis. Although this issue has
some implications for our consideration of small business concerns, the custom chassis provisions
discussed in the proposal were not intended to be limited to small businesses, and are not so limited in
the final rules.
Discussions with representatives on our Small Business Advocacy Review Panel included exploration
of a low volume production threshold below which some manufacturers may avoid some obligations of
this regulation. Consistent with the recommendations of the Panel, the agencies requested comment on
how to design a small business vocational vehicle program, including comments on a possible small
volume threshold below which some small business exemption may be available.195 Some commenters
addressing this issue supported a small volume threshold for small businesses of either 200 vehicles per
year, or a different threshold set based on the market share of the entity, or other low-volume thresholds
ranging as high as 26,000 vehicles per year. We received adverse comment from Daimler stating it
would be unfair to make less stringent standards available solely on the basis of sales volume, because if
a technology exists for one manufacturer, it is available to all manufacturers. We received adverse
comment from OshKosh that less stringent regulations on a limited production volume stifles a custom
chassis manufacturers' opportunity to grow their business.
Upon consideration of these comments, the agencies are not finalizing a broad sales volume threshold
below which a vocational chassis manufacturer may certify under the optional standards. Instead we are
adopting an optional custom chassis program that is available to businesses of all sizes and production
volumes. In addition to the flexibilities described in Section 15.4, the custom chassis program includes
some flexibilities for small businesses that will not be available to large manufacturers. Specifically, we
are permitting small businesses to use credits generated in the primary program as part of a custom
chassis compliance plan, and we are permitting small businesses that manufacture drayage tractors to
certify a small number of these vehicles each year to the custom chassis standards otherwise applicable
to transit buses. See Section V.C.3 of the Preamble.
In response to the comment requesting clarification on our reasons for adopting a non-GEM design
standard option for motor homes, cement mixers, and emergency vehicle chassis, this is because we
have determined these vehicles to have the least number of feasible technologies that can be applied in
Phase 2. Emergency vehicles and concrete mixers have been determined by the agencies to essentially
need only to apply low rolling resistance tires in addition to certified engines and low leakage air
conditioning. Motor homes have been determined to apply these technologies as well as tire pressure
systems. We generally agree with the commenters from the motor home sector that there are very few
technologies likely to prove cost-effective for these vehicles, given the typically low miles traveled by
these vehicles. See Section 6.3.7 above for more details on why we conclude that tire pressure systems
are feasible. Where a manufacturer of these vehicles is able to apply the same technology on all of its
production without averaging, we offer the non-GEM option as a compliance flexibility to avoid some
of the certification burden associated with running GEM. We were unable to identify other custom
chassis technology packages that we believed could be applied at 100 percent adoption rate; thus,
averaging (and use of GEM) was deemed necessary for other vehicles.
In response to the comment with concerns about the custom chassis program assuming a single weight
class for each vehicle type, we have concluded this simplification is valid for preventing stranded
averaging sets and easing the compliance burden for low-volume manufacturers.196 We fully expect
manufacturers to continue producing vehicles in varying weight classes as demanded by the market.
The regulatory simplification does not mean that custom chassis vehicles actually must be produced at
195 See proposed rules at 80 FR 40295, July 13, 2015.
196 Averaging sets for custom chassis include all weight classes of a single custom chassis subcategory.
-------
the weight corresponding to the assumed regulatory category. For example, a manufacturer may
produce 100 motor homes where 90 are MHD and 10 are HHD. All of these may be simulated as MHD
in GEM and comprise one averaging set, and credits for purposes of averaging will be calculated
according to the actual vehicle-level regulatory useful life. The actual engines used in these vehicles
will separately be certified to the applicable engine standard. See Section 6.5 for responses to
comments on certification of custom chassis, and see Section V.D of the Preamble for more discussion
of this process.
6.4.2 Off-Road/Low Speed Vehicles
Organization: Clarke Power Services
1031.631 Exemption of vocational vehicles intended for off-road use: The chassis of vehicles in the
vocational industries in general and the off-road vehicles take a tremendous amount of load and torque
(twisting). This kind of use guarantees that the chassis will be worn out prior to the modifications that
were used to prepare the vehicle to be a vocational truck. The work box, crane, hydraulic lifts, etc. that
are required in the vocational application are expensive and are transferred to the next chassis. When the
replacement chassis is a Glider, then this commenter believes that the flexibility should be granted with
regard to the engine choice. This commenter recommends that one sentence should be struck from
1031.631; that sentence being "This section does not exempt engines used in vehicles from the
standards of 40 CFR part 86 or part 1036" atop of page 40655. Striking this sentence will give
maximum flexibility once the agencies realize the vocational equipment being described may be older
than MY 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.5]
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
The Agencies Should Continue to Exempt Vehicles Equipped with Tires with a Maximum Speed
Rating at or Below 55 mph
In the Phase 1 rulemaking, EPA exempted a vehicle based solely on the use of tires with a maximum
speed rating at or below 55 mph ("speed restricted tires"). In the Phase 2 NPRM, the agencies are
proposing to eliminate this exemption because "the agencies are concerned that tires are so easily
replaced that this would be an unreliable way to identify vehicles that truly need special consideration."
80 Fed. Reg. at 40295. While RMA recognizes the concern that the agencies express in eliminating this
exemption, RMA believes that the speed restricted tires merit special consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 15] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.2]
These tires typically are designed to achieve tire performances such as high load carrying capacity and
durability that are specific to the vehicles on which they are installed, which often are used in off-road
applications. A tire that is appropriate for use on a vehicle used for off-road applications would not see a
meaningful fuel consumption benefit due to the use of low rolling resistance tires due to its typical drive
cycle at low speeds on aggressive terrain. A speed restricted tire would not be suitable for use on a
vehicle that does not specify these tires. The concern that this type of tire could be installed on a vehicle
that otherwise does not require these tires is not founded, since speed restricted tires would not perform
appropriately on other types of vehicles. For example, if a speed restricted tire were installed on a
vehicle that is used in highway applications, the integrity of the tire would be impaired at highway
speeds, and the operator of the vehicle would not be satisfied with its performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 15] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.2]
-------
OEMs specify the vehicle's service and application and comply with the tire and wheel selection
requirements of FMVSS 120, and, per FMVSS 119, such tires are marked with "Max. speed km/h (
mph)," e.g. 55 mph (90 km/h), 50 mph (80 km/h), 35 mph (56 km/h). An exemption for tires speed-
restricted at or below 55 mph is still appropriate, as such tires are designed for off-road applications or
on-road 20%/off-road 80% applications. Such vehicles are generally governed or speed restricted by the
vehicle manufacturers, e.g. OEMs. Subsequent changes to tires for higher operating vehicle speed
ratings will result in generally larger tires for load capacities, and/or tire designs not appropriate for the
off-road application and incidental highway transport. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 15]
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.2]
Rather than discontinuing the exemption adopted in Phase 1 of this regulation for vocational vehicles
with tires restricted to 55 mph (90 km/h), EPA/DOT should continue this exemption, as well as consider
adding a GEM input option to exempt on/off road vehicles and their tires. Again, such tires are marked
in accordance with the FMVSS 119 tire safety requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 16]
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1933-A1 p.3]
Examples of such on/off road vehicles include:
Mobile Crane "DOT" vehicles with DOT tires and loads adjusted for maximum speed 55 mph that are
greater than highway/vocational truck tires rated @ > 62 mph (100 km/h). Low bed or high cube trailers
requiring high load capacities at lower speed ratings, e.g. < 55 mph. Mining and Logging "ML" tires
(e.g. TRA 10.00-20 ML) @ maximum speed 50 mph (80 km/h) @ intermittent highway service
(maximum 50 miles (80 km) in any 1-1/2 hour period) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 16]
RMA appreciates the opportunity to review the GEM P2v2.1 summary. RMA continues to support the
exemption of certain vocational vehicles from the subject regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1933-A1 p.2]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The agencies should restore an exemption from the Phase 1 Standards for vehicles equipped with speed-
rated tires. Vehicles equipped with speed-rated tires operate more like nonroad vehicles than heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles. In that regard, speed-rated tires are typically large and do not have assigned
rolling resistance values. Consequently, inasmuch as those vehicles are not equipped or designed for
efficient on-highway operation, they should not be regulated as if there were. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.47]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Off-Road and Low Speed Vocational Exemptions - The agencies request comment on the proposed
revisions to the off-road and low-speed vocational vehicle categories, including whether the rated speed
of the tires should be retained, and whether vehicles intended to be covered by the provision have
characteristics that are captured by the proposed criteria. 80 FR 40545. DTNA agrees with EPA that the
qualifying criteria related to the design and use of the vehicle should be retained. We agree that the
speed rating of the tire is not as reliable a factor as the other factors listed, GAWR of 29k lbs or more,
speed attainable of not more than 33 mph in two miles, or speed attainable of not more than 45 mph in
two miles with unloaded vehicle weight not less than 95% of the GVWR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p.32-33]
Organization: Terex Corporation
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 105.]
My final comment number four is regarding page 40186. It says that six by six and eight by eight
vehicle configurations are only manufactured for specialized vehicles that require extra traction for off
road applications. They are very low volume sales, and their increased fuel consumption and C02
emissions are not significant in comparison to the overall reductions of the Phase 2 program.
Therefore, Terex suggests that vehicles with six by six and eight by eight configurations must be added
to the last of exemptions under the proposed 1037.635(b) concerning glider kits. Because these vehicles
operate off road, they are far more susceptible to wear and tear type frame damage that is premature
compared to the engines that were designed to operate for a million miles. For this reason, glidering six
by six and eight by eight vehicles is and has always been common industry practice, even before the
arrival of after treatment systems on diesel engines.
Organization: Innovus Enterprise LLC
§ 1037.631 Exemption for vocational vehicles intended for off-road use.
Page 40521, Paragraph (2) Off-Road Exclusion Petition Process... outlines the spirit and intent of the
Off-Road Exclusion by stating: "An exemption was warranted because these vehicles operate in a
manner essentially making them incompatible with fuel saving and emission reduction technologies,
such as performing work in an off-road environment, being speed restricted, or having off-road
components or other features making them incompatible for roadways." While we totally agree with this
line of thinking and rational, we do not think the spirit and intent of this exemption is sufficiently
captured in the proposed paragraph § 1037.631(a) Qualifying criteria. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-
A1 p.6]
The original wording in this section had two qualifying criteria, (a)(1) and (a)(2) either of which were
qualifying factors alone. However the original (a)(1) for 55mph speed rated tires is being deleted
evidently because tires can be changed out afterwards. This makes sense to us as well. However, that
leaves a much narrower criteria which would now require both the new (a)(1) and new (a)(2) in order to
qualify. This dismisses many other potential heavy-duty vocational vehicles designed for off-road use
which meet the spirit and intent and rational for this exemption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1
p.6]
Looking closer at the proposed/new (a)(1). This is good criteria and almost verbatim with the spirit and
intent for this exemption. It covers the mandate for off-road environment, installed components and
features making them unsuitable for normal highway operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1
p.6]
The criteria in the new proposed (a)(2) would drive this entire exemption to a vehicle with a GAWR at
or above 29000; or vehicle's speed limited to 33 mph or 45 mph. The axle rating is by no means by
itself a rational criteria for this exemption other than the fact it is just an extraction from the definition
of heavy duty off-road vehicle in 49 CFR 523.2 (2)(ii)(A). It appears as if the wording for this
exemption was based on this same definition as the speed limitation criteria is also the same. We must
also note: the definition for heavy duty off-road vehicle in 49 CFR 523.2 also contains the single criteria
factor of 55 mph speed limited tires. With this, it is rational to believe the 33 mph or 45 mph specific
speed limitation was never intended to be a determining factor alone for criteria in the heavy-duty off-
road vehicle definition. It is also rational to believe a vehicle's capability to employ fuel saving
-------
measures or emission reduction technologies was not part of the determining factor when this heavy-
duty off-road vehicle definition was scripted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.6-7]
Innovus Enterprise I.I.C Suggestion: ft 1037.631(a) Qualifying criteria. Change the sentence referring to
the criteria of paragraph (a)(1) and criteria of paragraph (a)(2) to read "or" instead of "and" as defining
criteria. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.7]
Rational: This off-road vocational vehicle exemption makes total sense if in application the basis for
having it is adequately portrayed and executable in the regulations. Continuing with the proposed
criteria which includes elements of no logical affect with respect to the spirit and intent of the rule
(GAWR) or limiting it to criteria originally designed for a definition of little relevance to the main
arguments for this exemption (capability for fuel savings/emissions reduction) detracts from the hard
work many public and private individuals have put into developing this ruling as well as those small
business' who could potentially be slighted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.7]
Organization: Autocar, LLC
Autocar's products are of a particular vehicle type (low-speed, frequent-stop, stationary-application
trucks) that will not produce the environmental benefits intended by the proposed technologies, beyond
the use of an emissions-compliant engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.2]
The exceptions granted should impose less stringent standards. Some of the proposed GHG and fuel
saving technologies are feasible for Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles, and some are not. All
manufacturers should install compliant engines, so long as they are made available by engine
manufacturers. Synthetic axle lubricant is also within reach currently. Also, advances can be made in
reducing the leak rate of refrigerant from A/C systems. All of these technologies should be required at
reasonable levels with appropriate lead times for development in connection with Low-speed/Frequent-
stop Vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.14-15]
The Types of Vehicles Autocar Assembles Should be Exempt on the Same Basis as Special
Purpose Tractors and Off-Road/Low-Speed Vocational Vehicles.
Autocar's products are similar to other exempt vehicles. Autocar proposes an exemption from Phase 1
and Phase 2 compliance for vocational vehicles designed to travel at low speeds, stop frequently and
conduct core functions from a power take-off ("PTO") (referred to herein as "Low-speed/Frequent-stop
Vehicles"),2 for the same reasons the agencies exempted special purpose tractors and off-road/low-speed
vocational vehicles in proposed §1037.630 and §1037.631.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.7]
2.2 Low-speed/Freauent-stop Vehicles have a unique design and purpose. Like the exempted special
purpose tractors and off-road/low-speed vocational vehicles, Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles are
designed to operate at low speeds, and infrequently achieve highway speeds. They operate in one or
more of the following states: (A) low-speed, as in the case of street sweepers; (B) stationary, as in the
case of concrete pumpers and conveyers; or (C) continuous stop-and-start, as in the case of refuse
collection trucks. The chassis of these vehicles are designed to support these severe operational cycles
demanding low speed, stationary power or frequent stops. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.7-8]
2.3 Low-speed/Freauent-stop Vehicles have unique duty cycles. A refuse truck spends most of its time
in collection mode, moving at low speeds from house to house or dumpster to dumpster and emptying
trash receptacles into the refuse bin of the truck. It is common for a residential refuse truck to make 800-
1,000 (and as many as 1,500) pick-ups in a day. A refuse truck typically only operates at highway
-------
speeds on its way to and from its pickup route, and to and from a transfer station or landfill. The truck
often has to run its PTO to activate hydraulic lifting arms to dump refuse containers into the bin, or a
packer blade to compact the trash in the bin. The truck stops while waste is being loaded. Compaction
can occur while the truck is stationary or moving.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-Al p.8]
Similarly, a street sweeper spends most of its time in sweeper mode, moves at low speeds while
removing debris from the street, and makes numerous turns and stops due to debris patterns, traffic and
other obstructions. Again, a sweeper typically only operates at highway speeds on its way to and from
its sweeping route. The operating conditions for Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles necessitate the use
of the lower gears of automatic transmissions and often axle ratios of 5.29 or higher. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1233-A1 p.8]
2.4 Some of the Agencies' Proposed Technologies for Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles are feasible,
and some are not. Autocar's comments on the feasibility and potential for penetration of the proposed
technologies for reduction of GHG emissions and increased fuel efficiency for Low-speed/Frequent-
Stop Vehicles are set forth at Appendix A. Some of the proposed technologies are technically possible,
but many will be ineffective for Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-
Alp.8]
Response:
We interpret Clarke's comment to advocate for allowing new vocational vehicles qualifying for the off-
highway provisions of § 1037.631 to also be eligible for relief from engine emission standards under the
provisions that apply for glider vehicles. These two sets of provisions apply independently - i.e. they are
not mutually exclusive. As such, the proposed statement stating that § 1037.631 does not exempt
engines from engine standards is true. If a vehicle qualifying for relief under § 1037.631 should also
qualify for relief as a glider vehicle, this would be addressed under § 1037.635. Refer to Section 14.2
for details on how the agencies are responding to comments on use of gliders in vocational applications.
We interpret Terex's comment requesting axle configuration as a criterion in eligibility for relief under
our glider provisions as a comment requesting the agencies to consider axle configuration in
applicability under the Phase 2 vocational vehicle regulations. We disagree that the presence of a six by
six or eight by eight axle configuration is an appropriate basis to qualify vehicles as off-highway for
purposes of applying less stringent standards. While this feature may be indicative that the vehicle will
not experience purely highway cycles, it is not determinative regarding the feasibility of fuel saving
technologies. We believe that to the extent vocational vehicles with unusual axle configurations also
have features that qualify them for exemption or less stringent standards under the final Phase 2
program, we don't need to add this as a supplemental criterion. For purposes of Phase 2 certification,
vehicles with more than two drive axles will be certified as a 6x4. In Section 2.2 of this response to
comments document, we address comments related to simulating unusual axle configurations in GEM.
Commenters failed to address the reasons described in the proposed rule for removing speed-limited
tires from the qualifying criteria for off-highway used under § 1037.631. We are adopting these
revisions because we are concerned that manufacturers would too easily be able to install tires with a
low speed rating to avoid standards, even in cases where the customer or the application does not
warrant those tires. Moreover, we believe that the other qualifying criteria are effective apart from
considerations of tire ratings for identifying vehicles that warrant relief from greenhouse gas standards.
This is especially the case, given that we are adopting less stringent optional C02 standards for "custom-
chassis" vehicles that qualify for some but not all of the criteria identified in § 1037.631 (see Section
6.2.3).
-------
While we continue to believe that speed-limited tires are not an appropriate basis to qualify vehicles as
off-highway for purposes of applying less stringent standards, we are adopting a vehicle-based speed
criterion that accomplishes this objective more reliably and more directly. In particular, the regulation
allows manufacturers to qualify for off-highway consideration for vehicles with maximum speed below
55 miles per hour (see 40 CFR 1037.63 l(a)(2)(iv)). Such vehicles would be expected to rarely travel
long distances, and are more likely to involve operations separate from transport.
It is not clear why Innovus believes an axle load rating criterion is not germane to consideration of off-
highway use. Mobile cranes and mining and logging vehicles, for example, are often designed with high
axle load ratings because of their off-highway functions. If a vocational vehicle is designed simply to
transport heavy loads but is not speed-limited, it would then not qualify under the provisions of §
1037.631(a)(1).
Innovus and Autocar describe concerns for vehicles that meet one or the other of the criteria from §
1037.631(a)(1) and (a)(2), but not both. Since § 1037.631 exempts vehicles from all greenhouse gas
requirements, we do not want vehicles to qualify for the exemption if manufacturers can apply
technology to reduce C02 emissions. At the same time, we are aware that vehicles meeting one of the
two conditions of § 1037.631 may not be able to apply emission control technology to the same degree
as other vehicles. We are therefore creating alternate "custom-chassis" standards for such vehicles. We
believe this appropriately pairs the stringency of standards with the capabilities and operating
characteristics of these vehicles (see RTC 6.2.3). A few of Autocar's specific vehicle types warrant
closer attention:
• Street sweepers with a maximum speed at or above 55 mph are designed for off-highway use,
but not in a way that allows us to exempt them from all C02 standards. Manufacturers of these
vehicles choose to design their vehicles to operate at highway speeds, presumably to allow for
substantial driving between sweeping jobs. These vehicles should be expected to apply a certain
level of technology for reducing C02 emissions.
• Refuse trucks clearly spend a disproportionate amount of time operating at slow speeds;
however, this only makes it more important to consider strategies such as hybrid powertrains
and idle-reduction technologies. Exempting these vehicles from all C02 standards would be a
missed opportunity of the first order.
6.5 Compliance Provisions and Flexibilities for Vocational Vehicle
Standards
Organization: Volvo Group
Need clarification on a manufacturer's ability to partially certify a product offer as custom chassis,
while the same offer in the same application is certified to the primary standard in a separate family.
Need clarification that credits can be averaged across custom chassis types within a weight class.
Response
The final rules allow manufacturers to certify some vehicles to the optional custom chassis standards
using simplified GEM while certifying similar vehicles in the same model year to the primary standards
using full GEM. Each new application for certification is associated with a standard, and carry-over
certificates would be associated with the same standard as the previous year. Any credits generated
-------
against the custom chassis standard must remain within the narrow averaging set of that custom chassis
type, and may not be traded.
6.5.1 Selection of Subcategory for Certification
Organization: Volvo Group
Vocational Vehicle Segmentation Regression Modeling
In the previously noted NREL report two regression models were put forth (see sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2)
as a means to segment vocational vehicles into regulatory sub-categories. Both models utilize multiple
logistic regressions that categorize vehicles into one of two sub-categories: high-speed or low-speed. In
the report NREL states misclassification errors of 25%-30% where vehicles which should fall into the
high-speed cluster were classified in the low-speed cluster, while errors for low-speed vehicles being
misclassified as high-speed were 6-13%. Since the agencies have stated they will rely on hybrid and
engine stop-start technologies in lower speed subcategories (technologies which Volvo has commented
are not currently commercially viable and technically infeasible in HHD) any error incorrectly placing
more vehicles into lower speed subcategories on aggregate will result in an unintended artificial
stringency increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1928-A1 p.10-11]
Without understanding proposed stringency changes from the NPRM levels, Volvo cannot sufficiently
review these models in order to determine their total impact on our ability to comply with the proposed
rule; however, it is inappropriate to consider a segmentation criteria that generates large errors resulting
in significant compliance risk to OEMs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p. 11]
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
Proposed Phase 2 Standards for Vocational Vehicles, (1) Proposed Subcategories and Test Cycles
The agencies request comment on the method for assigning vocational chassis to regulatory
subcategories. Bendix supports the proposed approach to align with the objective to allow
manufacturers to certify their chassis over appropriate duty cycles, while maintaining the ability of the
market to offer a variety of products to meet customer demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1
p.8]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
In addition to providing data on the characteristics of three overarching classes of vehicle, the Oak
Ridge analysis provides a path for segmenting vocational vehicles in spite of the limited information
that an incomplete chassis can provide.14 The full prediction model leads to an appropriate
categorization of high- or low-speed behavior with 89 percent accuracy, with prediction of low-speed
behavior 94 percent accurate. Limiting the model to engine speed at 65 mph provides less accuracy (81
percent) but may allow for more flexibility to changes to the fleet over time (such as a decreasing use of
manual transmissions in all classes, or a change in fuel use for applications that were previously
predominantly gasoline ordiesel). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.5]
The ability for a manufacturer to more accurately project a new vehicle's likely duty cycle allows better
assessment of both the regulatory category of the vehicle and technologies that are most applicable.
Correctly identifying high-speed vehicles, particularly ones which now show even greater operation at
highway cruise speeds than first proposed, would allow for greater application of aerodynamic
-------
improvements, since there would be a clear need and payback. Similarly, the ability to more clearly
define low-speed operation, which now should also include greater idle operation time, would
incentivize greater application of idle reduction technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.5]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Also, the EPA requested comments if "all Hybrids should be tested over the urban cycle only." We
understand the EPA motivation and the underlying assumption that the market will accept Hybrids in
urban applications only. However, Phase 2 spans a long interval in which HD line haul Hybrids are
feasible and would not be designed for stop-and-go traffic, as shown above. The EPA should allow
OEMs to certify Hybrids on the Urban cycle, but should give the option to certify over another cycle if
that is more appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.19]
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
For class 2b-5 vocational vehicles, the rpm and vehicle speed based cutpoints proposed by the agencies
to define the "Urban" duty cycle do not properly identify the classes of vehicles intended. This is likely
due to assumptions about engine test speeds that were made based on vehicles prior to the
implementation of Phase I Heavy-Duty GHG engine standards. AAPC proposes slight modifications to
the cut points used to classify vehicles for these duty cycles. Additionally, AAPC believes that only the
highest numerical axle ratio in a 2-spd or greater axle application should be used for classification
purposes. AAPC recommends the following changes to the "Urban" duty cycle cutpoints: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.32]
- For 2b-5 spark ignited gasoline vehicles, the 55mph cut point should be increased from 50% to 65% of
max engine test speed [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.32]
- For 2b-5 compression ignition vehicles the 55mph cut point should be lowered from 90% to 65% of
max engine test speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.32]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Manufacturers Should Be Allowed To Select Appropriate Test Cycle
EPA and NHTSA have proposed an equation for deciding how different chassis configurations will be
assigned to vocational vehicle subcategories. The agencies have also requested comment on this
approach and whether manufacturers should "have the freedom to select a test cycle without any need
for EPA or NHTSA approval." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.43]
Allison is generally supportive of the vocational vehicle segmentation as proposed; however, Allison
also believes that vehicle manufacturers should have the option to select the test cycle without EPA or
NHTSA approval in order to better match test cycles with a vehicle's end use. If the vehicle
manufacturer could select the cycle, then there would be less opportunity for untended consequences
such as changing the number of transmission gears in order to move a vehicle from one test cycle to the
next. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.43]
As it turns out, a vocational vehicle with this 8-speed transmission would always fall into the Regional
subcategory - by a large margin. This is not in-line with the expectation that most vehicles would be
classified as Multi-Purpose. Allison requests that EPA and NHTSA revise the classification approach to
account for ATs with 8 or more speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.41]
-------
In order to avoid classifications that do not reflect the actual work done by such vehicles, the available
calibrations for 8-speed transmissions might be restricted. Although restricting the number of gears
would avoid the adverse classification, it would also result in a less fuel efficient vehicle, with greater
GHG emissions, when the vehicle traveled at highway speeds. Again, such a result should be avoided in
the final rule and such vehicles should be able to be classified as Multi-Purpose or Urban. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.41]
Maximum Engine Test Speed Is Flawed
EPA and NHTSA are considering new vocational vehicle weightings for Urban vehicles. Under these
weightings, transient operation would be at 92%, operation at 55 MPH at 7%, and 65 MPH operation at
1%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1892-A1 p.9]
The applicable definition to qualify for treatment as an Urban vehicle is that the vehicle must be > 90%
of max test speed at 55 MPH. But when the math is examined closely, the following result is obtained:
65/55 x 90% of maximum test speed results in the engine running at 106.4% of maximum test speed.
For example, with a maximum engine test speed 2000 rpm, 90% of test speed at 55 MPH = 1800 rpm;
engine speed at 65 MPH = 2124 rpm engine speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.9]
Maximum engine test speed (for constant-speed engines), however, is defined as no-load governed
speed (speed which yields zero torque). By definition, the engine cannot operate under power above
maximum test speed. In order to correct this error, Allison recommends zero 65 MPH cycle weight be
used in the Urban cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.9]
Regional/Multipurpose Vehicle Breakpoint
Upon closer review of the Proposed Rule, however, it appears that there are a number of configurations
that are 2 points from the Regional/Multi-Purpose breakpoint. Specifically, there are construction
vehicles with 7-speed transmissions classified as Regional when the majority of their use is expected to
be low speed on/off road duty - a use pattern which is more in line with the Multi-Purpose duty cycle.
In addition, we are currently encouraging the vehicle OEMs to configure the transmissions as 6 speeds
so they will get the best possible fuel efficiency under all operating conditions. But the Proposed Rule
could incentivize the configuring of transmissions at less than 6 speeds in order to change classification
(which would also result in a lower stringency level). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.40]
Therefore, Allison would recommend reducing the breakpoint between Regional and Multi-Purpose
classifications from 75 to 70 to address this issue. Allison has examined data from over 8,000 vehicles
using an Allison transmission. Based on this data, adjusting the breakpoint would change the
classification split to be: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.40]
Regional 3%; Multi-purpose 95%; Urban 2%
This is more in line with what we would expect to occur in the real world commercial use of vocational
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.40]
In the vocational vehicle section of the Proposed Rule and RIA, all of the assumptions regarding
vocational vehicles boil down to the population splits shown below. It is very strongly influenced by
assumptions about the distribution of the group that MOVES calls "short haul straight trucks." [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.40]
[Chart, 'Cycle weightings by percent of population', can be found on p.40 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1]
-------
EPA indicates in the memorandum that "[a]nother simplification being considered is to assign each type
of custom chassis certified with simplified GEM to a single weight class that represents the majority of
vehicles of that type."2 Allison believes, however, that this would result in an oversimplification of the
complexities of medium heavy-duty ("MHD") and HHD vocational vehicles. For example, emergency
vehicles are found in HHD in addition to MHD. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-A1 p.5]
An unintended consequence of oversimplification would also be to deter innovation and responses to
market changes over the long time period covered by the Phase 2 Rule. Specifically, vehicles that are
numerous in one classification today would likely remain in this classification due to a regulatory
disincentive to downsize or "right size" based on the needs of a specific intended use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1892-A1 p.5]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - Assignment of vocational subcategories
The NPRM requests comment on the assignment of vocational chassis to regulatory categories. CARB
staff supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA's assignment of regulatory subcategories for vocational vehicles.
We recognize the broad range of uses in the vocational sector which dictates the use of many different
test cycles to fully encompass all of the vocational duty cycles. However, there is also a need for
simplicity in regulating vocational manufacturers to reduce unnecessary burden on both manufacturers
and regulators. The proposal of nine subcategories for the vocational sector addresses and balances
these two competing factors. The proposal to allow manufacturers to request a different duty cycle
would provide necessary flexibility for those vocational vehicles that are not properly accounted for by
these simplified subcategories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.63]
The NPRM requests comment on allowing vocational vehicle manufacturers to request a different duty
cycle versus allowing them to select a test cycle without any need for U.S. EPA or NHTSA approval.
CARB staff supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA's proposal for assigning vocational vehicle test cycles
through the designated formulas, while still allowing manufacturers to petition to use an alternative.
CARB staff does not support allowing manufacturers complete freedom in choosing a test cycle. CARB
staff believes that this freedom could lead manufacturers to test on cycles that are not applicable to the
duty cycle of the vehicle in an effort to meet less stringent emission standards. The proposed mechanism
of allowing manufacturers to petition for use of an alternative test method means that manufacturers
must show proof that the vehicle they are certifying meets the criteria for the specific test cycle.
Although slightly more burdensome for regulators, CARB staff believes the requirement of a petition to
test on an alternative cycle will keep manufacturers from trying to circumvent the emission standards
and is the best approach to take. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 124]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The proposed standards lack clear criteria for determining which vocational category should apply to a
given vehicle configuration. The proposed criteria of maximum test speed and gear ratios do not provide
the requisite definitional certainty upon which to base such fundamental aspects of the proposed
standards.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Categorization into urban, multipurpose, and regional - The agencies propose to split vocational
categories into three, based on speed. We see upsides and downsides to this approach. In particular, we
-------
are concerned that the agencies' definition for each of the categories does not align with the agencies'
expectations. For example, the agencies estimated that their definition of "urban" vehicles would
capture 25% of the vocational market (based on calculations shared with the industry through the
docket). By contrast, when we use F_n_test figures to calculate, we find that less than 3% do. In turn,
this leads to an extremely troublesome error in the agencies' use of "normalization," which is strongly
dependent on the percentage of vehicles in each subcategory— and this leads to our recommendation to
drop normalization altogether. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.31]
Almost all vehicles come out in multi-purpose, contrary to the agencies' assumptions. One possible
explanation for this disparity is the sensitivity of the categorization to minor changes in F_n_test: a
slight change (100 or 200 RPM) in F_n_test can result in a large change in the percentages of vehicles
in each bin. This demonstrates a problem, however: the possibility that manufacturers might adjust
engine parameters to game the system, making tiny engine changes to move vehicles into other speed
categories. In summary, without accurate categorization and without accurate numbers for the
percentage of vehicles in each category, the normalization and equalization processes will fail; so we
recommend dropping them. Moreover, because few vehicles come up in some of the categories, and
because they are widely varied, we propose a weight-based vocational split (described below). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014- 0827-1164-A1 p.31]
Alternative for Categorization Proposal that Eliminates the Need for Normalization
and Equalization - During discussions with the agencies this summer, the agencies floated the
proposal to amend the NPRM's categorization technique to allow manufacturers to simulate vocational
vehicles in two speed categories (urban, MP, or regional) and ultimately categorize the vehicle into the
category where it appears best. The idea behind this new proposal is that the agencies would assume that
vehicle manufacturers design each vocational vehicle to be appropriate for its duty cycle, such that we
may look after the design at the appropriate categories and match them to how we designed the vehicle.
This being the case, there would no longer be a need to try to stop manufacturers from shifting vehicles
from one speed category to another, which is the purpose of the normalization and equalization
processes. In turn, this proposal allows us to get rid of those processes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p.32]
In this categorization, we would subdivide MHD vehicles into Class 6 and Class 7 but keep vehicles of
all speeds in one category. The top table shows that almost all of the Class 6 vehicles are of one engine
type and (not shown in this table but available in a confidential setting) of one transmission type, and
that most of the Class 7 vehicles are similarly homogeneous. This homogeneity of engine type and
vehicle weight allows a very uniform choice of target technologies. Similarly in Class 8, splitting into
narrower weight bands than simply everything over 33,000 lb. allows us to create homogenous
categories. For the sake of giving an example, we have chosen some weight ranges of 33k to 50k, in
which most of the vehicles have one type of engine, 50k to 70k, in which most have two types, and 70k
and above in which most have one type. Again, this simplifies the process of categorizing vehicles and
choosing target technologies. Of course, this does not facilitate the agencies' goal of assigning a
penetration rate of hybrids, but as we describe elsewhere in these comments, hybrids are not an
appropriate technology for the agencies' standard setting. We understand that we sprung this idea on the
agencies at the end of the comment period, and that it is a complicated idea marking a radical departure
from the agencies' proposal, so we recommend that we talk through the idea with the agencies. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.32]
Organization: NAFA Fleet Management Association
-------
Fleet needs are diverse. Payback periods and fuel savings vary by use. A case in point - the duty cycle
requirements for a tree trimming company may differ from the requirements of an electric utility,
although both may use comparable vehicles. Some technologies will not fit in some uses. With respect
to vocational vehicles, the proposal attempts to create silos. The agencies propose that a vocational
chassis would be presumed to certify using the Multi-Purpose duty cycle unless some criteria is met
indicating that another duty cycle would be more appropriate. The agencies acknowledge that even
within certain vocational vehicle types, vehicle use varies significantly. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1
p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 180-
181.]]
We are concerned with the statement in the proposal - "while intended service class may help a
manufacturer decide how to classify some vehicles, we do not believe that intended service class would
be a sufficient indicator by itself." [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.3]
Response:
At proposal, we described a process of assigning vocational chassis to regulatory subcategories based on
a calculation of the engine speed in relation to the vehicle speed. As proposed, the multipurpose
subcategory was the default subcategory; however, if the vehicle's engine speed at 55 mph was above
the cut-point specified for that engine type (CI or SI) then the vehicle would be assigned to the Urban
subcategory. Similarly, if the vehicle's engine speed at 65 mph was below the cut-point specified for
that engine type (CI or SI) then the vehicle would be assigned to the Regional subcategory. We also
proposed some exceptions, such as specifying that hybrids would be in the Urban subcategory. Since
proposal, the agencies have completed our work under the interagency agreement with DOE-NREL, and
we have carefully considered all the comments related to this issue.
We note that several comments persuasively identify weaknesses in the proposed approach.
Specifically, Allison explained that vehicles with two shift schedules would need clarification as to
which top gear to use when calculating the applicable cut-point. Also, Daimler noted that, to the extent
that downspeeding occurs in this sector over the next decade or more, cutpoints based on today's fleet
may not be valid for a future fleet. Allison noted that the presence of additional top gears could strongly
influence the subcategory placement of vocational vehicles. These comments highlight the possibility
of misclassification, and the potential pitfalls in a mandated classification scheme. Another weakness in
the proposed approach is that even though we have obtained a great deal of data thanks to manufacturer
cooperation and NREL duty cycle analysis, the only regulatory cut-point in which we have a high
degree of confidence is the (proposed) cut-point between Regional and Multipurpose class 8 diesels.
Any cut-points we could establish based on available data for lower weight class diesels or for gasoline
powered vocational vehicles would be less robust.
These weaknesses have led the agencies to take a different approach to assigning vehicles to
subcategories. The agencies are adopting final regulations that generally allow manufacturers to choose
a subcategory, with a revised set of constraints relating largely to transmission type. In a regulatory
structure where baselines are equal but future standards for vehicles in different subcategories have
different stringencies, the agencies would typically assign subcategorization based on regulatory criteria
rather than allowing the manufacturers unconstrained choice of subcategory because manufacturers
could have a strong incentive to simply choose the least stringent standards. However, because the
baseline performance levels of the different vocational vehicle regulatory subcategories differ widely,
the agencies have determined that it is acceptable to adopt standards with unequal stringencies using the
same methodology used to set all of the other standards in the Phase 2 rule: determining stringency
based on the performance of the technologies in the projected compliance path, weighted by the
penetration rates for those technologies. Considering the final test cycles and technology effectiveness
-------
values, we no longer believe manufacturers will be able to easily make simple design changes and
qualify for less stringent standards.
In the final weeks before promulgation of the Phase 2 rules, the agencies received significant new
comments from vehicle manufacturers, which suggest there is some uncertainty with respect to the three
drive cycle structure being adopted. Please see Section 6.1.4 above to read the agencies' response to
these new comments and the potential implications for the framework of the vocational vehicle
program.
In the final regulatory structure, although the standards for vocational vehicles in different subcategories
have different stringencies, the agencies can allow the manufacturers a large degree of freedom to
choose a vehicle's subcategory. We are not particularly concerned that adopting final standards with
unequal percent improvements poses a danger of losing environmental benefits from this program, as
long as vehicle configurations are properly classified at the time of certification. As just noted, the final
standards described in Section V.C.2.d of the Preamble are derived directly from the technology
packages without applying any assumptions about fleet averages. Thus, unlike at proposal, the final
regulations will generally allow manufacturers to certify in the particular duty-cycle subcategory they
believe to be most appropriate. Note that manufacturers may make this choice as part of the
certification process and will not be allowed to change it after the vehicle has been introduced into
commerce. Under this structure, the agencies expect manufacturers to normally choose a subcategory
for each vehicle configuration that best represents the type of operation that vehicle will actually
experience in use (presuming the manufacturer and customer would specify the technologies to reflect
such operation).
The constraints discussed below and in the Preamble Section V.D.l.e are being adopted as interim
provisions in response to manufacturers' concerns that some of them could present competitive
disadvantages, where different manufacturers produce very different sales mixes of vehicles equipped
with different transmission types, as discussed in Section Error! Reference source not found..
The agencies are adopting final regulations that generally allow manufacturers to choose a subcategory,
using good engineering judgment as set forth in 40 CFR 1068.5. We also are adopting a set of
constraints on duty-cycle selection that have been revised substantially from those proposed. Because
the baseline configurations against which vehicles in the Urban subcategories will measure their future
performance do not include any manual transmissions, we have determined that vocational vehicles with
manual transmissions may not be certified as Urban. In the real world, we do not expect any vehicles
intended to be used in urban driving patterns will be specified with manual transmissions. Driver
fatigue and other performance problems, especially the need for frequent shifting, make this an illogical
choice of transmission. Because the drive idle cycle has a higher weight in Urban than in Regional or
Multipurpose, and because manual transmissions have relatively low drive idle emissions, allowing
manual transmission-equipped vehicles to be certified as Urban would inappropriately reward a
technology that would not see in-use benefit, since the vehicle would not be used in urban settings for
the reasons just explained. It is thus appropriate for us to adopt this constraint. In addition, as described
in Chapter 2.9.2 of the RIA, both the HHD Regional and HHD Multipurpose baselines have a blend of
manual transmissions, although the majority of manuals are in the HHD Regional baseline. Further, by
MY 2024, our adoption rate of transmission technology reflects zero manuals in HHD Multipurpose.
Thus, beginning in MY 2024, any vocational vehicle certified with a manual transmission must be
classified in a Regional subcategory.
We are not adopting constraints on vehicles with automated manual transmissions certifying in either
Regional or Multipurpose subcategories, because we believe this is a technology that can provide real
world benefits for vehicles with those driving patterns. However, we are adopting a constraint to
prevent vehicles with AMT from being certified as Urban for a reason similar to one described above
-------
for manuals, namely that in the real world, we do not expect any vehicles intended to be used in urban
driving patterns will be specified with transmissions that do not have powershifts. Lack of smooth
shifting characteristics during low speed accelerations and decelerations make AMT an illogical choice
of transmission for urban vehicles, suggesting that any such classification would be inappropriate. Also,
for reasons similar to those just given for manual transmissions, AMT have relatively low drive idle
emissions. Thus, allowing AMT-equipped vehicles to be certified as Urban would inappropriately
reward a technology that would not see in-use benefit, since the vehicle would not be used in urban
settings for the reasons just explained.
Due to performance expectations we believe it is unlikely that an owner of a vehicle with a true urban
driving pattern would choose an AMT or manual rather than an automatic transmission. Because both
our baseline and future technology adoption rates exclude manual and AMT from consideration in the
urban subcategories, we believe it is reasonable to exclude them from certification over this cycle.
Dual clutch transmissions have very recently become available for medium heavy-duty vocational
vehicles and very little data are available on their design or performance. We anticipate that in the
future, some designs may have features that make them perform similarly to AMT's while others may
have features that make them more similar to automatics with torque converters. Because we are not
confident that we know in which duty cycle(s) they are best suited, we are adopting a partial constraint
on these, namely that dual clutch transmissions without powershifting must also be constrained out of
Urban. We are finalizing as proposed that any vehicle whose engine is exclusively certified over the
SET must be certified in the Regional subcategory. Further, to the extent manufacturers of intercity
coach buses and recreational vehicles opt these into the full program, these also must be certified as
Regional vehicles. We are not finalizing the proposed constraint on hybrid configurations in the Urban
test cycle.
Based on NREL drive cycle analysis of the existing fleet, we imagine that HHD vehicles with a diesel
engine rpm of 1,400 and below when the vehicle is at 65 mph would be appropriately certified as
Regional vehicles. However, this is illustrative only, and (unlike the proposed rules) the final rules do
not include an engine speed cut-point as a criterion in subcategory selection.
6.5.2 Test Procedures
Organization: Edison Electric Institute
o We support the addition of test cycle procedures that include the ability to capture
workday idle reduction;38 however, e-PTO systems are sufficiently distinct from neutral
idle or stop-start technologies that they should qualify for separate off-cycle credits
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 16]
o Add a charge-depleting test cycle option to the hybrid-PTO test cycle that would better
capture the fuel savings capabilities of these systems [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-
A2 p. 16]
o Ensure that manufactures wishing to certify e-PTO systems for off-cycle credits are
given proper credit for the fuel savings and greenhouse gas reduction capabilities of
these systems [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1327-A2 p. 16]
Response:
We agree with the commenter that a charge-depleting e-PTO test cycle will better capture the fuel
savings from a plug-in hybrid system. The agencies have partnered with NREL to conduct an analysis
-------
of operational data on utility work trucks, and as a result, the final regulations include a utility factor
table for use in the hybrid PTO test procedure described at 40 CFR 1037.540. Further discussion of e-
PTO technologies is found above in Section 6.3.6.3.
6.6 HFC Leakage Standards for Vocational Vehicles
6.6.1 Feasibility of Applying HFC Leakage Technologies for Vocational Vehicles
13 lOOrganization: ABC Bus Companies, Inc.
HVAC systems on motorcoaches are required to maintain a comfortable and healthy environment to as
many as 81 passengers on a single motorcoach. Given that some of these systems are more than 10 tons,
unreasonable changes to these systems could be very costly and hard to forecast many years out. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.2]
Organization: New Flyer of America Inc.
In our discussions with other transit bus manufacturers (including Gillig LLC) and the American Public
Transit Association (APTA), we share aligned concerns on other aspects of the program which are
related to vocational classification, including air conditioning leakage (transit buses have significantly
larger and more complex air conditioning systems than trucks), and payload. New Flyer believes the
differences in vehicle systems and the operating characteristics warrant distinctive classification. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1306-A1 p.2]
Organization: GILLIG LLC
"EPA believes the capacity of vocational vehicle air conditioning systems are sufficiently similar to
those of other HD vehicles to apply a similar leakage standard as was applied in the HD Phase 1
program for tractors and HD pickup trucks and vans." We strongly encourage the EPA to revisit this
underlying assumption and the part of the rule specifying allowable maximum refrigerant leak rates.
Transit buses have appropriately sized air conditioning systems many times larger than other vocational
vehicles to keep large passenger compartments supplied with conditioned air in hot and high humidity
conditions. Again, this is essential for passenger comfort and safety. Additionally, system design details
to allow for manufacturability in low volumes, vehicle integration/assembly, and ease of maintenance to
meet the needs of this heavy duty vehicle segment are not similar to other vocational vehicles. Transit
buses should be placed into their own subcategory separate from other vocational vehicles with
standards more aligned with the types/sizes of air conditioning systems used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1156-A1 p.3]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Finalize HFC leakage provisions for vocational vehicles
EDF fully supports EPA's proposal to apply A/C refrigerant leakage standards to Class 2b-8 vocational
vehicles. Excluded in the Phase 1 rule, vocational vehicles have air conditioning systems similar to
tractors and contribute to HFC emissions through leaks. We agree that vocational A/C systems should
be subject to the same A/C provisions as tractors and 2b/3 vehicles as proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.51]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
-------
AC leak rate limits: Carrying the leak rate limits from tractors to vocational vehicles is a good
approach. In particular, we agree with the approach of basing compliance on the SAE J2727 calculation-
based procedure rather than testing but allowing Helium testing as an option. Further, given the variety
of vocational vehicles, and in turn the variety of AC configurations for those vehicles, we agree with the
EPA's approach of not tightening the AC leak rate standards at the same time as the standards are
extended to vocational vehicles. We agree with the EPA's approach of having the present standards
apply only to chassis-cab AC systems, as opposed to AC systems that might be on a refrigerated van
truck, as those are installed by manufacturers other than the vehicle manufacturer, and we have no
familiarity with those systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 110]
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law
The agencies have made several changes to the Phase 2 rule that are consistent with our previous
comments. Finally, the agencies have now proposed air conditioning leakage standards for vocational
vehicles (though, regrettably, still no air conditioning efficiency standards or credits). For more on
Policy Integrity's views on heavy-duty vehicle regulation, see our comments on the Phase 1
rulemaking.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1195-A1 p.3] 161
http://policvintegritv.org/files/publications/2211 Regulatory Report 2011 Heavy Trucks Rule.pdf
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Extension of AC leakage standard to vocational vehicles
U.S. EPA and NHTSA are proposing to retain the AC leakage standard adopted in the Phase 1 program.
U.S. EPA and NHTSA are also proposing extending the AC leakage standard to class 2b-8 vocational
vehicles, which were excluded from the leakage standard in Phase 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p. 143]
CARB staff supports the proposal to continue the AC leakage standard adopted in the Phase 1 program.
CARB staff believes that the leak rate limits in the Phase 1 program are at appropriate levels that
balance technical feasibility and emission reduction goals. CARB staff further supports the proposal to
extend the AC leakage standard to class 2b-8 vocational vehicles, because the main obstacles
(complexity in building process and potentially different entities other than chassis manufacturers
involved in production and installation) identified during Phase 1 regulation development have been
resolved with new information received during Phase 2 rulemaking process. CARB staff further
believes that it is appropriate to set the leak rate limits for vocational vehicles at the same levels as for
other tractors, heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans, due to the substantial similarity of the AC systems
for these vehicle classifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 143]
Response:
We are adopting as proposed final regulations that apply the Phase 1 level A/C leakage standards to
vocational vehicles for the reasons set out at proposal. We note that the comments essentially all
supported the proposed approach. The agencies also note that the leakage standards are in terms of
percent leakage (not an absolute amount of leakage) to take into account that air conditioning systems
come in various sizes. We are not adopting any exemptions or exclusions to this requirement, aside
from vehicles qualifying for an engine-only standard under 40 CFR 1037.631. However, in view of
concerns expressed from some manufacturers about the complexity of A/C systems on large buses, we
have reconsidered the compliance process for certifying leakage rates of A/C systems with refrigerant
charge capacities greater than 3,000 grams. See Section 6.6.2 below for details on this process.
-------
With respect to comments about credits for efficient A/C systems, please see Section 6.3.6.2, above,
regarding electrified accessories.
6.6.2 HFC Compliance Provisions for Vocational Vehicles
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
Section 1037.115(e) of the Proposed Rules is the air conditioning leakage requirement which, as
drafted, would not apply to refrigeration units installed on trailers or for refrigeration units on vocational
vehicles that are limited to cooling cargo. RVIA requests that EPA clarify in the final rule that the air
conditioning leakage requirement also does not apply to air conditioning units in motorhomes used to
cool the living space rearward of the driver. These self-contained rooftop mounted units, by design, are
inherently less prone to leakage. Further, the companies that manufacture these units have no
relationship with the chassis suppliers who are covered by this regulation nor are they integrated in any
way with the motorhome manufacturers that purchase the chassis. Application of the air conditioning
leakage standard to living-space cooling units would thus be inappropriate, impracticable, and
potentially extremely difficult and costly for regulated parties. EPA should clarify that air conditioning
leakage requirements do not apply to living-space cooling units in motorhomes rearward of the driver.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p.28]
Organization: Mobile Climate Control (MCC)
To further illustrate the difference between tractor and HD vehicle HVAC vs bus HVAC systems you
can look to the SAE J2727 standard which gives a chart for calculating mobile air-conditioning system
annual refrigerant emissions. This standard comes from automotive and may give good compliance
when calculating the annual refrigerant emissions from a tractor or HD vehicle HVAC system. When
you try to apply the same standard for calculating the emissions from a large bus HVAC system you
find that the fitting types, compressor seals, and even refrigerant options are not all covered or contained
at all within the standard. In the requirement, leakage rates are to be calculated in accordance with 40
CFR 86.1867-12(a). This code of federal regulations specifies refrigerant leakage rates be determined
using SAE J2727, where the hose permeation rates be calculated in accordance with SAE J 2064.
As an example both methods were used to estimate refrigerant leakage rate for a typical bus rearmount
air conditioning unit, i.e., SAE J2727 in total, and SAEJ2727 supplemented with SAE J2064 for the
hose assembly contribution. Each calculation used Aeroquip FC558 hose assemblies as the connection
between the rearmount and compressor. The results are as follows: SAE J2727 — 0.56% leakage rate in
g/year; SAE J2727 and SAE J2065 - 14.2% leakage rate in g/year. Using SAE J2727 alone resulted in
an optimistic value for estimated refrigerant leakage rate. As previously stated above it should be noted
that SAE J2727 was primarily developed to characterize automotive systems, where the size, range and
type of fittings outlined in this category are not specifically applicable for bus HVAC applications and
likely does not adequately represent these applications. Conversely, hose assembly refrigerant leakage
rates determined by using the test methods illustrated in SAE J2064 result in conservative estimates.
Although these test methods are used by hose manufacturers and subsequently integrated into their
specific hose specification, the calculated permeability rate has not been observed in actual practice.
Given the wide range between the two calculated values, it would seem premature to target and accept a
1.5% leakage rate without further testing and investigation.
Response:
-------
We agree with commenter that the proposed regulations were unclear as to our intended applicability of
air conditioning units in motor homes. In the final rule, we are adopting regulations to clarify that the
low leakage standard applies for air conditioning or refrigeration units on vocational vehicles only if
they draw power from engines used to propel the vehicles. See 40 CFR 1037.115(e). With this
clarification, we are excluding independently powered roof units or other auxiliary powered units. We
believe systems driven by propulsion engines are most likely to be within the control of the certifying
manufacturer.
In response to concerns that the procedure for calculating leak rates may not be representative of leak
rates of components used in very large mobile air conditioning systems, we are adopting provisions to
allow manufacturers to certify using another method. The final regulations at 40 CFR 1037.115(e)
include a statement that, "If air conditioning systems with capacity above 3000 grams of refrigerant are
designed such that a compliance demonstration under 40 CFR 86.1867-12(a) is impossible or
impractical, you may ask to use alternative means to demonstrate that your air conditioning system
achieves an equivalent level of control."
6.6.3 Program-Wide HFC Compliance Provisions
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Institute for Governance and
Sustainable Development (IGSD)
We also encourage EPA to strengthen refrigerant leakage requirements in order to reduce leakage of
high-GWP refrigerants in advance of the phase-out of those refrigerants. Specifically, we suggest that
EPA require that manufacturers take steps to ensure that low leak rates are achieved over the life of the
vehicles. The methods used to estimate refrigerant leakage in SAE J2727 do not appear sufficient to
ensure or even predict emissions rates over these vehicles' lifetimes of millions of driven miles, sleeper
cab use (for long-haul Class 8 trucks), vibrations from independently suspended truck components,
larger charge sizes, and many other conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1305-A1 p.2]
In order to better demonstrate the efficacy of low-leak systems, EPA should require that manufacturer
conduct stress testing of air conditioning components to provide an indication of their durability under
road conditions. Likewise, EPA might also require that OEMs conduct road testing, which could offer a
better picture of on-road wear and tear. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1305-A1 p.2]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM states that U.S. EPA and NHTSA are not proposing a specific in-use standard for leakage,
because neither test procedures nor facilities exist to measure refrigerant leakage from a vehicle's air
conditioning system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 142]
While existing test procedures (SAE Standard J2763 and J2762) could be used to assess refrigerant
leakage, such procedures are time consuming and costly, and thus impractical. Therefore, CARB is not
opposed to U.S. EPA and NHTSA's position of not proposing an in-use standard for leakage at this
time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 142]
Information required for AC leakage standard certification
To show compliance with the AC leakage standard, U.S. EPA and NHTSA are only requiring the
manufacturer to provide refrigerant leak rates, describe the type of refrigerant, and identify the
refrigerant capacity of the air conditioning systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.142]
-------
CARB staff believes more information ought to be required to afford U.S. EPA and NHTSA the
opportunity to verify the leakage calculation and to track technological development. CARB staff
recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA require the following information from the manufacturer: the
calculation that leads to the refrigerant leak rate estimates, and specifications of the system components
with sufficient detail to allow reproduction of the calculation. This level of detail is consistent with the
information that CARB staff requires light-duty manufacturers to report under the AC credit provisions
in its "Advanced Clean Cars" programs for light-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 142-143]
Emission-related warranty covers components whose failure would increase a vehicle's emissions
of air conditioning refrigerants
U.S. EPA and NHTSA are proposing that the emission-related warranty cover components whose
failure would increase a vehicle's emissions of AC refrigerants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 144]
CARB staff supports this proposal. Although most refrigerant emissions occur as refrigerant gradually
leaks through fittings, connection, and seals, and permeates through hoses ("regular leakage"), sudden
failure of AC components may lead to the loss of the entirety or a significant portion of the refrigerant
charge in a short period of time ("irregular loss"). Requiring that the emission-related warranty cover
those components not only provides a venue to restore the system back to working order when
component failure occurs, but also promotes the use of technologies more durable and less prone to
failure, hence helping to prevent failure and reduce emissions at the design level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 144]
Organization: Honeywell Fluorine Products
SAE J2727 Does Not Properly Consider Real World Circumstances for Leakage Rates from HD, MD
and VV [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.3]
In the Proposed Rule, EPA proposes to extend the application of SAE Surface Vehicle Standard J2727
scoring system as an appropriate approach to determine leakage rates from HD, MD and, now by
extension, VV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.3]
"EPA is proposing a requirement that vocational chassis manufacturers compare the components of a
vehicle's A/C system with a set of leakage-reduction technologies and actions that is based closely on
that developed through the Improved Mobile Air Conditioning program and SAE International (as SAE
Surface Vehicle Standard J2727, "HFC-134a, Mobile Air Conditioning System Refrigerant Emission
Chart," August 2008 version). See generally 75 FR 25426. The SAE J2727 approach was developed
from laboratory testing of a variety of A/C related components, and EPA believes that the J2727 leakage
scoring system generally represents a reasonable correlation with average real-world leakage in new
vehicles." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.3]
We believe that while SAE J2727 may be an accurate predictor of leakage rates in new light duty
passenger vehicles, it has not been proven to be accurate in predicting "real-world leakage" in HD
vehicles. Studies have shown that leakage rates as expressed as a percentage of the initial charges show
a range of 7.3 to 11.5 % (8.9 average) annually for heavy duty vehicles vs. generally 1.5- 3% range for
light duty vehicles.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.3]
-------
To properly account for leakage from AC units in HD vehicles, the scoring system must consider the
significantly higher miles and heavier pounding these vehicles endure each year and over the life of the
vehicle, as well as variation.5 HD vehicles often have much higher annual mileage usage, in many cases
over 100,000 miles per year and 1-2 million miles over the lifetime of the vehicle. In addition, HD
vehicles have different loads (engine torque on A/C compressor and engine/road vibration loads on A/C
lines, fittings, and components) on its A/C components, which likely results in higher leakage rates than
light duty vehicles. Finally since many HD trucks have sleeper cabs, the air conditioning systems are
often run even when the vehicle is not moving, adding further to the wear and tear of the A/C system.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.3-4]
We request EPA to consider more fully these real world realities of harder pounding over many more
miles in assigning leakage rates over time for HD A/C systems. While a design based approach in
estimating leakage may have applicability to new HD vehicles, we believe that real world performance
based testing would reveal short comings in the application of SAE J2727 to HD, MD, and VV over the
life of the vehicle. We suggest EPA gather leak rate data on older heavily used vehicles to determine if
the leak rates predicted by SAE J2727 are accurate over the life of the vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1191-A1 p.4]
Response:
We are finalizing requirements as proposed to include A/C leakage components in the emissions-related
warranty, for the reasons stated at proposal. We note further CARB's support, which endorses the
agencies' reasoning. Similarly, in light of supportive comments from CARB, we are not adopting in-use
HFC leakage requirements. We disagree that we need to collect more information from manufacturers.
We are collecting a sufficient level of detail about compliance with the HFC leakage standard at the
time of certification. In addition, the manufacturers are required to maintain the level of detail
suggested by CARB as part of the recordkeeping requirements. EPA may audit those records at any
time. The agencies also note that the study referred to in the Honeywell comments was conducted in
2007, prior to the implementation of HFC leakage standards for tractors and HD pickups in Phase 1.
Thus, this study does not support the commenter's assertion that SAE 2727 may not be an appropriate
test procedure for HD vehicles. For responses to comments about our methods for estimating direct
leakage emissions of HFC from A/C systems on HD vehicles, please see Section 9.2.
7 Pickups and Vans
7.1 General Comments
Response:
There are no comments in this section 7.1.
7.2 Proposed Pickup and Van Standards for C02 and Fuel Consumption
7.2.1 Stringency of Standards
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Implicit and Explicit Challenges of Alternative 3 - The proposed Phase 2 Alternative 3 stringency is
greater than Phase 1. Alternative 3 is aggressive and will drive technology into product. Proposals for
-------
greater stringency than Alternative 3 are not supportable given the required early introduction of
unproven technologies with their associated consumer acceptance risk, as well as the many implicit
risks that impact stringency. All of these risks are detailed in our comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.2]
Phase-in of Alternative 3 Stringency - AAPC recommends a phased-in approach to the full 2027
model year stringency rather than applying a constant 2.5% per year improvement rate to both gas and
diesel vehicles standards similar to what was done by the agencies in the Phase 1 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1238-A1 p.2]
Need for Customer Acceptance
AAPC strongly believes that the Phase 2 program must continue to recognize the unique functionality
and utility needs of the trucking industry, and that this regulation must preserve the performance
integrity and capability of these work trucks. Consumers value the payload and towing capabilities these
work vehicles offer and the Phase 2 standards proposed by EPA and NHTSA should continue to align
with the industry and business needs of this demographic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.6]
There are a couple of very important trends apparent with the customers who purchase vehicles
impacted by this regulation. First, the heavy-duty customer is clearly different than the light-duty
customer. This is evidenced in that the most important reason for purchase, across the segment, is
capability. Research suggests that heavy-duty customers are five times more likely to cite towing
requirements than any other single reason for purchase. Second, the heavy-duty customer is most likely
to purchase a truck for fleet/commercial needs. Commercial customers view the vehicles as tools to get
their jobs done and as pivotal to the underlying success of their business. Customers value proven and
durable vehicles with powertrains that meet their capability needs with minimal down-time. The total
cost of ownership is an important consideration in this segment. The significant price premium
associated with advanced technologies has the potential to upset a demanding customer base. This
would be exacerbated if the technologies prove to have little to no benefit on actual, real-world fuel
consumption, such as those technologies whose impact is minimized under heavy loads. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.6-7]
AAPC commends the agencies for repeatedly commenting on the need to preserve consumer choice—
that is, the proposed standards should not affect consumers' opportunity to purchase a vehicle with the
performance, utility and safety features that meets their needs. AAPC agrees and supports the use of
sales data, showing how customers critically balance capability with value, as highly indicative of the
demanding requirements within this segment of vehicle owners and operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.7]
Implicit and Explicit Challenges of Alternative 3
For the 2b/3 heavy-duty truck and van fleet, the Phase 2 rule's Alternative 3 is aggressive and will
challenge industry. It is concerning that there have been calls for even greater stringency beyond the
aggressive standards proposed by EPA and NHTSA for Phase 2. The following factors must be
addressed when evaluating stringency: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.8]
• Limited real data for setting standards - Manufacturers, the agencies and all other
stakeholders have a limited amount of real data under the Phase 1 program. While the light-duty
vehicle fleet has been regulated under NHTSA's CAFE program for roughly forty years, we are
-------
still very early in the Heavy-Duty program. Effectively, we have only one full model year of
industry data "under our belt." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.8]
• High levels of technology in baseline fleet - The baseline fleet has a high percentage of
advanced diesel technology making additional improvements considerably more challenging. In
the light-duty fleet, diesel technology accounts for 3% of fleet. In the heavy-duty fleet, diesels
account for over 50% of fleet. Advanced diesel aftertreatment (i.e., SCR) presented the greatest
opportunity for increased efficiency. However, it has already been applied to 100% of the Class
2b/3 diesel fleet today.
• Customer demand for more technology - Customer acceptance of vehicles with increasing
technology could be challenging for a customer base which has continually expressed a focus
on proven capability and utility. This is exacerbated by the forecast of sustained low oil prices
(EIA reference) which will limit a customer's willingness to pay for increased fuel economy.
Throughout the NPRM, the agencies repeatedly reference outstanding questions regarding the
relative risks in adopting alternative 4. AAPC agrees and is concerned that the required
technology penetration rates for alternative 4 places too much emphasis on early introduction of
advanced technology vehicles that are not yet part of this market. In addition, this risk places
manufacturers in considerable jeopardy for non-compliance should a given technology not
develop or make the expected fuel economy gains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.8]
[Table VI-21 can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1]
• Phase 2 technologies being used today - These work trucks have a wide range of "duty-
cycles" so assuming that a specific technology path will be valued by all customers equally is
inappropriate. All stakeholders need to learn more about customer acceptance in this very
diverse base. For example, FCA's modern gasoline engine has robust combustion with multiple
spark plugs, variable cam phasing, cylinder deactivation, and cooled EGR. These last two
technologies (cylinder deactivation and cooled EGR) are suggested Phase 2 gasoline engine
technologies (80 Federal Register 40351). Even with this level of gasoline engine technology,
FCA is challenged by the early year Phase 1 standards and will need to look at adding even
more technology for Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.9]
• "Downsizing" and "boosting" could be at odds with capability needs - Smaller displacement
boosted gasoline engine technology may be applicable in some variants of commercial vans, as
noted by Ford product actions. However, this technology is not suited for the pickup truck
variants in this segment because of customer demands for towing capability. The graphic below
illustrates fuel usage (brake specific fuel consumption vs kilowatts) effects from boosted
engines while doing work. A downsized boosted gasoline engine will use more fuel compared
to a larger naturally aspirated heavy-duty engine at higher loads as illustrated by the blue and
black lines in the figure below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.9]
[Chart of Engine BSFC and Engine Power can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1238-A1]
• Concurrent reductions in criteria emissions - The concurrent stringency increases in Tier
3/LEV III criteria emission requirements will negatively impact C02 and fuel consumption. For
example, there will be increased thermal loads, space velocity and NOx flux demands on
aftertreatment systems during US06 testing (e.g., enrichment) that will negatively impact C02
performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 10]
• Tier 3 emissions alignment with Phase 2 GHG stringency - The Phase 2 GHG draft RIA and
supporting technical analysis are incomplete and understate the actual stringency on chassis
certified Class 2b/3 products for all alternatives. Specifically, the negative aspects of recently
-------
released Tier 3 criteria emissions rules relative to GHG and fuel consumption are omitted from
the analysis. AAPC requests that the impact of Tier 3 criteria emissions on the Phase 2 GHG
proposal for 2019 - 2027MY be incorporated into cost, benefit, and technology projections and
assumptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 10]
AAPC estimates that the full impact of Tier 3 / LEV III requirements in 2025MY will result in an
effective stringency increase of >4% for gasoline spark ignited engines and >5% for compression
ignition engines. Furthermore the technologies and costs needed to make up the difference do not appear
to be incorporated into the existing RIA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.10-11]
[Table of Tier 3 and engine response and fuel consumption can be found on p. 11 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 ]
Phase-in of Alternative 3 Stringency
The class 2b/3 pickup trucks and vans regulated by the NPRM have very long product lifecycles. The
primary reason is the large amount of capital investment needed to update the vehicles and powertrains
that must be amortized over smaller annual volumes than typical light-duty vehicles. Because very few
of the components, including the powertrains, are shared with light-duty vehicles, this requires a longer
lifecycle in order to receive payback on the investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 12]
In order to better align with the significant capital investments required to meet the ambitious proposed
Phase 2 greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards, AAPC recommends a phased-in approach to the
full 2027 model year stringency rather than applying a constant 2.5% per year improvement rate to both
gas and diesel vehicles standards similar to what was done in the Phase 1 rule. Under this
recommendation, manufacturers are still required to achieve the exact same 2027 requirement, but are
given flexibility in the stringency to better align with the long lead time required to bring advanced
technology vehicles to market. Long lead time is critical given the cumulative impact of the finalized
Phase 1 and the proposed Phase 2 standards is 32.5% C02 improvement for diesel vehicles and 27.5%
C02 improvement for gas vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 12]
The 14 model years covered by the finalized Phase 1 and the proposed Phase 2 standards are typically
not even two complete product lifecycles for vehicles in the Class 2b/3 market. As a result, AAPC
members will be required to rapidly innovate, invest and refine advanced technologies that are both
appreciated and embraced by American consumers. The opportunity to phase-in to full 2027 stringency
would afford manufacturers the opportunity to make the right choices for their customers while
maintaining a sustainable business model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 12]
A phase-in approach to full stringency is consistent with how Phase 1 standards were handled (76
Federal Register 57293 Table VI-3): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 12]
[Tables, of estimated total vehicle C02 reductions for HD Pickup Trucks and Vans, and model year
percentage reductions, can be found on p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1]
Revising both the gas and diesel coefficients for the 2021-2026 model years to reflect the AAPC
proposal above would be consistent with the approach the agencies used in the Phase 1 regulation and
would help manufacturers manage the long lead time associated with developing the new vehicles and
powertrains that will be required in order to comply with the Phase 2 proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p. 13]
-------
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Heavy-duty pickups and vans
Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel pickups and vans will reduce their fuel consumption by 16% each in
2027 relative to the 2018 standards (p. 40338). Figure 2 uses the data in the rule docket for MY 201417
heavy-duty pickups and vans to display the distribution of models relative to the Phase 1 standards for
2014 and 2018. Two observations from the data relevant to the discussion below are: 1) work factor is a
far better predictor of fuel efficiency for pickups than for vans; and 2) at present, diesel vehicles
approach 2018 targets, while gasoline vehicles are approximately at 2014 target levels.
[Figure 2 can be found on p.20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
Standards for gasoline pickups and vans
The Phase 2 gasoline engine package draws primarily on research done by Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI).19 SwRI evaluated a host of technologies that were deemed suitable for the Phase 2 timeframe.
Engine technologies for gasoline pickups include cylinder deactivation, variable valve actuation/lift, and
friction reduction. Vehicle and transmission technologies include 8-speed transmission with high
efficiency gearbox, aero drag reduction, low rolling resistance tires, mass reduction, accessory
improvement, low drag brakes, and hybrids. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.21]
There is room for substantial improvement in the agencies' gasoline package, both in technology
effectiveness and in technology penetration. The agencies sometimes use lower effectiveness values
than SwRI finds, without providing justification. For example, agency effectiveness numbers for
cylinder deactivation, variable valve lift and turbodownsizing were much lower than the SwRI
estimates. The agencies assumed 22% penetration of cylinder deactivation and variable valve lift, which
is conservative. Considering the expected adoption of these technologies in light-duty vehicles and
considering the Phase 2 timeframe, we assume 50% penetration of these technologies in 2027. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.21]
A major shortcoming of the agency package is the absence of turbodownsizing for gasoline pickups,
although they used this technology for gasoline vans. Downsized, turbocharged engines offer a major
opportunity to improve gasoline vehicle fuel efficiency. SwRI compared a 6.2-liter V-8 gasoline engine
to a simulated downsized 3.5-liter V-6 and found 16% fuel savings. The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) study found turbocharged downsizing benefits in the range of 10-14%. Downsized, turbocharged
engines played a major role in the agencies' compliance scenario for the light-duty fuel efficiency
standards for model years 2017-25; the LD rule found 12.3% savings for 33% downsizing with
turbocharging.20 A gasoline engine largely can retain its performance when downsized and
turbocharged, but fuel savings benefits may be reduced or eliminated at high load operation, including
towing. This technology is therefore especially suitable for vehicles not regularly employed in heavy
towing. We assumed that at least 10% of pickups will adopt turbodownsizing in 2027 timeframe. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.21]
The agencies did not consider cooled exhaust gas recirculation for gasoline pickups. Cooled EGR can
reduce the fuel consumption of both direct-injected and port-injected gasoline engines by reducing
pumping losses, mitigating knock, cooling the exhaust, and eliminating the need for fuel enrichment.21
SwRI found 3.7% savings from cooled EGR. We assumed this technology only for pickups and vans
with turbocharged, downsized engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.22]
-------
Inclusion of hybrids in the agency package (10% for pickups, 6% for vans) is a positive step. The
agency estimate of 6% potential hybrid penetration for vans is likely too low, given that most of these
vehicles have urban and vocational-like operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.22]
In light of the above discussion, the standards for gasoline pickups and vans should reflect:
• Increased penetration of cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing. Use these technologies
for at least 50% of pickups. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.22]
• Increased the penetration of GDI and turbodownsizing to at least 10% of pickups and use
cooled EGR for all downsized pickups and vans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.22]
• The existing hybrid assumption (10% and 6% for pickups and vans by 2027) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1 p.22]
Tables 4 and 5 compare technology effectiveness and penetration, respectively, for the agency package
(Table VI-5, p. 40356) and in our estimate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.22]
[Table 4 can be found on p.22 and Table 5 can be found on p.23 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1]
The estimate of overall fuel consumption reductions needs to account for possible overlaps in benefits.
For engine and transmission technologies, there is a risk of double-counting benefits when more than
one technology in a package addresses the same efficiency losses. A recent ACEEE report discusses the
overlapping of benefits for gasoline pickups and vans engine and transmission technologies and
develops a correction factor of 23%.22 Using a multiplicative approach to combining technology
benefits, and applying the adjustment for overlapping of benefits, we estimate that the technologies
considered above, when applied at the revised penetration rates shown in table 5, provide a 22% average
reduction in fuel consumption for gasoline vehicles and vans relative to Phase 1 level, as shown in table
6. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.23]
[Table 6 can be found on p.23 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
This increment in gasoline pickups and vans will promote the integrity of the pickup market in two
ways: it will reduce the fuel economy gap between these pickups and full-size light-duty pickups; and it
will help reduce the efficiency gap between heavy-duty gasoline and diesel vehicles. Heavy-duty
gasoline pickups, according to the Phase 2 proposal, will attain 19.5 miles per gallon (mpg), on average,
in 2025 while contemporary LD pickups will average 32.5 mpg in 2025,23 as shown in table 7. That is,
LD pickups will have more than 50% higher fuel economy than HD gasoline pickups and vans will
achieve in 2025. Heavy duty pickups and full-size light duty pickups often use similar engine, vehicle,
and transmission technologies and are tested on the same test cycles with same cycle weighting for
certification,24 but at different weights. When light-duty fuel economy is corrected for the difference in
test weights, the discrepancy is still 43%. Any gap between fuel economy requirements for LD and HD
pickups for which there is no engineering rationale could produce distortions in the pickup market,
shifting sales toward the heavier vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.24]
[Table 7 can be found on p.24 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
Standards for diesel pickups and vans
The agencies' technology package for diesel pickups and vans uses the same vehicle and transmission
technologies as the gasoline package. Their engine package is not fully explained. The Phase 2 proposal
-------
says: "Diesel engines in the HD pickup and van segment are expected to have several improvements in
their base design in the 2021-2027 timeframe. These improvements include items such as improved
combustion management, optimal turbocharger design, and improved thermal management" (p. 40352).
The diesel engine technology evaluation, however, estimates savings from friction reduction, turbo
efficiency improvement, and engine downsizing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.24]
Although the agencies made a more conservative estimate of the potential for friction reduction than the
estimate from SwRI, estimates of effectiveness for turbo efficiency improvement and diesel engine
downsizing were the same as SwRI estimates. However, the agencies assume zero penetration of engine
downsizing for pickups. While the majority of these pickups may carry substantial loads and need high
towing capacities, some have low payload and towing capacities, and would be candidates for engine
downsizing. In the case of diesel vans, engine downsizing is already occurring. Some manufacturers are
providing this option, and its penetration is likely to increase overtime. We estimate 10% penetration of
engine downsizing for pickups and 30% penetration for vans in 2027. We also assume 6% penetration
of hybrids in vans, similar to gasoline vans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.25]
After accounting for the losses from overlapping of benefits for these vehicles, we estimate overall fuel
consumption reductions of 18% reduction for diesel pickups and vans beyond Phase 1 in 2027, an
additional 1.6% improvement from the agency estimate. Table 8 outlines the proposal and our estimate
for Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.25]
[Table 8 can be found on p.25 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1]
Recommendation: Stringency of standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.23]
• Increase the 2027 targets for gasoline pickups and vans by 7% to reflect the adoption of
advanced technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.23]
• Consider downsizing for diesel pickups with low work factor and vans, and increase the 2027
targets by 2%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.23]
17 Market-data_2014-10-28_CBI_2b3_MY2014_PB-3606. Rule docket.
18 http://www.autonews.eom/article/20140804/OEM/308049927/ford-gm-plav-with-numbers-for-
bragging-rights.
19 Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency Technology Study - Report #1.
NHTSA reportno. DOT HS 812 146, June 2015. Submitted to the Phase 2 rule docket.
20 "Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards. " Final Rule. Federal Register 77 (199). October 15, 2012
21"Cool and Clean: Cooled EGR Improves Fuel Economy and Emissions in Gasoline Engines."
Technology Today (Summer): 1013. http://www.swri.org/3pubs/ttodav/Summer 10/PDFs/Clean-and-
Cool.pdf
-------
22 Khan and Langer. 2015. "Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty
Pickups and Vans: Phase 2." ACEEE research report T1501. http://aceee.org/research-report/tl501
23 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards. " Final Rule. Federal Register 77 (199). October 15.
24 "Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicles." EPA-420-R-11-901.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420rll901.pdf.
25 The standards for gallons per 100 miles would continue to differ, due to the difference in energy
content of the two fuels.
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
Heavy-Duty Pickups and Vans
The SwRI report23 updated the benefits of mild and full (parallel) hybrids for heavy-duty pickups and
vans. The cycle weighted effectiveness of mild hybrids at ALVW (test weight) was 40% higher than the
agency estimate, while full hybrids had a small increase in benefit. The aero and tire benefits for these
vehicles were also higher than the agency estimate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.7]
Impact on proposal
The agencies should strengthen the standards for heavy-duty gasoline pickups and vans to reflect a
reasonable penetration of mild and full hybrids in 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p.7]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Proposed heavy-duty pickups and vans (class 2b/3) standards should be strengthened
The NPRM solicits comment on Alternative 4 for heavy-duty pickups and vans, which would result in
approximately the same Phase 2 program stringency increase of about 16 percent compared to Phase 1
but would do so two years earlier, in MY 2025 rather than in MY 2027. Alternative 4 would require
C02 reductions of 3.5 percent per year from 2021 to 2025, whereas Alternative 3 would require C02
reductions of 2.5 percent per year from 2021 to 2027. We encourage U.S. EPA and NHTSA to accept
Alternative 4 rather than Alternative 3 for heavy-duty pickups and van. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 64]
CARB staff believes that Alternative 4 for heavy-duty pickups and vans is technologically feasible,
cost-effective, and superior to Alternative 3 for the following reasons: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 64]
• The projected payback period for Alternative 4 is still acceptable and only a few months
longer than the projected payback period for Alternative 3. Alternative 4 is projected to pay
back in 34 months versus 26 months for Alternative 3 (or 34 months versus 31 months if a
dynamic baseline is used), and hence adds only 3 to 8 months to the expected payback period.
-------
Both alternatives pay back in the third year of ownership which is still expected to be well
within the period vehicles are owned by the first buyer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.65]
• Alternative 4 is significantly less stringent than the standards light-duty pickup trucks will
be meeting in the same timeframe. Heavy-duty pickups and vans are very similar to light-duty
pickup trucks but have higher load and towing capacity requirements. Both groups of vehicles
are manufactured by many of the same manufacturers (Ford, General Motors, and Fiat/Chrysler)
and utilize comparable engine and vehicle technologies. For this reason, both groups would
have similar routes to achieving GHG emission reductions. Furthermore, continuing availability
of advanced technology credits (see page 69) would provide additional technology flexibility to
manufacturers in achieving reductions beyond alternative 3. For light-duty pickups, U.S. EPA
and NHTSA have set GHG emission standards that would reduce emissions by 3.5 percent per
year from MYs 2017-2021 and 5 percent per year from MYs 2022-2025. For a typical light-
duty pickup, the resulting C02 standard would be 203 grams per mile (g/mi) by 2025. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.65]
Alternative 4 would require a 3.5 percent per year improvement in C02 emission reductions from MYs
2021-2025 and result in an average C02 standard of 458 g/mi in 2025. Even under Alternative 4, the
standard for heavy-duty pickups and vans would be more than double the allowable C02 emissions for
light-duty trucks in the same time period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.65]
Alternative 4 achieves greater emission benefits and greater net societal benefits than Alternative
3. As summarized in Table 13, Alternative 4 for heavy-duty pickups and vans would achieve an
additional 21 MMT of C02 reductions and $2.3 billion in societal benefits in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.64]
[Table 13 can be found on p.65 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
Heavy-duty Pickups and Vans
The Proposed Rule fails to apply a number of light-duty pickup/van technologies to heavy-duty pickups
and vans, contrary to the technology-forcing nature of the governing statutes. Light duty pickups, along
with passenger cars are subject to separate CAFE standards. The CAFE standards for model years 2017
- 2025 are more stringent than the proposed requirements for heavy-duty pickups: large light-duty
pickups and vans must reduce emissions by approximately 41 percent between 2012 and 2025, with 32
percent of the reduction due to the most recent CAFE standards for years 2017 to 2025. In contrast, the
proposed standards would require medium- and heavy-duty pickups and vans to reduce emissions by
only about 24 percent over a similar span of years between 2014 and 2027, with approximately 16
percent of the reduction due to the current rulemaking for years 2017 to 2027. This amounts to only
about half the fuel savings in medium- and heavy-duty pickups and vans relative to their lighter duty
counterparts. Despite the differences in efficiency standards, analyses by the International Council on
Clean Transportation ("ICCT") and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy have found
that manufacturers could apply - and often already are applying - these same technologies to heavy-
duty pickups, with the result that much greater efficiency improvements can be achieved in medium-
and heavy-duty pickups and vans than currently proposed.32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.8]
Just one example: Ford has achieved significant and rapid improvements in fuel efficiency with its F-
150 through engine technological advances, weight reduction and start-stop technology to reduce
-------
idling.33 All of these can be applied equally to medium duty pickups. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-
A1 p.9]
Closing the gap between large light-duty and heavy-duty pickups and vans is crucial because the
overlap in many characteristic allows manufacturers to essentially choose to classify a pickup as "heavy
duty" to avoid the more stringent requirements for "light duty" pickups through minor adjustments to
the vehicle. Market information is scarce, but there is some evidence that this type of regulatory
avoidance is already occurring.34 This means that large light-duty standards may interact with the
proposed standards for heavy-duty pickups. Due to their potential influence on manufacturers' behavior,
the large light-duty pickup standards should be treated as "fuel economy regulations by the government"
under EPCA and EISA and be analyzed in the context of what constitutes the maximum feasible
improvement for heavy-duty pickups and vans. Creating an incentive through rulemaking for
manufacturers to avoid feasible, cost-effective, and already in-use fuel efficiency measures is arbitrary
and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p.9]
The Proposed Rule simultaneously acknowledges the potential for technology migration between large
light-duty and heavy-duty pickups/vans and then dismisses the importance of many of these
technologies. The available data suggest that the agencies have been too quick to dismiss the potential
for technology migration, even if the overall improvements in fuel efficiency are less for heavy duty
than light duty pickups and vans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p.9]
32 ICCT Pickup Report, supra note 27; ACEEE Standards for Pickups, supra note 28 at 12.
33 ICCT Pickup Report, supra note 27.
34 Id. at 4-8.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Proposed HD Pickup and Van Standard (80 FR 40334) - The proposed Phase 2 standards can
support environmental protection and reduce energy consumption. However, the proposed heavy-duty
pickup and van standard, with a total stringency of about 16 percent for Phase 2 and an annual increase
of approximately 2.5 percent during model years 2021 to 2027, is a challenge for automotive
manufacturers. Under certain conditions, such a standard may necessitate hybridization of the affected
vehicle fleet, which would require substantial development and material costs. All technologies taken
into account for Class 2b/3 stringencies should reflect cost effectiveness calculations, especially
alternative powertrains such as hybrids, battery, and fuel cell driven electric vehicles. Daimler
recommends that EPA adopt the proposed standard over Alternative #4, as the additional two years of
lead-time will be critical for automotive manufacturers in developing the necessary technologies to
achieve compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 112
Organization: FCAUS,LLC
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 60-61.]
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 132-134.]
We continue to support EPA and NHTSA's attribute-based standards that recognize the utility and
functionality of these work trucks. Payload and towing capacity are important to the owners of these
work trucks. These work factor-based standards acknowledge the inherently higher greenhouse gas
emissions and fuel consumption of higher capability vehicles.
While the light duty fleet has been regulated under NHTSA's Cafe Program for roughly 40 years, we are
still very early in the Heavy Duty Program. We formally have one full model year of industry data
under our belt. Given this limited baseline of real data, it is concerning that there have been calls for
even greater stringency beyond the aggressive standards proposed by EPA and NHTSA for Phase 2.
Comments regarding stringency need to address the many contributing factors, both explicit and
implicit. These factors include, but are not limited to, the fact that these are work trucks, and there's a
wide range of duty cycle so the values of the different technologies vary from a customer perspective.
We're challenged by year-over-year stringency increases with effectively only two products, a pickup
truck and a van, to average in the 2B and 3 segment. The concurrent stringency increases, I think Ford
mentioned earlier in the II and LEV III criteria emission requirements and how to manage the increased
thermal loads on the after treatment systems while we continue to improve fuel economy.
The impact of changing test fuels and the test procedure adjustments that will be needed are unknowns
at this point. Additional technology will be needed going forward given that some of the Phase 2
technologies are already in our fleet today. We have to take that into account, for example, FCAUS
cylinder deactivation and cool EGR in today's vehicles, making these technologies unavailable for
improvements in Phase 2.
Organization: General Motors
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 101-102.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 120-121.]
Second, the program must continue to recognize the unique functionality and utility needs of the
trucking industry, and that we provide vehicles that preserve the performance integrity of these work
trucks. Consumers value the payload and towing capabilities that these working vehicles offer, and the
work factor-based standards set by EPA and NHTSA should continue to align with the industry and
business needs of this demographic.
Organization: General Motors
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 103-104.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.122-123.]
-------
The agencies' proposed Class 2B-3 standards, which are based on Alternative 3 in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, will continue to drive innovation, and will drive General Motors to Invest in and
refine new technologies that are both appreciated and optimized by American consumers. We cautiously
support this path based on Alternative 3 for future emission reduction standards. This path will
challenge our product plan and drive considerable technology into our heavy duty trucks and vans.
Finally, the program must attempt to minimize the potential for unintended consequences, especially for
the consumer. The heavy duty fleet does not benefit from the years of data that have been collected and
analyzed for the light duty fleet. Indeed, comprehensive data for this private segment is only now being
accumulated and analyzed for the 2014 model year, which is the first year of Phase 1 of the medium and
heavy duty truck regulations.
Year-end reports for 2014 were due to EPA by the end of March 2015, so this first year of
comprehensive industry-wide data is still fairly new. This new data should be carefully evaluated and
then compared to the estimates and assumptions that form the basis for both Phase 1 and the proposed
Phase 2 of the heavy duty regulations.
Further, the utility provided and the duty cycle of these vehicles is completely different from the6 light-
duty fleet. And any attempt to force more stringent regulations, such as alternative 4, would be
extremely detrimental to manufacturers, consumers, the U.S. economy, and the millions of
transportation-related jobs. Indeed, comprehensive data for this product segment is only now being
accumulated and analyzed for the 2014 model year, which is the first year of phase 1. The data should
be carefully evaluated by the technical experts at the agencies and compared to the estimates and
assumptions that form the basis for both phase 1 and the proposed phase 2 regulations.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
• Heavy-duty pickups and vans - The technology availability from full-size body-on-frame light-
duty pickup trucks is far greater than the efficiency technology applied in the agencies proposed
2027 pickup and van stringency determination. The agencies have applied technology
improvements over 2018-2027 at about two-thirds the rate of the comparable full-size, body-on-
frame light-duty pickups (i.e., 1.9% annual improvement for heavy-duty versus 2.7% for light
duty). Advancing the proposed standards by three years would still keep the heavy-duty pickup
and van standards well within known technologies that have already been proven out in much
larger numbers in the light-duty space. More specifically regarding the applicable technologies,
the major pickup and van manufacturing companies are already deploying the efficiency
technologies in the heavy-duty Class 2b/3 space. For example, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler,
and Daimler are applying lightweighting, downsized turbocharged engines, stop-start, cylinder
deactivation, and automated manual transmission technologies in their heavy-duty products
(Lutsey, 2015c, 2015d). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.5]
Heavy-duty pickups, vans, and vocational vehicles
Pickup and van technology. Based on our extensive analysis in this area, the proposed heavy-duty
pickup and van, as well as gasoline efficiency, standards appear to fall significantly short in their
promotion of the full technology potential, based on the ICCT's recent research in this area (Lutsey,
2015c,d), as well as Reinhart (2015a, b) and Khan and Langer (2015). We summarize several points
from our previous work to help inform the Phase 2 rulemaking, and direct the agencies to the underlying
referenced work for the full analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.l 1] [[These comments can
also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.40.]]
-------
The pickup and van manufacturers are deploying the same technologies in light-duty and heavy-duty
products. The light- and heavy-duty categories are a bright-line regulatory distinction; however, our
assessment indicates that these two classes share many commonalities and overlap in physical attributes,
engineering and design, engines, vehicle size, functionality and capacity, and efficiency technology
applicability. As a result, manufacturers can and do deploy many of the same efficiency technologies in
light-duty pickups as in the heavy-duty space. However, the agencies include substantially lower
penetration of efficiency technology in their heavy-duty analysis. For example, cylinder deactivation,
downsized turbocharged engines, advanced transmissions, low-rolling resistance tires, lightweighting
each have significantly lower technology penetration and lower efficiency effectiveness in the Phase 2
rulemaking, as compared to the agencies' light-duty rule. Reports from multiple sources suggest that
leading companies are indeed increasingly planning to deploy their light-duty full-size pickup and van
technology on their similar heavy-duty pickups and vans. Here are several such public examples ~
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 11]
• Ford: The Ford F250/F350 Super Duty trucks are headed toward application of F150
lightweighting technology for economies of scale gains, possibly as early as 2016 (Wernie,
2015), and this would mean downsized turbocharged engines, lightweighting, and stop-start
technology would apply in the larger pickups and vans. Ford has indicated that it is indeed
rolling out light-duty technologies on its heavy-duty vans and Super Duty trucks (Ford, 2014a
b). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 11]
• Fiat-Chrysler-Ram: Fiat-Chrysler is deploying its Hemi cylinder deactivation technology on its
Ram 2500 and 3500 models (Williams, 2013). In addition, the Ram ProMaster commercial van
offers downsized turbocharged gasoline and diesel engines, and is equipped with an automated
manual transmission (Ram Commercial, 2014). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 12]
• Daimler: Mercedes-Benz Sprinter commercial vans already utilize an advanced 7-speed
automatic transmission and a downsized two-stage turbocharged diesel engine—for an 18%
increase in fuel efficiency (Mercedez-Benz, 2014). Mercedes also has used start-stop
technology on its Sprinter vans in Europe since 2009 (Abuelsamid, 2009). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 12]
We recommend that the agencies establish commercial pickup and van C02 emission and efficiency
standards that are as technology-forcing as for the full-size trucks as in the light-duty vehicle standards.
The proposed Phase 2 standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans will significantly increase their fuel
economy and reduce their C02 emissions, but not nearly as much as for light-duty pickups. U.S. EPA
(2012) identified cost-effective technology paths to reduce the fuel consumptions and C02 emissions of
full-size body-on-frame pickups and vans by 40% in the light-duty rulemaking, before considering
hybridization. However the agencies, in the case for heavy-duty Phase 2, based on our analysis of the
primary NHTSA data file, appears to only be calling for a reduction of heavy-duty pickup and van C02
emissions of 23% compared to a 2010 baseline. This demonstrates that the agencies are leaving a lot of
highly cost-effective technologies, which are being deployed in large numbers in full-size light-duty
pickups, out of their Phase 2 regulatory analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 12]
Another way to view the relative agency proposal versus the technology potential is to assess its annual
rate of efficiency improvement. Although the agencies indicate the rules are reducing fuel consumption
of pickups and vans by 2.5%/year, this neglects two facts: (1) the 2014 fleet is already beating the
adopted regulations, and (2) there is a 2018-2020 period during which there is regulatory stability, with
no movement in the standards. As a result the gasoline fleet appears to move at 2.2%/year, and the
diesel fleet at 1.6%/year from 2014 through 2025 to meet the standards (Lutsey, 2015d). This compares
with the light-duty standards that generally require a 4%/year reduction in fuel use, and almost 3%/year
-------
for full-size pickups in particular, for model years 2014 through 2025. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1180-A4 p. 12]
Based on our analysis, we recommend that the agencies develop a more stringent progression of pickup
and van standards, and advance the timing several years, to be as technology-forcing as the light-duty
regulations for pickups and vans and promote all the new technologies that are available. We believe
that as the agencies incorporate their full analysis and inputs from the light-duty rulemaking and recent
developments from leading full-size pickup technology developers the result will be closer to a 35%
(rather than 23%) 2014-2025 fuel consumption reduction and a 3%/year (rather than about 1.6%-
2.2%/year) annual 2014-2025 fuel consumption reduction rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4
p. 12]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
This vehicle group includes Class 2b and Class 3 large pickups and vans not otherwise covered by the
light-duty fuel economy/GHG program. They are commonly recognized as "work trucks" principally
used for a variety of commercial purposes, including heavy-trailer towing, shuttle vans, and mini-school
buses. They are sold by two categories of dealerships: those primarily engaged in selling
noncommercial, light-duty vehicles and those primarily engaged in selling medium- and/or heavy-duty
commercial vehicles. At present, Class 2b vehicles are offered by Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, and
Mercedes dealers, and Class 3 vehicles by Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Isuzu, Mercedes, and
Mitsubishi-Fuso dealers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.8]
Like Phase 1, the proposal targets standards using an appropriate "work factor" attribute designed to
reflect consideration of vehicle payload, towing capacity, and 2 or 4 wheel drive. Standards are to
phased-in between MY 2021 and MY 2027, ratcheting up by 2.5 percent each model year with the goal
of achieving a 16 percent improvement over Phase 1. As under the Phase 1 rule, each OEM will have its
own target based on the "work factor" of the fleet it produces for sale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1309-A1 p.8]
Like vocational vehicles, "work trucks" often aren't built by a single manufacturer, but rather are
completed or altered (upfitted) by body and equipment installers or truck dealerships. This reality
should be taken into consideration as the standards are finalized. OEMs who build complete vehicles or
cab chassis for this vehicle group indicate that while aggressive, the proposed standards are achievable
through strategies such as engine downsizing, new engine and transmission technologies, and light-
weighting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.8]
Organization: Nissan North America, Inc.
As set forth below, the feasibility of the proposed Phase 2 standards for Heavy Duty Pickups and Vans
(HDPV) will depend on providing significant flexibilities and credit opportunities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1026-A1 p.l]
The agencies have appropriately recognized that many of the technologies used to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and fuel consumption in the light duty pickup truck and van segment are not applicable at
the same adoption rate and do not have similar impacts when applied to the heavy duty segment. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.2]
-------
Relying on aggressive application of new technology to meet the Phase 2 standards is especially
difficult for a manufacturer, such as Nissan, with limited offerings and relatively low volumes in this
segment. Adding to this challenge is the fact that product life cycles tend to be longer in the heavy duty
segment, making it even more difficult to make fundamental changes to the vehicle architecture that
could further enhance fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.2]
The agencies' expectations with regard to hybrid technologies are particularly aggressive. Nissan
believes the widespread adoption of hybrid technology in the larger vehicle segments to be cost
prohibitive and inconsistent with the utilitarian function of vehicles in the segment. Nissan does not
expect hybrid technology to play a significant role during Phase 1 or during Phase 2 of the program.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.2]
Nissan, however, continues to invest heavily and to improve its heavy duty gasoline and diesel
powertrain technologies. As discussed with the agencies, Nissan already has planned substantial
improvements that will dramatically increase fuel economy performance during Phase 1 of the program.
These include improvements to both our V6 and V8 powertrains, and to both our gasoline and diesel
engines. A significant amount of these improvements are being implemented in the short term and
represent the best technological advances currently available. While Nissan and others will continue to
invest in newer and yet more advanced technology, there is no certainty that the type of significant
advances that are necessary to meet the stringent standards will be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1026-A1 p.2-3]
As Nissan has discussed with the agencies, the costs of translating light duty technology to the heavy
duty market outweigh the company's ability to recoup those costs in the competitive HDPV market. The
proposed stringency level of 2.5% annual improvement is aggressive, and will require a substantial
amount of technology adoption. Even with an array of credit programs and flexibilities, it may prove
extremely difficult for companies with limited offerings in the segment to meet the standards,
particularly in the later years. This would include each of the credit programs discussed below at the
levels suggested. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.3]
A 3.5% per stringency level is simply not feasible. The 3.5% alternative does not provide the necessary
lead-time to enable manufacturers to balance competitive market constraints with the cost of applying
new technologies to a limited product offering. To the extent, moreover, that the more stringent
alternative is predicated on the adoption of hybrid and electric powertrain technology, Nissan ~
engineering and market leader in electric vehicles ~ does not believe that such technology is feasible for
this market segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.3]
The structure of the HDPV program is generally consistent with the Phase 1 program, and as such,
provides Nissan and other manufacturers with consistency for compliance planning. In particular, the
continuation of separate standards for gasoline and diesel vehicles and the work factor attribute are both
critical to maintaining such consistency. Averaging and carry forward credits are essential to provide
flexibility in compliance planning. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.3]
The standards being proposed, at 2.5% annual increase in stringency, are in and of themselves at the
limits of technological feasibility during the covered time frame. Alternative 4 is beyond those limits.
Both levels should be supported by the array of credit opportunities described above. Should the
agencies adopt the more stringent Alternative, however, these credit programs would be essential for
compliance. Without them, companies with fewer product offerings, such as Nissan, will need to
consider the feasibility of this market segment. With the most advanced technologies available today
already being incorporated into Nissan's offerings, the greenhouse gas reducing potential for the
-------
medium- and heavy-duty fleets would best be achieved by accommodating lower-volume manufacturers
and allowing the flexibilities to contribute to this market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.7]
Organization: Sierra Club
Strengthen the proposed standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
EPA and NHTSA should strengthen the proposed standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans.
Strengthening these standards will reduce the discrepancy in standards for light and heavy-duty pickups,
thereby reducing the possibility of market distortions. Many technologies are already in use in light-duty
pickups, they just need a regulatory push to enter the heavy-duty pickup market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1277-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1420, p. 189.]]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
Class 2b-3 Heavy-Duty Pick-ups and Vans
Heavy-duty pick-ups and cargo vans form a continuum between vehicles classified under the light-duty
passenger vehicle standards and the vocational vehicles and tractor-trailers that many would consider
"heavy-duty" trucks. As such, the regulations of these vehicles is unique within the heavy-duty space
because it is based on dynamometer testing like its light-duty counterparts, but the duty cycles can be
different for these vehicles because more often they are truly used as work trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2 p.25]
Because of the close relationship between light- and heavy-duty pick-ups, it is important that the heavy-
duty and light-duty vehicle standards be harmonized as much as is reasonable to minimize
environmental impacts from upsizing (customers shifting from LD to HD pick-ups)—this would also
broaden deployment of technologies and help bring down costs. Below are comments related to
increasing the standard of gasoline (up to a 23.6 percent improvement in 2027) and diesel (up to an 18.0
percent improvement in 2027) heavy-duty pick-ups and vans as well as the test procedures used to
measure compliance. The pace of these standards would not only better represent what is feasible in this
timeframe—they would also more closely align with the 3- to 4-percent annual improvement for full-
size light duty pick-ups. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.25]
HEAVY-DUTY PICK-UP AND VAN STRINGENCY
The technology employed in Class 2b-3 pick-ups and vans should reflect the fact that these vehicles
share much in common with their light-duty counterparts. Historically, heavy-duty pick-ups were a
significant increase in cost above and beyond light-duty pick-ups, where the purchaser was paying for
significantly higher payload and towing capacity. However, with the increasing costs of light-duty full-
size pick-ups and their increase in power, payload, and towing capacity, this segment of vehicles is
more of a continuum than a step increase (Table 8). It is critical that the regulations regarding the fuel
economy and greenhouse gas emissions of both light- and heavy-duty vehicles be more closely aligned
given the close linkage of use and applicable technologies in these fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1329-A2 p.25]
[Table 8, 'Cost and Performance of the Ford F-Series', can be found on p.25 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2]
-------
In a number of cases, manufacturers are already incorporating technologies from light-duty vehicles:
Ford will be moving its 2017 F-Series Super Duty pickups to an aluminum body, just like the recently
redesigned F-150; the 2014 Ram 2500 and 3500 incorporated cylinder deactivation, which had
previously only been available in the 1500; and Mercedes is now offering a downsized 4-cylinder diesel
engine for its Sprinter vans in addition to its 6-cylinder. The standards should reflect and encourage the
further adoption of all available fuel consumption reduction technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1329-A2 p.25]
Most of the specific engine technologies that could be applied in this space overlap with the
technologies detailed in the vocational vehicles section of these comments, based on research from
SwRI (Reinhart 2015a,b). For gasoline-powered vehicles, these technologies include direct injection,
exhaust gas recirculation, variable valve lift and timing, cylinder deactivation, friction reduction, and
turbodownsizing. For diesel-powered vehicles, more efficient turbochargers, friction reduction,
downspeeding, and even downsizing can further reduce fuel use from the engine. While we noted only a
10 percent application of downsizing to gasoline-powered vocational vehicles, we would expect
significantly higher than that for both gasoline- and diesel-powered pick-ups and vans—Mercedes
already acknowledged underestimating demand for the smaller four-cylinder diesel in its popular
Sprinter (Brown 2014), and the less-demanding duty cycle for many of these vehicles, including the
pick-ups, should allow for a greater opportunity in downsizing of the fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1329-A2 p.25-26]
In terms of vehicle improvements, some of these are already happening and should be taken into
consideration—for example, already mentioned was the lightweighting of the Ford F-Series Super-Duty
pick-ups, which will shed hundreds of pounds thanks to the use of both an aluminum body and a high-
strength steel frame (Priddle 2015). This change will already result in a 5-percent reduction in curb
weight of the pick-ups, which is the maximum level of reduction assumed by the agencies by 2027. In
other areas of the vehicle, the agencies have largely gotten things right: reductions in aerodynamic drag
and rolling resistance, an increase in the number of gears of the transmission, and the electrification of
accessories will all offer significant reductions in fuel consumption from this sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2p.26]
Taking into account the greater adoption of downsizing and greater effectiveness of the engine
technologies mentioned above, the data indicates that the agencies should be adopting a significantly
higher standard for gasoline-powered pick-ups and vans. Vehicle improvements were identified from 11
to 16 percent on the regulatory cycle at 50-percent payload and 12 to 14 percent at maximum towing
capability. Using the same engine packages as the vocational vehicles but with 20-percent downsizing,
gasoline engine performance could improve by nearly 12 percent in the timeframe of this rule on the
pick-up and van test cycles, while diesel performance could improve by slightly more than 5 percent.
This would lead to gasoline pick-up standards of 23.6 percent beyond 2019 levels by 2027 and diesel
standards for pick-ups and vans of 18.0 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.26]
The agencies' proposal must be 'technology-forcing' and achieve the 'maximum feasible' reductions in
the timeframe of the rule. To do this, the agencies must strengthen Alternative 4 by: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2p.27]
• Ensuring that light- and heavy-duty pick-up and van standards are more closely aligned by
acknowledging the full complement of applicable technologies - this would reduce
consumption from gasoline-powered pick-ups and vans by 8.8 percent and diesel-powered pick-
ups and vans by 2.1 percent in 2024; and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.27]
-------
Response:
The agencies agree that the form of the standards (work factor based) and the standard levels themselves
are appropriately designed to maintain the functionality requirements of heavy duty pickups and vans
while achieving emission reductions. These vehicles are purchased because of the need to perform
certain jobs that cannot be performed by a light duty vehicle. By basing the standards on the working
capacity by using work factor of the vehicle instead of the light duty footprint approach, these new
emission standards achieve emission reductions at all the different working capacities and capabilities
demanded by this segment. This approach also preserves consumer choice because consumers will seek
vehicles with the necessary capabilities they require and manufacturers will design and produce vehicles
for the consumer that meet new stringent emission standards solely based on the vehicle work
capabilities the market demands. Consumers that need higher payload or towing or four wheel drive
will purchase vehicles for that specific reason and not because of the footprint or other attribute that is
not relevant to the intended use of the vehicle.
After considering the comments, EPA believes that the Phase 2 final standards that the agencies are
adopting represent the most stringent standards reasonably achievable within the MY 2021-2027 period.
The standards are based largely on the same technologies projected to be used in the light-duty fleet
with appropriate adjustments for the heavy-duty fleet because of their specific higher load duty cycles.
As described in Preamble Section VI.E. 1, several technologies are projected to be used at very high
adoption rates at or near 100 percent including mass reduction, 8-speed transmissions, engine friction
reduction, low rolling resistance tires, improved accessories, and aerodynamic drag reductions. For
gasoline engines, some commenters noted that downsize turbo engines which are projected to be used
extensively in light-duty vehicles should also be relied on in the heavy-duty analysis, including for HD
pickups. As discussed in Preamble Section VI.C.4.vii, the agencies agree with the comments provided
by AAPC that turbo downsizing is likely to be counter-productive in heavy-duty pickups. Under heavy
loads, turbo downsized engines may have higher C02 and fuel consumption than the engine it replaces.
For this reason, EPA continues to believe that the technology can only be projected to be available for
heavy-duty vans (and not pickups) and is projecting its use at 77 to 97 percent. NHTSA, in its method
A analysis, likewise projects use of this technology only for heavy-duty vans.
One commenter argued for a standard predicated on a more aggressive penetration rate for cylinder
deactivation, noting that in the NPRM the agencies only projected cylinder deactivation at an adoption
rate of 22 percent of the overall fleet. The commenter believes that an adoption rate of 40 percent
would be more appropriate. In response, cylinder deactivation is a gasoline engine technology and EPA
is projecting an adoption rate of 56 percent for pickups and an adoption rate of essentially 100 percent
for the gasoline engines in vans not projected to be downsized turbo engines ~ a more aggressive
penetration rate than urged by the commenter. With regard to some of the other technologies selected by
the agencies as part of the technology basis for the standards, UCS commented that the agencies have
largely gotten things right: reductions in aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, an increase in the
number of gears of the transmission, and the electrification of accessories will all offer significant
reductions in fuel consumption from this sector.
AAPC commented that some of the technologies projected for Phase 2 are actually already present on
some vehicles today. The agencies acknowledge that some of the same technologies are being
implemented to meet the Phase 1 standards and that higher penetration levels or additional projected
technologies may be required to meet the phase 2 standards. The agencies' analysis looked at
technology levels in the baseline model years of 2014 for the EPA analysis and 2015 for the NHTSA
analysis, which represents the first couple of years of the Phase 1 standards where manufacturers may
have already begun to add some technology. The agencies' analyses determined that some of the
projected technologies may be the same as what some manufacturers choose to adapt in order to meet
the final Phase 1 standards in MY2018. However, additional technologies are available beyond those
-------
used to meet the Phase 1 standards and significant technology opportunities may only be available at
vehicle redesign cycle occurring after Phase 1 and into Phase 2. Thus, addition of these more
aggressive technologies before the Phase 2 rule takes effect is not an indication that the standards are
insufficiently stringent. A specific example involves lightweighting, as already seen in some of the
Ford pickup fleet. ICCT commented that the Ford F250/F350 Super Duty trucks are headed toward
application of F150 lightweighting technology for economies of scale gains, possibly as early as 2016.
As discussed above, the agencies believe that manufacturers are already beginning to select the key
technologies they believe will allow them to meet the requirements for the Phase 1 program but also to
prepare for the Phase 2 program in consideration of the limited opportunities to implement some of the
technologies generally restricted to redesign cycles. Similar to the completely redesigned aluminum
bodied MY2015 F150, Ford appears to be planning a similar lightweighting of the F250/350 in MY2017
due to the opportunity presented at the scheduled redesign cycle. The agencies anticipate that
lightweighting technologies will be utilized by almost all manufacturers as a means to reduce emissions
and fuel consumption of the next generation of pickups and vans.
EPA also remains concerned about projecting standards predicated on high levels of hybridization in the
heavy-duty pickup and van fleet. Many heavy duty applications need maximum payload and cargo
volume which may compete with weight increases and lost cargo volume from hybridization, directly
reducing the capability and therefore work factor of the vehicle. Additionally, it is likely not feasible to
size a hybridization system to be effective for any high or maximum payload or towing operation in a
heavy-duty pickup or van without changing the utility of the vehicle. A manufacturer choosing to
hybridize a heavy duty vehicle would likely target vans that are primarily used for cargo volumetric
capacity reasons where a reasonably sized hybrid system could be incorporated and be effective under
typical operation. EPA believes that the final Phase 2 standards will drive the orderly use of strong
hybrid technology (the technology path under the Method B analysis includes modest penetration rates
for strong hybrids) while still providing enough lead time that manufacturers could meet the standards
using technology paths other than high penetration rates of strong hybrids. Thus, the gap in stringency
between light-duty trucks and the Phase 2 standards for HD pickups and vans reflects constraints of the
use of some technologies in the heavy-duty market resulting from the intended use of the vehicles to do
more work than light-duty trucks. In addition, it is not appropriate to simply compare the change in the
light-duty pickup footprint based standards to the change in the heavy-duty work factor based standards.
In an apples to apples comparison, the agencies believe that the expected improvements in overall
vehicle efficiency with the addition of advanced technologies to comply with the new standards for
heavy-duty vehicles expressed in the form of fuel used to transport goods likely exceeds the light duty
equivalent efficiency at doing work proportional to capability.
The proposed rule discussed several considerations that EPA believes remain valid. The NPRM
projected that the higher rate of increase in stringency associated with Alternative 4 and the shorter lead
time would necessitate the use of a different technology mix under Alternative 4 compared to the Phase
2 standards that the agencies are adopting. In EPA's Method B analysis, the Phase 2 standards are
projected to achieve the same final stringency increase as Alternative 4 at about 80 percent of the
average per-vehicle cost increase, and without the expected deployment of more advanced technology at
high penetration levels. In particular, under EPA's primary analysis (Method B analysis), which does
not constrain the use of strong hybrids, manufacturers are estimated to deploy strong hybrids in
approximately 8 percent of new vehicles (in MY2027) under the Phase 2 standards, compared to 12
percent under Alternative 4 (in MY 2025). Less aggressive electrification technologies also appear on
33 percent of new vehicles simulated to be produced in MY2027 under Alternative 4, but are not
projected to be necessary under the Phase 2 standards. Additionally, it is important to note that due to
the shorter lead time of Alternative 4, there are fewer vehicle refreshes and redesigns during the phase-
in period of MY 2021-2025. The longer, shallower phase-in of advanced technologies in the final
standards allows for more compliance flexibility and closer matching with the vehicle redesign cycles,
-------
which can be up to ten years for HD vans. While the Method B CAFE model's algorithm accounts for
manufacturers" consideration of upcoming stringency changes and credit earn -forw ard, the steeper
ramp-up of the standard in Alternative 4, coupled with the five-year credit life, results in a prediction
that manufacturers would need to take less cost-effective means to comply with the standards compared
with the final phase-in period of MY 2021-2027. The public comments from industry commenters
generally confirmed that this is a realistic prediction.
The graphs below show the projected average per vehicle costs for the Phase 2 standards and
Alternatives 4 and 5 for each manufacturer under the Method B analysis. As shown, in this Method B
analysis, the Phase 2 standards are not projected to drive significant levels of technology prior to the
start of the Phase 2 program in MY 2021. GM and FCA are projected to make some relatively small
investments in technology prior to MY 2021 while Ford, Nissan, and Daimler are not projected to
implement technologies to meet the standards until after the beginning of the program. These are the
same projections presented at proposal, and the agencies did not receive comments disputing these
technology projections for Phase 2 standards for years prior to MY 2021. Under Alternative 4, GM's
costs increase substantially, including costs prior to MY 2021. Ford's costs are projected to almost
double under Alternative 4 in MY 2023. Alternative 5 (even assuming, against our view that
Alternative 5 is even technically feasible) drives these costs up even further with GM's costs in MY
2021 projected to be about $3,000 per vehicle. Alternative 5 also shows significantly higher costs in
MYs 2017-2018 for several manufacturers, raising additional issues of feasibility for this alternative
given the lack of lead time to make substantial changes in the next few years. These graphs further
illustrate that the additional lead time provided by the Phase 2 standards is projected to lower costs due
to the use of less advanced technology such as hybridization, including during the early years of the
program.
GM Average Per Vehicle Technology Costs
(Method B)
$3,500
$3,000 r
S250° / '
$2,000 //
S1.500 //
S1.000 ///
$500 / If
$0
2015 20162017 2018 2019 202020212022 2023 2024 202520262027 2028 20292030
Phase 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
-------
52,000
S1.500
51,000
S500
50
Ford Average Per Vehicle Technology Costs
(Method B)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 202020212022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 20292030
Phase 2 —-Alternative 4 Alternative 5
$2,000
51,500
51,000
5500
50
FCA Average Per Vehicle Technology Costs
(Method B)
2015 20162017 2018 2019 202020212022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2Q2S 20292030
Phase 2 Alternative4 Alternative 5
-------
Nissan Average Per Vehicle Technology Costs
(Method B)
S2.500
52,000
$1,500
S1.000
$500
$0
2015 20162017 2018 2019 202020212022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Phase 2 Aiternattve4 Alternatives
$450
$400
$350
$300
S250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20212022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Phase 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
After several changes to the modeling inputs and logic, noted in Section VI.C(8) of the Preamble and
Chapter 10.1.7 of the RIA, NUTSA's Method A analysis shows that manufacturers could potentially
meet standards with minimal reliance on strong hybrid technologies (2 percent under bodi Alternatives 3
and 4, and 7 percent under Alternative 5). The implementation and marketability of these technologies
at this level of penetration of the market is no longer concerning in the Method A analysis. However, the
same issue with lead-time still presents itself in the Method A analysis. The concern of lead-time leads
NUTS A to reach die same conclusions about the maximal feasibility of Alternative 3.
The figures below show the year-by-year average per vehicle technology costs for Method A for GM,
Ford, Fiat/Chrysler, and Nissan. The simulated GM progression of technology costs is similar under
Alternatives 3 and 4. Flowever: Ford, Fiat/Chrysler, and Nissan show more technology costs in early
model years under Alternative 4 rather ill an Alternative 3. Ford's simulated compliance strategy shows
per-vehicle technology costs of $400 in MY 2017 under Alternative 3, $700 under Alternative 4, and
almost $1400 under alternative 5. Alternatives 4 and 5 would put the majority of the cost burden on the
Daimler Average Per Vehicle Technology Costs
(Method B)
-------
MY 2017 redesign, while Alternative 3 allows most of the cost burden to be on the MY 2025 redesign.
The MY 2017 fleet will be in production at the time of publishing this rule. The next major redesign for
Ford is not until MY 2025; to add an additional redesign in between the MY 2017 and MY 2025 fleet
would involve much capital investment and does not seem feasible.
Similarly, FCA shows technology costs of $300 in MY 2018 under Alternative 3, $600 under
Alternative 4, and $800 under Alternative 5. Nissan shows costs of $1000 in MY 2021 under
Alternative 3, $1800 under Alternative 4, and $2700 under Alternative 5. The only manufacturer not
shown here is Daimler; using the 2015 reference fleet Daimler does not apply additional technology in
the regulatory alternatives, and incurs no additional costs. The general sequence of simulated
technology costs remains the same as in the NPRM and Method B of the FRM; Alternatives 4 and 5
involve more each incurrence of technology costs than Alternative 3, even though the ending stringency
curves for Alternatives 3 and 4 are the same, the additional lead time allows that manufacturers could
implement technologies on during later redesigns under Alternative 3. While modeling results show that
Alternative 3 could involve some early model year technology costs, they also show that Alternative 2
would forgo much of the benefits of Alternative 3. Further, the results shown here represent only one
possible way that manufacturers may meet regulatory alternatives; they may avoid adding technologies
in early model years, but adding more to reach over-compliance in later model years. For these reasons,
NHTSA has determined that Alternative 3 represents the maximum feasible standards. Further
description of the rationale behind the finalization of these standards can be found in Chapter VI.D.(9)
of the Preamble and Chapter 10.2.8 of the RIA.
¦Alternative 2 Alternative 3
> Alternative 4 — • —Alternative 5
a>
(/I
<0
• -co-
op m
o
"o <=>
c
0)
K
0)
Ck£
CD
i—
a>
>
<
2500
2000
S 1500
r • — .
y
1000
500
V
ir\
-------
Alternative 2 Alternatives Alternative 4 — • —Alternative 5
1800
200
<
./
„ Jy — ^
0 '
Lnior^eomo»-i(MPO*fLnvDr^ooaio
oooooooooooooooo
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Model Year
Per-Vehicle Technology Cost Increase for Ford by Model Year and Alternative (Method A)
Alternative2 — — —Alternative3 Alternative^ — . •Alternatives
3000
1 2500
c
I
£ 2000
-------
¦Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 — • -Alternative 5
3000
3 2500
o
£
8 2000 . ,
u
>• w •
M PO I * T
o ^ 1500 ,
o O .. '
e i: '
u
0)
00
ro
5 500
s>
<
/
/
HI 1000 • .
— mm - — — — — — _ f
v£>
rs
00
o
rH
rsl
fO
ifi
ID
r*»
00
-------
significant role during Phase 1 or during Phase 2 of the program. As explained above, the Method B
analysis indicates that Alternative 4 would lead to more aggressive penetration rates of strong hybrids
with less lead time than the standard being adopted, and EPA is rejecting Alternative 4 pull ahead
standards in part for that reason. So to this extent, EPA agrees with Nissan's comment. While Method
A does not show the amount of hybrid technologies as is shown in Method B, the Method A analysis
does show the highest early technology costs for Nissan of $1000 per-vehicle by MY 2021 under
Alternative 3, and almost $2000 per-vehicle in MY 2021 under Alternative 4. NHTSA agrees that,
based on the Method A analysis, Alternative 3 is aggressive (though feasible) and that Alternative 4 is
likely not feasible.
Several commenters discussed the technology selection and effectiveness levels used by the agencies to
determine the feasibility of the proposed standards had lower effectiveness levels and penetration rates
than expected. The agencies worked together to determine appropriate technologies and the
effectiveness of those technologies based on previous heavy duty GHG Phase 1 work, light duty GHG
studies and the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) research contract performed for the agencies. The
technology effectiveness estimates were specifically adjusted for heavy duty applications subject to the
conditions that these heavy duty pickups and vans are expected to experience in operation and during
certification test cycles which differ from light duty. Comments from ACEEE, ICCT, Sierra Club, UCS
and Center for Biological Diversity focused in on the opportunity to adapt more light duty technologies
into the heavy duty segment. The agencies researched and took into consideration all light duty and
heavy duty technologies currently available or believed to be available in the time frame of this rule.
We determined that many light duty technologies could be used in heavy duty vehicles but at a
generally reduced effectiveness and that some technologies were only appropriate for certain segments
of the heavy duty fleet. Based on this understanding, we restricted certain technologies from some
segments of heavy duty pickups and vans. For example, as explained above, we generally allowed
specific light duty technologies, such as turbocharged downsized engines, in the van segment because of
the expected loads vans experience are similar to loads experienced by the largest light duty pickups.
Heavy duty pickups, on the other hand, are expected to be used much differently than vans or the light
duty pickups version inasmuch as they have fewer available technology options operating at reduced
effectiveness levels. Nissan, a large volume manufacturer developing vehicles with technologies for
both the light duty and heavy duty applications, commented that the agencies have appropriately
recognized that many of the technologies used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption in the light duty pickup truck and van segment are not applicable at the same adoption rate
and do not have similar impacts when applied to the heavy duty segment.
ACEEE commented that 10 percent of pick-ups in the heavy duty sector are candidates for
turbocharging and downsizing if they do not require higher payloads or towing capacity. Other
commenters suggested that downsizing that has occurred in light duty could also occur in heavy duty.
As discussed above, the agencies evaluated turbocharging and downsizing in vehicles like vans which
are not typically designed for extensive trailer towing. When we looked at pick-ups, we determined that
consumers needing a pick-up without higher payload or trailer towing requirements would migrate to
the lower cost light-duty versions which are typically identical in cabin size and seating as the heavy-
duty versions but have less work capability. Because of this, in the agencies' assessment, the heavy-
duty pickups retained the high trailer towing and payload requirements and the corresponding larger
normally aspirated gasoline engines instead of downsized turbocharged gasoline engines. Similarly, the
agencies retained the larger diesel engines although there may be a segment of consumers that could use
a smaller and less capable diesel engine in the heavy duty pickups. AAPC comments supported this
approach as the correct combination of engine to intended use and even provided in their comments data
indicating that turbocharged and downsized engines are more fuel efficient at lighter loads; however,
under working conditions expected of a heavy-duty pick-up they are actually less fuel efficient than the
larger engines. See the chart below supplied by AAPC in their comments.
-------
-------
c.
t
J*.
"&>
O
LL
CO
CD
-------
UCS, Sierra Club, ICCT, CARB, and ACEEE all expressed concerns about the fact that light-duty
pickup standards are much more stringent than the proposed standards for the heavy-duty fleet. UCS
and ACEEE all expressed concerns that this discrepancy might create distortions between the heavy-
duty and light-duty markets. It is important to note, that the heavy-duty standards are new; if distortions
exist in the market they have likely existed before the new regulation. Moreover, while there are
similarities between the light-duty and heavy-duty fleets, there are also differences—the redesign cycle
is historically longer in the heavy-duty fleet and these vehicles are purchased for work capability, where
many light-duty pickups may not be. The factors that give heavy-duty vehicles their added utility will
also decrease fuel efficiency. Further, the ABT provisions in the light-duty standards allow averaging
within a manufacturer's combined car and truck fleet so that light-duty pickup stringencies can be offset
by credit-generating passenger cars. In contrast, although all HD pickups and vans are a single
averaging set under Phase 2 (and Phase 1), the product lines are more limited than in the light-duty fleet.
Thus, there are fewer possibilities for averaging. The commenters also do not address that heavy duty
pickups' base price is typically considerably higher than the light duty pickup equivalent. A standard
Google search indicates that the Ford 150 light duty pickup has a base price of $26,540; the 2016 MY F
250 base price is $32,385. The addition of fuel economy technologies on light and heavy duty pickups
is unlikely to alter this basic disparity.
UCS further cited the close relationship between light-duty and heavy-duty models. NHTSA's Method
A analysis of the final rule includes some limited engine and platform sharing across these classes, as
discussed in Section VI.C(7)(d) of the Preamble and Chapter 10.1.7.1 of the RIA. Results suggest that
sharing between the light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles result in a small amount of technology sharing
between classes, but that amount of sharing does not result in significant additional technology
applications in either class. For this reason, NHTSA further concludes that the ability to share
technologies from the light-duty fleet to the heavy-duty fleet does not affect a significant proportion of
the fleet. NHTSA will continue to investigate the issue of engine and platform sharing between classes
in future rules.
With regard to comments on the relationship of these Phase 2 standards to the EPA's recent Tier 3
standards, as discussed throughout the Tier 3 final rule, EPA has designed the final Tier 3 program in
full recognition of the parallel implementation of the GHG standards in the same time frame as the final
year for the heavy duty Phase 1 standards and the light duty 2017 to 2025 GHG rule. By aligning the
implementation schedules for both sets of standards, we are facilitating the ability of manufacturers to
meet one of their stated goals, the ability to develop product plans that simultaneously account for the
technological challenges of both programs well into the future. We considered the feasibility of the Tier
3 standards in the context of the established GHG requirements.
The agencies recognize that these new standards will require concurrent implementation of the Tier
3/LEV III criteria emission requirements and the new heavy duty GHG and fuel consumption
requirements we are finalizing. The technologies expected to be used by manufacturers to meet the Tier
3/LEV III standards do not necessarily result in negative impact to GHG emissions or fuel consumption.
The majority of exhaust emission reductions from the Tier 3/LEV III programs are expected to be from
reduced cold start emissions in the first couple of minutes of operation. For example, a Tier 3/LEV III
strategy (see 79 FR 23461) to reduce emissions in gasoline applications may include reduced cold start
enrichment to both lower engine out emissions and accelerate warm-up of the catalytic converter. This
strategy should result in reduced emissions for both criteria emissions and GHG emissions. Diesel
applications may require improved thermal management of the aftertreatment which should be
beneficial for both programs by accelerating the warm-up and keeping the SCR system at high
conversion efficiencies throughout the different areas of vehicle operation. However, due to
uncertainties with these improvements regarding the extent of current optimization and future criteria
emissions obligations, the agencies are not considering aftertreatment improvements in diesel
-------
application as a fuel-saving technology in the rulemaking analysis as discussed in Preamble section
VI.C.4. In other words, while we believe that optimization of the SCR system can be considered a fuel
saving technology, we did not premise the rulemaking or include technology costs on the need for this
technology because of the possible future need to optimize the system for Tier 3/LEVIII emission
requirements.
CARB and ACEEE also expressed concern about the dynamic baseline. ACEEE suggested that the
assumption that manufacturers will apply technologies that payback within 6 months of discounted fuel
savings, even if these technologies are not necessary to reach compliance is arbitrary. This assumption
is based on the idea that there is a non-zero market demand for fuel economy and that this can be
measured from the payback period. The assumption is that the market demand for fuel economy is
small, but greater than zero. While the exact market demand for fuel economy is unknown, it is not
arbitrary to assume that it is positive—ACEEE does not provide any data to suggest that the market
demand for fuel economy is otherwise.
CARB cites that in their regulations they have assumed that manufacturers would comply, but not over-
comply. However, it is important to note that their history is to regulate from the perspective of criteria
pollutant emissions—these are typically assumed to be an externality and would not have a market
value for consumers. Thus, for criteria pollutants regulation provides the only incentive for reduction,
while for fuel consumption the market provides some incentive for reduction even absent regulation (the
discounted value of fuel savings). It is also important to note that changing the baseline affects the
benefits and costs attributed to the regulatory alternatives, but not the simulated compliance strategies
themselves. For these reasons, NHTSA has continued to use the dynamic baseline in Method A for its
main analysis of heavy duty pickups and vans. In other words, the same technology packages are
required to meet the standards with either agency baseline approach however in the dynamic baseline
used by NHTSA, less of the technologies and their costs are attributable to the new standards while in
the EPA flat baseline analysis, all technologies and associated costs are included in the technology
packages required to comply with the new standards.
Use of a flat baseline is also reasonable. There is a lack of empirical evidence for any specific
baseline. See generally Preamble section X.A. Industry comments on payback generally refer to it as a
necessary but not sufficient criteria for investment. Insofar as buyers require a positive payback within
some denominated period of time, our understanding is that buyers' considerations are informed by at
least implicit judgments regarding the full range of potential risks and costs. In addition, the agencies'
analyses with different baselines is consistent with OMB guidance in Circular A-4. Finally, we note
that the agencies conducted sensitivity cases for Pickups and Vans with 0, 6, 12, 18, 24 month payback
periods. See Preamble Chapter 6 for details. These analyses all supported the same conclusion as to the
appropriateness of the standards being adopted for heavy duty pickups and vans.
The agencies received limited comments on these different baseline approaches that dictate the
costs. Some commenters expressed support for the flat baseline in the context of the need for the
regulations, arguing that little improvement would occur without the regulations. Others supported the
flat baseline because they believe it more fully captures the costs. Some commenters thought it
reasonable that the agencies consider both baselines, given the uncertainty in this area. No commenters
opposed the consideration of both baselines.
7.2.2 Work Factor
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
-------
Work Factor - AAPC supports the agencies' attribute-based approach to medium-duty pickup and van
standards that recognizes the physical demands placed on these work vehicles. These standards
recognize that the various products offered have differing degrees of load carrying, trailer towing, and
off-road capabilities. AAPC proposes an additional term be incorporated into the work factor for vans to
account for cargo and passenger volume. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.2]
Work Factor Changes for Vans
AAPC commends the agencies for continuing with a "work factor" based approach that recognizes the
functional payload and towing capabilities that define vehicles in this segment. While AAPC believes
that the payload, towing, and four wheel drive inputs to the work factor equation properly represent the
primary intended uses of heavy-duty pickup trucks, they do not fully represent the intended uses of
cargo and passenger vans, for which cargo or passenger volume are of primary importance. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.7]
AAPC proposes that an additional volumetric term be incorporated into the work factor for vans to
account for cargo and passenger volume: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.7]
WF = (0.75)* (GVWR - Curb Weight + xwd) +0.25* (GCWR - GVWR) + Max [AV / Vref, 0]
(GVWR-Curb Weight)
Where Vref=208 cubic feet and AV = Cargo Volume - Vref
Note: Cargo volume is as determined by SAE J1100 methodology considering the total volume behind
the front row of seats. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.7]
In this scenario, vans with cargo volumes less than 208 cubic feet would receive no work factor
adjustment for volume/passenger capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.8]
Separately, the agencies were seeking comment on whether inclusion of GCWR in construction of the
work factor was resulting in manufacturers designing surplus towing capacity. The agencies work
factor-based standards were derived using actual vehicle data (i.e., a combination of payload, towing,
and 4x4 capability from actual vehicles when tested on the city highway cycle under ALVW
conditions). Existing DOT Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and SAE J2807
requirements effectively cap the towing and GCWR in this segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-
Alp.8]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Work factor
The rule defines work factor from payload and towing capacities which involves three weight
parameters including gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), gross combined weight rating (GCWR) and
curb weight. Definitions of these three weight parameters, provided in the rule, involve manufacturer
discretion. This leeway could weaken the standards, in effect. For example, two manufacturers recently
claimed 150 to 250 lbs. additional payload in model year 2015 pickups by lowering vehicle curb
weight18. Adding 250 lbs. to the payload would increase a vehicle's work factor by 188 lbs. This in turn
would lessen the fuel consumption/C02 emissions reduction required in 2018 by 8.3 grams per mile, or
-------
11 to 20%, depending on the work factor of the vehicle. Hence it is important that the agencies better
define these weight parameters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.20]
When manufacturers can increase work factor at little cost and get benefit in fuel consumption, work-
factor-based standards will incentivize such increases. This is an undesirable result that will reduce the
benefits of the proposed standards. The agencies proposals to address this problem (p. 40336) are
welcome. In particular, changing the shape of the standard curve for both gasoline and diesel vehicles to
be flatter at higher work factors warrants further consideration. We also support the agencies'
consideration of adopting different work factor formulas for pickups and vans, especially in light of the
very poor correlation between work factor and C02 emissions for vans, as shown in figure 2. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.21]
Recommendations: Work factor
• The agencies should better define GVWR, GCWR, and curb weights in order to reduce
manufacturers' discretion in determining these weights. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1
P-21]
• For the final rule, adopt a mechanism to minimize the incentive the proposed standards provide
to increase work factor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.21]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins opposes revisedpayload/towing split [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.32]
Cummins supports the continued framework and metrics of Phase 1 for HD pickups and vans, which
uses the work factor attribute for GHG evaluation over the same certification test cycles used for criteria
emissions. The work factor term recognizes the work capacity of these vehicles to haul goods and
provide services and is appropriate for HD pickups and vans. The agencies request comment on
potential changes to the work factor curves and vehicle segmentation. The Phase 1 work factor was
data-based using the then current US fleet sales of HD vans and pickup. Reweighting any of the terms
or segmenting the fleet would require a full study, similar to that done in Phase 1, in order to ensure a
feasible and fair framework for all OEMs and suppliers selling into this market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298-A1 p.32]
Cummins opposes revised payload/towing split [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.32]
The agencies request comment on revising the payload/towing split from 75/25 (Phase 1) to 80/20
(Phase 2) for HD pickups and vans. Cummins opposes any revision without a complete study to fully
understand the implications of such changes. A similar activity was undertaken in Phase 1 when
developing the HD pickup and van framework and would need to be repeated here. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p.32]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Work Factor Attributes (80 FR 40335 et seq.) - Daimler supports the work factor approach
used in Phase 1 of the GHG regulation, as the footprint calculation does not adequately reflect Class 2b-
3 vehicles and their real world purpose. Daimler also supports the approach of determining a vehicle's
fuel consumption and GHG emission reductions based on the type of work the vehicle performs in the
real world. As stated in the NPRM, payload and towing are key in characterizing the difference in the
-------
design of Class 2b-3 vehicles. Payload plays an even greater role in vehicle design than towing does. It
has been noted that some Class 2b-3 vehicle manufacturers unnecessarily increase towing, particularly
for diesel-powered engines, in an effort to meet the GHG regulations, with no real benefit to end users
in their normal day-to-day work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 112]
The agencies have requested comment regarding four proposed changes related to Work Factor
Attributes:
1. Although towing is an important factor, Daimler supports the agencies' approach of weighting
payload at 80% and towing at 20%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 112]
2. In an effort to prevent manufacturers from unnecessarily ramping up towing capacity with no real
benefit to the end user, the agencies have proposed a towing cap. Although Daimler supports such a cap
in principle, without knowing what the cap will be, Daimler cannot offer comment on the proposal.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 112-113]
3. Changing the shape of the standard curve: Daimler does not offer vehicles with high towing
capability. In our opinion changing of the shape seems not additionally necessary if the proposed
revision of payload and towing rate weighting and the possible cap of high towing capability will be
implemented [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 113]
4. With respect to applying different work factors for pickups and vans, Daimler does not currently offer
pickups in the U.S. market and so does not offer comment at this point. Daimler would be interested in
reviewing additional information on this proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 113]
Organization: Honeywell Transportation System (HTS)
Work Factor Should Follow Light Duty
Concerning the work factor calculation for Class 2B/3, HTS supports the current approach that
recognizes professional usage of these vehicles. However, looking at the evolution of the advertised
towing capacity from different manufacturers, we see that towing capacity (and therefore work factor)
has increased significantly over the past five years without substantial improvement in fuel economy.
HTS believes these increases in work factor are beyond the demonstrated needs of most buyers, thus
there is little corresponding reduction in miles traveled or improvement in transport efficiency
associated with the higher towing capacity ratings. In a 2010 survey conducted at the Texas State Fair,
90 percent of pick-up truck users expressed that they had enough capacity on their truck and 50 percent
said that the older truck generation was already enough. Yet, during the period 2010-2014, the number
of vehicles with more than 75001b of work factor increased by more than 1000 percent. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1230-A1 p.4-5]
We believe that a knee inflection at high work factor should be proposed following the footprint
principle adopted for the GHG / CAFE standard for Light Duty vehicles. This would help ensure that
the rule in fact reduces GHG emissions and doesn't merely result in vehicles with more unused
capacity. HTS proposes that the inflection to the work factor begin at 75001b. This proposed work factor
"flattening" would impact less than 10 percent of all Class2B/3 vehicles sold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1230-A1 p.5]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
-------
Pickuv and van work factor. Due to the clear possibility of a shift upward in pickups' and vans' average
work factor, we encourage that the agencies aim to prevent further market shift that would erode the
regulatory program's intended and projected benefits. Similar to the light-duty vehicle standards, a
horizontal C02 and fuel consumption kink, or cut point, as a maximum standard targets would be a
necessary protection against potential runaway trends toward increased payload that undermines the
program's objectives. We recommend that the agencies set the threshold C02 and fuel consumption
standard targets at a work factor of 5,500 lbs. for gasoline trucks and 8,000 lbs. for diesel - based on
these being near the 90th percentile for the model year 2014 fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4
p. 14]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
HEAVY-DUTY PICK-UP AND VAN TEST PROCEDURES
The central concern around the test procedures for heavy-duty pick-ups and vans is the way in which the
work factor could provide an incentive for manufacturers to continue to add performance at the expense
of fuel economy. We are already seeing very clearly that technologies such as lightweighting are being
used to increase the payload of these vehicles. This has the perverse effect of reducing fuel economy
targets for the vehicle, and thus a technology that could have been used to reduce fuel usage is instead
being used to increase the performance of the vehicle. In order to minimize this effect, the agencies
should consider an "elbow" in the work factor curve— above a specific work-factor, the fuel economy
and greenhouse gas targets level off. This is similar to the features of the light-duty vehicle footprint
curves, and it would eliminate the incentive more manufacturers to continue to add payload and towing
capacity to game the system, regardless of whether or not it is being used by consumers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.26]
Response:
After considering these comments, the agencies concluded that the work factor approach established in
the Phase 1 rule appropriately accounts for the different utility aspects of heavy-duty vehicles. While
trucks and vans may be used differently depending on the required job, the three main attributes of
payload, towing and four wheel drive remain properly accounted for at this time in the work factor
equation at the current weightings. While a small portion of the fleet may be considered to have excess
towing capacity relative to the actual required towing capacity by the customer, the agencies determined
that the work factor design does not necessarily result in an incentive for manufacturers to build
excessive towing into the vehicle design. Towing capacity increases require improvements to vehicle
powertrains, cooling and brakes, generally at the expense of payload, and therefore the work factor
reasonably balances an increase in towing with a reduction in payload. Additionally, increases in
vehicle weight for additional towing capacity may result in an increase in the emission test weight,
further penalizing unnecessary towing capacity. Moreover, as AAPC discusses, towing and payload are
effectively already capped by existing DOT safety requirements in this segment. Consumers will
ultimately decide on the appropriate balance of payload and towing for their applications, and the
agencies therefore believe that establishing a work factor cap for the small percentage of vehicles with
the highest towing capabilities is not necessary and will not result in emission increases or fuel
consumption reductions under the high towing conditions for which those vehicles were purchased.
AAPC commented that the payload, towing, and 4wd inputs do not fully represent the intended uses of
cargo and passenger vans, where cargo or passenger volumes are of primary importance. AAPC
recommended that the agencies add a volumetric term to the work factor for vans with high (208 cubic
feet or greater) cargo and passenger volumes. Vans with high volumes would have higher work factors
-------
and therefore less stringent targets with the AAPC recommended formula compared to the current
formula. ACEEE commented that the work factor is a far better predictor of fuel efficiency for pickups
than for vans and offered general support for adopting different work factor formulas for pickups and
vans.
While it is likely valid that a portion of the vans are used exclusively for cargo volume and that towing
is not an important attribute for these vans, the commenter failed to provide sufficient new information
to support a new work factor metric specifically to address cargo focused vans. Most obviously, the
suggested modification insufficiently represents the different van cargo volumes available to consumers
today. A cargo volume based modification requires a complete industry van analysis of all available
van cargo volumes and GHG and fuel economy performance levels from which a properly normalized
adjustment would be determined, consistent with the approach used to establish the existing work factor
equation for the attributes of payload, towing and four wheel drive. The agencies did not receive the
level of detailed information required to determine the impact of cargo volume and establish a work
factor correlation. Accordingly, the agencies are not incorporating the suggested change to the work
factor for vans.
The agencies received a variety of comments on the details of the work factor approach. The agencies
received comments from The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) regarding
the definition of payload and towing and manufacturer's discretion at determining GVWR, GCWR and
curb weight of the vehicle. In response, the formula for payload, GVWR minus curb weight, is
specified such that it uses the same definition of the input terms as those which have always been used
by the agencies for light and heavy duty vehicle regulations, including criteria pollutant emission
standards and safety related designations. The agencies feel that there is no ambiguity in the definition
of these terms and therefore payload calculation remains clearly defined with little or no opportunity for
manipulation. The agencies have successfully used the previously established definitions of GVWR and
curb weight to implement emissions and safety related programs and have not experienced any adverse
issues in applying these definitions. The same is true for the definitions of terms used to calculate
towing -- GCWR minus GVWR. While this definition for towing capacity does not match the method
used by manufacturers in their consumer advertising, the agencies determined that the inputs of GCWR
and GVWR are clearly defined in our regulations and used for many other emission and safety related
determinations and therefore also remain a clear and consistent method to define towing for the
purposes of calculating work factor. Again, the agencies have successfully used the previously
established definitions of GCWR and have not experienced any issues that would warrant a change to
the definition or use of these parameters.
ACEEE commented on recent announcements from two manufacturers that reported increases in
payload capacity in their pick-ups due to a decrease in the curb weight of the vehicles from changes to
light-weight materials. A reduction in vehicle weight while maintaining the same GVWR will result in
a higher payload capacity which will then increase that vehicle's calculated work factor and therefore
result in a higher target GHG and fuel consumption standard. Work factor is defined as follows:
Work Factor=.75*(Payload+xwd)+.25*(Towing Capacity), where:
xcd=500 lbs., if the vehicle has 4WD
xcd=0 lbs., otherwise.
Similar to the light-duty (LD) footprint based approach which allows increases in GHG emissions and
fuel consumption with increasing footprints, the work factor is designed to allow increases in GHG
emissions and fuel consumption with increases in capability to do work, primarily hauling payload and
towing. The HD pickup and van fleet has a different purpose than the light-duty vehicle fleet. These HD
-------
vehicles are largely used for their towing and carrying capacity. Because consumers value the utility
aspect of these vehicles more than footprint or some other attribute, the agencies set the standards based
on work factor. While it does create a potential incentive for manufacturers to game the attribute-based
standards, this could be a trade-off for creating standards that will preserve the utility of the heavy-duty
fleet. The agencies partially addressed these concerns in the Phase 1 rule, by defining payload capacity
as GVWR minus curb weight. Id. at 57162.
More generally, it is important to consider how these standards were developed. As alluded to above,
payload, towing capacity, and drive type (all characteristics that are uniquely utilized in the heavy-duty
fleet) are correlated with fuel efficiency. The work factor based targets were developed with this in
mind. Since work factor and fuel efficiency can work in opposite directions, in order to game the
standards manufacturers would have to decrease their fuel consumption target by more than they
increase the achieved fuel consumption of a vehicle model by changing any component which
influences work factor.
Further, by reducing curb weight, these manufacturers increase the work capability of their trucks
specifically purchased by consumers to transport payload and (sometimes) to tow. Additional payload
capacity is not always needed, but will sometimes allow the user to transport more goods and could
result in fewer trips. Additionally, the reduction in curb weight will be beneficial in all other situations
of unloaded and partially loaded transport of goods because a reduction in curb weight of the vehicle
results in less energy wasted simply to move the vehicle regardless of payload. For this reason, the
agencies included mass reduction as among the technologies on which the stringency of the final
standards (as well as the Phase 1 standards) is based.
As established above, in most cases increases in work factor would be accompanied by an increase in
fuel consumption. However, NHTSA has identified one case where this is not true. By applying mass
reduction manufacturers can increase payload (and thereby work factor) and also decrease fuel
consumption. The current version of the CAFE model includes both the decreases in the target of
individual vehicle models, which occur from increased payload, and the decreases in fuel consumption
when mass reduction is applied. These decreases in the standards are included in the projected average
required fuel consumption levels of manufacturers, and associated decreases in average fuel
consumption of the fleet due to mass reduction is included in the average achieved fuel consumption
levels of manufacturers.
In summary, we have considered the possibility for manufacturers to game attribute-based standards.
However, since most means by which a manufacturer might increase work factor would be
accompanied by an increase in fuel consumption, we do not think the opportunities for manufacturers to
game the standards are many. In the case of mass reduction application, where manufacturers could
increase work factor and decrease fuel consumption to improve the position of individual vehicle
models, we have included this in the model. We are open to suggestions on how we could further
minimize the perverse incentives of the attribute-based standards, or to better capture them within the
modelling results for future rule-makings. We will continue to monitor the possibility for manufacturers
to game standards and re-evaluate how we might set future standards differently if the need arises.
7.2.3 Separate Gasoline and Diesel Vehicle Standards
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
-------
Maintain Separate Gas and Diesel Standards - AAPC supports the agencies' proposal to continue
maintaining separate, but comparably stringent, C02 and fuel consumption standards for compression
ignition and spark ignition engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.2]
Maintaining Separate Gas and Diesel Standards
AAPC supports the agencies' proposal to maintain separate, but comparably stringent, C02 standards
for compression ignition and spark ignition engines. This approach insures that manufacturers of either
engine type will implement the latest C02 reducing technologies. As the agencies observed when the
Phase 1 Heavy-Duty GHG rule was promulgated, significant technological and market-based
differences exist between heavy-duty gasoline and heavy-duty diesel engines (76 Federal Register
51765). This will remain the case for the Phase 2 program (2019-2027), making a single standard
commercially and technically impractical for both combustion technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.7]
Maintaining separate but comparably stringent spark ignition and compression ignition standards will
allow customers for specific applications to take advantage of the combustion technology that best
meets their specific application requirements while assuring that their particular engine is equipped with
the latest fuel efficient technology regardless of combustion type. Maintaining a viable heavy-duty spark
ignition market is critical for customers considering total cost of ownership including utility,
maintenance, and serviceability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.7]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Reducing the gap between gasoline and diesel efficiency requirements would also be a step forward for
the heavy-duty pickup and van standards. Given that the work factor parameter has been specifically
designed to capture the utility of these vehicles as it relates to fuel efficiency, gasoline and diesel
vehicles should in principle be subject to the same, performance-based standard for C02.25 As shown in
Figure 2, there is a substantial difference at present in the performance of gasoline and diesel vehicles,
which presents challenges for the adoption of a fuel-neutral standard at this time. However, reducing the
gap between the diesel and gasoline standards by strengthening the gasoline standard, would help to
address this problem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.24]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins does not support different standards between gasoline- and diesel-fueledHDpickups and
vans [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.34]
In Phase 1, the agencies set separate standards for gasoline- and diesel-fueled HD pickups and vans,
with less stringency for gasoline vehicles. This offset in stringency was attributed to the short lead-time
to implement Phase 1 versus the required time to develop and certify vehicles. Despite sufficient lead-
time for Phase 2, the agencies have maintained the offset in stringency between gasoline and diesel
vehicles (see Figure 13) through MY2027. As mentioned earlier, SwRI studies have demonstrated
technologies that could be applied to both gasoline and diesel pickups and vans that achieve C02
reductions that exceed the proposed standards for these vehicles. With ample time to develop and
validate these technologies for the start of Phase 2, it is plausible for the agencies to establish a path of
converging stringency for all HD pickups and vans. Such a pathway would create fuel neutral standards
and eliminate any competitive advantage or preference to a particular GHG/FE technology and maintain
the environmental benefits envisioned by the regulation, regardless of operating fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1298-A1 p.34-35]
-------
[Figure 13 can be found on p.34 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Gasoline and Diesel Standards (80 FR 40337) - In Phase 1 and in the proposed Phase 2 regulations,
there are large differences between the stringencies of the diesel and the gasoline standards, resulting in
stricter requirements for diesel engines. This results a significant disadvantage for the more efficient
diesel technology. Today, diesel engines meet the most stringent emission standards and are therefore as
clean as gasoline engines. Moreover, diesel technology is more efficient than gasoline technology with
regard to fuel consumption. With respect to GHG emissions, gasoline vehicles should not be treated in a
less stringent way than diesel vehicles. Instead, the stringency of both standards should be harmonized
in the Phase 2 regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 113]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
A level playing field is required for gasoline and diesel vehicles
Under Phase 1, EPA and NHTSA finalized weaker standards for gasoline pickups and vans than their
diesel counterparts. As a result, the efficiency gap between gas and diesel trucks will grow over the
timeframe of the Phase 1 rule (2014-2018). For Phase 2, the agencies have proposed standards for
heavy-duty pickups and vans that require a 16% improvement beyond 2018 for both diesel and gasoline
engines. These standards fail to close the efficiency gap between the different engine types and will
instead perpetuate and increase the gap. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.38]
The proposed standards are inconsistent with EPA's long-standing precedent of setting standards that
are fuel neutral and based on the capabilities of the technological leader. By setting a weaker standard
for gasoline vehicles, the agencies have not established a level playing field and are creating incentives
to shift from lower C02 diesel vehicles to higher C02 gasoline vehicles. Recent sales data for this
vehicle class suggests that this shift is already occurring under the Phase 1 program and it will only be
exacerbated under the Phase 2 program. This shift will put at risk the ability of the overall program to
deliver the environmental results expected from the Phase 2 program. We recommend that the agencies
set strong performance-based fuel neutral standards based on the technological leader. At the very least,
this final rule should begin to close the efficiency gap between gasoline and diesel pickups and vans.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.38]
Organization: Honeywell Transportation System (HTS)
The proposed rule strives for lower GHG emissions and improved fuel economy in Class 2B/3. This
could be done through advanced diesel engines, advanced gasoline engines (including electrification or
hybrid technology), or through some combination of these. Establishing technology/fuel neutral
regulations allows industry to develop the most cost effective solution that meets consumer
expectations. Instead of setting separate gasoline and diesel vehicle standards, we suggest that the
baseline overall fleet C02 emissions be calculated from the projected 2018 share of gasoline and diesel
truck models, and that future emissions reductions are calculated from this baseline for the entire fleet
independent of fuel type. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1230-A1 p.3-4]
Indeed, the EPA itself stated in the Phase 1 standard that "the agencies agree that standards that do not
distinguish between fuel types are preferable where technological or market-based reasons do not argue
otherwise," and "expect to reexamine the need for separate gasoline/diesel standards in the next
-------
rulemaking." Based on the review of the proposal, HTS does not see evidence that such a
reexamination has occurred, and therefore we recommend that the standard not distinguish between fuel
types. This would ensure that the goal of an overall reduction of GHGs and improved fuel efficiency
are met without creating the unintended consequences that could occur from favoring one fuel type over
another. For example, if a particular powertrain has a less stringent GHG target and is lower cost, the
market could shift in that direction resulting in higher overall GHG for the industry - the exact opposite
intention of the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1230-A1 p.4]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Fuel neutrality
We note that the agencies appear to violate their own generally preferable principle of establishing fuel-
neutral standards with their separate gasoline and diesel engine standards, pickup and van standards, and
vocational standards (See, e.g., Lutsey, 2015c). In each case, the spark-ignited gasoline-related
standards are set at less stringent levels than compression-ignition diesel. The gasoline standards miss
opportunities to promote cost-effective efficiency technologies, and the standards are providing an
incentive to shift the market from higher functionality, lower C02 diesel products to lower
functionality, higher C02 gasoline products over time. This proposed approach would provide a
sizeable incentive to manufacturers and consumers alike to shift to gasoline products, which often have
lower C02 characteristics for the same or sometimes lesser utility. The standards ideally would be set
based on environmental performance, without special protection for spark-ignited gasoline products. We
recommend that the agencies consider greater technology penetration in all spark-ignited gasoline
products to finalize standards that are more truly emissions and efficiency performance based standards.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 16-17]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Ensure Technology-Neutral, Performance-Based Standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1
p.3]
With respect to the heavy-duty pickups and vans category, while MEMA supports the continued use of
the work factor attribute that takes into account both payload and towing capacities, MEMA does not
favor the continuation of separate targets for gasoline and diesel vehicles. Rather than have different
standards under Phase 2 that depend on the fuel/engine type, the agencies should mirror the regulatory
approach used for light-duty trucks under the light-duty vehicle National Program, as well as for light-
duty trucks and complete Class 2b-3 vehicles under Tier 3, and put in place a uniform performance
standard that does not differentiate between gasoline and diesel. An alternative to the proposed rule
would be to simply require a 16 percent fleet average C02 emissions reduction.3 Consequently, the
industry and customers pick the fuel and technology combination that offers the best value while also
meeting the requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.4] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.194.]]
3 Using MY2018 baseline
Organization: Robert Bosch LLC
-------
Although not a "heavy-duty" (HD) engine or vehicle manufacturer,2 Bosch has a keen interest in the
Phase 2 proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p.2]
Bosch has long advocated for policies that allow all technologies to compete on a level playing field in
order to most effectively and fairly achieve societal objectives. We are puzzled with the lack of fuel
neutrality in the proposed Phase 2 standards for HD pickup trucks and vans. By way of example, we
observe that a model year (MY) 2021 diesel pickup truck with a work factor (WF) of 5,000 pounds
would have a C02 target value that is 30.5 g/mile lower (i.e., more stringent) than the target value for an
identical gasoline pickup (515 g/mile vs. 545.5 g/mile). We further observe that while the compression-
ignition (CI) - spark-ignition (SI) gap would narrow slightly over time, in MY 2027 and all later model
years there would still be a 26.5 g/mile difference between the more stringent Cl/diesel standard and the
less stringent Si/gasoline standard for a HD pickup with a 5,000 pound WF (442 g/mile vs. 468.5
g/mile). In Bosch's view, a sustained - from MY 2014, the start of Phase 1, through MY 2027 and all
later years - preference for one technology over another via the imposition of differential performance
standards prevents industry from investing in and developing the best available technologies. It also
appears unfair and unwarranted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1466-A2 p.2-3]
EPA and NHTSA established the separate CI/SI standards in Phase 1, but emphasized in the 2011 final
rule "that they are not committed to perpetuating separate GHG standards for gasoline and diesel heavy-
duty vehicles and engines, and expect to reexamine the need for separate gasoline/diesel standards in the
next rulemaking."3 A perpetuation of separate standards, however, is precisely what the agencies have
proposed for Phase 2 HD pickups and vans, with the apparently only cursory reexamination having
yielded a justification that is no different from the one proffered by the agencies in Phase 1 - the
existence of technological distinctions between SI engines and CI engines. Not "until advanced research
evolves the gasoline fueled engine to diesel-like efficiencies," the agencies now posit, will the HD
pickup truck and van sector be suited for fuel-neutral GHG emissions and fuel consumption
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p.3]
Bosch strongly disagrees with the proposed continuation of separate target values for gasoline and
diesel, and notes that the agencies preface the proposed Phase 2 HD pickup and van standards by
acknowledging that these particular vehicles "share both substantive elements and a regulatory structure
much more in common with light-duty trucks than with the other heavy-duty vehicles." EPA and
NHTSA proceed to explain that: (i) "[o]ver 95 percent of the HD pickups and vans sold in the United
States" are manufactured "by companies with major light-duty [pickup truck and van] markets" in the
U.S.; (ii) "these companies typically base their HD pickup and van designs on higher sales volume light-
duty truck platforms and technologies, often incorporating new light-duty truck features into HD
pickups and vans at their next design cycle"; and (iii) the same chassis dynamometer test procedure
applies to both HD and light-duty pickups and vans. Given all of these factors, as well as the agencies'
intent "to develop an overall analysis fleet spanning both the light-duty and HD pickup and van fleets,"
Bosch strongly maintains that HD pickups and vans should be regulated under Phase 2 in the very same
manner that their light-duty brethren are regulated - through performance standards that do not
differentiate between Si/gasoline and Cl/diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p.4]
The GHG emissions and corporate average fuel economy standards for light trucks do not distinguish,
and have never distinguished between gasoline and diesel. Rather, the same C02 target value applies to
all types of light trucks manufactured in the same model year.9 Similarly, EPA regulates light-duty
trucks - and also complete Class 2b and 3 vehicles - under Tier 3 equally; the same exhaust emission
standards apply to all vehicles regardless of the engine type.10 Such an even-handed, fuel-neutral
approach should be adopted for HD pickup trucks and vans under Phase 2, all the more so because it
was not the approach taken under Phase 1, which represented the very first time HD vehicle GHG
-------
emissions and fuel efficiency were regulated by the agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p.4-
5]
As in the Phase 1 proposed rule, EPA and NHTSA state that they "are not basing the proposed standards
on a targeted switch in the mix of diesel and gasoline vehicles," and "the proposed program is not
intended to force, nor discourage, changes in a manufacturer's fleet mix between gasoline and diesel
vehicles." This intent notwithstanding, Bosch believes that a market shift towards spark-ignited vehicles
and away from HD pickups and vans powered by "fundamentally more efficient" CI engines would be a
very real possibility under Phase 2 if the separate gasoline and diesel targets are finalized as
proposed. Equally if not more important, any such shift would signify not only a move towards less
efficient internal combustion engines, but would be counterproductive from a
programmatic/environmental and energy standpoint in that the corollary necessarily would be an
increase rather than a reduction in C02 emissions from (and fuel consumption for) the HD pickup truck
and van sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p.5-6]
In response to the agencies' belief that "similar levels of technology development and cost" would be
required for both types of vehicles, Bosch stresses that diesel engines, from a criteria pollutant
(especially NOx) emissions perspective, have made far greater strides over the years than gasoline
engines, and for that reason have incurred greater technological development costs than the latter. While
equivalent C02 target values may be more expensive, comparatively speaking, for SI engines to achieve
(based on the agencies' cost analysis), the additional cost imposed on these engines likely would not rise
to the level of, much less overtake CI engines' historically higher technological development and
system costs (e.g., diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction systems), which only figure
to increase under Tier 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p.6]
For all of these reasons, Bosch calls on the agencies to apply to all Phase 2 HD pickup trucks and vans
the same C02 target values regardless of the engine technology (SI or CI). To the extent the agencies
believe subjecting all vehicles to the same targets is unjustified due to "the potential disruption" from a
market shift, Bosch maintains that it is equally unjustified, for precisely the same reason, to subject
diesel vehicles to target values that are lower than those for gasoline vehicles. Bosch notes, too, that by
setting uniform performance standards, all potential future technology packages compete on a level
playing field in order to achieve the desired C02 reduction in the most economical way possible for
consumer acceptance. The preservation of a certain price differential between CI and SI engines must
not become a target itself.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1466-A2 p.6-7]
Ultimately, then, Bosch urges the agencies to issue a Phase 2 final rule that establishes, once and for all,
GHG and fuel efficiency parity among all HD pickups and vans, i.e., a fair and level playing field for
these vehicles irrespective of their technology (CI or SI), as is the case for light trucks under the light-
duty National Program and Tier 3 (as well as the California Air Resources Board's LEV III Program),
and as EPA expressly indicated in the Phase 1 proposed rule it wanted to do.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1466-A2 p.7]
2 Throughout these comments, we use the term "heavy-duty" to apply to the same engines and vehicles
referenced by EPA and NHTSA in the proposed rule. See 80 FR at 40145.
3 76 FR 57106, 57165 (Sept. 15, 2011); see also EPA, EPA Response to Comments Document for Joint
Rulemaking, at 6-182 - 6-183 (Aug. 2011), available
at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420rl 1004.pdf. The agencies added in the comment
response document that Phase 1 "differs from other recent rulemakings in this regard in that we are
-------
regulating GHGs and fuel consumption for the heavy-duty sector for the first time, and so believe the
goal of fuel-neutrality is best met by setting standards based on the market/technology situation as it
exists today." Id. (emphasis added).
9 See 40 CFR §§ 86.1818-12(c)(3).
10 See 40 CFR §§ 86.1811-17, 86.1816-18; 79 FR 23414, 23425 (Apr. 28, 2014) (Tier 3 emission
standards "are fuel-neutral"). Notwithstanding technological differences (not to mention significantly
higher compliance costs for CI (vs. SI) engines), fuel neutrality is, of course, also a key feature of the
HD engine emission standards for NOx, non-methane hydrocarbons, and particulate matter under 40
CFR86.007.il and 86.008-10.
15 In this regard, Bosch emphasizes that while HD gasoline pickups and vans "are generally . . . less
expensive than diesels" in terms of the upfront cost, 80 FR at 40514, a recent University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) study underwritten by Bosch shows that from a total cost of
ownership (TCO) perspective, one that takes into account not only the initial purchase price but also
such factors as the costs of fuel, insurance, repairs, and maintenance and also resale value and
depreciation, most HD diesel pickup trucks have a lower TCO than their gasoline counterparts. UMTRI,
Total Cost of Ownership: A Diesel Versus Gasoline Comparison (2012-2013) (June 2015), available at
http://www.umtri.umich.edu/sites/default/files/Belzowski.Total_.Cost_.%20of.Ownership.Paper_
,2015.Final2 .pdf.
16 75 FR at 74213 (stating EPA's desire "to revise the heavy-duty vehicle and engine regulations to
make them consistent with the light-duty vehicle approach, applying standards for all regulated criteria
pollutants and GHGs regardless of fuel type") (emphasis added).
Response:
The agencies requested comment on both the level of stringency of the standards and the continued
separate targets for gasoline and diesel HD pickups and vans. AAPC supported the agencies' proposal
to maintain separate targets noting that the approach ensures that manufacturers of either engine type
will implement the latest C02 reducing technologies. AAPC further commented that significant
technological and market-based differences exist between heavy-duty gasoline and heavy-duty diesel
engines. According to the commenter, maintaining separate but comparably stringent spark ignition and
compression ignition targets will allow customers for specific applications to take advantage of the
combustion technology that best meets their specific application requirements.
Several commenters did not support the proposed approach but instead supported setting a single fuel-
neutral set of targets. Cummins commented that there is sufficient lead-time and technology to create a
pathway to fuel-neutral targets, and that fuel neutral targets would eliminate any competitive advantage
or preference to a particular GHG/FE technology and maintain the environmental benefits envisioned
for the program. Daimler, Honeywell, and MEMA similarly commented in support of fuel-neutral
standards. Honeywell and Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) suggested basing
the standards on a 16 percent improvement from the projected MY 2018 gasoline/diesel combined
baseline. ACEEE and ICCT commented in support of a single set of standards set at or close to the
capabilities of diesel technology. These commenters suggested that gasoline engines should be subject
to more stringent standards than proposed and that gasoline and diesel engines should be held to the
same performance-based standards.
-------
Bosch disagreed with maintaining separate targets for gasoline and diesel HD pickups and vans. Bosch
recommended that targets be fuel neutral, as they are in the light-duty vehicle programs. Bosch
commented that it "believes that a market shift towards spark-ignited vehicles and away from HD
pickups and vans powered by "fundamentally more efficient" CI engines would be a very real
possibility under Phase 2 if the separate gasoline and diesel targets are finalized as proposed." Bosch
continues that "any such shift would signify not only a move towards less efficient internal combustion
engines, but would be counterproductive from a programmatic/environmental and energy standpoint.
Bosch further commented that "diesels from a criteria pollutant (especially NOx) emissions perspective,
have made far greater strides over the years than gasoline engines, and for that reason have incurred
greater technological development costs than the latter. While equivalent C02 target values may be
more expensive, comparatively speaking, for SI engines to achieve (based on the agencies' cost
analysis), the additional cost imposed on these engines likely would not rise to the level of, much less
overtake CI engines' historically higher technological development and system costs."
The agencies generally prefer to set standards that do not distinguish between fuel types where
technological or market-based reasons do not strongly argue otherwise. However, as with Phase 1, we
continue to believe that fundamental differences between spark ignition and compression ignition
engines warrant unique fuel standards, which is also important in ensuring that our program maintains
product choices available to vehicle buyers. In fact, gasoline and diesel fuel behave so differently in the
internal combustion engine that they have historically required unique test procedures, emission control
technologies and emission standards. These technological differences between gasoline and diesel
engines for GHGs and fuel consumption exist presently and will continue to exist after Phase 1 and
through Phase 2 until advanced research evolves the gasoline fueled engine to diesel-like efficiencies.
This will require significant technological breakthroughs currently in early stages of research such as
homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) or similar concepts. Because these technologies are
still in the early research stages, we believe the separate fuel type standards are appropriate in the
timeframe of this rule to protect for the availability of both gasoline and diesel engines and will result in
roughly equivalent redesign burdens for engines of both fuel types as evidenced by feasibility and cost
analysis in RIA Chapter 10. For the same reasons, the agencies are adopting separate standards for
diesel and SI vocational engines.
In order to maintain the same overall level of stringency as proposed for the program, a fuel neutral
standard would result in an increase in stringency for gasoline or spark ignition vehicles with a matching
relaxation of stringency for diesel or compression ignition vehicles relative to the separate numerical
levels established in the proposal for gasoline and diesel vehicles. Based on the analysis of available
technologies for both types of vehicles, the agencies do not feel it is appropriate to adopt such a change
for either gasoline or diesel vehicles. This change could lead to an undesirable reduction in penetration
of fuel efficient technologies in diesels, particularly from manufacturers who produce predominately
diesel vehicles, while requiring a higher penetration of advanced technologies like strong hybridization
in gasoline vehicles, distorting consumer choice. Additionally, the agencies do not agree with the
comment stating that maintaining separate gasoline and diesel targets of equal increases in stringency of
2.5 percent per year from the Phase 1 final standards will result in a shift to less efficient gasoline
vehicles. The agencies determined that manufacturers have similar technology challenges and
corresponding costs regardless of fuel type and therefore manufacturers do not have an easier or lower
cost long term path to compliance by simply shifting production from one fuel type to the other.
Note further that a manufacturer's fleet average standard is the production weighted average of all its
targets, both gasoline and diesel. Thus, there is no separate gasoline vehicle standard, or separate diesel
standard. Commenters may have been confused on this point (several of the commenters referred to
gasoline 'standards', or diesel 'standards'). This averaging feature of the standard further increases
incentives to add advanced technologies to either gasoline or diesel vehicles if manufacturers perceive it
-------
advantageous to do so, since the benefit is experienced fleet wide, not just for the gasoline or diesel
segment of a manufacturer's production line.
The agencies also received comments that the standards should be based exclusively on the GHG
capabilities of diesel vehicles. The commenters viewed the separate gasoline and diesel standards as
preferential treatment of gasoline-powered vehicles which have inherently higher GHG and fuel
consumption. As discussed in Preamble Section VI.B. 1, the agencies are maintaining the separate
gasoline and diesel standards for heavy duty pickups and vans. As discussed earlier, diesel engines are
fundamentally more efficient than gasoline engines providing the same power (even gasoline engines
with the technologies discussed above) while using less fuel. However, dieselization is not a technology
path the agencies included in the analysis for the Phase 1 rule or the Phase 2 rules. Gasoline-powered
vehicles account for nearly half of the heavy-duty pickup and van market and are used in applications
where a diesel may not make sense from a cost or consumer choice standpoint. Commenters did not
address the costs of extensive dieselization.
More stringent standards, including Alternative 4, could result in manufacturers switching from gasoline
engines to diesel engines in certain challenging segments. EPA remains concerned that this pathway
could cause a distortion in consumer choices and significantly increase the cost of those vehicles,
particularly considering that more stringent standards are projected in the Method B analysis to require
penetration of some form of hybridization. Also, the agencies did not consider the impact dieselization
would have on lead-time, as shifting nearly half the market from gasoline to diesel engines would
require substantial retooling of production. Commenters did not account for the costs or address the
feasibility of such retooling in the lead time available under either Phase 2 or Alternative 4. In addition,
if dieselization occurs by manufacturers equipping vehicles with larger diesel engines designed for
broad coverage of applications typical of this sector rather than "right-sized" engines, the towing
capability of the vehicles could increase, resulting in higher work factors for the vehicles, higher targets,
and reduced program benefits. Bosch commented that holding gasoline vehicles to the same GHG
standards as diesels would bring the costs of compliance with all emissions standards, including criteria
pollutant standards, for gasoline vehicles more in line with diesels, considering the costs of complying
with criteria pollutant standards are much higher for diesels compared to gasoline vehicles. In response,
EPA's Method B analysis shows that significantly more stringent gasoline vehicle GHG standards may
require high levels of hybridization which, as discussed above, may not be acceptable for this market
segment. This, in turn, could lead to dieselization, as manufacturers would opt to phase out gasoline-
fueled vehicles rather than opt for widespread hybridization of their product offerings. EPA continues
to believe that it is reasonable to adopt Phase 2 standards that continue to preserve the opportunity for
manufacturers to produce and consumers to choose gasoline-powered vehicles in this market segment.
7.2.4 Test Procedures
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Test fuel changes and needed Agency adjustments - Moving to Tier 3 E10 test fuel has impacts on
octane and energy content of the test fuel. The agencies need to make test procedure adjustments to
avoid unintended increases in greenhouse gas and fuel consumption standard stringency. Industry is so
concerned about this adjustment that they have initiated a test program to quantify these effects in the
light-duty arena. The AAPC recommends a similar program for the heavy-duty segment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 11]
Class 2b/3 Truck and Van Test Weights
-------
The current methodology for Class 2b/3 C02 testing limits the Equivalent Test Weights (ETW) to 500
pound increments. While this is appropriate in terms of defining a reasonable number of sub-
configurations, it provides no incentive for implementing weight reductions less than amounts that
would result in a change to the next lowest 500 pound ETW bin. For example, a manufacturer with a
7,200 lb. ALVW truck would be in the 7,000 lb. ETW class. Implementing an 800 lb. weight reduction
would result in a 400 lb. change to the vehicle's ALVW (assuming that the full 800 lbs. is added to the
vehicle's payload). This would lower the ALVW to 6,800 lbs., resulting in the same 7,000 lb. ETW
class as the heavier vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.25]
[Figure of ETW can be found on p.25 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1]
While work factor targets are calculated to individual pounds, test weights are limited to 500 lb.
increments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.26]
As a matter of public policy, the regulations should be designed to encourage incremental weight
reductions by manufacturers whenever possible, not just large-scale weight reductions requiring huge
investments of resources. AAPC recommends that a credit mechanism be defined that allows
manufacturers to use the ADC formula found in § 86.1819-14 (g)(1) to account for weight reductions
within an ALVW test weight class (actual ALVWs within 50 lb. increments). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.26]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - The test weight bins should be changed in order to allow for more realistic testing of
heavy-duty pickups and vans due to mass reduction
CARB staff believes weight reduction can be a cost-effective technology that can achieve significant
C02 reductions. A prime example of the effectiveness of this technology is the recently redesigned
F150 which makes extensive use of aluminum. In fact, all manufacturers are expected to incorporate
vehicle weight reduction across their light-duty fleet (where emission test weight (ETW) bins are
significantly smaller) in response to the 2017-2025 GHG requirements. As currently structured, the
ETW bins for class 2b and 3 vehicles (500 lbs) tend to discourage the use of this technology since
significant weight reduction is required before any benefit can be demonstrated over the applicable
emission test cycles. Narrowing the ETW bins could encourage early implementation of vehicle weight
reduction across a vehicle product line as well as providing manufacturers with increased flexibility in
using weight reduction as part of their technology portfolio. Another benefit of reducing ETW bins is
that the test results would more accurately reflect vehicle GHG emissions. Accordingly, CARB staff
recommends restructuring the compliance process to encourage vehicle weight reduction by reducing
the applicable ETW bins to 125 pound increments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.66]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
HD Pickup and Van Test Procedures (80 FR 40341) - Daimler supports the agencies' approach of
keeping the test procedures fundamentally the same and continuing regulations that create as level of a
playing field as possible. Daimler also supports the agencies' proposals to change how vehicles are
categorized into test bins. Creating smaller ranges decreases the chances of one manufacturer having an
unfair advantage over another within a test bin. However, the potential increase in the number of bins as
a result of this effort is cause for some concern. The agencies should promote opportunities for
manufacturers to generate additional credits. At this time, Daimler does not offer comment as to
-------
appropriate methods allowing for analytical adjustments of C02 levels and fuel consumption within
vehicle weight class. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.l 13]
Response:
The test procedures for HD pickups and vans currently specify using a fuel with properties established
under the light-duty (LD) vehicle Tier 2 program. EPA recently finalized new emission standards under
the Tier 3 program for both LD vehicles and HD pickups and vans which will begin to phase-in in
MY2017 for LD vehicles and MY2018 for vehicles over 6000 pounds GVWR, including HD pickups
and vans. As part of the Tier 3 program, new test procedures require the use of a new test fuel
containing 10 percent ethanol which is more representative of in-use fuel that the vehicles will
encounter. The agencies are investigating any potential impact of changes to the fuel properties on GHG
emissions and fuel consumption and have committed to providing appropriate adjustment to the test
procedures if necessary to ensure no change in stringency of the Phase 1 or the Phase 2 standards.
Additionally, any potential regulatory action as a result of the findings from this investigation would
also address provisions allowing for an appropriate phase-out of data generated on the current GHG
emissions and fuel consumption certification fuel as to avoid an unnecessary disruption in
manufacturer's long term planning and testing requirements.
AAPC commented that the current methodology of grouping vehicles by the Equivalent Test Weight
(ETW) in increments of 500 pounds for determining their GHG and FE performance is too large to
capture weight reductions that may occur within a 500 pound grouping. Under the current test
procedures, vehicles are tested at 500 lb. increments of inertial weight classes when testing at or above
5500 lbs. test weight. For example, the commenter stated that all vehicles having a calculated test
weight basis of 11,251 to 11,750 lbs. are tested at 11,500 lbs. (i.e., the midpoint of the range). However,
for some vehicles, the existence of these bins and the large intervals between bins may reduce or
eliminate the incentive for mass reduction for some vehicles, as a vehicle may require significant mass
reduction before it could switch from one test weight bin to the next lower bin. For other vehicles, these
bins may unduly reward relatively small reductions of vehicle mass, as a vehicle's mass may be only
slightly greater than that needed to be assigned a 500-pound lighter inertia weight class. For example,
for a vehicle with a calculated test weight basis of 11,700 lbs., a manufacturer would receive no
regulatory benefit for reducing the vehicle weight by 400 lbs., because the vehicle would stay within the
same weight bracket.
The agencies believe this (and similar comments) have some merit. In response, the agencies are
finalizing an option allowing manufacturers to divide vehicle models into 50 pound increment
groupings of vehicles for the different Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weights (ALVW) for purposes of more
precise calculation of C02 emissions performance within the 500 pound increment test weight classes.
ALVW will vary within a single ETW largely depending on the varying models curb weights from
customer option selection and other production variations. The calculation of C02 emissions
performance for the 50 pound increment groupings is performed as described in 40 CFR 86.1819-
14(g))) for analytically adjusting C02 (ADC02)) emissions. The test results at the existing 500 pound
increment ETWs will be used to determine the C02 emissions performance level of the new groupings
using the analytically derived equation. This new ADC02 emissions level is only used for this new
grouping and cannot be used to extend determination of other ALVW groupings emission performance
levels. The vehicle specific values used to determine the change in ETW in the ADC02 emissions
calculation to estimate the performance of the smaller grouping should be consistent with value used to
calculate the single work factor of that same grouping. This change does not impact the ETW of a
group of vehicle models that are contained in the 500 pound increment of ETW when performing testing
nor does it eliminate any vehicle in that grouping from being responsible for emission performance at
-------
the 500 pound increment test weight classes. As described, this change only allows for more precise
C02 emissions estimation for the potentially different curb weights of vehicles grouped in a single ETW
class for purposes of fleet average calculation. If a manufacturer chooses to use the 50 pound increment
approach, they are required to use this option for all of their HD vehicles that are chassis certified
(including loose engines).
7.3 Projected Pickup and Van Technologies, Effectiveness, and Cost
Organization: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
A Lightweighting vehicle is one of the strategies to achieve reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and fuel consumption. This is an area where lightweight plastic polymer composites can play a
significant role in designing new medium and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1147-
A2 p.2]
Composites are a combination of tough plastic resins, reinforced with glass, carbon fibers and other
materials. These plastic composites are lighter weight than traditional automobile materials, yet
maintain high levels of strength and a high resistance to corrosion. Plastic and composite materials
provide a way to lighten vehicles while maintaining passenger safety and the integrity of the vehicle.
Additional properties of plastics and composites, including strength to weight ratio, energy absorption
and flexible design, make these materials ideal for use in the manufacturing of medium and heavy-duty
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1147-A2 p.2]
The chart labeled "Figure l"1 below provides data regarding the tensile strength and density of filled
plastics, polymer composites, metals, and alloys. As shown in the chart, there are many plastics and
polymer composites that are significantly less dense than most metals and alloys while offering similar
tensile strengths. These data illustrate the fundamental physical advantage that many plastics and
polymer composites can offer over metallic automotive materials: higher strength-to-weight ratios that
can enable automakers to lightweight vehicles while maintaining safety and performance. As vehicles
across the board begin reducing weight to comply with the new GHG emissions standards and fuel
efficiency standards proposed by this rulemaking, new lightweight vehicle architectures will emerge.
Lightweight plastic and polymer composites have the characteristics needed to help deliver energy
saving results while supporting innovative designs that satisfy consumer preference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1147-A2 p.2]
[Figure 1, 'Tensile Strength versus density for filled plastics, polymer composites, and metals and metal
alloys', can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1147-A2]
Recent model year cars and trucks have greatly benefited from plastic and composite materials as well.
In the last 47 years, the use of lightweight plastics in U.S. automobiles grew from an average of 60
pounds (27 kilograms) per vehicle to approximately 330 pounds (150 kilograms) per vehicle in 2014.
More than 50% of a typical vehicle's volume is composed of plastics and polymer composites, but these
materials only account for approximately 10% of total vehicle weight. It is evident that medium and
heavy-duty vehicles can reap the same benefits as the lightweight vehicle sector by embracing cutting
edge plastic and composite technology which reduce weight and allow manufacturers to consolidate
components. A timely example on a 2010 vehicle is illustrated by an all new plastic two-shot window
lift carrier plate that replaces a metal-intensive assembly comprising 21 components produced with 16+
processing and assembly steps with a plastics-intensive, 10-component unit produced in 10 assembly
steps.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1147-A2 p.3]
-------
The proposed rulemaking recognizes the use of lightweight plastic and polymer technologies, such as
thermoplastics. ACC applauds this recognition, particularly considering the fact that the increasing
interest in plastic and composites within the global automotive industry follows well-documented trends
of composite usage to increase efficiency in the civilian and military aerospace industries. Choosing
plastic and polymer composites to lightweight medium and heavy-duty vehicles is a decision supported
by science that can pay immediate and long term dividends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1147-A2 p.3-4]
Aerodynamic Benefits
Aerodynamic enhancement features on trucks often utilize lightweight plastics that add very little
weight while providing large aerodynamic gains. Lightweight plastic and polymer composites also have
excellent durability with damage and corrosion resistance compared to the traditional steel and
aluminum alternatives. Those characteristics, along with the benefit of low tooling manufacturing,
makes plastic and polymer composites a viable material for aerodynamic technologies like side skirts
and trailer end fairings. The function of aerodynamic technologies and lightweight plastic and
composites go hand in hand for they both have the ability to reduce GHG emissions and fuel
consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1147-A2 p.4]
In 2014, ACC's Plastics Division published a detailed report titled "Plastics and Polymer Composites
for Automotive Markets Technology Roadmap." 6 This road mapping process engaged technical
experts and leaders from the automotive and plastics and polymer composites industries, including
perspectives from original equipment manufacturers, tier suppliers, material developers, researchers,
federal agencies, and consultants, to discuss the current limitations to the increased use of plastics and
polymer composites and to identify industry-wide actions that can accelerate the increased widespread
use of these materials in future vehicles. The roadmap synthesizes the findings from this effort through
2014 and sets a path forward for the plastics and polymer composites and automotive industries through
2030. This roadmap is designed to help the automotive and plastics and polymer composites industries
maintain a strong foundation upon which to build partnerships and initiate collaborative programs that
address changing market needs. Implementing this roadmap will require significant resources to
accomplish both shorter-term priorities and the long-term vision for 2030 and beyond. We would be
pleased to meet with the agencies to further discuss our roadmap implementation efforts so that the
information can be effectively leveraged to meet the objectives of this Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1147-A2p.5]
1 ACC. "Plastics and Polymer Composites for Automotive Markets Technology Roadmap," 2014,
http://plastics-car.com/Tomorrows-Automobiles/Plastics-and-Polvmer-Composites-Technologv-
Roadmap
2 "Two-Shot Window Lift Carrier Plate," Plasticscar.blogspot.com, November 21, 2012,
http://www.plasticscar.blogspot. com/2012/11/two-shot-window-lift-carrier-plate.html.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
NHTSA and EPA estimate that the per vehicle average costs to comply with these new heavy-duty
pickup and van standards will, due to potential fuel savings, result in a 3 year average payback period.
However, many customers could face significantly higher actual costs and thus longer pay back periods.
While not mandatory, the Phase 2 proposal clearly contemplates that compliance for this vehicle group
will be achieved in part by engine stop start engine stop start engine stop start engine stop start engine
stop start engine stop start engine stop start engine stop start and powertrain hybridization. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.8]
-------
Organization: XL Hybrids
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 242.]
the projected incremental cost for the heavy-duty pickup and vans, strong and mild hybrids, seem a little
bit low. The heavy-duty pickup and van strong and mild hybrid cost projected in RIA tables 2-179 and
2-183 are based on weight scaling from the light-duty sector that do not adequately account for
production volume differences betweenl4 light-duty and heavy-duty sectors.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - The heavy-duty pickups and vans technology list should include battery electric or
fuel cell electric technology, hybridization of diesel engines and dieselization
CARB staff has significant concerns regarding the following assertion: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.66]
As discussed in Section I, the agencies request comment on the proposed approach for the advanced
technology multipliers for heavy-duty pickups and vans as well as the other heavy-duty sectors,
including comments on whether or not the credits should be extended to later model years for more
advanced technologies such as EVs and fuel cell vehicles. These technologies are not projected to be
part of the technology path used by manufacturers to meet the proposed Phase 2 standards for heavy-
duty pickups and vans, (page 40389 of the NPRM) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.66-67]
A large population of heavy-duty pickups and vans are used as last-mile delivery vehicles that return to
a yard or terminal on a daily basis. Last-mile delivery vehicles will be ideal candidates for zero-
emission technologies, especially fuel cell electric technology. With this understanding, CARB staff is
considering regulations that will incentivize and/or mandate zero-emission technologies in the heavy-
duty sector within the Phase 2 timeframe. Specifically heavy-duty pickups and vans, especially in last-
mile delivery applications, is an area that CARB staff considers fertile for greater adoption of zero-
emission technologies in the near-term. CARB staff believes that the federal Phase 2 standard is
important to incentivize early adoption and deployment of zero-emission technologies in this category.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.67]
The NPRM requests comment on the proposed technology list that would be used by manufacturers to
comply with the heavy-duty pickup and van standard. CARB staff recommends that the list include
battery electric and fuel cell electric technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.67]
The list of technologies should also include hybrid diesel technologies as CARB staff believes strong
hybrids in the heavy-duty pickup and van sector will be widely available in the 2025 timeframe.
Currently, XL Hybrids and Crosspoint Kinetics have commercially-available hybrid systems for both
new purchases and existing vehicle conversions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.67]
XL Hybrids currently has hybrid systems for box trucks (Ford E-350/E-450 cutaway, Ford E-450 strip
chassis), Reach walk-in commercial vans (Isuzu/Utilimaster), cargo vans and passenger wagons (Chevy
Express 2500/3500, GMC Savana 2500/3500, Ford E-150/E-250/E-350, Ford Transit), shuttle buses
(Ford E-350/E-450 cutaway, Ford E-450 strip chassis, GM 3500/4500 cutaway (available September
-------
2015)), and commercial stripped chassis (F59 super duty) for walk-in van fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.67]
Crosspoint Kinetics currently has hybrid systems for a variety of new class 3-7 trucks and buses,
including a retrofit option for existing vehicles. Their systems have been tested and approved at Altoona
and have been certified by the Federal Transit Administration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.67-68]
CARB staff believes that if there is a projected demand created by regulatory Phase 2 (Alternative 4)
requirements, these two companies, and likely other companies, would make additional hybrid systems
available for the targeted heavy-duty truck and van sector. Since the basic hybrid system designs from
XL Hybrids and Crosspoint Kinetics have been proven in actual fleet operations, additional demands for
their products would lower the price of hybrid technologies due to increased production. The technology
could also be more economically designed for other vehicle platforms, creating additional growth and
development for hybrids in general. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.68]
Furthermore, U.S. EPA and NHTSA's own modeling on the projected level of hybridization penetration
necessary by 2030 to comply with the different regulatory alternatives showed that for two companies
(Daimler and Nissan), no hybridization is necessary to comply with Alternative 4 (Tables VI-25, page
40378 of the NPRM, and VI-26, page 40378-40379 of the NPRM, respectively). Another company,
Fiat/Chrysler needs only 3 percent hybridization penetration to comply with Alternative 4 (Table VI-24,
page 40376-40377 of the NPRM) and Ford needs to have 14 percent hybridization penetration to meet
Alternative 4 requirements (Table VI-23, page 40375-40376 of the NPRM). Of the major
manufacturers, only GM would need to have a significant level of hybridization penetration at 79
percent to comply with Alternative 4 (Table VI-22, page 40375 of the NPRM). This lends further
support for the feasibility for Alternative 4, which CARB staff recommends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.68]
41 See Attachment 4 for Active and Planned Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles Demonstrations. [Attachment 4
can be found on p.27-36 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1268-A1]
42 (NREL, 2015c) Eudy, Leslie, and Matthew Post, "Zero Emission Bay Area (ZEBA) Fuel Cell Bus
Demonstration Results: Fourth Report," National Renewable Energy Laboratory, July
2015,
43 See Attachment 4 for Active and Planned Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles Demonstrations.
44 Id
Response:
The agencies recognize there is a range of diversity and complexity for mass reduction and material
substitution technologies and there are many techniques that automotive suppliers and manufacturers are
using to achieve the levels of this technology that the agencies have modeled in our analysis for this
program. We agree that there is an area where lightweight plastic polymer composites can play a
significant role in designing new medium and heavy-duty vehicles. In our analysis, we discuss an
overall vehicle mass reduction not specific to one part of the vehicle with cost estimates that are also not
specific to any component or material that would be substituted.
-------
The agencies also identified aerodynamic drag reduction as a technology that could be implemented to
reduce the GHG emissions and fuel consumption. We agree that materials made from lightweight
plastics could help provide aerodynamic reductions and in fact are already seeing significant use of
these materials in the light-duty fleet. Many of the similar approaches to reduce aerodynamic drag in
light duty, particularly in trucks and MDPVs are also applicable to the heavy-duty segment.
With regard to the comment regarding projected incremental cost for the heavy-duty pickup and vans,
strong and mild hybrids, as discussed in the NPRM, the agencies utilized cost and technology estimates
that originated from light duty vehicle MY 2017-2025 GHG rule cost analysis but were then adjusted
upward for the heavy duty vehicles based on the increase in GVW between the light duty and heavy
duty segment. The effectiveness of hybrid systems was reduced relative to the light duty levels because
of the duty cycles of heavy duty vehicles tend to result in more loaded operation and reduced
opportunity for hybrid system energy recovery. The hybrid systems in light duty have been evolving
dramatically in the past few years and as such costs have been fluctuating with different designs, but
there has been a general trend of reduction in cost, particularly in the batteries, with each new
generation of hybrid system. It is difficult to precisely predict what the cost of a heavy duty hybrid
system will cost when this rule begins to take place in MY2021 and phases in the years that follow as
manufacturers determine what applicable level of hybridization they can incorporate into their heavy
duty vehicle designs. For these reasons, the agencies feel that our estimates of the various hybrid
systems discussed in the NPRM and FRM are appropriate estimates based on our research of light duty
systems and then scaled for heavy duty vehicles.
During the development of the NPRM, the agencies worked closely with and communicated with
CARB regarding our determination of technologies that were appropriate at this time for a Phase 2
national program and that would be included in the agencies' modeling in support of the final standards.
In their comments, CARB discusses battery electric or fuel cell electric technology for heavy duty
pickups and vans as a technology that could be included in the agencies' list of available technologies.
These technologies are not projected to be part of the technology path used by manufacturers to meet
the Phase 2 standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans. The agencies determined that while battery
electric or fuel cell electric technology may be a viable technology option at some point in the future for
this sector, insufficient information exist regarding the cost and effectiveness of these technologies in
the heavy duty pickup truck and van sector in the time frame of this rule. They agencies instead chose to
offer advanced technology multipliers for use of these technologies on all Phase 2 vehicles to
incentivize the adoption of these technologies.
In their comments, CARB staff believes strong hybrids in the heavy-duty pickup and van sector will be
widely available in the 2025 timeframe. According to CARB staff, XL Hybrids and Crosspoint Kinetics
currently have commercially-available hybrid systems. The agencies included both mild and strong
levels of hybridization in the modeling for the NPRM and the FRM. The Method B model predicted that
some level of both mild and strong hybridization was appropriate and cost effective in the heavy duty
pickup and van segment for the finalized standards, but that these levels would rise sharply if the
standards were pulled ahead. As discussed above, EPA determined that Alternative 4 was inappropriate
largely for these reasons, especially considering the adequacy of lead time to require higher levels of
penetration of these advanced technologies by 2025 rather than 2027. In addition, as explained in
response 7.2.1 above and Preamble section VI.E, the method B analysis indicates that the Phase 2
standards are projected to achieve the same final stringency increase as Alternative 4 at about 80 percent
of the average per-vehicle cost increase, without necessitating the high penetration rates and short lead
times for mild hybrids.
-------
7.4 Flexibilities and Compliance Provisions for HD Pickup and Van
Standards
7.4.1 Averaging, Banking, and Trading Credits Provisions
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Given the limited historical data available for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles, we
support the flexibilities noted as a means to address the inherent program uncertainties and ensure the
program's continued success. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.3]
Credit Carry Forward and Transfers - AAPC supports extending the carry-forward of banked,
surplus credits by both Agencies until they are fully used to offset future debits and separately remove
the restrictions for credit trading between the differing regulatory categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.3]
Credit Carry Forward and Transfers
Carry Forward
The limited five year carry-forward mechanism for CAFE and GHG credits was apparently chosen
because it mimics the current light-duty CAFE program, but this approach is neither optimal nor
required for the heavy-duty program. Heavy-duty credits should have a longer life to better align the
program with the realities of the heavy-duty fleet. The heavy-duty fleet differs fundamentally from the
light-duty fleet for the following reasons: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 13]
• Industry heavy-duty volumes are much smaller (only 5% of light-duty fleet volumes) [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 13]
• Individual manufacturers have fewer models to average for compliance (essentially a pickup
and van with many variants) in the heavy-duty versus light-duty fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p. 13]
• With fewer models and longer renewal times for heavy-duty vehicles and powertrains,
manufacturers have less frequent opportunities to implement significant fuel consumption /
C02 improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 14]
• The heavy-duty fleet has multiple "regulatory buckets" (2b/3 fleet, engine dyno, GEM, etc.) that
further constrain a manufacturer's ability to balance credits and debits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p. 14]
AAPC supports extending the carry-forward of banked, surplus credits by both Agencies until they are
fully used to offset future debits. While adopting an extended carry-forward time period provides
greater flexibility in how manufacturers use credits they have generated, it does not change the overall
effectiveness of the program. There are multiple reasons why adopting this policy would benefit
stakeholders: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 14]
• Motivates Early Action - Extending the life of credits provides greater flexibility for
manufacturers in using the credits they have generated. As the agencies themselves have noted
in the Light-Duty regulation (77 Federal Register 62666), carrying forward of credits beyond 5
years provides manufacturers a significant incentive to over-comply to present regulation in
order to generate credits for future use. This rewards early investment and encourages adoption
of additional C02 reducing technologies that manufacturers would otherwise not be
-------
incentivized to deploy. These credits would also help manufacturers resolve lead-time issues
and manage uncertainties, such as future NOx reduction, while facing aggressively increasing
standards from Phase 1 to Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 14]
• Consistent with Product - A long credit life is more consistent with how the vehicles and
powertrains under this regulation are viewed by both manufacturers and customers.
Manufacturers refresh these vehicles less often as smaller annual volumes drive longer
investment amortization and customers view vehicles as functional tools that are oftentimes
used by the first owner for a full vehicle lifetime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 14]
• Follows Precedent - There is precedent within the EPA regulations for extending the life of
GHG credits. The EPA in the 2017-2025 Light-Duty GHG regulations established an extended
carry-forward provision. The rationale given (76 Federal Register 74968) was that extended
carry-forward "provisions are not expected to change the emissions reductions achieved by the
standards, but should significantly reduce the cost of achieving those reductions." This
assessment is even more compelling in the context of the Heavy-Duty rule, as extended carry-
forward would enable manufacturers to comply with the requirements of the Phase 2 proposal at
an overall lower cost. EPA also notes (77 Federal Register 62789) that compliance features,
such as extended carry-forward, are particularly valuable because, in contrast to the Light-Duty
CAFE program, no option to pay fines in lieu of compliance exists under the Clean Air Act. In
addition, the increasing stringency of Phase 2 program under Alternative 3 merits more
flexibility. EPA's action in the light-duty program establishes a precedent for providing this
type of flexibility. As EPA noted in their EPA Fact Sheet - August 2012: "To facilitate the
transition to the increasingly more stringent MYs 2017-2025 standards, EPA is finalizing under
its Clean Air Act authority a one-time C02 credit carry-forward provision beyond 5 years,
allowing credits generated from MYs 2010 through 2016 to be used through MY 2021." [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 14]
• Allowed by Statute - The agencies are allowed to make this change and are not constrained by
the CAFE statute. The CAFE statute provides, in 49 USC 32902(k), that the Secretary of
Transportation is to regulate commercial medium-duty and heavy duty on-highway vehicles,
and work trucks, by developing test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy standards,
and compliance and enforcement protocols, that are: appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible. This language leaves the design of the program to the Secretary's
discretion, and imposes no specific limitations on the life or usage of credits under the program.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 15]
All of the other CAFE provisions that address fuel economy and associated requirements are found in
sections 32902(a)-(d). Sections 32903(a) and 32903(e) set forth CAFE's 5-year carry-forward/3-year
carry-back provision for passenger automobiles and non-passenger automobiles subject to the light-duty
CAFE program. These provisions do not apply to the heavy-duty program promulgated by the Secretary
pursuant to section 32902(k). Thus, the heavy-duty CAFE program is not subject to any statutory
restrictions pertaining to credit life requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 15]
NHTSA can, under the statute, establish any credit mechanism that is consistent with the overall
directive to promulgate an "appropriate, cost-effective and technologically feasible" set of regulations
for heavy-duty vehicles. For the reasons outlined above, our proposal to carry-forward credits until they
are fully used to offset debits is consistent with these statutory directives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1 p.15]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
-------
The UAW strongly supports an Averaging, Banking and Trading and Off-Cycle Technology credit
program that "plays an important role in making the proposed technology-advanced standards feasible,
by helping to address many issues of technology challenges in the context of lead time and costs."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p. 10]
The credit system works well and is essential in the heavy-duty pickup and van sector because the year-
over-year stringency requirements do not reflect the reality of product cycle and the small number of
platforms in the segment. Extended carry-forward time in light duty regulation, encourage
manufacturers to make greater improvements sooner because surplus credits will not expire. This model
should also be applied to the medium and heavy duty segments. We urge EPA and NHTSA to examine
ways to enhance the existing credit program to account for the realities of the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1248-A2 p. 10]
Organization: Nissan North America, Inc.
One Time Credit Carry Forward Through Model Year 2027
Nissan strongly supports allowing a longer, one-time carry forward from Phase 1 of the program to
Phase 2. Similar provisions were made in the light duty program and the same reasoning applies to the
HDPV program as well. Since companies such as Nissan are investing heavily in the near term and
using the best and most advanced technology, the credits earned by adopting such advanced
technologies now is essential to meeting the more stringent standards later. Credits earned during Model
Years 2014 through 2020 should be allowed to be carried forward during the pendency of the Phase 2
program, through to Model Year 2027. Allowing such use of credits encourages companies to deploy
investment in more advanced and costly technology earlier, obtaining significant greenhouse gas
benefits, rather than simply meeting compliance and adding new technology later. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1026-A1 p.4]
Response:
As discussed in Chapter 1.4.7, the agencies received general comments regarding credit carry-forward
in addition to the HD pickup and van specific comments shown above. The agencies received comments
from CARB that the agencies should not allow Phase 1 credits to be carried forward into Phase 2.
CARB commented that Phase 1 credits should be limited to a three year carry-forward or MY 2020
whichever is sooner. CARB is concerned that Phase 1 credits may reduce the efficacy of the Phase 2
program and delay technology development progress.
The agencies are retaining the 5 year credit carry-forward provisions for HD pickups and vans as
proposed. As discussed in Section VI.C of the Preamble, the agencies believe that the standards for HD
pickups and vans are feasible without extending the credit carry-forward provisions. The agencies
continue to believe that credit carry-forward provides important flexibility to manufacturers especially
in transitioning to more stringent standards and restricting the provision could be disruptive to
manufacturer product plans. However, the agencies understand CARB's concerns regarding Phase 1
credits being used to postpone technology progress if some manufacturers were to accumulate large
credit banks under Phase 1. Large banks of Phase 1 credits combined with unlimited credit-forward
could have the unintended effect of allowing some manufacturers to delay the application of Phase 2
technologies. CARB suggested that the agencies had not considered the Phase 1 credits, but the
agencies' modeling included credit carry-forward and credits that are expected to be banked from the
Phase 1 standards. The modeling did not indicate that a 5 year credit carry-forward would result in a
significant delay in the application of technology, but would provide flexibility to manufacturers in
-------
implementing the Phase 2 standards which become more stringent year-over-year in MYs 2021-2027.
Although some commenters supported longer credit carry-forward, the agencies did not receive
comments that the proposed standards which are being finalized would not feasible with only five year
credit carry-forward. The 5 year credit carry-forward preserves needed flexibility for transitioning to
more stringent Phase 2 standards by allowing manufacturers to mesh the phase-in with their product
redesign cycles. The limit also helps to address concerns regarding delaying the introduction of
technology in Phase 2 or market disruptions that could occur is a manufacturer saved credits over many
years and achieving a cost advantage by using those credits in a single year.197
Further, Daimler and AAPC argue that credits be transferable between the light-duty and heavy-duty
classes. However, EPCA and EISA does not allow for the transfer of credits between the light-duty and
heavy-duty classes. Further, the agencies do not have enough data to conclude that allowing credit
transfers between vocational vehicles, tractor trailers, and heavy-duty pickups and vans will not
compromise the benefits of the program. These three classes are vastly different, and it may be easier to
comply in one class and not to advance technologies in the other classes. Until more information is
available the agencies have concluded that the credits generated in one vehicle class are not transferable
with those generated in another class.
7.4.2 Air Conditioning System Credits
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Acknowledge Mobile Air Conditioning Improvements - AAPC recommends adopting a credit
approach that acknowledges the greenhouse gas and fuel consumption benefits of direct and indirect
A/C system improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.3]
Acknowledge Mobile Air Conditioning (MAC) Improvements
Light-Duty MAC Efficiency
During the creation of the 2012-2016 Light-Duty vehicle greenhouse gas regulation, EPA created a list
of efficiency technologies (75 Federal Register 25428) which could earn a pre-defined and pre-approved
credit in grams per mile of C02. These credits could be applied to every vehicle that used the defined
technologies. These were termed "indirect" mobile air conditioner credits since the emissions reduction
did not result within the air conditioner system itself, but rather from the savings in fuel ultimately used
to power the MAC system. This has proven itself to be a highly successful approach for gaining rapid
implementation of air conditioner efficiency technologies. The following table shows the growth in
MAC credits: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 17]
[Table of credits in million sof megagrams of C02 can be found on p. 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1]
The table above shows that air conditioner efficiency technologies were not heavily used among
vehicles sold in the U.S. at the beginning of the greenhouse gas regulatory period, with the total industry
197 Note that the agencies have accounted for potential windfall credits from Phase 1 in other areas of the Phase 2
program, in particular, increasing the stringency of the vocational engine standard (and other engines certified
exclusively under the transient cycle). See Section II.D. 5 of the FRM Preamble.
-------
claiming only 2.1 million megagrams (i.e., metric tons) in C02 credits in 2009. (See Appendix A for
detailed history of Light-Duty MAC Credits 2009-2013). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 17]
As the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers noted in their comments on the 2012-2016 and 2017-
2025 Light-Duty vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy rulemakings (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-
6952 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799-9487, respectively), EPA based its MAC efficiency credits on
estimates of each technology's percentage impact on the total fuel usage by vehicle air conditioner
systems in the United States. However, EPA's estimate of baseline total air conditioner usage was well
below the estimates of others, such as researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as well as longstanding benchmarks used by industry. We continue to
believe that this low baseline used by EPA, which was less than half the baseline MAC energy usage
estimated by the other major sources, resulted in MAC efficiency credits which are far below the actual
real-world fuel savings and C02 reductions that are resulting from these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 17]
MAC improvements in the light-duty fleet have been acknowledged by EPA as a significant source of
real-world benefits, leading EPA to state in its 2012 MY report: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1
p. 17]
"About 40 percent of these [credits] were accrued through the use of the optional credit programs for air
conditioning systems, indicating a significant, real-world benefit as a result of the introduction of the
technologies underlying these optional credit programs." (EPA Manufacturer Performance Report for
the 2012 Model Year, p. 11) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 17]
MAC Efficiency in Class 7. Class 8. and Vocational Truck Regulations
EPA included fuel savings from improved air conditioner credits in setting the standards for Class 7 and
Class 8 heavy trucks, as well as vocational vehicles: "Compared to 2017MY air conditioners, air
conditioners with improved efficiency compressors will reduce C02 emissions by 0.5 percent." (80
Federal Register 40221). The difficulty of the standards was increased over time due to the forecast
phase-in of these improved MAC systems (80 Federal Register 40228). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1 p.18]
For regulatory compliance, an improvement factor of 0.5% is given to vehicles with "high-efficiency"
air conditioner compressors, defined as either electric compressors or improved mechanical
compressors. High-efficiency compressors are an input variable in the GEM model which results in a
0.5% fuel consumption reduction, thereby de facto giving Class 7, Class 8 and vocational trucks the
benefit of a pre-defined and pre-approved off-cycle fuel consumption credit for these compressors (80
Federal Register 40631). (Note: reference to 86.1868- 12(h)(5) in the NPRM appears to be incorrect
since that section covers improved evaporators and condensers whereas the correct reference would be
to compressors with reduced reheat 86.1868-12(h)(l).) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 18]
Clearly, the agencies recognize the environmental benefits that can be achieved from vehicle air
conditioner efficiency improvements, and has included incentives within this NPRM for Class 7, Class 8
and vocational truck regulations to achieve these benefits through a simple pre-defined credit. To not
acknowledge the potential environmental benefits and give credit for these same technologies on Class
2b/3 vehicles, with their significantly higher volumes, is inconsistent and counter-productive. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p. 18]
Class 2b/3 MAC Efficiency Pre-Approved Credit List
-------
The proposed regulation also explicitly applies the pre-defined light-duty MAC and off-cycle credit pick
lists to MDPV's (Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles). The result would be that all light-duty vehicles,
MDPV's, Class 7, Class 8 and vocational trucks would have pre-defined credit lists for MAC and off-
cycle technologies. Class 2b/3 trucks (non-MDPV's) would be the only remaining vehicles that would
not have access to pre-defined credit lists for MAC and off-cycle technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p. 18]
All the technologies from the light-duty vehicle MAC and off-cycle credits lists are applicable to Class
2b/3 vehicles, as are the additional technologies from the Class 7, 8 and vocational truck credit lists
(e.g., automatic tire inflation, adaptive cruise control, electric steering and cooling, stop-start, neutral
idle and extended idle). The advantages from a pre-defined credit list have already been thoroughly
established with the rapid implementation of improved air conditioner technologies on light-duty
vehicles, leading to the creation of the expanded light-duty pre-defined off-cycle credit list for 2014 (77
Federal Register 62737). The same successful template should be applied to all of the Class 2b/3 trucks,
from the start of the Phase 1 program, in order to expand the options for cost-effective technologies with
which to comply with this regulation. The result will be better environmental results, achieved quicker,
and at lower cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.18]
While light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles have similar air conditioning systems, the AC 17 test has not
yet confirmed its ability to usefully function in this regulatory role, and we would urge that it not be
included in the MAC efficiency crediting provisions for heavy-duty vehicles until all inaccuracies are
addressed via the ongoing collaborative agency/OEM development work. AC 17 A-to-B testing in this
segment would be very difficult and impractical given the magnitude of the AC 17 differential relative to
the test-to-test variability in large fuel consumption vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1
p.18-19]
If the AC 17 test is adopted, manufacturers should be permitted to use AC 17 test results from light-duty
versions of the same AC systems when similar. Given the proliferation of low-volume designs in the
vocational vehicle category, AC 17 testing requirements would be impractical for these vehicles and
should not be required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 19]
Light-Duty MAC Refrigerant/Leakage
The table above documents the rapid reduction in refrigerant leakage resulting from the direct MAC
credit program. Leakage reduction improvements increased 69% to 10.3 million megagrams in only
three years, from 2009 to 2012. The increase on a per vehicle basis was from approximately 3.5 grams
per mile of C02 per vehicle in 2009 to approximately 4.0 grams per mile in 2012 (EPA Manufacturer
Performance Report for the 2012 Model Year, p. 29). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 19]
Although industry-wide statistics have not yet been published beyond 2012, production capacity for the
new low-global-warming refrigerant R-1234yf has increased. Following its introduction on a few
models in 2013, R-1234yf has been implemented on many important vehicle platforms totaling millions
of vehicles. The incentive created by pre-defined MAC credits has accelerated the U.S. HFC reduction
program into a leading position worldwide, laying the groundwork for eventual phase-out or dramatic
phase-down of high GWP automotive refrigerants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 19]
Light-Duty SNAP Program
Based on the early start and clear incentives provided by the MAC provisions in the Light-Duty
greenhouse gas regulation, EPA recently published a final rule (80 Federal Register 42870) under its
-------
Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) which will remove high-GWP R-134a entirely from use
as an air conditioner refrigerant in new light-duty vehicles by the 2021 model year. AAPC recommends
that EPA approve R-1234yf and other low GWP refrigerants for use in heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 19]
Class 2b/3 Pre-Defined Refrigerant Credit List
The experience from the Light-Duty vehicle program shows that a pre-defined list of credits for
refrigerant improvements on heavy-duty vehicles would accelerate these improvements. Credits for low
leak air conditioner systems and credits for low-global-warming refrigerants should both play a role,
laying the basis for eventual industry-wide refrigerant replacements in systems with high refrigerant
containment integrity. By using an incentive approach, rather than mandates, companies move as
quickly as they can, according to their various constraints and capabilities, with the result that the most
eager early actors break down barriers and reduce costs to smooth the path for an eventual industrywide
switchover. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.19]
The current rulemaking is an appropriate time to create this incentive structure in heavy-duty vehicles.
At a minimum, given the similarities in the air conditioning systems between Class 2b/3 trucks and
many light-duty trucks, as well as the experience of the light-duty vehicle manufacturers with these
provisions of the Light-Duty regulation, a pre-defined credit list for refrigerants should be created for
Class 2b/3 trucks. The credit levels and other provisions should be identical to the credit provisions for
light-duty trucks in the same time period, through 2025 model year, including acknowledging further
improving leakage and moving R-134a systems to low-GWP refrigerants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1 p.20]
[Table of MAC credits can be found on p.20 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1]
Organization: FCAUS,LLC
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 62.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 134.]
As far as A/C system improvements, we believe there is value in recognize the greenhouse gas and fuel
consumption contributions from reducing the energy demand of the A/C systems. We also believe
there's additional opportunity to further harmonize with the Light Duty Program and recognize the
added greenhouse gas emission benefit beyond leak reduction. That's switching to a lower global
warming potential a refrigerant can provide.
Organization: General Motors
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 102-103.]
For example, the pre-defined and pre-approved list of mobile air conditioner greenhouse gas credits has
incentivized a rapid improvement in the efficiency and leak integrity of light duty vehicle air
conditioners. These incentives are now paving the way for an early transition to lower global warming
-------
air conditioner refrigerants as millions of new vehicles are being produced with the new refrigerants,
many years in advance of any mandate to make the switch.
Organization: Nissan North America, Inc.
Air Conditioning Credits
As in the light duty program, air conditioning improvements can assist in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and fuel consumption. Although the agencies did not provide air conditioning efficiency
credits in Phase 1 and continued that approach in the proposal, the agencies should reconsider that
position. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.4]
The decision not to include such credits in the proposal was based on a conclusion that the C02
emissions in heavy duty vehicles due to air conditioning systems is likely minimal compared to their
overall emission of C02. While that comparison may be valid, air conditioning systems nonetheless
represent an area where substantial C02 reductions can be had. The final rule should account for these
opportunities and apply air conditioning efficiency credits as set forth below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1026-A1 p.4]
The following figure reflects the C02 reducing potential of improving the efficiency of air conditioning
systems in this market segment: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.4]
[The figure, AC Impact (%) vs. SC03 C02 w/ AC On (g/mi), can be found on p.5 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A 1 ]
In the light duty rule for Model Years 2017-2025, the agencies estimated the greenhouse gas reductions
associated with small (5.6%) passenger car, medium (4.8%) passenger car, large (4.5%) passenger car,
and light duty truck (3.5%). Based on SC03 emissions testing on Nissan light duty truck Model A with
the air conditioning running, the impact of air conditioning efficiency improvements for a comparable
2b class heavy duty model is estimated to be 3.3%. The results and comparison with the light duty
program are shown below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.5]
[The table, summarizing various SC03 cycle values for various car sizes, can be found on p.5 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A 1 ]
Based on this analysis, the maximum air conditioning credit value would be 9.7 g/mile. Accordingly,
the air conditioning system menu, and the associated credits, should be as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1026-A1 p.5]
[The table, summarizing estimated C02 reduction for several technological advances, can be found
on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1]
As shown, there are in fact significant benefits that can be gained through improving the efficiency of
air conditioning systems. Recognizing and encouraging the translation of air conditioning efficiency
improvements from the light duty segment to this HDPV segments provides additional consistency in
the technology to be deployed. The credits would provide a necessary tool towards compliance with the
aggressive Phase 2 standards and would help achieve further reductions in GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1026-A 1 p.6]
-------
Response:
The agencies did not propose and are not adopting A/C efficiency credits for heavy-duty pickups and
vans. AAPC suggests that the agencies could allow the same credits as are available in the light-duty
vehicle program but no data is provided regarding the appropriateness of the credits. The EPA would
need to resolve a number of open issues relating to environmental implications of A/C efficiency credits
for these vehicles (among them, potential credit generation rate, whether credits would be windfall,
implications for the standard stringency) before considering adopting an A/C efficiency credit regime.
Also, the AC 17 test is an integral part of the light-duty vehicle program serving as a confirmation that
the credits are based on actual performance improvements. The agencies do not believe that it would be
appropriate to provide credits based only on the presumption that systems similar to those used in light-
duty trucks will provide the same improvements in heavy-duty pickups and vans with no confirmation
through testing. AAPC suggested simply using the light truck list of A/C efficiency credits without
providing any data. Nissan suggested revising the credits upward from the light truck level, based on
limited light truck data and without any HD vehicle data to support its analysis. With regard to AAPC
comments regarding credits provided in the other vehicle sectors, EPA notes that for other sectors any
available A/C technologies and associated credits are considered as part of the feasibility analysis for
setting the standards for the other sectors and not simply additional credits available to the
manufacturers. A/C credits were not considered in the standard setting for HD pickups and vans.
AAPC also recommended that EPA provide credits for reduced refrigerant leakage and alternative
refrigerant usage similar to the light-duty vehicle program. In response, EPA has already established
standards in Phase 1 for refrigerant leakage. EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to
provide credits for items that are essentially required. Providing such credits without an increase in total
program stringency similar to the light-duty approach to A/C efficiency and refrigerant leakage would
result in an unwarranted loss of program benefits. See Section I.F of the Preamble and Chapter 1.7 of
this Response to Comments document for how the Phase 2 program handles the use of alternative
refrigerants.
7.4.3 Off-cycle Credits for HD Pickups and Vans
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Acknowledge Off-Cycle Improvements - AAPC recommends adopting a credit approach that
acknowledges the greenhouse gas and fuel consumption benefits of off cycle technologies that are not
completely captured on the current test cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.3]
Acknowledge Off-Cycle Improvements
Off-cycle and Innovative Credits
In Phase 1 of the Light-Duty greenhouse gas regulation for 2012-2016, EPA used a "menu" of pre-
defined and pre-approved credits for mobile air conditioners, but required individual approvals for each
off-cycle credit. Off-cycle technologies were required to be "new and innovative" and "not in
widespread use," and could not also generate significant on-cycle benefits. Industry responded with
rapid implementation of air conditioner technologies, but only two small off-cycle credit requests were
approved for other technologies, each taking approximately six months for reviews and approvals.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.21 ]
EPA later stated that:
-------
"These criteria have interfered with the goal of providing an incentive for the development and use of
off-cycle technology that reduces C02 emissions." (77 Federal Register 62835) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.21]
For Phase 2 Light-Duty, EPA created an off-cycle technology "menu" or "pick list" of credits. EPA also
eliminated the criteria that technologies be "new and innovative," "not in widespread use," and could
not also generate on-cycle benefits. In order to encourage investment in these technologies, EPA also
made clear that the credits would not expire, stating: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.21]
"EPA is also making clear that once approved, EPA does not intend to sunset a technology's credit
eligibility or to deny credits to other vehicle applications using the technology." (77 Federal Register
62836) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.21]
Model Year 2014 was the first year for the new light-duty off-cycle credit menu. While 2014 reporting
is only recently completed, there has been extensive industry interest in the new off-cycle program, and
the provisions can be expected to be heavily used, resulting in rapid acceleration in implementation of
these real-world fuel saving technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.21]
With respect to off-cycle credits, Phase 1 of the Heavy-Duty vehicle rule resembled Phase 1 of the
Light-Duty rule. Manufacturers could apply for credits for innovative technologies on a case-by-case
basis using extensive documentation. To our knowledge, no innovative technology credits have been
granted during Phase 1 under this regulatory template (for Class 2b/3 trucks). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.21]
Off-Cycle Credits in Class 7. Class 8 and Vocational Vehicle Regulations
As with MAC high-efficiency compressors, the proposed Heavy-Duty vehicle regulation for Class 7,
Class 8 and vocational trucks establishes de facto pre-defined and pre-approved off-cycle credits for a
variety of technologies. This NPRM proposes that these technologies be included in the GEM
simulation tool with pre-defined fuel efficiency values, with the result that vehicles including the
technologies have lower fuel consumption. Some of the improvement might partially be experienced in
conditions that would be on-cycle in the standard FTP test, but some of these improvements are clearly
experienced in off-cycle conditions. Several examples are discussed on page 1063 of the NPRM: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.21 -22]
"(4) GEM applies a 2 % emission reduction for tractors with predictive cruise control. This includes any
cruise control system that incorporates satellite-based global-positioning data for controlling operator
demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.22]
(5) GEM applies a 0.5 % emission reduction for tractors with a high-efficiency air conditioning
compressor. This includes mechanically powered compressors meeting the specifications described in
40 CFR 86.1868-12(h)(5), and all electrically powered compressors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-
A1 p.22]
(6) GEM applies a 1 % emission reduction for tractors with electrically powered pumps for steering and
engine cooling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.22]
(7) GEM applies a 1 % emission reduction for tractors with automatic tire inflation systems. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.22]
-------
(8) GEM accounts for emission reductions for reduced idle for the following technologies: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.22]
(i) Stop-start technology for vocational vehicles. Phase 2 vocational vehicles qualify for reduced
emissions in GEM modeling if the engine shuts down no more than 30 seconds after the onset of any of
the following conditions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.22]
(A) The vehicle's brake is depressed at a zero-speed condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1
p.22]
(B) A vehicle with automatic transmission goes into "Park." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.22]
(ii) Neutral-idle technology for vocational vehicles. A Phase 2 vocational vehicle with an automatic
transmission qualifies for reduced emissions in GEM modeling if the vehicle goes into neutral (or
reduces torque equivalent to being in neutral) at a zero-speed condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1 p.22]
(iii) Extended-idle reduction. If your sleeper cab is equipped with idle reduction technology meeting the
requirements of § 1037.660 that will automatically shut off the main engine after 300 seconds or less,
GEM applies a 5 percent emission reduction for Phase 2 vehicles. For Phase 1, enter 5.0 g/ton-mile as
the input (or a lesser value specified in § 1037.660); otherwise leave this field blank." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1238-A1 p.22]
Class 2b/3 Pre-Approved Off-Cvcle Credit List
As discussed previously with respect to MAC efficiency credits, the proposed regulation applies the pre-
defined light-duty off-cycle credit pick list to MDPV's (Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles). The result
would be that all light-duty vehicles, MDPVs, Class 7, Class 8 and vocational trucks would have pre-
defined credit lists for off-cycle technologies. Class 2b/3 trucks (non-MDPVs) would be the only
remaining vehicles that would not benefit from pre-defined off-cycle credit lists. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.22]
All the technologies from the light-duty vehicle off-cycle credits lists are potentially applicable to Class
2b/3 vehicles, as are the additional technologies from the Class 7, 8 and vocational truck credit lists
(e.g., automatic tire inflation, adaptive cruise control, electric steering and cooling, stop-start, neutral
idle and extended idle), as well as additional technologies that are not yet on any of the lists. The
advantages from a pre-defined credit list have already been thoroughly established with the rapid
implementation of improved air conditioner technologies on light-duty vehicles, leading to the creation
of the expanded light-duty pre-defined off-cycle credit list for 2014 (77 Federal Register 62737). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p.22-23]
AAPC recommends the same successful template be applied to all of the Class 2b/3 trucks, from the
start of the Phase 1 program, in order to expand the options for cost-effective technologies with which to
comply with this regulation. This will incentivize the early introduction of technology that will result in
improved environmental results, achieved quicker, and at lower cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-
A1 p.23]
Light-Duty Off-Cvcle Technologies
-------
All of the technologies on the light-duty off-cycle technology pick list can be expected to generate real-
world emissions reductions for each heavy-duty truck at levels equal to or exceeding the light-duty truck
credit values (i.e., this is a conservative starting point). In general, this would be expected based on the
higher fuel consumption of heavy-duty engines. For perspective, note that in the EPA analysis for light-
duty off-cycle credits, the light truck pick list credit is larger than the passenger car credit for all the
technologies except lighting, engine heat recovery to generate electricity, and solar panels. These
technologies where the credits are equal deal directly with vehicle electricity supply and usage, and are
not closely tied to conventional engine operation. For the technologies more directly tied to
conventional engine operation, the larger engines used in light trucks compared to passenger cars
resulted in pick list off-cycle credits ranging from 25% to 133% larger. Comparing Class 2 and Class 3b
trucks to the total light truck category would be expected to result in similar credit growth, since the
light truck category includes many vehicles in the minivan, crossover or small SUV classes with smaller
engines and more carlike design and performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.23]
[Table, Light-duty Truck Off-cycle Pre-approved List, can be found on p.23 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 ]
[Table, Thermal control technology, can be found on p.24 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1]
In general, AAPC supports the analysis done by EPA in creating the light-duty credit list. For high
efficiency lighting, exhaust gas heat recovery for electricity generation, and solar panels, the credit
amounts could be left unchanged for a heavy-duty truck off-cycle pick list. Credits for thermal control
technologies also could be left unchanged, or are at least a lower priority for re-analysis. The credits for
active aerodynamic features, stop-start and active engine and transmission warm-up should be
reassessed for a specific heavy-duty vehicle analysis, and pre-approved credits should be established for
these technologies at a greater level than for light-duty trucks. (See Appendix B for full explanation of
light-duty off-cycle credit pick list technologies, and methodologies used to calculate credits.) [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A 1 p.24]
Implement an Off-Cycle Credit Pick List
For the reasons cited above, off-cycle credit opportunities similar to the light-duty fleet should be
adopted for the medium and heavy-duty fleets. AAPC also recommends adding additional technologies
to the pre-defined list of off-cycle technologies. These technologies are summarized immediately below.
See Appendix B for a full explanation of these additional technologies and the methodology used to
calculate credits. Constraining additions to technology list could have the unintended consequence of
slowing innovation for technologies that save fuel in real-world driving and are of high importance to
the powertrain/vehicle system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.24]
[Table, list of technologies and emissions, can be found on p.24-25 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1238-A1]
For the reasons explained in detail above, AAPC requests that a "pick list" or "menu" be created to give
Class 2b/3 vehicles regulatory credit for the real-world greenhouse gas emission and fuel consumption
reductions that result from the use of various "off-cycle technologies." A pick list has already been
established for light-duty vehicles, and the current proposed regulation contains pre-assigned credits for
the real-world benefits of various technologies used in Class 7 and 8 tractors and vocational vehicles.
Our recommendations for the Class 2b/3 pick list include all the technologies on the pre-approved credit
list for light-duty trucks (as a de minimus), as well as credits for several additional technologies that
-------
give real-world benefits on these vehicles beyond the benefits on the standard fuel economy tests. We
also request that these off-cycle credit provisions be kept simple and accessible, without extensive
requirements for additional testing or for meeting other criteria, caps or thresholds, in order to
encourage rapid innovation and experimentation in this promising area. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1238-A1 p.25]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Available credit for solar control for heavy-duty pickups and vans
For heavy-duty pickups and vans (class 2b/3), the NPRM requests comment on establishing a pre-
defined technology menu list for off-cycle emissions, including solar control (see table VI-33, page
40390 of the NPRM). U.S. EPA and NHTSA consider these vehicles to be analogous to light-duty
vehicles, since they use the same chassis test procedure. To determine the appropriate default level of
credits for these heavier vehicles, the NPRM requests comments with supporting heavy-duty pickup-
and van-specific data and analysis that would provide a substantive basis for appropriate adjustments to
the credits levels. As with the light-duty vehicle program, U.S. EPA and NHTSA would also consider
including a cap on credits generated under the pre-defined list. Such a cap addresses issues of
uncertainty regarding the level of credits automatically assigned to each technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 152]
CARB staff believes it is appropriate to include solar control in the pre-defined technology menu list for
heavy-duty pickups and vans along with a preapproved credit. Credits for solar control are largely about
reducing the heat build-up in parked vehicles, reducing the need to idle to stay comfortable, and
reducing the load on the engine from operating the AC, since AC use generally reduces fuel economy.
Class 2b/3 vehicles likely spend less of the workday parked than do light-duty vehicles although they
probably do spend part of the work day parked with the engine off. They likely spend more time idling
than light-duty vehicles, some of which time could be reduced if there was less need for comfort idling.
The balance of the workday is spent in motion. Solar control has a benefit during driving operations as
well, although the fuel economy of vehicles with larger engines are less affected by the use of an AC
than are light-duty vehicles with smaller engines. The value established for light-duty trucks of 3.9 g
C02/mile could be used. However, CARB staff believes it would be appropriate to reduce this value by
the assumed contribution from the backlite, since work vehicles often do not have substantial if any
backlites. CARB staff assumed, based on an overview of the literature for its Cool Car proposal,58 that
30 percent of the solar energy enters the vehicle through the backlite. Therefore, CARB suggests a pre-
approved credit of 2.7 g C02/mile for the 2b-3 sector. Manufacturers who believed that this
underestimates the value that solar controls provide to their vehicle model could provide appropriate test
data to substantiate a request for a greater off-cycle credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 152-
153]
58 (CARB, 2009) California Air Resources Board, "Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for
Rulemaking - Cool Car Standards and Test Procedures,," May 8,
2009, .
Organization: Ford Motor Company
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 28-29.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 158-159.]
Ford supports expansion of the Phase 1 allowance to generate emission credits for C02 improvements
for technologies providing on road fuel consumption benefits that are not captured by the emissions test
cycles or models.
Organization: General Motors
The success of these air conditioner provisions led to the expansion of this approach in 2014 for the
light duty fleet with the introduction of an expanded off cycle list of pre-assigned and pre-approved
credits for other technologies that reduce fuel usage and conditions not comprehended in the standard
fuel economy test, such as colder weather, higher speeds, or extended idle times.
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
Implementation of an Off Cycle Credit Pick-List
We support American Automotive Policy Council's proposal to implement an Off Cycle Credit Pick
List. A "pick list" or "menu" would give Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles regulatory credit for greenhouse
gas emissions reductions that result from the use of various "off cycle technologies." A pick list exists
for light duty vehicles, and this proposal contains pre-assigned credits for the real world benefits of
various technologies used in Class 7 and 8 tractors and vocational vehicles. A Class 2b/3 pick list give
real world benefits on these vehicles beyond the benefits on the standard fuel economy tests. Finally, the
off cycle credit provisions should avoid extensive requirements for additional testing or for meeting
other criteria, caps or thresholds, in order to encourage further innovation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1248-A2 p. 10]
Organization: Nissan North America, Inc.
Off-Cycle Credits
The availability of off-cycle credits is critical. The agencies should include the same pre-defined pick-
list that is used in the light duty program, and should also include a mechanism to add new technologies
to the list. Again, off-cycle technologies on the light duty credit menu can be translated to the heavy
duty and adjusted for use in that segment. Nissan calculated the benefits for Active Transmission Warm
Up and Active Engine Warm Up. Using a 0.58% greenhouse gas reduction rate (at U.S. average
temperature of 580 F) applied in the light duty rulemaking and Nissan Model B classified as Class 2b
Heavy Duty, Nissan calculated the benefit from those technologies to be 3.2 g/mile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1026-A1 p.6]
[The table, which displays the C02 emission, impact and benefit of the Nissan Model B, can be found
on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1]
-------
These technologies have the proven potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and should
be included in an off-cycle credit program which recognizes this benefit and assists towards compliance
with the standards. [KPA-HQ-OAR-20 i4-0827-1026-A1 p.7|
Response:
Several commenters supported allowing manufacturers to use the light-duty vehicle off-cycle credit
menu for HD pickups and vans. In their comments, AAPC referred to the two tables below. The tables
provide the off-cycle credits available for light-duty trucks.
Light-duty Truck Off-cycle Pre-approved List:
Technology
Truck
(gC02/Mile)
Truck Credit Over
Car Credit
High Efficiency Lighting
1.0*
0%
Engine Heat Recovery
0.7*
0%
Solar Panels **
3.3*
0%
Solar Panels with ventilation **
2.5*
0%
Active Aerodynamic Improvements
1.0*
67%
Engine Stop-Start
2.9
93%
Electric Heater Circulation Pump
1.5
50%
Active Transmission Warm-Up
3.2
113%
Active Engine Warm-Up
3.2
113%
Thermal Control
Up to 4.3
43%
* - Scalable
** = Hybrids only
Thermal Control Technology
Trucks
(gC02/mile)
Truck Credit Over
Car Credit
Glass or glazing
<3.9
34%
Active seat ventilation
1.3
30%
Solar reflective paint
0.5
25%
Passive cabin ventilation
2.3
35%
Active cabin ventilation
2.8
40%
Total Thermal Control Allowed
4.3
43%
AAPC commented that at minimum, the light truck list (i.e. the off cycle technology menu providing
default values for enumerated off-cycle technologies from the light-duty vehicle GHG rules) should be
made available for HD pickups and vans. AAPC comments that for thermal control technologies credits
could be left unchanged, or are at least a lower priority for re-analysis. AAPC further commented that
the credits for active aerodynamic features, stop-start and active engine and transmission warm-up
-------
should be reassessed for a specific heavy-duty vehicle analysis, and pre-approved credits should be
established for these technologies at a greater level than for light-duly trucks. We note, however, that
AAPC provided no data supporting why the light truck default level would be appropriate for HD
pickups and vans, or data on which to establish an appropriate level of credits for HD pickups and vans.
AAPC suggests that EPA perform an analysis to adjust the credit levels for IiD pickups and vans, but
again, provided no data to support such an analysis. EPA believes off-cycle credits must be supported
adequately by data for the applicable vehicles to ensure that the credits realistically reflect actual
technology performance. EPA's request for comments in the NPRM on the topic of off-cycle credits
emphasized the need for data in support of any recommended credits. Therefore, EPA is not extending
the light truck menu credits to HD pickups and vans as requested by AAPC. Manufacturers may
generate off-cycle credits for these technologies through the off-cycle credit provisions established in
Phase 1.
AAPC further provided a list of technologies in addition to the light truck list above and requested
associated off-cycle credits for die technologies, shown below. AAPC provided a further description of
these technologies and recommended credits in Appendix B of their comments.
Technology
Truck
(gC02/Mile)
Source
High efficiency alternator
1.0 g/mile per 0.1%
VDA improvement
GM/Ford/FCA/EU
Cylinder deactivation
1.5 g/mile
GM/FCA
Cooled EGR
1.0 g/mile
FCA
Transmission thermal valve
2.0 g/mile
GM
Neutral drive idle
10.7 g/mile
Ford
Automatic tire inflation
0.5% of GHG level
SAE J2452
Adaptive cruise control
1.9% of GHG level
euroFOT
Electric accessory systems
3% of GHG level
TIAX
Variable pressure DBF pump
0.7 g/mile
Ford
Variable low pressure in-tank fuel pump
0.7 g/mile
Ford
Variable pressure engine oil pump
1.4 g/mile
Ford
Variable pressure transmission oil pump
0.7 g/mile
Ford
Clutched vacuum pump
0.6 g/mile
Ford
Air conditioning compressor with
1.1 g/mile
GM
variable crank case suction valve
technology
For the technologies listed in the table above, there are three primary reasons that the agencies are not
adopting credit levels recommended by commenters. In many cases, the analysis provided by
commenters did not include sufficient real-world heavy-duty vehicle data on which to base the
recommended menu credit value. Thus, in several cases, the analysis provided by commenters was
based on light-duty vehicle data or on simulations with little detail provided, which analysis is not
directly applicable to heavy duty pickups and vans for purposes of technology performance
-------
quantification. Second, in several cases, the technologies recommended for off-cycle credits for HD
pickups and vans provide significant on-cycle benefit. Such technologies are considered to be
adequately captured by the test procedures (within the meaning of section 86.1819-14 (d)(13))198 and are
therefore not considered to be eligible for off-cycle credits. Examples of adequately captured
technologies that commenters recommended for off-cycle credits include cylinder deactivation and
cooled EGR. Moreover, these are technologies the agencies expect to be in the mix of technologies used
to meet the standards (and are projected to be used in the respective analyses of compliance paths on
which the stringency of the final standards are predicated). EPA has already indicated that off-cycle
credits are not available for technologies that form part of the technology basis for the greenhouse gas
standards because these technologies' benefits would already be reflected in the standard's stringencies
(and costs), since the technologies would not even be under consideration unless their benefits were
"adequately captured" in two-cycle space. 77 FR 62835 (Oct. 12, 2012). Likewise, many of these
technologies are inherent to vehicle design and so are similarly ineligible. Id. at 62732, 62836. Finally,
a few other recommended technologies are considered safety-related technologies not eligible for credits
because they could reasonably be expected to fall under vehicle safety standards in the future and so
would be adopted in any case. Granting off-cycle credits for these technologies for HD pickups and
vans consequently would amount to an unwarranted windfall. Adaptive cruise control and forward
collision warning systems are examples of these technologies.
Each technology and the reason EPA is not providing credits is provided below:
• High Efficiency Alternator - AAPC provides only data from light-duty vehicle applications in their
credit analysis, many of which are passenger cars. The EU approach referred by AAPC is also
based on light-duty vehicle applications (AAPC only suggests part of the EU approach as
appropriate while rejecting other aspects of the program that they view as problematic) and it is
unclear if it would be appropriate for HD vehicles. While AAPC provides one simulation of a HD
vehicle which is supportive of the recommended credit, EPA believes more data is needed upon
which to establish the appropriate credit level. EPA rejected establishing menu credits for high
efficiency alternators in the light-duty vehicle program. See 77 FR 62730. AAPC acknowledges
this noting "We agree that the situation may be complicated since real-world efficiencies can be
very vehicle specific and alternator specific, and average vehicle real-world electrical loads are not
well documented, and probably vary considerably between vehicles." EPA continues to view the
assessment of off-cycle credits for high efficiency alternators as complex and requiring data to
support the off-cycle credit level. This technology may be eligible for credits under the off-cycle
credits provisions established for Phase 1 which would require a model-specific demonstration of
the credit level requested.
• Cylinder Deactivation - As noted above, EPA views cylinder deactivation to be adequately captured
by the test procedures (within the meaning of section 86.1819-14 (d)(13)) and therefore ineligible
for off-cycle credits. EPA also questions AAPC's rationale that cylinder deactivation should be
eligible for an off-cycle credit based on the amount of time the vehicle is driven in an unloaded
condition without also acknowledging times when the vehicle is driven in a highly loaded condition
which would make cylinder deactivation relatively less effective than over the 2-cycle test. Also,
the suggested credit is based on simulation data only.
• Cooled Exhaust Gas Recovery -EPA views cooled EGR to be adequately captured by the test
procedures (within the meaning of section 86.1819-14 (d)(13)) and thus ineligible for off-cycle
198 This provision states that an off-cycle credit must be for a technology that is "not adequately captured on the
Federal Test procedure (FTP) and/or the highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET)."
-------
credits. As with cylinder deactivation, EPA questions AAPC's rationale supporting the
recommended credit. With cylinder deactivation, AAPC argued that off-cycle credits are
appropriate to capture benefits when the vehicle is driven in lightly loaded conditions without
discussing what happens in highly loaded conditions. For cooled EGR, AAPC argues the opposite,
that vehicles are "frequently used" in highly loaded conditions where cooled EGR is more effective
compared to the 2-cycle test, without discussing the technology's performance under lightly loaded
conditions. AAPC only provides that their estimated credit is based on simulations performed by
FCA on its heavy-duty pickup.
Transmission Bypass Valve - This credit is not supported by HD vehicle test data and it is not clear
that the credit is derived in a way that is applicable to HD vehicles or is reflective of the
performance of the technology in real world operation. Also, this technology has been used for
several years in HD vehicles and would not likely be considered innovative under the HD off-cycle
regulatory provisions found at 40 CFR 86.1819-14 (d)(13) (previously 40 CFR 1037.104 (d)(13)).
Neutral Drive Idle - AAPC does not provide data for HD pickups and vans supporting their
effectiveness estimate, on-cycle benefit, or real-word idle. More data, including model specific data
would be need to support the requested 10.7 g/mile credit.
Automatic Tire Inflation - AAPC does not provide HD pickup and van specific data to support the
significant (~ 5 g/mile) requested credit.
Adaptive cruise control - As noted above, adaptive cruise control is not eligible for credits because
it could reasonably be expected to fall under vehicle safety standards in the future and so would be
adopted in any case. Granting off-cycle credits for these technologies consequently would amount
to an unwarranted windfall.
Electric Accessory Systems - Electric accessory improvements provide on-cycle benefits and are
included in the technologies that the agencies expect to be used to meet the standards. Since these
standards are part of the basis for the standards, they would not be eligible for off-cycle credits.
Moreover, the credit level suggested by AAPC of 3 percent of a vehicle model C02 level would
result in a relatively large credit (e.g., in the range of about 12 to 16 g/mile for a MY 2027 gasoline-
fueled vehicle), and data would be needed on HD pickups and vans if EPA was going to consider
the credit further. Also, the credit would need to be considered as part of the standard setting
process since, as noted above, electric accessories are among the technologies the agencies expect to
be used to meet the standards. For Class 7 and 8, these technologies and their effectiveness values
are built into the GEM model and are therefore considered in the feasibility analysis for establishing
the level of the standards.
Vacuum, DEF, engine oil, transmission oil, fuel and coolant pumps - AAPC notes only that the
credit values requested for all pumps listed were calculated using the VMT difference between
MOVES and the weighted metro highway cycle using the Alpha model to compute the benefit. No
data or further explanation is provided and EPA does not believe the credit request was adequately
supported for these technologies.
Air Conditioning Compressor with Variable Crank Case Suction Valve Technology - AAPC
discusses EPA's approval of off-cycle credits for this technology in the light-duty vehicle program
for certain GM vehicles and requests the same level of credits as provided for some of GM's light-
duty vehicles for all HD pickups and vans. No data on HD pickups and vans is provided to support
the credit request. EPA believes that HD vehicle data and perhaps model-specific data would be
-------
needed to support the credit request. EPA notes that manufacturers could apply for credits for this
technology for HD vehicles under the off-cycle credits program established in the Phase 1 rule.
EPA also notes that taken as a whole, AAPC requested off-cycle credits that could total in the range of
40 to 50 g/mile. This represents a significant fraction of the overall reductions expected for the Phase 2
program for this vehicle class and would need to be supported by substantial data. Further, with respect
to those technologies which are not already part of the basis of the Phase 2 standards for HD pickups
and vans, if EPA had sufficient data on which to base such credits and were to provide the credits, the
off-cycle credits could then potentially be considered in the feasibility assessment that is integral to the
standard setting process, as they were for the other sectors. This could lead to an assessment that more
stringent standards are feasible for the HD pickup and van sector. It is unlikely that the credits would
simply be available for use by manufacturers in lieu of making other changes to the vehicles that are
projected to be made to meet the standards. Also, because off-cycle credits have not been considered in
the feasibility assessment of the final standards, EPA does not view the credits as critical or essential in
meeting the standards being finalized.
Nissan also commented in support of providing the same menu of off-cycle comments for HD pickups
and vans as is provided for light-duty vehicles. Nissan suggested that the credits from the light-duty
program could be adjusted for use in the HD segment. Nissan provides an example for active engine
and active transmission warm-up where the credits from the light-duty program are increased by
assuming the technology will reduce HD C02 emissions by the same percentage and applying that
percentage improvement to an example Nissan heavy-duty vehicle C02 level. No HD effectiveness or
other data is provided. As noted above, EPA is not extending the use of the light-duty vehicle off cycle
credits menu to HD pickups and vans. EPA believes off-cycle credits need to be sufficiently supported
by real-world data and Nissan does not provide data necessary to establish a general credit for all HD
pickups and vans. System design and effectiveness could vary significantly from vehicle model to
vehicle model. Manufacturers may generate off-cycle credits for these technologies through the off-
cycle credit provisions established in Phase 1.
CARB staff commented in support of including off-cycle credits for solar thermal controls in particular.
CARB notes that there are some differences in vehicle operation and design between light-duty vehicles
and HD vehicles and suggests a credit adjustment for those differences. EPA agrees with CARB staff
that solar thermal controls are likely to provide a benefit for HD vehicles as well as light-duty vehicles.
EPA is not establishing a menu credit for solar thermal control or other credits due to the lack of HD
vehicle specific data on which to base the credit levels. Indeed, CARB staff comments point out that
adjustments to credit levels would be needed to account for vehicle operation and design differences.
CARB suggests an adjustment but does not provided HD vehicle data to support the adjustment. As
previously noted for other technologies on the light-duty vehicle off-cycle credit menu, manufacturers
may generate off-cycle credits for these technologies through the off-cycle credit provisions established
in Phase 1.
7.4.4 Compliance Provisions
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports alignment of GHG useful life with LEVIII/Tier 3 criteria emissions useful life [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.35]
Cummins supports alignment of the GHG useful life with the criteria emissions useful life promulgated
in the LEVIII/Tier 3 rules. Cummins also supports adjusting Phase 1 credits used in Phase 2 to account
-------
for the differences between the useful life definitions for each phase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-
A1 p.35]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
In-Use Standards (80 FR 40342) - Daimler has no comment regarding the proposed change in the
current useful life of 11 years and 120,000 miles to reflect EPA's useful life of 15 years and 150,000
miles. Daimler encourages the agencies to ensure that there will be a fair credit exchange process from
Phase 1 to Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 113]
Organization: Nissan North America, Inc.
EPA's proposal, moreover, to adjust the credits from Phase 1 to Phase 2 to account for the changes in
the Useful Life of the vehicles is appropriate, and will ameliorate any asserted diminution in benefits
arising from the extension of Phase 1 credits through the pendency of the Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.4]
Response:
EPA is finalizing the adjustment to credits to account for the change in useful life from Phase 1 to Phase
2 so that credits are not devalued due to the credit calculation equation which includes a useful life
factor. This issue is discussed above in Chapter 1.4.7.
7.5 Proposed Non-C02 GHG Standards for Pickups and Vans
Response:
EPA did not receive any comments specific to HD pickups and vans regarding N20 and CH4 standards.
Comments regarding air conditioning system credits for HD pickups and vans are discussed above in
Chapter 7.4.2.
7.6 DOT HD CAFE Model
Organization: General Motors
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 104.]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 122-123.]
Finally, the program must attempt to minimize the potential for unintended consequences, especially for
the consumer. The heavy duty fleet does not benefit from the years of data that have been collected and
analyzed for the light duty fleet. Indeed, comprehensive data for this private segment is only now being
accumulated and analyzed for the 2014 model year, which is the first year of Phase 1 of the medium and
heavy duty truck regulations.
Year-end reports for 2014 were due to EPA by the end of March 2015, so this first year of
comprehensive industry-wide data is still fairly new. This new data should be carefully evaluated and
-------
then compared to the estimates and assumptions that form the basis for both Phase 1 and the proposed
Phase 2 of the heavy duty regulations.
Further, the utility provided and the duty cycle of these vehicles is completely different from the light-
duty fleet. And any attempt to force more stringent regulations, such as alternative 4, would be
extremely detrimental to manufacturers, consumers, the U.S. economy, and the millions of
transportation-related jobs. Indeed, comprehensive data for this product segment is only now being
accumulated and analyzed for the 2014 model year, which is the first year of phase 1. The data should
be carefully evaluated by the technical experts at the agencies and compared to the estimates and
assumptions that form the basis for both phase 1 and the proposed phase 2 regulations.13861386
Response:
GM expresses concern about the utility difference between the light-duty and medium-/heavy-duty
fleets. The agencies have noted the difference between these fleets and have designed the standards to
take into consideration the difference in utility. Where the light-duty fleet has varying vehicle targets by
footprint, the heavy-duty pickup and van fleet has targets that vary by work-factor (determined by
payload, towing capacity, and drive type). The agencies believe that constructing the vehicle targets
from work factor ensures that consumer choice will be maintained.
GM further express concerns about using the most current data available in considerations of phase II
standards. Method A uses the MY 2015 fleet as its reference fleet. Section 6.C(2) of the Preamble and
Chapter 10.2.2 compare the distribution of the 2014 work factor to the distribution of the 2015 work
factor. GM, Daimler, and Ford show some shifts of the distribution towards higher work factors, while
Nissan and Fiat/Chrysler have very similar work factor distributions for the two MY fleets. While this
data is preliminary, it seems to suggest that there have not been significant changes in the distribution of
work factor for each OEM which would eliminate consumer choice of high-utility vehicles. While the
standards have not adversely affected the utility of heavy-duty pickups and vans, preliminary evidence
might suggest the possibility that manufacturers may "game" the standards and create vehicles that are
more powerful than consumers may otherwise demand. This is an issue we will continue to investigate
in future rulemakings as more data from the Phase I and Phase II rulemakings become available. As it
stands, the agencies believe that the work factor based standards maintain the utility of vehicles, which
we agree with GM, is a priority for the heavy-duty vehicle class. See response 7.2.2 above.
GM also suggests that alternatives more stringent than Alternative 4 could have negative impacts on the
economy, consumers and manufacturers. We have considered these and other concerns about the
stringency of standards. As discussed in other comment responses and in both documents, we have
determined that the lead-time under Alternatives 4 and 5 would be such that it may require
manufacturers to add additional redesigns. Since this would be a costly endeavor, the regulations on this
class of vehicles are relatively new, and manufacturers will have to split available capital to respond to
these regulations between all regulatory classes, the agencies have determined that Alternative 3 is the
maximally feasible alternative, and the appropriate standard under the Clean Air Act, and are adopting
this alternative as the final standard for heavy duty pickups and vans. See response 7.2.1 above.
-------
8 Regulatory Alternatives and General Stringency
8.1 General Comments 1387
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
In deciding how stringent the Phase 2 rule should be, EPA and NHTSA should be mindful that their
authority to regulate MD/HD vehicles is not unbounded; costs and the feasibility of new standards are
key statutory considerations. EPA and NHTSA must also take into account the complex medium- and
heavy-duty ("MD/HD") marketplace; the agencies must allow sufficient time for new technology to be
integrated into commercial fleets which require high reliability and continuous vehicle availability.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.2]
EPA and NHTSA Should Rely on Market Forces to Drive Improvements in Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency; Alternative 3 Is Most Appropriate
EPA and NHTSA Must Take Into Account Structure of Commercial Truck Market
Since the Phase 1 rule was promulgated in 2011, Allison has supported efforts by EPA and NHTSA to
increase the agencies' knowledge of the MD/HD commercial truck sector and the effect of transmission
systems on GHG and FE. During multiple meetings and presentations, we have emphasized the
importance of aligning regulatory standards with real world operating conditions of commercial
vehicles. Allison has participated in the testing of different transmission systems and fully supported the
agencies' efforts to make the Greenhouse Gas Emission Model ("GEM") more accurate and aligned
with the various work requirements and road conditions experienced by MD/HD vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.8]
The Phase 1 rulemaking is projected to conserve 530 million barrels of oil and avoid 270 million metric
tons of GHG emissions. In the current rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA seek to make additional gains in
GHG and FE extending well into the next decade. Allison believes that additional improvements are
possible; Allison is a leader in the development of advanced transmission systems, including hybrid
systems, and believes that standards can be strengthened to "account for ongoing technical
advancements." We also believe that it is possible to build upon the regulatory structure established in
the Phase 1 rule and that the GEM can serve as the primary certification methodology, helping to
alleviate the burden of testing literally hundreds of different vehicle variants. But EPA and NHTSA
must recognize that there are limits to how fast the commercial truck market can incorporate new
technology, or perhaps more importantly, maybe willing to pay for such technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.8]
EPA and NHTSA indicate that the Phase 2 standards are intended to "represent a more technology-
forcing approach than the Phase 1 standards." The agencies state that the proposed standards "will
effectively require manufacturers to develop new technologies (or significantly improve technologies)."
That is assuredly so, but there are realistic limits to how the purchasers of commercial vehicles will
react. For this and other reasons, Allison believes that adoption of Alternative 3 is most appropriate and
that advancing technology requirements by 2-3 years as accomplished by Alternative 4 is not
appropriate or supported in the record of this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.8]
-------
With regard to projecting the adoption of new technology, EPA and NHTSA cannot rely on any
precedent, whether regulatory or judicial, that may have been established with respect to regulations that
may have been applied to the light duty vehicle ("LDV") sector. The MD/HD market shares little in
common with the LDV market. Combination tractors and vocational vehicles are almost exclusively
used for commercial purposes and there is no incentive to operate inefficiently or waste fuel; there is
little or no "leisure use" of commercial vehicles aside from the discrete market for motor homes. In
addition, the MD/HD market operates to closely match engines and vehicles with intended use;
purchasers specify combinations of engine and vehicle technologies which will accommodate the work
to be done by the vehicles at lowest operational cost. Finally, as the agencies acknowledge, the MD/HD
manufacturing sector is extremely diverse consisting of various engine, vehicle and component
manufacturers, body builders, trailer manufacturers and other suppliers. Thus, attempts to "drive"
technological innovation must take this structure into account when promulgating standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.8-9]
EPA and NHTSA project that Phase 1 standards would result in emission reductions of 9 to 23% as
compared with 2010 standards for combination trucks and 6 to 9% in emission reductions for vocational
vehicles. The Phase 2 rulemaking projects an 18 to 24% reduction as compared with MY 2017
standards, which would yield roughly 24 to 47% emission reductions from vehicles subject to this
regulation through MY 2027. Thus, simply on a basis of relative stringency, these reductions could
theoretically exceed the 2030 projected reductions for electric power plants under the recently
promulgated Clean Power Plan by 32%.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.9]
In determining stringency, EPA and NHTSA must assess how costs will be imposed on various entities
affected by this rulemaking. The agencies propose regulatory flexibility with respect to emergency
vehicles and low-volume chassis manufacturers to address the concerns of small businesses.6 Certain
banking and trading opportunities may be available to larger manufacturers, allowing for flexibility in
phasing in new technology. But the broader assessment of stringency (and the resulting costs borne by
manufacturers and consumers) relies on the projected adoption of numerous technologies resulting in a
projected per vehicle cost impact of $11,680 for tractors and $3,380 for vocational vehicles in MY
2027. The agencies then rely on the market to respond by valuing the "payback" of future decreases in
fuel cost to the upfront cost of purchasing the new technology (an assumption which may be especially
challenging in the vocational vehicle market since such "payback" would not occur for six years).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.9]
Alternative 3 therefore must be viewed as an aggressive program to decrease GHGs and increase fuel
economy in MD/HD vehicles, especially given that meeting the standards is only possible through
continuous technological improvement, an assumption which the agencies concede is itself uncertain.
Alternative 3 is comparable in stringency to EPA's efforts to control GHGs from electric generating
units under CAA section 111(d) but could be viewed as more aggressive since costs in the MD/HD
sector cannot be embedded into the product in the same manner as electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p.9]
EPA must therefore read its authority under CAA section 202 in the context of the commercial truck
market and commercial and economic restraints that are operative in this market. NHTSA must
similarly recognize that its EISA authority is separate and apart from its authority with respect to LDVs
and that it is to be guided specific language incorporated into the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007, as noted below in Section I.D. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.9-10]
-------
5 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating
Units; Final Rule, prepublication copy signed August 3, 2015.
6 RIA at 12-6.
Organization: Curl, Tilden
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 186.]
There are other unmandated alternatives to achieve good fuel economy. My pre-emissions truck worked
more efficiently, partly due to my driving skills. If those driving skills were taught to others, fuel
economy would improve. Highway congestion is another unaddressed proven waste of fuel every year. I
estimate that in one day of a recent trip, I burned an extra ten gallons of fuel due to congestion, the point
being those two suggestions do not involve concerns of unproven technology or unknown costs of the
new technology.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Further, the analyses presented within the Alternatives section of the Preamble should separate the costs
and benefits of tractors and trailers as lumping those two categories together does not allow for
comparison to these unique and different sectors between alternatives. Without being able to look at the
costs and benefits of the alternatives for just tractors or just trailers, we are not given enough
information to be able to comment on the alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.73]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
In fact, for all the reasons discussed above, serious concerns exist as to whether Alternative 3 is
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible. Given the proposal's long lead time and with
an eye toward avoiding untoward market disruptions, NADA/ATD suggests that the final rule include a
formal review process to reassess key assumptions and variables (e.g., new technology feasibility and
cost, uptake rates, freight demand, fuel prices, and interest rates, customer creditworthiness) in order to
verify whether the structure and stringency of Alternative 3 still makes sense for MYs 2024 and beyond.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 11 ]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
While Scenario Three, which results in full compliance by 2027 for all truck classes would represent a
positive guidepost for the industry, Odyne believes that cost effective technologies exist to meet
timelines and technology adoption scenarios laid out in Scenario Four, or a new Scenario with increased
stringency using the Scenario Three timeline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p.3] [[This
comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-08267-1372, p.229.]]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
The agencies preferred alternative, Alternative 3, proposes a ten year lead time for manufacturers to
meet the Phase II standards by MY 2027, "which the agencies believe is adequate to implement the
technologies... to meet the proposed standards. For some of the more advanced technologies production
-------
prototype parts are not yet available." Again, the livelihood of millions of truck drivers and thousands
of small business owners should not be predicated on the agencies belief that Alternative 3 and its ten
year lead time is adequate to meet the Phase II standards. No matter how great the hoped for benefits of
any technology may be, if it's not ready for prime time, it can be a business killer for owner-operators
and small fleets which make up the vast majority of the US truck fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1244-A1 p. 10]
The objective for this rulemaking is to provide more fuel efficient trucks while also reducing both GHG
and non-GHG emissions. Nevertheless, this goal will be ruined, along with the careers of those
employed throughout the trucking industry, if the agencies do not heed the concerns of the drivers
concerning appropriate lead time, stringency, and testing. Although agencies have stated that they
desire to avoid disrupting the market, such as the infamous "pre-buys" in 2007, it appears as if the
warnings of drivers, and original engine manufacturers (OEMs) have again fallen on deaf ears. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 10]
As noted by the agencies in their proposed rule, they received warnings from a number of industry
stakeholders that owner-operators, as well as large fleets, often plan to purchase their trucks more than a
year in advance. Therefore, if they fear a reduction in reliability, increased operating costs, reduced
residual value, or large increases in purchase prices, they will adjust their purchase plans to avoid these
business killing aggravations. The agencies stated, "The proposed Phase 2 standards would represent a
more technology-forcing approach than the Phase 1 approach, predicated on use of both off-the-shelf
technologies and emerging technologies that are not yet in widespread use. The agencies are proposing
standards for MY 2027 that would likely require manufacturers to make extensive use of these
technologies. For existing technologies and technologies in the final stages of development, we project
that manufacturers would likely apply them to nearly all vehicles." (Emphasis added). The agencies are
approaching Phase II with the belief various technologies will experience high market penetration
rates. However, an overestimation of adoption rates will negatively affect the cost and benefit
analysis. For example, Alternative 3 assumes that 90% of the market will adopt auxiliary power units
(APUs) by MY 2024, which is simply not realistic, as many trucking operations have absolutely no need
for an APU. Moreover, the agencies have assumed that waste heat recovery (WHR) technology, which
is still in prototype stage, will have a market penetration of 15% by MY 2027 under Alternative 3. The
OEMs have stated very clearly that WHR has numerous technical challenges for which no solutions
have been discovered as yet, therefore the technology is still unproven. The complexity and the cost for
such a technology would create positive conditions for a pre-buy situation, as owner-operators will not
risk their livelihood on unproven technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 10-11]
The agencies have proposed an overall level of fuel economy stringency labeled as Alternatives 3 for all
engines, vehicles, and most categories of trailers. Unlike in Phase I where the agencies projected that
manufacturers could meet the Phase I standards with off-the-shelf technologies only, the agencies
project that Alternative 3 standards could be met through a combination of off-the-shelf technologies
applied at higher market penetration rates and new technologies that are still in various stages of
development and not yet in production. However, as previously mentioned in the comments above, the
agencies cost and benefit analysis of Alternative 3 is founded upon unrealistic and inappropriate
adoption rates, which have effectively skewed the benefits proposed as part of NPRM and RIA. While
the agencies do "recognize that there is some uncertainty in projecting costs and effectiveness,
especially for those technologies not yet widely available, but believe that the thresholds proposed for
consideration account for realistic projections" (emphasis added), the livelihood of hundreds of
thousands of small business owners depends on affordable and reliable equipment to compete and
survive in a highly competitive industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.34-35]
-------
While the proposal does not mandate any specific technologies, the proposed performance standards of
Alternative 3, which require a 10.4 percent fuel and C02 emission reduction by MY 2027 for long-haul
tractor-trailers, along with a 17.9 percent reduction in tire rolling resistance, a 26.9 percent reduction in
aerodynamic drag, and a 304 lbs. reduction in weight, require the adoption of unproven and unreliable
technologies, such as WHR. Though the agencies seem to be congratulating themselves for allowing 10
years of lead time in order for OEMs to comply with Alternative 3, the manufacturers have clearly
stated in their comments that such stringency is not conducive to producing affordable and reliable
tractors and trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.35]
According to OOIDA President and CEO Jim Johnston, as well as OOIDA Board Members, who have
made their living by driving a truck, "We know that it's the manufacturers' responsibility to make the
equipment to accomplish that [the fuel efficiency and GHG standards], but it is the EPA that sets the
rules. And it's setting them at a pace that does not allow for enough time to road test the
equipment. This results in expensive repairs and time-consuming breakdowns that are wrecking profit
margins and interfering with operations.35" "There's no time to figure out the standards, to see what
works, and how to fix it before the government is putting out new rules... When you are a one-truck
business, being down for repair is a real problem. And failures with this technology can keep a truck in
the shop all the time. Fleets on the other hand, aren't running all their trucks at the same time and they
have the ability to simply pull another truck out while one truck is down... When you [EPA] are
developing these rules, you must keep in mind that most of the freight is moved by small-business
trucking operations, not the big companies." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.35-36]
OOIDA strongly believes that the market should drive fuel efficient technologies instead of expensive
mandates. The agencies stated in their proposed rule that "both public and confidential historical
information shows that tractor trailer fuel efficiency improved steadily through improvements in engine
efficiency and vehicle aerodynamics over the past 40 years." In fact, since 1949 and even earlier, truck
manufactures have sought to increase the fuel efficiency and performance of heavy-duty diesel engines
and trucks, and these improvements have been driven by fleet owners and owner-operators seeking fuel
efficient trucks, as fuel is the number one expense of every trucking operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p.36]
OOIDA proposes that agencies' preferred alternative, Alternative 3, as well as Alternatives 4 and 5, are
unrealistic and if adopted as part of this rulemaking process, will severely compromise the agencies'
praiseworthy objectives to increase the fuel efficiency of medium-and heavy-duty trucks and reduce
GHG emissions. Truck drivers certainly desire fuel efficient trucks and appreciate cleaner air to
breathe. While various governmental agencies and environmental groups tend to paint owner-operators
as individuals who do not care about the environment, nothing could be further from the truth. It is
crucial to understand that owner-operators are not only hardworking Americans who help to move our
economy, but that they also spend a majority of their life around tractor-trailers. Therefore, it is in their
best interest, as well as in the interest of the public, to operate clean and efficient trucks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.36-37]
Ultimately however, OOIDA believes that Alternative 1 would be the best alternative to reach the
agencies goals, as this will allow for the healthy development of technologies without the possible risk
of a pre-buy or a no-buy situation. Additionally, this will help prevent the forcing of unreliable and
costly technologies that could easily put an owner-operator out of business. According to FMCSA, 96
percent of motor carriers operate 20 trucks or less, while 90 percent of carriers operate 6 trucks or
less. The owner-operator represents approximately half of all motor carriers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p.38]
-------
Alternatives 3 or 4 very well could put many owner-operators out of business, and thus would have a
major unintended consequence on the nation's economy, as 70 percent of all freight is moved by a
truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.38]
Finally, OOIDA proposes that the agencies also include as part of their Alternatives an option which
contains driver training. According to the NAS:39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.38]
- Driver training offers potential savings for the trucking industry that rival the savings available from
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.38]
- Indications are that this could be one of the most cost-effective and best ways to reduce fuel
consumption and increase fuel productivity of the trucking sector [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1
p.39]
- Establish a curriculum and process for certifying fuel-saving driving techniques as part of commercial
driver certification and to regularly evaluate the effects of such curriculum [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1244-A1 p.39]
The agencies failed to address truck driver training as a possible Alternative, which could realize greater
benefits at a significantly lower cost. A study done by SmartDrive, an innovative solutions company,
conducted a study of 695 Class 8 truck drivers to determine the effect of fuel efficiency training. The
study results showed that 80% of fuel waste involves acceleration, deceleration, speeding and
turning. Furthermore, the study found that by following eco-driving best practices, drivers could
improve fuel economy on average up to 22%. That average reduction in fuel consumption could save
fleet operators as much as $12,553 per vehicle in fuel cost annually.40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-
Alp.39]
In fact, by simply changing the driving habits to improve smooth driving performance, driving at
appropriate speeds and reduce unnecessary idling, fleets affirmed that eco-driving can realize significant
improvement in fuel mileage and reduce operating expenses, and reduce emissions. Within two months
of driver training, the fuel economy increased to an average of 6.73 mpg from a baseline of 5.92 mpg,
which is a 14 percent increase. The top 25 percent performing drivers improved their fuel economy to
7.98 mpg after two months of training. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.39]
35 Sandi Soendker, "EPA takes notes on OOIDA concerns," Landline Magazine (April 2014)
39 Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles
40 Fuel Efficiency Study: Commercial Transportation, SmartDrive (May 2011).
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Other unintended, adverse impacts may arise if the mandated technologies are not mature and reliable.
Based on our discussions with OEMs and others, we understand that it is unclear if the proposed
Alternative 3 targets - which include a number of unrealistic technology penetration rates - can be
achieved. Pushing even faster, as would be the case with Alternative 4, or revising the stringencies ~
especially on engines ~ would most certainly create downstream issues for the purchasers or lessees of
-------
the vehicles. Our understanding is that the OEMs believe that the time required to develop and test the
technologies that will be needed to meet the Proposed Standards is already limited, suggesting that even
shorter deadlines may be impossible to satisfy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.5-6]
Response:
The agencies address the technical basis for each of the standards in the respective Preamble sections,
and in Chapter 2 of the RIA. With respect to pulling ahead those standards by two years (Alternative 4
at proposal), or pulling them ahead with additional stringency (Alternative 5 at proposal), the agencies
are distinctly conscious of OOIDA's point that new technologies must be proven reliable in-use before
they are widely deployed, and also that small businesses can be disproportionately harmed if controls
are unreliable and lead to vehicle downtime. It is for this reason that the final standards are carefully
phased in, that application rates of most technologies are less than 100%, that application rates are
carefully geared to appropriate vehicle drive cycles to best assure that the standards will result in in-use
reductions, and that the rules contain various exemptions and flexibilities for small businesses. The
agencies are revising certain of the proposed standards based on comments which persuasively indicated
that further stringencies were feasible at reasonable cost, but are largely rejecting Alternative 4 largely
due to inadequate lead time which could result in the harms mentioned in OOIDA's comment.
Alternative 5 not only lacks sufficient lead time, but is for the most part simply not feasible.
At the same time, the agencies reject the comment that no further regulatory action (Alternative 1) is
appropriate (or even legal). The record here shows that there are substantial available, cost-effective
emission reductions available for each of the categories covered by the phase 2 rule which would not
occur but for the rule. Section IX. A of the Preamble to the final rule and RTC Section 11.2.2 also
discuss the various reasons such substantial emission reductions remain possible even though the target
industry is commercial with an incentive to reduce fuel-related operating costs
8.2 General Comments on Stringency! 393
Organization: Advanced Engine System Institute (AESI)
AESI strongly supports setting a final Phase 2 greenhouse gas standard that will strongly encourage
innovative companies to develop new technologies and systems that can help medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle and engine makers to quickly, cost-effectively, and reliably reduce or eliminate carbon pollution
and still over perform on criteria pollutants. We appreciate the delicate balance that the agencies must
consider between setting an engine standard that appears feasible using technology available now or in
the very near term and under current fuel price conditions versus setting a slightly more stringent
technology driving standard that will prompt even faster evolution and greater consumer savings in the
long run. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1 p. 1-2]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA and NHTSA should not finalize standards that are more stringent than those contained in
Alternative 3. The Proposed Rule lacks sufficient rationale and a demonstrated technical basis for the
levels of stringency contained in Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.2]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
-------
ACEEE strongly supports EPA and NHTSA's work to establish Phase 2 greenhouse gas and fuel
efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The proposed rule, built on the success of the
first phase, represents another important step toward major reductions in fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions of the heavy-duty sector. We recommend that the agencies strengthen the
proposed rule in several areas to ensure that the Phase 2 program achieves maximum economic and
environmental benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.31]
Organization: American Lung Association
We believe that the joint proposal provides an important first step in the process toward protecting the
public from harmful pollutants in this vehicle sector, but that the proposal must be strengthened to
address greater pollution reductions needed in Southern and Central California. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0087-A1 p.l] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420,
p. 142.]
In closing, the American Lung Association urges you to strengthen the final rule and clean air
protections by: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 146.]
o implementing a stronger standard more rapidly; [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.3] [[These comments
can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 146.]
o beginning immediately the process to set a national low-NOx standard; [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1
p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 146]
o maintaining a greater focus on advanced technologies; [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.3] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 146.]
Therefore, the American Lung Association supports the strongest possible greenhouse gas and other
emission standards on the nation's trucks, buses and other polluting sources. We support EPA's efforts
to update all standards to match the scientific understanding of the harms we face from the widespread
air pollutants, toxics and climate change. For these reasons, we believe that greater protections and
stronger emission reductions are needed in the final Phase 2 rules for medium and heavy-duty engines
and vehicles. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.2]
Organization: Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy
As major U.S. businesses representing nearly two million American jobs and nearly $400 billion in
annual revenue, we are writing to urge EPA and NHTSA to strengthen the proposed Phase 2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles. BICEP supports the adoption of stronger standards that require a 40% reduction in truck fuel
consumption by 2025. Strict standards will save businesses money, catalyze investment in high
efficiency truck technologies, and reduce climate risk. Most of our companies depend on trucks to
transport our products, and an efficient trucking industry will be critical to our future success. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0095-A1 p.l]
The environmental imperative for action is clear. Freight trucks already account for over 450 million
tons of global warming emissions each year. As trucks represent the fastest growing single source of
GHG emissions, it is critical that we adopt the strongest possible standards in order to check that growth
-------
and ensure the availability of fuel efficient trucks. Strong GHG standards for heavy trucks will provide a
level playing field for companies seeking to reduce their carbon footprint and help avoid the significant
costs associated with climate change. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0095-A1 p.2]
As successful American businesses, we know the importance of recognizing and seizing opportunities.
This rulemaking is a rare opportunity to strengthen our economy, save businesses and consumers
money, create jobs, and mitigate climate risk. Thus, we urge the agencies to adopt stronger Phase 2 fuel
efficiency and GHG standards, and call for regulations requiring a 40% reduction in truck fuel
consumption by 2025. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0095-A1 p.2]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - GHG emissions reductions of proposed regulation in California
CARB staff consulted with both U.S. EPA and NHTSA throughout the development of the proposed
federal Phase 2 Heavy-Duty Program and fully recognizes the potential benefits that would result should
CARB harmonize California's future Phase 2 GHG regulation with the proposed Phase 2 rulemaking,
namely, nationwide consistency for engine and vehicle manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.20]
However, as explained in further detail below, CARB staff believes that U.S. EPA and NHTSA's
proposed adoption of emission standards corresponding to "Alternative 3" does not adequately serve
California's needs to reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum usage from heavy-duty
vehicles, and therefore urges its federal partners to adopt the emission standards corresponding to the
"Alternative 4" option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.20]
We recommend Alternative 4 be the preferred standard across all vehicle categories - tractors, (see
comment on page 30), vocational vehicles (see comment on page 36), pickups and heavy-duty vehicles
(see comment on page 52) and trailers (see comment on page 57), and in fact in several instances
recommend tightening the final stringency also. We recommend tighter standards for tractor and
vocational engines as well. In general, CARB staff believes that the NPRM is overly pessimistic about
the outlook for the implementation of advanced technologies such as BEVs and FCEVs, as well as the
ability of engine and truck manufacturers to engineer solutions that are needed to meet global GHG
goals. Generally, CARB staff believes that U.S. EPA and NHTSA should be more willing to push the
technology envelope, and have confidence in the ability of industry to meet far reaching environmental
goals. As discussed at length in other comments, we believe that more stringent standards for both
compression ignition and spark-ignited engines and vehicles are appropriate and could be met in a cost-
effective manner. Our recommended reinstitution of Advanced Technology Credits would make
Alternative 4 even more attractive and attainable. The projected balances of Phase 1 credits, discussed
further below, supports our belief that the engine and truck industry can and will do its part to curb
global GHG emissions if more stringent standards are set. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.20-
21]
The benefits of adopting the Alternative 4 standards across all vehicle categories are critical to
California for meeting our GHG and petroleum reduction targets for 2030 and 2050.6 Alternative 4
standards would result in an additional 4 MMT carbon dioxide (C02) benefit by 2030 in California
which is equivalent to removing about 3,300 class 8 long-haul tractor-trailers off the road.7 This
reduction would be a critical first step towards California meeting its goal of reducing petroleum use by
50 percent in 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.21]
-------
Organization: California Interfaith Power and Light
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 104.]
The EPA and NHTSA clean truck standards would be a huge step in addressing all of the above. And
the standards can be even stronger. The draft rule, as it stands, 36 percent reduction of fuel consumption
in trucks by 2027 is a good start. However, we urge EPA and NHTSA to adopt standards that will
achieve a 40 percent target by 2025.
With existing technologies and future innovation in the works, especially here in California, we can
surely reach much better than an average of six miles per gallon for most heavy-duty vehicles.
Organization: California State Senator Ricardo Lara
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 57.]
In order to meet our reduction goals, we must invest in cleaner transportation technologies with a
technology-neutral approach that incentivizes improvements in air quality along with reductions in
greenhouse gases. We have made that commitment in California, investing millions of cap and trade
dollars to the development of clean truck technology. However, we need an ambitious federal standard
that complements and supports these efforts with stringent rules that will be implemented as soon as
possible.
Organization: CALSTART
We are concerned the current proposed stringency is unlikely to drive advanced technology important
for future needs and the plans of key regions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p. 1]
We offer some possible approaches to consider: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2]
- Increase stringency AND add more flexibility to achieve it [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2]
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
We strongly support a significant increase in the stringency of the greenhouse gas and fuel standards for
medium- and heavy-duty trucks, in particular: the addition of trailers to the regulated sectors; the
inclusion of powertrain and driveline efficiency improvements for vocational vehicles; and the closure
of the "glider" loophole. The proposed standards would require greater reductions than imposed by
Phase 1 standards, with about 40 percent1 more greenhouse gases avoided in 2030 than would otherwise
be achieved through Phase 1 standards alone. While there is no question that enhanced fuel and
greenhouse gas regulations are an important step, the Proposed Rule fails to capture significant,
additional savings and leaves open a significant loophole for natural gas engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1460-A1 p. 1-2]
The agencies intentionally set "soft" standards during Phase 1, indicating that the first set of standards
was intended to be achievable with available technologies and that greater technology innovation would
-------
be required in Phase 2.11 As we previously commented, this tepid Phase 1 requirement left many
reduction opportunities on the table. Specifically, the Center strenuously urged the agencies to
promulgate more stringent standards; to improve the cost-benefit analysis to better reflect the actual
costs of climate change; and to remove a number of the credits, averaging and banking provisions that
would have weakened the actual emissions reductions and fuel savings resulting from the Phase 1
standards.12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.3]
Now it is time for the agencies to prescribe the stringent, maximal reductions that were neglected during
Phase 1. The currently-proposed standards are an improvement, but still fall far short of what is
maximally feasible and necessary to best protect against climate change and ensure energy security.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.3]
I Ben Sharpe, What is at stake in the U.S. truck efficiency rule at Figure 1, International Council on
Clean Transportation, Aug. 12, 2015.htto://theicct.org/blogs/staff/what-stake-us-truck-efficiencv-rule.
II Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles, Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106, 57,133 (Sept. 15, 2011).
12 Center for Biological Diversity, Comment letter re\ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, Proposed Rule, Docket Nos.
NHTSA-2010-0079 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 (Jan. 31, 2011).
Organization: Center for Neighborhood Technology
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 125.]
We'd like to speak in support of the previous recommendation from the Union of Concerned Scientists
that would recommend going to a standard that would reach 40 percent reduction, improvement in fuel
efficiency by 2024.
Organization: Climate 911
Our concern is that the proposed standards fall short of what is achievable and that the difference
between what is proposed and what is possible will be counted in human lives and suffering and the
permanent loss of a habitable planet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1179-A1 p. 1]
The need to lower diesel consumption is urgent, the cost of failure unthinkably high and there is no
justification for delay or half measures. We strongly urge you to tighten the proposed standards and
shorten the implementation timetable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1179-A1 p.l]
Organization: Climate Resolve
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 231.]
-------
And we urge you to strengthen these standards to ensure the greatest reductions in oil use and global
warming emissions.
Organization: Coalition for Clean Air/California Cleaner Freight Coalition
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 215.]
While the proposed standards are a good first step, I urge you to strengthen these
Organization: Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life
To help address climate change and its negative impacts to vulnerable communities, we urge the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) to finalize the
strongest possible standards to improve heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency. These standards will reduce oil
consumption and global warming emissions while protecting God's earth and the most vulnerable
populations from the worst impacts of climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1249-A2 p. 1]
While the proposed fuel efficiency standards are a strong step in the right direction, more could be done
to protect God's creation from the impacts of climate change. We urge you to strengthen the proposed
standards in order to reach the full fuel efficiency potential in the least amount of time possible. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1249-A2 p.2]
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
A. DID EPA/NHTSA UNREASONABLY ROB CONSUMERS OF POTENTIALLY BENEFICIAL
COST SAVINGS?
Throughout these comments we have identified the central tension in the otherwise excellent proposed
rule. Did EPA/NHTSA leave too much energy savings on the table by underestimating the feasibility of
adopting extremely beneficial technologies? EPA/NHTSA have said they are concerned that specific
technologies cannot enter the market or cannot penetrate sufficiently to be allowed to influence the level
of the standard, but they have not actually provided any evidence to support those conclusions. The fact
that the industry has been a technological laggard for decades is an excuse, not an explanation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.58]
Two aggregate perspectives on the decision of the agencies to choose a relatively low level of energy
savings - one internal, one external - shed light on this dilemma. Figure VII-1 shows the cost curves
implicit in the analysis. If one accepts their cost curves, they have done a pretty good job. They have
chosen to set the standard at the point where the marginal benefits starts to decline (the inflection point).
The level of the standard chosen for both 2030 and 2050 captures about 80% of the benefits at about
60% of the cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.58-59]
[Figure VII-I 'EPA/NHTSA Cost of saved energy curves for tractor trailers', can be found on p.59 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
One can argue that under both statutes the agencies are not required to "optimize" the benefit in this
way. The Clean Air Act (under which EPA sets standards) calls on EPA to advance the technology. The
Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA), under which NHTSA sets standards, only requires it
-------
to be technically feasible and economically practicable. The regulatory analysis and technical support
documents raise the constraint that NHTSA faces in terms of practicability. The cost estimates note that
they do not include potential costs of accelerating technology and the regulatory discussion explicitly
says that there is concern that a higher standard which requires a more rapid incorporation of untested
technology may not be feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.59]
Figure VI-4 shows the external analysis. It plots the Phase I and Phase II standards energy savings and
costs in the same axes as the third party studies discussed in Section IV. The graph highlights the
anomaly. To make the cost curves comparable, we have included both Phase I and Phase II and have
stated all costs in 2009$, which would be equivalent to the third party analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1336-A1 p.59-60]
[Figure VII-2,'EPA/NHTSA tractor trailer technology cost and fuel savings (Phase I and II) compared to
external estimates', can be found on p.60 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
EPA/NHTSA have developed cost curves that show relatively low costs for the smaller increases in
efficiency. The graph also shows a clear shift in cost as one moves to higher levels. This would be
consistent with the EPA/NHTSA concern about feasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.60]
Figure VII-2 also puts a recent analysis by the ICCT in perspective. Responding to some claims by
members of the industry that the proposed standards exceed even the super truck projects, the ICCT
analysis shows that the super combining all the elements of the super truck program (engine,
aerodynamics and tires), the improvement in fuel economy would be 2.4 times larger. They do not give
costs, however. Moreover, that includes every truck maxing out on each technology, not something
regulatory agencies generally require. If we consider two bundles, better engines or aerodynamics plus
tires, the improvement would be 1.7 times as large. The ICCT is certainly correct in concluding that "if
the US standards are going to require technology-forcing SuperTruck-like standards for tractors, it is
more likely this would be in some future Phase 3 rulemaking for perhaps 2030 and beyond." The issue
for regulatory analysis comes down to what would the much more aggressive standards cost? And how
hard can the agencies push the industries under the statute? That is not a question that can be answered
by simply identifying the technological frontier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.60-61]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
The agencies must allow for reasonable lead-time and stability. In particular, the agencies must
recognize that Alternative 4 is too stringent and accelerating an already very stringent proposal is
unworkable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.6]
The agencies must correct unrealistic technology Fuel Consumption Reduction (FCR) values and
penetration rates for technologies used in standard setting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.6]
1. Stringency and Standards
DTNA is interested in Getting the FCR Values Correct - As we noted in our Vehicle Stringency
section above, we think the agencies took the correct approach of trying to determine the FCR benefits
of technologies and the reasonable penetration rate of each. We do, however, have concerns with the
FCRs that the agencies assumed. We want to make sure those numbers are correct, as errors could lead
to regulations crediting or penalizing technologies differently than should happen, based on real-world
FE benefits. To that end, we have a lot of data that we wish to share with the agencies. Below is a
-------
summary, but we wish to have further discussions in a confidential setting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p. 80]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
The result is that we need to make a dozen assumptions, any one of which could be wrong, before we
even see a path to 2027 compliance. In turn, we think that the 2027 standards are overly aggressive.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.69]
Organization: Dignity Health
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 203.]
We strongly support the adoption of regulations requiring a 40 percent decrease in fuel consumption by
2025.
Organization: East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice (EYCEJ)
The proposed standards are a step in the right direction in increasing efficiency and reducing oil use, but
they can be further strengthened. We support the analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists and
urge the EPA to finalize stronger standards that reduce trucks' fuel use by 40% by 2025. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-0843 p.l]
There is an opportunity here to go beyond the bare minimum. From benefiting the economy by reducing
business costs, to saving thousands of barrels of oil per day, to reducing global warming emissions by
millions of metric tons. We implore you to go above and beyond your call of duty for the sake of this
nation and its myriad of communities - finalize standards that reduce trucks' fuel use by 40% by 2025.
Thank you. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0843 p.2]
Organization: Environment America and other local citizens across America
However, we can accomplish more. According to analysis by experts, by 2025 we have the potential to
cut fuel consumption of new trucks by at least 40 percent compared to 2010 levels. Standards that
extend beyond 2025 could achieve even larger savings.[4] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1295-A1 p.l]
[4]http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Truck-Fuel-
Savings-F actsheet.pdf
Organization: Environment California Research and Policy Center, Environment America Research
and Policy Center
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 161-163.]
We applaud the Obama administration for proposing standards that will over the lifetime of trucks
affected by the rule avoid one billion metric tons of global warming emissions. While this is a strong
-------
step in the right direction, we urge you to strengthen these standards to ensure the greatest reductions in
oil use and global warming emissions
This stronger proposal would mean a triple win for clean air, the climate, and consumers. And I urge
you to go the extra mile and finalize stronger standards to reduce trucks' fuel use by 40 percent by 2025.
Organization: Environment California Research and Policy Center, Environment America Research
and Policy Center
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 162.]
Specifically, Environment California and Environment America support strengthening the standards to
achieve 40 percent fuel savings by 2025, which would save an additional 200,000 barrels of oil per day
in 2035 and avoid an additional 40 million metric tons of global warming emissions annually according
to analysis by our colleagues at the Union of Concerned Scientists. That is the equivalent of shutting
down not 1, not 2, but 12 coal-fired power plants. And it would save the average big rig driver $30,000
in annual fuel costs in 2025. It is new technology that pays for itself in just over a year.
Organization: Fuller, Tony
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 148-149.]
However, these standards need to be strengthened to achieve at least a 40 percent reduction by 2025.
The science shows that the technology exists to do this. Strong 40 percent reduction standards are what I
call really a no-brainer decision.
Organization: General Motors
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 122.]
While we are cautiously supportive of this plan for future emissions reduction standards, it is important
to note that alternative 3 increases the effective stringency far beyond what is a cursory analysis at 2.5
percent per year would suggest. A combination of procedural, modeling, and fuel changes results in a
more stringent regulation.
Organization: Genthem, Inc.
In our view current regulation does not sufficiently encourage application of new technologies which
would improve fuel efficiency at the engine level. The proposed rule, in its current form, requires only
modest improvements from engine manufacturers and it does not have a mechanism which would
promote implementation of new technologies such as electrification of accessories, improving alternator
efficiency and installation of other devices for direct generation of electricity such as waste heat
recovery devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1133-A1 p.l]
Organization: Gilroy, JD
-------
With all these positive aspects to the standards, I can only think of two sorts of reservations I have. One
is the inevitable one with any proposed standards that some might think them not progressive enough.
While I am certainly no expert to make that case, I can at least convey the claim of the UCS that more
stringent standards could achieve greater reductions in fuel consumptions—40% versus 36%—and do
so two years earlier—by 2027 instead of 2029, if the standards, for example, were to apply not only to
combination tractors but to the trailers they haul. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0751 p.2]
On balance then, I am extremely in favor of the proposed standards, wishing only that even stronger
standards be considered, if technologically feasible, along with similar new pollution reduction
standards for air and rail vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0751 p.2]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
Medium and heavy truck manufacturers have overcome challenges meeting Phase 1 stringency
requirements that were developed assuming market adoption of existing off the shelf technology. Phase
2, in contrast is technology forcing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.8]
The UAW supports developing and bringing new technology to the fleet as long as the technology is
reliable, cost effective and manufacturers have more than one technology path to comply with
stringency requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.8]
We strongly agree with the EPA and NHTSA's warning that poorly crafted regulations forcing
unproven technology can lead to: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.8]
Organization: Investor Network on Climate Risk
As long-term investors representing over $86 billion in assets, and as members of the Investor Network
on Climate Risk (INCR), we are writing to urge EPA and NHTSA to strengthen the proposed
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles—Phase 2. We support strong standards that go beyond EPA and NHTSA's proposed rule, and
require a 40% reduction in heavy truck fuel consumption by 2025. Strong standards are feasible, cost
effective, and represent a significant opportunity to drive economic growth by shielding us from oil
price volatility, catalyzing investment in advanced truck technologies, and reducing climate risk.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0113-A1 p.l]
In sum, strong standards will strengthen our economy, spur innovation, and reduce both our dependence
on oil and climate risk. Accordingly, we urge the agencies to adopt strong Phase 2 fuel efficiency and
GHG standards requiring a 40% reduction in truck fuel consumption by 2025. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0113-A1 p.2]
Organization: MacLaughlin, Douglas
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 225.]
Administration's proposals are a good first step, but the UCS and other organizations, as I have heard
today, have shown that they can be strengthened. They have analyzed this issue in detail and made
specific additional proposals. They and other organizations have shown that new technology and new
-------
trucks can reduce fuel consumption by a number we have heard quite a bit, 40 percent, by 2025. That is
more and faster than the administration's proposed goal to date, at any rate, of 36 percent reduction by
2027.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Technology development has a 15-20 year cycle from the lab to commercialization. This is why
stringent standards are a critical signal to industry to make investments today for technologies that will
be needed in the future. MECA members are engaged in developing a large portfolio of efficiency
technologies that will directly or indirectly impact C02 emissions. These technologies include advanced
SCR catalysts, passive NOx adsorbers (PNA) and substrates, waste heat recovery, turbochargers, turbo-
compounding, EGR coolers, EGR valves and other air management technologies, thermal management
strategies including insulated dual wall manifolds and exhaust systems, active thermal management
approaches, advanced fuel injection and ignition systems. Technologies, like turbo-compounding and
advanced air management strategies are already being commercialized in Europe whereas others such as
Rankine cycle systems and advanced high pressure injection, are under demonstration and technologies
with still longer term horizons, such as thermoelectric generators are still in the laboratory. MECA
members estimate that using the proposed Alternative 3, 2027 engine efficiency standards, some of
these technologies, such as waste heat recovery, will fall significantly short of the penetration rates
forecasted in the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 1 (email) - (23)
But these vital emissions reductions don't go far enough. They must be strengthened to better protect our
communities and families. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1341-A1 p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 3 (email) - (308)
From aerodynamic trailers to automated manual transmissions and advanced engines, the technology
exists to cost-effectively meet stronger standards. Analysis shows that we can reduce new truck fuel
consumption 40 percent by 2025, compared to 2010 trucks. It is critical that the agencies strengthen
these standards, particularly the engine standard, to ensure efficiency improvements throughout freight
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1477-A1 p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Center for Biological Diversity (web) -
(4,429)
I am writing to urge you to strengthen your proposed emissions standards for medium- and heavy-duty
trucks with a rule that will take us confidently into the future. The current proposal addresses our needs
but doesn't do nearly enough. We need serious cuts to avoid the worst effects of climate change and
increase energy security and protect public health, especially among vulnerable communities who are
disproportionately located near highways and industrialized zones. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1167-
Alp.l]
Please ~ do everything in your power to see that our climate and health are protected with a rule that
requires serious emissions cuts and strong standards for big trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1167-
Alp.l]
-------
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by CREDO Action (web) - (56,914)
"The EPA's proposed heavy truck fuel efficiency standards are a strong step toward cutting carbon
emission from trucks and addressing climate change. But they must be made even stronger. I urge you
to set a standard that achieves a 40 percent reduction in fuel consumption by 2025." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1117 p. 1]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Sierra Club (email) - (26,917)
While the proposed standards are a good first step, I urge you to strengthen these standards to ensure the
greatest reductions in oil use and carbon pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0814-A1 p.l]
From aerodynamic trailers to automated manual transmissions and advanced engines, the technology
exists to cost-effectively meet stronger standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0814-A1 p.l]
I urge you to strengthen these standards as you move forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0814-A1
p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund (email) -
(60,831)
But these vital emissions reductions must be strengthened to reflect the safeguards that available
technology can provide for our communities and families. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1229-A1 p.l]
Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles currently account for about 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions
and oil use in the U.S. transportation sector, but only comprise about five percent of vehicles on the
road. These trucks are also the fast-growing single source of climate pollution in the U.S. Improving
fuel efficiency and emissions standards on these vehicles is achievable with proven technology options
and highly cost effective and will provide significant savings to truck drivers and consumers. In fact, a
leading technical evaluation found these trucks can reduce fuel consumption 40% by 2025, compared to
2010 levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1229-A1 p.l]
And it has wide public support. According to the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), a large
majority of Americans (71 percent) favor requiring manufacturers to increase the fuel efficiency of
heavy-duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1229-A1 p.l]
Please finalize stronger standards that take effect no later than model year 2024 to protect our
communities from the harmful emissions discharged by big freight trucks and buses. Our communities,
our families and our children are counting on your leadership. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1229-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by The League of Conservation Voters (LCV)
(web) - (6,603)
Please implement the strongest possible fuel efficiency standards for heavy duty trucks [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1228-A1 p.l]
-------
Thank you for proposing new standards to significantly improve freight truck fuel efficiency. These
standards are a strong first step, but EPA and DOT must strengthen these standards to ensure the
greatest reductions in oil use and carbon pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1228-A1 p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists (email) -
(28,135)
The technology exists to cost-effectively meet stronger standards sooner than you have proposed. It is
critical that the proposal be expanded to capture the full suite of cost-effective solutions available for
each type of heavy-duty vehicle, including improved aerodynamics on trailers, more efficient engines in
tractor-trailers, and new technologies such as hybrid and electric drive trains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0913-A1 p.l]
Organization: Moms Clean Air Force
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 63.]
But while the proposed standards are a good first step, I urge you to strengthen these standards to ensure
the greatest reductions in oil use and global warming emissions.
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Provide More Flexibilities to Ensure Engine Technologies are Utilized [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1274-A1 p.4]
Overall, the engines and engine technologies available in the near-term and in the pipeline are feasible.
The proposed stringencies are achievable and going in the right direction, but there are opportunities to
further utilize feasible engine technologies. Programs like the Department of Energy's "SuperTruck"
have shown there are efficiency improvement possibilities - but there is still a long leap between what is
possible and what is feasible. If the agency desires to push performance - which, in turn pushes
technologies, then the answers reside somewhere in between what is possible and what is feasible. To be
clear, MEMA is not prescribing a specific or different stringency. We only note that there might be
some opportunities for the agencies to add more flexibilities to ensure that engine technologies are
utilized and adopted. Some examples are: friction reduction, parasitic loss reduction (including on-
demand oil and coolant flow control), improved thermal management, higher efficiency after treatment,
electrification of auxiliaries and application of on-demand approaches and engine breathing
improvements (such as higher efficiency turbochargers and variable valve actuation). MEMA members
will address their product lines and technologies in their individual company comments. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p.4-5] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 193.]]
Organization: Moving Forward Network
Our Network is deeply concerned that both agencies put forward the strongest regulation possible since
this regulation address harmful climate pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1130-A2 p. 1]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
-------
With respect to aspects of the proposal NACAA believes should be improved, we offer the following
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.2]
In a March 18, 2015 letter to your respective agencies,2 NACAA provided our recommendations for
essential components of a Phase 2 rule. In those recommendations, we urged for a rule that would
reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption across the entire fleet by at least 40 percent, on average,
compared to 2010. Unfortunately, we find the overall effectiveness of the Phase 2 proposal to fall short
of our recommendation and, more importantly, significantly short of what can and should be achieved.
Accordingly, we believe the overall stringency of the proposal should be enhanced to take advantage of
missed opportunities that, if incorporated into the final rule, would drive technology and ensure that
maximum emission reductions and reduced fuel consumption are achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1157-A1 p.2-3] [These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1420, pp.52-53.]
2 NACAA Letter to EPA and NHTSA providing recommendations on a Phase 2 regulatory proposal
(March 18, 2015), http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/NACAA-
LettertoEP A_DOT-Ph2_HD_Fuel_EffGHG_Stds-031815.pdf
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
In finalizing the rule, we urge the agencies to incorporate our recommendations to strengthen the
program beyond what the agencies have proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.2]
Increase the Standard Stringency throughout the Phase-in Period
NRDC believes that stringency of the overall standards should be strengthened beyond the proposed
levels. The proposed Phase 2 standards (described as Alternative 3) reduce fuel consumption and carbon
dioxide (C02) emissions by 24 percent relative to the Phase 1 standards by 2027. The agencies have
described cost-effective standards in Alternative 4 that achieve the same reductions in 2024. Prior to the
proposal, analysis by the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS) and NRDC showed that overall medium- and heavy-duty fuel consumption
could be reduced by at least 40 percent from 2010 levels and approximately 28 percent from 2017 levels
by 20255 - a level and timeframe that is more consistent with Alternative 4 than Alternative 3. Upon
further evaluation, NRDC believes standards that achieve fuel consumption and emissions reductions of
at least 24 percent by 2024 and at least 31 percent by 2027 would meet the agency obligations for
setting standards that are maximum feasible (for NHTSA) and appropriate (for EPA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1220-A1 p.3-4]
Achieving standards stronger than those proposed by the agencies will clearly result in larger and sooner
reductions in petroleum consumption and carbon pollution. The agencies analysis shows that
Alternative 4 reduces oil consumption and carbon pollution by 13 percent and increases net benefits by
over $24 billion compared to the proposed Alternative 3. In this comparison, the Alternative 4 standards
ended in 2024. By extending more stringent, technology-forcing standards beyond 2024 the agencies
can provide valuable market certainty for manufacturers that will encourage companies to make on-
going investments in fuel-saving innovations that will further reduce carbon pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1220-A1 p.4]
-------
While the 2027 proposed standards provide a long timeframe, they are too modest to spur all cost-
effective technology deployment. Significant improvements can be made to the proposal stringency,
particularly in the areas of tractor engines and vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1
p.4]
5 Kahn, S., Cooke, D., Tonachel, L. "Fuel Savings Available in New Heavy-Duty Trucks in 2025,"
TRB Paper 154977, November 14, 2014. Available at http://docs.trb.org/prp/15-4977.pdf.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The Proposed Rule is not economically practicable as it is currently written. In addition, the standards
are not the maximum feasible, but exceed the maximum feasible standards in stringency. We urge both
agencies to address the concerns in these comments as well as those filed in EPA's docket. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0094-A1 p.3]
Organization: Nelson, Dennis
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 93-94.]
Secondly, I will offer my constructive criticism for improvement. The heavy duty vehicle fuel economy
and carbon emissions standards should be made even stronger in order to achieve about 40 percent in
fuel savings by 2025. This would use cost-effective technologies that are now being deployed or
demonstrated. An additional 40 million metric tons of climate disrupting pollution would be avoided
each year by 2035, which would be the equivalent of closing down around 12 coal-fired stations.
Organization: North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
However, should the Administration move forward with the Phase II standards, we encourage regulators
to adopt a nationwide ceiling with achievable standards rejecting Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1283-A1 p.3]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
The rule as proposed, however, does not take full advantage of available and proven technologies and
should be made stronger in several areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.l]
Organization: Orange EV
We support the efforts by EPA and NHTSA to address greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency in
this proposed rule, but encourage the agencies to adopt stronger standards and full implementation as
soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1135-A1 p.l]
Stricter emission standards can be achieved with existing technologies that have been proven to meet
operational demands while making financial sense. To speed adoption we encourage the offering of
-------
incentives that defray the cost of initial purchase and implementation to at or below the cost of current
alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1135-A1 p.l]
Organization: PACCAR
Although some engine manufacturers may support a greater improvement in fuel efficiency/GHG
emissions under Alternative 4, the full benefit of the technologies needed to achieve that reduction
appears only in certain applications. Even if it were possible to reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions by greater amounts in all applications and duty cycles, that level of improvement will require
the use of technologies that are not familiar to customers and may be undesirable to them. In a number
of cases, these technologies do not exist in the marketplace and may not have even reached the stage of
prototype with some OEMs. Vehicle Stop-Start systems, dual clutch transmissions, and waste heat
recovery are three examples of technologies that customers have no experience with today. If customers
do not purchase engines and vehicles with newer technologies, then the overall emission reduction goal
may not be achieved and is unlikely to be cost effective. The accelerated timeline of Alternative 4 also
does not allow for technology reliability demonstrations and may result in technologies being rushed to
market. For commercial vehicles, it is imperative that new technologies are sufficiently robust and
reliable across the broad range of applications for this market to allow the vehicles to operate throughout
their work day. Downtime due to product unreliability negatively impacts the viability of companies and
the economy. PACCAR therefore strongly supports the adoption of Alternative 3, taking into account
the revisions suggested in these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.4]
Organization: Proterra
Proterra is already exceeding these desired results for heavy duty public transportation buses and would
encourage EPA and NHTSA to be even more aggressive in setting GHG and Fuel Efficiency targets by
adopting more stringent standards, as proposed in the Alternative 4 standards. Among other benefits of
the proposed Phase 2 Program, including reducing carbon pollution and improving energy security,
these higher standards will save transit operators money. Proterra customers have already saved close to
$1M in fuel and maintenance costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1160-A1 p.2]
Organization: Quealy, Kevin
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 172-174.]
However, I do believe that significant progress will not be made in a timely manner if the EPA does not
implement a full-fledged attack on carbon pollution released by the truck fleets that fill our Nation's
roadways.
Strong standards to reduce trucks' fuel use by 40 percent by the year 2025 should be a top priority of the
Agency.
Organization: Respiratory Health Association
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 131.]
-------
Every barrel of oil burned means more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, further increasing global
warming. Reducing fuel consumption through greater efficiencies and through the development of non-
fossil fuel technologies that eliminate carbon emissions are needed to address these health threats. For
those reasons, we believe strong EPA greenhouse gas tailpipe standards are necessary. And while we
strongly support the direction of proposed EPA climate rules for new trucks, we also believe the
proposed standards should be strengthened, and that EPA should increase its goal to achieve a 40
percent fuel savings by 2025.
The ability to gain additional reductions is there. The agency should go beyond its very conservative
approach to capture additional fuel reductions, a strategy we believe will benefit public health for many
years to come.
Organization: Sierra Club
Our organizations urge the agencies to strengthen the proposed standards to ensure the greatest possible
reductions in oil use and carbon pollution and to finalize the standards as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1 p.3]
Organization: Transportation Power
rWel encourage the agencies to adopt stronger standards and full implementation by 2024. rEPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1149-A1 p.l]
The rule, as is, would lock in the status quo for technology until 2030. Please consider strengthening the
proposed standards and revising the timeline for full implementation to 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1149-A1 p.l]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
However, TRALA has several concerns about the Proposed Standards, which we have set forth below:
(3) the agencies' technology assumptions are overly optimistic [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1
p.2]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
However, with a projected increase in freight miles from this sector more must be done to curb growth
in emissions and fuel usage, and we believe there are a number of ways in which the proposal can be
strengthened to ensure that EPA and NHTSA are meeting their statutory obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1329-A2 p.l]
The analysis noted above highlights the simple fact that while the agencies have put forward a
comprehensive proposal, the regulation can be strengthened significantly. Improving this regulation will
help maximize the feasible reductions in the timeframe of this rule and set the industry on a more
sustainable path for decades to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.27]
Organization: Volvo Group
-------
As currently drafted the proposal grossly underestimates the actual efficiency improvements required to
meet the proposed targets for several reasons. First, the baseline efficiency from Phase 1 vehicles is
significantly overestimated. Second, the lack of margins for aerodynamic and engine map audits would
force us to understate our certified efficiency inputs to ensure passing a subsequent audit. Third, the
aerodynamic measurement procedure overstates the aerodynamic drag and the targets fail to account for
the impact of a non-aerodynamic test trailer. Collectively, these issues amount to an increase in
stringency by approximately 17%, e.g. from 32% to 49% for high-rise sleeper tractor-trailer
combinations, based on the MY 2027 targets, as shown in the chart below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p. 10]
Excessive stringency results in uncertainty that the proposal can be implemented, excessive cost,
unreliable products, delays in new vehicle purchases, production disruption, lay-offs, and delays in
achieving benefits. Volvo supports comments by EMA relative to stringencies and we elaborate on our
concerns below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.18]
For reasons set forth below, due to numerous errors in setting stringency levels in the rule, there is
substantial uncertainty that manufacturers can even comply with the agencies' proposal. Unless these
errors are corrected, there is substantial uncertainty that, among other things, the proposal would
accomplish its intended purpose. Furthermore, as a result of these errors, the proposal lacks an adequate
factual basis. In addition, the excessive stringency resulting from these errors will result in excessive
cost, unreliable products, delays in new vehicle purchases, product disruption, lay-offs, and delays in
achieving benefits, if such are even achievable under the proposal as drafted. For these reasons Volvo
believes EPA must revisit and correct its assumptions before proceeding with the proposed rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 18]
Stringency and Technology Penetration Summary
As noted above, the significant errors in assumptions made for purposes of setting stringency levels
renders these levels highly suspect and likely unachievable. The agencies have failed to provide
adequate explanation or evidence to demonstrate that the stringency levels are achievable and justified.
Moreover, the assumptions (penetration levels and feasibility) relied on to set the established stringency
levels do not support those levels. Finally, due to these errors, there is substantial uncertainty that the
rule, if adopted as proposed, would even achieve its intended purpose. As a result, the proposal is not
the product of reasoned decision making, and should be revisited and revised to address these errors.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.29]
Organization: XL Hybrids
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 240.]
We are very appreciative of the efforts of the federal government team in developing the phase 2 draft
rules and agree with the basic principles and structures that have been proposed. And, as currently
proposed, we support the preferred alternative.]
Response:
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the proposed Alternative 3 and
Alternative 4 standards, as well as other comments on overall stringency. We believe there is merit in
many of the detailed comments received regarding technologies. These are discussed in detail in
-------
Sections II through VI of the FRM Preamble and Chapter 2 of the RIA. Instead of merely choosing from
among the proposed alternatives, the agencies have developed a set of final standards that reflect our
reevaluation of the ability to pull ahead certain technologies, the limitations in adoption rates and/or
effectiveness of other technologies, and consideration of additional technologies.
As can be seen from the comments, there is uncertainty and a wide range of opinions regarding the
extent to which these technologies can be applied. Vehicle manufacturers tended to take the
conservative position for each technology and argue that the agencies should not project effectiveness or
adoption rates beyond that which is certain. Many other commenters took a more optimistic view.
Some merely cited the 40 percent reduction supported by a wide variety of NGOs. Whether explicitly
or implicitly, these commenters argued for the agencies to assume that each potential technology will be
highly effective in most applications. However, the agencies believe the most likely outcome will be
that some technologies will work out better than expected while others will be slightly more challenging
than projected. Thus, the agencies have tended to make balanced projections for the various
technologies, although some may be slightly optimistic while others are somewhat conservative. We
believe the overall effect of this approach will be standards that achieve large reductions with minimal
risks to the industry of unreliable or under-performing technology.
Comments on the engines standards are addressed in Section 3 of this RTC. However, since many of
the commenters highlighted the engine standards, it is also worth addressing them briefly here to
highlight the changes from the proposal. On the vocational side, we changed the baseline engine to
reflect the most recent certification data, which significantly strengthens them relative to the NPRM.
The detailed analysis of vocational engine stringency and the baseline engine standards is addressed in
Chapter 2.7.4 of the RIA. We also made changes to the tractor engine standards. We decreased the dis-
synergy assumed in the analysis from 15 percent to 10 percent, and significantly increased the projected
market penetration for WHR Rankine cycle technology. As a result of these and other updates, the
projected improvements over the baseline for the 2027 tractor engine standards increased from 4.2%
estimated at proposal to 5.1%. Chapters 2.3 and 2.7 of the RIA provide detailed justification of these
changes from proposal.
Comments on the need for compliance margins are addressed in Section 1.4 of this RTC.
8.2.1 General Comments on Phase-in 1411
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
In this NPRM, U.S. EPA and NHTSA have set forth a broad range of compliance strategies and
technologies that they anticipate engine and vehicle manufacturers will utilize in order to comply with
the emission standards associated with both Alternatives 3 and 4. Such compliance strategies and
technologies vary from well-established control technologies that are currently widely available
(essentially "off-the-shelf' technologies) to control technologies that are only utilized in certain industry
segments or that will likely require substantial development before they will be commercially available
on a widespread basis throughout the industry (e.g., Rankine-cycle engines and strong hybrid pickups
and vans). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.25]
As demonstrated below, CARB staff believes that for each regulated category of engines and vehicles,
U.S. EPA and NHTSA have identified specific technologies that will be commercially available and that
will enable manufacturers to comply with the proposed emission standards within the time frames
associated with Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.25]
-------
In NRDC, the court upheld U.S. EPA's PM standards for MY 2005 light-duty diesel vehicles that U.S.
EPA had promulgated in 2000. The court stated: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.25]
"Given this time frame, we feel there is substantial room for deference to the EPA's expertise in
projecting the likely course of development. The essential question in this case is the pace of that
development, and absent a revolution in the study of industry, defense of such a projection can never
possess the inescapable logic of a mathematical deduction."12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.25]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The benefits of adopting the Alternative 4 standards across all vehicle categories are critical to
California for meeting our GHG and petroleum reduction targets for 2030 and 2050.6 Alternative 4
standards would result in an additional 4 MMT carbon dioxide (C02) benefit by 2030 in California
which is equivalent to removing about 3,300 class 8 long-haul tractor-trailers off the road.7 This
reduction would be a critical first step towards California meeting its goal of reducing petroleum use by
50 percent in 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.21]
Adopting Alternative 4 standards across all vehicle categories would also result in the Phase 2 program
being fully phased in by 2024 (by 2025 for pickups and vans), three years earlier than if Alternative 3
standards are adopted. This would allow manufacturers to take action on reducing NOx emissions from
the heavy-duty vehicles addressed in this rulemaking in a timelier manner. This is especially important
since heavy-duty vehicles are responsible today for one-third of California's NOx emissions. The South
Coast Air Basin will need nearly a 90 percent reduction in heavy-duty vehicle NOx emissions by 2031
from 2010 levels to attain the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.
Additionally, on November 25,2014, U.S. EPA issued a proposal to strengthen the ozone NAAQS. If a
change to the ozone NAAQS is finalized, California and other areas of the country will need to identify
and implement measures to reduce NOx as needed to complement federal emission reduction measures.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.21 ]
Organization: CALSTART
We are concerned the current proposed stringency is unlikely to drive advanced technology important
for future needs and the plans of key regions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p. 1]
We offer some possible approaches to consider: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2]
- Increase stringency AND add more flexibility to achieve it [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2]
Therefore, we strongly support increasing the stringency requirements of these vocational segments,
with a minimum target of 20% (though varied by different segment). In terms of the rule timeline, we
remain sensitive to both OEM and fleet desires for a longer investment horizon and a more measured,
stair-step regulatory approach to ensure quality product delivery. However, we believe any longer
regulatory timeline (2027) would only make sense in the context of increased stringency, with some
commensurate added flexibility. We will discuss flexibility in a following section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1190-A1 p.4]
Organization: Environmental Law and Policy Center
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 218.]
Regulations should be fully implemented by 2024 rather than 2027 as proposed. My understanding is
that EPA's own analysis shows that this deadline is achievable.
Delaying the final phase-in of today's rule to 2027 means we won't be able to respond to any of these
changes until at least 2030. Faster implementation of today's rule means flexibility to respond sooner to
tomorrow's opportunities.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
The Phase 2 proposal largely phases-in beginning with MY 2021, culminating in standards for MY
2027. Regulated truck trailer manufacturers must begin compliance in 2018 for EPA and 2021 for
NHTSA.10 Such a long lead time benefits OEMs by allowing them to plan their compliance strategies
well ahead of time. On the other hand, setting rules up to 12 years into the future necessarily raises
questions on the assumptions involving for critical variables like fuel price, interest rates, and freight
demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.5]
10 NAD A/A TD will not comment on the proposed trailer standards.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Finally, the cost estimate in the NPRM significantly underestimates the vehicle program costs for
Alternative 3, which is only made worse by the acceleration of the standard proposed in Alternative 4.
The cost/benefit analysis estimates that vehicle program costs will be approximately $ 113 million per
year between 2018 and 2020. Alternative 4 would drive significant additional stringency into the 2024
MY, which would require greater investment over the same time period. This would further undermine
the cost estimate in the NPRM and would drive significant price increases in MY2021 and MY 2024 as
manufacturers struggled to meet the accelerated time table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 18]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
The NPRM proposes three tiers of emission standards in 2021, 2024 and 2027. However, as we note,
the engines actually need to be developed over a year before to the vehicle. As a result, the rule
envisions a near constant state of development for nine years in order to meet the regulatory
requirements. That is if only GHG rules apply. If future NOx, OBD or other rules also come into play,
the complexity increases well beyond even that in this Proposed Rule. Notwithstanding, given the
aggressive nature of the standards, we think the three tier approach is the minimal lead time that will be
required. At the very least, the agencies also must consider the cumulative impact of potential
regulations on feasibility and costs. However, we see little indication that this has been considered in the
NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.9]
As a result of the Proposed Rule, then, there is a significant risk that the industry will be in nearly
continuous development from 2019 through 2027. The result of this complexity will be added costs,
including as a result of aggressive timeframes and constricted validation periods between product
launches. From a customer's perspective, there may be additional costs and also potentially additional
-------
down time as new technologies come on continuously for a 17 year period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1199-A1 p.9]
We also like to point out that phase 1 is not fully even mature, having only become mandatory
beginning in MY2014. That is only about 21 months ago and there is over a year until the final tier of
Phase 1 in MY2017. Therefore, this represents a very aggressive regulatory pace, with new Proposed
Rule adding a tremendous amount of added complexity. Also, as a result, the Proposed Rule has had
little chance to learn from the experience that will be gained from full implementation of Phase 1. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.9]
The new emission standards adopted by Phase 1 should not be changed in this rule prior to the date the
new emission standards go fully into effect. Not only is this an imperative of the Clean Air Act and the
need for adequate notice, it is also key to feasibility and simple fairness. The proposal includes a
modification to the wind-average drag calculation for model year 2018 (calendar 2017) and later
vehicles.12 This would impact the current Phase 1 certifications and adjust the aero bin down for many
vehicle configurations. This reduction in the aero bin effectively lowers the Phase 1 emission standard.
This would be inappropriate, arbitrary and capricious and should be stricken or modified to take effect
in alignment with the MY2021 standard. We also fully agree with EMA comments on this issue. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.9]
12 40 C.F.R. Eq. 1037.525-6. This is a new equation applicable after MY2017, thus it will be used
while Phase 1 is still in effect.
Organization: Triple Decker Transport Ltd.
Based on our first hand experiences with the 2004-10 diesel engine emission regulations I would URGE
PATIENCE!!!!! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0908-A1 p.l]
In ending I would PLEAD FOR PATIENCE!!! We cannot go thru an expedited acceleration of
regulations (as in the 2004-2010 diesel engine emission regulations) WITHOUT proper testing of the
new technologies. So please choose Alternative 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0908-A1 p.3]
Organization: Walsh, Michael and Charlton, Stephen
1. Retain the current phase-in schedule, while increasing stringency in 2021 and 2024 proportional
with the final step proposed in bullet 1 above:
MY 2024-2026 HD Tractor Engines 405 gC02/HP-hr (48.5% BTE)
MY 2021-2023 HD Tractor Engines 435 gC02/HP-hr (45.1% BTE)
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p.10]
Response:
The agencies noted in the proposal that the Phase 2 standards represent a more technology-forcing
approach than the Phase 1 approach, predicated on use of both off-the-shelf technologies and emerging
technologies that are not yet in widespread use. 80 FR 40154. As such, we recognized that assuring
-------
proper lead time would be very important and requested comment on this issue. Many commenters,
including most non-governmental organizations, supported more stringent standards with less lead time.
Vehicle manufacturers did not support more stringent standards and emphasized the importance of lead
time. Although some technology and component suppliers supported more stringent standards, they also
supported the proposed lead time. To the extent these commenters provided technical information to
support their comments on stringency and lead time, it is discussed in Sections II through VI of the
Preamble, and in Chapter 2 of the RIA. However, the vast majority of the comments summarized here
addressed the issue of lead time from a broader view. This issue is addressed in more detail in Section
1.5 of this RTC.
8.3 Comments on the Baselines 1415
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Consumption Impacts
Baseline
The agencies request comment on their choice of baseline scenario (p.40166). To analyze the benefits of
the proposed standards, the agencies compare the expected outcomes of the standards to those of two
distinct baseline scenarios: the less dynamic baseline and the more dynamic baseline. The less dynamic
baseline represents a reasonable attempt to incorporate the effects of existing policies (California Air
Resources Board's Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas regulation and EPA's SmartWay Transport
Partnership) on box trailers' adoption of aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires (RIA
p.5-12). However, the more dynamic baseline relies on the assumption that pickups and vans and tractor
technologies that pay back within the first six months of ownership will be taken up in the market
(p.40492 and RIA p.5-12). This is an arbitrary assumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.26]
In general, assumptions regarding the trajectory of fuel efficiency in the absence of standards are
necessarily highly speculative, given the many complex factors that can produce rising or falling fuel
efficiency over time. The agencies' assumption in earlier fuel efficiency rulemakings of constant fuel
efficiency in the baseline scenario best maintains the transparency of the analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1280-A1 p.26]
Recommendation: Baseline
• Assume flat fuel efficiency in the baseline scenario unless there is strong evidence that another
assumption is more plausible. Alternative baseline assumptions are appropriate for a sensitivity
analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.27]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Flat vs. dynamic baseline scenario
The NPRM requests comment regarding which alternative baseline scenario is most appropriate (flat
baseline scenario vs. dynamic baseline scenario). Historically, for modeling and emission projection
purposes, CARB staff assumes manufacturers would not go beyond regulations' requirements except
-------
where we have data that shows otherwise. CARB staff does not have data that suggests that
manufacturers, in the absence of further, stricter standards, would make vehicles more fuel efficient than
required by the Phase 1 standards. As a result, our EMFAC 2014 emissions inventory database does not
project fuel economy improvements or C02 emission rate reductions beyond what is required by Phase
1, and CARB staff has been using a flat baseline for our Phase 2 emissions analysis. In the absence of
certainty regarding how manufacturers would behave if no Phase 2 program were adopted, CARB staff
believes the approach taken in the NPRM and RIA to examine both a less dynamic and more dynamic
baseline is valid and reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 132]
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
The Proposed Rule omits any comparison with emission levels in 1990, the internationally agreed-upon
emission baseline year. That omission must be corrected, as the effect of the rulemaking on the climate
problem would otherwise remain opaque rather than transparent. Reductions from business as usual are
meaningful only in context, and that context has not been supplied. Crucially, C02 emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles increased 71 percent between 1990 and 2013 and constituted over 7 percent of all
US greenhouse gas emissions,3 highlighting the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
this sector to the maximal extent possible. The goal of the rulemaking must be not only to do better than
Phase I, but to also actually drive down overall emissions as quickly as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1460-A1 p.2]
3 US EPA, INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS: 1990 - 2013 3-19
(Apr. 15, 2015).
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Real-World Adoption Rate of Technologies - The agencies request comment on their hypotheses
about the causes of slow adoption of readily available and apparently cost-effective technologies for
improving fuel efficiency. HDV owners have limited capital to spend on new vehicles, plus they need
reliable equipment so that they do not suffer breakdowns while trying to operate. These owners typically
decide whether to buy a new technology based on the change in price of a truck, change in fuel
economy, payback, current economic cycle and outlook, profitability, used equipment values, credit
availability, and regulatory awareness. Only some of these concerns are captured in the agencies'
conceptual framework. Many of the factors to slow adoption of new technologies discussed in the
reference cited by EPA. See Klemick, Heather, Elizabeth Kopits, Keith Sargent, and Ann Wolverton
(2014). "Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy Efficiency Paradox." US EPA NCEE Working Paper
Series, Working Paper 1402. Slow adoption can be traced back to customers' experiences with the
rollout of EPA 2004/2007/2010 emission standards which created many issues including: reliability
issues, downtime, increased maintenance - all of which caused missed and late loads and driver
dissatisfaction. Customers' experiences taught them to be cautious, especially smaller operators. EPA
needs to carefully research customer experiences from these earlier regulations to understand the
motivation of customers and the consequences of mandating new standards that could have the same
effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.87]
Ref. Case against which Costs and Benefits are calculated - The agencies request comment on which
alternative baseline scenarios would be most appropriate for analysis in the final rule. 80 FR 40166.
While DTNA appreciates that EPA attempted to take a thorough and comprehensive look at analyzing
the baseline, in order to more easily understand the multiple approaches to "No Action" for tractors, a
-------
table summarizing the details of the assumptions would be appropriate and helpful. Regarding the
assumptions made in developing the different baseline scenarios, first of all, DTNA appreciates that the
agencies' recognition of how we have focused on fuel economy improvements in the past. However,
judging our industry's success based on pre-Phase 1 market conditions is not the appropriate baseline by
which to measure due to the extraordinary increase in the price of trucks around that time due to other
EPA regulations. In 2011, when the agencies were promulgating Phase 1, trucks had just finished
undergoing a [redacted]% increase in price due largely to emissions regulations. In addition, having
undergone earlier experiences with downtime and increased maintenance due to similar emissions
regulations in 2004 and 2007, customers were on "high alert" with regards to new technology likely
contributing to their "slow" process to assess technologies and adopt them. In addition, during this time
truckers were experiencing poor profitability, weak freight, and limited access to credit made worse by
the recent end of a major recession, limiting their ability to spend more on fuel efficiency technologies
given the three year [redacted]% increase in the price of criteria emission technologies required to meet
emission standards. EPA2010 emissions standards, which essentially forced the use of SCR, resulted in
recovering some of the fuel efficiency gains lost due to earlier EPA NOx rules. So SCR could be viewed
as one of the most expensive fuel efficiency technologies adopted by customers. While fuel efficiency
gains from SCR were not enough to get similar efficiency to pre-2004 model year vehicles, the gains
were an improvement over 2007 performance (DTNA can provide information about this in a
confidential setting). Given the complexities surrounding customer decisions, it does not seem
appropriate to simply use a 6-month payback period as a proxy for all of these considerations. Rather,
the agencies should investigate the effects of the high costs of criteria pollutant standards on customer
decisions within this industry and within this timeframe to determine a more accurate picture of
customer behavior absent regulation, to better understand whether or not customers truly were just not
rejecting fuel efficient technologies, and to better estimate the baseline technology market penetration
assumptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 130]
Further, DTNA does not agree that while the agencies estimated the cost and efficacy of fuel efficiency
technologies that performance and utility should have been held constant, and that payload should have
been modeled as being preserved. If low rolling resistance tires were required to be on vehicles that, for
example, go off-road a majority of the time, utility will be lost. If heavy technologies, such as battery
APUs are required as a result of stringency, payload will likely be lost. The agencies seem to rely
heavily on the concept that absent regulation, fuel efficiency will remain stagnant as manufacturers
simply trade ever cheaper fuel efficiency technologies to maintain a certain level of efficiency and work
to reduce cost. While there is an economic efficiency in reducing cost by choosing or not choosing
certain technologies, and replacing certain technologies (e.g. predictive cruise control capturing some
the benefit that hybrid technology would have, as discussed with our Super Truck comments in the
Hybrid and ePTO section of our Technology Penetration Rate discussion, above) this does change the
historic demand of our customers to continually improve their total cost of operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p.130-131]
Organization: Gilroy, JD
A second reservation is about future extensions of these standards. Should there be any declarations now
in the standards of longer-term goals in fuel efficiency? These standards may well succeed in reducing
fuel usage and corresponding pollution to near 2010 levels, but we emitted a huge amount of pollution
in 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0751 p.2]
Organization: He, Leard, McConnell
-------
Heavy-duty trucks are an increasingly important source of greenhouse gas emissions in the
transportation sector. In 2011, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced the final rule of Phase 1 fuel economy standards for
medium and heavy-duty vehicles with model year from 2014 to 2018. The second phase of the
regulations call for reduction in fuel consumption (gallons of fuel/1,000 ton payload mile) by 24% for
combination tractors and 16% for vocational vehicles from 2018 to 2027. This is equivalent to about
3.09% and 1.96% per year improvement in fuel economy for combination trucks and vocational
vehicles respectively. How challenging will such fuel economy improvements be? There is little
information about fuel economy from trucks - it is not reported at the time of truck sale or during
operation. One important source of data, the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS), a random
sample of the truck fleet in the U.S., provides valuable evidence about fuel economy of different types
of trucks and how fuel economy has changed over time. This study looks at the evidence about fuel
economy and other truck attributes from this survey, and provides implications for a dynamic baseline
of improvements in fuel economy. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p. 1-2]
We find that the annual rate of technological progress from 1973 to 2002 is about 0.93% for
combination trucks, and 0.83% for vocational vehicles. That is to say, absent of regulations, we can
expect a business-as-usual improvement in fuel economy by 8.71% for combination trucks and 7.70%
for vocational vehicles in 10 years. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p.2]
Additional improvements in truck fuel economy may be made through vehicle design changes. Most
forms of aerodynamic designs are used to reduce drag, minimize noise emission and prevent undesired
lift forces. Tires with less rolling resistance, such as radial tires, can also improve fuel efficiency.
Various onboard idle reduction equipment help shorten idle time at truck stops, terminals and delivery
sites, and therefore reduce energy loss. Other technologies include (but are not limited to) electrification
of accessories, reducing frictions in bearings, valve trains, and the piston-to-liner interface. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0115-A1 p.2-3]
Theoretically, the trade-off relationship between MPG and truck attributes, can be illustrated as follows
(take MPG and weight for example). As Figure 1 shows, the tradeoff between MPG and vehicle weight
is a downward sloping curve. The exogenous technological advances introduced in section 2.1 push the
production curve upward. If vehicle weight remains the same, fuel economy is improved as
technological progress occurs. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p.3-4]
[Figure 1, 'Theoretical illustration: trade-off between MPG and vehicle weight', can be found on p.4 of
docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A 1 ]
3 Data and Graphical Evidence
The Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey was conducted by the Census Bureau from 1963 to 2002. We
use data collected every five years from 1982 to 2002. Random samples are generated for every state,
with surveys asking for detailed information about trucks' physical and operational characteristics.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0115-A1 p.4]
The trade-off relationship between MPG and vehicle weight (including cargo), as well as between MPG
and engine displacement, for combination trucks can be illustrated in the two graphs below. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0115-A1 p.4]
-------
[Figure 2, 'Trade-off between MPG and vehicle weight for class 7, 8 combination trucks', and 3, 'Trade-
off between MPG and engine displacement for class 7, 8 combination trucks', can be found on p.5 of
docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0115 -A 1 ]
5 Policy Implication and Conclusion
In this study, we examine the trade-off relationship between fuel economy and vehicle attributes (weight
and engine displacement, in particular). We also explore a dynamic baseline in fuel economy
improvements by estimating the technological progress in the absence of regulations. We find that
technological progress in MPG for combination trucks is about 30.87% from 1973 to 2002. It can be
translated to 23.59% reduction in fuel consumption (gallons/1,000 ton payload mile). The annual rate is
about 0.92%. If the progress of business-as-usual stays the same, from 2018 to 2027, approximately
8.01% reduction in fuel consumption can be expected, even without regulation. While the proposed rule
calls for a 20% reduction, the remaining 11.99% will have to come from either more
technological advances or changes in trade-o attributes, such as vehicle weight and engine power. For
vocational vehicles, the technological progress in MPG is about 27% within 30 years, equating to a
21.26% reduction in fuel consumption. If technological advances remain the same from 2018 to 2027,
fuel consumption will be reduced by 7.15%, just under half of the target.
Our findings suggest that it is important to count for the business-as-usual technological progress in
improving fuel economy as analyzing the impacts of the new fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty
trucks. We recommend the agencies to consider such dynamic baseline in the final rule of phase 2
standards, as ignoring it may result in an overestimation of both the cost of the regulation, as well as the
fuel consumption savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions due to the new rules.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Market factors
Available data and historical trends indicate the agencies include a flat reference truck efficiency
baseline, with the sole exception of improvements in trailers that are linked to California's regulations
that affect trailers. The agencies' continued consideration of fleet-wide vehicle efficiency improvements
in the absence of new regulatory standards is unwarranted. The ICCT has supported many governments
around the world in collecting and analyzing data. Based on our work to date, although technology
improves and fleet-level efficiency improvements occur, there is no evidence to support the assumption
of a new sales-fleet-averaged heavy-duty vehicle fleet C02 or fuel consumption reduction in the
absence of regulations. In the case of analyzing the impact of the Phase 2 standards, including reference
trailer improvements that are linked to the California regulations on trailer efficiency devices is
warranted; however, otherwise retaining flat efficiency characteristics for all engines, trucks, and
tractors for scenarios would best reflect the evidence on historical trends in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 17]
There are pervasive market barriers in the market, that have long prevented the uptake of even
technologies with very attractive payback periods—for example, 6 months up to 2 years (see, e.g.,
Vernon and Meier, 2012; Roeth et al, 2013). Routinely, just small fractions of the fleet - a handful of
technology-leading companies, representing a small fraction of the fleet, adopt technologies. The
agencies consideration of technology adoption based on precise payback periods in the absence of
regulation does not appear to be based on any empirical analysis of fleet-wide shifts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 17-18]
-------
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Technology and Cost Analyses Should Use Less Dynamic Baseline
The agencies should compare the costs and benefits of new standards to a baseline of new vehicles that
show little or no fuel efficiency or emissions improvements in the absence of the new standards. A more
dynamic baseline should not be used as a basis for setting standards. NRDC believes that it is the
existence of fuel consumption and carbon pollution standards that will cause manufacturers to invest
and deploy significant amounts of fuel efficiency and low emissions technology. The Energy
Information Administration shows that the heavy truck fleet showed almost no fuel efficiency
improvements during years without efficiency standards. From 1966 to 2006 the average year-over-year
improvement for heavy trucks was 0.2 percent and from 2007 to 2013 the improvement rate was 0.0
percent.22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.9]
In the Executive Summary of the proposal, the agencies summarize the proposed rule impacts on fuel
consumption, GHG emissions, benefits and costs as a range defined by the less and more dynamic
baselines. The Executive Summary presentation leaves the impression that the two baselines are equally
probable. NRDC disagrees; the Executive Summary and main analysis should utilize the less dynamic
baseline. The more dynamic baseline should be constrained to a sensitivity analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 10]
22 Improvement rates are calculated over two date ranges because of changes in the types of trucks
included in the data. Data is from Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table
1.8 Motor Vehicle Mileage, Fuel Consumption, and Fuel Economy. Viewed September 28. 2015.
Organization: Sierra Club
Accurately consider market forces
We urge the agencies not to consider fleet-wide efficiency improvements in the absence of new
standards. Although small segments of the fleet do adopt fuel saving technologies, there are entrenched
market barriers that have prevented the adoption of many fuel saving technologies, even those that have
quick payback periods. According to organizations such as the International Council on Clean
Transportation, evidence does not support the assumption that fleet oil consumption and carbon
pollution would decrease without regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1 p.3]
Response:
The No Action Alternatives for today's analysis, alternatively referred to as the "baselines" or
"reference cases," assume that the agencies did not issue new rules regarding MD/HD fuel efficiency
and GHG emissions. These are the baselines against which costs and benefits for these standards are
calculated. The reference cases assume that model year 2018 engine, tractor, vocational vehicle, and HD
pickup and van standards will be extended indefinitely and without change. They also assume that no
new standards would be adopted for trailers.
NHTSA considered its primary analysis to be based on the dynamic baseline, where certain cost-
effective technologies are assumed to be applied by manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency beyond
-------
the Phase 1 requirements in the absence of new Phase 2 standards. EPA considered both reference cases.
The results for all of the regulatory alternatives relative to both reference cases, derived via the same
methodologies discussed in this section, are presented in Section X of the FRM.
Some commenters expressed support for a flat baseline in the context of the need for the regulations,
arguing that little improvement would occur without the regulations. Others supported the less dynamic
baseline because they believe it more fully captures the costs. Some commenters thought it reasonable
that the agencies consider both baselines given the uncertainty in this area. No commenters opposed the
consideration of both baselines, although some argued that assuming a dynamic baseline is unrealistic or
should be limited to a sensitivity analysis.
Although commenters were more supportive of using a flat baseline, the agencies have continued to
analyze two different baselines for the final rules because we recognize that there are a number of
factors that create uncertainty in projecting a baseline against which to compare the future effects of this
action and the remaining alternatives. The composition of the future fleet—such as the relative position
of individual manufacturers and the mix of products they each offer—cannot be predicted with certainty
at this time. Having parallel baselines from which to analyze is one reasonable way to account for this
unavoidable uncertainty.
Significantly, we note that the both reference cases lead us to the same conclusions, although using a
dynamic reference cases results in somewhat lower values for both cost and benefits. This is because
costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness were not significantly limiting factors in determining the
stringency of the standards for this rulemaking. Rather, we found that actual technological feasibility
and lead time to be the more limiting factors.
While we understand the Center for Biological Diversity comment regarding comparison with emission
levels in 1990, we do not believe that is the appropriate baseline for this rulemaking context.
8.4 Comments on Alternative 2 1421
Organization: Association for the Work Truck Industry (NTEA)
Fuel Efficiency Payback
The NTEA requests that standards similar to those described as "Alternative 2" be considered for the
vocational truck segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.3]
With regard to Alternative 3, in 2027 when the standard is fully phased in, heavy-duty vehicles across
all classes would achieve up to the following C02 emissions and fuel use reductions.
• 24 percent for combination tractors designed to pull trailers and move freight when compared to
Phase 1 standards
• 8 percent for trailers when compared to an average model year 2017 trailers
• 16 percent for pick-up trucks and light vans when compared to Phase 1 standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1187-A1 p.3]
Further, the proposal calculates figures for expected payback periods based on the additional costs
associated with the proposed standards and the economic savings based on the increased fuel efficiency
-------
expected with Alternative 3. The proposal estimates "Reasonable Payback Periods for the Trucking
Industry In model year 2027," for the buyer of a new vehicle. The notice states that the buyer would
recoup the extra cost of technology used to achieve the standard (Alternative 3) within:
• 2 years for a tractor/trailer combo
• 3 years for pick-ups and vans
The expected payback periods for tractor/trailer combinations and pick-ups/vans seems reasonable.
Most companies would look towards a 2-3 year payback period for moderate fuel efficiency gains.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.4]
Regulatory Burden Equity
According to the proposal, the overall transportation sector is responsible for 70% of oil consumption
and 28% of GHG emissions. By 2010 all medium and heavy duty vehicles were responsible for 23% of
the total transportation sector fuel consumption and GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-
A1 p.4]
Of these transportation sector totals, combination tractors were responsible for two-thirds of the overall
MDV and HDV fuel consumption and GHG emissions. Vocational trucks were responsible for only
20%. Yet, the proposed rules would set standards such that combination tractor owners would see a
payback on the additional regulatory costs of 2-3 years. Owners of vocational trucks would be burdened
with a 6 year payback. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.4]
The NTEA respectfully suggests that the agencies consider standards more in line with Alternative 2 for
the vocational truck segment. The proposed standards (Alternative 3) place an unfair burden on this
segment of the vehicle population in relation to the other regulated segments (tractor/trailer
combinations and pickups and vans). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.4]
Per the notice, Alternative 2 represents a stringency level which is approximately half as stringent
overall as the "preferred" alternative (3). The agencies developed Alternative 2 to reflect a continuation
of the Phase 1 approach of-applying off-the-shelf technologies rather than requiring the development of
new technologies or fundamental improvements to existing technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1187-A1 p.4-5]
The agencies project that the Alternative 2 vocational vehicle standard could be met with lower
adoption rates of the other technologies that could be used to meet Alternative 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1187-A1 p.5]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Regarding Alternative 2, while the agencies immediately dismiss it as being faulty as both a matter of
policy and of law, given the number of factors currently in the preferred approach that actually make the
rule nearly twice as stringent as designed, Alternative 2 should be reconsidered if these other technical
issues are not corrected. For example, it is estimated that due to baseline errors, elimination of
compliance margins, and regulatory trailer specifications, that the reduction required from linehaul
approaches 50% - in which case Alternative 2 would actually provide the agencies with the reductions
claimed by the rule for linehaul. In addition, Alternative 2 should be adopted in part for vocational
-------
vehicles as the current program for vocational vehicles under the preferred approach is not tenable. As
the agencies mention - Alternative 2 could be met without the use of strong hybrids, a technology that is
extremely expensive and highly likely to create market disruptions. A more realistic approach is to
adopt Alternative 2, in particular for vocational vehicles and include an 'advanced credit' similar to that
under Phase 1 to encourage the hybrid market to recover as currently there is no hybrid market (see our
discussion of hybrids in the "Vocational Vehicle Stringency" section of this document). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.73]
Further, we do not understand why it is estimated that technology effectiveness would be lower under
Alternative 2 than Alternative 3. We request that the agencies provide an explanation. It is not readily
apparent why technologies in use today and under develop would erode in efficiency gains due to
adoption of Alternative 2 as opposed to the preferred approach. In addition, the agencies have assumed
that Alternative 2 would involve less integrated optimization for linehaul vehicles and engines. There
has been a fundamental shift by truck manufacturers to optimize fuel efficiency to focus not on discreet
components but instead look at the complete vehicle and operations, as this is where remaining gains are
available. Based on what data and information is this assumption made? Please provide details. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 74]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
OOIDA recommends that the agencies do not so easily disregard Alterative 2. According to the NPRM,
Alternative 2 represents a stringency level which is approximately half as stringent overall as the
preferred alternative. The agencies developed Alternative 2 to consider a continuation of the Phase 1
approach of applying off-the-shelf technologies rather than requiring the development of new
technologies or fundamental improvements to existing technologies. For tractors and vocational
vehicles, this also involved less integrated optimization of the vehicles and engines. Put another way,
Alternative 2 is not technology-forcing. The agencies' decisions regarding which technologies could be
applied to comply with Alternative 2 considered not only the use of off-the shelf technologies, but also
considered other factors as well, such as how broadly certain technologies fit in-use applications and
regulatory structure. The resulting Alternative 2 could be met with most of the same technologies the
agencies project could be used to meet the proposed standards, although at lower application rates.
Alternative 2 is estimated to be achievable without the application of some technologies, at any level.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 37]
Nevertheless, the agencies stated that they are not proposing Alternative 2 because they do not believe
that it represents the "maximum feasible improvement" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2). However, OOIDA would argue that Alternative 2 is the "maximum feasible
improvement" because it does not force technologies that could be harmful to consumers or to the
market. In addition, while the some of the adoption rates for the various technologies are still too high,
such as for the APU estimate, overall this Alternative is far more realistic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1244-A1 p.38]
Response:
As noted in Section X of the FRM Preamble, the agencies are not adopting standards reflecting
Alternative 2 for reasons of both policy and law. Technically feasible alternate standards are available
that provide for greater emission reductions and reduced fuel consumption than provided under
Alternative 2. These more stringent standards, which are being adopted, are feasible at reasonable cost,
considering both per-vehicle and per-engine cost, cost-effectiveness, direct benefits to consumers in the
form of fuel savings, and lead time. Consequently, the agencies do not believe that the modest
-------
improvements in Alternative 2 would be appropriate or otherwise reasonable under section 202 (a) (1)
and (2) of the Clean Air Act, or represent the "maximum feasible improvement" within the meaning of
49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
Central to this conclusion is the conclusion that the final standards are feasible and appropriate.
Comments related to this conclusion are addressed in Sections 3 through 7 of this RTC and Chapter 2 of
the RIA.
8.5 Comments on Alternative 5 1424
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Regarding Alternative 5, DTNA agrees that this is too stringent to be feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p.74]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
OOIDA proposes that agencies' preferred alternative, Alternative 3, as well as Alternatives 4 and 5, are
unrealistic and if adopted as part of this rulemaking process, will severely compromise the agencies'
praiseworthy objectives to increase the fuel efficiency of medium-and heavy-duty trucks and reduce
GHG emissions. Truck drivers certainly desire fuel efficient trucks and appreciate cleaner air to
breathe. While various governmental agencies and environmental groups tend to paint owner-operators
as individuals who do not care about the environment, nothing could be further from the truth. It is
crucial to understand that owner-operators are not only hardworking Americans who help to move our
economy, but that they also spend a majority of their life around tractor-trailers. Therefore, it is in their
best interest, as well as in the interest of the public, to operate clean and efficient trucks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.36-37]
Response:
We agree that Alternative 5 is not feasible. We are not adopting Alternative 5 because we cannot
project that manufacturers can develop and introduce in sufficient quantities the technologies that could
be used to meet Alternative 5 standards. Some examples of technology adoption rates that were used in
Alternative 5 for MY 2024 that the agencies do not believe are feasible include the following:
• Up to 66% adoption rate of strong hybrids for gasoline HD pickups
• 40% adoption rate of strong hybrids in tractors
• Up to 3% electric vehicles plus 36% adoption rate of strong hybrids in some vocational vehicle
subcategories
-------
9 Aggregate GHG, Fuel Consumption, and Climate Impacts
9.1 General Comments
9.1.1 1425MOVES Model 1425
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
c. Motorhome VMT
In assessing the impact of this rule, RVIA commissioned Statistical Surveys, Inc. to collect vehicle
miles travelled (VMT) data for motorhomes. In carrying out this analysis, Statistical Surveys, Inc. used
data from IHS Inc., a well-known source of information on the automotive industry, to review odometer
readings of three year old motorhomes sold in calendar years, 2012-2014. Using readings from 987
motorhomes, Statistical Surveys found that the average VMT for motorhomes was 4,290 and that the
median VMT was 3,042.5 Thus, for the current analysis, EPA should use the more accurate figure of an
annual 4,290 VMT for motorhomes, but, given the lower median, even that number is likely
conservative. For additional details on the motorhome VMT work carried out by Statistical Surveys,
Inc. see Appendix A. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.8][This comment can also be found in
section 6.3 of this comment summary]
Because motorhomes are used primarily for camping and recreation purposes, they are relatively under-
driven compared to other vehicles. They are typically driven from Point A to Point B (e.g., a family
residence to a campground or event) via interstate highways and other rural roads. Average motorhome
use is 27.5 days per year.8 Many use days are spent in the stationary mode at a campground. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p.9]
EPA should use a more accurate though still very conservative VMT figure of 4,290 miles in its
calculations and determine more accurate and specific payback periods for motorhomes under the
Proposed Rules, using more accurate ICMs and scenarios (i.e., Scenario 4 as set forth Vl.b). Doing so
will demonstrate the payback periods are significantly longer than for other vocational and regulated
vehicles under the Proposed Rules ~ even longer than average years of ownership in nearly all
circumstances ~ and thereby do not provide consumers with a significant benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1261-A1 p.27]
EPA should also recognize that the more realistic low-level production and low VMT, as well as
episodic use of motorhomes, would result in fewer emission reductions relative to other vocational and
other regulated vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.28]
Response:
The commenter suggested using an average annual VMT of 4,920 for motorhomes. Also, the analysis
by the commenter based on the IHS data suggested that the actual VMT might even be lower. The
modified version of MOVES2014a used in the final rulemaking projects that the annual mileage
traveled by new motorhomes is less than 2,200 miles in calendar year 2011. The annual mileage tends to
decrease for all motor homes in future years, especially for older motorhomes. Therefore, we believe the
assumptions of annual motorhome VMT in MOVES is consistent with the finding by Statistical
Surveys, Inc.
-------
The decision-making regarding the final standards for each vehicle category were based on the need to
decrease GHG emissions and fuel consumption, along with the projected maximum feasible technology
- considering technology costs and requisite lead time consistent with the requirements of the CAA and
EISA. Metrics related to cost effectiveness were not limiting the agencies from determining the
standards. We note that this rule is not being finalized with the motivation to provide operators with a
specific payback period. We present paybacks estimates in order to provide information regarding one
aspect of the potential effect of the standards on the user community.
Organization: Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
EPA's motorhome MOVES model forecast for motorhomes in unrealistic
In the Proposed Rule, it is stated that, according to the MOVES model forecast, there will be
approximately 90,000 recreational vehicles manufactured for MY 2018. For motorhome sales to reach
90,000 by MY2018, shipments would need to increase 20% per year. Although sales have increased
significantly over the past five years, this was largely a function of post-recession recovery. The annual
growth rates since the recession have not been representative of historic shipment trends. When
examining historic sales trends for the 20 years preceding the recession, shipments averaged slightly
under 60,000 units per year. From 1991 to 1999, a period of steady growth, shipments went from 41,948
to 71,514, an annual average increase of 6.9%. A second growth period occurred from 2001 to 2004
when shipments went from 49,207 to 71,633, an average growth rate of 13.3%. Based on this history,
the idea that the industry will go from 44,000 shipments in 2014 to 90,000 shipments in 2018 is
unsupported and unlikely. EPA's conclusion is further unrealistic in view of the projected decrease in
production we estimate arising from the Proposed Rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.25]
Even if a rather optimistic annual 10% motorhome shipment growth rate for the next four years were to
be presumed, shipments would not exceed 65,000 units. Though also optimistic, this is a far more
realistic estimate than the 90,000 figure used in the Proposed Rules. It is also conservative since it
would still not account for production lowered by application of the Proposed Rules. In modeling
motorhome emissions, EPA should at maximum project motorhome shipments to not exceed 65,000 for
MY2018. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p.25]
We note that by using the more appropriate shipment estimates discussed above, GHG emissions
projected by EPA for motorhomes will be only 2/3 of that projected by EPA, and therefore, the
corresponding emission decreases from the Proposed Rule will be significantly less than predicted by
EPA, further showing that the Proposed Rules are not reasonable for the motorhome sector. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p.25-26]
[Chart, 'motorhome shipments by year', can be found on p.26 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1261-A1]
EPA should use a more accurate estimate of annual production volume of motorhomes for use in its
MOVES model forecast. The 90,000 figure used is overly optimistic and is not consistent with recent
data. 65,000 vehicles is a more accurate though still optimistic estimate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1 p.28]
Response:
In the version of MOVES used for the notice of proposed rulemaking analysis, MOVES2014, the
vehicle population in 2011 is considered a base year population. MOVES2014 estimates motorhome
-------
population of slightly less than 1.5 million in 2011.199 A study by the Survey Research Center estimated
that there were over 2.1 million motorhomes in 2011.200 The National Household Transportation Survey
in 2009 estimated that there were just under 1.1 million motorhomes in 2009.201 Therefore, we believe
the base year population of motorhomes in MOVES falls within the range of estimates obtained from
third-party data. MOVES then forecasts the sales and future year populations by applying the year-to-
year growth rates of VMT from U.S. Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO) to the base year population - AEO2014 was used for the NPRM and AEO2015 was used for the
FRM.
We agree that the MOVES estimates for population growth and sales of motorhomes may be considered
aggressive compared to the motorhome sales data provided by RVIA. However, given the lack of
available data to update MOVES, we believe relying on AEO projections for assumptions of sales and
growth projections for motorhomes is justified. Furthermore, we believe the impacts of different sales
projections on GHG reductions from the rule are minimal since it is estimated that the difference in
model year lifetime GHG reductions of Phase 2 projected by MOVES and the one projected by using
the motorhome shipment estimates suggested by RVIA above is less than 1 million metric tons of
C02eq, 0.1% of the reductions from the heavy-duty sector.
9.2 Projected Reductions in Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions1427
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 3 Emission Benefits
This comment provides an overview of the emissions benefits from the proposed regulation in
California. Trucking operations in California differ substantially from the national average. Trucks that
are operated primarily in California are retained by fleets longer than the national average.8 In addition,
the California trucking market is segmented, with national, regional and local fleets all competing in
different segments of the goods movement economy; and hence it has a lower fraction of long-haul
freight truck traffic as compared to national truck activity.9 This leads to a different vehicle fleet mix,
vehicle age, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) profiles than the national average. California's emissions
model, EMFAC2014 (vl.0.7), reflects these California-specific factors, and is used to estimate the GHG
emissions impact of the proposed rule as applied to medium and heavy-duty vehicles operating in
California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.21-22]
[Figure 1, 'Statewide On-Road GHG Emissions (Normalized to 2020 as a Baseline year) from Phase 2
Regulated Vehicles: without Regulation (Baseline including CARB Tractor-Trailer Regulation), with
the Phase 1 Regulation, and with the Alternative 3 of Phase 2 Regulation', can be found on p.22 of EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
Using the model year (MY) specific percent reductions in C02 emission rates, staff assessed the
emissions impact of the proposed regulation under both alternative 3 and 4 scenarios. Figure 1 shows
199 US EPA, Population and Activity of On-road Vehicles in MOVES2014, EPA-420-R-16-003a, Ann
Arbor, MI: March 2016, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420rl6003a.pdf.
200 Curtin, R. T. The RVConsumer in 2011. Survey Research Center. University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI.
https://data.sca.isr.umich.edu/fetchdoc.php7docicN49063.
201 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2009 National Household Travel Survey.
URL: http://nhts.ornl.gov.
-------
the impact of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Alternative 3) regulations on GHG emissions from affected
vehicles.10 Results show a combined reduction of ~31percent in GHG emissions by 2050. Furthermore,
staff analysis shows that as compared to alternative 3, alternative 4 would achieve an additional 4 MMT
cumulative benefit in C02 emissions by 2030 (Figure 2). If Alternative 4 is adopted, Phase 1 and 2
together would achieve approximately a 22 percent reduction in petroleum use from the medium- and
heavy-duty sector in 2030. This reduction would be a first step towards reaching the California
Governor's goal of up to a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by 2030. As shown in Figure 1, due to
the relatively fast growth of freight activity in California and at California ports (which handle roughly
40 percent of the nation's freight flow), GHG emissions from the regulated trucks will start increasing
in 2035. Therefore, achieving California's mid- and long-term climate change targets will require
additional steps such as broader use of renewable fuels, increasing use of zero-emission technologies,
and increasing operational efficiencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.22-23]
[Figure 2, 'Statewide Cumulative On-Road C02 Emissions Benefit from the Alternative 3 and
Alternative 4 of Phase 2 Regulation', can be found on p.23 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
Response:
Thank you for the comment. As shown in RIA Chapter 5, in terms of year-by-year GHG reductions, the
final program is expected to reduce more GHGs over the long run than both the proposed program and
Alternative 4. In general, the greater reductions can be attributed to increased market penetration and
effectiveness of key technologies, based on new data and comments, leading to increases in stringency
such as with the diesel engine standards.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Neutral Comment to Provide Additional Information
Comment - GHG emissions reductions
According to Table VII-13 of the NPRM, the annual downstream GHG emissions impact of the
proposed regulation (preferred Alternative 3 vs. Alternative la baseline using Analysis Method A) in
year 2050 is reported as -134.9 MMT C02eq (at the national level). In order to compare these federal
emissions reductions estimates to a California-specific analysis, it is necessary to have estimates of the
baseline emissions (baseline Alternatives la and lb). However, the NPRM does not provide baseline
information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 173]
Therefore, CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to either provide estimates of GHG
emissions (in MMT C02eq) for baseline scenarios (Alternatives la and lb), or report the benefits as a
percent reduction from the baseline emissions similar to those provided in Section VIII of the NPRM for
non-GHG emissions (e.g. Table VIII-7). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.173]
Response:
Thank you for the comment. In the FRM, the annual greenhouse gas reductions from downstream and
upstream are presented both in absolute tons and in percent reductions relative to the baselines.
-------
6 Assembly Bill 32: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.; Executive order B-32-15: Reduce
GHG Emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; Executive order S-21-09: Reduce GHG
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; Governor Brown's inaugural address: Reduce
petroleum use in cars and trucks in California by up to 50 percent by 2030
7 Assuming tractor meets baseline emission level of 88 g C02/ton-mile; payload of 38,000 lbs; travels
120,000 miles/year over 6 year period (2024 to 2030).
8 United States Census Bureau, "Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (2002)," available
at: http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/products.html.
9 Id.
10 The affected EMFAC vehicle categories by Phase 1 and 2 regulations are heavy-duty trucks and buses
exceeding 8,500 pounds GVWR.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Calculation of HFC emissions
U.S. EPA and NHTSA are proposing to estimate refrigerant emissions from heavy-duty vehicles using
the same emission rates for light-duty vehicles assumed in the Vintaging Model, consistent with the
methodology in U.S. EPA andNHTSA's heavy-duty Phase 1 GHG regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 146]
Heavy-duty vehicles are primarily used for commercial or industrial purposes, as opposed to light-duty
vehicles, typically used for commuting or pleasure. For this reason, heavy-duty vehicles, and hence,
their AC systems, operate much longer than light-duty vehicles. Longer operation of the AC systems
leads to higher annual refrigerant leakage and may accelerate aging-related deterioration of refrigerant
containment. Therefore, CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to continue to evaluate
refrigerant emission rates for heavy-duty vehicles, in order to improve the understanding of refrigerant
emissions for this sector. CARB staff is willing to provide assistance in this regard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 146]
53 (Clodic, 2006) Clodic, D., Refrigerant MAC leakage, new evidences from the Armines / ACEA study.
IEA Workshop, Cooling Car with Less Fuel. Paris, France, October 23 - 23, 2006. (Prolss et al., 2006)
Prolss, K., Schmitz, G., Limperich, D., Braun, M., Influence of refrigerant charge variation on the
performance of an automotive refrigeration system. Proceedings of the 2006 International Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue. West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, July 17-20, 2006.
(Huyghe, 2011) Huyghe, E. P., Impact of low refrigerant charge on energy consumption of the MAC
system. SAE Automotive Refrigerant System Efficiency Symposium. Scottsdale, Arizona, USA,
September 27 - 29, 2011.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. As suggested, we plan to continue to evaluate the HFC emission
inventories from heavy-duty vehicles and look forward to coordinating with CARB on these efforts.
Organization: Honeywell Fluorine Products
-------
Studies have shown that leakage rates as expressed as a percentage of the initial charges show a range of
7.3 to 11.5 % (8.9 average) annually for heavy duty vehicles vs. generally 1.5 - 3% range for light duty
vehicles.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.3]
To properly account for leakage from AC units in HD vehicles, the scoring system must consider the
significantly higher miles and heavier pounding these vehicles endure each year and over the life of the
vehicle, as well as variation.5 HD vehicles often have much higher annual mileage usage, in many cases
over 100,000 miles per year and 1-2 million miles over the lifetime of the vehicle. In addition, HD
vehicles have different loads (engine torque on A/C compressor and engine/road vibration loads on A/C
lines, fittings, and components) on its A/C components, which likely results in higher leakage rates than
light duty vehicles. Finally since many HD trucks have sleeper cabs, the air conditioning systems are
often run even when the vehicle is not moving, adding further to the wear and tear of the A/C system.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1191-A1 p.3-4]
We request EPA to consider more fully these real world realities of harder pounding over many more
miles in assigning leakage rates over time for HD A/C systems. While a design based approach in
estimating leakage may have applicability to new HD vehicles, we believe that real world performance
based testing would reveal short comings in the application of SAE J2727 to HD, MD, and VV over the
life of the vehicle. We suggest EPA gather leak rate data on older heavily used vehicles to determine if
the leak rates predicted by SAE J2727 are accurate over the life of the vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1191-A1 p.4]
Response:
Please see RTC Section 6.6.3 for responses to the use of SAE J2727 as a certification procedure. We
will continue to evaluate direct leakage emission inventories of HFC from A/C systems on HD vehicles
in the future.
9.3 Climate Impacts and Indicators 1430
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Global Warming Potential (GWP) change for non-C02 GHGs - EPA should refrain from having
different GWP based on vehicle classifications. If EPA chooses to lower the N20 GWP from 298 to 268
and increase CH4 from 25 to 36 based on latest IPCC report, the cost-benefit analysis needs to be
clearly outlined in the final RIA inclusive of the impact on flex fuel vehicle and CNG products. In
addition, the effective impact on greenhouse gas stringency associated with offsetting exceedances of
the N20 and CH4 cap standards must be evaluated. Furthermore, the draft RIA should also include a
detailed analysis of the merits of using Global Temperature Potential (GTP) values in lieu of GWP for
both N20 and CH4 As stated above, this change should be consistent across all vehicle classes, as well
as, all regulations under EPA and NHTSA authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p. 11]
Response:
As noted in the Preamble of the final rule, the GWPs being used in this action are consistent with the
IPCC 4th Assessment Report unless stated otherwise. One key exception is that the C02 Credit trading
program will use GWPs from the Fifth Assessment Report (see 40 CFR 1036.705). The reasoning and
details are discussed in Section VII.D.2. a of the Preamble of the final rule. See also Response to
Comment Section 12.1.1.
-------
The cost-benefit analysis itself is done using the Social Cost of C02, the Social Cost of CH4, and the
Social Cost of N20. These are the appropriate metrics to use in order to determine the monetized
impacts of a marginal change in greenhouse gas emissions.
EPA recognizes that there are potential merits of using the Global Temperature Potential in some
applications: some research suggests that this metric is well adapted for use with non-well-mixed
substances. However, for a rule that is targeted towards long-lived greenhouse gases, the most
appropriate metrics are the GWP-100 and the Social Cost metrics and EPA does not consider an
analysis of the GTP in this rule to be necessary.
Organization: American Lung Association
The American Lung Association shares the Administration's view that climate change first and
foremost represents a public health crisis and a public health opportunity. In recognition of that, the
American Lung Association has enlisted health and medical organizations in support of the Obama
Administration's Clean Power Plan and other measures to fight climate change. Earlier this year, the
American Lung Association in California launched a public awareness campaign, Doctors for Climate
Health, to bring this point home. Throughout the United States, medical voices are speaking up -
including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy - that climate change is the public health challenge of our
time. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.l][[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA -
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 142.]]
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards protecting public health.
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
A group of leading climate scientists has calculated that developed countries like the United States must
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 35-65 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to preserve
a likely chance of limiting global temperature rise to 2°C this century.4 On an economy-wide basis,
moreover, current United States climate policy, which includes heavy-duty vehicle standards, will result
in emissions 5 percent above 1990 levels by 2030.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.2]
The urgency of addressing greenhouse gas pollution is becoming more evident every day. The National
Climate Assessment released in May 2014 by the U.S. Global Change Research Program states that
"reducing] the risks of some of the worst impacts of climate change" will require "aggressive and
sustained greenhouse gas emission reductions" over the course of this century.6 Humanity is rapidly
consuming the remaining "carbon budget" necessary to preserve a likely chance of holding the average
global temperature increase to only 2°C above pre-industrial levels. According to the IPCC, if non-C02
forcings are taken into account, total cumulative future anthropogenic emissions of C02 must remain
below about 1,000 gigatonnes (Gt) to achieve this goal.7 Another recent scientific report found that "[i]n
all of the studies consistent with limiting warming below 2°C the energy sector needs to decarbonise
rapidly and reduce to zero emissions as early as 2040 but no later than 2070."8 Even more recently, the
International Energy Agency projected that in its central scenario, the entire remaining 1,000 GtC02
carbon budget will be consumed by 2040.9 Some leading scientists - characterizing the effects of even a
2°C increase in average global temperature as "disastrous" - have prescribed a far more stringent carbon
-------
budget for coming decades.10 The agencies must consider the present rulemaking within the context of
the global carbon budget, especially through the lens of achieving accelerated and deep cuts to U.S.
fossil fuel usage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1460-A1 p.2-3]
4 Bill Hare et al., Below 2°C or 1.5°C Depends on Rapid Action from Both Annex I and Non-Annex I
Countries, Climate Action Tracker Policy Brief at 12 (June 4, 2014) ("Hare et al. 2014") (calculating
"from the IPCC AR5 scenarios that reductions for the Annex I countries in 2025 and 2030 are 25-55%
and 35-65% below 1990 levels respectively for an equity scenario based on relative capability to
mitigate").
5 Hare et al. 2014, supra note 4 at 12. The Proposed Rule also is insufficient to achieve either the United
States' international pledge to reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 or its longer-term
stated goal of reducing emissions 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. Id.
6 Jerry M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Climate Change Impacts in the United
States: The Third National Climate Assessment at 14-15 (2014) ("National Climate
Assessment"), available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/downloads.
7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013 Synthesis Report: Approved
Summary for Policymakers at SPM-8 (Nov. 1, 2014) ("IPCC AR5 SYR SPM") ("Multi-model results
show that limiting total human-induced warming to less than 2°C relative to the period 1861-1880 with
a probability of >66% would require cumulative C02 emissions from all anthropogenic sources since
1870 to remain below about 2900 GtC02 (with a range of 2550-3150 GtC02 depending on non-C02
drivers). About 1900 GtC028 had already been emitted by 2011."); see also see also Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Summary
for Policymakers at 14 (2013) ("IPCC AR5 WGI SPM") at 25-26 ("Limiting the warming caused by
anthropogenic C02 emissions alone with a probability of >33%, >50%, and >66% to less than 2°C
since the period 1861-1880, will require cumulative C02 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to
stay between 0 and about 1570 GtC (5760 GtC02), 0 and about 1210 GtC (4440 GtC02), and 0 and
about 1000 GtC (3670 GtC02) since that period, respectively. These upper amounts are reduced to
about 900 GtC (3300 GtC02), 820 GtC (3010 GtC02), and 790 GtC (2900 GtC02), respectively, when
accounting for non-C02 forcings as in RCP2.6. An amount of 515 [445 to 585] GtC (1890 [1630 to
2150] GtC02), was already emitted by 2011"). United Nations Environment Programme, The
Emissions Gap Report at 13-22 (2013) (describing emissions "pathways" consistent with meeting 2°C
and 1.5°C targets).
8 Hare et al. 2014, supra note 4 at 2.
9 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2014: Executive Summary at 2 (Nov. 12, 2014).
10 James Hansen, et al., Assessing "Dangerous Climate Change ": Required Reduction of Carbon
Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations andNature, 8 PLoS ONE e81648 at 15
(2013), available
at http://www.plosone.org/article/fetch0biect.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/iournal.pone.0081648&repre
sentation=PDF
-------
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change.
Organization: Climate 911
According to the most recent Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, global greenhouse gas emissions
must peak by 2020 and decline rapidly thereafter to avoid irreversible catastrophic climate change. At
this time we are facing a very large gap between the emissions reductions required to accomplish this
and the sum of the commitments offered by the international community. 2020 is only five years away.
As the largest historical contributor to the atmospheric GHGs and world's current second largest emitter,
the US must cut our GHG emissions as steeply and deeply as possible if we want other countries to do
the same. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1179-A1 p.l]
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change.
Organization: Competitive Enterprise Institute et al.
Although the ostensible purpose of the rule is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and oil
imports, the climate and energy-security benefits of the rule are entirely speculative and vanishingly
small at best. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.2][This comment can also be found in section
11.10 of this comment summary]
II. The rule's climate and energy security benefits are vanishingly small at best and completely
unverifiable.
The proposed standards, which phase in during model-years 2021-2027, apply to four types of HDVs:
(1) combination tractors (semi-trucks), (2) trailers pulled by combination tractors, (2) heavy-duty
pickups and vans, and (4) vocational trucks (a wide-ranging assortment of trucks and buses). The
agencies estimate that the technologies needed to comply with the proposed standards will cost $25
billion but that the rule will generate $230 billion in net benefits over the lifetime of vehicles sold in the
regulatory timeframe, including $170 billion in fuel savings.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.5-
6] [This comment can also be found in section 11.10 of this comment summary]
Although the ostensible objectives of the rule are to reduce GHG emissions and oil consumption, the
climate and energy-security benefits, if any, are speculative and no one will actually experience them.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 6] [This comment can also be found in section 11.10 of this
comment summary]
Climate Change Impact
Based on the unverifiable assumption9 that each ton of carbon dioxide-equivalent (C02e) GHGs emitted
imposes a "social cost" of $37-$77 during 2012-2050 (assuming a 3% discount rate),10 the agencies
-------
project $34 billion in cumulative climate benefits from emission reductions over the lifetimes of the
covered vehicles.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.6]
[Table IX-15 can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
Yet the agencies also estimate that by 2100, the rule will decrease atmospheric C02 concentration
"approximately 1.1 to 1.2 parts per million by volume (ppmv)." That miniscule change would, in turn,
reduce global mean temperature by "approximately 0.0026 to 0.0065°C" and global mean sea level rise
by "approximately 0.023 to 0.057 cm" (depending on whether climate sensitivity is as low as 1.5°C or
as high as 6°C). It would also reduce ocean acidification by 0.0006 pH.12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1251-A2 p.7]
[Table VII-37 can be found on p.7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
Such tiny decreases in global warming and sea-level rise cannot be distinguished from the noise of
interannual variability.13 Similarly, the tiny projected decrease in ocean acidification is orders of
magnitude smaller than natural inter-seasonal and inter-regional variations.14 Such changes would have
no detectable effect on heat-related mortality, weather patterns, coral calcification rates, or any other
climate-related indicator people care about. Hypothetical climate benefits during the lifetimes of
vehicles subject to the rule would be even more microscopic. In short, the rule's multi-billion-dollar
climate benefits exist only in the virtual world of integrated assessment models (IAMs) - computer
models that combine speculative climatology with speculative economics.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2p.7]
8 EPA, NHTSA, Overview Fact Sheet: Cutting Carbon Pollution, Improving Fuel Efficiency, Saving
Money, and Supporting Innovation for Trucks, EPA-420-F-15-900, June 2015, p. 2,
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420fl5900.pdf
9 By fiddling with non-validated climate parameters, made-up damage functions, and below-market
discount rates, SCC analysts can get almost any result they desire. See Robert S. Pindyck, Climate
Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? NBER Working Paper No. 19244, July 2013,
http://www.nber.org/papers/wl9244; Mario Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute, et al., Comment on
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order
12866, February 26, 2014, http://www.globalwarming.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/Competitive-
Enterprise-Institute-and-Cooler-Heads-Comment-Letter-to-Office-of-Management-and-Budget-
Technical-Support-Document-on-Social-Cost-of-Carbon-February-26-2014-Spelling-Corrected.pdf;
Written Statement of Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute,
Hearing on An Analysis of the Obama Administration's Social Cost of Carbon, House Committee on
Natural Resources, July 22, 2015,
http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/michaelstestimony.pdf; and Written Statement of Kevin
D. Dayaratna, Senior Statistician and Research Programmer, Heritage Foundation, Hearing on An
Analysis of the Obama Administration's Social Cost of Carbon, House Committee on Natural
Resources, July 22, 2015, http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/dayaratnatestimony.pdf
10 EPA, NHTSA, Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2, Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment,
EPA-420-D-15-900, June 2015, 8-37, http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420dl5900.pdf
(hereafter Draft RIA)
-------
11 80 FR 40458
12 Draft RIA, 6-44
13 According to the Climatic Research Unit of the UK Met Office, the margin of error in estimating
global surface temperature is 0.1°C - 15 to 38 times larger than the projected decrease in global mean
temperature. UK Met Office, "2014 one ofthe warmest years on record globally," January 26, 2015,
http ://www.metoffice. gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/2014-global-temperature
14 In coastal waters, month-long ocean pH varies from 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. Even "Open water
areas [in the Southern Ocean] experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (-0.3-0.5 units) between
austral summer and winter." Hofmann et al. 2011. High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-
Ecosystem Comparison. PLOS/one,
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id= 10.1371/journal.pone. 0028983
15 Anne E. Smith, Testimony, Hearing on Impacts of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rulemakings, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, February 26, 2015,
http://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2015/PUB Smith EPA Testimony 0215.pdf
Response:
See Response to Comments Section 11.8 for responses to critiques of the Social Cost of Carbon
methodology.
The commenter's claims that the benefits are unverifiable and speculative are incorrect. The science
behind the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures and subsequent impacts is
extensive, well-documented, and robust, as can be verified in the assessments of the IPCC, the NRC,
and the USGCRP.202
The commenter has highlighted what they see as a disconnect between billions of dollars of cumulative
carbon benefits as calculated by the Social Cost methodology, and the changes of fractions of a degree
and millimeters of sea level rise. However, this apparent disconnect is resolved by understanding the
spatial and temporal scales of climate change. The key insight is to recognize that any benefit, even a
marginal one, to any individual or in any one location aggregated over billions of individuals, hundreds
of thousands of miles of coastline, and so forth can yield sizeable numbers, and that the Social Cost
methodology is the right tool to do this kind of aggregation. That is, it appropriately monetizes impacts
by aggregating over space and time and types of impacts. Aggregation is not only important for a single
impact (such as sea level rise and damage to coastal properties), but because there are such a wide range
of impacts from heat waves to allergens to flooding to droughts. Furthermore, because of the lifetime of
greenhouse gases, these impacts can occur over decades and centuries. Additionally, global average
temperature changes also need to be understood in the context of history, where a few degrees of global
temperature change was enough to go from ice sheets covering much of high latitude land areas to
today's climate.
202 For a complete list of core references from IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP, NRC and others relied upon for
development of the TSD for EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings see Section 1(b), specifically,
Table 1.1 ofthe TSD. (DocketEPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799).
-------
Climate change will not be halted by any individual action. It is a global, long-term issue and solving
the problem will require many actions in aggregate. Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions,
including those from the U.S., will reduce impacts in the U.S. and around the globe.
Organization: Dignity Health
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 204.]
Strong phase 2 standards offer a rare opportunity to address serious health concerns associated with
climate change and cut freight costs.
Freight trucks currently account for about half a billion tons of climate-forcing GHG emissions per year
and are the fastest growing single source of GHG emissions in the United States.
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards protecting public health.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Harms Associated with Climate Change
As EPA has properly concluded, the scientific record demonstrating that "elevated concentrations of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and
welfare of current and future U.S. generations is robust, voluminous, and compelling."6 The
transportation sector is the second largest source of domestic greenhouse gas emissions and heavy-duty
trucks and buses are responsible for nearly a quarter of the sector's GHG emissions. Significantly
reducing these emissions from new heavy-duty vehicles is necessary to mitigate the serious harms
associated with climate change in the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.6]
The proposal's Regulatory Impact Analysis ("RIA") provides an overview of the pressing threats posed
by greenhouse gas emissions and a summary of EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding. It also incorporates
major assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC"), the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC), and
more recent assessments that support the endangerment finding. Climate research and assessment
reports published since 2009 (and cited in the heavy-duty RIA) further emphasize the urgency of
climate change and the need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.8 The climate science that forms the
basis of the Endangerment Finding provides a legally sufficient and scientifically compelling
justification for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.6]
A. Direct threats to public health and welfare from climate change
Climate change is threatening, and will continue to threaten, public health in many regards. It is
expected to increase the incidence and severity of heat waves, for instance, which are particularly
dangerous to the elderly, the very young, and the infirm.9 Warmer days lead to enhanced ozone (or
-------
smog) formation, which can exacerbate respiratory illnesses, contribute to asthma attacks and
hospitalizations, and heighten the risk of premature death among affected populations.10 Because a
warmer atmosphere retains more moisture, climate change will produce heavier precipitation events,
stronger tropical cyclones, and associated flooding, spreading toxins and diseases and causing severe
infrastructure damage, social upheaval, and widespread injury and death.11 Pathogens and pests are
expected to disseminate among susceptible populations due to changes in those species' survival,
persistence, habitat range, and transmission under changing climate conditions, further endangering the
public.12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.6-7]
As EPA has attested at length, climate change also threatens public welfare. Sea level rise is well
documented and is very likely to accelerate over the coming decades.13 Rising seas, amplified by storm
surges and stronger tropical cyclones, will threaten our coastal homes, cities, and infrastructure, forcing
expensive efforts to protect or relocate critical resources.14 Millions of U.S. citizens will be affected and
many will be displaced. Further inland, shrinking snowpack and early spring melts will increase flood
risks early in the melt season and will cause water shortages throughout much of the western United
States, which now depends on snowpack as a reliable water source.15 Droughts, especially in the
western and southern United States, are expected to occur more frequently, and the extent of drought-
limited ecosystems is projected to grow by 11 percent for every degree Celsius of warming.16 This
phenomenon will exacerbate the water scarcity already affecting numerous regions of the country.17
Furthermore, the combination of changing atmospheric chemistry and shifting, more violent weather
patterns will likely cause crop damage and crop failure, with corresponding increases in food prices and
declines in availability.18 On forested lands, the same changes will instigate more severe fires, as seen in
California this summer, pest outbreaks, and higher tree mortality, which will likely disrupt timber
production.19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.7]
B. Climate change threatens the ecosystems upon which society depends
Natural environments and biodiversity provide humans with a wide range of benefits, or "ecosystem
services," including fresh water supplies, fertile soil for agriculture, fisheries, climate regulation, and
aesthetic, cultural, and recreational benefits.20 However, climate change will have major implications for
wildlife, biodiversity, and the fundamental ecosystem services upon which we depend. Observed
changes in our climate are already shifting habitat ranges, altering migration patterns, and affecting
reproductive timing and behavior.21 At anticipated levels of increased global temperature, many
terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species are at far greater risk of extinction than in the past.22 The
situation is particularly dire for Arctic wildlife, as climate change causes significant loss of sea ice and a
dramatic reduction in marine habitat for polar bears, ice-inhabiting seals, and other animals.23 And the
resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of
climate change, associated disturbances (e.g., flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification),
and other global change drivers (e.g., land use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems,
overexploitation of resources).24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.7-8]
The footprint of humans on the planet is now straining ecosystems more than at any time in history.
Terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments have already undergone extensive transformation and
deterioration.25 More than 75 percent of Earth's ice-free land has been altered by human activity.26 Nine
of the world's fourteen biomes (each of which designates a broad ecological land category) have been
converted into cropland at factors ranging from 20 to 50 percent.27 Over 40 percent of the world's
oceans, including two-thirds of the ocean waters within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone, are
designated as having an anthropogenic impact rating of at least "medium high."28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.8]
-------
Together with these stressors, climate change is having a major effect on ecosystems. For example,
research indicates that climate change and other anthropogenic factors are causing the sixth mass
extinction of global biodiversity in the last 600 million years of life on Earth, with current extinction
rates 100 to 1,000 times greater than historical rates.29 In 2007, the IPCC concluded that by the mid-21st
century, 15 to 37 percent of plant and animal species worldwide would be committed to extinction if
temperatures increase 1.6 to 1.8° C above late 20th century levels.30 "Specialist" species—those with a
narrow tolerance for changes in habitat, diet, or other environmental conditions—are particularly
vulnerable to the threat of extinction due to climate change.31 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.8-
9]
Even species that do not go extinct will have to contend with ecological conditions they have not
previously faced. Many terrestrial species are shifting their geographical ranges in response to a
changing climate. Plants and animals have moved to higher elevations at a median rate of 0.011
kilometers per decade and to higher latitudes at a median rate of 16.9 kilometers per decade, two to
three times faster than previously reported.32 For example, of the 305 bird species tracked in annual
Christmas bird counts during the last four decades, 177 species (58 percent) had significant northward
range shifts, with more than 60 species moving 100 miles or farther.33 These range shifts are likely to
cause unprecedented interactions among species. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.9]
Shifts in seasons, especially in the duration and intensity of winter, are also having significant impacts
on ecosystems. One consequence of shifting seasons is the increased likelihood of mismatches between
interdependent species (e.g., predator and prey, insects and flowers).34 A striking example is found in
western forests, where warmer winters and longer growing seasons have triggered more intense and
extensive forest fires, promoting mountain pine beetle outbreaks that kill millions of trees across
millions of hectares of forest.35 In turn, the decreased availability of whitebark pine nuts as a food
source for grizzly bears has been tied to lower cub birth rates, lower over-winter survival rates, and
increased conflicts between bears and humans.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.9]
In the coming decades, climate-related disturbances (such as altered precipitation regimes and extremes
in weather and temperature) will continue to have marked impacts on ecosystems. In some cases, these
phenomena will cause ecosystems to transition to significantly different community types.37 For
example, more arid ecosystems and river habitat areas will likely be particularly sensitive to changes in
precipitation and water supply caused by climate change.38 Reduced river flow and longer droughts in
these regions are projected to diminish native Cottonwood and willow populations and render them more
susceptible to livestock grazing and encroachment from upland species and invasive weeds.39 Such
changes in ecosystem composition and function will pose critical adaptation challenges for affected
human communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.9-10]
In short, greenhouse gas emissions are fundamentally destabilizing global ecosystems. Because human
society depends upon the goods and services these ecosystems provide, this ecological crisis is a
pressing threat to public welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 10]
C. Harm associated with ocean acidification
Some of the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel combustion is subsequently absorbed by the world's
oceans. Because carbonic acid forms when carbon dioxide dissolves in water, rising C02 emissions are
causing the seas to become more acidic. Independent of climate change, ocean acidification alone
demonstrates that greenhouse gases endanger public welfare. The National Research Council has
reported that ocean acidity has increased approximately 30 percent since pre-industrial times, and could
intensify by three to four times this amount by the end of the century if carbon emissions remain
-------
uncurbed.40 Furthermore, increasing rates of ocean acidification may hamper the oceans' ability to
absorb more C02, resulting in more atmospheric carbon and, in turn, intensified climate change.41
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 10]
Increased acidification poses a significant threat to the ocean's critical food webs. For instance, it will
sharply reduce the underwater area suitable for coral reefs, which function as fish nurseries.42 Similarly,
planktonic animals, which are an important food supply for many underwater species, may be unable to
tolerate more acidic waters.43 By disrupting the delicate balance of oceanic ecosystems, acidification
could have devastating impacts on coastal communities that rely heavily on the sustained health of their
fisheries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 10]
Ocean acidification is taking place with extraordinary rapidity. According to a 2012 study that surveyed
hundreds of millions of years of ocean chemistry, the current rate of C02 release into the oceans (and
hence the rate of acidification) "stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean
geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last -300 [million years] of Earth history.'"44
Based on future projections of atmospheric carbon concentration, ocean acidity can be expected to
increase by 100 to 150 percent by the end of this century.45 Troublingly, this upward shift in acidity will
be accompanied by increasing surface stratification of the ocean on account of warmer surface waters.
As a result, phytoplankton will experience both heightened acidity and more intense exposure to light.
Together, these two phenomena have been shown to dramatically reduce the photosynthesis and growth
of diatoms, currently responsible for approximately 40 percent of total primary production in the
oceans.46 Accordingly, the combination of heightened acidification and ocean stratification may result in
a "widespread decline in marine primary production," doing great damage to the base of the oceanic
food chain with potentially devastating effects on the food supply for many regions around the globe.47
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A 1 p. 11]
D. New research, reports, and assessments show increasing severity of harm
Greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric carbon concentrations have continued to rise in the years
since EPA made its Endangerment Finding. As EPA moves forward with the truck standards, the
evidence of an intensifying threat reflects the importance of selecting the most protective standards
possible in this rule, as well as the need for continued efforts to control emissions from other sectors.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A 1 p. 11]
Global greenhouse gas emissions are now rising faster than the IPCC's highest emissions scenario from
2007, as illustrated in the figure below, compiled by the European Environment Agency.48 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.ll]
[Figure can be found on p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1]
The graph shows six IPCC emissions scenarios (labeled A IB to B2), compared with actual atmospheric
carbon measurements from two sources. The highest scenario, A1F1, which assumes a "world of very
rapid economic growth" with "fossil-intensive" energy systems,49 is the most aggressive scenario
generally modeled. The graph demonstrates that, in the last decade, global emissions have rapidly
increased to match, or even slightly outpace, the A IF 1 scenario. Hence, in the absence of swift
emissions reductions, we can expect harms even greater than those projected under the IPCC's highest
emissions scenarios in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1
p. 12]
-------
Recent modeling results project that by mid-century, warming may be significantly greater than
scientists had previously forecast. According to this research, by 2050, average global temperatures
could warm by 1.4 to 3°C relative to the 1961-1990 period, even under mid-range emissions scenarios
(which current emissions figures significantly exceed).50 Numerous large-scale reports and assessments
further attest that threats to public health and welfare from carbon emissions are even more pressing
than anticipated just a few years ago. For instance, it is now clear that the IPCC's sea level rise
projections in AR4 were overly conservative. A recent IPCC report notes that "satellite-measured sea
levels continue to rise at a rate closer to that of the upper range of [earlier] projections" and that "the
contribution to sea level due to [ice] mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating."51
Similarly, in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the IPCC's Working Group 1 predicts that sea levels
could increase by as much as 0.82 meters by the late 21st century and 0.98 meters by 2100.52 By
contrast, the AR4's upper bound estimate for sea level rise was just 0.59 meters by the late 21st
century.53 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.12-13]
More broadly, Working Group 1 emphasizes that "[substantial advancements in the availability,
acquisition, quality and analysis of observational data sets in atmosphere, land surface, ocean, and
cryosphere have occurred since the AR4."54 These advancements point primarily toward increased
estimates of the severity of the harm that will result from climate change. The report for AR5, for
instance, asserts that "[measurements of glacier change have increased substantially in number since
AR4," and that, with regard to the Greenland Ice Sheet, "large rates of mass loss have spread to wider
regions than reported in AR4."55 The report also increases AR4's estimates of the radiative forcing (or
heat-trapping) potential of current and predicted atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations,56 and
expresses increased confidence since AR4 in its determinations regarding upper-ocean warming,57 the
link between climate change and precipitation patterns,58 and the human influence on global surface
temperature increases,59 water cycle variations,60 daily temperature maxima,61 extreme precipitation
events,62 and droughts,63 to name just a few examples. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.13]
The USGCRP's Third Climate Assessment reflects a similar pattern. Describing changes from the
Second Climate Assessment, the authors explain that "[c]ontinued warming and an increased
understanding of the U.S. temperature record, as well as multiple other sources of evidence, have
strengthened our confidence in the conclusions that the warming trend is clear and primarily the result
of human activities."64 For example, the authors emphasize that "[h]eavy precipitation and extreme heat
events are increasing in a manner consistent with model projections; the risks of such extreme events
will rise in the future," and that "[a] longer and better-quality history of sea level rise has increased
confidence that recent trends are unusual and human-induced. Limited knowledge of ice sheet dynamics
leads to a broad range of potential increases over this century."65 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1
p.13-14]
Finally, in May 2013, the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (IWG) published an
updated assessment that increases the predicted threat that climate change poses and will continue to
pose into the future. The IWG's original estimate in 2010 provided four potential values to represent the
cost that each metric ton of C02 emissions will impose on society for the year 2020: $7, $26, $42, and
$81.66 The 2013 estimate increases those values to $12, $43, $65, and $129, respectively.67 While the
Joint Environmental Commenters believe that these updated figures fundamentally underestimate the
true cost of carbon emissions, they nonetheless reflect the same trend as seen in the scientific literature:
not only does the potential harm from carbon emissions increase with each additional ton released into
the atmosphere, but the severity of the predicted harm increases as our understanding of climate change
grows. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p,14][This section can also be found in section 11.8 of this
comment summary]
-------
These new studies, reports, and assessments indicate that the urgency of acting to curb greenhouse gas
emissions has, if anything, grown since the 2009 Endangerment Finding. Emission trajectories are
already at or beyond what was anticipated in the 2007 IPCC reports, and are causing severe effects on
an accelerated timeline. In the absence of substantial emissions reductions, the harms to public health
and welfare from climate change may well prove catastrophic. While robust actions are needed in every
sector of our economy to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to public health and
environmental harms, improving the efficiency of the heavy-duty fleet is one of the most impactful
things we can do to stem climate pollution in the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1
p. 14]
6 75 Fed. Reg. 49,556, 49,557 (Aug. 13, 2010) (Endangerment Reconsideration Denial); see also 74
Fed. Reg. 66,496, 66,523 (Dec. 15, 2009) (Endangerment Finding); Coalition for Responsible
Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 122—28 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (upholding Endangerment Finding in
its entirety).
8 See HD RIAat6-41.
9EGURIA at 3-1—3-2.
10 Id. at 3-2—3-3, 5-39—5-40; G. G. Pfister et al., Projections of Future Summertime Ozone Over the
U.S. (2014), (higher temperatures increase smog formation in already polluted areas).
11 Id. at 3-3.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 3-6.
14 Id. at 3-3, 3-6—3-7.
15 Id. at 3-5.
16 Id. at 3-5, 3-8; USGCRP at 33, 44.
17RIA at 3-5.
18 Id. at 3-4.
19 Id. at 3-4—3-5.
20 US Climate Change Science Program, Abrupt Climate Change, at 291 (2008).
21 EGU RIA at 3-7.
22 Id. at 3-7.
23 Id. at 3-7.
-------
24 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (2007) by the IPCC at 48.
25 See generally id. at 291-313; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-
being: Biodiversity Synthesis (2005), Chapters 4 and 28; Brook, et al., Synergies among extinction
drivers under global change, 23 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 453 (2008); Butchart, et al., Global
Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines, 328 Science 1164 (2010).
26 Ellis and Ramankutty, Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world, 6 Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 439, 439 (2008).
27 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment at 79.
28 Halpern, et al., A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems, 319 Science 948, 949
(2008); Kappel, et al., In the Zone: Comprehensive Ocean Protection, 25 Issues in Science and
Technology 33, 38 (2009).
29 Pimm, et al., The Future of Biodiversity, 269 Science 347, 347 (1995); Dirzo and Raven, Global
State of Biodiversity and Loss, 28 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 137, 137 (2003);
Barnosky, et al., Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived?, 471 Nature 51 (2011); Pereira,
et al., Scenarios for Global Biodiversity in the 21st Century, 330 Science 1496, 1497 (2010); see also
Pimm, Biodiversity: Climate Change or Habitat Loss—Which Will Kill More Species?, 18 Current
Biology R117 (2008).
30 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (2007) at 243, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-
wg2-chapter4.pdf.
31 See generally Clavel, et al., Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global functional
homogenization?, 9 Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 222 (2011).
32 Chen, et al., Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming, 333
Science 1024 (2011).
33 National Audubon Society, Birds and Climate Change: Ecological Disruption in Motion at 3 (2009).
34 See generally, e.g., Miller-Rushing, et al., The effects of phenological mismatches on demography,
365 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 3177 (2010); Thackeray, et
al., Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial
environments, 16 Global Change Biology 3304 (2010); Yang, et al., Phenology, ontogeny and the
effects of climate change on the timing of species interactions, 13 Ecology Letters 1 (2010).
35 Westerling, et al., Continued warming could transform Greater Yellowstone fire regimes by mid-21st
century, 108 Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, U.S.A. 13165 (2011); Westerling, et
al., Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity, 313 Science 940
(2006); U.S. Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center, Western U.S. Bark Beetles and Climate
Change (2008), available at http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/insect-disturbance/bark-beetles.shtml.
36 Gunther, et al., Grizzly bear-human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, 1992—2000, 15
Ursus 10 (2004); USGCRP, Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem
-------
Services: Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment (2012) at 3-13—3-14, available at
http://downloads.usgcrp.gov/NCA/Activities/ Biodiversity-Ecosystems-and-Ecosystem-Services-
T echnic al-Input.pdf.
37 See generally Peters, et al., Directional climate change and potential reversal of desertification in arid
and semiarid ecosystems, 18 Global Change Biology 151 (2012); Rood, et al., Declining summer flows
of Rocky Mountain rivers: Changing seasonal hydrology and probable impacts on floodplain forests,
439 Journal of Hydrology 397 (2008).
38 Rood at 405.
39 Id. at 409; see also Stromberg, et al., Effects of Stream Flow Patterns on Riparian Vegetation of a
Semiarid River: Implications for a Changing Climate, 26 River Research and Applications 712 (2010).
40 National Research Council (NRC), Advancing the Science of Climate Change (2010) at 55.
41 Id.
42 Id. at 55-56, 59-60; NRC, Abrupt Climate Change, Inevitable Surprises, (2002) at 209-210.
43 NRC, Advancing the Science of Climate Change (2010) at 55-56, 59-60; NRC, Abrupt Climate
Change, Inevitable Surprises (2002) at 209-210.
44 Barbel Honsich, et al., The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification, 335 Science 1058, 1058
(2012).
45 Gao, et al., Rising C02 and Increased Light Exposure Synergistically Reduce Marine Primary
Productivity, 2 Nature Climate Change 519, 519 (2012).
46 Id. at 519-522.
47 Id. at 519.
48 "Observed global fossil fuel C02 emissions compared with six scenarios from IPCC," European
Environment Agency (September 30,2015), available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/figures/observed-global-fossil-fuel-co2/ccsl02 fig2-3.eps.
49 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (2007), at 44.
50 See abstract for Rowlands, et al., Broad range of 2050 warming from an observationally constrained
large climate model ensemble, 5 Nature Geoscience 256 (2012).
51 IPCC, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
(2012), at 178-79.
52 IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technical Summary
(United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press and USA: New York, 2013).
-------
53 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (2007), at 47.
54 IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technical Summary
(2013), atTS-37.
55
Id.
at TS-41
56
Id.
at TS-51
57
Id.
at TS-68
58
Id.
at TS-72
59
Id.
at TS-73
60
Id.
at TS-72
61
Id.
at TS-73
62
Id.
63
Id.
64 US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the
United States: The Third National Climate Assessment (2014), at 27.
65 Id.
66 Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (IWG), Technical Support Document:
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order
12866 (2013), at 2.
67 Id.
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards protecting public health.
Organization: Fuller, Tony
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 149-150.]
The U.S. EPA and the DOT also have a moral obligation to future generations to adopt strong standards.
We are in a race to prevent a global temperature rise of two degrees above pre-industrial times, to limit
-------
the impacts that climate change would have on this planet. Unfortunately, current plans don't go far
enough. According to Climate Action Tracker, a group of research organizations dedicated to analyzing
the world's progress, U.S. action plans are short of what's needed.
By increasing these second phase standards to a 40 percent reduction, we could take one step towards
limiting the impacts of climate change.
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change.
Organization: Gilroy, JD
A second thing I like very much about the proposed standards is that all the information I've seen about
them indicate that their impact on the environment will be enormous in a favorable direction. A Union
of Concerned Scientists (UCS) website stated that their impact could be as great as a reduction of a
million barrels of oil per day by 2035, or more than the Keystone XL pipeline could ever provide.
Another source indicated that the standards could ultimately cut global warming emissions by 1 billion
metric tons or be the equivalent of eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from electricity and power
usage by all US residents for a year. If these estimates are anywhere near correct, the standards will play
a major role in diminishing our greatest global danger. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0751 p.2]
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change.
Organization: Investor Network on Climate Risk
In addition, climate change presents significant long-term risks to the global economy, and to investors
across all asset classes. Strong standards will serve to mitigate that risk by providing significant GHG
reductions; the standards we propose have the potential to save 270 million metric tons of GHG
emissions annually by 2030 4 [NHTSA-2014-0132-0113-A1 p.2][This comment can also be found in
section 11.10 of this comment summary]
4 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
2014. Big fuel savings available in new trucks. Web. http://aceee.org/files/pdf/fact-sheet/truck-savings-
0614.pdf, Factsheet accessed June 29, 2015.
-------
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
The Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) is pleased to provide comments in
support of the U.S. EPA's proposed rulemaking to establish medium- and heavy-duty greenhouse gas
emission standards and corporate average fuel economy standards for model years 2018 and beyond.
We believe an important opportunity exists to continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve
fuel economy from medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles by applying the fundamental
regulatory structure that has been effective under the first phase of the medium and heavy-duty
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.l] [This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1372, p.95.] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, p.211.]]
Anthropogenic activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have changed the composition of the
atmosphere in ways that threaten dramatic changes to the global climate. Signs of climate change are
evident worldwide and additional changes will have serious impacts on our nation's future. Although
transportation is a vital part of the economy and is crucial for everyday activities, it is also a significant
source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Some of the important greenhouse gas emissions from
fossil fuel combustion from mobile sources include: carbon dioxide (C02), nitrous oxide (N20),
methane (CH4), and black carbon. Climate change is also impacted negatively by higher ground-level
ozone emissions. Ozone levels are in turn linked to hydrocarbon and NOx emissions from mobile and
stationary sources. The adverse health effects of ozone is compounded by rising temperatures caused by
climate change. These complex relationships support the need to continue to reduce emissions of criteria
pollutants and climate forcing compounds and we commend the agency for making further progress in
this effort. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 1-2]
In conclusion, MECA commends EPA for taking important steps to continue to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve fuel economy from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. MECA believes that a
variety of advanced powertrain options are available for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from these
vehicles and engines. MECA believes that the proposed reductions for greenhouse gas emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles proposed by EPA are technically and economically feasible under a 2024
implementation timeframe. Our industry is prepared to do its part and deliver cost-effective advanced
emission control and efficiency technologies to the heavy-duty sector to assist in achieving lower
greenhouse gas emissions, while also meeting future reductions in NOx and other criteria pollutants.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 15]
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change.
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 1 (email) - (23)
-------
I am concerned about the impact of climate change and air pollution on the health of my family. Climate
change threatens the health of our children through increased heat, air pollution, fires, storms, drought,
airborne allergens, and other serious effects. That's why I strongly support improved fuel efficiency
standards that would reduce dangerous climate pollution from medium and heavy duty trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1341-A1 p.l]
The proposed standards will help protect our families from harmful climate change and from unhealthy
air pollution. They will significantly reduce our national fuel consumption, and will save money for
both truckers and consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1341-A1 p.l]
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change.
Organization: Michaels and Knappenberger
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed regulation Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 results in no
demonstrable or verifiable mitigation of future climate change—the primary justification for the
regulation. The reported reductions in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations,
average global temperature and global average sea level are so small as to be statistically
indistinguishable from the evolution of these measures absent this regulation. As such, it is scientifically
improper for the EPA to claim this regulation results in a "meaningful" impact on future climate change.
Further, the EPA did not investigate any impact beyond the grossest of global-scale measures. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.l]
Specific Comments on Climate Change
We list below a few of the glaring faults, logical flaws, and inconsistencies, primarily found in Section
D ("Climate Impact and Indicators") of these proposed regulations. This is by no means an exhaustive
list. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.2]
Federal Register, Nol. 80, No. 133, pg 40148:
"Finally, it should be noted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise
dramatically. In 2009, the year of the Endangerment Finding, the average concentration of carbon
dioxide as measured on top of Mauna Loa was 387 parts per million. The average concentration in 2013
was 396 parts per million. And the monthly concentration in April of 2014 was 401 parts per million,
the first time a monthly average has exceeded 400 parts per million since record keeping began at
Mauna Loa in 1958, and for at least the past 800,000 years according to ice core records." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.2]
According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement EIS accompanying this NOPR, this regulation
is determined to reduce the atmospheric burden of C02 by the year 2100 by approximately lppm (e.g.,
Page S-21 of the draft EIS). This means that the C02 reduction achieved by this proposed regulation 85
years hence is 14 times less than the atmospheric increase (as described in the quote above) that took
place during in the 5 years following 2009—the year of the Endangerment Finding. This fact alone
-------
should make obvious the overall ineffectiveness of this regulation in mitigating future climate change—
the intended outcome of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.2]
Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 133, pg 40407:
"Once emitted, GHGs that are the subject of this proposed regulation can remain in the atmosphere for
decades to millennia" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.3]
Similar text is repeated on page 40408.
This is completely wrong. The turnover time for atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 3-5 years. So the
actual C02 molecules that are emitted and the "subject of this proposed regulation" do not remain in the
atmosphere for decades to millennia, but instead, remain less than a decade. Your simplified explanation
of the concept you are attempting to explain does an injustice to the underlying science and casts doubt
as to the rigor of the scientific explanations throughout the body of the report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p.3]
See the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report, Glossary (term:
"Turnover") for a more accurate and complete scientific description. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-
Alp.3]
Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 133, pg 40408:
"Based on modeling analysis performed by the agencies, reductions in C02 and other GHG emissions
associated with these proposed rules will affect future climate change." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1 p.3]
This is a statement completely devoid of meaning as it now stands. Please include a defensible
definition of the term "will affect." Just because a climate model can produce an output to four
significant digits (in this case, thousandths of degrees) does not mean that it is precise at that level. The
measurement error for global temperature as well as the accruing round-off errors in the model clearly
render such specifications useless, which means the term "will effect" is devoid of meaning. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.3]
Is "affect" measurable? Detectable? Significant (in any sense of the word)? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1 p.3]
The draft EIS noted that (page 5-75, footnote 37): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.3]
"[T]he projected reductions in global climate effects for each of the alternatives are too small to
incorporate into a regional/local-scale analysis, which would likely introduce uncertainties at the same
magnitude or more than the projected change itself (i.e., the projected change would be within the noise
of the model)" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.3]
In other words, EPAs own analysis concedes that the model noise is greater than the model signal. This
is indisputable proof that the impacts are statistically insignificant. Further, if the model noise represents
real world noise, then this is also indisputable proof that the "affect" will be undetectable and thus
unverifiable. And further still, no one could argue that averting 0.003°C of a projected 3.48°C of global
-------
warming (as described in the draft EIS, e.g., pg. S-21) would have any ecologically significant impacts
in the real world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.3]
We also note that a formal estimate of the full range of uncertainties around the estimated impacts (e.g.,
global average temperature, sea level rise) from these regulations was not performed. While sensitivity
to a range of climate sensitivity values was examined, the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
(pg.6-44) notes: "Other uncertainties, such as uncertainties regarding the carbon cycle, ocean heat
uptake, or aerosol forcing, were not addressed." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.4]
These types of uncertainties can be addressed had the EPA used the newest version of Model for the
Assessment of Greenhouse Gas-Induced Climate Change, or MAGICC (v6, http://live.magicc.org/)
which now can be run in a probabilistic mode incorporating a range of carbon cycles estimates and other
model parameter estimates. Had this been done, the overlap between the baseline runs and the perturbed
runs (to reflect this regulation) would have been so great that no statistical difference could ever exist
between them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.4]
In summation, in no way will the carbon dioxide reductions compelled by this regulation "affect" future
climate change in a scientifically meaningful fashion. As it stands, EPAs statement is incorrect,
misleading and should be removed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.4]
Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 133, pg 40408:
"EPA determines that the projected reductions in atmospheric C02, global mean temperature, sea level
rise, and ocean pH are meaningful in the context of this action." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
p.4]
This is gross a mischaracterization and an affront to sound science. The EPA did not "determine"
anything scientifically. It simply stipulates that the "projected reductions" are "meaningful." In fact,
EPAs own analysis shows that they are not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.4]
As mentioned previously, the draft EIS (footnote 37) finds that the noise in the model output is greater
than the signal—prima facie evidence that the impacts of this regulation are undetectable. An
undetectable impact cannot be a "meaningful" one. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.4]
Further, the "global mean temperature" although a metric of climate change, is not a measure of specific
impacts of the local climate that may occur in association with a change in the global temperature. An
analysis of the resulting changes to the local/regional weather/climate that may result from these
regulations (i.e., those changes which may result in "meaningful" impacts) was not conducted for this
regulation. It is specifically stated in the draft EIS (pg. 5-75) that: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
p.4]
NHTSA's [and EPA's] assumption is that reductions in climate effects relating to temperature,
precipitation, and sea level rise would reduce impacts on affected resources. However, the magnitude of
the changes in climate effects that the alternatives would produce (see Section 5.4) are too small to
address quantitatively in terms of their impacts on the specific resources discussed below.
Consequently, the discussion of resource impacts in this section does not distinguish among the
alternatives; rather it provides a qualitative review of projected impacts (where the potential benefits of
reducing GHG emissions would result in reducing these potential impacts) and the magnitude of the
risks involved in climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.4-5]
-------
Cleary the EPA (and the NHTSA) are merely assuming that the admittedly meager reductions resulting
from this regulation will reduce the potential environmental impacts in a "meaningful" way. No
quantitative analysis or proof of such an outcome is demonstrated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
p.5]
In fact, the only example offered by the EPA is risible (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 133, pg 40409):
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.5]
"These effects are occurring everywhere around the globe, so benefits that appear to be marginal for any
one location, such as a reduction in seal level [sic] rise of half a millimeter, can be sizable when the
effects are summed along thousands of miles of coastline." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.5]
Summing an inconsequential rise (half a millimeter) over large area does NOT result in large impacts.
This is a ludicrous assertion and one without any backing. What editor or GS-15 in charge of this
proposal could be so simple? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.5]
We ask EPA to consider a simple question: Does it have a threshold below which the impacts of C02
reductions from a proposed action would be too small to be of any consequence and therefore the
regulation would not stand as an action producing "meaningful" impacts on future climate change?
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A 1 p.5]
If so, what is it?
To us, and we would presume many others, a climate change regulation that shows (Federal Register,
Vol. 80, No. 133, pg 40409): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.5]
"that relative to the reference case, by 2100 projected atmospheric C02 concentrations are estimated to
be reduced by 1.1 to 1.2 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be
reduced by 0.0026 to 0.0065 °C, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.023 to
0.057 cm" would fall far beneath such a threshold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.5]
If such a threshold does not exist, then the EPA has not only thrown science out of the window but has
also helped itself to limitless executive power. Such a situation cannot stand, but it is a sad hallmark of
the Obama Administrations manifold activities on climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
p.5]
Federal Register, No\. 80, No. 133, pg 40409: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.5]
"Though the magnitude of the avoided climate change projected here in isolation is small in comparison
to the total projected changes, these reductions represent a reduction in the adverse risks associated with
climate change (though these risks were not formally estimated for this action) across a range of
equilibrium climate sensitivities." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.6]
We applaud the EPA for this time doing what it is typically not wont to do—that is, make a direct
determination of the impact that this proposed regulation will have on the course of future climate
change. The EPA's findings that the resulting impacts on future climate change are so small comports
with our own findings using a similar set of tools—that the impact of the these and other federal actions
on the future evolution of the earth's climate at global, regional, or local scales, is, by any normative
scientific evaluation measure, inconsequential and undetectable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
p.6]
-------
Yet, somehow the EPA considers that these demonstrably undetectable changes (by the EPA's own
reckoning (see footnote 37 of the draft EIS)) will "contribute to reducing the risks associated with
climate change." Perhaps more remarkably, this finding was made despite the fact that "these risks were
not formally estimated for this action." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.6]
Sea Level Rise
The sea level rise module in the DICE model used by the IWG2013/2015 produces future sea level rise
values that far exceed mainstream projections and are unsupported by the best available science. The sea
level rise projections from more than half of the scenarios (IMAGE, MERGE, MiniCAM) exceed even
the highest end of the projected sea level rise by the year 2300 as reported in the Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see figure). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p.23][This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this comment summary]
[Figure, 'Sea Level Rise (DICE)', can be found on p.23 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1]
How the sea level rise module in DICE was constructed is inaccurately characterized by the IWG2013
(and misleads the reader). The IWG2013 report describes the development of the DICE sea level rise
scenario as: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.23][This comment can also be found in section 11.8
of this comment summary]
"The parameters of the four components of the SLR module are calibrated to match consensus results
from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).6" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24][This
comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this comment summary]
However, in IWG2013 footnote "6" the methodology is described this way (Nordhaus, 2010): [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24][This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this comment
summary]
"The methodology of the modeling is to use the estimates in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4)." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24][This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of
this comment summary]
"Using estimates" and "calibrating" are two completely different things. Calibration implies that the sea
level rise estimates produced by the DICE sea level module behave similarly to the IPCC sea level rise
projections and instills a sense of confidence in the casual reader that the DICE projections are in
accordance with IPCC projections. However this is not the case. Consequently, the reader is misled.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24][This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this
comment summary]
In fact, the DICE estimates are much higher than the IPCC estimates. This is even recognized by the
DICE developers. From the same reference as above: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24][This
comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this comment summary]
"The RICE [DICE] model projection is in the middle of the pack of alternative specifications of the
different Rahmstorf specifications. Table 1 shows the RICE, base Rahmstorf, and average Rahmstorf.
Note that in all cases, these are significantly above the IPCC projections in A 1(4." [emphasis
added][EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-Al p.24][This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of
this comment summary]
-------
That the DICE sea level rise projections are far above the mainstream estimated can be further
evidenced by comparing them with the results produced by the IWG-accepted MAGICC modelling tool
(in part developed by the EPA and available from http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24][This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this comment
summary]
Using the MESSAGE scenario as an example, the sea level rise estimate produced by MAGICC for the
year 2300 is 1.28 meters—a value that is less than 40% of the average value of 3.32 meters produced by
the DICE model when running the same scenario (see figure below). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-
A1 p.24] [This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this comment summary]
[Figure, 'Projected Sea Level Rise (MESSAGE)', can be found on p.25 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1]
The justification given for the high sea level rise projections in the DICE model (Nordhaus, 2010) is that
they well-match the results of a "semi-empirical" methodology employed by Rahmstorf (2007) and
Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.25][This comment can also be
found in section 11.8 of this comment summary]
However, subsequent science has proven the "semi-empirical" approach to projecting future sea level
rise unreliable. For example, Gregory et al. (2012) examined the assumption used in the "semi-
empirical" methods and found them to be unsubstantiated. Gregory et al (2012) specifically refer to the
results of Rahmstorf (2007) and Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1206-A1
p.25][This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this comment summary]
The implication of our closure of the [global mean sea level rise, GMSLR] budget is that a relationship
between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR is weak or absent in the past. The lack of a
strong relationship is consistent with the evidence from the tide-gauge datasets, whose authors find
acceleration of GMSLR during the 20th century to be either insignificant or small. It also calls into
question the basis of the semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR, which depend on calibrating a
relationship between global climate change or radiative forcing and the rate of GMSLR from
observational data (Rahmstorf, 2007; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009; Jevrejeva et al., 2010). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.25][This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this comment
summary]
In light of these findings, the justification for the very high sea level rise projections (generally
exceeding those of the IPCC AR5 and far greater than the IWG-accepted MAGICC results) produced by
the DICE model is called into question and can no longer be substantiated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1 p.25] [This comment can also be found in section 11.8 of this comment summary]
Given the strong relationship between sea level rise and future damage built into the DICE model, there
can be no doubt that the SCC estimates from the DICE model are higher than the best science would
allow and consequently, should not be accepted by the IWG as a reliable estimate of the social cost of
carbon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.25-26][This comment can also be found in section 11.8
of this comment summary]
And here again, the IWG (2015) admits that these sea level rise estimates are an outlier on the high end,
yet retains them in their analysis by claiming than they were interested in representing a "range" of
possible outcomes. But, even the IWG (2015) admits that the IPCC AR5 assigned "a low confidence in
projections based on such [semi-empirical] methods." It is internally inconsistent to claim the IPCC as
-------
an authority for limiting the range of possibilities explored by the IAMs (which it did in the case of
equilibrium climate sensitivity) and then go outside the IPCC to justify including a wildly high estimate
of sea level rise. Such inconsistencies characterize the IWG response to comments and weaken
confidence in them. We thereby suggest that our comments should be considered independently from
the IWG (2015) response. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.26][This comment can also be found
in section 11.8 of this comment summary]
We did not investigate the sea level rise projections from the FUND or the PAGE model, but suggest
that such an analysis must be carried out prior to extending any confidence in the values of the SCC
resulting from those models—confidence that we demonstrate cannot be assigned to the DICE SCC
determinations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.26][This comment can also be found in section
11.8 of this comment summary]
Gregory, J., et al., 2012. Twentieth-century global-mean sea-level rise: is the whole greater than the sum
of the parts? Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1, in press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Solomon, S., et al. (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 996pp.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. Climate Change 20013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Final Draft Accepted in the 12th Session of Working Group I and the 36th Session of
the IPCC on 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden.
Nordhaus, W., 2010. Projections of Sea Level Rise (SLR),
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/SLR_021910.pdf
Rahmstorf, S., 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science, 315, 368-
370, doi: 10.1126/science. 1135456.
Vermeer, M. and S. Rahmstorf, 2009. Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106, 51, 21527-21532, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907765106.
Wigley, T.M.L., et al. MAGICC/SCENGEN v5.3. Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas
Induced Climate Change/A Regional Climate Scenario Generator.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wiglev/magicc/
Response:
EPA has reviewed this comment and has determined that the Preamble and RIA have appropriately
characterized climate impacts despite the commenter's critiques. EPA responds to the various points
that the commenter makes as follows.
The commenter compares the benefits of the rule (a reduction of 1.2-1.3 ppm of C02 in 2100) to the
historical change in C02 concentrations since 2009 (12 ppm, based on an annual average of 387 ppm in
2009, compared to an annual average 399 ppm in 2014). While the commenter appears to think that this
-------
comparison (e.g., that the carbon dioxide concentration reductions resulting from the rule are about
l/lO"1 of the increase in concentrations observed over a 5 year period) shows that the rule has little
effect, the EPA considers that eliminating 6 months of concentration increase based on a single rule
addressing a single sector in a single country is a meaningful reduction in the rate of rise of
concentrations. This is especially true due to the lifetime of carbon dioxide perturbations.
The commenter also objects to the sentence stating that GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for decades
to millennia, noting that the turnover time for carbon dioxide molecules is about 3-5 years. However,
the perturbation lifetime of carbon dioxide is indeed on the order of thousands of years. In Chapter 6 of
the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, the persistence of carbon dioxide is characterized in the following
fashion:
"The removal of human-emitted C02 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few
hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about
15 to 40% of emitted C02 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very
long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic C02 makes climate change caused by
elevated C02 irreversible on human time scale"
EPA understands that any individual molecule of carbon dioxide emitted by the combustion of fossil
fuels will likely be absorbed by the ocean or the biosphere on a timescale of years. However, it is well
understood that this timescale is not the relevant one for understanding the climate impacts of carbon
dioxide, and for the impact, it is the increase in concentrations resulting from emissions of carbon
dioxide and the perturbation of the carbon cycle that matters, and this increase in concentration lasts for
thousands of years, as the IPCC quote makes clear.
The commenter then makes a series of critiques about the significance of the action in terms of avoided
warming, comparing the projected reduction to the total projected warming. The range of projected
temperature reductions is 0.0027 to 0.0065 degrees, compared to total projected warming of 1.8 to 4.8
degrees. This is a reduction of more than 0.1%. Because this reduction is due to one action, for one
sector, for one nation, it is a meaningful percentage. Climate change is not expected to be solved by any
single action, but rather a large number of them. As discussed in the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2 above, the challenge of understanding a problem of the geographic, temporal and
encompassing nature of climate change can be best addressed using the Social Cost methodology for
cost-benefit analysis, as it appropriately integrates over time and space and across numerous impacts.
The commenter also makes an error regarding the interpretation of the probabilistic mode of MAGICC
6.0. Comparison of any given perturbation run to the baseline should use the same set of uncertain
parameters. If the appropriate procedure is followed, then in every case, there will be a reduction in
warming and other impacts when comparing the future with emissions reductions to a future without.
Whether the uncertainty span of the baseline runs and the perturbed runs might overlap has no
relevance: in fact, the uncertainty spans do overlap in the analysis presented in the RIA, based on the
uncertainty range of climate sensitivity, but noting that a perturbation run done with a climate sensitivity
of 4.5 might be warmer than a baseline run with a sensitivity of 1.5 is not a useful comparison.
The commenter also critiques the discussion of considering the impacts of half a millimeter of sea level
rise over thousands of miles of coastline as "ludicrous." However, there are already existing damages
from storm surges, nuisance flooding, and other events. Every additional millimeter of sea level rise will
make these damages worse. This incremental damage over a single mile of coastline will be small, but
there is a non-zero chance that this additional millimeter will be the last straw needed to flood a
basement or subway system, overtop a levee, or short out a power line. Sea-level rise damages are non-
-------
linear which makes the following comparison limited, but as a first order approximation, a millimeter of
sea level rise that impacts 40,000 miles of coastline (e.g., the shoreline mileage of the continental US)
will cause damage of the same order of magnitude as a rise in local sea level of 10 cm across 400 miles
of coastline (e.g., the coast of Delaware). Such an analysis could also be done for global coastlines. Add
to this the marginal increase in risk of more intense heatwaves due to a fraction of a degree of warming
aggregated across the population of the U.S. or the world, and the increase in risk due to drought and
floods and ocean acidification and the other myriad impacts of climate change, and there are billions of
dollars of impact - exactly as calculated by the Social Cost methodology.
For the response to critiques of the sea level rise approach used in the Social Cost of Carbon, see
Response to Comments Section 11.8.
Organization: Moving Forward Network
Importantly, Network members include individuals who live in and work directly with environmental
justice communities. Moreover, many of these communities will be the hardest hit by climate change.
Consequently, the Network has a personal stake in how EPA and NHSTA address harmful climate
pollution from large equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1130-A2 p.l]
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change.
Organization: Operation Free
Additionally, the use of fossil fuels increases the likelihood of more troops sent into harm's way. As the
Department of Defense's recent Report on National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and
a Changing Climate affirms, climate change is widely recognized as a 'threat-multiplier.' Frequent and
severe weather events destabilize some of the world's most dangerous regions. This exacerbates existing
national security threats by pushing already unstable states to near constant crisis. The United States is
requested to respond to disasters every two weeks a number likely to increase as the impacts of climate
change become more acute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1175 p.2] [[These comments can also be found
in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 194-195.]]
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change as well as reducing the use of fossil
fuels.
Organization: Respiratory Health Association
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 129-131.]
-------
It's become increasingly clear that global warming is a health threat, particularly to people living with
lung disease.
Increasing heat waves put people with limited lung capacity at higher risk of hospitalization and death.
Longer, hotter summers extend the ozone smog season, and increases the likelihood of unhealthy air
days, cutting the gains we have made in reducing ozone precursors. More flooding means more
displacement of medically vulnerable people and hinders access to medical care, and more allergenic
pollen means greater risks for those with allergy-triggered asthma and misery for those who have
allergies like hay fever.
Higher temps and greater droughts also increase the prevalence of wildfires, creating smoke plumes that
travel hundreds of miles polluting the air where millions of people live.
The increasing effects of global warming are already having a direct impact on people's ability to
breathe. It's putting vulnerable groups at risk, including babies, children, senior citizens, and those that
live with chronic lung and heart conditions.
Response:
EPA has determined that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change are
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and that mitigation actions such as this
rule are important steps towards reducing the rate of climate change and protecting public health.
-------
10 Non-GHG Emissions Impacts and Their Associated Effects
10.1 Emissions Inventory Impacts
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Neutral Comment to Provide Additional Information
Comment - NOx benefits from the extended use of APUs appear overestimated
According to page 40219 of the NPRM, to date, manufacturers are meeting the 2014 MY GHG
standards without the use of automatic engine shutdown (AES) systems or APUs. U.S. EPA and
NHTSA assume an APU/AES technology adoption rate of 90 percent for 2024+ MY class 7 and 8
tractors (page 40393 - 40394 of the NPRM). Given that manufacturers complied with Phase 1 without
using APUs, CARB staff believes a 90 percent adoption rate may be too high. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 P.172]
Additionally, CARB's engine certification database shows that almost all of the 2014 MY engines
which are sold in California (especially in class 8) are certified (as 50-State families) to the California
clean idle engine requirements of 30 grams/hour NOx at idle. Following U.S. EPA and NHTSA's
projection of increased use of APUs during extended idling in combination tractors, the NPRM claims
34 percent NOx emissions reduction in year 2050 (page 40412 of the NPRM). Considering that APUs
emit only a slightly lower NOx emissions than CA clean idle certified engines (because they are
certified to CA clean idle requirements), such a high reduction in tailpipe NOx emissions (i.e., 34
percent) is not expected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 P.172]
Therefore, CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.172]
1. Re-evaluate the projected level of AES/APU systems that will be used by manufacturers to
comply with the requirements of the proposed regulation and;
2. Provide more information on the methodology and assumptions used to estimate the NOx
emission benefits associated with this regulation.
3. Update the NOx emission benefit estimates to account for the current prevalence of clean idle
certified engines.
Response:
In response to the comments from the proposal, the agencies have modified the projected adoption rates
of idle reduction technologies. Additional details are provided in Chapter 2.4 and 2.8 of the RIA.
Furthermore, the MOVES emission rates for extended idle and APUs were updated based on the
analyses of the latest test programs that reflect the current prevalence of clean idle certified engines.
This change resulted in smaller differences between emission rates for extended idle of the main engine
and APUs for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the emissions benefits of using APUs during extended
idle, instead of the main engine, are much lower for non-GHGs in the final rulemaking than the proposal
-------
(see Section VIII of the Preamble). Additional details on the revised emission rates are provided in the
memorandum to the docket.203
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - Need to control PM emissions from APUs to prevent Phase 2 causing PM increases
The NPRM requests comment on the need and appropriateness to further reduce PM emissions from
APUs. The Phase 1 regulations included provisions to use extended idle reduction technologies as a
compliance path to meet the GHG standards for sleeper cab tractors. In developing the Phase 1 GHG
standards, U.S. EPA and NHTSA assumed that manufactures would install diesel-fueled APUs on all of
the sleeper cab tractors to meet the Phase 1 GHG standards. Because the federal emission standards for
APUs are less stringent than those for on-road heavy-duty engines, it was estimated that compliance
with the Phase 1 standards using APUs as a compliance option would increase PM emissions by
approximately 8 percent in 2030. Concerned about this potential increase in PM emissions, CARB and
other stakeholders recommended that U.S. EPA and NHTSA regulate PM emissions from diesel-fueled
APUs in the Phase 1 rulemaking.75 However, U.S. EPA and NHTSA chose not to take action on APUs
because such action was outside the scope of the Phase 1 rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p.178-179]
To date, CARB staff is not aware of any tractor manufacturers using APUs as a technology option to
meet the Phase 1 GHG standards. Nonetheless, U.S. EPA and NHTSA are proposing the use of
extended idle reduction technologies as a compliance option to meet the proposed Phase 2 standards.
Moreover, like in Phase 1, the proposed rule does not require PM control from APUs. Thus, U.S. EPA
and NHTSA's inventory estimates project that compliance with the Phase 2 standards would increase
federal PM emissions from heavy-duty trucks by approximately 10 percent in 2050 mainly due to PM
increases from APUs. The NPRM requests comments on the need and appropriateness to further control
PM emissions from APUs, taking into account cost, safety, noise, and energy factors. Although, as
noted above, CARB staff believes the projection of APU use in the NPRM may be too high and hence
the actual PM increases may be lower than projected, CARB staff is concerned about any such PM
increases and believes they should be eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 179]
75 See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HO-OAR-2Q 10-0162-2354 for Phase
1 Comment submitted CARB and for comments by others "EPA Response to Comments, EPA-420-R-
11004, August 2011, Pages 136-140 http://www.epa. gov/otaa/climate/regs-heavv-dutv.htm.
Response:
In addition to the C02 emission standards for tractors, EPA is adopting Phase 1 and Phase 2
requirements to control particulate matter (PM) emissions from diesel-fueled auxiliary power units
(APU) installed in new tractors. Additional details are discussed in Section III.C.3 of the FRM
Preamble.
203 U.S. EPA. Updates to MOVES for Emissions Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 FRM. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016.
July, 2016.
-------
10.2 Health Effects, Environmental Effects, and Air Quality Impacts of
Non-GHG Pollutants
Organization: American Lung Association
This past April, the American Lung Association's 16th annual State of the Air report once again found
that cities in California ranked among the most polluted in the nation for both ozone and particle
pollution. Transportation is leading source of pollution here, threatening the health of all residents of
this region, but especially children, seniors, people living with asthma, COPD and other respiratory
conditions. Pollution from the transportation sector is an added burden for those communities most
disadvantaged by multiple pollution sources, including refineries, ports, rail yards and the freeways that
carry the nation's goods through these communities first and most. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.2]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 142-143.]]
The residents of Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley have perhaps the most to gain from a
strong rule of any area in the nation. In the past months, Californians have experienced record
temperatures, raging wildfires, torrential flooding and a persistent drought that has grown over the past
four years into a major threat to air quality, water supplies, and the way of life that makes California
unique. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.2 [These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 143.]]
Organization: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
The San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) is home to more than 7 million people, and has one of the
densest populations located adjacent to highways in the United States. The BAAQMD Community Air
Risk Evaluation (CARE) program and California Air Resources Board (ARB) studies have shown that
85% of the risk from toxic air contaminants in the Bay Area comes from diesel Particulate Matter (PM).
This is a significant air quality problem especially in the West Oakland area where an ARB health-risk
assessment showed that up to 70% of the cancer risk is coming from on-road sources of air pollution.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1136-A1 p.l]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
In 1998, CARB identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant. In 2012, the International Agency for
Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, also classified diesel engine
exhaust as carcinogenic to humans.76 Numerous studies have shown diesel PM's adverse effects on
human respiratory and cardiovascular systems and its contribution to increased morbidity and mortality.
Further details regarding diesel PM health effects is available on CARB's website at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 180]
The health risk posed by diesel PM is one of the largest public health problems tackled by CARB in
recent decades, and even after an extensive control program including a series of air toxic control
measures in California (see for example the mobile source measures listed at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/atcm.htm). diesel PM remains responsible for 60 percent of the
known risk for air contaminants. Hence, controlling diesel PM remains a huge priority for CARB.
Diesel PM also contains black carbon, which is a powerful short-lived climate pollutant, so even beyond
the toxicity reasons for controlling diesel PM, there are climate reasons as well. The PM 2.5 increases
projected for the Phase 2 regulation are very significant - an increase of 1,631 tons and 2,257 tons of
nationwide PM 2.5 in 2035 and 2050,77 respectively. To put those emission increases in perspective,
-------
they are greater than the entire projected reductions of 1,058 tons statewide diesel PM in 2023 from
CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation.78 While this issue does not significantly affect California because
CARB already requires DPFs on APUs, CARB staff supports adopting similar requirements at the
federal level concurrent with the Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 180-
18 l][This comment can also be found in section 4.6 of this comment summary]
76 IARC: Diesel Engine Exhaust Carcinogenic, http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213
E.pdf
77 Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 40 CFR 1036; 40 CFR 1037; 40 CFR 86;
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0002.
78 (CARB, 2014d) California Air Resources Board, "Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for
Proposed Rulemaking - Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation," page 33, March
2014, .
Organization: California State Senator Ricardo Lara
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 57.]
In order to meet our reduction goals, we must invest in cleaner transportation technologies with a
technology-neutral approach that incentivizes improvements in air quality along with reductions in
greenhouse gases. We have made that commitment in California, investing millions of cap and trade
dollars to the development of clean truck technology. However, we need an ambitious federal standard
that complements and supports these efforts with stringent rules that will be implemented as soon as
possible. [This comment can also be found in section 9.3 of this comment summary]
Organization: City of South Bend, Indiana
Locally, air quality affects our County, with ozone and particulates adversely impacting human health
approximately eight days per year.2 With a diverse community and a poverty rate of 27.8 percent,3 we
recognize that we must protect the health of vulnerable populations while being good stewards of
limited taxpayer resources. Here in South Bend we are already replacing much of our fleet with cleaner-
burning and lower-cost compressed natural gas vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1009-A1 p.l]
2 American Lung Association, 2015 State of the Air, St. Joseph County Indiana
3 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates
Organization: Climate 911
35 million Americans live or work within 300 meters of a major roadway and are exposed to diesel
pollution. Health consequences include adverse birth outcomes, childhood asthma, impaired lung
-------
development, cancer, heart disease, and premature death. (EPA 2002, 2014). This hazardous exposure
should be decreased to the greatest extent technically and economically feasible in the shortest
possible amount of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1179-A1 p.l]
U.S. EPA. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust (Final 2002). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-90/057F, 2002.
US EPA Update on Diesel Health Issues and EPA Actions 2014
http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/documents/diesel-health-issues-5-21-14.pdf Clean Air Task Force, An
Analysis of Diesel Air Pollution and Public Health in America
Organization: Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life
Finally, the proposed rule would reduce toxic air pollution from idling trucks and refineries that produce
fuel, resulting in $37 billion in health and welfare benefits, including reductions in mortality and
hospitalizations. Many refineries and areas where trucks idle for long periods of time are in low-income
areas, so this rule will have a particularly important impact on these affected communities. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1249-A2 p.l]
Organization: Dignity Health
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 204.]
Dignity Health's healing mission and values compel us to seek ways to further improve air quality and
the health of communities throughout the Southwest.
Strict standards will provide incentives to increase investment in clean truck technology and to help the
U.S. meet federal ozone standards, which Dignity Health activity supports.
Our nation's current heavy-duty truck fleet poses significant health risks to Americans across the
country.
Organization: East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice (EYCEJ)
These standards have the ability to help protect our most vulnerable populations from air pollution and
the impacts of climate change. These impacts are disproportionately felt in low income and
communities of color. From the idling of trucks to the refineries located next to homes and other
sensitive receptors, it is the duty of the EPA to ensure that best practices are implemented to protect
public health. Our members live on the fence line of oil and gas production, live with trucks idling
nearby and rumbling through their neighborhoods, and shoulder the undue costs of these impacts
through medications, hospitalizations, physical ailments, and premature deaths. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0843 p. 1-2]
Organization: Environmental Law and Policy Center
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 216-219.]
They would save over a thousand lives each year.
The proposed regulation should do more to protect children's health. Asthma hospitalization rates in
Chicago are nearly double those of the national average, and that's why we're so concerned that the
proposed rule would actually increase particulate pollution by encouraging the use of auxiliary power
units on trucks. We urge you to amend this rule by requiring that these units be equipped with
particulate filters. This would eliminate the long-term increase in particulate pollution which may occur
as a result of these regulations. [This comment can also be found in section 4.6 of this comment
summary]
Organization: Gilroy, JD
Since I work as a health care utilization analyst for a large insurance company, I am very well aware
that massive reductions in pollution can also yield great reductions in morbidity and mortality for
residents susceptible to asthma, heart attacks, and other cardiovascular conditions. To speak anecdotally,
while I take great joy in the beauty of the city of Chicago, the air quality here is notoriously bad, even
years after the state of Illinois outlawed public indoor smoking and the city closed two old coal-fired
power plants known as Crawford and Fisk. I have simply lost count of all the friends and family
members who suffer from asthma or other more exotic medical conditions that are very probably linked
in part to environmental toxins and irritants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0751 p.2]
Organization: Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)
This rule, as proposed, will have substantial regional air quality and public health benefits. Projected
emission reductions of 2.4 million tons of NOx emissions over the lifetime of the program should result
in significant improvements of ground level ozone levels in our region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1142-A2 p.l]
Organization: Illinois Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 255.]
The standards are also important for public health. The reduction of toxic air pollution by the proposal
rule will result in $37 billion in health and welfare benefits, including reductions in mortality and
hospitalizations.
Organization: League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County
As we continue to learn that climate change is expected to increase to dangerous ozone levels in many
areas and that the poorest people live within the areas closest to Los Angeles County's main port areas
of Los Angeles and Long Beach and along the related freeway truck routes, it is abundantly clear that
unless we adopt the proposed truck standards, air pollution will worsen asthma symptoms and trigger
higher rates of asthma attacks among children and adults, along with other dire impacts on the health of
citizens of Los Angeles County.
-------
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Emission reductions aimed at lowering emissions of the primary precursors of ozone such as volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx, will have a positive impact on lower ambient ozone levels,
climate change, as well as human health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.3]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 1 (email) - (23)
I am concerned about the impact of climate change and air pollution on the health of my family. Climate
change threatens the health of our children through increased heat, air pollution, fires, storms, drought,
airborne allergens, and other serious effects. That's why I strongly support improved fuel efficiency
standards that would reduce dangerous climate pollution from medium and heavy duty trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1341-A1 p.l]
The proposed standards will help protect our families from harmful climate change and from unhealthy
air pollution. They will significantly reduce our national fuel consumption, and will save money for
both truckers and consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1341-A1 p. 1] [This comment can be found in
9.4 of this comment summary]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts (web) - (4,452)
Burning less fossil fuels also means less pollution and related illnesses such as asthma [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1252-A1 p.l]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
The link between Ground Level Ozone and Climate Change
There is a significant linkage between ground level ozone concentrations and climate change impacts.
One example was detailed by a group of researchers from the United Kingdom in a 2007 Nature
publication. In this work, ground-level ozone was shown to damage plant photosynthesis resulting in
lower carbon dioxide uptake from plants that have been exposed to higher levels of ozone. Other studies
have shown that increasing average annual temperatures, resulting from climate change, are likely to
result in even higher levels of ozone in the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.3]
Emission reductions aimed at lowering emissions of the primary precursors of ozone such as volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx, will have a positive impact on lower ambient ozone levels,
climate change, as well as human health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.3
Policies that aim to reduce ambient ozone levels may also become more necessary and important to
either mitigate the climate change impacts of ground level ozone or to mitigate higher ozone levels that
result from climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.3-4]
The health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards require that states focus on reducing their
ambient levels of criteria pollutants. California and the Northeast states are struggling to achieve
existing federal ozone ambient standards, and are already preparing to meet tighter ozone NAAQS
limits in the future. These states are concerned about GHG emissions as well as NOx from mobile
sources such as heavy-duty engines since the mobile sector represent 50-80% of their NOx inventory.
-------
Implicit in federal and state greenhouse gas emission analyses is the ability of these advanced
powertrain options to meet the applicable criteria pollutant emission standards, such as CO, NOx, and
non-methane organic gases (NMOG). All of these advanced, heavy-duty powertrain options combined
with the appropriately designed and optimized emission control and efficiency technologies can meet all
current and future federal and state criteria emission requirements. In this manner, advanced emission
controls for criteria pollutants enable advanced powertrains to also be viable options for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.4]
Organization: Moms Clean Air Force
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 64-65.]
While I, of course, am concerned about my child's health, I know that also frequently there are more
freight depots and shipping companies in frontline neighborhoods where pollution is worse than in my
neck of the woods. In Illinois, the rate of childhood asthma is at 13 percent, which is one percent higher
than the national rate. The age adjusted asthma mortality rate here in Chicago is nearly five times higher
in non-Hispanic blacks than in non-Hispanic whites. This rule will have a significantly positive impact
on these affected communities.
Organization: Moving Forward Network
Eliminate loophole for Auxiliary Power Units (APUs), which will increase harmful Particulate Matter
Emissions - As the California Air Resources Board has pointed out, a regulation that will increase the
use of APUs more extensively throughout the nation will result in increased PM2.5 emissions unless
these APUs are equipped with diesel particulate filters. We cannot sacrifice public health protections as
we seek to battle climate pollution. We represent groups on the front lines battling deadly pollution from
the freight industry. This approach that increase PM2.5 emissions is even more problematic given at
least one state, California, has shown that diesel particulate filters can be required on APUs. The final
rule should require the use of diesel particulate filters on APUs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1130-A2
p.2] [This comment can also be found in section 4.6 of this comment summary]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Ozone
Ozone remains a persistent pollution problem in parts of the NESCAUM region during warm weather
months. The evolution of severe ozone episodes often begins with the passage of a large high pressure
area from the Midwest to the middle or southern Atlantic states. Three primary pollution transport
pathways affect air quality in the region: long-range, mid-level, and near-surface. During severe ozone
episodes associated with high-pressure systems, these pathways converge on the Mid-Atlantic area,
where sea and bay breezes act as a barrier and funnel ozone and other air pollutants up the Northeast
Corridor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.4-5]
Collectively, NOx emissions and ambient ozone concentrations in the region have dropped significantly
since 1997, along with the frequency and magnitude of exceedances of the health-based ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).5 Despite this demonstrated progress, some of the most populous
areas of the region continue to violate the 2008 0.075 ppm ozone NAAQS. Attaining the standard in
these areas will require significant additional NOx reductions within the Northeast and in upwind areas.
-------
Looking toward the future, additional NOx reductions will be critical to ozone attainment in order to
meet the recently revised 0.070 ppm ozone NAAQS, which EPA projects will continue to be exceeded
in our region in 2025. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.5][This comment can also be found in
section 15.8.2 of this comment summary]
Particulate Matter
Scientific evidence has established a solid link between cardiac and respiratory health risks and transient
exposure to ambient fine particle pollution that is capable of penetrating deep into the lungs.6
Exceedances of the fine particle NAAQS can occur at any time of the year, with some of the highest
levels often reached in the winter. There are important differences in the chemical species responsible
for high fine particle levels during summer and winter in the Northeast. Regional fine particle formation
in the eastern United States is primarily due to S02, but NOx is also important because of its influence
on the chemical equilibrium between sulfate and nitrate particles during winter when nitrates can be a
relatively greater contributor to urban PM2.5 levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.5][This
comment can also be found in section 15.8.2 of this comment summary]
Acid Deposition
Atmospheric sources of nitrogen are a primary contributor to acidification of forest soils and fresh water
ecosystems in the Northeast. Nitrogen saturation results in a number of important changes in forest
ecosystem functions, including: (1) increased acidification of soils and surface waters; (2) depletion of
soil nutrients and the development of plant nutrient imbalances; and (3) forest decline and changes in
species composition. More than 30 percent of the lakes in the Adirondacks and at least 10 percent of the
lakes in New England are susceptible to the effects of acidic episodes that include long-term increases in
mortality, emigration, and reproductive failure of fish, as well as short-term acute effects. Acidic
episodes can occur at any time of the year but typically are most severe during spring snowmelt, when
biological demand for nitrogen is low and saturated soils exhibit lower nitrogen retention.7 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1221 -A 1 p.5-6]
Marine Eutrophication
Airborne nitrogen is an important contributor to eutrophication, the process by which a body of water
acquires a high concentration of nutrients that promote excessive growth of algae. As the algae die and
decompose, high levels of organic matter and decomposing organisms deplete the water of available
oxygen, causing the death of other organisms, such as fish. Atmospheric nitrogen is a major contributor
to eutrophication of key coastal resources in the Northeast, including Barnegat Bay in New Jersey and
Long Island Sound.8 The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the U.S. and its watershed stretches
across more than 64,000 square miles, encompassing parts of six states, including New York. Since the
1950s, the bay has experienced a decline in water quality due to over-enrichment of unwanted nutrients
such as phosphorus and nitrogen. The major contributors to nutrient discharge in the bay are wastewater
effluent, urban and agricultural runoff, and air deposition.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.6]
Visibility Impairment
Regional haze is a form of air pollution that obscures the views of city skylines as well as "pristine"
scenic vistas. It is caused by fine particle air pollution and can cover hundreds of square miles in the
East. Natural visibility conditions in the East are estimated at 60 to 80 miles in most locations. Under
current polluted conditions, average visibility ranges from 20 to 40 miles. On the worst days, regional
haze can reduce visibility to just a few miles. Outdoor recreation is a multi-billion dollar industry in the
-------
U.S. and is of particular economic importance to communities near protected federal lands. Surveys
indicate visitors have rated "clean, clear air" as among the most important features of national parks and
have overwhelmingly ranked scenic views and clean air as "extremely" or "very" important. Studies
have yielded estimates in the billions of dollars for the visibility benefits associated with substantial
national pollution reductions.10 While sulfate, formed from S02 emissions, is currently the most
important particle constituent of regional haze in the East, reductions in other local and distant pollutant
emissions, including NOx, will be necessary to achieve the nation's long-term goal of restoring pristine
visibility conditions year-round in national parks and wilderness areas.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1221-A1 p.6-7]
5 NESCAUM. 2010. The Nature of the Ozone Air Quality Problem in the Ozone Transport Region: A
Conceptual Description, prepared for the Ozone Transport Commission by NESCAUM, Boston, MA
(August 2010). Available at:
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/2010_o3_conceptual_model_final_revised_20100810.pdf.
6 U.S. EPA. 2005. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, USEPA OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-452/R-05-005a
(December 2005).
7 Driscoll, C.T., G.B. Lawrence, A.J. Bulger, T.J. Butler, C.S. Cronan, C. Eagar, K.F. Lambert, G.E.
Likens, J.L. Stoddard, and K.C. Weathers. 2001. Acidic deposition in the northeastern United States:
Sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies, Bioscience 51, 180-198.
8 Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. 1999. National
Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries, NOAA,
National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.
Silver Spring, MD: 71 pp.
9 Maryland Department of the Environment, Chesapeake Bay Restoration,
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/Pages/water/bayrestoration.aspx (accessed September 1,
2011).
10 NESCAUM. 2001. Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,
NESCAUM, Boston, MA (January 31, 2001). Available at:
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/regional-haze-and-visibility-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlantic-
states/.
11 In 1999, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule in pursuit of the national visibility goal created
by Congress in the Clean Air Act to ultimately restore natural visibility conditions in 156 national parks
and wilderness areas across the country (called "Class I" areas).
Organization: Respiratory Health Association
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 129.]
-------
Tailpipe derived particulate matter triggers asthma attacks and heart attacks, and drives increases in
emergency room visits, and hospitalizations, and premature deaths. Eliminating those emissions as well
as slashing ozone forming and toxic air pollution has reduced health risks and, in fact, has saved lives.
Response:
EPA agrees that emissions of non-GHG pollutants from heavy-duty vehicles contribute to ambient air
pollution that poses significant health and environmental concerns. Along with reducing GHGs, the
Phase 2 standards also have an impact on non-GHG, criteria and air toxic pollutant, emissions. As
discussed in Section VIII. C of the Preamble, the standards will impact exhaust emissions of these
pollutants from vehicles and will also impact emissions that occur during the refining and distribution of
fuel (upstream sources). Reductions in emissions of NOx, VOC, PM2.5 and air toxics expected as a
result of the Phase 2 standards will lead to improvements in air quality, specifically decreases in
ambient concentrations of PM2 5, ozone, N02 and air toxics, as well as better visibility and reduced
deposition. Section VIII of the Preamble for this final rule details the health and environmental impacts
associated with non-GHG air pollutants. In addition, Section VIII.A.6 focuses on diesel exhaust and
Section VIII.A. 8 focuses on exposures and health effects associated with traffic. EPA also agrees that
Environmental Justice (EJ) is an important principle and a more detailed discussion on EJ is included in
Section VIII. A. 9.
Several commenters noted concern about the fact that the proposal increased PM2 5 emissions due to
increased usage of auxiliary power units (APUs). EPA is adopting Phase 1 and Phase 2 requirements to
control PM2 5 emissions from APUs installed in new tractors, so we do not expect increases in
downstream PM2 5 emissions from the Phase 2 program. Additional discussion of the APU
requirements can be found in Section 4.6 of this Response to Comments document.
-------
11 Economic and Other Impacts
11.1 General Comments
Organizations Included in this Section:
Burger, Mark
Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy
Ceres
City of South Bend, Indiana
Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO)
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life
Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
Earth Day Coalition (EDC)
Edison Solar Inc.
Energy Ohio Network
Environment America and other local citizens across America
Fuller, Tony
Greenways to Go
Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)
Illinois Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)
Investor Network on Climate Risk
Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator (LACI)
Lubrizol Corporation
Mazza & Sons, Inc.
Momentum Wireless Power
MPI Solar
Nelson, Dennis
Ohio Sustainable Business Council (SBC)
PepsiCo
Pew Charitable Trusts
Quasar Energy Group
Sanborn Head
Solar Provider Group
Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
Werner Enterprises
11.1.1 Positive Comments on Economic Impact, Cost and Benefit Analysis
Organization: Burger, Mark
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 132.]
I want to emphasize the economic benefits that improved truck fuel efficiency standards will bring.
Improved fuel efficiency standards resulting in demand destruction are one of the best tools to reduce
pollution and keep fuel prices affordable. The fuel efficiency standards of cars and light trucks has
resulted in the present savings of about three to four million barrels a day in the U.S.
-------
Organization: Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy
Stronger standards would be important drivers of economic growth, benefiting both businesses and
consumers. A joint analysis by Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund found that stronger
standards would reduce freight costs by 6.8% in 2040, an annual savings potential of approximately $34
billion.2 [NHTSA-2014-0132-0095-A1 p.l]
2 M. J. Bradley and Associates LLC, "EPA/NHTSA Phase 2 Fuel Efficiency & GHG Standards for
Freight Trucks: Projected Effect on Freight Costs." May 2015. Web. http://www.ceres.org/trucksavings
Organization: Ceres
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 200-201.]
Strict standards will catalyze investment in high efficiency truck technologies, thereby serving to retain
the U.S. leadership position in this sector, save businesses money, promote energy security, and reduce
climate risk. Such standards would be important drivers of economic growth, benefitting businesses, the
trucking industry, and American consumers.
Organization: City of South Bend, Indiana
With medium-and heavy-duty vehicles accounting for twenty percent of US oil consumption but only
five percent of vehicles,1 the opportunity for improvement is significant. Requiring increased efficiency
in a flexible, cost-effective way helps make U.S. businesses located in South Bend more competitive
globally — especially beneficial to the rapidly-growing distribution and logistics companies that operate
in our region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1009-A1 p.l]
1 EPA and DOT propose greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks. NHTSA.
Organization: Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO)
Opportunities improving truck fuel efficiency are also great (and growing) based on already-existing
technologies and others in the R&D pipeline that show future promise: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1192-A1 p.l]
The EPA has suggested that phase two would result in $230 billion total net benefits to society,
including fuel savings, carbon reductions, health, energy security, and others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1192-A1 p.2]
Clean Fuels Ohio encourages all parties to continue to work together as these rules are implemented to
ensure maximum gains for efficiency that will produce longer-term cost savings, health and
environmental benefits, overall economic benefits and gains in U.S. energy security while minimizing
the disruptive impacts of higher up-front costs to commercial vehicle users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1192-A1 p.2]
Organization: Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life
In addition to the environmental benefits of reducing emissions, strong standards would create jobs,
save households money, and protect public health. These standards will drive investments in fuel
-------
efficient technology innovation and deployment, which will create new markets and tens of thousands
of new jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1249-A2 p.l]
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
We next examine other, indirect benefits and costs. These are generally externalities that we would not
expect producers and consumers to take into account in their decision making, but as important social
costs and benefits, they should be taken into account in policymaking. Here we include macroeconomic
considerations, including the rebound effect and public health effects. These benefits and costs increase
the total value of the proposed rule significantly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.45]
The other two effectiveness tests involve environmental benefits. The economic benefits of fuel savings
mean the environmental benefits are "free."
With respect to the second measure, which is useful for comparisons to other GHG rules, the proposed
standards would have overall $/ton costs similar to the HD Phase 1 rule.... less than $50 per metric ton
of GHG (C02 eq) for the entire HD Phase 2 program. This compares well to... the agencies' estimates of
the social cost of carbon. Thus, even without accounting for fuel savings, the proposed standards would
be cost effective. The third measure deducts fuel savings from technology costs, which also is useful for
comparisons to other GHG rules. On this basis, net costs per ton of GHG emissions reduced would be
negative under the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.47-48]
This means that the value of the fuel savings would be greater than the technology costs, and there
would be a net cost saving for vehicle owners. In other words, the technologies would pay for
themselves (indeed, more than pay for themselves) in fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-
A1 p.48]
In addition, while the net economic benefits (i.e., total benefits minus total costs) of the proposed
standards is not a traditional measure of their cost effectiveness, the agencies have concluded that the
total costs of the proposed standards are justified in part by their significant economic benefits. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.48]
[T]his rule would provide benefits beyond the fuel conserved and GHG emissions avoided. The rule's
net benefits is a measure that quantifies each of its various benefits in economic terms, including the
economic value of the fuel it saves and the climate-related damages it avoids, and compares their sum to
the rule's estimated costs. The agencies estimate that the proposed standards would result in net
economic benefits exceeding $100 billion, making this a highly beneficial rule.34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1336-A1 p.48]
The second largest source of benefit is the environmental and public health benefits, accounting for a
little over a quarter of the total benefits.35 The value of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions alone
equals the total cost of the proposed rule. Other public health benefits are of similar magnitude to the
value of greenhouse gas reductions. Environmental benefits are almost twice as large as the costs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.48]
34 EPA/NHTSA, PHASE IINOPR, p. 40169. As noted above, all costs and benefits are taken from the
analysis which uses a 3% discount rate. Given the flat line of fuel economy over decades, we also report
the results for the less dynamic base case. Other cases and discount rates support the same conclusions.
-------
35 EPA/NHTSA, PHASE IINOPR, Table 1-8.
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
Combining all of the costs and benefits, the benefit to cost ratio is over 8-to-l. For tractor trailers, which
account for two-thirds of the fuel consumption of medium and heavy duty trucks, the benefit cost ratio
is 10-to-l. This is a very high benefit cost ratio that highlights the question of why EPA/NHTSA did not
push the standard to a higher level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1336-A1 p.49]
Organization: Earth Day Coalition (EDC)
New fuel economy standards proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation represent an
opportunity to deliver significant cost savings, reduce fuel consumption and reduce emissions. Some
context: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.l]
• Medium- and heavy-duty trucks only make up 7 percent of all vehicles on the road but consume 25
percent of the fuel used by all vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p. 1]
• The heavy-duty vehicle sector is second largest and fastest growing segment of the U.S. transportation
sector in terms of emissions and energy use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1169-A1 p.l]
According to the American Trucking Association, fuel is the single largest expense for motor carriers —
accounting for nearly 40 percent of operating costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
• Travel among heavy-duty vehicles is expected to increase by nearly 50 percent over the next 25 years
according to the Energy Information Administration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
• The Consumer Federation of America reports that fuel costs for goods and services delivered by
medium-and heavy-duty trucks cost U.S. households an average of $1,100 in 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
Because truck fuel consumption is so great (and growing), the benefits of improving truck fuel
efficiency are also great (and growing): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
• Finalizing a strong second phase rule is expected to save vehicle owners $170 billion in fuel costs
while conserving 1.8 billion barrels of oil and cutting carbon pollution by nearly 1 billion metric tons
over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
• In total, the program would result in $230 billion total net benefits to society, including fuel savings,
carbon reductions, health, energy security, and others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
• Fuel savings will help bring down the costs of transporting goods, with the average household saving
$150 a year by 2030, assuming the savings and costs are passed through to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
As you can see, these new standards are a win for shippers, a win for businesses that rely on trucks to
transport goods and materials, and a win for consumers who purchase products carried by trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
-------
Finally, we know that improving truck fuel efficiency is achievable and can be done affordably: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
• Through partnerships with the Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy
ratings of over 12 mpg are achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
• In model year 2027, a new tractor-trailer owner would recoup the extra cost of technology used to
achieve the standards within 2 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1169-A1 p.2]
According to the American Trucking Association, fuel is the single largest expense for motor carriers —
accounting for nearly 40 percent of operating costs.
• Travel among heavy-duty vehicles is expected to increase by nearly 50 percent over the next 25 years
according to the Energy Information Administration.
• The Consumer Federation of America reports that fuel costs for goods and services delivered by
medium-and heavy-duty trucks cost U.S. households an average of $1,100 in 2010.
Because truck fuel consumption is so great (and growing), the benefits of improving truck fuel
efficiency are also great (and growing):
• Finalizing a strong second phase rule is expected to save vehicle owners $170 billion in fuel costs
while conserving 1.8 billion barrels of oil and cutting carbon pollution by nearly 1 billion metric tons
over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program.
• In total, the program would result in $230 billion total net benefits to society, including fuel savings,
carbon reductions, health, energy security, and others.
• Fuel savings will help bring down the costs of transporting goods, with the average household saving
$150 a year by 2030, assuming the savings and costs are passed through to consumers.
As you can see, these new standards are a win for shippers, a win for businesses that rely on trucks to
transport goods and materials, and a win for consumers who purchase products carried by trucks.
Finally, we know that improving truck fuel efficiency is achievable and can be done affordably:
• Through partnerships with the Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy
ratings of over 12 mpg are achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies.
• In model year 2027, a new tractor-trailer owner would recoup the extra cost of technology used to
achieve the standards within 2 years.
Organization: Edison Solar Inc.
Because truck fuel consumption is so great (and growing), the benefits of improving truck fuel
efficiency are also great (and growing): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1176-A1 p.2]
-------
• In total, the program would result in $230 billion total net benefits to society, including fuel savings,
carbon reductions, health, energy security, and others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1176-A1 p.2]
As you can see, these new standards are a win for shippers, a win for businesses that rely on trucks to
transport goods and materials, and a win for consumers who purchase products carried by trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1176-A1 p.2]
Organization: Energy Ohio Network
Strong fuel efficiency standards are good for American manufacturing because they stimulate
innovation, making U.S. businesses more competitive globally. Through partnerships with the
Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy ratings of over 12 mpg are
achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies.7 Further investment in the research,
production, and deployment of vehicle innovation will give the United States an opportunity to lead
international markets as countries like China and Japan consider additional efficiency requirements for
trucks.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1331-A1 p.2]
7 http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/supertruck-team-achieves-115-freight-efficiency-improvement-
class-8- long-haul
8 http://www.fiafoundation.org/media/44209/gfei-annual-report-2014.pdf
Organization: Environment America and other local citizens across America
Setting a strong second-phase standard will help fleets save more money on fuel. For example,
manufacturers could improve the efficiency of transit buses, school buses, utility trucks and other
"vocational" vehicles by almost a third by 2025, with technology that would pay for itself in fuel
savings in less than 4 years (compared to an average life of 15 years for an average transit bus, for
example). [5] Payback times for heavy-duty pickups and vans would be less than three years. And for
tractor-trailers, efficient technology could pay for itself completely in only 13 months. [6]
[5]http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Truck-Fuel-Savings-
Factsheet.pdf;http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Useful_Life_of_Buses_Final_Report_4-26-07_rvl.pdf
[6] http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Truck-Fuel-
Savings-F actsheet.pdf;
Organization: Fuller, Tony
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 149.]
Increased standards would yield additional health, economic, and environmental benefits with minimal
costs, especially when you factor in the long-term threats posed by climate change and the health and
economic benefits.
Organization: Greenways to Go
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 280-281.]
The proposed standards would establish a level playing field to finding areas where American
innovation can provide solutions that benefit society as a whole by continuing to lead the U.S. and the
world on a path of responsibly managing man's impacts on the earth's ecosystems while reducing the
need for the U.S. to import oil. This leads to economic stimuli, jobs, reduced risks, and reduced costs
required to globally protect oil, and reduce trade deficits in a more competitive U.S. global economic
profile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372 p.280-281]
These technical advances will soon come from somewhere in the world, and having the U.S. leading
these improvements will result in exporting of U.S. technologies, meaning even more American jobs
and cash flow. Initiatives like the fuel efficiency standards help educate all of us on why we should be
mindful of proper stewardship of the finite air, water, and land resources we share. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1372 p.281]
Organization: Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)
The rule, as proposed, will result in economic benefits for the region, with national estimates showing
that the average household will save $150 per year. Additionally, regional heavy-duty fleets serving our
region are projected to see substantial savings over the lifetime of the proposed rule as well. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1142-A2 p. 1]
Organization: Illinois Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 255.]
Further, consumers support decreasing emissions. A Consumer Federation of America poll released in
May 2015 found that a majority of Americans favor requiring manufacturers to increase the fuel
efficiency of heavy duty trucks while less than one-quarter opposed this requirement. Consumers' voices
should be considered with these standards.
Organization: Investor Network on Climate Risk
Strong standards would be important drivers of economic growth, benefiting businesses, truck
manufacturers and suppliers, and consumers. A joint analysis by Ceres and the Environmental Defense
Fund found that strong standards would save $0.21 per mile by 2040. The same study indicated that
strong standards would reduce freight costs by 3% in 2030 and 7% in 2040, an estimated $34 billion
annual saving potential.2 [NHTSA-2014-0132-0113-A1 p.1-2]
Strict standards are also crucial for the United States to retain its leadership position in efficient truck
manufacturing and expand job opportunities in that sector. We are currently the world leader in the
development, production and use of energy-efficient and hybrid trucks. Without strong standards in
place, companies and investors will lack the requisite certainty to invest in the development and
production of new technologies that will allow us to retain our primary position and increase job
growth. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0113-A1 p.2]
-------
2 M. J. Bradley and Associates LLC, "EPA/NHTSA Phase 2 Fuel Efficiency & GHG Standards for
Freight Trucks: Projected Effect on Freight Costs." May 2015. Web. http://www.ceres.org/trucksavings
Organization: Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator (LACI)
It's an exciting time to be at the center of the City's primary economic growth strategy: driving
innovation in clean technologies. The Los Angeles region is already the largest green economy in the
nation, and there is an unprecedented economic opportunity as our city, state, and country rebuilds its
energy and transportation infrastructure, shifting energy dependence away from fossil fuels and toward
sustainable energy sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1291-A1 p.l]
It is because of that economic opportunity that we applaud your efforts to implement strong, achievable
fuel efficiency and emission standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The new standards will
help save consumers and businesses money at the pump, lessen the economic and national security
threats presented by oil dependence and price volatility, and - importantly from our perspective -
encourage the development of new technologies to drive the transportation sector forward. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1291 -A 1 p.l]
Strong fuel efficiency standards will stimulate domestic innovation and manufacturing. Further
investment in the research, production, and deployment of vehicle innovation will give the United States
an opportunity to lead international markets as countries like China and Japan consider additional
efficiency requirements for trucks. It will also create opportunities for American companies and
entrepreneurs to come up with breakthrough technologies to drive the transportation sector forward.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1291 -A 1 p. 1 -2]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation
When finalized and implemented, the Phase 2 Rule will provide significant economic, health,
environmental, and energy benefits from new trucks and buses built between 2018 and 2027. As EPA
has estimated, the final Rule will cut C02 emissions by roughly 1 billion metric tons, save an estimated
1.8 billion barrels of oil, and deliver net benefits of $230 billion to society in fuel savings,
environmental improvements, and reduced health costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1325-A1 p.2]
Organization: Mazza & Sons, Inc.
Strong fuel efficiency standards are good for American manufacturing because they stimulate
innovation, making U.S. businesses more competitive globally. Through partnerships with the
Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy ratings of over 12 mpg are
achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies.7 Further investment in the research,
production, and deployment of vehicle innovation will give the United States an opportunity to lead
international markets as countries like China and Japan consider additional efficiency requirements for
trucks.8
7 http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/supertruck-team-achieves-115-freight -efficiency-improvement
-class-8-long-haul
8 http://www.fiafoundation.org/media/44209/gfei-annual-report-2014.pdf
-------
Organization: Momentum Wireless Power
Businesses and consumers across all sectors of the economy rely on trucks to move materials and
products. Tractor-trailers and package delivery vans move $10 trillion worth of freight each year and
commuter buses transport 3.5 million people to work every day.3 Furthermore, U.S. companies spent
over $700 billion dollars on trucking services in 2014. As travel among heavy-duty vehicles grows by
nearly 50 percent over the next 25 years, America will continue to rely on these trucks to support critical
services needs as well as the growing economy.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0755-A1 p. 1-2]
Strong fuel efficiency standards are good for American manufacturing because they stimulate
innovation, making U.S. businesses more competitive globally. Through partnerships with the
Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy ratings of over 12 mpg are
achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies.7 Further investment in the research,
production, and deployment of vehicle innovation will give the United States an opportunity to lead
international markets as countries like China and Japan consider additional efficiency requirements for
trucks.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0755-A1 p.2]
3 http://www.ucsusa.Org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/heavy-duty-truck-standards#.VXho5c9VhBc;
https ://www. census, gov/prod/201 lpubs/acs-15 .pdf;
4 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section del iveredenergy.cfrn
7http ://energy.govieere/vehic les/artic les/supertruck-team-ach ieves-115-freight-efficiency-
improvement-class -8 -long-haul
8 http://www.fiafoundation.org/media/44209/gfei-annual-report-2014.pdf
Organization: MPI Solar
The new standards will help businesses, like ours, that depends upon trucks to receive and then deliver
our products and service to our customers. More fuel efficient trucks will not only save money at the
pump, lower our costs, but will lessen the economic and national security threats presented by oil
dependence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1473-A1 p.l]
Strong fuel efficiency standards are good for American manufacturing because they stimulate
innovation, making U.S. businesses more competitive globally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1473-A1
p.l]
Organization: Nelson, Dennis
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p.94.]
Another great thing about finalizing even tougher fuel economy standards for newer tractor trailers,
vocational vehicles, and heavy duty pickup trucks and cargo vans is that they comprise a no regrets
transportation energy efficiency strategy. Besides promoting climate protection, they will also have
other positive benefits, like cutting our oil consumption by an additional 200,000 barrels each day in
-------
2035; reducing hazardous air pollutants from idling trucks and operating oil refineries, saving the
average tractor trailer driver roughly $30,000 annually in fuel costs in 2025; reducing the expenses for
the owners of truck fleets; and driving ~ pun intended ~ the green energy innovation for inherently
cleaner heavy duty vehicles.
Organization: Ohio Sustainable Business Council (SBC)
The new standards will help save consumers and businesses money at the pump, lessen the economic
and national security threats presented by oil dependence and price volatility, and encourage American
manufacturers to develop new technologies that spur investment in research, development, and
production of advanced vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1177-A1 p.l]
OSBC represents a broad base of sustainable-minded business leaders, who favor sensible regulations
that create opportunity, protect the public, save money, and serve the common good. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1177-A1 p.2]
Strong fuel efficiency standards are good for American manufacturing because they stimulate
innovation, making U.S. businesses more competitive globally. Through partnerships with the
Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy ratings of over 12 mpg are
achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies.7 Further investment in the research,
production, and deployment of vehicle innovation will give the United States an opportunity to lead
international markets as countries like China and Japan consider additional efficiency requirements for
trucks.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1177-A1 p.2]
Organization: Pew Charitable Trusts
Strong fuel efficiency standards are good for American manufacturing because they stimulate
innovation, making U.S. businesses more competitive globally. Through partnerships with the
Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy ratings of over 12 mpg are
achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies.8 Further investment in the research,
production, and deployment of vehicle innovation will give the United States an opportunity to lead
international markets as countries like China and Japan consider additional efficiency requirements for
trucks.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1334-A1 p.2]
8 http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/supertruck-team-achieves-115-freight-efficiency-improvement-
class-8-long-haul
9 http://www.fiafoundation.org/media/44209/gfei-annual-report-2014.pdf
Organization: Quasar Energy Group
Because truck fuel consumption is so great (and growing), the benefits of improving truck fuel
efficiency are also great (and growing): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1335-A1 p.l]
In total, the program would result in $230 billion total net benefits to society, including fuel savings,
carbon reductions, health, energy security, and others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1335-A1 p.2]
-------
As you can see, these new standards are a win for shippers, a win for businesses that rely on trucks to
transport goods and materials, and a win for consumers who purchase products carried by trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1335-A1 p.2]
Organization: Sanborn Head
Strong fuel efficiency standards are good for American manufacturing because they stimulate
innovation, making U.S. businesses more competitive globally. Through partnerships with the
Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy ratings of over 12 mpg are
achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies.7 Further investment in the research,
production, and deployment of vehicle innovation will give the United States an opportunity to lead
international markets as countries like China and Japan consider additional efficiency requirements for
trucks.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1257-A1 p.2]
7 http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/supertruck-team-achieves-115-freight-efficiency-improvement-
class-8-long-haul
8 http://www.fiafoundation.org/media/44209/gfei-annual-reDort-2014.Ddf
Organization: Solar Provider Group
Solar Provider Group committed to solar because it's a technology that's both good for the planet and
delivers an increasingly beneficial return on investment, and we feel the same way about efficient
trucking. We rely on medium- and heavy-duty trucks throughout our supply chain, and stand to benefit a
great deal from more efficient vehicles that save us, our partners, and our clients money on
transportation costs. The transportation sector also makes up 70 percent of all oil consumption in the
United States and accounts for almost 30 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, presenting a
significant opportunity for improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1235-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Werner Enterprises
EPA and NHTSA have been presented a unique opportunity to play a major role in setting fuel
efficiency standards that align with the goals of the heavy-duty vehicle, engine, and operating industry
and could provide fleets like Werner with real world fuel savings that translate into reduced GHGs and
savings across the market. Given fuel is one of the top operating expenses for Werner, we support the
aims of improving fuel efficiency and reducing our carbon footprint. Improving fuel efficiency has long
been a key component of optimizing our operations and is an effort that naturally aligns with the
Agencies' goal to reduce GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
Response:
We appreciate the commenters' reviews of the agencies' economic impact, cost and benefit analyses for
this rulemaking and the citation of analyses from other organizations. These positive comments and
citations of our economic impact analysis, cost and benefit estimates express support for the proposed
HD Phase 2 program in general.
The Agencies agree with the commenters' assertions that building on the success of the Phase 1
standards, this new phase of the national program would significantly reduce carbon emissions and fuel
-------
consumption from a wide range of on-road vehicles - from semi-trucks and their trailers to the largest
pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of work trucks and buses.
The Agencies estimate that Phase 2 program would cut GHG emissions by up to 1.1 billion metric tons,
conserve up to 2.0 billion barrels of oil, and lower fuel costs by about $170 billion over the lifetime of
the vehicles sold under the program for the HD vehicles.
In total, the program would result in up to 230 billion total net benefits to society, including fuel
savings, carbon reductions, health, energy security, and others, as shown in Table 1-10, Preamble
Section I. D. (2).
The agencies agree with the commenters' remarks that this national program would be an important
driver of economic growth, benefitting businesses, the trucking industry, and American consumers. The
agencies also agree with the commenters' observation that the Phase 2 program will promote energy
security and give the United States an opportunity to lead international markets in this sector. The
Phase 2 program represents a more technology-forcing204 approach than the Phase 1 approach and will
benefit consumers and businesses by reducing the costs for transporting goods while spurring
investment and innovation in the clean energy technology sector.
11.1.2 Negative Comments on Economic Impact Cost and Benefit Analysis
Organization: Competitive Enterprise Institute et al.(CEI)
It may be unrealistic to expect an agency to take responsibility for the very problem it seeks more power
over industry to solve. Nonetheless, given the administration's high-profile commitment to
"transparency," EPA and NHTSA should have at least addressed the issue. They have not done so.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.2]
Response:
In its comment, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) jointly with others makes several points in
questioning the agencies' "transparency" in addressing issues such as the justification of the rules,
energy security benefits, and small trucking firm impacts. The agencies disagree with commenter's
points and its claims, and our responses to these issues can be found in Sections 11.2, 11.10, and 15.2 of
this RTC, respectively. On the issue of "transparency," we refer to our response in Section 15.5 of this
RTC, which illustrates how the agencies have gone beyond the procedural steps required by law to
promote transparency and public participation for this Phase 2 rulemaking.
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
THE AGENCIES' COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IS FLAWED.
Executive Order 12866, which applies to significant rules issued under the Clean Air Act, requires the
Agency to assess systematically the regulation's costs and benefits. The Agency properly acknowledges
204 In this context, the term "technology-forcing" is used to distinguish standards that will effectively require
manufacturers to develop new technologies (or to significantly improve technologies) from standards that can be
met using off-the-shelf technology alone. Technology-forcing standards do not require manufacturers to use any
specific technologies.
-------
this obligation, and refers to its Regulatory Impact Analysis, in the Proposed Rulemaking. Although the
Agency has set forth its conclusions in this regard, the analysis is flawed as it significantly overstates the
benefits and understates the costs associated with the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-
A1 p.15]
Response:
The agencies disagree with the commenter's assertion that the cost-benefit analysis is flawed. The
agencies use standard economic parameters (including discount rates) to measure the monetary value of
the rules' impacts. These parameters, methods and assumptions are based on the best available data at
the time and are documented extensively in the Preamble and RIA that accompanies the rules.
The agencies acknowledge that a wide range of estimates is available for many of the primary inputs
that are used in the HD GHG emissions models. The agencies recognize that each of these values has
some degree of uncertainty. The agencies tested the sensitivity of their estimates of costs and benefits to
a range of assumptions about each of these inputs, and found that the magnitude of these variations
would not have changed the overall conclusions of the cost benefit-analysis; i.e., that the benefits of the
program far outweigh the costs. The Agencies considered uncertainty in its analysis by utilizing a range
of various estimates as well as other sensitivity analyses. These included:
• The benefits and costs of these rules, which are analyzed using 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rates, consistent with current OMB guidance.
• The range of Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values, by always considering all four SCC values
developed by the interagency group (RIA Chapter 8.5.1)
• Fuel prices, by using the AEO reference fuel price case in all central analysis results but also
calculating the net benefits using both the AEO High and Low fuel price cases (RIA Chapter
8.12)
• Engineering costs, by calculating vehicle technology costs and maintenance costs relative to
two different baseline fleets.
• A range of PM2.5-related benefit per ton values, based on two different PM-related mortality
studies and the two different discount rates
• A supplemental analysis of Calendar Year PM2.5- and ozone-related benefits derived from air
quality modeling (see Appendix 8A in the RIA)
In total, the agencies' analysis found that the benefits of the final rulemaking, including fuel savings and
many other benefit categories such as the Social Cost of Carbon, far outweigh the costs of the standards.
See Table I-10 at Preamble Section I. D. (2).
11.1.3 Conceptual Framework
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Energy efficiency gap
-------
The NPRM requests comment on the slow adoption of cost-effective technologies for reducing fuel
consumption. CARB staff supports the hypothesis that the end-users are not adopting readily available,
cost-effective energy efficiency technologies because they do not have full information regarding their
costs and benefits (this economic situation is known as the "energy efficiency gap" or "energy
paradox"). CARB staff also recognizes that in the highly diverse and specialized heavy-duty vehicle
sector, no manufacturer wants to be the first to be absorb high upfront research and development costs
for new technologies that other manufacturers will subsequently utilize at lower costs (the "first-mover
disadvantage"). Overall, CARB staff agrees these issues necessitate further research in order to better
understand the heavy-duty vehicle sector and to identify potential strategies and mechanisms to speed
the adoption of fuel efficient technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 182]
Organization: CALSTART
An additional consideration involves market barriers to change. Even technologies showing strong
results and solid payback face resistance in a marketplace where risk avoidance remains high. As an
example, there is now strong data showing that technologies such as post-transmission hybrids can
achieve 15-35 percent fuel economy gains in the right vocational applications, and their costs are
dropping below $20,000 and approaching in some cases $10,000. Yet overcoming market inertia likely
requires early and innovative measures to encourage OEMs and fleets to take this step. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1190-A1 p.6]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc, et al.
Regulation must take into account total cost of ownership
Given the many challenges faced by truck fleets over the last decade due to factors such as fuel cost
volatility, slow economic growth, fleet consolidation, increasing regulation, and higher labor costs
associated with driver shortages and increased turnover, any fleet successfully competing in today's
market considers a total cost of ownership view of vehicle life-cycles. Fleets capture this data down to
tenths of a cent per mile and use this information to determine their purchase timing and truck selection.
The Phase 2 stringencies are predicated on the penetration of specific technologies with consideration
for the impacts of fuel, maintenance, and product costs on the vehicle owners; however, they should
consider additional costs associated with this very basic economic principle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1215-A1 p.7]
In their cost assessments, the Agencies should consider other key factors that impact total cost of
ownership. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.7]
Organization: Competitive Enterprise Institute et al.
Most of the projected benefits are fuel savings for heavy duty vehicle (HDV) owners and operators.
However, EPA and NHTSA provide no solid evidence that the trucking industry's alleged "under-
investment" in fuel-saving technology is due to market failure. In fact, some of the agencies'
"hypotheses" suggest that truckers are simply behaving like prudent buyers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2p.2]
As in the Phase 1 rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA ignore a more credible and obvious explanation of the
alleged "energy efficiency gap." EPA's diesel-engine emission standards, both by directly reducing the
fuel efficiency of diesel engines, and by crowding out fuel economy-related R&D investment and
-------
consumer spending, created the problem the agencies purport to solve via additional regulation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.2]
III. The rule implies that truckers, like children, are incapable of discerning and/or pursuing their
own best interest.
If the proposed rule will have no detectable effect on climate change or energy security, what is the
point? The new standards will save truckers a bundle of money, EPA and NHTSA contend. According
to their calculations, the rule will increase the cost of new trucks and trailers by $20 billion to $30
billion over the lifetimes of the vehicles, but it will also cut fuel consumption by more than 70 billion
gallons, saving truckers approximately $90 billion to $170 billion in reduced fuel expenditures.35 In
other words, truckers will reap net benefits of approximately $70 billion to $140 billion. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 10]
[Table 1-8 can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
This should immediately raise a red flag. Trucking companies are in business to make money. As the
agencies acknowledge, "Unlike light-duty vehicles - which are purchased and used mainly by
individuals and households - the vast majority of HDVs are purchased and operated by profit-seeking
businesses for which fuel costs represent a substantial operating expense."36 Indeed, for many truckers,
fuel is the single biggest operating expense, exceeding drivers' wages and benefits combined.37 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 11]
[Figure 8-1 can be found on p.11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
Clearly, nobody has a keener incentive to purchase cost-effective fuel-saving technology than people
who haul freight for a living. Demand for fuel-efficient trucks should, in turn, spur manufacturers to
develop, produce, and market such vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 11]
If every dollar invested to improve fuel economy yields savings of $4-$6, why hasn't the market already
made those investments? If the agencies' recommended package of fuel-saving technologies is such a
great bargain, why do truckers need a regulation compelling them to buy it? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2 p. 11]
The proposed rule implies that truckers, like children, are incapable of discerning and/or pursuing their
own best interest. Or it implies that manufacturers are too dim or lazy to expand market share by
developing vehicles that give their customers a competitive edge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2
p.ll]
EPA and NHTSA don't put things that way, of course. As in the Phase 1 rulemaking, the agencies offer
"hypotheses" drawn from economics literature to explain the "paradox" of under-investment in fuel
economy.38 None of the explanations provides solid evidence of market failure. In fact, some indicate
truckers are just behaving like prudent buyers. Let's look at each in turn. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1251-A2 p. 12]
IV. The agencies' "hypotheses" neither demonstrate market failure nor persuasively explain the
"paradox" of "under-investment."
The agencies summarize five hypotheses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.12]
-------
(1) Imperfect Information in the New Vehicle Market. One possible reason for the supposed under
investment is that information "about the effectiveness of some fuel-saving technologies" is "inadequate
or unreliable." But if the relevant information is inadequate or unreliable, how do EPA and NHTSA
know the rule will deliver billions in net benefits to truckers? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2
p. 12]
The hypothesis implies that the agencies possess technical information unavailable to industry. That is
implausible, because EPA has made considerable efforts since the early 2000s to share fuel-economy
information with the trucking industry, its leading firms, and trade associations. Surely the agencies'
general position that fuel-saving technology more than pays for itself is now well known throughout the
industry, which has been subject to fuel-economy regulation since 2011. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1251-A2 p. 12]
Through its voluntary SmartWay Transportation Partnership Program, EPA "has worked closely with
truck and trailer manufacturers and truck fleets over the last ten years to develop test procedures to
evaluate vehicle and component performance in reducing fuel consumption and has conducted testing
and has established test programs to verify technologies that can achieve these reductions."39 The
program is a partnership between EPA and the freight goods industry, including the American Trucking
Association and 2,380 truck carrier firms.40 All of the top 25 U.S. long-haul trucking companies are
SmartWay Partners.41 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 12]
With all the 'verified' fuel-saving information EPA has been providing, semi-truck owners should
exhibit the smallest gap between actual investment in fuel economy and what the agencies consider
optimal. Yet that's where the alleged "energy efficiency gap" is largest. EPA and NHTSA estimate the
rule will save semi-truck owners $144.9 billion in fuel expenditures - seven times more than the rule
will save vocational truck owners ($20.4 billion) and eight times more than it will save HD van and
pickup owners($17.5 billion).42 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.12]
[Table 7-11 can be found on p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
Note: The agencies also assume long-haul truckers will reap the biggest return on investment. Semitruck
owners will have to spend more ($12.7 billion) than vocational truck owners ($7.8 billion) and HD
pickup and van owners ($4.9 billion) to comply with the rule.43 However, the projected benefit-cost
ratio for semi-truck owners (11.4:1) substantially exceeds those for vocational trucks (2.6:1) and HD
vans and pickups (3.5:1). So the gap is largest for that segment of the HDV market that has the most
agency provided information. In short, the hypothesis does not explain why truckers (supposedly)
under-invest in fuel-saving technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 13]
(2) Imperfect Information in the Resale Market. The agencies hypothesize that buyers in the new vehicle
market may not be willing to pay more for fuel-efficient vehicles if buyers in the used market are
unwilling "to pay adequate premiums" for improved fuel economy.44 But why would buyers in the used
market shun vehicles that (allegedly) repay the price premium many times over? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2 p. 13]
To our knowledge, nobody claims the resale market fails to consider the value of technologies that
enhance vehicle reliability, performance, comfort, and amenities. After all, people generally are willing
to pay more for a better vehicle, whether it's new or used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 13]
-------
Why should fuel economy be the exception to the rule? Maybe fuel-saving technology doesn't add
much to the price of used trucks because its money-saving potential is unproven or over-rated. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 13]
(3) Principal-agent problems causing split Incentives. According to this hypothesis, those who own
trucks are often different from those who operate the vehicles. The agencies' discussion here is terse.
According to the Phase 1 rulemaking, operators may have "strong incentives to economize" on fuel
consumption whereas owners may place a higher priority on capital investment that "improves vehicles'
durability or reduces their maintenance costs."45 Even if such split incentives exist, it would still not
necessarily follow that owners under-invest in fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2
p. 14]
There are tradeoffs — opportunity costs — in every investment decision. Whether it is smart to invest
more or less in fuel economy relative to vehicle durability or any other value depends on each firm's
unique circumstances. As the Phase 2 rulemaking acknowledges, "In general, businesses that operate
HDVs face a range of competing uses for available capital other than investing in fuel-saving
technologies, and may assign higher priority to these other uses, even when investing in higher fuel
efficiency HDVs appears to promise adequate financial returns."46 Spot on. The agencies, however, do
not seem to grasp what that observation implies. EPA and NHTSA are in no position to divine an
appropriate tradeoff for the industry as a whole, because the right tradeoff varies from firm to firm, and
within each firm at different times. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 14]
Besides, just because truck operators make the actual fuel purchases does not necessarily mean owners
ignore fuel costs. An owner may delegate many purchasing decisions for many things to other people.
He is nonetheless responsible for the firm's bottom line. The tradeoffs the firm makes between fuel
economy and other investments inevitably show up in the firm's balance sheets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2 p. 14]
Strangely, the Phase 2 rulemaking postulates a split incentive that works the other way - supposedly,
owners care about fuel costs but drivers don't unless offered "financial incentives."47 That the literature
on split incentives is itself split on whether principal or agent undervalues fuel economy is reason
enough to be skeptical of this alleged market failure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.14]
(4) Uncertainty about Future Cost Savings. Another possible reason companies don't adopt fuel-saving
technology as fast as EPA and NHTSA deem appropriate is that "HDV buyers may be uncertain about
future fuel prices, or about maintenance costs and reliability of some fuel efficiency technologies." Thus
buyers may discount potential future savings at higher rates than those used in the agencies' analysis.
"In contrast, the costs of fuel-saving or maintenance-reducing technologies are immediate and thus not
subject to discounting."48 Exactly! Whereas the costs of investment in fuel-saving technology are certain
and immediate, the payoff depends on unknown quantities — the future price of fuel and, perhaps more
importantly, the "lifetime, expected use, and reliability of the vehicle."49 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1251-A2 p. 14]
According to the previously cited report prepared for American Truck Dealers, owners of trucks and
engines designed to meet EPA's model year (MY) 2004 and 2007 emission standards experienced
"significant reliability, operating cost, and fuel economy concerns." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-
A2 p. 15]
For example, it has been reported that for the eighth largest carrier in the U.S., "maintenance costs for
Schneider's 2007 model trucks were about 28.2% higher than vehicles manufactured before October
-------
2002." Reliability is critical for commercial fleets and owner-operators both because of the costs of
keeping trucks in operation and the even greater potential costs associated with out-of-service
equipment. In addition to higher truck prices and operating costs, anticipated reliability issues are often
cited as contributing to the marketplace disruptions discussed herein.50 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1251-A2 p. 15]
Companies are just being prudent when they invest less in fuel-saving technology than they would if
Congress required EPA and NHTSA to compensate truckers for every dollar of projected fuel savings
that fails to occur. As the agencies acknowledge in the Phase 1 rulemaking, mandatory investment in
fuel saving technology "requires purchasers to assume a greater level of risk than they would in its
absence, even if the future fuel savings predicted by a risk-neutral calculation actually materialize."51
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 15]
(5) Adjustment and Transactions Costs. According to this hypothesis, drivers may be slow or reluctant
to make the operational adjustments required for effective use of new fuel-saving technologies, and
owners may be reluctant to incur costs associated with driver training or faster fleet turnover.52 This
hypothesis is tantamount to saying there are costs of innovation. That is true in general, yet competition
continually drives firms in most industries to innovate or get left behind. What makes fuel-saving
technology the exception to the rule? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 15]
The Phase 1 rulemaking offers this explanation: "Because of the diversity in the trucking industry, truck
owners and fleets may like to see how a new technology works in the field, when applied to their
specific operations, before they adopt it."53 Yes! Companies want real — road-tested — information
about alternative investments. As Phase 2 similarly acknowledges, "businesses that operate HDVs may
be concerned about how reliable new technologies will prove to be on the road, and whether significant
additional maintenance costs or equipment malfunctions that result in costly downtime could occur."54
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 15]
Truckers, apparently, take the agencies' benefit-cost estimates with several grains of salt. That does not
surprise us. After all, EPA and NHTSA are stakeholders - organizations with an interest in the rules
they develop and administer. Regulators have an incentive to over-estimate the benefits and low-ball the
costs of their rules, for at least three reasons. (1) New regulations typically increase agencies' power,
prestige, budgets, and/or staff. (2) When mandated technology malfunctions and vehicles are taken out
of service, it's the owners, not the agencies, who must pay for repairs and risk losing customers. (3)
Ideological zeal for 'greening' the U.S. transport system is honored in both agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 15-16]
All of which is to say, the market is not failing when businesses choose to be guided by real-world
results rather than agency forecasts. To their credit, the agencies' Phase 1 rulemaking acknowledges that
"there may be no market failure" in the risk-aversion induced by adjustment and transaction costs,
which, unlike the promised payoffs from fuel-economy investments, "are typically immediate and
undiscounted."55 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 16]
V. Alternative hypothesis: EPA's diesel-engine emission standards have hindered HDV fuel
economy.
Trucking industry profit-margins are thin and fuel is the single biggest operating expense.
Consequently, truckers, especially those who haul freight long distances in "combination tractors"
(semis), should have a strong incentive to purchase vehicles incorporating cost-effective improvements
in fuel economy, and manufacturers, in turn, should have a strong incentive to compete for their
-------
business. Yet the agencies claim to find a gap between current fuel efficiency and what is technically
achievable at reasonable cost. How can that be? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 16]
To some extent truckers may just be behaving like prudent buyers, as discussed above. Many reportedly
feel they have been burned by previous technology mandates. Before incurring the certain and
immediate costs of purchasing agency-approved fuel-efficiency technology, they want to see results -
how much fuel is actually saved and what are the longer-term effects on truck reliability and
maintenance costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.16]
Considerable evidence suggests another, complementary explanation: EPA's emission-control standards
for diesel trucks caused or contributed to the very problem - stagnant fuel economy - the agencies now
propose to solve with more rules. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) presented a case for a
'government failure' hypothesis in its comment on the Phase 1 rulemaking.56 Because EPA's Response
to Comments either inadequately addressed or simply ignored some of CEI's arguments, we will restate
and update the alternative hypothesis here. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 16]
Opportunity Costs: Manufacturers
Every dollar engine manufacturers spend on R&D to make vehicles compliant with EPA diesel emission
standards is a dollar they cannot spend on R&D to increase HDV fuel efficiency. Such expenditures are
substantial. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 17]
EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), published in 2000, for its year 2007 diesel emission standards
rule estimated that: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 17]
- Engine manufacturers would spend $385 million over five years on HDV diesel-engine design R&D
and $220 million in catalyst systems R&D, yielding a "total R&D outlay for improved emission control
of more than $600 million."57 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.17]
- Each of 11 major engine manufacturers would spend $7 million annually to deploy a "team of more
than 21 engineers and 28 technicians to carry out advanced engine research."58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2 p. 17]
In other words, over a five-year period, up to $600 million that might have been invested in fuel
economy R&D was instead invested in emission-control R&D. In addition, up to 540 engineers and
technicians who might otherwise have spent all or much of their time developing fuel-saving technology
instead likely spent all or much of their time developing emission-control technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 17]
EPA's enforcement actions also diverted substantial resources that might otherwise have been available
to enhance fuel-saving technology. During the 1990s, seven major truck manufacturers sold 1.3 million
trucks equipped with "defeat devices" that bypass or disable on-board emission control systems. "These
devices altered the engines' fuel injection timing and, while this improved fuel economy, it also
increased nitrogen oxide emissions by two to three times the existing regulatory limits," GAO
explained.59 EPA launched what it described as the "largest Clean Air Act enforcement action" in its
history. The case was settled via consent decrees under which the manufacturers agreed to pay $83
million in civil penalties, invest almost $110 million in NOX control R&D, and spend more than $850
million to produce cleaner engines by October 1, 2002.60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 17]
-------
The booming market in unlawful defeat devices was itself a reflection of the high value long-haul
truckers place on cost-effective fuel-saving technology. How ironic that EPA punished manufacturers
who promoted fuel savings by mandating $1 billion in expenditures for technologies that did not
enhance fuel efficiency or even (as discussed below) reduced it! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2
p. 17]
Opportunity Costs: Buyers
Every dollar owners spend to buy and maintain trucks compliant with diesel emission standards is a
dollar they cannot spend on improved fuel-saving technology. The RIA for the 2007-2010 emission
standards estimated that the rule would increase vehicle cost by $3,230 in the first year, declining to
$1,870 in later years, and increase operating costs by $4,600.61 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2
P-18]
In November 2008, NERA Economic Consulting published a report on customer responses to the 2007
rule. NERA found that the rule increased the unit cost of a Class 8 truck by $7,000 between MYs 2006
and 2007 - more than twice what EPA estimated. In addition, NERA projected that EPA's 2010 NOX
standard would increase the cost of a Class 8 truck by another $7,000-$10,000.62 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2 p. 18]
In March 2010, Kevin Jones, a reporter for The Trucker magazine, interviewed Daimler Trucks North
America President and CEO Martin Daum at the Louisville, Ky. Mid-America Trucking Show.63 Daum
told Jones that EPA's emission standards added $20,000 to the cost of an 18-wheeler over the previous
six years. As noted above, the 2012 report for American Truck Dealers estimates that during 2004-2010,
EPA emission standards cumulatively increased the cost of Class 8 trucks by more than $21,000. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 18]
Clearly, the standards took large bites out of customers' budgets - dollars truckers could not spend on
fuel-saving technology. The regulation-induced increase in the cost of new trucks since 2004 is roughly
twice the estimated cost of the technology upgrades semis will have install to comply with the Phase 2
GHG/foel economy rule.64 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 18]
Truckers also incurred significant reliability and maintenance costs as a result of the penalties EPA
imposed on the manufacturers who installed fuel-saving defeat devices. As part of the settlement
agreement, manufacturers agreed to "accelerate by 15 months the schedule for meeting new, more
stringent engine standards to October 2002 instead of the original mandatory date of 2004."65 According
to GAO, "Trucking companies maintain they need 18 to 24 months to road test an engine's reliability in
all weather and operating conditions and to develop their future purchasing plans."66 The consent decree
did not allow time for adequate road-testing, and many truckers experienced costly engine problems.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 18]
For example, one company reported that roughly one-half of its 140 new heavy-duty engines
experienced an engine valve failure prior to 50,000 miles. In addition, these officials noted that roughly
20 percent of their heavy-duty vehicles with the new engines are out of service at any given time due to
maintenance concerns, compared to 5 percent for the remainder of their fleet. Several of these officials
expressed a concern that some companies may have difficulty absorbing increased costs from such
maintenance problems.67 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 19]
Tradeoff: Emission Standards and Fuel Economy
-------
In its Response to Comments (RTC) on the Phase 1 rulemaking, EPA acknowledged but summarily
dismissed CEI's hypothesis that mandatory investment in pollution control "crowds out" investment in
fuel economy: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 19]
Only if access to capital is significantly constrained would the industry consider these as alternative
investments. The same principles apply for access to expertise: truck companies could hire additional
engineers and technicians to work on either fuel efficiency or emissions reduction. In the absence of
evidence of "crowding out" of investments in fuel economy, we are left with the puzzle of what appears
to be a great deal of lack of adoption of cost-effective fuel saving technology.68 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2 p. 19]
That response is unpersuasive. Regulatory mandates can have disruptive impacts on the market for new
vehicles, leading to surges in buying pre-compliant vehicles ("pre-buying") followed by revenue losses
and layoffs ("sales cliffs"). As the agencies acknowledge: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.19]
Several of the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers, fleets, and commercial truck dealerships informed the
agencies that for fleet purchases that are planned more than a year in advance, expectations of reduced
reliability, increased operating costs, reduced residual value, or of large increases in purchase prices [as
a result of technology mandates] can lead the fleets to pull ahead by several months planned future
vehicle purchases by pre-buying vehicles without the newer technology. In the context of the Class 8
tractor market, where a relatively small number of large fleets typically purchase very large volumes of
tractors, such actions by a small number of firms can result in large swings in sales volumes. Such
market impacts would be followed by some period of reduced purchases that can lead to temporary
layoffs at the factories producing the engines and vehicles, as well as at supplier factories, and
disruptions at dealerships.69 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.19]
The report prepared for American Truck Dealers contains a chart showing the regulation-induced surge
in pre-buy orders before consent decree standards took effect in 2002, following by a slump, and
another surge in pre-buy orders in 2006 before the MY 2007 standards took effect, again followed by a
slump.70 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 19-20]
[Figure 1, Annual US Retail Sales for Class 4-8 Heavy-Duty Trucks', can be found on p.20 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
Manufacturers experienced non-trivial employment impacts as a consequence of the pre-buy/sales cliff
swings: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.20]
For example, when faced with declining sales following the pre-buy, Volvo laid off 300 workers in
March of 2001 and another 300 workers in April of that year. In 2006, Volvo's Deputy Chief Executive
Officer warned that the new environmental regulations would cause such a precipitous decline in sales
that Volvo would have no choice but to lay off more people. Volvo ended up laying off nearly 600
workers in 2006; the direct result of the new emissions mandates. Also in 2006, Peterbilt cut their
workforce by almost half. Freightliner laid off nearly 1,800 workers in 2007, followed by another layoff
of 2,100 workers, and the complete shut down a manufacturing plant in 2009.71 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2p.20]
Clearly, EPA emission standards have the power to "significantly constrain" manufacturers' sales and
work forces in particular years. Why should access to capital and expertise be immune to such effects?
As a general matter, moreover, we find it hard to believe manufacturers would incur no opportunity
-------
costs from continual increases in regulatory stringency and a $ 1 billion enforcement action. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.20]
The RTC simply ignores the other side of the equation - the opportunity cost imposed on truck buyers
by emission standards that increase the costofnew vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.20]
More importantly, the RTC also ignores the point, widely acknowledged in the literature, that it is
difficult and/or costly to boost (or maintain) diesel fuel economy while reducing diesel emissions.
Consider this excerpt from a paper by diesel emission-control expert W. Addy Majewski: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.21]
We should also mention that there is a certain cost for meeting these ambitious emission standards with
future diesel engines. This cost consists of two components: (1) the cost of the emission control
equipment and (2) a fuel economy penalty. The first component can vary greatly depending on the
technology (some of which relies on expensive precious metal catalysts). The fuel economy penalty
may be derived from a number of sources. First, traditionally there has been a correlation between
engine-out NOX emissions and fuel consumption in the diesel engine, where higher engine efficiency
and better fuel economy are associated with higher NOX. Second, exhaust after-treatment devices are
associated with a varying additional fuel economy penalty caused by such factors as increased pressure
drop and energy consumption for the regeneration of filters and/or NOX adsorbers. In the case of SCR
catalysts, while there may be no direct fuel economy penalty, operating costs are increased by the cost
of urea.72 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.21]
Despite decades of technological advances, the Volkswagon scandal indicates that emission standards
continue to impose a fuel-economy tradeoff on diesel-powered passenger vehicles. Why did VW take
the insane risk of installing unlawful defeat devices in 11 million vehicles? Apparently, VW believed
cheating on emissions tests was the only way to give consumers all the fuel-economy and performance
they wanted at prices they could afford. As a recent article in Wired explains: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2 p.21]
Once the sting of the lie fades, the US customers who bought 482,000 of those cars will feel the real
pain. Because Volkswagen will be forced to recall those vehicles and somehow make them meet federal
standards. There are two apparent ways to do that, and owners who value performance, fuel economy,
and trunk space won't like either. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.21]
One is to "reflash" the engine control module, recalibrating the software so the car always runs the way
it does during EPA testing, and always meets emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2
p.21]
The downside here is that to achieve the drastic drop in NOX emissions, the cars in test mode sacrificed
some fuel economy, or performance. Just how much is hard to say, but any drop in torque - one great
thing about diesels is how they accelerate off the line - will not make drivers happy. And a drop in
mileage would likely cost VW, since hundreds of thousands of drivers would have to spend more on
fuel than VW promised at the time of sale. . . . [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.21]
The standard way of making a diesel run cleanly is to use selective catalytic reduction, a chemical
process that breaks NOX down into nitrogen and water. Part of that process includes adding urea to the
mix. The super effective system can eliminate 70 to 90 percent of NOX emissions, and is used by other
diesel manufacturers like Mercedes and BMW. The downside is that it adds complication to the system,
-------
and cost - $5,000 to $8,000 per car. And you need to periodically add the urea-based solution to your
car to keep it working.73 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.21-22]
GAO's report on EPA's 1998 enforcement action against truck manufacturers who sold 1.3 million
illegal defeat devices has already been noted. That this unlawful practice was the industry norm for
years also attests to a non-trivial tradeoff between lower emissions and higher mileage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1251-A2p.22]
As mentioned, because the settlement agreement accelerated from January 2004 to October 2002 the
schedule for producing less polluting vehicles, which did not allow truck owners adequate time to
roadtest those vehicles, owners engaged pre-buying. In the months preceding the October 2002
deadline, demand for new vehicles with older technology surged. According to GAO, roughly 19,000 to
24,000 (20%-26%) of the 93,000 large semis (Class 8 trucks) produced during April to September 2002
were prebuys. Conversely, sales of compliant vehicles after the deadline were much lower than EPA
had projected. Data for the first 13 of the 15 months "show that about 148,000 fully or partially
compliant heavy-duty diesel engines are on the road, compared to EPA's estimate of 233,000 such
compliant engines for the entire 15-month time frame."74 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.22]
GAO found three main reasons for the pre-buy surge: (1) Trucks equipped with older emission-control
technology costs several thousand dollars less than trucks with the new emission-control technologies;
(2) the settlement agreement did not give the market time to sort out the effects of the new technologies
on truck durability and maintenance; and (3) the technologies were expected to reduce fuel economy.
GAO stated: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.22]
The four companies that pre-bought large numbers of trucks before the October 2002 deadline did so
primarily because they were concerned about the higher price and unproven reliability of the new
engines, according to company officials. They said that the new engines would have added from $1,500
to $6,000 to the purchase price of a new heavy-duty truck—whose base cost is about $96,000—and
would have reduced fuel economy by 2 to 10 percent. For 2002, these additional costs could have
ranged from about $4 million to $27 million per company in purchase price and about $3 million to $90
million per company in fuel costs. These trucking officials said that these additional costs would have
been problematic for some companies because, according to one representative, the industry only
returns 3 or 4 cents per dollar invested.75 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.22]
Industry expected further adverse impacts on fuel economy from EPA's 2007 diesel emission standards
rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.23]
Because the technologies needed to meet the 2007 standards are much more advanced than those
associated with prior upgrades, the trucking companies are concerned that the new engines will cost
much more and decrease fuel efficiency much more than EPA predicted in 2000 when it was developing
the standards. Consequently, according to representatives of 9 of the 10 trucking companies we
contacted, companies most likely will once again decide to buy trucks before the deadline, but in larger
numbers than they did in response to the consent decrees. This could again disrupt markets and
postpone needed emissions reductions.76 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.23]
Specifically, trucking industry representatives opined that the 2007 standards would reduce fuel
efficiency by 3-5%. That's a big deal for an industry where fuel is the single biggest operating expense
and profit margins can be as low as 2 cents per dollar earned: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2
p.23]
-------
In addition, these officials are concerned that the 2007 trucks will experience another 3 to 5 percent loss
in fuel economy - added to the 3 to 5 percent loss resulting from the consent decrees - that could
increase their companies' fuel costs by millions of dollars per year. Even minor increases in business
costs can have adverse effects in the trucking industry, according to trucking industry officials we
contacted, because these companies' profit margins are very narrow - sometimes only 2 cents per dollar
earned. The officials claim that the highly competitive nature of the trucking business precludes
companies from passing such significant cost increases to their customers.77 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2p.23]
In short, the industry representatives interviewed by GAO estimated the 2007 Rule combined with the
consent decree could lower heavy-truck fuel economy by as much as 10%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1251-A2 p.23]
In April 2007, Robert Guy Matthews reported in the Wall Street Journal that new trucks compliant with
EPA diesel emission standards "got worse mileage" than older trucks. The fuel-economy penalty was
big enough to affect company bottom lines: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.23]
Previous-generation trucks average about nine or 10 miles to each gallon of diesel fuel. New engines
designed to meet the more-stringent federal mandate on truck exhaust get about one mile less to the
gallon. That may not seem like much, but it all adds up for large fleet owners that operate trucks
crisscrossing the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.23]
"For every additional mile-per-gallon lost, it costs us about $10 million in [total annual] fuel costs," said
YRC Worldwide Chief Executive Bill Zollars. YRC is one of the largest transportation providers in the
country, operating a fleet of 20,000 trucks. . . . [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.23]
Freightliner LLC, the largest heavy-duty truck maker in North America, confirmed that some loss of
fuel economy was inevitable for engines to comply with the new standards. Certain parts of the engine
must run at a higher temperature to burn off pollutants, and that requires more fuel.78 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1251-A2p.24]
To meet EPA's MY 2004 NOX emission standards, new trucks required exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) technology. EPA predicted that fuel injection, variable geometry, and turbocharging would offset
any EGR-associated fuel-economy penalty, and projected no drop in fuel economy from the MY 2007-
2010 requirements. According to the report prepared for American Truck Dealers: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1251-A2p.24]
EGR systems may be effective at reducing NOX emissions, but they undeniably reduce the fuel
economy performance that would otherwise have been achieved. For example, Judy McTigue, director
of marketing and planning research for Kenworth Trucks, stated that "2007-compliant engines equipped
with exhaust gas recirculation systems suffered a fuel economy penalty of 5% to 9%." EGR systems
also contributed to a loss of 50 to 100 horsepower from heavy-duty engines.79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1251-A2p.24]
If we also factor in the opportunity costs of EPA's emission standards program — foregone investment
in fuel-saving technology R&D, foregone purchases of more fuel-efficient trucks - it is possible that
EPA's regulatory and enforcement actions account for all of perceived problem of lagging fuel economy
in the heavy truck sector. Were it not for truckers' use of regulatory avoidance strategies - buying trucks
equipped with defeat devices in the 1990s, pre-buying older engines, and low-buying compliant engines
-------
in the 2000s — heavy-truck fuel economy might be even lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2
p.24]\
EPA and NHTSA acknowledge the reality of a "NOX- C02 tradeoff," but only as a rationale for using
the "same test procedures" for both NOX and C02 to discourage engine manufacturers from gaming
emission tests.80 They discuss several "hypotheses" to explain industry's alleged "under-investment" in
fuel-saving technology without ever wondering whether the regulatory environment in which truckers
operate might have something to do with it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.24]
Substantial evidence indicates that, during the 2000s, EPA's diesel-truck emission standards held back
HDV fuel efficiency and imposed significant opportunity costs on both manufacturers and truckers.
Insofar as there is an "energy-efficiency gap," it appears to be an example of regulation-induced
government failure rather than of market failure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.25]
35 80 FR 40165
36 80 FR 40435
37 Draft RIA, 8-12
38 80 FR 40436-40438
39 80 FR 40148
40 EPA, SmartWay, Partner and Affiliate Lists (accessed September 10, 2015),
http://www.epa.gOv/smartway/about/partnerlists.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/smartway/about/partnerlists.ht
m
41 JOC.Com, "Top 25 Truckload Companies," September 10, 2015,
http://www.joc.com/sites/default/files/u48801/46-specTop25Truck_bwcb%20copy.jpg
42 Draft RIA, 7-13, Table 7-11
43 Draft RIA, 7-11, Table 7-8
44 80 FR 40435
45 EPA, NHTSA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 75 FR 74306, November 30, 2010,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-11 -30/pdf/2010-28120.pdf
46 80 FR 40437
47 80 FR 40437
48 80 FR 40436
-------
49 75 FR 74306
50 Calpin and Plaza-Jennings, p. 13. "Marketplace disruptions" (about which, more below) refer to
surges in buying pre-compliant vehicles ("pre-buying") and the subsequent revenue losses and
manufacturing layoffs ("sales cliffs") after regulatory standards kick in.
51 75 FR 74306
52 80 FR 40436
53 75 FR 74306
54 80 FR 40437
55 75 FR 74306
56 Mario Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute, comment letter on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, Docket
ID No. NHTSA-2010-0079 and/or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162, January 31, 2011,
https://cei.0rg/sites/default/f1les/M arlo%20Lewis%20Competitive%20Enterprise%20Comment%20on%
20EPA%20NHTSA%20Proposed%20Fuel%20Economy%20Standards%20for%20HD%20Vehicles.pdf
57 EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis, Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel
Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, vi, December 2000 (hereafter EPA, 2000 RIA),
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hdhwy/2000frm/420r00026.pdf
58 EPA, 2000 RIA, V-20
59 Government Accounting Office, Air Pollution: EPA Could Take Additional Steps to Help Maximize
the Benefits of the 2007 Diesel Emission Standards, March 2004, p. 11 (hereafter GAO),
http://www.globalwarming.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/gao-epa-diesel-truck-emission-standards-
2004.pdf
60 GAO, pp. 11-12
61 EPA, 2000 RIA, vi
62 David Harrison and Mark Lebel, Customer Behavior in Response to the 2007 Heavy-Duty Engine
Standards: Implications for the 2010 NOX Standard, NERA Economic Consulting, pp. 3, 13, November
14, 2008 (hereafter NERA),
http://www.ooida.eom/Documents/NERA_2010_NOx_Standard_Report.pdf
63 Kevin Jones, "Daum: Double-digit mpg achievable, not affordable - yet," TheTrucker.Com, March
26,2010,
http://www.thetrucker.eom/News/Stories/2010/3/26/DaumDoubledigitmpgachievablenotaffordable%E2
%8 0%94yet. aspx
64 Draft RIA, p. 7-4
-------
65 GAO, p. 12
66 GAO, p. 6
67 GAO, p. 20
68 EPA, Response to Comments Document for Joint Rulemaking, Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards
and Fuel Economy Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, August 2011, p. 14-
19, http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420rl 1004.pdf
69 80 FR 40155
70 Calpin and Plaza-Jennings, p. 3
71 Calpin and Plaza-Jennings, p. 5
72 W. Addy Majewski, Diesel Emission Control, DieselNet Technology Guide (accessed September 24,
2015), https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/engine_control.php
73 Alex Davies, "VW Owners Aren't Going to Like the Fixes for their Diesels," Wired, September 22,
2015, http://www.wired.com/2015/09/vw-owners-arent-going-like-fixes-diesels/?mbid=social_fb
74 GAO, pp. 19, 23
75 GAO, pp. 17-18, emphasis added
76 GAO, p. 7, emphasis added
77 GAO, p. 43
78 Robert Guy Matthews, "Trucking Firms Bemoan Stricter Emission Rules," Wall Street Journal, April
24, 2007, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117737647290679826
79 Calpin and Plaza-Jennings, p. 13
80 80 FR 40182, 40192
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
In the these comments, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) demonstrates the increasing the fuel
economy of medium and heavy duty trucks (work trucks) is an important consumer issue and that the
proposal by EPA/NHTSA will yield substantial benefits to consumers. CFA takes a uniquely consumer
approach to the analysis of performance standards, that asks a basic set of questions, always starting
with the consumer pocketbook question: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.3]
o Will increasing fuel economy save consumers money? Yes, and a well-designed performance standard
will address the clear "efficiency gap in the work truck market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1
p.3]
-------
Our analysis of these questions in the work truck market shows that EPA/NHTSA has taken the correct
approach and set a standard that is highly beneficial to consumers. While we fully support the standard,
the fact that the cost per gallon of saved fuel is only $0.47 and the benefits are six time larger than the
costs, leads us to call on EPA/NHTSA to provide better documentation and support for the decision not
to set the standards at a higher level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.3]
In Section II, we estimate the potential benefits of increasing fuel economy in work trucks based on
several sources including the EIA Residential Consumption Survey, the Department of Transportation's,
National Household Transportation Survey; the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy
Outlook; the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey; and the U.S. Department of
Transportation's, Bureau of Transportation statistics each of which estimates fuel usage by types of
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.3]
o On a per household basis, we estimate that the cost of fuel consumed by work trucks is equal to almost
half as much as households spend on gasoline and almost as much as they spend on electricity. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.3]
Moreover, our analysis in Section III leads us to believe that these fuel costs are recovered from
consumers in the cost of goods and service that rely on work trucks. The pass-through of costs is
suggested and supported by analysis of macro-economic models and widely documented elasticities of
demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.3]
Respondents to national random sample surveys commissioned by CFA understand that they pay for big
truck fuel in the cost of goods and services, and they support standards to improve truck fuel economy.
The vast majority of the public (over 90%) understand that "some, most, or all" of the fuel costs of
heavy-duty trucks, which transport virtually every consumer good, are passed on to consumers. In both
of the CFA surveys, consumers clearly understood the possibility of these savings as nearly three
quarters of the respondents favored requiring truck manufacturers to increase the fuel economy of large
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.3]
As discussed in Section IV, studies by half a dozen research organizations, including industry groups,
the National Research Council, EPA/NHTSA, indicate that a substantial reduction in work truck energy
consumption could be achieved at relatively low cost by adopting technologies that are currently
available. So we look to answer the next logical questions about closing the efficiency gap: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.3]
. Why is there an efficiency gap that appears to impose unnecessary costs on consumers? Because the
work truck market exhibits numerous important market imperfections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.4]
Studies of the trucking sector that are summarized in Section IV indicate that there are market barriers,
imperfections and obstacles that prevent these beneficial technologies from penetrating the work truck
market. Table ES-1, shows the barriers are numerous and substantial. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-
A1 p.4]
[Table ES-1 can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
. Is a standard an appropriate policy and, if so, is the proposed standard well-designed to achieve the
goal of lowering consumer cost? Yes, EPA/NHTSA have taken an approach that will deliver significant
-------
consumer savings. The only question is whether they should have chosen higher levels of fuel efficiency
to deliver larger economic and environmental benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.4]
Our research, summarized in Section V, shows that performance standards are an ideal approach to
overcoming the barriers to efficiency investments when the exhibit six characteristics. They need to be:
long-term, technology neutral, product neutral, responsive to industry needs, responsive to consumer
needs, pro-competitive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.4]
Based on our evaluation of the Phase II standard, in Section VI and summarized in Table ES-2, we
conclude that EPA/NHTSA have done an excellent job designing the standards. While large additional
potential savings lead us to call on the agencies in Section VII to give a hard second look at the factors
that led them to not push the industry harder, the huge efficiency gap underscores the importance of the
major advances the agencies have made in the economic analysis, including: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1336-A1 p.4]
[Table ES-2 can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
o Discount rate: Recognizing real world consumer discount rate of 3% and market imperfections driving
observed discount rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.4]
o Efficiency Gap/Market Imperfection Analysis: Recognizing 30 years of empirical evidence
demonstrating validity of efficiency gap explanation and identifying specific barriers, imperfections and
obstacles that afflict specific markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.4]
o Merging energy and environmental analysis: Recognizing major impact of fuel savings on assessment
of rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.4]
o Macroeconomic analysis: Reconciling important benefit of expansion of macroeconomic activity
resulting from greater fuel economy with realistic assessment of the rebound effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.4]
o National security: Looking carefully at the impact of imports on national security and consumption
externalities created by large U.S. role in petroleum markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.4]
o Effective design of standards: Designing standards that "command but do not control," thereby
unleashing forces of competition to ensure least cost implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-
A1 p.4]
ACHIEVING FUEL COST SAVINGS WITH EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
With such large potential economic gains available, this section offers answers to two important
questions based on the reviews of freight truck sector by several major research institutions: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.33]
Why don't market forces drive these technologies into the vehicles? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.33]
What policies can be implemented to achieve the economic gains? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.33]
-------
The evidence they provide is clear: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.33]
The medium/heavy duty truck market exhibits significant market obstacles, barriers and
imperfections that inhibit investment in energy saving technologies, and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.33]
Performance standards are a very effective tool for overcoming these obstacles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.33]
We examined these questions at length in our comments supporting the recently adopted light duty
vehicles efficiency standard.23 A recent paper on performance standards24 identified over three dozen
market barriers, imperfections and other causes of market failure in the residential appliances and
buildings, light duty vehicles and industrial sectors. Here we add the important findings from the
medium/heavy duty truck sector to our earlier analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.33]
EXTERNALITIES LEAD TO UNDERINVESTMENT IN FUEL SAVING TECHNOLOGIES
Externalities as the source of market failure are well grounded in traditional economic analysis. These
analyses of benefits and costs reviewed in the previous section recognize that externalities play a key
part in driving policies to spur investment in energy saving technologies, but they focus on other
obstacles to investment. Externalities are factors that are not directly included in typical cost-benefit
analysis of business investment decisions. In the case of investing in fuel efficient technologies, the
failure to consider externalities leads to the undervaluation of improving energy efficiency from the
societal point of view and a resulting underinvestment in efficiency because these benefits do not factor
into typical and immediate business decisions. Because these considerations never enter into business
calculations, they are considered market failures. They are distinct from cases where businesses do
make the calculations, but arrive at the results that fail to invest in cost beneficial technologies for any
of a variety of reasons. Different authors apply different labels to the various types of obstacles that
inhibit investment but the underlying obstacles are similar.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.33-
34]
There are negative externalities that result from fuel consumption which do not enter into the typical
business cost/benefit calculations, for example: tail pipe emissions create environmental and health
problems. An externality that is unique to transportation fuel is the national security implications of
dependence on oil imports. While externalities are generally not factored into business decision making,
from a societal perspective they can, and should, be an important factor in standard development. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.34]
While these negative externalities that are reduced by high fuel economy receive the most attention, our
focus in the prior section was on positive economic externalities. Investment in energy efficiency
creates benefits for the broad public for which the firm making the investment cannot charge. As a
result, the indirect macroeconomic effects of energy efficiency do not enter into typical cost/benefit
decisions about investing in energy efficient technologies. While transportation companies capture some
of the benefits in increased demand for their services, each company captures, at best, only a small part
of the broader economic stimulus that reducing fuel consumption would cause. Therefore, such a benefit
would be absent in each company's typical internal cost benefit analysis of fuel saving technology. This
category of externalities has expanded recently well beyond the public goods aspect that was identified
in traditional economic analysis to include information and learning, network effects and innovation
process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.34-35]
-------
Similarly, U.S. consumption of transportation fuels is sufficiently large that a reduction in the quantity
consumed has the effect of lowering the global (and therefore the national) price of crude oil. The public
enjoys a large benefit, but the firms investing in efficiency receive only a small part of that total benefit
because each individual firm receives a very small share of the total. This is called a consumption
externality.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.36]
In the freight truck sector, the link between efficiency induced fuel cost savings and positive economic
impacts is particularly strong. Transportation is an important intermediate service. When truckers drive
more, they are very likely to be carrying more goods or delivering more services, which means that the
economy is expanding. Where the increase in truck freight results from a shift between transportation
modes, it likely reflects the selection of a more efficient mode, which again indicates an improvement in
the economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.36]
MARKET OBSTACLES, BARRIERS AND IMPERFECTIONS INHIBITING INVESTMENT
In all of the economic analyses of efficiency discussed earlier, only direct economic costs and benefits
were included. No value was placed on environmental or national security benefits; however these are
significant additional benefits. Even though we did not include externalities in the cost benefit
calculation, we found that the benefits far exceeded the costs. EPA reached exactly the same conclusion
in the Phase I analysis. Since externalities cannot explain the failure of firms to invest in these attractive
technologies, EPA shifts it attention to the other factors that inhibit investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1336-A1 p.36]
Not surprisingly, given the strong evidence of many factors that inhibit efficiency in the other sectors
demonstrated in our earlier analysis,29 we find strong support for similar factors in the medium and
heavy duty truck sector. Table V-l shows the results of the analysis of the obstacles to investment in
efficiency in the medium/heavy duty truck sector prepared by three major independent institutions. It
also identifies the major documents upon which they rely. We also include the EPA/NHTSA Phase I
analysis of the truck market, which has been vetted through litigation. In constructing this table, we use
the same criteria as we applied in the analysis of Performance Standards - including empirical studies or
summaries of the empirical literature from the past ten years. These studies support our findings in
several important ways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.36]
[Table V-l can be found on p.37-38 ofdocket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
While some argue that there are no market barriers and imperfections to inhibit investment in energy
saving technologies in the medium and heavy duty truck sector,30 the failure to make the previously
cited investment in technologies, in spite of their clear benefits, indicates that there are significant
inhibitors at work that have created an "efficiency gap." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.38]
In the Phase I analysis, EPA identified six broad categories of factors that have been offered as
explanations for the failure of the truck market to pursue investment opportunities in fuel saving
technologies that appear to be cost effective. The other major analyses identify these obstacles and
several more, adding a great deal of detail. The findings from the medium and heavy duty truck sector
reinforce several of the key aspects of our earlier analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.38-
39]
o The analysis involves commercial enterprises, which affirms the fact that economic motivation alone
does not ensure optimum investment in efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.39]
-------
o Many of the same factors are confirmed as important obstacles to energy saving investment on both
the supply and the demand sides of the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.39]
o The supply and the demand sides interact and reinforce each other in a vicious circle. Policies that can
break the circle are extremely attractive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.39]
o The diffusion of innovation unfolds as a process in which the early challenge is to provide reliable,
verifiable information to trigger the diffusion process. Experience allows the sharing of information
later in the process, which creates different challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.39]
The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(EPA/NHTSA) examined the evidence that these barriers affect the truck market and summarized their
conclusion as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.39]
On the other hand, the short payback period required by buyers of new trucks is a symptom that
suggests some combination of uncertainty about future cost savings, transaction costs, and imperfectly
functioning market. In addition, widespread uses of tractor-trailer combinations introduces the
possibility that owners of trailers have weaker incentives than truck owners to adopt fuel-saving
technology for their trailers...[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.39]
[B]ecause individual results of new technologies vary, new truck purchasers may find it difficult to
identify or verify the effects of fuel saving technologies. Those who are risk averse are likely to avoid
new technologies out of a concern over the possibility of inadequate returns on the investment, or with
other impacts....[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.39]
Both baselines used project substantially less adoption than the agencies consider to be cost-effective.
The agencies will continue to explore reasons for this slow adoption of cost-effective
technologies.31 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.39]
The report from the International Council on Clean Transportation summarized the supply-and demand
side factors that inhibit innovation with a simple graph that depicts a recursive loop of factors that
reinforce one another, as shown in Figure V-l. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.39]
[Figure V-l can be found on p.41 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
Given the thorough review by EPA/NHTSA, the NRC, and the International Council for Clean
Transportation, as well as our own, suffice it to say that there is a significant energy efficiency gap in
the medium and heavy duty truck market and there is no reason to doubt the economic analysis of the
potential benefits of closing that gap. In fact, the benefits have likely been underestimated, not only
because the full value of externalities has not been included in the economic analyses, but also because
the costs of implementing the standards have likely been overestimated, as discussed below. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.41]
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AS A POLICY TOOL TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES TO
INVESTMENT
These reviews of the literature on obstacles to investment in efficiency in the medium and heavy duty
truck sector also identify and discuss the ways that performance standards can improve the market
performance. The regulatory analyses are required to consider alternatives. They do not conclude that
the alternatives (like simple information programs) will have no impact, but that the alternatives do not
-------
address key obstacles effectively. As we showed in our Performance Standards paper, standards are
attractive because they effectively address a wide range of obstacles. As shown in Table V-l, above, in
the medium/heavy duty truck sector these beneficial effects include the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.41-42]
Partially internalize the externalities
Provides experience with the new technologies, lowering hidden costs.
Creates the market by embedding the technology in products, thereby lowering marketplace risk and
risk of being the first mover.
Triggers learning and economies of scale that lower cost
Generates and makes available reliable information in a standardized manner
Fosters cooperation, as the efficiency attribute is giver higher visibility [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.42] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.42]
We believe that one of the other major findings of our earlier analysis of fuel economy and performance
standards applies in the medium/heavy duty truck sector as well. In order to effectively achieve the large
net benefits, performance standards must be well-designed and carefully implemented. The following
characteristics, which were critical for the success in the adoption of fuel economy standards for
automobiles and light duty trucks, can successfully guide the development of performance for medium
and heavy duty trucks: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.42] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-
A1 p.42]
Long-Term: Setting a progressively rising standard that targets a high long term goal over the course of
a decade or more will foster and support a long-term perspective for the truck manufacturers,
transportation companies and public, by reducing the marketplace risk of investing in new technologies.
The long-term view gives the truck makers time to re-orient their thinking, retool their plants and help
re-educate the transportation industry. It also gives the industry buying and using these trucks time to
adjust. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.42]
Technology Neutral: Taking a technology neutral approach to a long term standard unleashes
competition around the standard that ensures that the industry will get a wide range of choices at that
lowest cost possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.42]
Product Neutral: The new attribute-based approach to standards accommodates buyer preferences; it
does not try to supplant them. This levels the playing field between truck makers and removes any
pressure to push inappropriate vehicles into the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.43]
Responsive to industry needs: As was done in the light vehicle standards, establishing a long term
performance standard recognizes the need to keep the standards in touch with reality. The standards can
be set at a moderately aggressive level that is clearly beneficial and achievable. With thoughtful cost
estimates, consistent with the results of independent analyses of technology costs, a long term
performance standard will contribute to the significant reduction of the most significant cost in the
transportation industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.43]
Responsive to consumer needs: The approach to standards should be consumer-friendly and facilitate
compliance. The attribute-based approach ensures that the standards do not require radical changes in
the available products or the product features that will be available to consumers. The setting of a
coordinated national standard that lays out a steady rate of increase over a long time period giving the
market and the industry certainty and time to adapt to change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1
p.43]
-------
Procompetitive: All of the above characteristics make the standards pro-competitive. Producers have
strong incentives to compete around the standard to achieve them in the least cost manner, while
targeting the market segments they prefer to serve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.43]
THE COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS
A final, important observation on the literature of performance standards before we turn to the Phase II
proposed rule deals with the tendency for costs to be overestimated because well-designed standards
trigger the competitive and innovative processes noted above. The analysis often presented in regulatory
proceedings is typically static and based on current costs. On the other hand, a thoughtful, well-designed
performance standard will be dynamic and facilitate multiple responses to standard compliance rather
than mandate specific technologies. If companies are given broad flexibility to meet standards, they will
determine the most cost beneficial approach and they will learn how to lower the cost of adopting new
technologies. History has shown in virtually every other standard compliance effort, the initial cost
estimates always prove to have been too high, as shown in Figure V-2. There is clear and consistent
evidence across a wide range of standards that the actual costs of implementing standards were
consistently well below their original projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.43-44] [This
comment can also be found in section 11.3 of this comment summary.]
[Figure V-2 can be found on p.44 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1] [This
comment can also be found in section 11.3 of this comment summary.]
We then examine the explanation (theory) offered for why these costs and benefits have not been
reflected in market transactions. Here we address both the issue of market imperfections and the pass-
through of fuel costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.45] [This comment can also be found in
section 11.3 of this comment summary.]
Finally, we evaluate the overall design of the rule, according to the six criteria identified in the previous
section. Because there are potentially large additional savings, we conclude with a section devoted to
the question of whether the agencies have set the standards at a sufficiently high level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.45] [This comment can also be found in section 11.3 of this comment summary.]
The Efficiency Gap and Discount Rates
In justifying the rule, the agencies begin by reprising the explanation offered in defense of the Phase I
rule, pointing to five specific market failures and imperfections. They then review recent research and
not only conclude that those five factors are still relevant, but they add several others that might come
into play. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1336-A1 p.49]
In the HD Phase 1 rulemaking (which, in contrast to these proposed standards, did not apply to trailers),
the agencies raised five hypotheses that might explain this energy efficiency gap or paradox: Imperfect
information in the new vehicle market... Imperfect information in the resale market:.. Principal-agent
problems causing split incentives... Uncertainty about future fuel cost savings... Adjustment and
transactions costs....[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.49]
All of the recent research identifies split incentives, or principal-agent problems, as a potential barrier to
technology adoption... Uncertainty about future costs for fuel and maintenance, or about the reliability
of new technology, also appears to be a significant obstacle that can slow the adoption of fuel-saving
technologies... access to capital can be a significant challenge to smaller or independent businesses, and
that price is always a concern to buyers... Other potentially important barriers to the adoption of
-------
measures that improve fuel efficiency may arise from "network externalities," where the benefits to new
users of a technology depend on how many others have already adopted it.... Some businesses that
operate HDVs may also be concerned about the difficulty in locating repair facilities or replacement
parts, such as single-wide tires... Manufacturers may be hesitant to offer technologies for which there is
not strong demand, especially if the technologies require significant research and development expenses
and other costs of bringing the technology to a market of uncertain demand... it can take years, and
sometimes as much as a decade, for a specific technology to become available from all
manufacturers. ,36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 3 6-A1 p. 49]
Clearly, the efficiency gap that the market has failed to close can be readily explained by market
barriers, obstacles, imperfections and failure. EPA/NHTSA go a step farther in this analysis and draw
out an important implication of the pervasive set of market imperfections, something we have been
pointing out in these proceedings for several years. When market actors are laboring under the weight of
significant market imperfections, calculating discounts rates on the basis of observed market behaviors
reflects the totality of market factors, not simply consumer and producer preferences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.50]
EPA/NHTSA stated this observation with respect to payback periods, but it applies equally to discount
rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.50]
In summary, the agencies recognize that businesses that operate HDVs are under competitive pressure
to reduce operating costs, which should compel HDV buyers to identify and rapidly adopt cost-effective
fuel-saving technologies...[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.50]
However, the short payback periods that buyers of new HDVs appear to require suggest that some
combination of uncertainty about future cost savings, transactions costs, and imperfectly functioning
markets impedes this process. Markets for both new and used HDVs may face these problems, although
it is difficult to assess empirically the degree to which they actually do. Even if the benefits from
widespread adoption of fuel-saving technologies exceed their costs, their use may remain limited or
spread slowly because their early adopters bear a disproportionate share of those costs. In this case, the
proposed standards may help to overcome such barriers by ensuring that these measures would be
widely adopted.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.50]
In 2008, we summarized the important role of supply side and market structural factors in affecting
observed discount rates as follows; here we expand on that discussion.38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.50]
We view the apparent high discount rate attributed to consumers as the result of other factors not the
root cause of the demand-side problem. We do not accept the claim that consumers are expressing
irrational preferences for high returns on efficiency investments; irrational because they appear to be a
return that is so much higher than they can get on other investments they routinely have available.
Rather, we view the implicit discount rate as a reflection of the fact that the marketplace has offered an
inadequate range of options to consumers who are ill-informed and unprepared to conduct the
appropriate analysis and who lack the resources necessary to make the correct actions.39 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.50-51]
The apparently grossly irrational discount rate reflects market imperfections and failures, not irrational
consumers, a conclusion that has been clear in throughout the long history of the efficiency gap debate.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.51]
-------
The implicit discount rates calculated from consumer choices reflect not only individual time
preferences but a whole collection of variables that may depress the ultimate level of investment. The
calculated discount rate is affected by consumers' price expectations and their levels of certainty about
these; the extent to which available information is imperfect, mistrusted, or ignored; the purchase of
some equipment to quickly replace nonfunctioning equipment rather than to minimize life-cycle cost;
the presence in the market of builders, landlords, and other purchasers who will not pay for the energy
the equipment uses; the fact that consumers with limited capital do not always purchase what they
would if they had more capital; differential marketing efforts for different products, and so forth.
Recognizing such possibilities, some analysts say that the data reflect "market discount rates."40 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.51]
This observation on the market discount rate, combined with the recognition that a 3% discount rate is a
good estimate for the consumer discount rate, provides a realistic framework for understanding
consumer discount rates and applying them in economic analyses. We applaud the agencies for arriving
at this view and encourage them to affirm both in the final rule so that future rulemakings can be
grounded on this solid basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.51]
While the very large potential benefits lead us to call on the agencies to give a hard second look at the
other factors that have led it to not push the industry harder, we believe that the huge efficiency gap also
sends another strong message that should not be lost in the dickering over standard levels. The massive
efficiency gap is testimony to a market that has performed abysmally for an extended period of time.
We urge the agencies to seize the clear evidence on the failure of the medium/heavy duty truck market
with respect to efficiency to transform the terrain of decision making in setting standards. As discussed
above, they have moved in the right direction in at least half a dozen ways with the analysis of the
proposed rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.61-62]
Discount rate: Recognizing real world consumer discount rate of 3% and market imperfections driving
observed discount rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.62]
Efficiency Gap/Market Imperfection Analysis: Recognizing 30 years of empirical evidence
demonstrating validity of efficiency gap explanation and identifying specific barriers, imperfections and
obstacles that afflict specific markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.62]
Merging energy and environmental analysis: Recognizing major impact of fuel savings on
assessment of rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.62]
Macroeconomic analysis: Reconciling important benefit of expansion of macroeconomic activity
resulting from greater fuel economy with realistic assessment of the rebound effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.62]
National security: Looking carefully at the impact of imports on national security and consumption
externalities created by large U.S. role in petroleum markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1
p.62]
Effective design of standards: Designing standards that "command but do not control," thereby
unleashing forces of competition to ensure least cost implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-
A1 p.62]
-------
We applaud the agencies for crafting the proposed rule with the above factors in mind but urge that a
careful examination be given as to whether greater savings that would benefit our economy and
consumers can clearly be justified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.62]
23 Cooper, Mark, 201 la, Comments of Consumer Federation of America and Consumer Groups,
Proposed Rule 2017 and Later Model Year, Docket Nos. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, EPA-HQ-OAR-20100799; FRL-9495-2 and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
NHTSA-2010-0131, February 13, 2012.
24 Cooper, Performance Standards.
25 Cooper, Performance Standards, reviews the different approaches in the appliance, building, light
duty and climate change literatures. Sanne Aarnink, Jasper Faber, Eelco den Boer, Market Barriers to
Increased Efficiency in the European On-road Freight Sector, Delft, October 2012, introduce these
distinctions for the medium/heavy duty truck sector.
26 Consumer Federation of America, et al., 2012, Comments on the Proposed Rule 2017 and Later
Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, Docket Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799; FRL-9495-2, NHTSA-2010-0131, 2/13/12.
29 Cooper, Performance Standards.
30 Mark Cooper, Performance Standards, examines the arguments in detail.
31 EPA-NHTSA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Economy Standards for Medium and
Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles, Federal Register 76(179), September 15, 2011, p. 57319
36 EPA/NHTSA, NPRM, p. 4043.
37 EPA/NHTSA, NPRM, pp. 40437-40438.
38 To underscore the fact that we have been pushing for the agencies to recognize this important reality
of the efficiency gap, this discussion is taken directly from our 2009 light duty comments (Mark
Cooper, Comments of the Consumer Federation of America, Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Transportation, Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas,
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 40 CFR Parts 86 and 600, 49
CFR Parts 531,633, 537, et al., November 27, 2009, which pointed back to our 2008 comments.
39 Comment of the Consumer Federation of America, on National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Docket No. NHTSA 2008-0089, RIN 2127-AK29;
Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Model Years 2011-2015, July 1,
2008, pp. 38-40.
40 Stern Paul C., "Blind Spots in Policy Analysis: What Economics Does Not Say about Energy Use,"
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,"5:2 (1986), p. 209.
43 John B. Taylor, Economics, Houghton Mifflin, 2nd Ed., glossary.
-------
44EPA/NHTSA, p. 40154, Under
45 EPA/NHTSA, PHASE II RIA, p. 2-16.
46 EPA/NHTSA, PHASE IINOPR, p. 40143.
47 Mark Cooper, Performance Standards, showed the important role that adoption, in the form of
diffusion curves, play in the analysis of the efficiency gap and the design and evaluation of standards.
48 EPA/NHTSA, PHASE II RIA, p. 2-89.
Organization: George Mason University Mercatus Center
Several federal benefit-cost analyses report an energy paradox among firms in competitive markets and
conclude that firms would benefit from mandates to increase the use of energy-saving technologies.
Such findings appear incompatible with neoclassical views that private firms in competitive markets
minimize costs. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, presumes that owners of trailers
pulled by tractors belonging to others underinvest in energy-saving technologies because trailer owners
incur the costs while tractor owners get the benefits. We test this hypothesis by collecting data and
modeling the use of energy-saving technologies as a function of fleet size, the intensity of truck usage,
and proxies for management quality. We find effects consistent with conventional models but no
evidence that different ownership of tractors and trailers is associated with reduced use of energy-saving
technologies on trailers. Regulators should refrain from making claims that firms underuse energy-
saving technologies without first rigorously evaluating evidence for such claims. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1879-A2 p. 2]
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law
The agencies have made several changes to the Phase 2 rule that are consistent with our previous
comments. The explanation of the "energy efficiency paradox" also is consistent with many of our
points on the first-mover disadvantage and the general lack of reliable information available to
consumers. For more on Policy Integrity's views on heavy-duty vehicle regulation, see our comments
on the Phase 1 rulemaking.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1195-A1 p.3]
6 http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/221 l_Regulatory_Report_201 l_Heavy_Trucks_Rule.pdf
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Market factors
Available data and historical trends indicate the agencies include a flat reference truck efficiency
baseline, with the sole exception of improvements in trailers that are linked to California's regulations
that affect trailers. The agencies' continued consideration of fleet-wide vehicle efficiency improvements
in the absence of new regulatory standards is unwarranted. The ICCT has supported many governments
around the world in collecting and analyzing data. Based on our work to date, although technology
improves and fleet-level efficiency improvements occur, there is not evidence to support the assumption
of a new sales-fleet-averaged heavy-duty vehicle fleet C02 or fuel consumption reduction in the absence
of regulations. In the case of analyzing the impact of the Phase 2 standards, including reference trailer
improvements that are linked to the California regulations on trailer efficiency devices is warranted;
-------
however, otherwise retaining flat efficiency characteristics for all engines, trucks, and tractors for
scenarios would best reflect the evidence on historical trends in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1180-A4 p. 17] [This comment can also be found in section 8.2 of this comment summary.]
There are pervasive market barriers in the market, that have long prevented the uptake of even
technologies with very attractive payback periods—for example, 6 months up to 2 years (see, e.g.,
Vernon and Meier, 2012; Roeth et al, 2013). Routinely, just small fractions of the fleet - a handful of
technology-leading companies, representing a small fraction of the fleet, adopt technologies. The
agencies consideration of technology adoption based on precise payback periods in the absence of
regulation does not appear to be based on any empirical analysis of fleet-wide shifts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 17-18]
Organization: Mannix, Brian, George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center
In response to a directive from President Obama,3 and using their respective statutory authorities, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation's National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have jointly proposed a set of standards4 to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions and (almost equivalently) fuel efficiency for medium and heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. In contrast to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards that NHTSA has long
administered, the vehicles covered by the current proposal are almost entirely commercial vehicles used
by businesses - not by households. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.2]
The President said: "[I]mproving gas mileage for these trucks are [sic] going to drive down our oil
imports even further. That reduces carbon pollution even more, cuts down on businesses' fuel costs,
which should pay off in lower prices for consumers. So it's not just a win-win, it's a win-win-win.
You've got three wins. . . And businesses that buy these types of trucks have sent a clear message to the
nearly 30,000 workers who build them: We want trucks that use less oil, save more money, cut
pollution." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A 1 p.2]
Do the proposed standards create a win-win-win? And if they do, why must they be mandated? Isn't the
"clear message" sent by the businesses that buy these trucks sufficient? These are the kinds of questions
that should be answered in the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that accompanies the proposed
standards. Unfortunately, while the RIA contains some good economic analysis, it ultimately makes
claims about the standards' fuel-saving benefits that are not plausible. The majority of the forecast
benefits take the form of cost savings by the businesses that buy and use the regulated vehicles -
businesses that are already well-informed about their own cost structure, and are well-positioned to
make the optimum choices. Forcing businesses to make investments that they have thoroughly studied,
and rejected, cannot create economic surplus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.2]
There are, of course, other categories of benefits detailed in the RIA that are distinct from the private
fuel savings. But the credibility of the overall analysis is undermined by the fact that it appears to be
hard-wired to produce a "win-win-win" result. It is as if the analysis contains a "defeat device" designed
allow the standards to pass the benefit-cost test; the RIA demonstrates that the standards will produce
very large net benefits on paper - benefits that the standards cannot possibly achieve on the road. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.2]
It is important to remember why we do regulatory analysis. It is not to serve as a marketing tool, or to
generate political talking points. Regulations have the force of law and, by their nature, are coercive.
Before regulatory agencies use force against U.S. citizens, we ask them to justify it by demonstrating
that the action will do more good than harm.6 That requires an honest appraisal of who is made better or
-------
worse off, and by how much. This RIA is designed to tell a happy story where everybody wins, but it is
a false one. The claim that the private benefits due to the Phase 2 standards will many times larger than
the private costs cannot be reconciled with the basic principles of benefit-cost analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1222-A1 p.4]
Private Benefits
Increasingly, agencies that issue regulations mandating increased energy efficiency have made the claim
that they are producing "private benefits" - somehow making consumers better off by depriving them of
the choices that they would make on their own.20 These claims are always suspect, and are sometimes
justified by a claim that consumers suffer from "internalities" - behavioral anomalies that prevent
consumers (but not regulators) from acting in their own best interest.21 Such claims become especially
implausible in the case of the proposed Phase 2 standards. Under every scenario and set of assumptions,
fuel savings are the largest component of benefits, accounting for more than 50 percent of all benefits.22
Yet this rule, because it applies to intermediate goods (vehicles) that are bought by sophisticated users,
is ideal for illustrating what is wrong with the analytical techniques that are used to produce inflated
estimates of private benefits. The RIA states the problem: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p. 8]
Economic theory suggests that interactions between vehicle buyers and sellers in a normally-functioning
competitive market would lead HDV manufacturers to incorporate all technologies that contribute to
lower net costs into the vehicles they offer, and buyers to purchase them willingly. Nevertheless, many
readily available technologies that appear to offer cost-effective increases in HDV fuel efficiency (when
evaluated over their expected lifetimes using conventional discount rates) have not been widely adopted,
despite their potential to repay buyers' initial investments rapidly. This economic situation is commonly
known as the "energy efficiency gap" or "energy paradox." This situation is perhaps more challenging
to understand with respect to the heavy-duty sector versus the light-duty vehicle sector. Unlike light-
duty vehicles - which are purchased and used mainly by individuals and households - the vast majority
of HDVs are purchased and operated by profit-seeking businesses for which fuel costs represent a
substantial operating expense. Nevertheless, on the basis of evidence reviewed below, the agencies
believe that a significant number of fuel efficiency improving technologies would remain far less widely
adopted in the absence of these proposed standards.23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.8-9]
The RIA notes that one explanation for apparently irrational behavior on the part of regulated businesses
is ." . . requirements of other regulations on HDVs."24 The RIA does not identify what these
requirements are, nor does it explain how issuing conflicting regulations is supposed to make things
better. It offers other candidate theories to explain the anomaly: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1
p.9]
Imperfect information in the new and used vehicle markets. Imperfect or asymmetrical information is
often invoked as a reason to regulate, but it is difficult to make that case here. Vehicle buyers know how
they plan to drive the vehicles, with what loads, under what conditions (altitude and temperature), and at
what speeds. The RIA describes the industry as highly sophisticated and notes that some HDV buyers
actually test the vehicles (including tractor-trailer combinations) for their performance under field
conditions, with actual loads and drivers. This is far better information about fuel economy than EPA
andNHTSA can ever hope to have. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.9]
Principal-agent problems. The RIA speculates that the HDV buyer may not be directly responsible for
its future fuel costs, or the individual who will be responsible for fuel costs may not participate in the
HDV purchase decision. These are routine matters of internal corporate management or marketplace
bargaining. Companies are very good at figuring out their cost structure, and all the evidence in the RIA
-------
indicates that they put a great deal of effort into getting the fuel economy right. The only parties to all
these transactions who may have a principal-agent problem are the regulatory agencies, and that is a
reason to refrain from regulating, rather than a reason to intervene. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-
A1 p.9]
Uncertainty about future fuel cost savings. "HDV buyers may be uncertain about future fuel prices, or
about maintenance costs and reliability of some fuel efficiency technologies." And rightly so. Any
casual observation of fuel prices in recent years leads to the conclusion that investments in fuel
economy, even if they work exactly as intended, are among the riskiest investments that a business
might make.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.9-10]
Adjustment and transaction costs. These include the "costs associated with training drivers to realize
potential fuel savings enabled by new technologies, or with accelerating fleet operators' scheduled fleet
turnover and replacement to hasten their acquisition of vehicles equipped with these technologies." But
these are real costs, and need to be accounted for in the benefit-cost analysis. Regulations cannot create
economic benefits by instructing businesses to ignore these costs. EPA states: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1222-A1 p. 10]
Other explanations for the limited use of apparently cost-effective technologies that do not involve
market failures include HDV operators' concerns about the performance, reliability, or maintenance
requirements of new technology under the demands of everyday use, uncertainty about the fuel savings
they will actually realize, and questions about possible effects on carrying capacity or other aspects of
HDVs' utility.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p. 10]
These are not "failures of the HDV market," however; they are rational business decisions. Regulators'
attempts to override them can only produce net private costs, not private benefits. Take, for example,
uncertainty about fuel savings, which causes HDV buyers to discount such projected savings. One factor
in this uncertainty is the price of fuel; the graph below is the retail price reported by Washington State's
Department of Transportation: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.10]
[Graph can be found on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1]
Investments in fuel-saving technology are among the riskiest investments that businesses make. And
there are more risks beyond the price risk. Right now, millions of buyers of light Volkswagen diesel
vehicles are very disappointed to learn that they are not getting the performance that they thought they
would get. Buyers of HDVs must recognize that fuel-saving technology do not always deliver what they
promise. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p. 11]
Uncertainties like this are one reason why the apparent discount rate that businesses apply to fuel-saving
technologies is so high. Yet the RIA applies discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. It is standard practice for
the government to use risk-free discount rates to its own investments, because the government is large
enough to self-insure, and no one project is more than a small component of a very large portfolio of
government projects. But buyers of HDVs generally are not using government funds. It is inappropriate
to apply the parameters of public finance to private businesses that face real opportunity costs, capital
constraints, and financial risks. It does not create economic value when regulation forces private
businesses to forego higher or more certain investments in order to make mandated investments. Before
applying a risk-free social discount rate to the stream of private costs and benefits associated with a
regulation, the capital costs imposed on businesses and individuals should be converted to a
consumption-equivalent stream, using the actual discount rate of the businesses and individuals who
experience them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A 1 p.11-12]
-------
25 David R. Henderson, "The Economics of Fuel Economy Standards," Regulation Magazine, 1985, 47.
http://object.cato.Org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1985/l/v9nl-6.pdf
26 RIA, p. 8-4.
The most troubling aspect of the private benefit numbers is the extent to which the agencies believe that
coercive regulation, even in the absence of any externalities, will make businesses more economically
efficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p. 12]
Some of these explanations imply failures in the private market for fuel-saving technology beyond the
externalities caused by producing and consuming fuel, while others suggest that complications in
valuing or adapting to technologies that reduce fuel consumption may partly explain buyers' hesitance
to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. In either case, adopting this proposed rule would provide
regulatory certainty and thus generate important economic benefits in addition to reducing
externalities.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p. 12]
The RIA has it backwards. These are not failures of the private market; these are failures of the
economic analysis. Forcing businesses to make bad investments may provide regulatory certainty, but it
emphatically does not "generate important economic benefits." Some businesses may see this type of
regulatory certainty as privately advantageous because it protects them from competitors, drives out
small businesses, and creates barriers to entry and innovation. But this business support is not evidence
of economic benefit; rather, it suggests that there are additional economic harms that will flow from the
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p. 12]
Conclusion
In conducting this Phase 2 rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA have completed extensive engineering and
economic research, which is integrated into a Regulatory Impact Analysis that forecasts large benefits,
mostly in the form of private fuel savings. Unfortunately the analysis fails to recognize that competitive
markets are far better informed, and far better motivated, to pursue these fuel savings efficiently. The
RIA's attempts to explain that limiting businesses' options will make them more efficient are not
persuasive. The proposed Phase 2 standards seem likely to reduce both competition and innovation in
MDV and HDV markets, resulting in additional costs not documented in the RIA. The net effect on U.S.
households will be higher costs, not savings. There are other external benefits that might be used to
justify the standards, but an honest RIA would acknowledge that these come at a price. This is not a
win-win-win proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p. 12]
3 Remarks by the President on Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
February 18, 2014.
4 "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles—Phase 2; Proposed Rule." Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 133, July 13, 2015 (Book 2 of 3
Books), pp. 40137^10766.
6 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review. September 30, 1993.
-------
20 For example, Miller (2015) calculates that private benefits comprise 88% of all benefits from energy
efficiency standards. Miller, Sofie E. "Whose Benefits Are They, Anyway? Examining the Benefits of
Energy Efficiency Rules 2007 - 2014." The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center,
Washington, DC. September 2, 2015.
21 Dudley & Mannix, "Please Don't Regulate My Internalities," Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 2015. http://www.appam.org/pointcounterpoint-please-dont-regulate-my-internalities-/
22 See Table 8-38, RIA p. 8-88.
23 RIA, p. 8-3.
24 RIA, p. 8-4.
27 RIA, p. 8-5.
Organization: NAFA Fleet Management Association
Additionally, the proposed standards place greater strain on driver and technician resources (capability),
which are two vocational areas where fleets are becoming more challenged to hire enough (and
qualified) employees. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.2-3] [This comment can also be found in section
11.12 of this comment summary.]
Many fleets have seen an increase in downtime, which has manifested itself in driver productivity
issues, shop capacity concerns and an overall increase in the number of spare vehicles required to have
on hand to ensure that enough units are available to serve customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1011
p.3] [This comment can also be found in section 11.12 of this comment summary.]
Lastly, fleets have had to increase training significantly to stay on top of the changes that have increased
our technician counts across the country. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.3] [This comment can also be
found in section 11.12 of this comment summary.]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
According to the NPRM, the agencies "recognize that there is some uncertainty in projecting costs and
effectiveness, especially for those technologies not yet widely available, but believe that the thresholds
proposed for consideration account for realistic projections." (Emphasis added). Whereas the agencies
are content with the uncertainty of costs and effectiveness of the technologies, owner-operators do not
unfortunately have that luxury. The livelihood of an owner-operator, who frequently operates his or her
business on small profit margins, depends on affordable and reliable equipment in order to compete and
survive in a highly competitive industry. OOIDA strongly believes that the market should drive fuel
efficient technologies instead of expensive mandates. The agencies stated in their proposed rule that
"both public and confidential historical information shows that tractor trailer fuel efficiency improved
steadily through improvements in engine efficiency and vehicle aerodynamics over the past 40
years." In particular, these improvements have been driven by fleet owners and owner-operators
seeking fuel efficient trucks, as fuel is the number one expense of every trucking operation. The
average one truck owner-operator spends approximately $70,000 in fuel every year.3 If there was
affordable and reliable technology which improved fuel efficiency by 24% over the 2017 baseline, there
would be no need of a mandate, as truck drivers would be more than willing to purchase such
equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.5-6]
-------
As part of the proposed rule the agencies stated, "We request comment on the sufficiency of the
proposed Phase 2 structure, lead time, and stringency to avoid market disruptions. We note an
important difference, however, between standards for criteria pollutants, with generally no attendant
fuel savings, and the fuel consumption/GHG emission standards proposed today, which provide
immediate and direct financial benefits to vehicle purchasers, who will begin saving money on fuel
costs as soon as they begin operating the vehicles. It would seem logical, therefore, that vehicle
purchasers (and manufacturers) would weigh those significant fuel savings against the potential for
increased costs that could result from applying fuel-saving technologies sooner than they might
otherwise choose in the absence of the standards." (Emphasis added). While it would seem logical on
paper, the real-world effect of costly and unreliable technology will prevent any owner-operator or fleet
owner from purchasing such a vehicle. Again, fuel is the largest cost for the owner of a truck, and
therefore reducing fuel consumption is crucial in operating a successful and viable business. Wherefore,
it is of the utmost importance for regulators to allow innovation on part of the OEMs to continue by not
overly constraining engine design.18 If OEMs were able to produce an affordable fuel efficient vehicle,
then both owner-operators and fleet owners would readily purchase them in the market. Forcing
unproven technologies will only impede the agencies objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1
p.14-15]
3 OOIDA Foundation, Owner-Operator Member Profile Survey 2014, OOIDA (July 2014).
18 Complete Vehicle Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucking.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
However, TRALA has several concerns about the Proposed Standards, which we have set forth below:
(1) the industry is self-motivated to conserve fuel, thus reducing GHG emissions through market forces
instead of regulatory mandates [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.2]
The Truck Renting & Leasing Industry is Self-Motivated to Conserve Fuel. Thus Reducing
Tailpipe GHG Emissions through Market Forces. Not Regulation
The truck renting & leasing industry is self-motivated to seek fuel saving technologies without
regulation to mandate that outcome. Through market forces, companies compete every day on aspects of
unit performance, including improved fuel performance. Fuel consumption, of course, is a significant
cost of doing business for fleet owners and operations. Because of this, we question the entire premise
of the regulatory action - i.e., that governmental mandates are necessary to achieve desired societal
objectives. Further, it must be recognized that as a consequence of this, trucks are already highly
efficient leaving few remaining gains to be had. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.2]
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
The cost-benefit calculation is flawed because it fails to give safety adequate consideration and
weight.
The aerodynamic devices specified by the EPA are relative newcomers to the market. Manufactured of
plastic, fiberglass, and light metal, they are easily damaged as the trailers travel over the road and
railroad crossings, or - in the case of trailer tails - as drivers routinely back into docks, fences, and other
trailers. Some number of these devices will become detached in over-the-road operations, resulting in
-------
some number of increased accidents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.17] [This comment can
also be found in section 5.1 of this comment summary]
The additional technologies are also likely to increase accidents and the injuries and fatalities associated
with them. As noted previously, adding the aerodynamic technologies to trailers that otherwise would
run at full permitted weight will mean that cargo equal to the weight of the devices will have to be
transported on additional trips. There is a correlation - some would say direct - between miles driven
and accidents/injuries/fatalities. The Agencies have not accounted for this important societal cost in
performing their cost-benefit analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p,17][This comment can
also be found in section 5.1 of this comment summary]
Finally, the effect of implementing a combination of technologies on a large scale is not yet sufficiently
evaluated to be certain that there will not be unintended consequences. Other than its own side skirt,
Utility Trailer does not know of any other aerodynamic device that has been certified to meet or exceed
relevant DOT regulations. For example, some vendors market devices to cover the ends of axles,
claiming they will reduce drag. But covering the wheel end may reduce airflow, causing the components
to run hotter. Before installing such devices, a prudent manufacturer would require approval from the
axle supplier, the bearing supplier, the hub supplier, the oil-seal and hubcap supplier, the lubricant
supplier, the brake supplier, the wheel supplier, and the tire supplier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-
A1 p. 17-18][This comment can also be found in section 5.1 of this comment summary]
Response:
The agencies discuss the existence of the energy efficiency gap and its role in the market for fuel-saving
technologies for HD vehicles in Preamble Section IX.A. and RIA Chapter 8.2. The commenters display
a split of opinions on the existence of the efficiency gap and possible explanations of it. CARB,
CALSTART, CFA, Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law (IPI), and ICCT support, either
in whole or in part, the agencies' arguments for potential barriers to market adoption. Caterpillar Inc. et
al., CEI, Mr. Mannix (George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center), George Mason
University Mercatus Center (Mr. Lutter), NAFA Fleet Management Association, OOIDA, Truck
Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA), and Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company (UTMC)
express skepticism or raise concerns about the agencies' discussion. Here we first provide responses
related to the supportive comments, and then to the skeptics. In both cases we begin with the general
issues, and then provide more detailed responses to detailed critiques.
11.1.4 Response: Comments supportive of the agencies' energy paradox
discussion
The commenters who are generally supportive of the agencies' discussion for the most part agree that
the energy efficiency gap exists and that the hypotheses raised in Preamble Section IX.A and RIA
Chapter 8.2 provide potential explanations for the efficiency gap. They often provide some additional
support for these hypotheses.
CFA notes that the benefits of the standards are six times larger than the costs and asks the agencies for
"better documentation and support for the decision not to set the standard at a higher level" and "urge
that a careful examination be given as to whether greater savings that would benefit our economy and
consumers can clearly be justified." In fact, the agencies did very carefully consider an array of
alternatives with varying standards and GHG/fuel consumption reductions; our decisions in setting each
standard are well documented throughout our Preamble, especially in our discussions of individual
sectors in Sections II-IV and summarized in Preamble Section X. In the final program, the agencies'
-------
careful assessment of new data and comments has resulted in increases in our estimates of market
penetration and effectiveness of key technologies, leading to increases in stringency such as with the
diesel engine standards. The agencies are adopting these standards because, based on the information
available at this time and careful consideration of all comments, we believe they best fulfill our
respective statutory authorities when considered in the context of available technology, feasible
reductions of emissions and fuel consumption, costs, lead time, safety, and other relevant factors. The
agencies consider the standards to represent a reasonable choice under Section 202(a) of the CAA and
the maximum feasible under NHTSA's EISA authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
CFA expects that the cost savings will be passed along to consumers. EPA has not made a determination
of the final disposition of cost savings; see the discussion of employment impacts associated with the
fuel savings in Preamble Section IX.L.3.C and RIA Chapter 8.11.3.3. CFA argues as well that the net
benefits may be underestimated, due to exclusion of the full value of externalities. The agencies have
monetized external benefits and costs when the underlying research is sufficient to support that
monetization; see Preamble Section IX and RIA Chapter 8 for the benefit-cost analysis, and in particular
Section IX.G. and RIA Chapter 8.5 for monetized GHG impacts, Section IX.H. and RIA Chapter 8.6 for
monetized non-GHG health impacts, Section IX.I. and RIA Chapter 8.9 for energy security impacts, and
Section IX.J. and RIA Chapter 8.7 for other impacts. Preamble Section IX.K. and RIA Chapter 8.10
summarize the benefits and costs. CFA lauds the standards for being long-term, technology neutral,
product neutral, responsive to industry needs, and responsive to consumer needs. The agencies have
considered these factors in its deliberations related to the standards. We agree as well that "the implicit
discount rates calculated from consumer choices reflect not only individual time preferences but a whole
collection of variables that may depress the ultimate level of investment," and that these rates should not
be used for calculating net social benefits.
11.1.5 Response: Comments skeptical of the agencies' energy paradox
discussion
11.1.5.1 General Concern
The concerns raised in skeptical comments generally center on the idea that private markets provide
sufficient incentives to lead to adoption of all cost-effective fuel-saving technologies. CEI, Mr. Mannix,
OOIDA, and TRALA argue that it is "implausible" (Mr. Mannix) that the standards produce "private
benefits," gains to vehicle buyers in fuel savings that exceed increased technology costs, because private
markets should already provide all cost-effective technology. They consider the hypotheses presented
by the agencies either to represent rational, business-based reasons that companies have not adopted the
technologies, such as higher or additional costs, or to be not well supported. Mr. Lutter provides a
working paper that states that the agencies should conduct empirical analysis of inefficiency in firms'
use of technologies before claiming that firms are operating inefficiently.
We note first that the purpose of the standards is not to provide private benefits, as TRALA in particular
suggests; nor are the standards being promulgated out of "ideological zeal for 'greening' the U.S.
transport system" (CEI). Rather, the standards are contributing to EPA's Clean Air Act obligation to
reduce GHG emissions ~ that is, emissions which contribute to the greenhouse gas air pollution which
endangers public health and welfare (CAA section 202 (a)(1)). Emissions of GHGs are "externalities,"
impacts of private market behavior that do not accrue solely to the participants in the private markets.
Those who generate externalities bear only a fraction of the consequences of their generation; as a
result, those who generate them will not have appropriate incentives to avoid their production. Control
of externalities is widely accepted as a rationale for government intervention in private markets. The
fuel savings, in this context, are an ancillary benefit or a reduction in opportunity costs associated with
the GHG reductions, though they are clearly a very large one.
-------
The evidence of these net savings is the expected technology costs and effectiveness. If those estimates
are reasonably correct, and take into account all relevant costs and benefits (including such factors as
reliability), then an energy efficiency gap exists, and the net savings from these standards are real.
Explaining why the gap exists is a separate and difficult challenge, because of the difficulties involved
in developing tests of the different possible explanations. (As discussed further below, Mr. Lutter
presents one such analysis. It examines one particular form of one hypothesis, and does not find
evidence to support that hypothesis). The difficulties in developing tests to explain the gap, or assertions
of the unlikelihood of the explanations offered, do not provide evidence that the gap doesn't exist.
Arguing against the hypotheses that the agencies have offered does not affect the question of existence,
but rather the reasons for its existence.
11.1.5.2 Additional Costs
Demonstration of costs that are understated or not included in the analysis, or benefits that are
overstated, would be evidence that the efficiency gap may not exist. Caterpillar, Mr. Mannix, NAFA
Fleet Management, OOIDA, and UTMC express concerns in particular about maintenance and
reliability problems. Reliability comments are addressed in RTC Sections 1.5 (Lead Time); 3.4
(Projected Engine Technologies, Effectiveness, & Cost); 4.3 (Projected Tractor Technologies,
Effectiveness, and Cost); 4.5 (Compliance Provisions and Flexibilities for Tractor Standards); 5.1
(Trailers, General Comments); 5.3 (Proposed Trailer Standards for C02 and Fuel Consumption); 6.2
(Proposed Vocational Vehicle Standards for C02 and Fuel Consumption); 6.3 (Projected Vocational
Vehicle Technologies, Effectiveness, & Cost); 7.3 (Projected Pickup and Van Technologies,
Effectiveness, and Cost); and 8 (Stringency). Except for UTMC's comments about aerodynamic
devices, the issues raised by these commenters are not specific to these standards nor to these
technologies. NAFA Fleet Management, for instance, cites increases in maintenance and repair costs
from 2008 to 2013 in its comments; the HD GHG Phase 1 program did not begin until MY 2014. The
effects of the standards on maintenance expenditures are discussed in Preamble IX.D. and RIA Chapter
7.2.3. As discussed there, in our continuing effort to provide sound estimates of the benefits and costs of
the standards, the FRM accounts for maintenance costs for more technologies than in the NPRM. The
effects of the aerodynamic standards on trailer safety is discussed in Preamble IV.A(2)(d)).
11.1.5.3 Comments on the Agencies' Hypotheses
As discussed previously, the agencies' determination of an efficiency gap is based on the analysis of
costs and benefits. We agree that the large ancillary benefits from the fuel savings suggest questions
about the efficiency of the market for fuel efficiency in HD vehicles. The agencies have not determined
which, if any, of these hypotheses are true and thus explain the efficiency gap. All of these hypotheses
have been raised in publications or in comments. We review the evidence on each in Preamble Section
IX.A. and RIA Chapter 8.2. As noted above, the positive commenters generally support the plausibility
of some or all of these explanations. The skeptical commenters generally dismiss them either as
implausible, or as arguments supporting the efficiency of the market for fuel efficiency.
Some commenters provide thoughts specific to five hypotheses discussed in Phase 1:
Imperfect Information: The agencies hypothesize that buyers are skeptical of the claims of
manufacturers related to fuel-saving technologies (Preamble Section IX.A, RIA Section 8.2). CEI and
Mr. Mannix find this hypothesis troubling because it implies that the agencies have information on the
effectiveness of these technologies that the private sector does not. In particular, it argues that the gap
should be smallest for semi-truck owners, because the SmartWay Program has been providing that
-------
sector with information for a number of years; yet the savings to semi-truck owners are substantially
larger than the savings to vocational or HD van and pickup owners.
This comparison of gains to tractor/trailers with gains to vocational or HD van and pickup owners does
not provide evidence against the asymmetric information hypothesis, because the differences between
these vehicle types are not limited to access to the SmartWay Program. Class 7 and 8 vehicles travel
many more miles per year: the useful life of a Class 8 tractor, for instance, is 10 years or 435,000 miles
(see Preamble Table III-6), while for vocational vehicles, pickups, and vans, the useful life is 150,000
miles or 15 years (see Preamble Section V.D. 1). This difference in use has a great effect on the
potential net benefits. Second, the diversity of purposes and designs in the vocational vehicle fleet is
much greater than in the tractor fleet; thus, the effectiveness of technologies to address the vocational
vehicle is likely to be much more variable than in the tractor fleet. If there are economies of scale in
developing efficiency technologies, the greater variability in the vocational vehicle fleet may reduce
innovative options in that sector. Because the differences between Class 7 and 8 vehicles on the one
hand, and vocational vehicles, pickups, and vans on the other, go beyond access to the SmartWay
Program, this difference in net benefits does not provide insight into the asymmetric information
hypothesis.
Imperfect information in the resale market. CEI says that, "To our knowledge, nobody claims the resale
market fails to consider the value of technologies that enhance vehicle reliability, performance, comfort,
and amenities." Mr. Mannix similarly argues that "it is difficult to make that case here." As discussed in
Preamble Section IX.A and RIA Section 8.2, Klemick et al. 2015, Roeth et al. 2013, and Aarnink et al.
2012205 found evidence both in favor of and against the hypothesis of imperfect information in the
market for used HDVs.
Principal-agent problems causing split incentives. CEI states that, even if split incentives exist, they do
not necessarily imply under-investment in fuel economy. We agree that the presence of split incentives
does not guarantee under-investment, but we believe that it creates that possibility. Mr. Mannix
considers companies to be capable of solving these problems internally, and regulatory agencies instead
to be the ones with this problem. We agree that its incentives and those of the HD industry are not
aligned; we do not expect the private sector to put the same weight on GHG emissions as the agency
does. We continue to consider private-sector split incentives to be a potential problem in the private
sector.
CEI also comments that the proposed rule "postulates a split incentive that works the other way" - in
particular, that drivers don't care about fuel costs unless they have financial incentives, while owners do
care. This example comes from Vernon and Meier,206 whose study finds that split incentives "have the
potential to significantly increase fuel consumption through avoided investments, insufficient
maintenance, and fuel-wasting practices." In this case, the owner may not face disincentives to install
fuel-saving technologies; in fact, the owner may consider investing in technologies (for instance, a
205 Klemick, Heather, Elizabeth Kopits, Keith Sargent, and Ann Wolverton (2015). "Heavy-Duty Trucking and the
Energy Efficiency Paradox: Evidence form Focus Groups and Interviews." Transportation Research Part A 77:
154-166: Roeth, Mike, Dave Kircher, Joel Smith, and Rob Swim (2013). "Barriers to the Increased Adoption of
Fuel Efficiency Technologies in the North American On-Road Freight Sector." NACFE report for the International
Council on Clean Transportation; Aarnink, Sanne, Jasper Faber, and Eelco den Boer (2012). "Market Barriers to
Increased Efficiency in the European On-road Freight Sector." CE Delft report for the International Council on
Clean Transportation.
206 Vernon, David and Alan Meier (2012). "Identification and quantification of principal-agent problems affecting
energy efficiency investments and use decisions in the trucking industry." Energy Policy, 49(C), pp. 266-273.
-------
variable speed limiter, or an efficient automatic transmission) that limit a driver's ability to use excess
fuel. We raised this possibility, among others where there may be disincentives to technology
investment, as examples of the complexity of motivations involved in fuel savings and the choice of
technologies. As discussed above, our finding of an efficiency gap does not hinge on this one
hypothesis.
Mr. Lutter submits a working paper207 that examines data collected from observing tractors with box
trailers on a convenience sample of 3 stretches of highway and along one road trip. The authors find
that, for the two outer tires observed on one side of trailers, less than half were both low-rolling-
resistance (LRR) trailer tires; some had LRR tractor tires, some mixed tractor and trailer tires, and some
mixed conventional and LRR tires. They offer as potential explanations for this odd mixing that
companies are extending the use of tractor tires on trailers, potential cost advantages in bulk purchase of
tires, management costs, or belief that the correct tires are not as efficient as claimed. They then regress
the existence of side skirts (an aerodynamic device) on controls that include fleet miles per year divided
by fleet size (average miles per truck), log of fleet size, compliance variables, and whether the tractor
and trailer differ in ownership (based on U.S. Department of Transportation registration numbers). They
do not find a statistically significant or negative relationship when the trailer has different ownership
than the tractor. This finding does not provide evidence in support of the split-incentives problem
between tractors and trailers. They conclude that the agencies should review empirical evidence more
carefully "before using estimates of large net economic gains in rulemakings" (p. 30), and allocating
resources to collect data for such an analysis.
As the discussion above indicates, the evidence for the efficiency gap is the analysis showing that cost-
effective fuel-saving technologies are not adopted. Split incentives provide one hypothesis to explain the
existence of the gap. As discussed above, split incentives can take many forms; split incentives
specifically related to the difference in ownership between tractors and trailers are one part of that
hypothesis. Thus, the Fraas et al. (2016) paper is one piece of evidence on one hypothesis. While its
results on side skirts may be consistent with neoclassical economics, it does not actually provide
evidence on the existence of the efficiency gap for side skirts - that is, whether the side skirts save more
money than they cost. We also note that the evidence presented on LRR tires does not suggest best or
consistent practices for use of those tires on trailers. Finally, the paper's conclusion that the agencies
conduct a broader data collection effort suggests that the authors themselves consider this work
exploratory rather than conclusive; we agree with its assessment of the study as exploratory.
Preamble IX. A. and RIA Chapter 8.2 include our review of all evidence that we have found on the
efficiency gap in HD vehicles. While the authors of the paper may consider their data collection efforts
to have been "relatively inexpensive and quick" and therefore easily implemented by the agencies, data
collection by federal agencies is governed in part by the Paperwork Reduction Act, which typically
requires internal and public review of data collection methods and survey design before a data collection
protocol may be implemented. Even if observation of vehicles at specific places were not subject to
those requirements, the agencies would take into consideration potential public response to federal
observation of vehicles before it instituted such an effort.
Uncertainty about future cost savings. CEI and Mr. Mannix agree that this hypothesis may explain lack
of adoption of fuel-saving technologies and characterize it as prudent buyer behavior. As discussed in
Preamble Section IX.A. and RIA Chapter 8.2, if all buyers prudently wait for reduced uncertainty before
207 Fraas, Art, Randall Lutter, Zachary Porter, and Alexander Wallace (2016). "The Energy Paradox and the
Adoption of Energy-Saving Technologies in the Trucking Industry." Working Paper, Mercatus Center, George
Mason University. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1879.
-------
adopting new technologies, then effective technologies may not be adopted. In addition, uncertainty
about future fuel cost savings should provide incentives for a risk-averse company to invest in fuel-
saving technology: if fuel prices unexpectedly increase, fuel-saving technology reduces the impacts.
Adjustment and transactions costs. CEI agrees that this hypothesis may explain lack of adoption of fuel-
saving technologies, as a cost of innovation and the need to have personalized information. As discussed
regarding imperfect information, not having personalized information can be a barrier to adoption. Mr.
Mannix mentions various costs, including concerns about vehicle quality and utility. As discussed
regarding additional costs, commenters have not documented increased reliability or maintenance costs
associated with technologies to reduce GHG emissions; rather, the references are to concerns over
controls of non-GHG emissions, including nitrogen oxides (NOx). Because the technologies for controls
of those pollutants are not the same as those for GHG reductions, any problems associated with those
controls do not provide evidence on problems associated with GHG-reducing technologies.
CEI raises an alternative hypothesis: that EPA's diesel-engine emission standards have hindered HD
fuel economy. While some of what CEI states is correct, it overstates that role in the context of the
energy paradox. It is true that some first generation NOx controls included fuel consumption penalties
as manufacturers retarded fuel injection timing to lower peak combustion temperatures and pressures.
However, the opposite is true for SCR technology, which actually allowed manufacturers to improve
fuel consumption. Another flaw in the CEI hypothesis is that it applies only for engines and engine
manufacturers. It does not explain choices made with respect to vehicle technologies, such as improved
transmissions. For many of these technologies, it is actually the component suppliers that make the
investments to develop technology. CEI provides no basis to believe that emission control costs borne
by engine manufacturers would have any impact on investments by suppliers of other key components
such as transmissions, axles, and aerodynamic devices. Finally, in the context of the likelihood of new
NOx controls sometime during the Phase 2 time frame, the CEI hypothesis would seem to be more
supportive of a flatter reference case than a more dynamic scenario.
CEI suggests that HD vehicle buyers may "pre-buy," that is, increase purchases of vehicles just before
the standards go into effect, and reduce their purchases afterwards, resulting in temporary layoffs. As
discussed in Preamble IX.F.2 and RIA Chapter 8.4.2, the 2010 NAS HD report noted that there was
some evidence of pre-buy in response to the 2004 and 2007 heavy-duty engine emissions standards, but
it also recognized that fuel economy improvements that can offset purchase costs will lessen those
potential impacts. See also Chapter 11.7.2 of this Response to Comments. A working paper by
Rittenhouse and Zaragoza-Watkins (2016)208 investigates pre-buy and identifies it at the time of the
2007 standards, but not around the time of 1998, 2002, or 2010 criteria pollutant standards. They find
that sales and production increased in the 7 months before the 2007 standards, and dropped afterward by
about the same amount. The evidence on employment is less clear; their findings suggest a possible
increase in hours before the standards, but they do not find a decrease afterward. Its data go through
January 2015. It does not examine pre-buy when the Phase 1 standards went into effect; scatter plots of
sales residuals do not show major outliers (that would suggest pre-buy or post-rule reductions) except
for the 2007 standards. EPA disagrees that any lessons from the 2007 NOx standards regarding pre-buy
are likely to apply to the HD GHG standards.
In sum, the agencies find that the commenters have not provided specific evidence to change the results
of the benefit-cost analysis. As a result, we still find an energy efficiency gap. As discussed in Preamble
208 Rittenhouse, Katherine, and Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins (2016). "Strategic Response to Environmental
Regulation: Theory, and Evidence from the U.S. Freight Truck Industry."
-------
IX.A. and RIA Chapter 8.2, we have identified a number of potential explanations for the existence of
the gap, but we make no definitive finding on the cause.
11.2 Vehicle-Related Costs
Organization: ABC Bus Companies, Inc.
On the face value of these extremely large documents, is seems that a huge compliance burden to the
coach manufacture's as well as a huge maintenance burden to motorcoach operators will be a realistic
outcome. This seems to be proven true as we have experienced in the Phase 1 implementation. ABC is
concerned about the long term reliability of increased emission technologies and unreliable cost
estimates that are projected so far into the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p. 1]
The numbers of'Skilled Technicians' available to the motorcoach industry are becoming more limited
every time more and new vehicle technology is introduced. With the average motorcoach fleet being
only 10 buses, it is nearly impossible for an operator to have the expensive tools, software, hardware,
and technical training needed to maintain the technologies proposed in Phase 2. Motorcoach operators
are still trying to cope with the Phase 1 elevated operating costs. Small fleets could be put into a position
to forgo the bus business altogether because of mounting infrastructure costs and federal red tape. The
unintended consequence of these actions would be that more cars and light trucks would be on the US
highways as motorcoach operators could go away. Much of the Phase 2 cost estimates focus on reduced
fuel consumption as reasons for implementing and justifying these proposed standards. However,
estimated fuel savings can be quickly eaten up by administrative paper work, increased equipment costs,
untested technology, stranded passengers, etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1430-A2 p. 1-2]
The current position that CARB has taken forcing Phase 1 technologies on vehicles not engineered to
accept these components has substantially increased the financial burden upon small operators to
provide economic transportation in the State of CA. If this were to occur on a national basis, the same
outcome could be seen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.2]
Given the low numbers of intercity coach bus sales, these motorcoach manufacturers are limited to
components from the Class 7 and 8 truck suppliers. This can mean extra engineering costs and delayed
implementation of proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.3]
Response:
The Phase 1 requirements applicable to motor coaches were predicated solely on an improvement to the
rolling resistance of tires. The agencies fail to understand how that requirement has led to motorcoach
operators having difficulty coping with the Phase 1 operating costs. EPA does not believe that the Phase
2 requirements could lead to more cars and light trucks on US highways due to motorcoach operators
going out of business. EPA and NHTSA have in place a set of GHG and fuel economy standards
applicable to cars and light trucks that will be implemented through 2025. So requirements are being
placed on both industries and both sets of requirements provide very large benefits relative to their
costs. The final standards also provide optional custom chassis standards. One of the subcategories
which could utilize these standards are motorcoaches. The agencies believe that these optional
standards ease the potential compliance burden and address many of the concerns expressed in this
comment.
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
-------
The RIA Section 2.12.3.1 summarizes the cost estimates related to adding two additional gears for
vocational vehicles. Allison believes that the DMC of $413 in 2018 is understated. A more complex
architecture will add weight, and most likely length which will result in a higher material cost than the
transmission with fewer gears. A "clean sheet of paper" design and validation process would be required
and one design would not be adequate to cover the breadth of LHD, MHD, and HHD vehicles.
Additionally, the manufacturing capital costs are higher for HDV transmissions over LDV transmissions
because the HDV manufacturers do not have a common cadence for introduction of changes. This
requires the transmission manufacturer to build both the old and new versions of a transmission until the
market can be shifted to a common configuration. Allison's experience is that this transition time is
years, not months. The capital costs include, but are not limited to facility, machinery and equipment,
and tooling. Since the cost recovery for the transmission manufacturer is included in the DMC,
Allison's assessment it that the DMC is understated to reflect both increased material costs and
investment cost recovery for new transmissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 15]
EPA and NHTSA Underestimate Costs, Precluding Alternative 4
EPA has estimated that manufacturers would need an additional $6.5 Million/year investment for the
years 2021-2024 ($26Million in total) to achieve Alternative 4. It is unclear in the RIA how much of
this investment is for hybrids instead of other technologies. Allison, with the support from an ARRA
grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, invested over $130 Million for a hybrid system for heavy-
duty trucks, which far exceeds hybrid cost estimates in this rulemaking. We recognize that there is
investment as part of the proposal's baseline that is additive to the $26 Million referenced above. In our
view, the amount of investment in this area that would be required to make a significant impact on the
adoption of hybrids in the market is much greater than that assumed by EPA and NHTSA. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.53]
Investments for heavy-duty hybrids will be made by component suppliers, not the vehicle
manufacturers. The battery, inverter, and motor suppliers must make investments in addition to the
system supplier. In this regard - for a small market like the heavy-duty hybrids - a significant
investment, under current conditions, must be seen as risky and unlikely to occur. In general, private
sector investments will only be made if there are reasonable prospects of earning a return on the
investment through volume sales. Since EPA's assumption is that the technology will be purchased by
the vehicle manufacturer at the DMCs as shown in the RIA Tables 2-180, 2-181, and Table 2-182,
investments will be recovered by the suppliers through the DMC. Allison believes the DMC estimates
are significantly too low to account for the total cost of the components and the investment cost
recovery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.53]
As a general matter, Allison believes that many of the costs projected for the regulatory options that
were considered by EPA and NHTSA and that are presented as alternatives in this rulemaking are
understated.18 This underestimation of costs is fundamental to EPA and NHTSA's ability to determine
whether an alternative is consistent with statutory authority that requires EPA to give "appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance"19 and which requires NHTSA to adopt "cost-effective"
standards.20 In this rulemaking, the projection of costs is tied directly to the stringency of standards.
Cost projections affect the estimated penetration rates for different technologies and thereby EPA and
NHTSA's calculation of what level of stringency is appropriate and feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1284-A1 p. 13]
-------
18 For example, the EPA Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis, Report on Additional Case Studies
(RIA Chapter 2 Reference 123) served as a basis for the statement "the direct incremental cost to build a
six-speed wet dual clutch transmission was determined to be roughly $100 less than the cost of a six-
speed automatic transmission. We estimate the components and engineering to design a heavy-duty
torque converter automatic transmission are at least as costly and complex as those to design a dual
clutch transmission. Therefore, the agencies estimate switching from AT to DCT would have zero
incremental cost for vocational vehicles." (RIA page 2-121) Allison does not believe that this report is a
valid basis on which to make relative cost assumptions for HDVs. The referenced report was based on
front wheel drive transmissions with different gear schemes and much higher volumes that offer lower
cost opportunities based on manufacturing processes.
19 CAA section 202(a)(2).
Response:
Allison takes exception to our estimate for adding two gears to an automatic transmission. We have
based our estimate on an actual tear down of a light-duty automatic transmission and have then scaled
that estimate upward by a factor of 6 (based on torque differences between light-duty and heavy-duty
vocational). We believed at proposal and continue to believe that this is a reasonable estimate of the cost
associated with adding two gears to an existing automatic transmission. Allison has qualified why they
think our estimate is too low but, unfortunately, has not provided any quantitative information that
would help develop an estimate that Allison would find more agreeable. Therefore, we continue to use
the same estimate as used in the proposal except for updates from 2012$ to 2013$.
This remainder of Allison's comment is really directed at the proposed Alternative 4 which the agencies
have rejected in the final rules due to concerns over lead time, pace of standard phase-in and overall risk
associated with technology implementation. Further, the proposal did use a cost estimate for the dual
clutch transmission on urban and multipurpose vocational vehicles that was cost neutral to an automatic
transmission, and a cost estimate for heavy HD regional vocational vehicles that was cost neutral to an
AMT, or $3864 (direct manufacturing cost, 2012$, in 2018, see draft RIA Table 2-152). For the final
rules, we are not projecting any use of this type of transmission for compliance. Because we have
rejected Alternative 4 and are not projecting any use of dual clutch transmissions in vocational vehicles,
we believe that the commenters concerns about the cost effectiveness of the standards and concerns over
how that cost effectiveness is impacted by our dual clutch transmission costs, should be obviated.
The commenter also mentions concerns over the R&D estimates, especially with respect to Alternative
4 and hybrid technologies. Importantly, we are not finalizing Alternative 4, but we are projecting hybrid
technologies to meet the final standards. We provide further detail about our R&D estimates below (in
this Section 11.3) in our response to Daimler Trucks North America.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Market Penetration Rates for Certain Tractor Technologies are Overly Aggressive
The agencies' estimated market penetration rates ("MPRs") form the cornerstone of the rule. If these
MPRs are set too high, original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") will be facing an uphill battle from
the start in meeting their targets. The MPRs appear to be optimistically aggressive, resulting in overly
stringent emission standards. The stringency of the standards should be set based on the needs of the
market, realistic goals, and on products customer can afford to purchase. Targets under the rule should
not rely on the optimism of technology providers who stand to financially benefit from the setting of
high, and possibly unrealistic, standards. Customers should not be forced to buy technologies in order
-------
for an OEM to meet a regulatory target. If Phase 2 results in customers being led down a path to
purchase technologies that are not proven, cost-effective, or reasonable for a fleet's applications, fleets
will keep their vehicles and trailers longer and will pre-buy in advance of the changes, followed by a
subsequent no-buy after the new standards take effect. We have witnessed these buying patterns
frequently, the most recent being in 2002 and 2006. A repeat of this pattern will delay both
environmental and fuel consumption aims and impede the success of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1 p.5]
ATA formed a Fuel Efficiency Advisory Committee ("FEAC") comprised of fleet and trailer
representatives to offer perspectives and provide guidance to ATA on the rule. Over the last two years
the FEAC has met with EPA, NHTSA, OEMs, and suppliers on a regular basis to share data,
information, industry survey results, and provide overall input. The FEAC developed 15 Guiding
Principles on the Phase 2 Rule which have served as the framework for ATA's positions.2 Two specific
principles relating to the introduction of new technologies are of critical importance to the trucking
industry, namely: (1) the advancement of GHG and fuel consumption reductions must be based upon
sound science and must be economically achievable, and (2) such standards must not be technology-
forcing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.5]
Another example is the 2004-2010 rulemakings to reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxide
emissions from on-road heavy-duty engines. EPA estimated the proposed standards would add a
cumulative cost of more than $5,000 to a new vehicle. In reality, the trucking industry saw record-
setting cost increases of more than $20,000 per new vehicle, a four-fold increase.6 Ancillary costs
incurred by fleets as a result of these rulemakings include missed and late loads and, in some cases, lost
hauling contracts. Fleet owners also run the risk of losing drivers if they are forced to operate trucks
having new, unproven technologies while other fleets continue to operate vehicles with proven
technologies. The trucking industry can ill-afford to lose any drivers as we currently face a severe
shortage of 35,000 drivers.7 In fact, this figure could balloon to nearly 200,000 drivers by 2025 given
current employment trends. While it remains uncertain as to how costs over a decade away were
derived, it is a fact that several of these costs will be off by several orders of magnitude. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 10-11]
2 See Appendix 1, ATA Fuel Efficiency Guiding Principles (July 22, 2014).
6 Calpin, Patrick & Esteban Plaza-Jennings, A Look Back at EPA's Cost and Other Impact Projections
for MY 2004-2010 Heavy-Duty Truck Emissions Standards, American Truck Dealers (February 2012).
7 American Trucking Associations, Economics Department.
Response:
The agencies respond to market penetration rate comments related to tractors in Chapter 4 of this RTC,
trailers in Chapter 5 of this RTC, vocational vehicles in Chapter 6 of this RTC and pickups and vans in
Chapter 7 of this RTC. Regarding comments pertaining to pre-buys associated with earlier criteria
pollutant regulations, these comments are not germane to this GHG and fuel consumption regulation;
we address such comments in Chapter 15.10.4 of this response to comments.
Organization: BYD Motors
BYD Trucks
-------
BYD's current battery electric trucks are approximately 3 times as expensive as diesel trucks. In order
to reduce the price gap original equipment manufacturers must make sizable investments in research and
development and manufacturing scale. Similar investments have already been made by BYD in the bus
market and as a result current electric buses are priced at only a 60% premium over diesel buses, a
premium at which the fuel and maintenance savings result in approximately a 3 year payback and a
favorable total cost of ownership. We believe a similar achievement is possible in the truck markets,
driven by the following cost drivers: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p. 1] [[These comments can
also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.229.]]
• The largest cost for electric vehicles is the batteries and BYD has achieved a 7% year over year
improvement during each of the last 4 years. We are forecasting a 10% annual improvement
each year through 2020. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p.l] [[These comments can also
be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.229.]]
• Price will also be reduced from scale economies from investing in large scale manufacturing for
components and assembly, and from purchasing power from ordering large quantities from
vendors. Based on similar price reductions from buses and taxis, BYD estimates a 15% price
reduction once our truck models are broadly commercialized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1182-A1 p.l] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1420, p.229.]]
• Lastly, BYD will include amortized engineering costs in the price for initial truck orders. After
recouping those investments from the initial 1,000 orders for each truck model, BYD will be
able to drop price by an additional 10%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p.l][[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.229.]]
These price reductions alone will make electric trucks compelling by 2020. However, customers will
also experience significant maintenance and fuel savings with electric trucks, which will drive
adoption. Fleets generally consider a 3 year payback when assessing these savings. Combining the
price reduction outlined above with 3 years of operational savings results in electric trucks that are more
affordable than diesel trucks, a scenario that is realistic by 2020. An analysis for four different BYD
model trucks is shown below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1 p. 1-2]
[Table of BYD model trucks analysis can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1182-A1]
Response:
The agencies appreciate this comment. We note that our attempt is to estimate costs since pricing
involves many factors outside the purview of our regulatory analyses.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Indirect cost estimates
The NPRM requests comment on the estimation of indirect costs. CARB staff supports the use of
indirect cost multipliers over retail price equivalent multipliers to capture the difference in research
costs associated with varying technology complexities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 183]
-------
Response:
Thank you for your comment. EPA agrees that the ICM approach provides a better cost estimate
associated with regulatory programs.
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
THE COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS
A final, important observation on the literature of performance standards before we turn to the Phase II
proposed rule deals with the tendency for costs to be overestimated because well-designed standards
trigger the competitive and innovative processes noted above. The analysis often presented in regulatory
proceedings is typically static and based on current costs. On the other hand, a thoughtful, well-designed
performance standard will be dynamic and facilitate multiple responses to standard compliance rather
than mandate specific technologies. If companies are given broad flexibility to meet standards, they will
determine the most cost beneficial approach and they will learn how to lower the cost of adopting new
technologies. History has shown in virtually every other standard compliance effort, the initial cost
estimates always prove to have been too high, as shown in Figure V-2. There is clear and consistent
evidence across a wide range of standards that the actual costs of implementing standards were
consistently well below their original projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.43-44].]
[Figure V-2 can be found on p.44 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
We then examine the explanation (theory) offered for why these costs and benefits have not been
reflected in market transactions. Here we address both the issue of market imperfections and the pass-
through of fuel costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.45]
Finally, we evaluate the overall design of the rule, according to the six criteria identified in the previous
section. Because there are potentially large additional savings, we conclude with a section devoted to
the question of whether the agencies have set the standards at a sufficiently high level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.45]
Other benefits include reduced fueling time and increased freight hauling. These benefit the trucking
industry directly and might well be reflected in the reduction of the cost of transportation service. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.48]
The largest source of costs is the technology and maintenance costs of adding fuel saving technologies.
Other costs, involving factors like increased congestion and accidents resulting from carrying more
freight are small. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.49]
Response:
Thank you for your comments and we agree that "a thoughtful, well-designed performance standard will
be dynamic and facilitate multiple responses to standard compliance rather than mandate specific
technologies. If companies are given broad flexibility to meet standards, they will determine the most
cost beneficial approach and they will learn how to lower the cost of adopting new technologies."
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
-------
Alternative 4 - In section 2.7.11 of the RIA, the agencies recognize that the Alternative 4 raises costs to
manufacturers and vehicle buyers due to the pull-ahead of technology, which reduces the possibility of
learning effects and increased mark-ups. We agree with the agencies that Alternative 4 increases costs,
although we question whether the agencies' analysis covers all of the increased costs. 2.7.11 of the RIA
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.74]
DTNA has reservations about the agencies' cost-benefit analysis. First and foremost, the agencies
underestimate the costs (both up-front costs and indirect costs) of several of the technologies on which
the agencies premise the proposed rules. For example, the agencies assume that the cost of an APU is
approximately $3,000 (based on RIA Tables 2-26 to 2-28 for penetration rates and Tables 2-36 to 2-38
for penetration rate-adjusted costs), when in fact the cost is closer to [redacted]. The agencies could
have found correct information just from DTNA's sales information. But instead, by using a cost a
fraction of the real one, the agencies incorrectly found that APUs are significantly more cost-effective
than they really are. Another similar example is the assumption that manufacturers can change the
aftertreatment system for $7. (See RIA Table 2-11, and note that the application rate is or should have
been 100%, as changes to aftertreatment will likely have to be made across the product line due to
certification requirements and the realities of engine manufacturing). Changing an aftertreatment is not
so simple. It involves a major tear up the filter, catalyst, coatings, as well as redesigning the combustion
system in the engine and control logic to align with the new aftertreatment design. Any one of these
changes dwarfs the $7 per vehicle number. In fact, the costs of changes cannot be taken in a vacuum;
each part affects the others (which is why we recommended a full-vehicle approach to regulation).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 127]
Second, in some cases, the agencies used questionable prices for technologies, such as the price of tires,
estimated relying on prices from studies (in some cases studies over 10 years old) as opposed to real-
world data. How have the agencies improved their cost estimates by responding to the comments made
by peer reviewers of the Tetra Tech/Southwest Research cost report? Again, the agencies could have
used DTNA's sales information for realistic prices, which would have resulted in a decreased cost-
effectiveness compared to the agencies' estimates. Third, we believe that the agencies failed to properly
account for the increased maintenance and replacement costs for FE technologies. In the Preamble (80
FR 40325) the agencies state "In this proposal, the only maintenance costs we have quantified are those
for tire replacement, as described in Section IX.C.3." Given that the agencies have stated this rule will
be technology-forcing and the level of sophistication of the technologies the agencies assume will be
used to meet the new standards, it does not seem reasonable to only credit increased maintenance costs
to that of low rolling resistance tires. For example, based on the agencies' assumed market of APUs - it
should be the case that these stand-alone diesel engines will require maintenance at regular intervals
which will increase overall maintenance costs of a vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.127]
Again, the agencies could have used DTNA's sales information for realistic prices, which would have
resulted in a decreased cost-effectiveness compared to the agencies' estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. 128]
Third, the agencies underestimate the costs of research and development required to bring to market the
technologies on which the regulations were premised. The agencies assume $240M per year for four
years to develop all of the technologies required for the Phase 2 program, for a total of $960M. By
comparison, the Super Truck program cost approximately $80M and took five years, yet it involved just
one type of vehicle and did not require R&D into manufacturing processes. The agencies expect that
manufacturers could do the necessary R&D on hundreds of types of disparate vehicles and their
production processes, in a shorter time frame, and with only twelve times the cost. That is simply
unrealistic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 128]
-------
Fourth, the agencies overestimate the value of the learning effect. For example, the agencies assume that
manufacturers will begin learning from WHR in 2015-2017 and accelerating in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
(See RIA Section 2.12.2.15 and Table 2-136). But that technology is not slated for production in any of
those years. It is currently only in early development in laboratories like our Super Truck ones. So the
agencies are incorrect in calculating learning effect benefits so early. Conversely, the agencies seem to
assume there remains room for some learning effects with APUs, a technology that has been around for
so long that the agency acknowledges "this technology is on the flat portion of the learning curve." (See
RIA Section 2.12.6.1.). This assumption is questionable. In short, there are a number of potentially
faulty assumptions regarding learning effects with the various technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. 128]
Fifth, the agencies underestimate compliance costs. Most glaring of the errors is the assumption of an
industry-wide annual cost for powertrain testing of $335,000 or less than $100,000 per major
manufacturer. With the agencies premising so much of vehicle-side improvements on "deep
integration," which we understand to be demonstrable only through powertrain testing, and with
powertrain testing costing on the order of $100,000 per powertrain, the agencies are orders of
magnitude3 wrong on this cost. Similarly, the agencies failed to account for rear axle test facilities,
testing, and reporting costs. The agencies failed to account for additional costs of general reporting, as
increasing the number of GEM inputs require manufacturers to better track and control each input in
order to ensure compliance. The agencies failed to account for the vastly increased cost of aerodynamic
testing that would be required under the agencies' proposed program, given that (among other things)
the program requires F_alt_aero testing for all major models. In short, the agencies dramatically
underestimated compliance costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 128]
There are several other concerns that have been raised about the agencies' cost-benefit analyses,
including the concerns raised in ERG's report Peer Review Of "Costs Of Medium- And Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Fuel Efficiency And Emissions Reduction Technologies For My 2019 - 2022," April 21, 2015.
For example, the reviewers were concerned that numbers were not based on sufficient literature search,
that the tire cost numbers were inappropriate, thatNHTSA's study appears not to have taken account for
the costs associated with FE technologies' adding weight that push vehicles over legal weight
thresholds, etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p.129]
The agencies should have considered the cost to a heavy-duty vehicle operator of being stranded by the
side of the road with a breakdown, a risk that the agencies recognized (80 FR 40236) but failed to
quantify. The operator generally has a load to deliver by a certain time and thus must get someone to
pick up that load for him. He may lose business from shippers who see him as unreliable if he fails to
deliver a load. He may have to get his vehicle towed for repairs, to pay for roadside assistance, or to
spend his (valuable) time doing his own repairs. New and added technologies on a vehicle increase the
risk of vehicle operators incurring such costs, notwithstanding our warranties and our best efforts to
avoid any failures. The agencies should have increased technology costs for all technologies by a risk-
adjusted amount reflecting these costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 129]
The agencies should have included in costs to carriers in regards to weight of new technologies on their
vehicles in decreased carrying capacity. Heavy-duty vehicles are subject to Bridge Law limitations on
their loads. Any increased technology on a vehicle, be it a WHR system or a small additional computer,
decreases the load that the vehicle can haul. For certain of our customers, who haul indivisible loads that
take their vehicle to its maximum capacity under the law, any increased tare weight means that the
vehicle cannot haul the load, such that mere pounds added mean a complete loss of work. The agencies
should have factored in the potential for lost carrying capacity and for entirely lost loads as a result of
-------
the technologies that the agencies use to premise the Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p. 130]
3 PEER REVIEW OF "COSTS OF MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY
AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR MY 2019 - 2022" PEER REVIEW
REPORT APRIL 21, 2015 Submitted to: U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
Response:
Regarding the first point made by the commenter, that the agencies underestimate the costs (both up-
front costs and indirect costs) of several of the technologies on which the agencies premise the proposed
rules. The commenter first points to our estimated APU cost stating that the agencies assume that the
cost of an APU is approximately $3,000 (based on RIA Tables 2-26 to 2-28 for penetration rates and
Tables 2-36 to 2-38 for penetration rate-adjusted costs). In fact, the agencies estimated the cost of an
APU at $4853 (Direct manufacturing cost (DMC) in 2012$ applicable in 2014, see proposed RIA
Chapter 2.12.6.1), considerably higher than the $3000 cost erroneously suggested by the commenter. In
the final rules, the agencies have increased that cost estimate to $5882 (DMC in 2013$ applicable in
2014, see final RIA Chapter 2.11.6.1). Regarding the cost of aftertreatment improvements, the
commenter suggests that we estimated the cost at $7 when, in fact, we estimated the cost at more than
double that amount at $16 (DMC in 2012$ applicable in 2014, see proposed RIA Chapter 2.12.2.1). In
the final rules, we carry the same cost as the proposal with updates to 2013$; the final rule cost is
estimated at $16 per vehicle (DMC in 2013$ applicable in 2014, see final RIA Chapter 2.11.2.1).
Regarding the second point that "the agencies used questionable prices for technologies, such as the
price of tires, estimated relying on prices from studies (in some cases studies over 10 years old)",we
have chosen to base our tire costs on the National Research Council's 2010 report which showed a $30
price estimate. Using that value, we removed the indirect costs (by dividing by 1.36) to arrive at our
final cost estimate of $22 per tire (direct manufacturing cost, 2013$). That cost is an incremental cost
for the lower rolling resistance tire relative to a standard tire and is not meant to reflect to full cost of the
tire.
Regarding the third point, that the agencies failed to properly account for the increased maintenance and
replacement costs for FE technologies since the agencies had considered such costs only for lower
rolling resistance tires, the agencies agree and have significantly increased those costs for the final rules.
We now have estimated maintenance costs for many technologies, as described in detail in the final RIA
Chapter 7.2.3.
Another comment states that the agencies underestimate the costs of research and development required
to bring to market the technologies on which the regulations were premised. The comment states that
the agencies assume $240M per year for four years to develop all of the technologies required for the
Phase 2 program, for a total of $960M. The commenter misunderstands an important element of our cost
estimates. Normal R&D spending is included in the markups used to estimate indirect costs. That
normal R&D spending is on the order of 3-4% of revenues. The final RIA Chapter 7.2.1.1 shows that
EPA has estimated the technology costs at just under $26 billion (2013$, discounted to 2015 at a 3
percent discount rate, MYs 2018-2029). If 3.5 percent of that is R&D, then the R&D spending would be
roughly $898 million. To that, we have added an additional R&D spending of $818 million (2013$,
-------
discounted to 2015 at a 3 percent discount rate, MYs 2018-2029). The total R&D spending estimated is
roughly $1.7 billion (2013$, discounted to 2015 at a 3 percent discount rate, MYs 2018-2029).
Another comment states that the agencies have overestimated the effect of learning, especially with
respect to waste heat recovery and APUs. However, the updated WHR costs for the final rules are
"based" in 2021 with learning cost reductions being applied in 2022 and forward. As a result, no
learning-based cost reductions are being applied in years prior to our projected implementation. As for
APUs and the application of learning impacts, EPA generally believes that industry never stops learning
and applying cost reductions to technology.
The agencies do not believe that the added technology, some of which reduces weight, will result in
increased vehicle weight such that weight limits will be exceeded. As for drivers being stranded due to
breakdowns, we believe that this comment stems from earlier criteria pollutant standards and
technologies employed to comply with those requirements. We do not believe that the technologies
expected in response to the new standards will result in any increase in breakdowns or driver standings.
Organization: Diaz, Miguel
The inclusion of aerodynamic trailers and the engines is one advance technology that should be included
in the society since we have the technology to implement stronger standards. However, many of these
points raise multiple concerns that should be revised and not taken lightly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1848-A1 p.2]
First, many of these technologies are to be applied to most of the trailers and trucks to reduce the fuel
used in these vehicles by 2025, but not every driver has a strong economic situation to acquire many of
these technologies. Some of them don't possess the most recent models that could facilitate the users to
get repairs, advance technology or upgrades to their vehicles. EPA should concern about implementing
solutions and strategies before actually imposing new restrictions to those users that can't afford
upgrading their vehicles every 5 years. For example, some trucks cannot be equipped with fuel efficient
tires or change their fuel usage to another more efficient because their model is outdated. They continue
to use the same old elements that cause the same level of emissions and constantly deteriorate through
time. A more reasonable concern should be impose restrictions to the manufacturers to avoid the further
production of pollutant-elements. They should also give a certain amount of time to those persons who
are struggling to acquire a more recent model, but make them understand that they should stop buying
old repairs and the most harmful fuel to stop the amount of emissions that are actually being produce.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1848-A1 p.2]
Response:
The agencies believe that the commenter is suggesting that manufacturers be required to apply new,
GHG reducing technology ("impose restrictions to the manufacturers to avoid the further production of
pollutant-elements") and is concerned that owners of today's trucks should not be required to equip
existing trucks with new technology ("some trucks cannot be equipped with fuel efficient tires or
change their fuel usage to another more efficient because their model is outdated"). The final standards
require the former and do not require the latter. Therefore, the commenter should not be concerned, if
we interpret correctly those concerns.
Organization: Environmental Law and Policy Center
-------
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 217.]
Second, because trucks consume so much fuel, this regulation is cost-effective. Paying a little more now
for a more fuel efficient truck will result in huge savings at the pump. In fact, tractor trailer owners can
repay their costs and start earning money on this investment in just two years. Overall, the new
regulations are expected to save society $230 billion over the life of this program. And when truckers
are buying 75 billion less gallons of diesel fuel, that money is available to spend on other things that
strengthen our domestic and local economies.
Response:
The agencies agree that the new standards are cost-effective.
Organization: FedEx Corporation
3. Return on Investment: Phase 2 must not force technology that does not reduce the total cost of
ownership for equipment. It is our objective and desire that technology investment produce a payback
within the first 18 months of operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.4]
Response:
The agencies estimate that the Phase 2 rule will significantly reduce the total cost of ownership for
nearly all of the equipment subject to the final standards (the one possible exception being motor
homes). We do not agree that the 18 month payback "bogey" is the correct bogey for any GHG or fuel
consumption related rulemaking. EPA is setting these, and all of our transportation-related GHG
standards, due to the need to control climate changing emissions. EPA does not set these standards to
provide fuel savings or cost paybacks to buyers or drivers of vehicles. We estimate a payback metric
because we know that the buyers and users of impacted vehicles find that metric to be of interest.
However, the payback metric is not used in our determination of the appropriateness of proposed or
final standards.
Organization: First Industries Corporation
The extremely wide variety of applications our trucks are placed in (over the highway, heavy load and
in-field services) creates an extremely important requirement to incorporate a wide variety of variables
into any decisions concerning costs and serviceability of new and unproven technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p. 1]
The heavy-duty industry—both truck manufacturers and truck purchasers—has faced regulations
requiring historic emissions reductions in the past several decades. Our customers and our OEM have
met these challenges, but not without enormous development costs, resource demands, and increased
product cost, as well as significant costs associated with warranties and customer downtime. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p. 1]
As dealers, we are on the frontline of customer relations. We experience the same frustration they do
when additional controls force truck prices upward. Over the past 7 years our customers have stretched
budgets to purchase new or newer used Medium Duty (MD) and Heavy Duty (HD) vehicles equipped
with the latest technology, from the 2007 standards through 2010 and into Phase 1. With Phase 2, there
is a serious concern among our customer base that the new technology will only end up costing more
-------
and doing less. In fact, there is anticipation of a major pre-buy should the standards fail to address the
real world cost concerns and potential penetration rates of barely emerging technology. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p. 1-2]
EPA and NHTSA must ensure that their assumptions about various technologies match with market
reality and that their cost estimates are comprehensive and accurate so that environmental benefits and
efficiency gains are realized in a logical and cost-effective way. Our customers need it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1145-A2p.2]
In our direct review of the proposed standards, there are three key areas in the Phase 2 Proposed Rule
that require further agency consideration and revision. In order to better understand the marketplace, the
agency needs to reevaluate technology penetration rates and the actual cost and payback periods of these
proposed technologies. Specifically: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.2]
(1) EPA's penetration rates for vicarious technologies are too aggressive, resulting in overly stringent
emission standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.2]
EPA's Market Penetration Rates for Various Technologies Are Overly Aggressive
We understand our customers and their unique equipment needs. For dealership operations to be
successful we rely on our OEM to provide us with quality products that will work for the customers that
have come to know and trust us. When we are responding to proposed regulation it is out of concern for
our customers. We feel that the stringency of the standards should be based on products customer can
actually afford to purchase. Customers should not be forced to buy technologies in order for an OEM to
meet a regulatory target. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.2]
If a regulation requires customers to buy technology that is not proven, cost-effective, or reasonable for
the customer's application, customers will keep their vehicles longer and will pre-buy vehicles in
advance of the emission standard changes, leading then to a subsequent no-buy after the new standards
take effect. This happened in 2005 & 2006 when a record number of HD Vehicles were sold. Our
customers purchased equipment ahead of the 2007 engine standard. Thousands if not hundreds of
thousands of those trucks are still on the road today across the United States, besides California. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.2]
Response:
Much of this comment seems to focus on the 2007/2010 criteria pollutant rulemaking rather than the
Phase 2 GHG/fuel consumption rule. Please see our other responses in Section 11.7.1 below, such as
those to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1922-A1, pertaining to specific concerns about pre-buy.
With regard to the issue of technology penetration rates, we discuss these in more detail in their
respective chapters above (Chapter 3 - Engines, Chapter 4 - tractors, Chapter 5 - trailers, Chapter 6 -
vocational vehicles, as well as in chapter 2 of the RIA in the respective sections dealing with each of
these standards.
Organization: Idle Smart
2. Extended Idle technology costs - direct, indirect and incremental - are driven by outdated
inputs that are drawn from source material and calculations that are incomplete and, more
importantly, do not reflect current market dynamics. As with any model, the validity of the outputs
and conclusions are directly correlated to the rigor and precision of the inputs. EPA and NHTSA
-------
estimated the cost APUs based on the costs discussed in the Phase 1 rule. That technology was
estimated at $4,586 (DMC, 2008$, in 2014). With updates, that cost becomes $4,853 (DMC, 2012$, in
2014) for Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.2]
These estimates substantially understate the true costs of an APU and rely upon information that is, at
best, dated. For example, many of the inputs to the Phase 1 rule were driven by a study completed on
behalf of the EPA over 5 years ago (Investigation of Costs for Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions for Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles). While it's interesting that the aforementioned report,
completed in 2010, highlighted that midrange APUs cost in the range of $8,000-$9,000 (installed) and
that some are as much as 50% more expensive8 (but yet still came up with the $4,586 value in Phase 1),
it is nonetheless unclear why the Phase 2 process did not utilize the substantial market data at its
disposal to update its estimates to reflect today's market reality and changes that have taken place over
the past five years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.3]
For example, in the report that accompanied the work performed by Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI) in collaboration with the NHTSA on fuel efficiency and emissions reduction technologies, total
incremental price for a diesel APU is stated to be $10,000 and $9,187.77 at production volumes of
50,000 and 300,000 units, respectively. Using either of those values in the Total Cost as Applied to a
Technology Package (TCp) from the Phase 2 draft increases the TCp for Idle Reduction technology by
over 110% in 2027 ($5,508 vs. $2,596) and Tractor Technology Incremental Costs in the 2027 Model
Year by over 22% ($12,842 vs. $15,754) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.3]
Qualitatively, and outside of our own distribution channel checks which would substantiate these
findings, the peer review completed in April, 2015 of Costs of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency and Emissions Reduction Technologies for MY 2019 - 2022 (referenced above)9 highlights
similar deficiencies in quality, scope, and rigor of the methodology used to calculate the incremental
retail prices. Comments range from "the literature review was not thorough" through "I think it is a
matter of clearly showing what they are doing. This is missing from this report overall" and perhaps
even more telling is that half of the peer reviewers, using a scale of 1 (Acceptable as is) to 4 (Not
acceptable), rated the Costs report a 3, or "Acceptable with major revisions."10 Without accurate inputs
and with a cost model that underestimates the true incremental cost, the Phase 2 implementation runs
the risk of not meeting its well-intentioned and important GHG emissions and fuel goals. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1128-A1 p.3]
8 Investigation of Costs for Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-Duty On-Road
Vehicles, July, 2010
9 Peer Review of Costs of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency and Emissions Reduction
Technologies for MY 2019 - 2022, Task Order 0003 Under Contract DTNH22-13-D-00298
10 Peer Review of Costs of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency and Emissions
Reduction Technologies for MY 2019 - 2022, Task Order 0003 Under Contract DTNH22-13-D-00298
Response:
In the final rules, the agencies started with an estimated APU price of $8,000 (retail price, 2013$). From
there, we have adjusted the cost to arrive at a direct manufacturing cost of $5882 (DMC, 2013$,
applicable in MY2014)). So the $4800 value mentioned by the commenter has been adjusted upward to
$5882, and should be understood to be a direct manufacturing cost. This is explained in Section III.D of
-------
the Preamble and in the final RIA Chapter 2.11.6.1. The commenter has done much to attempt to
discredit the estimate used in the proposal but has done little to improve upon our estimate by providing
a citable value that could be used. EPA notes that using "market data," as suggested, is not really a
viable strategy for EPA. Market data is generally in the form of prices for a given device or piece of
technology which has little to no real relevance to the actual cost of that device (cost being the metric
sought by EPA, not price). This is particularly true when "prices" can vary according to quantities
ordered, so 1 device might be priced at $10,000/unit while 500 might be priced at $8000/unit. The
"cost" behind each of those "prices" would be lower, to some extent anyway, and roughly similar
regardless of the quantity ordered. This is part of what makes cost estimation so difficult.
Organization: International Foodservice Distributors Association
While IFDA supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase fuel efficiency, it is
critical that the Phase 2 final rule focus on achieving the greatest efficiency improvements at the least
overall cost. EPA and NHTSA must not use outsized assumptions requiring the adoption of unproven
technologies to justify stricter emissions targets that will prove impossible to meet. Customers depend
on efficient cost effective service from foodservice distributors to provide Americans with the food
away from home experience they have come to expect. It is important that any final rule be achievable
without forcing equipment end users to pay for additional technology that is unproven, unnecessary or
does not meet the requirements of each unique transportation operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1258-A1 p.2]
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking. IFDA urges both EPA and NHTSA to
work closely with industry to ensure any final rule is cost effective, based on realistic assumptions of
technological innovation and adoption and does not result in unnecessary cost increases for
transportation companies and the consumers who rely on them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1258-A1
p.2]
Engine manufacturers were able to use off the shelf technologies to meet the Phase 1 emissions
requirements. Even with this readily available technology, the average cost per vehicle increased far
more than EPA estimates. While EPA estimated an average increase of between $1,200 and $1,900 per
new vehicle depending on size, the industry saw increases of up to $20,000, making the return on
investment on this new equipment extremely questionable. A second round of cost increases, which are
likely to be even more significant given the advanced nature of the technology required would result in
exploding transportation costs that would ripple throughout the American economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1258-A1 p.2]
Response:
The agencies have worked closely with industry and have developed a final set of standards that we
consider to be cost effective, technologically feasible and necessary for the purpose of environmental
protection. We do not agree with the assertion that the return on investment is not reasonable. However,
we note that return on investment is not the purpose of the new standards - protection of the
environment and reduced fuel consumption is the purpose while a favorable return on investment is a
favorable side effect.
Regarding the comment about Phase 1 costs between $1,200 and $1,900 and actual increases being
$20,000, we believe this comment is really directed at the 2007/2010 criteria pollutant rule rather than
the Phase 1 HD rule (which had higher tractor cost estimates than the $1,200 to $1,900 noted). We
respond to such comments in Section 15 of this document.
-------
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
The draft stringency requirements assume market penetration rates for technologies. If those
assumptions are inaccurate, the regulation will be undermined as customers are forced to adopt
technologies that are not cost effective or do not provide real world benefits. We have heard credible
concerns from several stakeholders regarding penetration rates and costs of several technologies
discussed in the draft proposal. For example, assuming a 15% penetration rate for waste heat recovery
by 2027 seems overly optimistic considering it is not currently in the market. The proposal also assumes
this technology will cost up to $11,000. Of course, the actual costs are unknown and new technology
often cost more than anticipated. Moreover, the additional costs for maintenance and downtime need to
be fully accounted for. Also, the potential benefits of waste heat recovery vary substantially depending
on the duty cycle and powertrain. The same can be said for other new technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1248-A2 p.8]
The 60% penetration rate for 6x2's is potentially problematic considering that six states have laws
limiting tire and axle loading in such a way that 6x2's cannot be used as intended. Fleet owners are not
likely to purchase trucks that cannot operate in all 50 states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.9]
Underestimating the costs of technologies could further complicate compliance and lead to unintended
consequences. Higher technology costs lengthens payback period. New technologies generally require
increased warranty costs, increased maintenance costs, and costs associated with increased downtime.
We urge EPA and NHTSA to reexamine their cost assumptions to ensure they are based on the most
accurate data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.9]
UAW members and their families remember the disruption of forcing unproven technology to market
and urge the EPA and NHTSA to strive for a regulation that promotes fuel-efficiency and emission
reducing technology that is cost-effective and reliable for a market that is sensitive to cost of ownership
and real world operational benefits. If customers have to buy technologies just so an OEM can reach a
target, they are more likely to pre-buy. We strongly support ongoing dialogue between the EPA,
NHTSA and other stakeholders that aim for continuous improvement in testing protocols and cost
estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.9]
Response:
We respond to comments regarding technology penetration rates in Sections 3 through 6 of this
document. We have developed an updated costs for waste heat recovery and describe that in Chapter
2.11.2.15 of the final RIA. We have reduced our technology penetration rates of 6x2 axles relative to the
proposal, now showing a 30 percent penetration and only on Class 8 tractors. We include increased
warranty costs as part of the indirect cost markups, and we have significantly increased our estimated
maintenance costs relative to the proposal by including many more technologies expected to require
maintenance.
Organization: Midwest Truckers Association
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 265-266.]
-------
The cost associated with achieving this goal and the payoff time may be a little bit debatable, but even
conservative figures that have been suggested point to a tangible return of extra dollars invested to
improve fuel economy. Of course it depends on the number of miles traveled that will determine the
payback level also, be it a local truck or be it an over the road truck.
For our average member, we expect a four-year payback based on the reality that regional and local
drivers are not going to meet the same expectations as a fleet of over the road vehicles. And based on a
typical depreciation schedule, the local and short haul trucks are going to be around longer, possibly
meaning that an even bigger return on investment may be possible because they do keep that truck
maybe up to 10 years.
Response:
Thank you for your comments. The agencies agree that the longer a vehicle meeting the new standards
is kept, the greater the return via fuel savings on the upfront investment. Further, that vehicle will
continue to provide savings to subsequent owners/drivers for its full life.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
NEW TRUCK AND ENGINE STANDARDS MUST BE AFFORDABLE AND MUST NOT
COMPROMISE PERFORMANCE
Even in years when freight demand is high and the industry is profitable, only a few hundred thousand
potentially regulated trucks and engines are built for sale nationwide. This number pales in comparison
to the 10-17 million new light-duty vehicles sold nationwide each year. Moreover, while light-duty
customers often may not place a high value on fuel efficiency, fuel cost is the number one variable cost
for the trucking industry. Consequently, the final rule should leverage, not resist, the fact that an
acceptable return on investment is critical to commercial motor vehicle purchasers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1309-A1 p.3-4]
Top of mind for commercial truck customers are their practical work needs. Vehicle and drivetrain
features must meet expected use conditions. Every commercial vehicle potentially covered by the Phase
2 proposal has a work purpose that must be met through the design, specification, ordering, and
manufacture process. And customer needs can vary widely. To its credit, the Phase 2 proposal builds on
the Phase 1 rule's attribute-based categories for combination tractors and avoids cross-cutting mandates
for vocational trucks. On the other hand, the proposal's technology forcing nature and potential for
overly stringent mandates could force manufacturers to offer products that unduly limit customer choice
through reduced vehicle performance or increased vehicle cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1
p.4]
Cost is always a concern. The fact that some of the nation's largest fleets can afford to be "early
adopters" and to experiment with new fuels and high-cost technologies, while commendable, is by no
means representative. The vast majority of prospective new truck buyers are businesspersons who must
carefully consider the up-front cost of vehicle features, especially during times when credit is tight
and/or freight rates and profit margins are low. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.4] [[This
comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p.71.]]
To be effective, commercial fuel economy mandates must pass economic muster. Prospective customers
almost always have the option to keep existing vehicles on the road longer, opting for enhanced
maintenance and repair strategies that may even include engine and/or vehicle re-building.
-------
Alternatively, customers may meet their needs with a used truck or tractor, often at a cost significantly
lower than that of a new federally-compliant vehicle. Again, fuel efficiency/GHG mandates must be
affordable and cost justifiable up front to be successful in the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1309-A1 p.4] [[This comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp.71-72.]]
New mandates must not compromise or even appear to compromise vehicle performance, a lesson
taught by the disruptive introduction of new commercial vehicle emissions mandates in 2004, 2007 and
2010. Commercial customers will avoid expending the substantial investments necessary to purchase
new vehicles when they fear they'll face significant performance compromises, such as reduced freight
hauling capability or increased downtime. Especially with respect to engine and other drivetrain
components, improving one performance feature (such as fuel efficiency) must not diminish others.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.4]
Response:
The agencies do not believe that there will be a loss of performance due to the new standards. Instead,
we believe that the new fuel consumption characteristics of these engines and vehicles will be attractive
and preferred by future buyers. We discuss more about pre-buys in Section 11.7.2 of this document.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Each of the discussions in this Comment should be read with the cost analysis in mind, as all of the
concerns expressed in this Comment also have a direct bearing on costs. For instance, when the rule
effectively advances a deadline as a result of the structure of the rule, and that impact is not recognized
by the cost analysis in the NPRM, that calls into question EPA's assumptions as to the cost of
developing the technology. The provision of less lead time compresses the time the manufacturer has
available to develop the technology and necessarily increases development costs. In addition, the
penetration rates of new technologies are similarly very questionable and these assumptions are
reflected throughout the rule; if they are incorrect, then the agencies' assumptions as to costs and
payback periods are wrong as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.6]
It is difficult for Navistar to adequately comment on the cost analysis, since the underlying assumptions
are so far off. However, one important area where we suspect the analysis is off is engine costs, driven
by engine model year. As discussed further below, Navistar calculates that a compliant engine will have
to be created more than a year before the nominal date when the standards take effect, in order to have
an engine fuel map to use with GEM. If one looks at the estimates of costs in the RIA, costs for
tractor/trailers are shown as $0 prior to 2021, except as they relate to trailers.6 This is not accurate, as
costs will begin earlier than that, in order to generate compliant engines and engine maps prior to 2021.
None of the cost estimates show those accelerated costs. That is just one example that demonstrates how
the underlying assumptions can throw off cost estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.6]
In addition, there were significant costs that were not predicted for Phase 1, that we think will be even
higher in Phase 2. One of these is the cost of technology to track the data for reporting and managing the
data necessary to comply with a rule this complex. This cost ran into several million dollars for
Navistar. However, this cost is not even part of the estimate for the Proposed Rule. On that point alone,
the agencies have underestimated the cost of this rule. In this regard, we also completely agree with the
EMA comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1199-A1 p.7]
For these reasons and others we believe the cost analysis is flawed and understates the costs of the
Proposed Rule. The ramifications of this are considerable. If pay back periods are incorrect, customers
-------
will simply overhaul and keep their current vehicles longer instead of purchasing new, more efficient
vehicles. The industry will also be damaged, since it will not be able to sell as many vehicles as it would
have in the absence of the regulations and the vehicles it does sell will be more costly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1199-A1 p.7]
The vehicle certification procedure will use the greatly expanded and updated Phase 2 GEM model. The
Phase 2 GEM requires many more inputs than the Phase 1 GEM including engine fuel maps, torque
curves, transmission type, gear ratios, number of gears, etc. The more complex GEM is required to
properly estimate the vehicle fuel use and C02 emissions from Phase2 vehicles. However, providing the
input data for GEM and run the GEM model will require large investments in upgrading vehicle
manufacturer IT systems. This investment is on the order of several million dollars per manufacturer. In
addition to the IT cost the labor cost to track and report all of the inputs to GEM and generate the annual
reports will increase dramatically. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.41]
It is not clear that EPA has accounted for this compliance cost in the Phase 2 cost estimates. Page 7-6 of
the RIA has an annual cost estimate of $95,000 and $240,000 industry-wide for vocational and tractor,
respectively, powertrain test reporting. This estimate is well below the actual IT and reporting costs that
are being realized for Phase land that will be realized for Phase 2. EPA must adequately estimate all
new compliance costs for the Phase 2 implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.41]
6 RIA at 7-3.
Response:
In the proposal, the agencies estimated additional compliance costs at roughly $6 million every year.
For the final rules, we have increased that estimate by nearly double to $11 million every year.
Importantly, those costs are in addition to the costs already included in the indirect cost markups used in
estimating technology costs. In the final rules, we estimate that our indirect costs account for over $300
million per year in the early years and up to $700 million per year in the later years of the program
(2027-2029). Some portion of that $300 to $700 million annual indirect costs would include the
compliance costs that are included in the markups we use to estimate indirect costs.
The commenter is correct that our analysis does not show these costs occurring the year prior to
implementation and, instead, shows them occurring in conjunction with implementation. The costs are
in fact accounted for; it is simply an issue of presentation. We have gone back and forth on this
presentation issue in the past - showing costs in advance at times and showing costs aligned with
implementation at times. Showing costs in advance often times has confused readers expecting to see
costs aligned with implementation. Showing costs aligned with implementation has confused readers
who understand that some costs occur in year(s) prior to implementation. The important thing is that we
have included all of the costs that we believe will be incurred, and that our cost estimates reflect costs
incurred in years preceding actual compliance with the standards.
Organization: North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
NADCA is also concerned about the cost-benefit analysis conducted and encourages the Administration
to adopt more realistic expectations of the expenses involved in the research, development, and
commercialization of these new technologies. The Association and its members invest millions each
year to develop new technologies and the latest production methods to improve their global
-------
competitiveness. A concern raised by others is not only the costs involved with investing in the research,
but also whether customers will pay a higher price for the finished product as manufacturers must
ultimately pass along some of the additional costs to the purchaser. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1283-
Alp.3]
Response:
The agencies believe we have provided realistic expectations of the expenses involved in R&D
associated with the final standards. The commenter has not provided any data or suggested revisions to
the analysis estimates. We expect that customers will pay a higher price for finished products given that
the costs for those products will be likely be higher. However, we expect significant fuel savings as a
result of those increased upfront costs. Further, we expect significant environmental and social benefits
associated with the final standards.
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Odyne believes fleet adoption rates of plug-in hybrid technology - a technology Odyne Systems has
developed and deployed in partnership with the DOE and private fleets - will exceed the 10% market
penetration rate assumed by the EPA in the proposed rule by 2027 and at fuel consumption and
emission reduction levels (16% specifically for vocational) far beyond the current projections for
various applications of vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 3] [[This comment
can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-08267-1372, p.229.]]
ROI Projections
The sales price of a PHEV system in 2021 is estimated to be approximately $15,400 based upon a total
cost of components of $10,000, and including installation cost of $800 and gross margin of 30%. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 14]
2021 ROI of 3 years: Annual fuel savings are estimated to be over 1000 gallons per year based upon
telematics data from the current vehicles in operation, at 250 workdays per year and 4 gallons per day of
fuel savings as shown in Table 2. At an estimated cost per gallon of fuel in 2021 (includes price of fuel
per gallon, labor cost during estimated refueling time and non-productive miles driven to reach refueling
station) of $4 per gallon in 2021, total savings per year including engine maintenance and fuel savings is
estimated to be $5000 per year, resulting in a payback in years of approximately 3 years, significantly
shorter than goals discussed by the EPA of 6 years for vocational trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1239-A1 p. 14]
The sales price of a PHEV system in 2027 is estimated to be approximately $10,000 based upon the
total cost of components of $6,500, and including installation cost of $500 and gross margin of 30%.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 14]
[Table 2, 'Odyne Fuel Consumption, can be found on p. 15 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1239-A1]
2027 ROI of 2 years: Annual fuel savings are estimated to be over 1000 gallons per year based upon
telematics data from the current vehicles in operation, at 250 workdays per year and 4 gallons per day of
fuel savings as shown in Table 2. At an estimated cost per gallon of fuel in 2027 (includes price of fuel
per gallon, labor cost during estimated refueling time and non-productive miles driven to reach refueling
station) of $4 per gallon in 2027, total savings per year including engine maintenance and fuel savings is
-------
estimated to be $5000 per year, resulting in a payback in years of approximately 2 years, significantly
shorter than goals discussed by the EPA of 6 years for vocational trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1239-A1 p. 15]
Response:
The projections of technology adoption should be viewed as a potential path toward compliance and not
the path. If the commenter is correct about the benefits of hybridized systems, then we would expect
that the market will move toward that approach to compliance. Certainly nothing in the Phase 2 rules
impedes such market acceptance. We discuss comments regarding the rationale behind our vocational
vehicle hybrid technology penetration rates in Section 6.3 of this Response to Comments.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
[Table 1 can be found on p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1]
Though the agencies have estimated rather high penetration rates, EPA has historically overestimated
penetration rates while also underestimating the cost to OEMs to implement the required changes to the
engine and drive-train. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 12]
The Cost/Benefit Equation
The agencies estimated a $10,000 to $13,000 increase in the cost of a new truck and a $1,400 increase
for a new trailer by MY 2027 as part of Alternative 3. OOIDA believes that these estimates are far
below the actual costs of proposed technologies, and thereby suggests that the agencies reevaluate their
cost and benefit analysis in order to more appropriately reflect reality. For example, the agencies have
estimated that the cost of an APU will be $4,327 by MY 2027. Nonetheless, the OOIDA Foundation,
which has received two grants through EPA and the SmartWay Program in order to assist OOIDA
members in purchasing APUs, has helped over 500 members purchase and install APUs in their
truck. The average cost however was $8,000 with an additional installation cost of between $100 and
$500. According to the market today, an APU produced by Thermo King costs $11,000. Moreover, the
agencies failed to include maintenance costs within their analysis as APU's require standard service
maintenance after a minimum of 2,000 hours of operation, the cost of which is approximately
$250. The agencies have grossly underestimated the cost of APU's, and thus have created false benefits
and costs in their analysis, especially considering the agencies excessively high adoption rates. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.40]
In addition to the underestimation of APUs, the agencies have not properly addressed the costs
associated with LRR tires. Because of their lessened tread depth, LRR tires do not have the same
lifespan as other tires, meaning that they will need to be replaced more often. The agencies have failed
to recognize that the purchasing of tires is not the only cost an owner-operator must account for, instead
labor costs, which include the removal of the wheel, removal of the tire, mounting of the new tire,
balancing of the wheel, remounting of the wheel, and finally the FET, must be considered over the
useful value life of 10 years. The table below is an example of such a cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1244-A1 p.40]
[Table 2 can be found on p.41 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1]
A total cost of $336.71 for fees which do not include the actual tire is substantial. This fee would be
repeated for each axle, which for a standard 18-wheeler would amount to $1,434.32. While the agencies
-------
"expect minimal increases in maintenance costs under the proposed standards, having estimated
increased maintenance costs associated only with installation of lower rolling resistance tires," OOIDA
believes that the agencies did not adequately analyze the costs of maintenance associated with the
proposed technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.41]
Cost of Trailers
In addition to the increase in price for a tractor, the agencies projected a $1,400 increase for a new
trailer by MY 2027 as part of Alternative 3. According to the California Air Resource Board, the retail
price for a set of side skirts, which weigh between 150 and 350 pounds on average depending on the
material, length, and configuration of the skirt, ranges between $1,000 and $2,600, not including the
cost of installation, front trailer fairings cost between $800 and $1,000, and rear trailer fairings cost
approximately $2,000.47
[Table 4 can be found on p.43 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1]
The costs detailed above do not take into account annual maintenance costs, which are projected to be
almost $300 annually, or replacement costs, for example a trailer side skirt can cost between $80 and
$500. Additionally, it is imperative to note that some owner-operators, and most fleet owners, own
more than just one trailer, while also hauling different types of cargo. Overall, the current trailer to
truck ratio is approximately 2.8. Therefore, you can expect these costs to double for many owner-
operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.43-44]
Ultimately, the potential economic savings must be more concrete or proven in order for these proposed
technologies to present a good enough incentive for owner-operators to purchase new, more expensive
trucks and trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1244-A1 p.44]
Is it more than probable that the increased price of both a truck and trailer will mean that some truck
owners will not be able to afford to purchase new equipment (or even afford a used truck with an
increased price). A dramatic increase in the price of a truck and trailer might act as an incentive for
many truck owners to hold on to their older equipment for a longer period of time, therefore not gaining
the benefit of the promised improved fuel economy and denying the agencies their projected gains in air
quality improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.44]
47 Initial Statement of Reasons: Proposed Regulation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Heavy-Duty Vehicles, CARB (December 2008), pg. 50-54.
Response:
The commenter notes the "cost" of an APU at $8000. The agencies interpret that "cost" to be the "price"
paid for the APU. In the final rules, we have started with an estimated APU price of $8,000 (retail price,
2013$). From there, we have adjusted the cost to arrive at a direct manufacturing cost of $5882 (DMC,
2013$, applicable in MY2014)). So the $4800 value mentioned by the commenter has been adjusted
upward to $5882, and should be understood to be a direct manufacturing cost (see final RIA 2.11.6.1).
Importantly, we seek the cost of the device, not the price paid at point of sale which includes many
factors beyond the scope of our analysis. The commenter also notes that we failed to consider
maintenance on the APU. While true of the proposal, we have changed that in the final rules by
estimating maintenance costs at $300 (APU), $310 (battery APU) and $400 (APU with DPF) at 100,000
-------
mile intervals (see final RIA 7.2.3). These estimates appear to be in-line with the commenter's
suggested maintenance costs.
As for the comment regarding lower rolling resistance tires and tread wear, we respond fully to that
issue in Section 4.3 of this RTC document.
We have not included maintenance costs associated with aero treatments on trailers due to lack of data
that could be used to support the estimates. The commenter suggests an annual maintenance cost of
$300 but provided no data or study upon which that estimate was based. It is possible that the estimate is
based on anecdotal evidence of a small number of problem installations rather than an average of all
trailers equipped with aero treatments. Without the study it is not possible for us to know. Since we are
not aware of widespread maintenance issues surrounding aero treatments on trailers, we have not
included any increased maintenance costs.
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
RVIA contracted with John Dunham and Associates31 (Dunham) to assess the economic impact that
compliance with the proposed Phase 2 standards could have on the motorhome industry. The
methodology for this model is available in Appendix C. In simplistic terms, Dunham's model assumes
that some change in price will have an impact on motorhome sales (shipments)32 and that this impact on
sales will in turn impact industry jobs, wages, economic output, government tax revenue, etc. RVIA
asked Dunham to estimate the economic impacts for the following four scenarios: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can also be found in section 11.7 and 11.12 of this comment
summary]
Scenario 1: Motorhomes buyers factor 100% of fuel savings into their purchase decision (8.5 years of
discounted fuel savings were subtracted from estimated incremental cost increases; costs based on EPA
ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can also be found in
section 11.7 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
Scenario 2: Motorhomes buyers factor 100% of fuel savings into their purchase decision (8.5 years of
discounted fuel savings were subtracted from estimated incremental cost increases; costs based on
motorhome industry ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can
also be found in section 11.7 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
Scenario 3: Motorhome buyers do not factor fuel savings into their purchase decision (costs based on
EPA ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can also be found in
section 11.7 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
Scenario 4: Motorhome buyers do not factor fuel savings into their purchase decision (costs based on
motorhome industry ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can
also be found in section 11.7 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
The results of Dunham's assessment for 2021MY, 2024MY and 2027MY are found in the following
three tables below. Additional details are located in Appendix D. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1
p.21][This comment can also be found in section 11.7 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
[Charts, economic impacts, can be found on p.21-22 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1]
-------
In RVIA's view, Scenario 4 represents the most likely outcome. Scenario 4 reflects costs based on an
ICM that is more representative of actual practice in the motorhome industry which, as we have already
discussed, is distinctly different from other vocational vehicle segments (largely because motorhomes
are not purchased for commercial purposes).[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 22][This comment
can also be found in section 11.7 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
31 John Dunham & Associates (JDA) is an economic specialist in regulatory analysis. JDA generates
economic and fiscal impact studies from a national level down to geographic regions, municipalities,
marketing areas or Federal and state legislative districts. Seehttp://suerrillaeconomics.com/
32 According to John Dunham and Associates, the base elasticity for motorhomes is -0.905, suggesting
that a 10 percent change in prices will reduce demand by 9 percent (see Appendix C).
Response:
We respond in Section 11.12 to these comments raised by RVIA. Note, however, that the final standards
include an optional custom chassis standard for motorhomes which are based on different technologies
than those addressed in the comment, and should result in a standard which is less costly (should a
motorcoach OEM choose to certify to that standard).
Organization: Triple Decker Transport Ltd.
As the trucks become more expensive fewer Owner Operators will be able to afford the "newest"
technology thereby decreasing the desired effect on the GHG Emissions. While the desired increased
fuel economy will potentially mitigate the "overall" cost of the new trucks, THE UPFRONT COST will
be higher and this money will have to be financed [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0908-A1 p.2]
I still remember the original EPA quote of the 2004 -2010 standards costing approximately $6500-
$7500 USD per truck. The actual capital costs were $30,000 plus the extra's we suffered (listed above)!
Since the EPA missed so badly on these cost estimates I am terrified that the "Real World Cost" will be
over $25,000 for the latest GHG Proposals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0908-A1 p.3]
The moniker that this regulation only affects the OEM is incorrect. The OEM will pass on the cost to the
purchaser. We will suffer again if the newest technology is not proven BEFORE we buy it. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-0908-A1 p.3]
Response:
The agencies have made every effort to provide the best estimate possible of the costs of the standards.
We respond to comments regarding our earlier criteria pollutant rules in Section 15.10.4 of this
Response to Comments. We fully understand that the standards do not impact only the OEM but also
the end purchaser and all of society. For that reason, we have estimated the net social benefits of the rule
which are substantially positive.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
The Agencies Underestimate Compliance Costs & Fail to Appreciate the Unique Economic
Position of the Truck Renting & Leasing Industry
-------
The Proposed Standards are historic in scope and complexity, regulating a wide array of customized
vehicles including a broad range of tractor applications, utility trucks, street sweepers, concrete mixers,
local delivery trucks, dump trucks, buses, motor coaches, and more. They come on top of similar
regulations implemented under Phase 1 of the program. Over the last eight years, the agencies have
compelled the trucking industry to absorb approximately $20,000 - $30,000 in additional costs to the
price of a truck for technology, some of which has not always worked properly or as quickly as was
promised because the manufacturers were not given sufficient time to perfect those technologies.
Proposed Standards, at 40153. Under the Proposed Standards, at minimum an additional $11,680 per
truck would be incurred. Id. at 40165. It is important to note that these figures do not even include the
costs of the 12% Federal Excise Tax that is imposed on the purchase price of any truck with a Gross
Vehicle Weight Rating of 33,000 pounds or more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.2-3]
The costs shown by the agencies are for the average of all vehicles in that regulatory subcategory based
on technology penetration rates. To develop "average costs," the agencies effectively divided the cost of
technologies by the number of engines/trucks estimated to be sold in the future. This methodology is
invalid as customers will actually pay the increase in the cost of the individual technologies they are
forced to buy; stated another way, purchasers pay the actual cost of a vehicle, not the average cost. The
agencies' costing methodology does not reflect the cost of a vehicle with the technologies installed,
since that vehicle must absorb 100% of the technology cost. All vehicles will not need or have all
technologies, but some, like waste heat recovery, are expensive items as the agencies note. This means
the cost will not be a few hundred dollars in 2021, but rather thousands of dollars of added cost for the
vehicle that has it installed. In fact, the agencies estimate waste heat recovery alone will cost as much as
the average cost per vehicle of the entire rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p. 3]
Moreover, these elevated costs will be borne over a shorter vehicle life that results from inclusion of
advanced technology with scant operational experience in the real world. The leasing industry's
experience to date with the types of technologies discussed in the Proposed Standards is a shortening in
vehicle life. Several years ago, it was not unusual for a leasing company to operate a unit up to
approximately 1 million miles. In recent years, however - to include under Phase I of the program - it is
not unusual for units to be removed from service after only 750,000 miles. This means higher costs of
vehicles are spread out over less time and with less available use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1
p.3]
And while the truck leasing industry is happy for its customers to save money, the Proposed Standards
end up imposing disparate, and potentially punitive, costs on leasing companies. This is because most of
the Proposed Standards' savings are anticipated to arise during vehicle operations when less fuel would
be consumed. Accordingly, TRALA members will be forced to raise lease and rental rates. Like any
other business, they will pass on much of these cost increases, rather than simply absorbing all of the
costs themselves. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.4]
Thus, the supposed savings to customers because of improved fuel efficiency could prove illusory,
because they will be nullified by the increased lease and rental rates. The Proposed Standards' mandated
inclusion of advanced technologies could add an additional layer of increased lease costs that would
primarily be borne by the vehicle's lessee. The additional layer of increased lease costs could arise, for
example, from the greater level of maintenance that the agencies are requiring. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1140-A1 p.4]
Response:
-------
Regarding inclusion of the federal excise tax, this tax is not included in our cost estimates since the tax
is not paid by the original equipment seller but rather by the end purchaser. While we recognize that the
tax is a cost to the end purchaser, it is actually a transfer payment within the context of the benefit-cost
analysis since that tax is passed back to society via tax supported services. Similarly, our benefit-cost
analysis does not include fuel taxes when calculating fuel savings. In our payback analysis, we do
include the excise tax since the payback analysis is meant to be a consideration from the perspective of
the end purchaser. Similarly, in the payback analysis, we include retail fuel prices (i.e., inclusive of
taxes) since those are the prices paid for the fuel by the user.
The comment regarding the "average" vehicle versus the vehicle equipped with a specific device or
devices is an interesting take on our analysis. However, in aggregate, the average cost estimated in our
analysis is the best and most meaningful measure of the projected cost of the new standards. We do not
expect that a "maximum" or a "minimum" technology tractor will be built. Instead, we estimate that, on
average, tractors will gradually improve fuel consumption and decrease GHG emissions such that a
variety of prices and performance characteristics will continue to be available. Just because every
vehicle is not "average" does not mean that we are underestimating costs, nor are we overestimating
costs.
The commenter also is concerned about vehicle lifetimes being cut short due to the new standards. We
do not believe that the technologies expected in response to the new standards will result in any
decreased lifetimes. Further, we are not aware of any data that suggests that vehicle lifetimes have been
cut short due to the Phase 1 rule which is only in its third year of implementation or, what was probably
meant by the comment, the 2007/2010 criteria rule.
As for the agencies failing to recognize the unique position of the truck renting and leasing industry, we
are not quite sure what the commenter would suggest we do. We are requiring new trucks to meet more
stringent GHG and fuel consumption standards. We expect that new trucks, purchased by leasing
companies will cost more in the future. We expect those trucks to consume less fuel thereby saving
money for those buying their fuel. Those savings should not be nullified by increased lease and rental
rates any more than they would be nullified by increased purchase costs for buyers of new tractors. How
the truck costs and savings are shared between truck lenders and truck lessees, is beyond the scope of
our analysis.
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
Market Penetration Rates for Tractor Technologies are Overly-Aggressive
UPS fully supports the ATA's position on this issue. In particular we agree that assuming overly
aggressive market penetration (MPR) rates will likely result in reliance on unproven technologies.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.2]
This will lead to fleets holding on to their fleets longer and pre-buying in advance of the introduction of
unproven technologies. ATA cites the years of 2002, 2006, and 2009, in which the industry reduced
truck buys because of, or in anticipation of, rulemaking where the industry was uncomfortable about the
technology being pressed upon them. In our own case, UPS normally purchases 600 — 800 trucks a
year, but in 2003, we bought only 1 class 8 diesel truck, in 2005 we bought only 8 of them, and in 2010,
we bought only 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.4]
UPS also agrees with the 15 Guiding Principles adopted by the Fuel Efficiency Advisory Committee
(FEAC) as UPS participated in the FEAC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.4]
-------
Technology Costs Remain Suspect
UPS fully supports the following from ATA's comments. In the beginning of our comments we have
already discussed the trucking industry's unfortunate experience with the diesel emissions control
systems available to meet the 2007/10 Diesel Emission Rule. In our fleet, the actual cost of these
systems, including maintenance, was about 4 times what EPA predicted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1262-A1 p.6]
ATA believes the agencies underestimated the costs of various technologies making the payback period
on these technologies much longer than is stated in the proposed rule. A fleet owner typically demands
an 18-month payback on technology purchases. If the actual cost payback extends beyond 24 months, it
will likely lead to the risk of increased fleet pre-buys/low-buys/no-buy scenarios. The Phase 2 Rule
currently envisions a 24-month payback period. If variables such as technology costs, MPRs, and fuel
costs are not accurate, fleet payback periods for equipment will not be recognized during the period of
equipment ownership. Moreover, likely additional costs for maintenance and downtime for new
technologies need to be wholly accounted for under the rule. If payback on equipment purchases is
pushed beyond ownership periods, there is little or no incentive for fleets to make the initial investments
in technologies under Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.7]
'The trucking industry remains wary of future cost projections of the agencies. A good example of why
ATA remains skeptical of such projections is the recent rulemaking to reduce particulate matter and
nitrogen oxide emissions from on-road diesel engines commonly referred to as the EPA's 2007/2010
Diesel Engine Emissions Rule. The EPA estimated that the proposed standards would add about $1,200
to $1,900 per new vehicle depending on the vehicle size. However, the trucking industry saw record-
setting cost increases up to $20,000 per new vehicle which equates to an increase between 1,567% and
1,667%. Additional costs incurred by fleets under the phase-in of the 2007 standards included missed
loads, late loads, and lost hauling contracts.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.7]
Increased Warranty, Maintenance and Downtime Costs Should be Included
UPS fully supports the following comments from the ATA as it is consistent with our fleet's experience:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 8]
'The proposed Phase 2 standards represent a more technology-forcing approach than Phase 1, predicated
on use of both off-the-shelf technologies and emerging technologies that are not yet in widespread use.
Past experience with emerging technologies in heavy-duty engines has shown that warranty claims,
where an operator takes a vehicle out of service to a maintenance facility to have a part under warranty
replaced, tend to be higher during the initial years of introduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1
p.8]
'As shown in Appendix 3, based on warranty claims data required to be submitted to CARB, particulate
filter-related warrantee claims were at 35% during their initial year of introduction (2007), decreased to
18% during the second year and fell to 4% during the fifth year (2011, the last year of data provided).
Similarly, SCR-related warranty claims were at 20% during their initial year of introduction (2010) and
decreased to 10% during the second year (2011). Also of note is how other technologies were affected
during the introduction of a new technology. For example, warranty claims for engine/ECM/other
components increased from 22% prior to the introduction of particulate filters to 90% during the first
year this technology was introduced.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.8]
-------
UPS agrees with ATA that additional warranty, maintenance and downtime costs result when new or
significantly altered technologies are introduced. It appears the proposed rule only includes increased
maintenance costs associated with tires. UPS also agrees with ATA's requests of the agencies to further
examine the warrantee claims and operational cost data to develop an algorithm that accounts for
additional warranty, maintenance and downtime costs as part of the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1262-A1 p.8]
Response:
We respond to comments regarding pre-buys in Section 11.7.2 of this Response to Comments. Further,
we do not believe that extending paybacks beyond 24-months will result in pre-buys/low-buys/no-buys.
We have included far more maintenance costs in the final rules than in the proposal (see final RIA
7.2.3). In addition, while important in considering levels of standards and presenting impacts of
standards, we do not determine nor set new standards based on payback metrics. Lastly, many of the
UPS comments pertain to prior rulemaking efforts about technologies that are not expected for use to
comply with the new standards being set via this GHG/fuel consumption rule.
Organization: Volvo Group
Testing Burden
Additional testing for GHG/Efficiency certification adds to the engineering development workload and
reduces our capacity to implement changes. Engineering budgets and resources are limited to the
amount that can be supported from product sales margins, so all added burdens detract from actual
product development. Beyond the testing requirements carried over from Phase 1 to support the
redundancy of a separate engine standard, new testing required or expected in this proposed rule
includes engine mapping, aerodynamic testing, vehicle chassis dyno testing, powertrain testing, axle
testing, and possibly alternative engine testing. These all have the effect of elevating cost for each
related development program or siphoning off budget for development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.33]
COST ANALYSIS PROCESS
The Agencies' cost analysis of compliance for engine and vehicle manufacturers, as well as impacts to
end-users, is woefully underestimated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.33]
Indirect Cost Determination as Inputs to MHD and HHP Manufacturers
As noted in Preamble section 2.12.1.2, the Agencies used Indirect Cost Multipliers (ICMs) to determine
markup factors that have the benefit over the previous method of including technology complexity to
determine expected retail pricing. The ICM is calculated as: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.33]
ICM = (direct cost + adjusted indirect cost)/ (direct cost)
Direct costs cover those costs directly associated with producing one unit (e.g. materials, labor, and
warranty). Indirect costs are all costs associated with producing one unit that are not direct costs (e.g.
R&D and Sales and Administration costs). The adjusted indirect cost takes into consideration the fact
that indirect costs may not be the same for different technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.33]
-------
This method was used for cost estimation of the light duty MYs 2012-2016 and MYs 2017-2025
rulemakings, as well as for the HD Phase 1 rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.33]
One shortcoming, however, is the lack of consideration for return on investment in the determination of
the ICMs. After the development of the LD ICMs for the aforementioned rulemakings and the
publication of a peer-reviewed report the Agencies revised the methodology to account for an internal
rate of return on investments. In the Phase 2 rulemaking the Agencies are applying this new
methodology to the heavy-duty pickup and van cost projections since "the manufacturers involved in
this segment of the heavy-duty market are the same manufacturers that build light-duty trucks."
However, for MHD and HHD combination tractors, vocational vehicles, and heavy-duty engine cost
projections the Agencies are using the Phase 1 ICMs which do not account for a return on the cost of
capital. It is unclear why the Agencies have determined that accounting for a return on investment only
applies to LD engine and vehicle manufacturers, but they state that "There was no serious disagreement
with this approach in the public comments" to any of the above mentioned rulemakings. This
commenter believes that this was likely due to an oversight given the sheer volume of documentation or
potentially limited understanding on behalf of the commenters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.33]
Regardless, it is Volvo Group's position that any industry should be considered as requiring a return on
its investment related to all indirect costs associated with the development and marketing of new
technology, with the MHD and HHD engine and vehicle industries being no exception. As such, Volvo
Group requests the Agencies revise the MHD and HHD cost calculations for the Phase 2 rule to account
for a reasonable return on investment. The Preamble does account for net present value in Table IX-3,
but uses a 3% and 7% discount rate which is insufficient to cover the cost of capital to heavy vehicle
manufacturers, let alone account for a positive net profit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.34]
Learning Effect Methodology
Volvo Group disagrees with the Agencies analysis of cost reduction based on learning curve effects
(reference RIA section 2.12.1.3) in that the base assumption assumes a doubling of volume in a fixed
two year period. For a steep curve, used for new and highly complex technologies, this corresponds to a
20% cost reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.34]
It is understood that for more mature technologies the steep portion of the curve is not used in favor of a
flatter curve with varying degrees of learning-based cost savings, but Volvo Group does not support the
reductions in the first few years on many of the "flat curves" shown in Table 2-101 and Figure 2-33, as
we have not experienced these levels of cost reduction without focused initiatives and associated
investment. As well, since the learning effect curves are based on volume growth and many of the
technologies accounted for in the referenced section are put into production in "cliff events" (Friday to
Monday production change), it is unclear whether even the shallowest curve could be realized. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.34]
[Table, Year-by-year Learning Curve Factors for the Learning Curves Used in this Analysis, can be
found on p.34 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1]
[Graph, Year-by-year Learning Curve Factors for the Learning Curves Used in this Analysis, can be
found on p.35 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1]
Technology Costs
-------
In performing cost analysis of technologies the Agencies have severely underestimated those costs, even
when accounting for conversion from 2012$ to expected MY 2021$. In addition, the technology costs
are subject to misunderstanding due to the 2012$ conversion and the penetration rate inclusion in the
package costs. One example of this is Waste Heat Recovery, which is assumed at a total cost of $10,780
in 2012$ in calendar year 2021, but with the penetration rate of 1% applied the cost is given as $105 in
2012$. It is also unclear why the costs for WHR go down annually from 2018 given no penetration until
2021 (this may be a conversion effect, but the only table found in the RIA and Preamble for conversion
to 2012$ was for 2005-2013). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.35]
As noted above, Volvo Group has significant concerns regarding technology costs as determined by the
Agencies. To be brief Volvo Group is only providing examples for one current and one future
technology, but the concerns can be addressed to nearly all technology cost determinations. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.35]
The Cost of Downtime
Though EPA and NHTSA mention the high cost of downtime in both the RIA and the Preamble, they
have ignored these costs in their analysis for the rule. They have also not considered the additional fuel
spent in the case of a break down and the resultant pollutants generated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.36]
Most large fleets today must purchase 3%-5% more trucks than necessary for their freight demand, to be
available to replace down trucks. Even then, once a truck does go down, the fleet must dispatch a tow
truck to recover it. If the repair cannot be made immediately, they must send another truck sometimes
many hundreds of miles to recover the load and carry it to its final destination. If the load is time
sensitive they could be liable for penalties for missed delivery timing. The driver must be transported
home, or to the location of another truck and load. Any repair parts not available locally must be sent by
expedited freight to minimize the amount of time the truck is in the shop. If the truck was not towed to a
fleet's own maintenance facility they must then send a driver to recover the unit once it has been
repaired. Added up, these costs can total thousands of dollars and account for significant additional
burned fuel. Smaller fleets that do not have the capital to purchase additional trucks to sit idle waiting
for break downs must absorb all of these costs while losing revenue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.36-37]
Additional Concerns
There are a few additional concerns Volvo Group would like to note in brief, where the Agencies have
not considered the following at realistic levels or have not included them in their cost analysis: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.37]
• Reliability and durability issues potentially resulting in tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in
warranty costs to the vehicle manufacturer and increased cost of ownership to the ultimate
purchaser in the form of more down-time and increased repair costs beyond the warranty
period.
• Resale values that do not reflect added purchase cost of technologies (and may even be reduced
for complex technologies that drive up maintenance cost) driving down the ultimate purchaser's
vehicle lifetime earnings.
• Customer expectations of a 12-18 month payback period on vehicle purchases.
-------
Despite this backdrop of growing pressure to further regulate NOx emissions from medium and heavy-
duty vehicles, there has been little consideration given to this anticipated demand in the Phase 2 notice.
This is a considerable oversight, given not only the well documented inverse relationship between NOx
and C02 emission for internal combustion engines10, but also considering the impact to manufacturers'
resource demands if they must develop an even broader array of technologies to simultaneously reduce
NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0 827- 1290-A1 p.59][This comment can also be found in section 15.8 of this
comment summary]
The development necessary to meet the proposed GHG standards should not be taken lightly. In many
ways, we're embarking into a new era. The development work to meet the NOx and PM reduction
challenges required by EPA's 2004/2007/2010 standards was based on widespread deployment of
mostly singular technologies - first Exhaust Gas Recirculation, then Diesel Particulate Filters, and
finally Selective Catalytic Reduction. In this Phase 2 GHG regulation, however, EPA and NHTSA are
counting on manufacturers to develop a series of technologies, each targeting a subset of applications.
Manufacturers lack the development capacity to meet the multiple, parallel development demands for
Phase 2. Waste-heat recovery, stop-start, hybrids in widely different vocational applications,
engine/transmission control integration, etc. - all of these are major engineering challenges. On top of
this is the strong possibility that this will be complicated by, and supplemented with, additional
development to address NOx reductions is not even considered in the NPRM. There are limitations to
the capabilities of manufacturers to deliver on all fronts. Overstressed delivery demands lead to product
launches with poor reliability and delayed purchases, which undermine all stakeholders' goals. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.59-60] [This comment can also be found in section 158 of this
comment summary]
10 EPA even established a formula for the NOx/GHG tradeoff in the Alternative C02 Standards - 40
CFR Part 1036.620.
Response:
The commenter states, with regard to EPA's indirect cost multipliers used for HD tractors, "One
shortcoming, however, is the lack of consideration for return on investment in the determination of the
ICMs. After the development of the LD ICMs for the aforementioned rulemakings and the publication
of a peer-reviewed report the agencies revised the methodology to account for an internal rate of return
on investments. In the Phase 2 rulemaking the agencies are applying this new methodology to the
heavy-duty pickup and van cost projections since "the manufacturers involved in this segment of the
heavy-duty market are the same manufacturers that build light-duty trucks." The commenter also states
that "for MHD and HHD combination tractors, vocational vehicles, and heavy-duty engine cost
projections the agencies are using the Phase 1 ICMs which do not account for a return on the cost of
capital." This statement reflects a lack of understanding with EPA's development and use of ICMs. In
the draft RIA supporting the Phase 1 proposal, we stated, with regards to our HD ICMs, "The ICMs
used in this analysis include a factor for profit that is a 0.05 share of direct costs, as calculated in the
RTI report, for the Class 7/8 tractor, vocational vehicles, and heavy-duty engine cost projections." (see
EPA-420-D-10-901, page 2-4) So, in fact, the HD ICMs have always included a factor for the return on
capital and, therefore, there is no omission to correct.
The commenter also states that learning effects and their impacts on technology costs have been
overestimated. However, the commenter provides no better or suggested learning effects. Importantly,
-------
the commenter does not appear to suggest that learning effects are not real. In the absence of better
estimates, hawse have, in general, used the same learning effects in the final rules as in the proposal.
As for technology costs and conversions to 2012$ while showing costs in MY2021, and the application
of learning effects in years prior to any adoption, we are confused by the first and understanding of the
second. As regards the first, the proposed analysis calculated all monetized values in terms of 2012$.
That use of 2012$ has no relation to the year in which the estimates are valid. It simply means that all
values are expressed in 2012$ and, should a future study make use of the values in the analysis, the
values should be adjusted from 2012$ terms to the dollars used in that future study. In other words, a
widget costing $100 in 2012$ will cost $100 in 2012$ regardless of the year, absent any cost reductions
that may occur in the production of that widget. If, in some future analysis, all monetized values are
expressed in terms of 2018$, then the $100 (in 2012$) widget will, presumably, cost something slightly
more given the effects of inflation and, again, absent any learning effects that may occur. Again, this
discussion ignores the possible impacts of learning effects. As for the application of learning effects to
technologies despite lack of adoption, this is a valid point for some of our technologies, notably waste
heat recovery in the context of the proposal (note that, for waste heat recovery, our final cost estimate
does not show learning occurring in years prior to implementation in 2021). Cost estimation is
admittedly an inexact science. Some cost estimates assume early days of a technology's existence, while
others assume full production and adoption. This is how we form the "base" or "basis" of our cost
estimates. For something like waste heat recovery, the systems have changed considerably since their
first days on development vehicles. Costs for those systems have come down despite lack of adoption of
the systems in the market. In short, we attempt to develop the best cost estimates available and to
estimate how those costs might change over time. Admittedly, overestimating learning effects could
lead to overly aggressive standards. However, underestimating them could lead to inappropriately lax
standards. We strive to determine that middle, most likely outcome, and have documented the
reasonable basis for each of our assumptions and conclusions.
As regards the costs of downtime, we understand that such costs can be significant. However, the
commenter makes no specific comment nor provides specific data upon which to estimate such costs in
association with the technologies expected to be used in response to the new GHG/fuel consumption
standards. As noted in other responses, one reason the agencies are not adopting pulled ahead standards
(alternative 4) is due to the possibility of inadequately tested technology leading to downtime and
incurred costs.
As regards the other concerns stated by the commenter, we note that ICMs do include factors to cover
warranty costs. The commenter provides no data pertinent to concerns over reliability. Issues
surrounding potential future NOx regulations are not germane to these GHG and fuel consumption
standards.
Organization: Walmart Transportation
We support a strong Phase 2 rule that will drive innovation in truck technologies to viable solutions at a
pace that ensures the technologies will have the intended triple bottom line outcomes without
unintended consequences. Estimates of penetration rates, commercialized cost, and ROI of new
technologies are most robust when gained through independent lab and real world testing, as well as
from a survey of diverse stakeholders including the component manufacturers, OEMs, and users. Even
within one subset like the long-haul combination tractor-trailer market, results will be heavily dependent
on duty cycle and application. Within this complex environment, the trucking industry has proven its
ability to innovate and drive efficiency when given the right flexibility, incentives and resources.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0117-A1 p.l]
-------
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: Werner Enterprises
In many aspects, the proposed rule could be detrimental to our business through the projected increase
in costs of trucks, engines, and trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
There are several key areas the Agencies need to address: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
- Penetration rates for various technologies are too aggressive, resulting in overly stringent emission
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
Response:
We respond to issues surrounding technology adoption rates in the individual and respective sections of
this Response to Comments document, as well as the respective sections of RIA Chapter 2.
Organization: XL Hybrids
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 241-242.]
One, we recommend improvements to the hybridization cost models. The learning curve cost models in
the regulatory impact analysis table 2-100 for mild and strong hybrids does not appear to account
adequately for the highly specialized manufacturing cost and scaling that is unique to the lithium battery
market.
Response:
We would be interested in understanding what sorts of improvements should be made. However, no
details were provided by the commenter.
11.3 Changes in Fuel Consumption and Expenditures
Organization: ABC Bus Companies, Inc.
1) ABC supports improved fuel economy as a means to provide economic transportation to rural areas
of the country and efficient movement of passengers as a way to reduce highway congestion and C02
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.2]
Organization: Amy's Kitchen et al.
The availability of fuel-efficient trucks is critical to reducing our carbon footprints as well as our fuel
costs. Shippers already spend $650 billion a year on trucking services,111 and fuel costs account for 39%
of the per mile cost of owning and operating a truck. As compared to the proposed standards, a 40%
reduction in fuel use would cut an additional 200,000 barrels of oil daily in 20351V and provide 33%
more in fuel cost savings. Strong efficiency standards for heavy trucks will help our companies avoid
billions of dollars in fuel costs and at the same time support the U.S. economy by keeping product
-------
transportation affordable and insulating freight costs from volatile global and regional crude oil prices.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0232-A1 p.3]
iii The State of Logistics 2014, Council for Supply Chain Management Professionals, June 2014.
iv Newly Proposed Heavy-Duty Truck Efficiency Standards for 2018-2029. Cambridge: Union of
Concerned Scientists, 2015. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-
efficiency/proposed-truck-standards#.Vr4kJIQw3ww.
Organization: Burger, Mark
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 133-134.]
There are five risk factors to fuel prices in the near and long term. First is possible global pricing of
carbon emissions. At $25 to $50 per metric ton, that can means adding $10 to $20 to the price of a barrel
of oil, or up to 25 to 50 cents per gallon of fuel. The second global risk factor is a geopolitical event up
to and including warfare that could disrupt or interrupt oil and gas shipments. The last one is declining
rates of extraction by cost or available resources.
For U.S. supply and pricing, there are two major risks to oil and gas prices and supply. First if the lifting
of the ban on petroleum exports and development of robust infrastructure to facilitate shipment,
especially for liquefied natural gas. The result will likely be U.S. prices of oil and gas moving upward
toward global market prices.
At present there is only about a 10 percent spread between Brent and West Texas intermediate
petroleum prices. The greater risk, however, U.S. natural gas prices rising to European or Asian levels
of two to four times greater. The other risk factor is shale extraction of petroleum and natural gas may
be far more short-lived than traditional extraction. Combined with exports to higher priced markets puts
the U.S. gasoline and diesel consumer at greater risk. It also neutralizes the premise that shifting heavy
truck fuel from diesel to natural gas will be a cost saver without higher efficiency standards.
Organization: California Interfaith Power and Light
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.105.]
And, as we heard, these will have benefits for companies in fuel savings and energy efficiency.
Organization: City of West Hollywood
Fuel is the largest expense for many vehicle fleets. Improvements in fuel economy represent a crucial
way for government fleets to control costs while continuing to deliver exemplary service. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0056-A1 p.l]
The 2011 standards will deliver on the order of $50 billion in cumulative fuel savings to vehicle owners
and operators over time. The standards will reduce fuel consumption in the overall heavy-duty vehicle
fleet by 390,000 barrels per day in 2030 - roughly equivalent to the amount of oil we import each year
-------
from Iraq. However, we can accomplish more. According to analysis by experts, by 2025 we have the
potential to cut fuel consumption of new trucks by at least 40 percent compared to 2010 levels.
Standards that extend beyond 2025 could achieve even larger savings. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0056-A1
p.2]
Organization: Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO)
Opportunities improving truck fuel efficiency are also great (and growing) based on already-existing
technologies and others in the R&D pipeline that show future promise: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1192-A1 p.l]
According to EPA data, the second phase rule is expected to save vehicle owners $170 billion in fuel
costs while conserving 1.8 billion barrels of oil and cutting carbon pollution by nearly 1 billion metric
tons over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1192-A1 p. 1]
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
Section IV examines analyses of the technological potential for and cost of reducing freight truck fuel
consumption. We show that there is a great deal of technically feasible and cost beneficial fuel savings
available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.9]
POTENTIAL FUEL AND COST SAVINGS FOR MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS
LIGHT DUTY TECHNOLOGY EXPERIENCE AS CONTEXT FOR HEAVY DUTY
STANDARDS
In 2002, after the first gasoline price spike of the 21st century, the National Academy of Science
undertook an analysis of the technological potential to increase the fuel economy of light duty
vehicles.18 It concluded that there was substantial opportunity to reduce fuel economy at relatively low
costs. They determined that the value of the fuel savings was larger than the cost of the technology
needed to reduce fuel use. As shown in Figure IV-1, other well-respected research reached similar
conclusions over the course of the decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.25]
[Figure IV-1 can be found on p.25 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
Although there were differences in the estimates, a clear consensus emerged showing a significant
amount of economic benefit in developing new fuel saving technologies. This universal conclusion was
a key reason why the doubling of the fuel economy standards for light duty vehicles (CAFE) was
adopted in 2012. It was particularly significant that this standard was fully supported by diverse
segments of the market including: car companies, unions, consumer groups, and environmentalists.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.25 -26]
Figure IV-2 shows the development of new light duty vehicle mileage since the adoption of fuel
economy standards. The CAFE program was instituted by legislation in 1975. Mandated increases
ceased in 1986. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, reformed and restarted the
program. The first proposed rule was issue in 2008 and went into effect in 2011. In 2009, standards
through 2016 were proposed. The long term rule to double fuel economy was finalized in 2012. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.26]
-------
[Figure IV-2 can be found on p.26 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCK TECHNOLOGY EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGY
CURVES
The consensus around the potential for increased fuel economy and the results of recent increases in the
standard in the light duty vehicle arena provide an important context for the heavy duty truck rule. The
medium and heavy duty truck sector is a much more complex product space than light duty vehicles.
Nevertheless, while there are different types of vehicles, equipment configurations, and use patterns, a
similar consensus has emerged with respect to medium and heavy duty trucks—expenditures on fuel
efficient technology will be more than offset by savings in fuel costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-
A1 p.26-27]
Figure IV-3 presents fuel savings in terms of percentage reduction (rather than gallons) for tractor
trailers. Tractor trailers, defined as Class 8 trucks, are the most significant category of medium and
heavy duty trucks, accounting for 60-75 percent of the fuel consumption for medium and heavy duty
trucks. Therefore, throughout this analysis we focus attention on these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1336-A1 p.27]
As Figure IV-3 shows, various studies predict that significant percentages of fuel reduction (10-20%)
can be made with technology investments of $10,000-$20,000. In addition, substantial percentages of
reduction (40-50%) can be made with investments of $40,000-$50,000.19 This high reduction in fuel
consumption is for Class 8 trucks, and other categories may not present equally rich fuel saving
potential, but the potential is substantial in all classes of trucks.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1
p.27]
[Figure IV-3 can be found on p.28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
Compared to the figures for light duty vehicles, the cost of adding efficiency technologies to heavy duty
trucks may appear large. However, heavy duty trucks are driven many more miles and fuel costs
between $100,000-$ 150,000 annually. Given the much larger number of miles driven per year of heavy
duty trucks and the much lower mileage per gallon, as well as the higher cost of diesel, the average
annual expenditure on fuel for heavy duty trucks is almost ten times the expenditure for light duty
vehicles.21 A ten percent reduction in fuel consumption will support a much larger investment in fuel
saving technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.28]
With estimates of the technology costs and fuel savings, the National Research Council report on
medium and heavy duty trucks simplifies the cost benefit analysis by focusing on the cost side and not
making assumptions about fuel prices (See Figure IV-4). Instead of engaging in the uncertain and
sometimes contentious exercise of projecting fuel costs over long periods, the National Research
Council estimates the price per gallon that would be necessary to break even on an investment that
incorporates technologies to reduce fuel consumption in medium and heavy duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.29]
[Figure IV-4 can be found on p.29 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
NRC includes a discount rate, representing the time value of money, set at 7% to compare the estimated
costs of saved fuel to projections for the future cost of fuel.22 As shown in Figure IV-4, the NRC
estimated that fuel prices would have to be just $1.09 per gallon for a very large investment in new
technology to earn a 7% real rate of return. As actual fuel prices are currently over three times this
-------
amount and expected to rise over time, the payout from these technologies would far exceed their cost.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.29-30]
In Figure IV-4, we have also converted the results of several other recent studies to this break-even
approach. While there are some differences among these studies, there is a clear consensus that large
investments in increasing the fuel economy of medium and heavy duty trucks are very attractive. All but
one of the analyses show that investments in technology to improve fuel economy would earn more than
the 7% discount rate at diesel prices of $2 and substantially more at higher gas prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.30]
EIA's projected fuel prices over the next quarter century will average close to $4.00 per gallon, as
shown in Figure IV-5. With average prices that high, over the next 25 years, the investment in energy
saving technology would yield a very attractive return. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.30]
Figure IV-6 shows the size of potential fuel savings compared to technology costs. It suggests that a
goal of cutting tractor trailer fuel consumption by 40 to 50 percent is economical in the long run. In
order to cut fuel consumption in half, one must double the fuel economy of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.30]
This is exactly the target that was adopted for light duty vehicles in the 2012 CAFE rule. For example, if
you reduce consumption by 50%, the breakeven cost of fuel is $1.50, which means that as long as fuel is
more than $1.50, the cost of technology will be a money saver. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1
p.30]
These analyses leave little doubt that there is a significant amount of technology available that would
lower the consumption of fuel in the medium and heavy duty truck sectors at a very attractive cost.
Consumer savings would be substantial. The next question is, why hasn't the marketplace witnessed
these investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.30]
[Figures IV-5 and IV-6 can be found on p.32 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
We begin with a discussion of the fuel savings benefits and the technology costs that must be incurred to
achieve the reduction in fuel consumption. Although we recognize there are other economic costs and
benefits, these make up the vast majority of the total costs and benefits. They are the most obvious
consumer pocketbook benefits and costs. Because they are direct and not externalities, in a properly
functioning market they would be reflected in the investment decisions that affect energy consumption.
The analysis shows they are not, indicating significant market imperfections, obstacles and failures.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A 1 p.45]
DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Our discussion of economics developed a simple economic criteria as a way to easily summarize the
very complex economic analysis - the cost of saved energy. EPA/NHTSA start with this approach,
which is derived by dividing the real, discounted economic costs (including capital and maintenance
costs), by the total number of gallons saved.32 The results are eye-popping. For the proposed rule, the
improvement in fuel economy works out to a cost of only $0.40 per gallon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.45-46]
As discussed below, the agencies estimate that over the lifetime of heavy duty vehicles produced for
sale in the U.S. during model years 2018-2029, the proposed standards [Alternative 3] would cost about
-------
$30 billion and conserve about 75 billion gallons of fuel, such that the first measure of cost effectiveness
would be about 40 cents per gallon. Relative to fuel prices underlying the agencies' analysis, the
agencies have concluded that today's proposed standards would be cost effective... [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.46]
Our current analysis of Alternative 4 also shows that, if technologically feasible, it would have similar
cost effectiveness but with greater net benefits (see Chapter 11 of the draft RIA). For example, the
agencies estimate costs under Alternative 4 could be about $40 billion and about 85 billion gallons of
fuel could be conserved, such that the first measure of cost effectiveness would be about 47 cents per
gallon. However, the agencies considered all of the relevant factors, not just relative cost effectiveness,
when selecting the proposed standards from among the alternatives considered. Relative cost
effectiveness was not a limiting factor for the agencies in selecting the proposed standards. It is also
worth noting that the proposed standards and the Alternative 4 standards appear very cost effective,
regardless of which reference case is used for the baseline, such that all of the analyses reinforced the
agencies' findings.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.46]
With fuel prices projected to be about $4.00 per gallon, there is no doubt that the investment induced by
the proposed rule would be very beneficial. The other measures of economic impact tell the same story.
The value of fuel savings are over six times as large as the technology costs associated with the rule and
over five times as large as the total cost. The payback period is less than two years for tractor trailers,
which account for 65 percent of the total costs and savings of the rule, less than 4 years for medium and
heavy duty pickups and vans, and less than 7 years for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.46]
The economics of the standard are so highly favorable that they raise a concern that is in the opposite
direction of the usual concern about standards-Why didn't the agencies include additional technologies
that would yield very positive economic returns? As suggested by the quote above, there are other
considerations, in addition to simple economics, that come into play, which led the agencies to reject
including technologies that would increase costs and benefits moderately and yield a cost per gallon of
only $0.47. We will address this question at the end of this section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-
A1 p.46-47]
18 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2002, Effectiveness and Impact of
Corporate Average Fuel Economy, National Academy of Sciences.
19 It is important to note that a 50% fuel consumption decrease is equal to a 100% increase in fuel
economy. In other words, when the fuel economy doubles, the fuel consumption is cut in half.
20 For example, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates potential fuel savings
from two phases of technology improvement at between 30% and 46% for heavy duty pickups and vans
and Class 8 trucks respectively, http://aceee.org/files/pdf/fact-sheet/hd-oil-reduction.pdf. There are
many opportunities to reduce fuel consumption that have been studied recently. See for example, Ben
Sharpe and Nigel Clark, Trailer technologies for increased heavy-duty vehicle efficiency, Technical,
market, and policy considerations, International Council on Clean Transportation, June 2013; Donald
W. Stanton, Systematic Development of Highly Efficient and Clean Engines to Meet Future
Commercial Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulations, Safe International, 2013-01-2421, September 2013;
TA Engineering, DOE SuperTruck Program Benefits Analysis, December 20, 2012. It should also be
noted that the cost analyses are being updated and, reflecting the findings in Cooper, 2013, the actual
costs are likely to be lower than early estimates.
-------
21 Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review for fuel consumption, of 4, 26 gallons
per heavy duty truck of 4126 gallon and 460 gallons per light duty vehicle in 2011. Diesel was over 7%
more expensive than gasoline.
22 The discount rate also refers to the interest rate used in discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to
determine the present value of future cash flows... takes into account not just the time value of money,
but also the risk or uncertainty of future cash flows; imestopedia. com/terms/d/discountrate.asp
32 EPA/NHTSA, PHASE IINOPR, p. 40169, lists the cost per gallon saved as the first of three ratios of
cost Effectiveness." It is the only one of the three that is based on economics. The other two ratio
involve the value of greenhouse gas reductions.
33 EPA/NHTSA, NPRM, p. 40169.
Organization: Diaz, Miguel
While the transportation system is only responsible for just 27%, is a really big number when you
consider that is the second group that most emissions produce after electricity. The measures taken by
EPA are indeed the right call and a smart decision for it will help to reduce millions of dollars in oil use,
reduce billions of greenhouse gas emissions, and start reducing the extraction of the world's natural
resources that are limited like petroleum. Even though, only 7 perfect of the vehicles are considered to
be freight trucks now days, they use about 1/4 of the fuel currently used in the country. They (the
vehicles) produce a huge quantity of emissions and demand for oil, equipment and resources. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1848-A1 p.l-2][This comment can also be found in section 9.3 of this comment
summary]
Organization: Energy Ohio Network
Businesses and consumers across all sectors of the economy rely on trucks to move materials and
products. Tractor-trailers and package delivery vans move $10 trillion worth of freight each year and
commuter buses transport 3.5 million people to work every day.3 Furthermore, U.S. companies spent
over $700 billion dollars on trucking services in 2014. As travel among heavy- duty vehicles grows by
nearly 50 percent over the next 25 years, America will continue to rely on these trucks to support critical
services needs as well as the growing economy.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1331-A1 p.l]
Fuel is the single largest expense to motor carriers - accounting for nearly 40 percent of operating costs,
or about $73,000 annually for a combination trailer that gets about 6.5 miles to the gallon (mpg).5 These
charges are passed on to consumers through higher priced products. The Consumer Federation of
America reports that fuel costs for goods and services delivered by medium-and heavy-duty trucks cost
U.S. households an average of $1,100 in 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1331-A1 p. 1-2]
3 http://www.ucsusa.Org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/heavy-duty-truck-standards#.VXho5c9VhBc;
https ://www. census, gov/prod/201 lpubs/acs-15 .pdf;
4 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_deliveredenergy.cfm
-------
5 http://atri-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ATRI-Operational-Costs-of-Trucking-2014-
FINAL.pdf; http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Truck-
T echnology-F actsheet.pdf
Organization: Environment America and other local citizens across America
Fuel is the largest expense for many vehicle fleets. [1] Improvements in fuel economy represent a crucial
way for government fleets to control costs while continuing to deliver exemplary service.
[1] http://www.automotive-fleet.com/article/story/2013/ll/fleet-operating-costs-remain-flat-in-
2013.aspx
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
B. Increased efficiency provides savings across the supply chain
A more robust final rule will also deliver greater economic benefits. More efficient heavy-duty trucks
secure cost savings across the entire supply chain - from the fuel cost savings by independent drivers
and fleets who purchase the vehicles, to shippers who deliver goods, to the American consumers who
buy those goods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.17]
The average semi-truck today burns 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year - the same volume of fuel used
by 50 new passenger cars.77 Accordingly, fuel has been the largest single cost for trucking fleets,
accounting for 39% of the cost of ownership in 2013.78 More efficient trucks drive down the fuel costs
for drivers and fleets. An analysis by EDF and others found that a robust rule that reduces fuel
consumption by 40 percent over 2010 levels could save average tractor-trailer owners and drivers about
$30,000 per year in fuel.79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.18]
EDF and CERES examined how strong standards would affect the cost of moving freight by trucks,
finding that strong standards will save companies nearly $10 billion dollars in 2030, as the cost-per-mile
to move freight would decrease by $0.06 per mile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 18]
By 2040, these savings could grow to $34 billion annually, as the net effect of the second phase of the
standard alone could reduce the per-mile cost of moving freight by 21 cents. so[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.18]
77 Assumes Class 8 truck VMT of 120,000 miles and average fuel economy of 6.1 MPG, and sedan
VMT of 11,318 and average fuel economy of 31 MPG. Energy Information Agency (EIA), Annual
Energy Outlook 2014, Table 68; Freight Transportation Energy Use. Heavy Duty Fuel Efficiency,
Existing Trucks by Size Class. University of Michigan Eco-Driving Index available
at www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/data/UMTRI_sales-weighted-CAFE_April-2015.xls; and Federal
Highway Administration, Table VM-1 American Public Transit Association's Public Transportation
Fact Book Tables 8, 16, and 21.
78 American Transportation Research Institute, An Analysis of the Operational Costs of
Trucking, (September 2013), available at http://truckexec.typepad.com/files/atri-operational-costs-of-
trucking-2013-final.pdf.
-------
79 EDF et al., Big Fuel Savings Available in New Trucks, (2014), available
at http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/trucksavingsfactsheet-2014-06-ll.pdf.
80 EDF and CERES, EPA/NHTSA Phase 2 Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Standards for Heavy-
Duty Trucks: Projected Effect on Freight Costs, (May 2015), available
athttp://business.edf.org/files/2015/06/EDF-Ceres-Report-Truck-Rule-Phase-2-Effect-on-Freight-
Rate.pdf.
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 3 (email) - (308)
Today, freight trucks account for only seven percent of the vehicles on the road, but guzzle roughly one-
quarter of all fuel. Indeed, freight trucks are the fastest growing source of oil use and climate pollution
in the transportation sector. The proposed standards would significantly reduce oil use, saving 1.8
billion barrels of oil and 1 billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the lives of the trucks sold. These
cost-effective improvements would not only save truck drivers more than $170 billion in fuel costs,
those fuel savings will be passed on to consumers as goods are shipped to market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1477-A1 p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Sierra Club (email) - (26,917)
Today, freight trucks account for only 7 percent of the vehicles on the road, but guzzle roughly one-
quarter of all fuel. Indeed, freight trucks are the fastest growing source of oil use and climate pollution
in the transportation sector. The proposed standards would significantly reduce oil use, saving 1.8
billion barrels of oil and 1 billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the lives of the trucks sold. These
cost-effective improvements would not only save truck drivers more than $170 billion in fuel costs,
those fuel savings will be passed on to consumers as goods are shipped to market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0814-A1 p.l]
Analysis shows that we can reduce new truck fuel consumption 40 percent by 2025, compared to 2010
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0814-A1 p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by The League of Conservation Voters (LCV)
(web) - (6,603)
Analysis shows that we can reduce new truck fuel consumption 40 percent by 2025, compared to 2010
trucks. If the standard is strengthened to this target, it would save an additional 200,000 barrels of oil
per day in 2035, and avoid an additional 40 million metric tons of global warming emissions annually-
equivalent to shutting down 12 coal-fired power plants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1228-A1 p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists (email) -
(28,135)
Heavy-duty trucks account for only seven percent of the vehicles on the road, but consume roughly one-
quarter of all fuel. Furthermore, heavy-duty trucks are the fastest growing source of oil use in the
transportation sector. The proposed standards would cut oil use by over a million barrels every two
days. The standards would also save truck drivers more than $170 billion in fuel costs, and those
savings would be passed on to consumers through lower goods prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0913-A1 p.l]
-------
Analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) shows that we can cost-effectively reduce new
truck fuel consumption 40 percent by 2025. If the proposal is strengthened in line with UCS analysis, it
would save an additional 200,000 barrels of oil per day in 2035 and avoid an additional 40 million
metric tons of global warming emissions annually-equivalent to shutting down 12 coal-fired power
plants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0913-A 1 p.l]
Organization: Mazza & Sons, Inc.
Businesses and consumers across all sectors of the economy rely on trucks to move materials and
products. Tractor-trailers and package delivery vans move $10 trillion worth of freight each year and
commuter buses transport 3.5 million people to work every day.3 Furthermore, U.S. companies spent
over $700 billion dollars on trucking services in 2014. As travel among heavy duty vehicles grows by
nearly 50 percent over the next 25 years, America will continue to rely on these trucks to support critical
services needs as well as the growing economy.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0915-A1 p.l]
Fuel is the single largest expense to motor carriers - accounting for nearly 40 percent of operating costs,
or about $73,000 annually for a combination trailer that gets about 6.5 miles to the gallon (mpg).5 These
charges are passed on to consumers through higher priced products. The Consumer Federation of
America reports that fuel costs for goods and services delivered by medium-and heavy-duty trucks cost
U.S. households an average of $1,100 in 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0915-A1 p. 1-2]
The first round of truck standards, affecting model year 2014 through 2018 vehicles, is estimated to save
a total of $50 billion in fuel costs and reduce carbon pollution by 270 million metric tons. Finalizing a
strong second phase rule will generate $230 billion dollars in net benefits to the U.S. over the lifetime of
vehicles sold between 2021 and 2027.6 Vehicle owners will save $170 billion while conserving 1.8
billion barrels of oil and cutting carbon pollution by nearly 1 billion metric tons under the regulatory
timeframe. Furthermore, a new long-haul truck owner in 2027 will recoup the upfront cost of more
efficient technologies less than 2 years through fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0915-A1 p.2]
3 http://www.ucsusa.Org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/heavy-dutv-truck-standards#.VXho5c9VhBc;
https ://www. census, gov/prod/201 lpubs/acs-15 .pdf;
4 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_deliveredenergy.cfm
5 http://atri-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ATRI-Operational-Costs-of-Trucking-2014-
FINAL.pdf; http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Truck-
T echnology-F actsheet.pdf
6 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420fl5903 .pdf
Organization: Momentum Wireless Power
The Consumer Federation of America reports that fuel costs for goods and services delivered by
medium-and heavy-duty trucks cost U.S. households an average of $1,100 in 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0755-A1 p.2]
-------
The first round of truck standards, affecting model year 2014 through 2018 vehicles, is estimated to save
a total of $50 billion in fuel costs and reduce carbon pollution by 270 million metric tons. Finalizing a
strong second phase rule will generate $230 billion dollars in net benefits to the U.S. over the lifetime of
vehicles sold between 2021 and 2027.6 Vehicle owners will save $170 billion while conserving 1.8
billion barrels of oil and cutting carbon pollution by nearly 1 billion metric tons under the regulatory
timeframe. Furthermore, a new long-haul truck owner in 2027 will recoup the upfront cost of more
efficient technologies less than 2 years through fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0755-A1 p.2]
6 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420fl5903.pdf
Organization: Moms Clean Air Force
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 65.]
If finalized as proposed, the standards would cut oil use by over a million barrels every two days. By not
burning that oil, the United States would over the lifetime of trucks affected by the rule avoid one
billion metric tons of global warming emissions. That's roughly equivalent to the emissions created by
powering all U.S. households for a year. That creates not only cleaner air, but a future that our children
can count on.
I think we need to do more than the proposed standard. To protect our children, we need standards to be
strengthened to achieve 40 percent fuel savings by 2025. If the final proposal is strengthened in this
way, it would save an additional 200,000 barrels of oil per day and avoid an additional 40 million metric
tons of global warming emissions annually, which is the equivalent to shutting down 12 coal-fired
power plants. Imagine the incredible impact that would have on children's health and all of our futures.
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards can also help truck manufacturers be more resilient in the
face of market changes outside of their control. For example, fuel-efficient vehicles will be less
vulnerable to sales declines when diesel and gasoline fuel price spikes. On the other hand, fleets
dependent on fuel-guzzling vehicles will have to spend more to fuel their fleet and their budgets for new
vehicle purchases will shrink. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.11]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Another item of concern relates to the basis for adoption rates as influenced by oil and diesel prices. The
RIA uses the early 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) forecast for expected diesel prices. Since then,
the projections have dramatically decreased.7 A May 2015 forecast shows a reference crude oil price in
2020 that is approximately $20 per barrel lower in the 2015 estimate than in the AEO2104 estimate used
in the RIA.8 Within the period covered by the rule the projection is lower at all points by approximately
$20 a barrel. The primary/reference fuel price in 2020 and 2027 (interpolated) are 14% and 10%,
respectively, lower in the 2015 forecast than the 2014 forecast (while the average for 2020 and 2027 is
6% lower). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.6]
Looking specifically at diesel price forecasts, one sees the same revision downward. For example, the
AEO2015 shows diesel prices at $3.17 per gallon in 2020, as opposed to the $3.67 forecast from 2014
-------
used in the RIA.9 The table below shows the differences in the estimates between the 2014 and 2015
AEO forecasts for the relevant time periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.6-7]
Clearly, the estimated price of diesel over the years encompassed by this rule declined significantly.
Reducing fuel costs by 10% would add 6-12 months to vocational and bus payback periods, which are
already calculated in the RIA at 5-6 years. This payback period will meet or exceed the expected life of
many of these vehicles. Larger fleets are also able to reduce fuel costs by 30% by purchasing in bulk
with long-term contracts and other mechanisms, which can add approximately 6 months to tractor
payback periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.7]
7 Annual Energy Outlook 2015, available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015 ).pdf
8 See summary comparison of AEO2015 reference case with AEO2014 at U.S. Energy Information
Administration presentation "Lower oil prices and the energy outlook" at slide 11, available at:
http://www.eia. gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski 06222015 .pdf
9 AEO2015 at A125, Table A12.
Organization: Ohio Sustainable Business Council (SBC)
Businesses and consumers across all sectors of the economy rely on trucks to move materials and
products. Tractor-trailers and package delivery vans move $10 trillion worth of freight each year and
commuter buses transport 3.5 million people to work every day.3 Furthermore, U.S. companies spent
over $700 billion dollars on trucking services in 2014. As travel among heavy duty vehicles grows by
nearly 50 percent over the next 25 years, America will continue to rely on these trucks to support critical
services needs as well as the growing economy.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1177-A1 p. 1]
Fuel efficiency is good for business. Fuel is the single largest expense to motor carriers -accounting for
nearly 40 percent of operating costs, or about $73,000 annually for a combination trailer that gets about
6.5 miles to the gallon (mpg).5 These charges are passed on to consumers through higher priced
products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1177-A1 p.l]
The Consumer Federation of America reports that fuel costs for goods and services delivered by
medium-and heavy-duty trucks cost U.S. households an average of $1,100 in 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1177-A1 p.2]
The first round of truck standards, affecting model year 2014 through 2018 vehicles, is estimated to save
a total of $50 billion in fuel costs and reduce carbon pollution by 270 million metric tons. Finalizing a
strong second phase rule will generate $230 billion dollars in net benefits to the U.S. over the lifetime of
vehicles sold between 2021 and 2027.6 Vehicle owners will save $170 billion while conserving 1.8
billion barrels of oil and cutting carbon pollution by nearly 1 billion metric tons under the regulatory
timeframe. Furthermore, a new long-haul truck owner in 2027 will recoup the upfront cost of more
efficient technologies less than 2 years through fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1177-A1 p.2]
Diesel Fuel Prices 2020
2014 AEO Estimate $3.67
2015 AEO Estimate $3.17
Percentage reduction 13.6%
2025
$3.98
$3.49
12.3%
2030
$4.20
$3.84
8.6%
-------
3 http://www.ucsusa.Org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/heavy-duty-truck-standards#.VXho5c9VhBc;
https ://www. census, gov/prod/201 lpubs/acs-15 .pdf;
4 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_deliveredenergy.cfm
5 http://atri-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ATRI-Operational-Costs-of-Trucking-2014-
FINAL.pdf; http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Truck-
T echnology-F actsheet.pdf
6 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420fl5903.pdf
Organization: Operation Free
There are economic problems with oil, too. Global supply cannot keep up with demand. The price will
keep going up, hitting all of us at the pump. With this rule, vehicle owners will save an average of $170
billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles sold. Increasing truck efficiency saves money,
which will be reflected in the price of consumer goods. Furthermore, when the price of oil spikes, the
military must repurpose funds away from training, maintenance, and readiness programs to offset the
cost, putting missions at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1175 p.2] [[These comments can also be
found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p.194.]]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Fuel economy is only one factor truckers must use in making equipment decisions.
There are many factors in a tractor, engine, or trailer that a truck owner must consider when making an
equipment purchase. Fuel economy is certainly one of those factors, as it is the greatest expense of the
owner-operator, but other needs and requirements of the job matter. Primary among these is reliability
and the equipment specifications required by the function served by different types of truck operation in
our economy. For example, while lower rolling resistant (LRR) tires can be beneficial for a trucking
company operating around the flat plains of Kansas, they can become a safety hazard while operating in
the mountainous regions, such as the Tejon Pass in California or the Loveland Pass in
Colorado. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has demonstrated that the fuel
efficiency will decrease for a sleeper cab tractor pulling a flatbed trailer if it is equipped with a full-
height air deflector because the high roof sleeper increases the frontal area of the truck beyond what the
trailer requires.4 Thus, there are many equipment decisions which affect the purchase of a truck. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.6]
Organization: Pew Charitable Trusts
Businesses and consumers across all sectors of the economy rely on trucks to move materials and
products. Tractor-trailers and package delivery vans move $10 trillion worth of freight each year and
commuter buses transport 3.5 million people to work every day.3 Furthermore, U.S. companies spent
over $700 billion dollars on trucking services in 2014 4 As travel among heavy duty vehicles grows by
nearly 50 percent over the next 25 years, America will continue to rely on these trucks to support critical
services needs as well as the growing economy.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1334-A1 p.l]
-------
Fuel is the single largest expense to motor carriers - accounting for nearly 40 percent of operating costs,
or about $73,000 annually for a combination trailer that gets about 6.5 miles to the gallon (mpg).6 These
charges are passed on to consumers through higher priced products. The Consumer Federation of
America reports that fuel costs for goods and services delivered by medium-and heavy-duty trucks cost
U.S. households an average of $1,100 in 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1334-A1 p.2]
The first round of truck standards, affecting model year 2014 through 2018 vehicles, is estimated to save
a total of $50 billion in fuel costs and reduce carbon pollution by 270 million metric tons. Finalizing a
strong second phase rule will generate $230 billion dollars in net benefits to the U.S. over the lifetime of
vehicles sold between 2021 and 2027.7 Vehicle owners will save $170 billion while conserving 1.8
billion barrels of oil and cutting carbon pollution by nearly 1 billion metric tons under the regulatory
timeframe. Furthermore, a new long-haul truck owner in 2027 will recoup the upfront cost of more
efficient technologies less than 2 years through fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1334-A1 p.2]
3 http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/heavy-duty-truck-
standards#.VXho5c9VhBc;https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf;
4 http://www.trucking.org/article.aspx?uid=70210058-bb81-44df-a565-492f899fcl39
5 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_deliveredenergy.cfm
6 http://atri-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ATRI-Operational-Costs-of-Trucking-2014-
FINAL.pdf; http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Truck-
T echnology-F actsheet.pdf
7 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420fl5903.pdf
Organization: Quasar Energy Group
Because truck fuel consumption is so great (and growing), the benefits of improving truck fuel
efficiency are also great (and growing): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1335-A1 p.l]
Finalizing a strong second phase rule is expected to save vehicle owners $170 billion in fuel costs while
conserving 1.8 billion barrels of oil and cutting carbon pollution by nearly 1 billion metric tons over the
lifetime of vehicles sold under the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1335-A1 p.2]
Organization: Sanborn Head
Businesses and consumers across all sectors of the economy rely on trucks to move materials and
products. Tractor-trailers and package delivery vans move $10 trillion worth of freight each year and
commuter buses transport 3.5 million people to work every day.3 Furthermore, U.S. companies spent
over $700 billion dollars on trucking services in 2014. As travel among heavy duty vehicles grows by
nearly 50 percent over the next 25 years, America will continue to rely on these trucks to support critical
services needs as well as the growing economy.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1257-A1 p.l]
Fuel is the single largest expense to motor carriers — accounting for nearly 40 percent of operating
costs, or about $73,000 annually for a combination trailer that gets about 6.5 miles to the gallon (mpg).5
-------
These charges are passed on to consumers through higher priced products. The Consumer Federation of
America reports that fuel costs for goods and services delivered by medium-and heavy-duty trucks cost
U.S. households an average of $1,100 in 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1257-A1 p.2]
The first round of truck standards, affecting model year 2014 through 2018 vehicles, is estimated to save
a total of $50 billion in fuel costs and reduce carbon pollution by 270 million metric tons. Finalizing a
strong second phase rule will generate $230 billion dollars in net benefits to the U.S. over the lifetime of
vehicles sold between 2021 and 2027.6 Vehicle owners will save $170 billion while conserving 1.8
billion barrels of oil and cutting carbon pollution by nearly 1 billion metric tons under the regulatory
timeframe. Furthermore, a new long-haul truck owner in 2027 will recoup the upfront cost of more
efficient technologies less than 2 years through fuel savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1257-A1 p.2]
3 http://www.ucsusa.Org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/heavy-duty-truck-standards#.VXho5c9VhBc;
https ://www. census, gov/prod/201 lpubs/acs-15 .pdf
4 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_deliveredenergy.cfm
5 http://atri-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ATRI-Operational-Costs-of-Trucking-2014-
FINAL.pdf; http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Truck-
T echnology-F actsheet.pdf
6 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420fl5903.pdf
Response:
Many of the comments here are supportive comments, some of which suggest that the standards should
be more stringent to ensure more fuel savings and greater environmental protection. As a specific
example, CFA points to the more stringent proposed Alternative 4 as appearing to be similar to
proposed program (Alternative 3) in terms of cost effectiveness, but with greater net benefits. As
discussed in Section XI of the Preamble, the agencies do not believe the Alternative 4 standards to be
feasible overall, and we are consequently unable to accurately estimate costs for them. CFA is correct
that the agencies had other factors to consider in setting the final standards, including available
technology, feasible reductions of emissions and fuel consumption, costs, lead time, safety, and other
relevant factors. For the final standards, we are adopting those elements of the proposed Alternative 4
where we have determined them to be feasible in the lead time provided, resulting in a final program
that is more stringent that what was proposed (as discussed in Preamble Sections II-VI). For more
responses to comments that generally call for more stringent standards, see Section 8.1.1 of this RTC.
PerNavistar's comment about AEO fuel prices, we note that agencies have updated to EIA's 2015 AEO
price forecasts, the most recent available at the time that we conducted the analysis presented in the
rulemaking documents. The agencies have routinely used the Annual Energy Outlook as a source of
estimating future fuel prices since making such estimates is outside our area of expertise. We also
consider the projections made in the AEO to be better data than current or recent spot prices since the
projections take into consideration estimates of future economic activity. We conclude that the standards
continue to have benefits that greatly exceed costs, and, as noted, fairly short payback periods. We
conducted sensitivity analyses using the AEO High and Low fuel price cases (RIA Chapter 8.12) and
these conclusions still stand.
-------
11.4 Maintenance Expenditures
Organization: ABC Bus Companies, Inc.
GHG, C02, emission technology's costs seem to be only calculated only on the new purchase cost of
vehicles. Total maintenance and life cycle costs are not accounted for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1430-A2 p.4]
Response:
We include maintenance costs for the full life of the vehicle. In the proposal, we included those lifetime
costs for tires. In the final rules, we include those costs for many items. Please refer to RIA 7.2.3 for
more details regarding the maintenance items included in the final rules and for the full lifetime of
vehicles equipped with each technology.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Maintenance costs
The NPRM requests comment on the estimation of maintenance costs for hybrid electric vehicles.
CARB staff supports the inclusion of all maintenance costs across vehicle technologies. Maintenance
costs of hybrid buses 80 and small fleets of hybrid delivery vans81 have been estimated as part of several
recent research projects. In addition, changes in electricity expenditures associated with BEVs should
also be included in the estimation of fuel costs for advanced technology vehicles. In other words, the
costs and savings resulting from changes in electricity consumption, not just savings based on the
decreased use of liquid fuels, must be incorporated into the fuel cost savings calculation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 183]
80 (Callaghan and Lynch, 2005) Callaghan, L. and Lynch, S., "Analysis of electric drive technologies for
transit applications: battery-electric, hybrid-electric, and fuel cells. U.S. Department of Transportation,"
Final Report: FTA-MA-26-7100-05.1, 1-54.
81 (Lammert, 2009) Lammert, M, "Twelve-Month evaluation of UPS diesel hybrid electric delivery
vans," NREL Technical Report: NREL/TP-540-44134, 1-38.
Response:
We have included many more maintenance items in the final rules than were included in the proposal.
For example, we include savings associated with fewer oil changes on hybrid equipped vocational
vehicles. Please refer to RIA 7.2.3 for more details.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Seventh, the agencies failed to quantify maintenance costs. Indeed the agencies state on 80 FR 40325
and 40445 that they only quantified the cost of tire maintenance. The cost of maintaining hybrid
batteries and other such items dwarfs the costs of tires and likely turns the agencies' cost-benefit
analysis on its ear. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.129]
-------
Response:
The final rule analysis includes maintenance costs on batteries included in hybridized vocational
vehicles. Please refer to RIA 7.2.3 for more details.
Organization: NAFA Fleet Management Association
Fleet managers appreciate the importance of continual improvement in emissions, but many have seen
maintenance cost increases triple the rate of inflation since 2007 as a result of government emissions
regulations. Many fleets have also seen increases in engine, exhaust, cooling and fuel system repair
costs from 2010-2014 related to engine emissions complexity. Complexity further compromises the
industry's ability to ensure technician capability is maintained, forcing fleets to maintain higher vehicle
counts due to costs, complexity and capability. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.2] [[These comments
can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 179-180.]]
NAFA urges the EPA and NHTSA to undertake a more robust sensitivity analysis with respect to
maintenance and potential scenarios. The proposal and the Regulatory Impact Analysis do not go far
enough in looking at potential maintenance costs. Projected fuel savings assumed by the proposed
standards will not offset operational costs in every instance. Fuel costs are only one element of the cost
architecture of a vehicle. Other costs include maintenance and repair, depreciation, and costs associated
with doing business. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 180.]]
Response:
We have included far more costs associated with maintenance in the final rules than in the proposal.
Please refer to RIA 7.2.3 for more details.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Warranty, Maintenance, and Downtime Costs
The proposed rule will force new technologies into the market and with new technologies will come
increased warranty costs, maintenance costs, and costs associated with increased downtime. The
proposed rule only counts some of the increased maintenance costs associated with tires. In doing so,
the agencies are greatly underestimating the overall impact of new technology. The agencies should
calculate in the analysis additional warranty, maintenance and downtime costs. In an April 2014 Board
Meeting, OOIDA Board Member Lewie Pugh presented to the EPA a 7-foot long printout of everything
that had gone wrong with the MaxxForce engine truck that he had purchased in 2011. He said, "When
the truck breaks down, the mechanics don't even know what's wrong. They don't know how to work on
them. The dealership I go to is packed with trucks with emission problems.48" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p.45][This comment can also be found in section 11.12 of this comment summary]
If an Alternative that forces new technologies is chosen by the agencies, the impact of increased repairs
beyond traditional warranty coverage needs to be taken into account. Small business owners and fleets
cannot continue to bear the cost of forced technologies and the ensuing repairs. The irony with this
situation is that any increased warranty coverage would increase the purchase price of a new
truck. Additionally, this will negatively impact the resale value of the truck. For example, the trucks
subject to the Phase I standards, such as the MaxxForce engine which caused large amounts of
downtime, will be passed along to the new consumer, without an extended warranty, many owner-
-------
operators could be placed out of business. According to the OOIDA Foundations Member Profile
Survey, 74 percent of owner-operators purchase used trucks. Any unreliable or problematic truck
produced as a consequence of the Phase II standards will eventually be placed on the used market, thus
adversely impacting owner-operators who purchase them several years into the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1244-A1 p.45-46] [This comment can also be found in section 11.12 of this comment
summary]
48 "EPA takes notes on OOIDA concerns."
Response:
In the final rules, relative to the proposal, we have included many more routine maintenance items and,
as such, are estimating considerably higher maintenance costs as a result (see final RIA Chapter 7.2.3).
We do not believe that the technologies expected for complying with the new standards will result in
additional down time. Instead, we believe that maintenance costs at the sort of routine maintenance
intervals in today's fleets will be higher, but not necessarily more frequent (i.e., no additional down
time). Further, we do not believe that breakdowns will occur at higher rates due to the new technologies
being added. We understand that past criteria pollutant rules lead to technology introductions which had
adverse impacts with respect to vehicle breakdowns. However, we believe that the primary culprit was
lack of appropriate lead time to enable a smooth implementation of the technologies added at that time.
For these new GHG and fuel consumption standards, we believe that the lead time being provided is
much more favorable and, perhaps more importantly, the pace of implementation afforded by the phase-
in of additional stringency levels should provide sufficient flexibility to enable a smooth implementation
of new technologies. This is part of the reason we have not moved forward with Alternative 4 from the
proposal which, based on our engineering judgement, carried with it higher risks of insufficient lead
time and phase-in flexibility.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Indeed, to satisfy the Proposed Standards, new technologies will almost certainly have to be integrated
into vehicles, especially heavy-duty equipment. The agencies have stated they expect minimal increases
in maintenance costs, yet they have only estimated such costs associated with lower rolling resistance
tires; this rule has the potential for higher repair and maintenance costs, vehicle downtime, high
replacement vehicle costs, and dissatisfied customers. These impacts should be studied more
thoroughly. Higher frequency of maintenance is a particular concern as it will tend to frustrate consumer
acceptance of the new regulations while increasing costs across the board. As an example, the 2010
EPA product performance from all manufacturers has generally resulted in high, repetitive maintenance
and repair expense, including significant vehicle replacement costs and likely negative impact on resale
values. Anecdotally, TRALA members can document increased numbers of maintenance issues and
costs on vehicles subject to Phase I of the program, with no one manufacturer being immune. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.3]
Response:
We have included many more maintenance items in the final rules analysis than were included in the
proposal. Please refer to RIA 7.2.3 for more details.
11.5 Analysis of the Rebound Effect
11.5.1 General Rebound
-------
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Rebound
Also pertinent to the estimate of benefits of the proposed standards are the assumptions made about the
rebound effect associated with the standards, and in particular the extent to which better fuel efficiency
results in more miles traveled by the regulated vehicles. The agencies maintain the assumptions of 10%
rebound for heavy-duty pickups and vans, 15% for vocational vehicles, and 5% for combination trucks
using in the Phase 1 rule. Absent further evidence, the agencies' current estimates are reasonable. In
particular, the 10% rebound assumption that has been used in the light-duty vehicle fuel economy
rulemakings is the best starting point for heavy-duty pickups and vans. With regard to the other vehicle
categories, however, it should be noted that the working paper by Energy and Environmental Research
Associates that the agencies placed in the docket concludes: "The results suggest that in recent decades,
fuel price elasticities for U.S. trucking VMT (combination and single-unit trucks) and fuel consumption
(combination trucks) are near zero or not statistically different than zero." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1280-A1 p.27]
This and other relevant work warrant further consideration for the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1280-A1 p.27]
Recommendation: Rebound
• Consider newly available research on the effects of improved fuel efficiency on heavy-duty
vehicle driving behavior to determine whether the rebound values used in the proposal should
be retained in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.27]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Rebound effect
The NPRM requests comment on the assumptions related to the rebound effect for heavy-duty vehicles.
CARB staff believes further research is needed in this area. Emerging research from Winebreak et al.
(2015) on fuel price elasticity in the U.S. combination trucking sector suggests fuel price inelasticity of
demand for vehicles miles traveled and fuel consumption.82 This result implies that existing estimates of
the rebound effect in the combination trucking sector could be overstated and calls for additional
analysis. CARB staff suggests that, when feasible, short-run and long-run rebound effects should be
estimated separately as research suggests the response to changes in efficiency varies over time.83 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 184]
In addition, CARB staff recommends additional research on the indirect and economy-wide portions of
the rebound effect. Freight system interactions, fuel surcharges, and changes in capacity may impact the
direct rebound effect in the heavy-duty sector, resulting in compensating changes outside of fuel
consumption.84 The price elasticity of energy demand may be preferred over the use of the price
elasticity of VMT in the heavy-duty sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 184]
The RIA cites Guerrero (2014), which simulates the California freight network and concludes that the
rebound effect could offset 40 to 50 percent of vehicle efficiency emission reductions.85 CARB staff
does not support the findings of Guerrero (2014) in assessing the relationship between fuel saving
-------
technology and the management of vehicle fleets. Guerrero (2014) estimates the rebound effect of long-
haul trips only, which is not representative of the entire heavy-duty vehicle feet. The analysis fails to
account for existing market failures that currently are impediments to the adoption of cost-effective fuel
saving technology, resulting in potential overestimation of the rebound effect with optimal adoption of
fuel saving technology. Guerrero (2014) is based on a commodity flow data and not heavy-duty vehicle
activity, which is more representative of the sector and utilized in Winebreak (2015). CARB staff
appreciates the use of sensitivity analysis in regards to the rebound effect and suggests additional
sensitivity cases to incorporate varying discount rates, and additional estimates of indirect and economy-
wide rebound, when feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 184-185]
82 (Winebreak et al., 2015) Winebreak, J. J., Green, E.H, Comer, B., Li, C., Froman, S., and Shelby,M.,
"Fuel price elasticities in the U.S. combination trucking sector," Transportation Research Part D:
38,166177.
83 (Dahl, 2012) Dahl, C.A., "Measuring global gasoline and diesel price and income elasticities," Energy
Policy: 41, 2-13. (De Borger and Mulalic, 2012) De Borger, B., Mulalic, I., "The determinants of fuel
use in the trucking industry - volume, fleet characteristics and the rebound effect," Transportation
Policy: 24, 284-295. (Winebreak et al., 2012) Winebreak, J.J, Green, E.H., Comer, B., Froman, S.,
"Estimating the direct rebound effect for on-road freight transportation," Energy Policy: 48. 252-259.
84 (Winebreak et al., 2015) Winebreak, J. J., Green, E.H, Comer, B., Li, C., Froman, S., and Shelby,M.,
"Fuel price elasticities in the U.S. combination trucking sector," Transportation Research Part D:
38,166177.
85 (Guerrero, 2014) Guerrero, S.E., "Modeling fuel saving investments and fleet management in the
trucking industry: the impact of shipment performance on GHG emissions," Transportation Research
Part E: 68, 178-196.
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
Ironically, these positive economic externalities can create concerns from the energy and environmental
points of view. When consumers use their savings from lower fuel costs to buy more goods and
services, they are likely to indirectly increase their use of energy. However, the increase in consumption
due to this dynamic, called the 'rebound effect,' is much smaller than the direct reduction in energy
consumption, so the net effect is still to reduce overall energy consumption.27 From the point of view of
consumer and macroeconomic analysis, "the rebound effect" represents a positive economic result for
consumers. It means that consumer welfare is increasing. How consumers use their increased disposable
income is of secondary importance to the fact that they have more income to spend on other goods and
services. However, if the goal is to reduce energy consumption, one must subtract the rebound effect
from the benefits column. But experience shows that the rebound effect erases only a fraction of the
energy savings.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.35]
2. Pass-through
A second theoretical explanation that played an important part in the earlier analysis and was addressed
by EPA/NHTSA is the question of the pass-through of cost savings to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.51]]
-------
As a result of this proposed rulemaking, it is anticipated that trucking firms will experience fuel savings.
Fuel savings lower the costs of transportation goods and services. In a competitive market, some of the
fuel savings that initially accrue to trucking firms are likely to be passed along as lower transportation
costs that, in turn, could result in lower prices for final goods and services. Some of the savings might
also be retained by firms for investments or for distributions to firm owners. Again, how much accrues
to customers versus firm owners will depend on the relative elasticities of supply and demand.
Regardless, the savings will accrue to some segment of consumers: Either owners of trucking firms or
the general public, and the effect will be increased spending by consumers in other sectors of the
economy, creating jobs in a diverse set of sectors, including retail and service industries.41 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.51-52]
The pass-through issue also turns up in another key aspect of the overall analysis, the rebound effect.
The increase in consumption associated with the rebound effect occurs because consumers have more
money to spend. The first effect is through the reduction of the cost of travel, but there is a second effect
through the increase in disposable income available for other consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.52]
Elasticities with respect to fuel price and fuel cost can provide some insight into the magnitude of the
HDV VMT rebound effect.... Freight price elasticities measure the percent change in demand for
freight in response to a percent change in freight prices, controlling for other variables that may
influence freight demand such as GDP, the extent that goods are traded internationally, and road supply
and capacity. This type of elasticity is only applicable to the HDV subcategory of freight trucks (i.e.,
combination tractors and vocational vehicles that transport freight). One desirable attribute of such
measures for purposes of this analysis is that they show the response of freight trucking activity to
changes to trucking rates, including changes that result from fuel cost savings as well as increases in
HDV technology costs. Freight price elasticities, however, are imperfect proxies for the rebound effect
in freight trucks for a number of reasons. For example, in order to apply these elasticities we must
assume that our proposed rule's impact on fuel and vehicle costs is fully reflected in freight rates. This
may not be the case if truck operators adjust their profit margins or other operational practices (e.g.,
loading practices, truck driver's wages) instead of freight rates. It is not well understood how trucking
firms respond to different types of cost changes (e.g., changes to fuel costs versus labor costs).42 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.52]
These observations make it clear that there is a significant level of pass-through of cost savings. Given
the competitiveness of the trucking industry and its importance, we believe it is substantial.
EPA/NHTSA conclude that there will be pass-through, but they do not provide an estimate. Their
estimate of the rebound effect is moderate - 10% - based on a variety of factors. We have discussed this
earlier. Given the very large economic benefits, the magnitude of the rebound effect does not
significantly affect the bottom line of the analysis. Without specifying the precise level, it is clear that
pass-through is significant and has important macroeconomic benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.52-53]
27 Barker, Terry, Paul Eakins and Tim Foxon, 2007, "The Macro-economic Rebound Effect in the UK
Economy," Energy Policy, 35; Cambridge Centre for Climate Mitigation Research, 2006, The Macro-
economic Rebound Effect and the UK Economy, Cambridge Econometrics and Policy Studies Institute,
May 15; Goldstein, David, Sierra Martines and Robin Roy, Are there Rebound Effects from Energy
Efficiency? An Empirical Analysis, Internal Consistency and Solutions, Electric Policv.com.; Nadel,
Steven, 2012, The Rebound Effect: Large or Small, American Council For An Energy Efficient
-------
Economy, August.; Bornstein, Severin, 2013, A Microeconomic Framework for Evaluating Energy
Efficiency Rebound and Some Implications, Energy Institute at HAAS, May.
28 Cooper, Performance Standards.
41EPA/NHTSA, NPRM, p. 40482
42EPA/NHTSA, NPRM, p. 40450, 40451.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Lastly, we think that the agencies' estimates of the rebound effect appear reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 130]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
b. Rebound
New studies should be used to inform final rebound values
The agencies have proposed to maintain the same rebound values finalized in the Phase 1 program - 5%
for tractor trailers, 15% for vocational and 10% for pickups and vans - stating they had "insufficient
evidence to justify revising the rebound effect values that were used in the Phase 1 analysis." New
analyses by Winebrake et. al., however, indicate that these Phase 1 values may be too high. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.23]
A 2015 paper by Winebrake et. al. looks at fuel price elasticity estimates for single-unit truck activity
(vocational trucks), as measured in VMT, and concludes they "cannot reject a null hypothesis that fuel
price elasticities for single-unit truck VMT is zero."113 The authors state that the elasticities in their
paper may be used as a proxy for rebound in certain cases - and, at the very least, to inform the choice
of a rebound estimate for the vocational sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.23-24]
Similarly, another 2015 paper by Winebrake et al. looks at fuel price elasticities of combination trucking
operations in the U.S. between 1970 and 2012 and concludes that "we are in a period of time where fuel
price elasticities for US combination trucking VMT and fuel consumption are near zero."114 Again, the
authors argue that their results may be used as a proxy for rebound under certain circumstances but at
the very least should be used to inform the rebound values chosen for tractor trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.24]
EDF asks the agencies to consider these two new studies by Winebrake et al. in finalizing rebound
values for vocational vehicles and tractor-trailers and, at minimum, include sensitivities reflecting lower
rebound values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.24]
EDF supports inclusion of welfare benefits of rebound effect
To the extent the Agencies retain some positive rebound value, it is important to estimate the beneficial
impacts of that rebound effect. As discussed in a 2014 Resources for the Future discussion paper on
"The Rebound Effect and Energy Efficiency Policy," rebound often has a misconceived 'evil'
connotation because policymakers tend to focus solely on energy minimization (in this case, fuel
-------
consumption reduction) and ignore welfare maximization.115 However, this does not capture the entire
impact of rebound because any time a consumer changes his or her behavior (for example, by buying a
more efficient truck), it means that there is some inherent welfare benefit to that consumer (relative to
no change in behavior). It is therefore important that "[r]ather than consider[ing] the rebound effect as a
deterrent from passing energy efficiency policies, policymakers should include these welfare gains in
the tally of benefits of a policy."116 For this reason, we support the Agencies' decision to estimate the
benefits of increased travel associated with rebound driving.117 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1
p.24]
113 Winebrake et al., Fuel price elasticities for single unit truck operations in the United States.
Transport. Res. Part D, (2015), available at
http ://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S 1361920915000711.
114 Winebrake, et al., Fuel price elasticities in the U.S. combination trucking sector, Transport. Res.
PartD, (2015), available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920915000383.
115 Gillingham, et al., The Rebound Effect and Energy Efficiency Policy, Resources for the Future
Discussion Paper, 2014 RFF DP 14-39, forthcoming in the Review of Environmental Economics and
Policy, (in press).
116 Id.
117 Preamble at 40474.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The agencies continue to extensively apply controversially high rebound factors in their assessment
based on theoretically sound, but non-empiric ally validated, evidence. The latest state-of-the-art peer-
reviewed research indicates that the rebound effect for combination tractor-trailers and regional delivery
and service trucks in the U.S. is not statistically significantly different from zero (Winebrake et al,
2015a, b). As a result we believe that the only scientifically defensible approach to this question is to
assume the rebound effect for fuel savings associated with the regulation is zero, unless or until new
peer-reviewed work that is empirically based on more comprehensive and more recent U.S. data is
published. We recommend that the agencies incorporate the most applicable, state-of-the-art research
and assume that the rebound effect from increased fuel efficiency is zero. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1180-A4 p. 18]
Organization: Mannix, Brian
Rebound Effect
The RIA makes a considerable effort to characterize and quantify the "rebound effect" - the changes in
fuel consumption and in other variables that result when more energy-efficient vehicles are used more
intensively because the cost of using them has declined.7 The agencies should be applauded for
recognizing the importance of rebound effects, which other agencies have been known to ignore.
Markets are elastic, in countless dimensions, and it can be very difficult to anticipate the ways in which
their dynamic response to regulatory interventions may differ from the static model that may represent
the regulator's intent. There is an unfortunate tendency in the literature to coin new terms (see
"leakage," and "backfire effect," in addition to "rebound") to describe these market responses, as if they
-------
were something new and surprising. The reality is that economists have known for a long time about the
complexity and responsiveness of dynamic markets. Generally, unless a regulatory intervention is very
carefully designed, the various price elasticities and cross-elasticities will tend to frustrate the attempts
of regulators to move markets in a direction they are not willing to go, so that the forecast benefits may
not fully materialize. Agencies should be encouraged to use models that fully reflect the elasticity of
markets in the real world, and should be prepared to abandon regulatory strategies that, however well
intentioned, do not appear to be effective under real-world conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1222-A1 p.4]
7 RIA, pp. 8-10 to 8-29.
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
VMT Rebound
The agencies' assumptions for a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) rebound factor appear to overestimate
the potential for improved efficiency to increase heavy truck mileage. The agencies assume a 5 percent
VMT rebound factor for combination tractor-trailers and 15 percent for vocational vehicles. Recent
analysis by Winebrake et al suggest that VMT rebound for both combination trucks and single-unit
vocational vehicles could be zero.23 NRDC urges the agencies to review this analysis to ensure the rule
is not overestimating the VMT rebound effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 10]
23 See Winebrake J.J., Green E.H., Comer B., Li C., Froman S., Shelby M. "Fuel price elasticities in the
U.S. combination trucking sector," Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
Volume 38, July 01, 2015, Pages 166-177 and Winebrake J.J., Green E.H., Comer B., Li C., Froman S.,
Shelby M. "Fuel price elasticities for single-unit truck operations in the United States," Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 38, July 01, 2015, Pages 178-187.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Again, while reducing the weight of the truck and trailer appears to work on paper, the real-world
effects are often different. As part of the agencies analysis, they described in detail what is known as a
"rebound effect." According to the NPRM, "The "rebound effect" has been defined a number of ways
in the literature, and one common definition states that the rebound effect is the increase in demand for
an energy service when the cost of the energy service is reduced due to efficiency improvements." The
agencies attributed this effect to vehicle miles traveled; however, they did not consider the rebound
effect for weight reduction. In the reality of a highly competitive industry, if the weight of the tractor
and trailer is reduced then the shipper will simply add weight to the load being hauled, essentially
making any proposed or mandated weight reduction ineffective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1
p.33-34]
Today, many tractors and trailers are already specified for maximum weight savings based upon the
vehicle usage. For example, it is common for an aluminum end dump trailer with aluminum wheels and
wide based tires to be loaded to the max in order to take full advantage of the weight savings. It is a
common occurrence for such trucks to be loaded while on a scale so that they can be loaded until the
total vehicle weight reaches 80,000 lbs. It is imperative that the agencies consider the rebound effect
beyond just vehicle miles traveled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.34]
-------
It also worth noting that the topic of a "rebound effect" validates that the trucking industry is well aware
of methods to conserve fuel, and thereby decrease GHG emissions, and will actively pursue them when
it they are appropriate for their operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.34]
Organization: Resources for the Future
The comment is based on statistical analysis of truck-level data, in which we estimate the rebound effect
for tractor-trailers and vocational trucks, and the effect of economic activity on miles traveled. The
estimated rebound effect is substantially larger for tractor trailers than that used by the agencies in the
regulatory impact analysis (RIA), but the rebound effect for vocational trucks is similar to that used in
the RIA. We find that vehicle miles traveled respond less than proportionately to economic activity.
Using these estimates in the RIA would provide a stronger foundation for the analysis. This would
reduce the net benefits of the rule, although probably not by a substantial amount. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1200-A1 p.l]
Overview
To estimate the benefits of the Phase 1 and proposed Phase 2 greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency
standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks, the agencies have included assumptions about the rebound
effect on truck miles travelled as a result of the standards. The Agencies acknowledge that there is
limited data for analysis of the rebound effect, and little research exists on this issue, especially in the
U.S. We are submitting a comment that summarizes the conclusions of our new paper titled "Fuel Costs,
Economic Activity, and the Rebound Effect for Heavy Duty Trucks" (Resources for the Future
Discussion Paper 15-43, http://www.rff.org/files/document/file/RFF-DP-15-43.pdf) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1200-A1 p.l]
We use microdata from the U.S. Census' Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) to assess the
magnitude of the rebound effect on vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in the trucking sector. We use
individual truck level data for six waves of the VIUS survey, in which trucks in all fifty states were
surveyed every five years from 1977 to 2002. The period of the survey was a time with almost no
regulation of fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.l]
The rebound effect is important because although the standards target the rate of emissions per mile
travelled, the social benefits depend on how much trucks are driven. As fuel economy improves due to
the tighter standards, the cost per mile of driving will decrease and the number of miles driven will tend
to increase. The resulting increase in trucking miles traveled is the rebound effect, and it partially offsets
the decrease in fuel use and emissions that would occur from the fuel consumption rate alone. The
greater is the expected reduction in fuel intensity from the regulation, the larger the effect on cost per
mile of driving and the rebound effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.l]
In the trucking sector, the rebound effect in the short run is likely to be different from the long run
rebound effect. Because only new trucks are regulated, the cost of driving new trucks is relatively less
costly compared to other trucks in the fleet, and fleet managers may shift miles driven from old trucks to
new trucks. This type of substitution can temper the rebound effect in the short-term. This effect
disappears in the long run, however, as the cost per mile will fall by the same proportion for all trucks.
Our analysis, which uses individual truck level data, is able to separate each truck from its competitors
allowing us to estimate both short and long run rebound effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1
p.l]
-------
The Agencies have reviewed the available literature and have done some of their own analysis to
estimate the magnitude of the rebound effect. Both the relevant studies and the Agencies' own analysis
use data on truck VMT aggregated to the state or national level. The aggregate data include assumptions
about how trucks in the fleet are driven. In contrast, the VIUS data provide individual truck information
including VMT, state registration, miles travelled in and out of state, average miles per gallon and
average cargo weight, along with detail about the type of truck, products shipped and its business
affiliation. Our analysis is able to use this extensive set of controls for truck characteristics that are
likely correlated with fuel economy to improve our estimates of the cost of driving on miles travelled,
the key relationship being estimated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.2]
In our paper, to fully exploit the advantages of the microdata, we decompose total trucking miles
traveled into the product of two components: miles traveled per truck, and the number of trucks
operating in the market. We estimate separate equations for each of these two components. The first,
miles traveled per truck is estimated as a function of the truck's fuel costs per mile, economic activity,
truck, business and geographic characteristics, and a time trend. We believe fuel costs are likely to be
endogenous both for reasons of reverse causality and omitted variables. When trucks are driven more
miles they are likely to be driven with heavier loads, reducing fuel economy. Additionally, truck owners
likely to drive long miles are more likely to purchase more fuel-efficient trucks. Therefore, we
instrument cost per mile with the contemporaneous crude oil price. We use gross state product (GSP) as
a proxy for economic activity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.2]
In the second equation we estimate the number of trucks as a function of the fuel cost per mile economic
activity, truck, business and geographic characteristics, and a time trend. As in the truck-level
estimation, we instrument for fuel costs per mile and use GSP to proxy for economic activity. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.2]
Implications for long—run rebound effects
The results for both VMT and truck count equations are shown in Tables 2-5 in the paper. We use the
elasticities of VMT and truck counts with respect to the fuel cost variable to infer the rebound effect for
changes in fuel economy standards for the two truck types, tractor-trailers and vocational vehicles.
Because total truck VMT is the product of miles travelled per truck and the number of trucks operating
and we have estimated the both equations in logs, the total rebound effect will be the sum of the two
estimated coefficients on cost per mile. Table 6 in the paper provides a detailed summary of the inferred
rebound effects with confidence intervals. We reproduce Table 6 here. We show the estimates for both
the VMT elasticity and the truck count elasticity with respect to fuel cost per mile and the sum of the
two. The truck count elasticities are not statistically different from zero, and therefore the cumulative
estimates have relatively large standard errors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.2]
The total VMT elasticity estimate for tractor trailers has a mean that is much larger than the 5%
used by the Agencies in the assessment of the Phase 1 standards and the large confidence interval
does not include the Agency estimate. In contrast, our estimate of the VMT elasticity for
vocational vehicles is only slightly less than the Agencies' and the confidence interval includes
their estimate of 15%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.2]
[Table 6, 'Summary of Rebound Effect Estimates', can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1]
Evidence of short-run and long-run differences in rebound effects
-------
The elasticities presented above and the inferred rebound effects are both long-run estimates. We also
estimate a short-run elasticity by allowing the miles travelled by each truck to depend not only on its
own cost per mile, but on the cost per mile of its competitors in the fleet. We define competitors as other
trucks in the same survey year, truck category, body type and business. Body type is an obvious
category for competition: tow trucks will not compete with concrete mixers, nor will delivery vans
compete with logging trucks. Business is also necessary, as it separates trucks used, for example, for
construction, for-hire transportation, manufacturing, and personal transportation. We have estimated
models using other competition definitions and have found them to be generally comparable to our
results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.3]
The results for tractor trailers suggest that the short-run impact of fuel economy standards may
not lead to much of a net rebound effect, as VMT of relatively fuel efficient new trucks will
substitute for VMT of relatively fuel inefficient used trucks as the standards become binding.1 In
the long run, however, once existing used trucks are scrapped and new truck fuel economy is on average
equal to used truck fuel economy, the impact of the standard on total gallons of gasoline consumed is
measured by the sum of the log cost per mile and log average competition cost per mile, as the standards
influence the cost per mile of all trucks by the same proportion, including truck and truck's
competitors. For tractor trailers, the sum of these two coefficients is -0.188, which is statistically
indistinguishable from our rebound effect reported in column (3) of Table 2. We do not find evidence
that there is a similar short-run effect for vocational trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.3-4]
The effect of economic activity on miles driven
The benefits of the fuel efficiency standards depend on the difference between outcomes for fuel
consumption and emissions with the standards in place compared to business as usual (BAU) with no
new standards. In forecasting the BAU and "with standards" cases for the future, an important
relationship is one between economic activity and total truck miles driven. In most existing models
miles traveled depend on economic activity and operating costs relative to other transportation modes.
Either gross domestic product or gross output typically serves as a proxy for economic activity and
demand for trucking services in these models. Lower operating costs for trucks relative to other
transportation modes cause more shipping via trucks. Furthermore, an increase in economic activity
typically increases demand for trucking services, such as transporting goods for retail sale. It may be
reasonable to assume that shipments respond proportionately to economic activity—in fact, the analysis
by EPA and NHTSA implicitly assumes a proportionate relationship—but we are not aware of direct
empirical evidence supporting this assumption. In our study, we estimate the relationship between
economic activity and total miles travelled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.4]
We use GSP to proxy for economic activity and estimate an elasticity of miles traveled per truck to GSP
of 18 percent for both tractor trailers and vocational trucks. The elasticities of truck count with respect
to GSP are larger than the VMT elasticities for both tractor trailers and vocational vehicles, and both are
significant at 1% levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1200-A1 p.4]
The VMT and truck count elasticities with respect to GSP are summarized in the paper in Table 7,
which we show below. We compute a cumulative effect by summing the VMT elasticity and the truck
count elasticity. The cumulative effect for each group is economically and statistically significant, and
the point estimates are both are less than one. This result has important implications for estimating
expected gasoline consumption and emissions reductions from the fuel efficiency standards. The
benefits of the standards depend on forecasted business-as-usual (BAU) total VMT. Cumulative
elasticities less than one imply that BAU total VMT will grow less rapidly than economic activity, so
that expected gasoline consumption and emissions reductions stemming from fuel economy standards
-------
will be less dramatic than a setting where VMT and truck counts grow in proportion with economic
activity. Another noticeable result is that the elasticity for tractor trailers is substantially less than the
elasticity for vocational vehicles. Since tractor trailers represent a large fraction of emissions from
heavy duty trucks, the fact that this elasticity is relatively small implies even lower expected fuel and
emissions savings as a result of the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.4]
[Table 7, 'Summary of GSP Elasticities', can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1200-A1]
Robustness checks
We test the sensitivity of our results to using alternative measures of economic activity, alternative
measures of cost per mile, and estimating models of ton miles traveled instead of miles traveled for
tractor trailers and vocational vehicles. The results are summarized in Tables 8-12 of the paper. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.5]
Summary
We appreciate the opportunity to submit our comment on the proposed phase 2 greenhouse gas and fuel
economy rule for trucks, and hope our analysis is helpful to your review of this issue for the final rule.
To summarize, we find that the estimated rebound effect is substantially larger for tractor trailers than
that used by the agencies in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA), but the rebound effect for vocational
trucks is similar to that used in the RIA. We find that vehicle miles traveled respond less than
proportionately to economic activity. We believe that using these estimates in the RIA would provide a
stronger foundation for the analysis. It appears that using these estimates would reduce the net benefits
of the rule, although probably not by a substantial amount. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1200-A1 p.5]
1 The substitution results for tractor trailers and vocational vehicles can be found in column 4 of Tables
2 and 4, respectively.
Response:
The "rebound effect" has been defined numerous ways in the energy policy and economics literature.
One common definition states that the rebound effect is the increase in demand for an energy service
when the cost of the energy service is reduced due to efficiency improvements. In the proposed Phase 2
rulemaking, the Agencies focused on one widely-used metric to estimate the rebound effect associated
with all types of more intensive HDV use, the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that results from
improved fuel efficiency. VMT can often provide a reasonable approximation for all types of more
intensive HDV use. For simplicity, we refer to this as "the VMT rebound effect" or "direct VMT
rebound," although we acknowledge that it is an approximation to the rebound effect associated with all
types of more intensive HDV use.
For the proposal, the agencies used VMT rebound effect values of five percent for combination tractors,
10 percent for heavy duty pickup trucks and vans and 15 percent for vocational vehicles. The agencies
acknowledged that there was a limited amount of literature on this topic and that the literature that did
exist showed a wide range of HDV rebound effect estimates. At the time of the proposal, the Agencies
committed to review and consider revising their VMT rebound estimates by truck class in the Final
-------
Rule, taking into consideration all available data and analysis, including submissions from public
commenters and new research on the HDV rebound effect.
Also for the proposal, EPA communicated that it had contracted with Energy and Environmental
Research Associates (EERA), to analyze the HDV VMT rebound effect for regulatory assessment
purposes. Excerpts of EERA's initial Report to EPA are included in the docket that contain detailed
qualitative discussions of the rebound effect as well as data sources that could be used in quantitative
analysis. EERA also conducted a follow-on quantitative analyses focused on estimating the impact of
fuel prices on HDV VMT and fuel consumption. EPA included a Working Paper in the docket on this
effort, and sought comment on this work. EPA also noted in the proposal that EERA's Working Paper
had not been available at the time the agencies conducted the analysis of the HDV rebound effect, but
the Agencies would consider this work, as well as any other analytical work, to support the Final Rule.
A number of commenters are open to the idea that the Agencies consider newly available research on
the effects of improved fuel efficiency on HDV driving behavior to determine whether the VMT
rebound values used in the proposal should be retained in the Final Rule. Several environmental NGOs
(NRDC, EDF, ACEEE) suggested that the Agencies factor the Winebrake et al. work into the HDV
direct rebound estimates used in the final rule. The Winebrake study found no responsiveness of truck
travel to diesel fuel prices, suggesting that VMT rebound for vocational trucks and combination trucks
could be essentially zero. One industry commenter (Diamler Trucks North America) suggested that
Agencies rebound numbers used in the proposal "appear reasonable." One environmental NGO (ICCT)
suggested the HDV rebound estimates used in the proposed HDV Rule are overestimates, and suggested
using the Winebrake et al. estimates instead.
Resources for the Future (RFF) submitted a comment that summarizes the conclusions of a new RFF
Working Paper entitled "Fuel Costs, Economic Activity, and the Rebound Effect for Heavy Duty
Trucks" by Leard et al. Leard et al. use microdata from the U.S. Census' Vehicle Inventory and Use
Survey (VIUS) to assess the magnitude of the rebound effect on VMT in the trucking sector. The
individual truck use data is for six waves of the VIUS survey, in which trucks in all fifty states were
surveyed every five years from 1977 to 2002. Instead of using aggregate data, the VIUS data provides
individual truck information including VMT, state registration, miles travelled in and out of state,
average miles per gallon and average cargo weight, along with detail about the type of truck, products
shipped and its business affiliation.
The Leard et al. paper concludes that the total VMT rebound estimate for combination trucks is larger
than the five percent used by the Agencies in the proposed standards and also has a larger confidence
interval that does not include the Agencies' estimate. When considering the VMT response to lower
fuel costs for combination trucks, Leard et al. estimates an 18.5 percent rebound effect. When
considering the increase in the number of combination trucks in response to lower travel costs, the
Leard et al. estimates a total rebound effect of 29.7 percent. The Leard et al. estimate of the VMT
rebound for vocational vehicles is smaller than the Agencies' value used in the Phase 2 proposal and the
confidence interval includes their estimate of 15 percent. When considering the VMT response to lower
fuel costs for vocational trucks, Leard et al. estimate a 12.2 percent rebound effect. When considering
the increase in the number of vocational trucks in response to lower travel costs, the Leard et al.
estimates a total rebound effect of 9.3 percent. While the study uses a rich data base and does not appear
to have any obvious methodological flaws, the Agencies are concerned that the rebound effects reported
by Leard et al. are based upon an older time period, 1977 to 2002, and that truck travel patterns and
infrastructure conditions (e.g., congestion on highways) may be quite different that the time period for
-------
which the Phase 2 program is being implemented. We also note that the Leard et al. paper is a Working
Paper, and in revising the HD VMT rebound estimates for the final program, the agencies found it more
appropriate to give greater consideration to the findings of Winebrake et al. because it is peer-reviewed
and published; see discussions in Section IX.E. of the Preamble and in RIA Chapter 8.3.
In the Phase 2 proposal, the agencies cited a study by Guerrero (2014), which simulated the California
freight network and concluded that the HDV rebound effect could offset 40 to 50 percent of vehicle
efficiency emission reductions. CARB Staff reviewed the Guerrero study and does not support its
findings. CARB Staff pointed out that the Guerrero estimates are for long-haul trips only, which is not
representative of the entire heavy-duty vehicle fleet. In addition, the CARB Staff points out that the
Guerrero study is based on a commodity flow data and not heavy-duty vehicle activity and travel. We
are in general agreement with CARB Staff on their assessment of the Guerrero study.
One commenter (Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association) suggested that the agencies should
factor in changes in freight tonnage into the rebound effect as a result of this rulemaking. The
commenter suggests that if the weight of combination trucks is reduced as a result of the Rule that the
shipper could add weight to the load being hauled. We interpret this comment as suggesting that weight
reduction could play a role as a mechanism that actually lowers VMT because more cargo is going on
the vehicle, thus saving trips. We are in general agreement with this observation, but we did not include
this information to lower our VMT rebound estimates since it is hard to quantify. We hope to consider
this topic in future VMT rebound work.
Consumer Federation of America (CFA) pointed out that consumers may use their savings from lower
fuel costs as a result of the direct rebound effect to buy more goods and services, which indirectly
increases the use of energy. In the energy policy and economics literature, this effect has been labeled
the so called "indirect rebound" effect. CFA states that the indirect rebound effect represents a positive
economic result for consumers, since consumer welfare increases. However, if the goal of a
Rulemaking is to reduce energy consumption, one must subtract the rebound effect from the benefits of
the Rule. In a similar comment, EDF referred to an 2014 Resources for the Future discussion paper on
"The Rebound Effect and Energy Efficiency Policy," that states that "[r]ather than consider[ing] the
rebound effect as a deterrent from passing energy efficiency policies, policymakers should include these
welfare gains in the tally of benefits of a policy." We agree with these commenters in their assessment
of some of the trade-offs that need to be considered when assessing rebound effects.
Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems (comment below) asserts that Agencies failed to take into
account any indirect rebound effect of overall embedded energy expended to produce new goods
entering the marketplace as a result of improved fuel efficiency and the resulting lowered cost of truck
transport. The Commenter believes that the estimates of fuel savings and greenhouse gas emissions
reductions are lower than what the Agencies estimated for this Final Rulemaking. An addition
commenter (CARB Staff) recommended additional research on the indirect and economy-wide portions
of the HDV rebound effect. One private citizen suggested that the Agencies should use models that
fully reflect the responsiveness of markets in the real world. The Agencies believe that there are no
available, credible studies of indirect and economy-wide rebound effects for HDVs that could be used in
this Rulemaking. We agree that more work in the area of indirect and economy-wide HDV rebound
effects, as well as direct VMT rebound effects, is needed.
11.5.2 Response to POP Diesel
-------
Organization: Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems
2. The GHG Standards are inconsistent with law for the additional reason that two agencies fail to take
into account any indirect rebound effect of overall embedded energy expended to produce new goods
entering the marketplace as a result of improved fuel efficiency and the resulting lowered cost of truck
transport. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.4]
2. The Failure of the Two Agencies to Consider Indirect Rebound Effects Arising from the Fuel
Efficiency Standards Renders the GHG Standards Inconsistent with Law Due to Their Failure to
Reduce Overall Energy Consumed and Resulting GHG Emissions
Energy economist Harry D. Saunders, Ph.D., submits the new declaration that is Exhibit 10 [exhibit 10
can be found on p.58 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1] explaining in logical
detail that the proposed Truck Rule 2 acknowledges the rebound effect that improved fuel efficiency
will directly cause increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT's) and, therefore, increased energy expended
and greenhouse gases emitted in rebound, but that this Rule fails to consider and quantify the indirect
implications of this direct rebound effect. Generally speaking, the indirect rebound effect is the
additional energy expended, and greenhouse gases emitted, to produce additional goods that will be put
onto the market as a result of the lower vehicle operating costs occasioned by improved fuel efficiency.
Dr. Saunders calls this the 'embedded energy' rebound effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1
p.ll]
In an addendum appearing after paragraph 58 of his original declaration from 2012, a corrected copy of
which is attached to his new declaration at Exhibit 10, he conducted a careful analysis of the 'embedded
energy' indirect rebound effect, based on the two agencies' own assumptions about the magnitude of the
direct rebound effect and relying on U.S. government databases. In conclusion, he quantified it as being
between 117% and 1,408%. In other words, due to the 'embedded energy' indirect rebound effect alone,
the Truck Rule will cause between 17% and 13 times more overall energy to be consumed, and
presumably resulting GHG's emitted, than if the fuel efficiency standards did not come into effect at all.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 11 -12]
As Dr. Saunders points out in paragraph 11 of his new declaration, the two agencies state at Federal
Register Volume 80, page 40450 that improved fuel efficiency may increase truck capacity and loaded
weight. Increased vehicle miles traveled are not the same as increased capacity and loaded weight; the
latter are in addition to the former. Thereby, the two agencies acknowledge the existence of this indirect
rebound, since it would be additional goods entering commerce that would create the demand for and
supply this added capacity and weight. The two agencies, while acknowledging increased capacity and
loaded weight which mean additional goods entering commerce, fail altogether to account for this
indirect rebound effect in their own, quantified estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 12]
In paragraph 5 of his new declaration, Dr. Saunders responds to a footnote in the Preamble to the
proposed Truck Rule 2 questioning the credibility of his analysis. Since he has published 12 peer-
reviewed articles on the subject of the rebound effect, Dr. Saunders is in a position to state that his
conclusions regarding the two agencies' ignoring of the indirect, 'embedded energy' rebound effect and
therefore, their vast underestimating of the total rebound effect caused by the truck fuel efficiency
standards do not require peer review. He is simply applying the same conceptual approach that he
applied with approval in some of his peer-reviewed articles, but to a new context: truck engine
efficiency and resulting energy consumed across the economy. The consideration of overall energy
consumed, like lower greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (and not simply GHG's emitting from the
tailpipe) is the ostensible target of the Truck Rule 2. The logic of his analysis is unimpeachable. The
-------
data that Dr. Saunders runs through his accepted analytical method, as he also points out in paragraph 5,
is U.S. government data that is beyond reproach. Dr. Saunders's new declaration, as well as his original
one and its precise quantifying of the 'embedded energy' rebound effect, merit the two agencies' careful
review for the inconsistency it demonstrates in their compliance with statutory purposes. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 12]
Response
We received comments from POP Diesel which argued that EPA should account for the energy and
GHG emissions impact associated with the so-called "indirect" rebound effect (distinct from the
"direct" rebound effect). These effects could arise from the decline in fuel costs as a result of the rule,
which could make goods and services transported by the U.S. trucking industry less expensive. In turn,
less expensive goods and services could result in increased consumption of goods and service in the
overall economy. Producing extra goods and services requires that more energy be used. This extra
energy use can be thought of as "embedded" in the extra goods and services. Hence the term used in
the POP Diesel comment for this type of indirect rebound effect is the "embedded energy" rebound
effect.
To support this claim, POP Diesel relies on two affidavits written by Dr. Harry Saunders, in
which Dr. Saunders argues that the proposed rulemaking would result in significant indirect rebound
and that EPA has not appropriately considered this impact. One of the affidavits is identical to an
affidavit submitted to EPA by POP Diesel as part of a 2012 petition to reconsider the Phase I GHG
emissions standards and fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
EPA responded to this affidavit in our denial of POP Diesel's petition.209
The second affidavit, which is unique to POP Diesel's comments on this rulemaking, does not
present any new data or evidence, but rather presents new analysis of the same (purported) evidence
presented in the 2012 affidavit, as well as additional reasons why EPA should accept the conclusions of
the 2012 affidavit, the result being that estimates of the indirect rebound effect should be included in the
rule's effect in our economic analysis. The underlying evidentiary and analytical support for Dr.
Saunders' conclusions remain the same as those set forth in the 2012 affidavit. We note further that
although EPA voiced many of these same concerns and critiques in denying the reconsideration petition,
the new comment addresses none of EPA's responses. For this reason, our unrebutted concerns with
this analysis remain the same as those published in our denial of POP Diesel's 2012 petition for
reconsideration.
In his 2012 affidavit, Dr. Saunders cited only one published study quantifying indirect rebound
effects (Druckman et al., 2011). Saunders affidavit para. 16. Although this UK-based study could offer
insights into how to estimate indirect rebound effects in some contexts, the method appears
inappropriate here for many reasons. First, the U.S. economy, transport system, and consumer behavior
is likely to differ from other countries' (e.g., Americans have different product and service preferences
and our products and services have different levels of embedded energy). Similar data and models may
not exist to replicate the UK study in a U.S.-context. Second, the study is generally designed to
examine consumer behavioral strategies (e.g., lowering thermostats, reducing food waste, and biking
instead of using a car) rather than firms' behavior associated with improving technology. Among other
things, the study does not consider business capital expenditures associated with energy savings that
could dampen any increase in consumption of additional goods and services (e.g., our rule increases the
cost of new vehicles, which offsets the fuel cost savings that trucking firms may pass along to shippers,
209 77 FR 51701-5.
-------
which in turn, would dampen any decrease in product prices that shippers pass along to consumers).
Third, the study does not consider the potential for economic restructuring in response to decreased
energy consumption (i.e., it does not consider "general equilibrium" effects), which could lead to either
lower or higher energy consumption as a result of our rule. Fourth, the authors recognize that there is a
major limitation of the study: they have only a very small number of expenditure categories in their
model and there is considerable disparity in GHG intensities of commodities within each category (p.
3578). Fifth, the study does not directly explore the market mechanism through which our rule could
influence the amount of goods and services consumed since it focuses on energy efficiency
improvements that more directly increase consumers' disposable income rather than on the more
complex and indirect pathway where greater heavy duty vehicle fuel efficiency may result in lower-
priced goods and services. Finally, the authors do not attempt to quantify the additional benefits to
consumers associated with increased consumption of goods and services, which would be important to
consider if we were assessing the overall costs and benefits associated with potential indirect rebound
effects from our rule.
At the time of our response to POP Diesel's 2012 petition for consideration, EPA was not aware
of any data to indicate that the magnitude of indirect rebound effects, if any, would be significant for
this rule. Since the finalization of the Phase I rulemaking, EPA has considered this issue further, but we
are aware of no new peer reviewed studies or other research that would alter our assessment of the
current state of knowledge about indirect rebound as it relates to fuel economy. Research on indirect
rebound effects remains nascent. The magnitude of effects from our rule postulated in the Saunders
affidavit still has little support in the literature, still reflects no expert peer review, and in the end
remains speculative. It appears highly improbable that all of the GHG emissions benefits of this rule
would be negated by putative indirect rebound effects, and the state of the literature on indirect rebound
does not provide EPA with a sufficient basis to decide (or think) otherwise.
There remain substantial unanswered questions that the literature on indirect rebound must
study further before EPA can consider including such estimates in our economic analysis. As discussed
in this proposed rule, all of the fuel costs savings will not necessarily be passed through to the consumer
in terms of cheaper goods and services. First, there may be market barriers that impede trucking
companies from passing along the fuel cost savings from the rule in the form of lower rates. Second,
there are upfront vehicle costs (and potentially transaction or transition costs associated with the
adoption of new technologies) that would partially offset some of the fuel cost savings from our rule,
thereby limiting the magnitude of the impact on prices of final goods and services. In turn, it is not clear
how the fuel savings would be spent and the consequences of the spending on greenhouse gas
emissions.
EPA raised these same questions in response to POP Diesel's 2012 petition for reconsideration.
However, the new Saunders affidavit does not consider these questions, but rather argues that it must be
the case that increased fuel economy will make the cost of freight transportation service cheaper, and
will result in further demand for goods. But the affidavit provides no studies of historical data, of
decision-making in the trucking sector, nor any other evidence to support this claim. In the case of the
direct rebound effect, the Winebrake et al. papers discussed in detail in the Preamble of this final
rulemaking suggest that the effect may not be significantly different from zero. It is therefore feasible
that the indirect rebound effect might also not be significantly different from zero. Until the literature
on indirect rebound studies these questions more thoroughly, any estimates of the existence and
magnitude of an indirect rebound effect remain speculative. At this point in the development of that
body of literature, it would be unreasonable for EPA to include any estimate of the indirect rebound
effect in our economic analysis.
-------
11.6 Impact on Class Shifting, Fleet Turnover, and Sales
11.6.1 Impact on Class Shifting & Other Concerns
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Manufacturers Should not Limit Vehicle Purchasing Options
OEM's will comply with the rule by selling more efficient engines, tractors, and trailers. Shortfalls in
meeting their targets can be supplemented with either early introduction or over-compliance credits. The
trucking industry is very diverse and vehicles and trailers are traditionally ordered with equipment
tailored for specific applications. As under Phase 1, ATA and its member fleets remain concerned that
certain equipment the industry has relied upon by the industry may no longer be manufactured and
offered for sale due to their lower overall efficiency numbers. If such a scenario does in fact play out,
fleets may be forced to purchase equipment that is, in fact, less efficient since the equipment is no
longer properly paired with its specific work application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.21]
This scenario is a real concern for the trucking industry. Fleets want to be assured that the vehicles they
purchase are best-suited for their needs. Trucking customers are so specific with their truck orders that
they would rather wait to get the exact truck they need than take what is available. In a worst-case
scenario, a fleet may explore the newer, used truck market or extend their normal trade-in cycles. This
situation has occurred recently with the elimination of cab-over tractors. Companies that were
employing these tractors, in many cases to comply with vehicle length limitations, have been forced to
extend the life of their existing tractors and forego vehicles with advanced emissions controls, or
reconfigure to shorter trailers, resulting in more truck trips. Technologies that add additional weight to a
truck and/or increase a company's capital costs without optimizing fuel consumption and GHG
reductions will reduce the potential benefits of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.21]
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
We believe these are also important considerations for EPA in developing a final Phase 2 rules, as
follows:[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-l 171-A2 p.5]
• That this rule is compatible with the needs and complexities of the diverse
marketplace: Commercial trucks encompass a wide range of types, shape and sizes with
primary and secondary manufacturers of commercial vehicles, along with many vehicles
customized to meet the needs of a broad range of specific work tasks. Efforts to impose fuel
economy standards should not affect vehicle choice or such efforts could have unintended
consequences of causing shifts in the marketplace to less productive and more vehicles on the
road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.5]
Response
The Phase 2 standards are performance-based, meaning that the industry will have a significant range of
technology choices to be considered for compliance. It is important to emphasize here that the agencies
are not mandating the use of a specific technology to meet the Phase 2 standards, rather manufacturers
would be able to choose the technologies, or combinations of technologies, that are best for them in
achieving the standards. The agencies do not believe the new regulation would limit or prohibit any
specific product, such as cab over tractors. However, manufactures might choose not to produce less
energy efficient tractors in order to meet the new standards (for example, the cab over tractor is
-------
aerodynamically worse than the regular tractor). One the other hand, manufactures might choose to
produce this kind of tractors by using the flexibility program (such as credit trading) built in the new
standards because of special market demand (we note that cab over tractor has been phased out in recent
years even before the HD Phase 1 rule because of market competition (worse in aerodynamics, less fuel
efficiency, and higher operation cost)). Even vehicles with lower fuel consumption should be
marketable to consumers, because they will have lower operating costs. For most trucking companies,
fuel costs are the highest business cost, outside of driver labor. Indeed, if consumers consider even a few
years' worth of fuel savings in deciding what vehicles they will buy, the vehicles with increased fuel
economy may be more attractive to them than vehicles with lower fuel economy. As a result, the
agencies believe that few, if any, companies will extend the lives of older vehicles instead of buying
new ones.
The rule has associated costs, as calculated in the RIA Chapter 8, and summarized in Section IX.D of
the Preamble to the final rule, but the fuel savings greatly exceed those expenses. The net benefits
calculation indicate that average buyer will experience net benefits, as shown in Section IX.D of the
Preamble to the final rule. These benefits are in addition to the benefits that motivate the rule, reduced
GHG emissions and improved energy security. To the extent that the comments imply that different
assumptions about a specific technology would reduce the benefits of the program, we refer the reader
to our extensive technology and cost discussions presented in Chapters 2 and 7 of the RIA and discussed
throughout Sections II-VI and Section IX of the Preamble. Similar to our response to Section 11.1.2
above, changes in assumptions for any one technology would not change the overall conclusions of the
cost benefit-analysis; i.e., that the benefits of the program far outweigh the costs. However, as shown in
this RTC document, where commenters have provided data to support changes in technology
assumptions, including cost, we have considered those data in setting our final standards and in our final
cost-benefit analysis.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
The Phase 2 rule must not put dealerships in the position of having to take the delivery of vehicles they
may be forced to sell at a loss. Prospective truck customers have very specific needs and will wait to get
the exact truck to meet them rather than purchase a less suitable one from stock. Experience with the
2004, 2007, and 2010 truck emissions standards and with the "great recession" left dealerships with
unpopular trucks and tractors sitting on lots for months and even years, all the while incurring expensive
floorplan interest costs while becoming less desirable. If and when floorplan curtailments of ten percent
or more are incurred on vehicles costing upwards of $150,000, it can put a small truck dealership out of
business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1309-A1 p.4]
At the beginning of a model year, truck OEMs tend to follow an annual plan, in part based on regulatory
mandates. First they establish pricing and production schedules for "work ready" trucks. Dealers and
some larger customers buy trucks; with customers putting them to work and dealers offering them for
sale. As the year progresses, OEMs make changes to their production mix to adjust for compliance with
their fuel efficiency and GHG targets. As a practical matter, the only way to "mix shift" is to sell more
of something and less of something else. OEMs typically accomplish this by offering financial and other
concessions on the vehicles they must sell, so that they become attractive enough to dealerships and
prospective customers who otherwise would not order them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.4-
5]
This complex scenario is made even more complex by the fact that newly ordered and delivered units
may have a concession (or concessions) that similar trucks already in dealer stock don't, as OEMs
sometimes fail to re-invoice dealers for stock vehicles at the new concession level. Consequently,
-------
inventory becomes older and more difficult to sell and the rule's public policy goals also take a hit.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 5]
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
UPS believes that there is also a danger that premature deployment of technology will actually hurt the
environment, especially the carbon footprint of trucking in America. It is important that we get this rule
right from the start. The use of immature technologies will also eat up the limited engineering expertise
of engine and truck manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1262-A1 p.2]
The prime example from the past of such premature deployment is the emissions control after-treatment
technology present on diesel trucks today, both medium and heavy. Its cost, difficulty in service and in
maintenance, and lack of customization all have discouraged the use of diesel engines and shifted
trucking toward the spark-ignited, Otto cycle engine. The latter, is substantially less thermodynamically
efficient that the compression ignition engine. The dual-fuel diesel/LNG class 8 tractor that UPS has run
in service since 2002, has disappeared from the market, replaced with a spark-ignited LNG engine that
is significantly less efficient than its predecessor. This translates directly into enhanced carbon
emissions, as compared to a compression engine. We believe a large part of this shift to the spark
ignition engine was due to the unavailability of diesel emission after-treatment systems that are tailored
to that dual-fuel application. We see the consequences in our fleet's fuel consumption and carbon
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.2-3]
The situation with medium delivery trucks is even worse. One need only look at the number of such
trucks that have shifted away from diesel, to gasoline. Since 2009, UPS alone has shifted 25,000 of its
class 6 trucks to gasoline instead of diesel. The maintenance requirements of these emission control
systems forced truck owners to operate outside their normal duty cycle for no reason other than to meet
the needs of the emissions control system. The added cost and maintenance nightmares have led truck
owners to shift to gasoline engines and the low gasoline prices today only aggravate this shift. We
believe that the attendant loss in engine efficiency and increase in carbon emissions is equal to or
beyond anything the Phase II rule hopes to achieve in carbon reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1262-A1 p.3]
This phenomenon is completely unaddressed by the proposed rule, and indeed what the rule might
achieve would only add to the environmental benefits of a shift back to efficient diesel engines. UPS has
raised this issue to DOE and our suppliers. In short, we need a better mousetrap to clean diesel
emissions more cheaply and conveniently. Our fear is that the engineering talent needed for such an
improvement in emissions after-treatment will instead chase the next premature technology, very likely
the exhaust heat recovery system that is not commercially available today. Again, as best we can tell,
the proposed rule does not attempt to address the problem we describe, and indeed it could not until
improved emissions control technology is ready. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.3]
Response:
The agencies disagree with commenters that the new standards will have the same effect as the
commenter states for the 2004, 2007, and 2010 standards. Those standards imposed costs without
providing financial returns in the form of fuel savings. For the new standards, the fuel savings reduce
the net costs of the standards. Moreover, with respect to the delivery vehicles of concern to UPS, the
vocational vehicle standards are subcategorized to reflect appropriate duty cycles (there are no
comparable subcategories in the 2004, 2007, and 2010 criteria pollutant standard rules), these vehicles
can be certified to any of the subcategories (urban/regional/multi-purpose) which the OEM believes best
fits in-use driving patterns.
-------
Organization: Transfer Flow, Inc.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and as such the idea that regulation drives technological innovation
rather than industry meeting demands through application of technology is not only backward, but such
an ideological approach lacks the foresight to understand that human nature will find ways to meet
needs while remaining compliant when technology fails. Currently, vehicle and equipment
manufacturers have been unable to meet all regulatory constraints through the application of technology.
By attempting to drive technological innovation through regulatory decree instead of allowing industry
to address customer needs through application of current technologies, we find ourselves in the current
situation where people have found creative ways to operate within regulatory constraints without
purchasing newer lower emission vehicles and equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1922-A1 p. 1]
One example of technological failures that have led to creative solutions are exhaust treatment
technologies imposed on heavy duty diesel vehicles which have caused reliability to come into question.
In addition to reliability issues, the time needed for regeneration cycles that often do not fit well into the
operator's schedule lead to frustration and often the regeneration is not allowed to occur when necessary
to maintain vehicle performance. We then find ourselves in a situation where a new efficient vehicle is
now consuming more fuel per mile than the older inefficient counterpart vehicle because new
operational parameters are not followed. If vehicle demands are continued to be ignored and the vehicle
is operated further, component failure can result that can result in dire unintended consequences. This
was demonstrated as reported by Diesel Net by the September 7th 2011 fire in Washington State where
a Cleaire Long Mile filter that was potentially overladen with soot experienced an uncontrolled
regeneration resulting in a fire that destroyed over 100 structures including 29 homes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1922-A1 p.l]
As a result of incidents such as the Cleaire fire, older vehicles which allegedly pollute more due to lack
of technologies imposed on newer vehicles have become more desirable in the marketplace. Vehicle and
equipment owners now find themselves in the predicament of either having to service an aging fleet or
purchase new vehicles that have technology implemented on them that is not reliable and causes
complications in their business practices as well as potentially ruinous malfunctions. This has been
demonstrated by the downturn in new heavy duty vehicle sales. The regulatory implementation of
technology has had the unintended consequence of forcing owners to keep vehicles in service that
would have been previously retired. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1922-A1 p.l]
Another way owners are able to meet customer demands while maintaining fleet compliance is through
segmentation by purchasing multiple lighter class vehicles or equipment with smaller currently
unregulated engines to perform the same function as one heavier class vehicle did previously. Multiple
lighter class vehicles or smaller engines consume more fuel to accomplish the same function than one
larger engine that previously performed the same task. When viewed from a cradle to grave model the
use of multiple smaller pieces of equipment or vehicles to accomplish the same task that was previously
accomplished with one vehicle or piece of equipment has exponential ramifications. In this case there
are now multiple engines, tires, drivetrains or pieces of equipment to service and maintain in order to
perform the same function as was previously performed by one engine, drivetrain and piece of
equipment. Highway maintenance, traffic congestion, engine emissions, equipment maintenance and
operational costs all increase when this type of problem solving is employed. However, given the
current regulatory situation, business owners have no choice but to employ the most cost sensitive
solution even though it is more complicated and less desirable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1922-A1
p.2]
-------
Vehicle manufacturers are able to meet fleet averages by producing light duty vehicles that are now
rated to higher payloads using smaller more efficient engines than their predecessors. These vehicles are
typically not employed in a vocational work capacity but account for a large percentage of vehicles sold.
These lighter vehicles appear to have the same capabilities of older medium duty vehicles. New,
heavier, medium duty vehicles that are used in a vocational work capacity largely have gone unchanged
in engine options and fuel efficiency. The largest gasoline engines are still offered in these vehicles with
the same efficiencies and emission systems that they have had for several years. There have been
particulate filters implemented on medium duty diesel vehicles that have caused lower fuel efficiencies
and share all the same frustrations and complications that are present on heavy duty diesel vehicles with
the same types of devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1922-A1 p.2]
Since there are now more vehicles rated to a higher payload that account for a large percentage of
vehicle sales, it would appear that there are more fuel efficient medium duty vehicles being purchased
into the work force. However, if vehicle sales are broken down by application, we see that newer light
duty vehicles, with a higher payload capacity than their predecessors, which appear as medium duty
vehicles, are still not largely purchased for vocational work applications. Vehicle manufacturers can
now state that they are selling more fuel efficient vehicles into a higher weight class; however those
vehicles are largely still employed as they have always been in a non-vocational capacity. For all the
attempt to reduce emissions from vehicles that travel the most miles and account for the largest
percentage of emissions generated by requiring manufacturers to offer more fuel efficient vehicles, not
much has been accomplished other than some creative labeling of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1922-A1 p.2]
Once again we see that regulatory overreach has had the opposite effect of its initial intention. If the true
intention of the regulation was to drive economic stimulation of the tax base through restructuring
business practices, then this is a job well done. Companies have gone from purchasing one large piece
of equipment to multiple purchases of smaller pieces of equipment that surpass the cost of the larger
purchase and then require higher maintenance cost. Instead of a regulatory approach of a problem
looking for a place to happen, perhaps a realistic approach of true problem solving could accomplish the
emissions reduction goal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1922-A1 p.2-3]
Response:
In its comment, Transfer Flow questions the agencies' justification for the standards, and also raises
concerns regarding the agencies' proposed standards. Transfer Flow claims the proposed standards
would have unintended consequence of forcing owners to keep vehicles in service that would have been
previously retired because of concerns regarding the technological reliability of the exhaust treatment
imposed on HD trucks. If those technologies are not reliable, older vehicles have become more
desirable in the marketplace. In addition, Transfer Flow claims that new standards might change the
truck owner's choice in purchasing the vehicle. The fleet owner might choose multiple lighter class
vehicles or equipment with smaller currently unregulated engines to perform the same function as one
heavier class vehicle did previously in the vocational vehicle category.
We agree with Transfer Flow that market forces induce innovation, but we disagree with the claim that
regulations do not. Preamble Section IX.A. and RIA Chapter 8.2 discuss some potential explanations for
private markets not investing in new technologies that can provide private net benefits. For instance, as
discussed there, regulations may help to overcome "network externality" problems associated with new
technologies: e.g., in the absence of regulation, repair facilities may not stock low-rolling-resistance
tires unless large numbers of vehicles use them, but people may not install them if replacements aren't
available in repair facilities. Also as discussed there, there may be first-mover disadvantages to
investing in new technologies because of the up-front costs; standards can level the playing field by
-------
spreading the risk across all market participants, rather than concentrating it on a small number of
participants. Regulations can help to overcome these problems by providing incentives for market
participants to overcome these barriers. We also disagree that "vehicle and equipment manufacturers
have been unable to meet all regulatory constraints through the application of technology." In fact, all
HD vehicles being sold now are required to meet regulatory constraints
We do not envision that new standards would have unintended consequences as described by Transfer
Flow, where operators would keep HD trucks in the service longer because they perceive the new
technology to be unreliable. The new standards will not impose a specific technology for manufacturers
to meet the standards but will allow manufacturers to optimize technology packages to meet the new
standards. Market and consumers will recognize or determine if one specific exhaust treatment is more
reliable, cost effective, and fit their need. The agencies understand the potential impact that fleets
delaying purchases could have on the program's environmental and fuel savings goals, and have taken
steps in the design of the program to avoid such disruption. These steps include the following:
• Providing considerable lead time
• Adopting standards that will result in significantly lower operating costs for vehicle owners
(unlike the 2007 standard, which increased operating costs)
• Phasing in the standards
• Structuring the program so the industry will have a significant range of technology choices to be
considered for compliance, rather than the one or two new technologies the OEMs pursued to
comply with EPA's 2007 criteria pollutant standard
• Allowing manufacturers to use emissions averaging, banking and trading to phase in the
technology even further
We do not envision that the regulatory program would cause fleet owners to purchase multiple lighter
class vehicles or equipment with smaller currently unregulated engines to perform the same function as
one heavier class vehicle did previously. As described at Preamble Section IX. F, we do not envision
the new standards would cause the class shifting within the vocational vehicle weight class or within the
duty cycles (particularly given that manufacturers can choose essentially without constraint whether to
certify as regional, urban, or multi-purpose). Specifically with respect to the commenters concerns
about a shift to lower weight vehicles in an effort to circumvent more stringent standards, we note that
the Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards are more stringent for lower weight classes than for the higher
weight class standards. We have designed standards to avoid incentivizing the purchase of truck sizes
that have not been optimized for their intended applications. As vocational vehicles include a wide
variety of vehicle types, and serve a wide range of functions, the diversity in the vocational vehicle
segment can be primarily attributed to the variety of customer needs for specialized vehicle bodies and
added equipment, rather than to the chassis. The new standards would lead a small increase in the
incremental cost per vehicle. However, these cost increases are consistent across the board for both
vocational vehicles and the engines used in the vehicle as shown in Table V-30, Preamble Section
V.C.3. The agencies believe that the utility gained from the additional technology packages would
outweigh the additional cost for vocational vehicles.
11.6.2 Impact on Fleet Turnover and Sales
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
-------
The RIA recognizes the possibility of a pre-buy, but the analysis concentrates only on what is viewed as
favorable fuel costs and savings that will be recognized by vehicle owners. Specifically, the agencies
"are not projecting a change in fleet turnover characteristics due to this regulation."10 Allison
recommends a more thorough analysis of the market history to predict behaviors and economic impact
due to the technology risks that are inherent in the proposed rule. Based on that analysis, changes in
timing or stringency levels may have merit. For example, fuel costs per mile were calculated using
EIA's 2014 Annual Energy Outlook for diesel prices. Yet more recent EIA projections indicate a
substantial decline.11 This is significant since the agencies' assumptions concerning "pre-buy" are that
the value of saving money in future fuel purchases will outweigh the upfront additional costs of new
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 11]
More broadly, EPA and NHTSA must analyze other non-fuel costs factors - e.g., concern with regard to
the performance of new technology - and their impact on vehicle purchases. The agencies do not appear
to have considered this very real and significant factor in the MD/HD market when assessing the
feasibility of Alternative 4. As noted above, the NAS has cited "unknown reliability" as a factor in the
"profound fluctuations" buying behavior surrounding the transition to 2007 HD standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 11]
10 RIA at 8-34.
11 Diesel fuel prices were 2.88 in the 3rd quarter of 2014 compared with $1.60 in the third quarter of
2015. See http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/tables/pdf/2tab.pdf. Projections for 2016 are now $1.86. Id.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Sixth, the agencies failed to estimate a pre-buy or the costs associated with one. (See 80 F.R. 40456,
stating that the agencies are not accounting for a pre-buy). Although it is true that the Phase 1 standards
did not result in a pre-buy and that customers should have incentive to buy the new fuel saving
technologies that Phase 2 will push, it remains likely that there will be a pre-buy. Unlike Phase 1, the
agencies premise the Phase 2 standards on technologies that are not off-the-shelf and thus 1) are
untested by fleets and 2) are in the stage of development during which manufacturers are still finding
problems and developing solutions. (See the warranty information as a function of time, which DTNA
shared with the agencies in 2014). Moreover, the agencies are pushing technologies that do not have the
return on investment demanded by fleets; if the technologies did have such return on investment, then
manufacturers would already be selling the technologies in high numbers. In turn, fleets have an
incentive to spend their limited capital on the pre-Phase 2 vehicles. This creates a cost for manufacturers
such as DTNA: we must increase staffing and production levels to meet pre-buy demand, and we have
to decrease them the following year, possibly being forced to lay off staff (although we sincerely hope
not). These swings in production cost money, both increasing capacity and scaling it back. The agencies
failed to account for such costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.128-129]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
EDF preformed an extensive market analysis of heavy-duty vehicle purchases between 1992 and 2014
matched with the 2007 and 2010 engine standards.118 Appropriately controlling for macroeconomic
trends, our analysis showed that there was smooth growth in vehicle demand prior to, and during,
implementation of the 2014 Phase 1 fuel efficiency standards. As further evidence, model year 2014
heavy-duty trucks saw the highest sales since 2005.119 The results of our analysis support the premise
-------
that fuel savings provide an advantage in the competitive market. Lower freight costs drive higher
demand for freight transport and demand for freight transport drives demand for new vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.25] [This comment can also be found in section 11.12 of this comment
summary]
118 Rittenhouse and Zaragoza-Watkins, Strategic Response to Environmental Regulation: Evidence
from U.S. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Air Pollution Regulations, MIT CEEPR Working Paper, (2015).
119 "Healthy Demand Overall for Trucks in September," Heavy Duty Trucking, available at
http://www.truckinginfo.eom/channel/fleet-management/news/story/2014/10/healthy-demand-overall-
for-trucks-in-september.aspx?ref=rel-recommended (last accessed November 5, 2014).
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
As previously mentioned engine regulations in the past have had adverse economic consequences and
contributed to a pre-buy/no-buy boom and bust cycle. This proposal must guard against creating these
conditions. Severe market disruptions would not only be bad for workers, they would also be bad for the
environment and would undermine the regulation's foundational goal of reducing harmful greenhouse
gas emissions and increasing fuel efficiency. If fleets and other customers pull ahead truck purchases
due to concerns about increased cost or unproven technology, the end result is more higher-polluting
and less fuel efficient trucks on the road for a longer period of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-
A2 p.4] [This comment can also be found in section 11.12 of this comment summary.]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Other factors could influence unit sales. Higher than expected component costs, lower than expected
fuel costs or an easing in efficiency and emissions regulations could reduce demand. On the other hand,
it may be possible to reach a higher percentage of the annual installed 145,000 unit PTO market if
various scenarios including increased regulatory measures, higher fuel costs above $4 per gallon or
component costs lower than projections were to occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 17]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Prior to promulgating EPA's 2000 emission standard, the EPA and the OEMs perhaps should have
predicated the now famous pre-buys which occurred before the October 2002 deadline. According to
five engine manufacturers that were contacted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the
pre-buys caused a rippling effect on OEMs, which stated that in order to meet the increased demand for
the pre-October 2002 MY engines, their companies hired new workers, increased operations, and
experienced concurrently increasing sales. However, after the deadline, engine orders dropped and did
not level off again until the end of the 2003 fiscal year. The rapid decline in orders forced the
manufacturers to both lay off new-hires and to suspend operations at some plants. According to the
engine manufacturers' representatives, such instability resulted in increased costs and a net loss of
revenue.12 In addition, according to the GAO, those manufacturers which produced cleaner engines lost
out in the marketplace because their engines faced significant reliability and durability issues. Truckers
using these engines paid the ultimate price in dollars and downtime and even reduced fuel mileage.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 12-13]
-------
As part of the 2000 emission standard, EPA estimated that within the first 15-months, 233,000 new
clean engines would be on the road, when in market reality only 148,000 were actually on the road.
EPA also estimated that the consent decrees would require 865,000 older trucks to adjust their
computers in order to reduce NOx emissions. However, GAO found that only 12 percent of that number
actually adjusted their computers. Further, a recent market analysis done by the American Truck
Dealers in 2012, noted that the EPA grossly underestimated emission system costs to the
industry. Looking at the cost estimates of EPA along with the actual increase in cost of the new cleaner
engines, the report found that the actual cost was more than $21,000, while the EPA estimate was
$5,000.15 All of the facts presented above demonstrate one of the most fundamental problems
associated with EPA's estimates and their myopic vision of emission standards, which is, though the
agency can mandate cleaner engines, they cannot mandate that people buy them. This is known as "risk
aversion," and according to the National Economic Research Associates, is not accounted for in
environmental policy evaluations.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p. 13-14]
12 GAO, Air Pollution: EPA Could Take Additional Steps to Help Maximize the Benefits of the 2007
Diesel Emission Standards, Government Accountability Office (March 2004), pg. 5.
15 Patrick Caplin and Esteban Plaza-Jennings, A look Back at EPAs Cost and other Impact projections
for MY 2004-2010 Heavy-Duty Truck Emissions Standards, (2012).
16 Noah Kaufman, Why is Risk Aversion Unaccounted for in Environmental Policy Evaluations?,
NERA Economic Consulting (2014).
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
The Proposed Rule will have negative impact on motorhome shipments and jobs. RVIA contracted with
John Dunham and Associates31 (Dunham) to assess the economic impact that compliance with the
proposed Phase 2 standards could have on the motorhome industry. The methodology for this model is
available in Appendix C. In simplistic terms, Dunham's model assumes that some change in price will
have an impact on motorhome sales (shipments)32 and that this impact on sales will in turn impact
industry jobs, wages, economic output, government tax revenue, etc. RVIA asked Dunham to estimate
the economic impacts for the following four scenarios: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This
comment can also be found in section 11.3 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
Scenario 1: Motorhomes buyers factor 100% of fuel savings into their purchase decision (8.5 years of
discounted fuel savings were subtracted from estimated incremental cost increases; costs based on EPA
ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can also be found in
section 11.3 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
Scenario 2: Motorhomes buyers factor 100% of fuel savings into their purchase decision (8.5 years of
discounted fuel savings were subtracted from estimated incremental cost increases; costs based on
motorhome industry ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can
also be found in section 11.3 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
Scenario 3: Motorhome buyers do not factor fuel savings into their purchase decision (costs based on
EPA ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can also be found in
section 11.3 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
-------
Scenario 4: Motorhome buyers do not factor fuel savings into their purchase decision (costs based on
motorhome industry ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can
also be found in section 11.3 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
The results of Dunham's assessment for 2021MY, 2024MY and 2027MY are found in the following
three tables below. Additional details are located in Appendix D. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1
p.21][This comment can also be found in section 11.3 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
[Charts, economic impacts, can be found on p.21-22 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1]
In RVIA's view, Scenario 4 represents the most likely outcome. Scenario 4 reflects costs based on an
ICM that is more representative of actual practice in the motorhome industry which, as we have already
discussed, is distinctly different from other vocational vehicle segments (largely because motorhomes
are not purchased for commercial purposes). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 22][This comment
can also be found in section 11.3 and 11.12 of this comment summary]
Scenario 4 also reflects the fact that the average motorhome buyer, unlike the commercial vehicle fleet
manager, likely places little value on future fuel savings when purchasing a motorhome. These are not
vehicles purchased for daily driving or commercial purposes. Rather, the purchaser generally focuses on
cost, features and other factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 22] [This comment can also be
found in section 11.12 of this comment summary]
Looking at Scenario 4 and 2024MY standards, we estimate that a total of 1,553 jobs would be lost. Of
these, 460 would be motorhome manufacturing jobs. This is over 5% of the existing 8,732 motorhome
manufacturing jobs that exist today in the thirty-four motorhome manufacturing sites in the United
States. With motorhome manufacturing jobs located in a handful of rural communities in a small
number of states, applying the proposed standards will have serious negative impact on these
communities. The rule would negatively impact not just motorhome manufacturing employees (460 lost
jobs) but also motorhome dealers and component part suppliers (144 and 404 lost jobs, respectively).
Also negatively impacted would be persons outside the industry who live in these manufacturing
communities. Lost wages are estimated at nearly $118 million. Federal, state and local governments will
also have about $34 million fewer tax dollars to invest in social programs, and infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.22][This comment can also be found in section 11.12 of this comment
summary]
Regardless of the scenario and the extent to which our industry and the communities that manufacture
motorhomes are affected, the negative impacts for our industry cannot be ignored. We have concrete
evidence showing what happens when motorhome shipments decline. It has been only six years since
2009 when nearly two-thirds (64%) of all direct motorhome manufacturing employees lost their jobs.33
As of 2013, the latest year for which data is available, there are 43% fewer motorhome manufacturer
businesses and still 59% fewer motorhome manufacturer employees than pre-recession. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.22-23][This comment can also be found in section 11.12 of this comment
summary]
While the estimated job losses associated with this rule do not approach the numbers experienced just a
few years ago during and after the recession, they will still result in much pain and suffering,
particularly for a handful of low-income rural communities that are only now just starting to recover
from the recession. At the very least, EPA must consider these economic costs and impacts under the
-------
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 12898. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1 p.23][This comment can also be found in section 11.12 of this comment summary]
31 John Dunham & Associates (JDA) is an economic specialist in regulatory analysis. JDA generates
economic and fiscal impact studies from a national level down to geographic regions, municipalities,
marketing areas or Federal and state legislative districts. See http://suerrillaeconomics. com/.
32 According to John Dunham and Associates, the base elasticity for motorhomes is -0.905, suggesting
that a 10 percent change in prices will reduce demand by 9 percent (see Appendix C).
33 Based on U.S. Economic Census data, available at: www.census.gov/econ.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Potential Pre-Buy/Low-Buy Concerns
Other issues exacerbate the problems associated with adopting Alternative 4 for medium-duty and
heavy-duty vehicles. As the Agencies well know, there is significant elasticity in the demand for the
commercial vehicles at issue in this rulemaking. The Agencies only regulate the manufacturing of new
engines and vehicles. There is no obligation for customers to buy the new products - and certainly not at
the time of implementation of a new regulation. Moreover, experience has shown that adverse
economics, globally or affecting key market segments, have resulted in customers delaying vehicle
purchases. Similarly, experience has shown that actual or perceived concerns about the cost,
performance, durability, serviceability, or overall efficacy of new-tier vehicle technologies have also
resulted in customer "pre-buys" of current-tier technologies and/or the delayed purchase of new-tier
technologies. Neither manufacturers (who wish to start recovering their investment in new-tier engine
and vehicle technologies as soon as possible) or regulators or the public (who wish to realize the
benefits of new regulations as soon as possible) want to experience a pre-buy/low-buy response to the
Phase 2 Standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.56][This comment can also be found in
section 1.5 of this comment summary]
Alternative 4 increases the risk for such a potential response since it likely would result in significantly
higher per-vehicle cost increases (compared to Alternative 3), and could produce real or perceived
concerns for product durability, reliability and maintenance issues. Those possible circumstances -
necessarily more likely under Alternative 4 - could induce vehicle and fleet owners to revise their
scheduled purchases of new Phase 2 vehicles. In that regard, and as the Agencies expressly
acknowledge, Alternative 4 would deprive manufacturers of three-years of learning time and therefore
would decrease the "learning-benefit" savings otherwise available under Alternative 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.56] [This comment can also be found in section 1.5 of this comment summary]
The net result could be that manufacturers will be unable to recoup their capital investments in the time
period projected in the NPRM. Worse, the very marginal GHG emission benefits ascribed to Alternative
4 might not be realized, even if the three-year pull-ahead could be accomplished, if the Alternative 4
standards proved in the market to be perceived as problematic by customers. The higher costs and
potential reliability issues associated with Alternative 4 could be enough to cause vehicle and fleet
owners to keep their Phase 1 vehicles longer than otherwise. Consequently, Alternative 4 might actually
result in higher aggregate GHG emissions than under Alternative 3, not marginally lower emissions.
-------
This is another reason why the Agencies should not implement Alternative 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p. 56] [This comment can also be found in section 1.5 of this comment summary]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Because the technology-forcing nature of the Proposed Standards is anticipated to increase costs, pre-
buys may also be expected as the natural result of market behavior. Pre-buys may counter some of the
goals that the agencies are trying to obtain. Pre-buys, as were seen before the 2007 NOx regulation
implementation, can result in unemployment in the truck manufacturing, component supplier, and
service support industries.1 This negatively impacts businesses, the economy, and solvency of the
Highway Trust fund - the latter of which in particular remains in dire straits. Environmental benefits are
also put in jeopardy as anticipated benefits are not obtained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.4]
1 See, e.g., "Customer Behavior in Response to the 2007 Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Standards:
Implications for the 2010 NOx Standard" (NERA Economic Consulting, Nov. 14, 2008) (available at
http://www.ooida.com/Documents/NERA 2010 NOx Standard Report.pdf).
Organization: Volvo Group
Heavy-duty trucks are commercial vehicles purchased to enhance the profitability of a business.
Purchasers must consider the initial cost (including Federal Excise Tax and state tax), operating and
maintenance costs, plus any cost of vehicle downtime. Class 8 tractors, in particular, are generally
purchased for regional or long-haul operation accumulating 100,000 or more miles annually. Most fleets
require payback for efficiency technology in 18-24 months to cover the risk factors (actual efficiency
delivered, maintenance and downtime costs, etc.), recoup their investment, and to provide a profit
margin within their 4-5 year trade cycle. Fleets are particularly leery of complex new systems with
unproven reliability and unknown maintenance cost. Rather than purchase such technology, fleets have
delayed new purchases by extending the life of older equipment and/or pre-buying vehicles before such
systems were forced into the market. This was amply demonstrated in 2007 when diesel particulate traps
were forced into the market by PM emissions targets. Factories ran at full capacity at the end of 2006
only to nearly shut down for long periods in 2007. Production was then further curtailed by the severe
recession in 2008. Vehicle manufacturers' and suppliers' employees suffered from lay-offs, pay
reductions, and lack of work. One major supplier, Caterpillar, dropped out of the on-road engine
business. Since 2010, the increased cost and complexity of emissions technology has spawned a
booming business in trucks built from glider kits, a completely new truck chassis and body that is up-
fitted with a rebuilt engine, driveline and axle, skirting emissions and efficiency regulations. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 18]
In the Phase 1 rule, EPA and NHTSA initiated a phased in approach using averaging, moderate changes
in stringency, and a three year period to correct a failure to meet an annual target. This process, which
would continue at an accelerated pace in Phase 2, helps to eliminate the need to force major new
technology into the market at full volume. However, it introduces another problem - manufacturers must
induce customers to purchase technologies in adequate volumes to achieve regulatory targets when the
customers have the option not to purchase such technologies if they are not convinced of the merits.
History shows a gradual market acceptance as technologies are tested by first users, then, if found to be
cost effective, purchased by others in low volumes before becoming generally accepted. Accelerating
this dynamic will certainly be challenging and could be very costly if manufacturers are forced to
heavily discount new technology. Markets can also be greatly distorted if some manufacturers accrue
large credit balances allowing them to delay technology introduction, thereby forcing competitors to
compete against lower cost products. This issue will be particularly acute if truck owners do not
-------
perceive adequate payback for technology. Conversely, technology that delivers good payback,
reliability, and durability will be adopted without need for regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.18-19]
Response:
Several of the commenters (Daimler Trucks North American (DTNA), EDF, UAW, OOIDA, EMA,
Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRLA), and Volvo) discuss the concern that these standards
may lead to "pre-buy," that is, purchasers buying large numbers of new vehicles before the standards
come into effect, in order to avoid the effects of the standards. As a result of pre-buy, sales would drop
after the standards are effective. Employment would swing up before the effective date of the standards,
and decrease afterward, in what the UAW calls a "boom and bust cycle." In addition, because of
delayed market penetration of the new vehicles, the environmental gains of the standards would be
delayed as well. Commenters note standards put in place for criteria pollutants in the 2000s as leading to
pre-buy.
The agencies agree with these commenters that pre-buy is an undesirable phenomenon, for
environmental reasons as well as for impacts on the industry. The degree to which that concern applies
to GHG/fuel economy standards, however, seems much lower than for the criteria pollutant standards of
the 2000s. As discussed in Preamble IX.F.2 and RIA Chapter 8.4.2, those criteria pollutant standards
differ from these GHG/fuel efficiency standards because the latter, unlike the former, provide fuel
savings to users in addition to increased costs. The expectation of fuel savings should mitigate any
attempt to avoid purchase of vehicles subject to the standards. Although DTNA and Volvo raise
concerns that the return on investment is not as large as fleets demand, we nevertheless project fuel
savings that exceed increased costs with payback periods between two and four years. Volvo argues that
technologies with "good payback, reliability, and durability will be adopted without need for
regulation." Preamble Section IX.A. and RIA Chapter 8.2 discuss possible reasons that these
technologies may not have been adopted in the absence of the standards, even with short payback
periods. EDF points to research that it has done showing "smooth growth in vehicle demand prior to,
and during implementation" of Phase 1 of the HD program - that is, it does not find evidence of pre-buy
in response to the onset of Phase 1. It also notes that HD sales in 2014 were at their highest level since
2005. These observations suggest that pre-buy has not been a significant issue for Phase 1.
DTNA agrees that Phase 1 did not result in pre-buy, but it argues that the technologies expected under
Phase 2 are untested, and manufacturers are still finding problems with them. Allison Transmissions and
EMA raise concerns with pre-buy specifically in regard to proposed Alternative 4; Volvo expresses
concerns related to the speed with which the standards become more stringent. We note that the decision
not to finalize proposed Alternative 4 is largely to allow lead time for development and testing of new
technologies. At the same time, the standards provide certainty to promote markets for efficiency
technologies, as Odyne Systems points out. Odyne Systems and EMA also note that a wide range of
factors affects sales; we agree with this observation as well. As one example, it is likely that the high
sales EDF notes for 2014 are due heavily to recovery from the Great Recession; the effects of the
standards on those sales levels could be positive or negative, and are likely to be small relative to the
effects of the recovery.
Allison Transmission asks for an analysis "to predict behaviors and economic impact due to the
technology risks," and points out the use of EIA's 2014 AEO price forecasts in the NPRM as potentially
overstating fuel savings. We have not conducted a quantitative analysis of the effects of the standards on
sales because we have not identified in the literature a suitable model or suitable data for making such
estimates. We have updated to EIA's 2015 AEO price forecasts, the most recent available at the time
-------
that we conducted the analysis presented in the rulemaking documents. The standards continue to have
benefits that greatly exceed costs, and, as noted, fairly short payback periods.
OOIDA cites risk aversion as a source of pre-buy, and suggests that risk aversion is not considered in
environmental policy analysis. Risk aversion means that consumers prefer a certain value to an
uncertain value whose expected value is the same as the certain value. It is unclear in OOIDA's
statement how risk aversion applies: up-front costs of meeting the standards, even those subject to the
criteria pollutant standards of the 2000s, were built into purchase prices and thus not uncertain at the
time of purchase. Perhaps they were uncertain before the vehicles went on sale, and may have thus
contributed to pre-buy. This argument, however, leaves out an additional aspect of risk aversion
especially important for GHG/fuel efficiency standards: future fuel costs are highly uncertain as well,
due to fluctuations in world energy prices. Fuel-saving technologies reduce the impacts of those
fluctuations and thus would benefit risk-averse buyers. Although OOIDA cites a claim that the agencies
have not considered risk aversion in our analysis, Preamble IX.F.2. and RIA Chapter 8.4.2 discuss our
recognition that the two factors affected by risk aversion, the up-front costs and future fuel savings, both
affect buyer decisions. We have not identified reliable estimates to quantify these effects on vehicle
sales, and thus have presented a qualitative argument.
RVIA expresses concern with the negative sales and employment impacts of the standards. To some
extent, this comment is overtaken by events, since the final standards provide for (optional) custom
chassis standards that differ from those proposed in ways that should address many of the commenter's
substantive concerns. In any case, the concern is that the RV industry is at risk to suffer significant
negative effects due to the rule, based, in part, on the question of whether RV consumers will factor fuel
savings into their purchase decisions. If consumers do not consider fuel savings, then increases in RV
price due to complying with the rule could reduce sales, eventually leading to job losses. The RV
industry was disproportionately hurt during the Great Recession and has only recently experienced a
recovery.210'211 The maximum adverse effects on sales, in an analysis by John Dunham and Associates
for RVIA, are based in part on the assumption that fuel savings do not affect vehicle sales. One of the
drivers of the current recovery of sales appears to be low gas prices,212 which suggests that RV
consumers do consider fuel costs in the purchase decision, and thus are likely to put some consideration
on fuel savings from new technology. If so, the reduced fuel costs associated with these standards are
likely to mitigate any adverse effects on vehicle sales. Section 11.12 of this Response to Comments
discusses the employment impacts in detail.
11.7 Monetized GHG Impacts
Organization: ABC Bus Companies, Inc.
Phase 2 summaries of benefits, costs, emissions, reduced total fuel consumption, carbon footprints, etc.,
make no reference in the report that we can find that measures the motorcoach industry contribution to
210 Quiggle, Ben. "RV sales projected to be stronger in 2016 thanks to low gas prices, steady economy", The
Elkhart Truth, March 6, 2016. http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/business/2016/03/03/RV-sales-projected-to-be-
stronger-in-2016-thanks-to-low-gas-prices-steady-economy.html, accessed 3/28/2016.
211 Morris, Frank. "Ready For A Road Trip? RVs Are Rolling Back Into Fashion," Morning Edition on NPR,
March 28, 2016. http://www.npr.org/2016/03/28/468172578/ready-for-a-road-trip-rvs-are-rolling-back-into-
fashion, accessed 3/28/2016.
212 Quiggle, Ben. "RV sales projected to be stronger in 2016 thanks to low gas prices, steady economy", The
Elkhart Truth, March 6, 2016. http://www.elkharttruth.eom/news/business/2016/03/03/RV-sales-projected-to-be-
stronger-in-2016-thanks-to-low-gas-prices-steady-economy.html, accessed 3/28/2016.
-------
reduced automobile traffic, emissions, congestion and highway damage, per numbers of passengers
moved from point A to point B. In short, one 81 passenger motorcoach could potentially remove 81
cars, pickup trucks, or light duty vehicles from the American roadways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1430-A2 p.2-3]
Reductions in fuel consumption, emissions, carbon footprints, etc., on a per motorcoach basis,
should be compared against the same consumption and discharge categories of smaller vehicles
removed from the roadways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.3]
Page 40294 refers to MOVES forecasts of 1,000 commercial intercity coach buses, 5,000 transit buses,
40,000 school buses, and 90,000 recreational vehicles in MY 2018. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1430-
A2 p.3]
The average passenger capacity of an intercity coach bus is 56 passengers. Using the 1,000 yearly
intercity coach bus figure provided in the report, the potential to remove 56,000 automobiles from the
U.S highway system per year exists. The real impact of motorcoach GHG emissions should be offset by
the numbers of automobile and light truck vehicles removed from the US highways. Reduced GHG, fuel
consumption, and C02 figures could be based on 'passenger' MPG instead of'vehicle' MPG. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1430-A2 p.3]
Response:
EPA does not consider impacts on a per-passenger basis as part of its standard-setting process. As a
result, EPA does not relate fuel savings (or other impacts) to "cars-off-the-road" in our analysis.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Social cost of non- C02 GHGs
The NPRM requests comment on the inclusion of non- C02 GHGs in the estimated benefits of the
proposed rulemaking. CARB staff supports the use of directly modeled peer-reviewed estimates of the
social cost of all GHGs over the GWP approach but is concerned about consistency if not all GHGs are
directly modelled. Currently, there is no proposed research to directly model the social cost of HFC-
134a for example, which will result in biased estimation as the GWP-based approximation has been
shown to underestimate climate benefits relative to direct modeling. CARB staff suggests that there is a
need for additional research on the social cost of non- C02 GHGs such as black carbon including
harmonization with the social cost of C02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.185]
-------
Response:
EPA acknowledges this comment and notes that it has used the SC-C02 estimates as well as the Marten
et al. (2014) social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and social cost of N20 (SC-N20) estimates to monetize
the climate-related impacts of this rulemaking. Regarding the comment that the social cost of carbon
underestimates benefits, the EPA recognizes that none of the three integrated assessment models (IAMs)
fully incorporates all climate change impacts, either positive or negative; see EPA response to comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1.
Regarding the comments about GHGs not monetized in the main benefit-cost analysis for the final
rulemaking, e.g., HFC-134a, EPA notes that neither the interagency working group nor the EPA have
established a methodology for valuing the social cost of HFC-134a or black carbon. EPA strives to
identify, quantify, and monetize all relevant impacts from the rulemaking but may not be able to do so
in practice due to methodological limitations. EPA recognizes the importance of quantifying and
monetizing the benefits of regulations to the extent feasible, and discussing qualitatively any benefits
that cannot be quantified. The RIA presents a thorough discussion of the GHG impacts expected from
this final rulemaking.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Finally, in May 2013, the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (IWG) published an
updated assessment that increases the predicted threat that climate change poses and will continue to
pose into the future. The IWG's original estimate in 2010 provided four potential values to represent the
cost that each metric ton of C02 emissions will impose on society for the year 2020: $7, $26, $42, and
$81.66 The 2013 estimate increases those values to $12, $43, $65, and $129, respectively.67 While the
Joint Environmental Commenters believe that these updated figures fundamentally underestimate the
true cost of carbon emissions, they nonetheless reflect the same trend as seen in the scientific literature:
not only does the potential harm from carbon emissions increase with each additional ton released into
the atmosphere, but the severity of the predicted harm increases as our understanding of climate change
grows. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p,14][This section can also be found in section 9.4 of this
comment summary]
Social cost of carbon and social cost of methane
Please see separate comments submitted jointly to the docket by EDF, Institute for Policy Integrity,
Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A1 p.23] [Comments can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1]
66 Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (IWG), Technical Support Document:
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order
12866 (2013), at 2.
67 Id.
Response:
EPA acknowledges this comment and notes that it has used the SC-C02 estimates as well as the Marten
et al. (2014) social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and social cost of N20 (SC-N20) estimates to monetize
the climate-related impacts of this rulemaking. Regarding the comment that the social cost of carbon
-------
underestimates benefits, the EPA recognizes that none of the three integrated assessment models (IAMs)
fully incorporates all climate change impacts, either positive or negative; see EPA response to comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity
Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 1: Our organizations respectfully submit these comments
regarding EPA and NHTSA's valuation of the benefits of their greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency
standards for medium and heavy-duty vehicles—specifically, the use of the Interagency Working
Group's valuation of the Social Cost of Carbon and the consideration of the Social Cost of Methane
metric. Our organizations may separately and independently submit other comments regarding the
proposed standards themselves. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.l]
We strongly affirm that the current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values are sufficiently robust and
accurate to continue to be the basis for regulatory analysis going forward. We further agree with EPA's
most recent assessment that the Social Cost of Methane approach is methodologically sound and should
be applied to value methane emissions. As demonstrated below, if anything, current values are
significant underestimates of the SCC and the Social Cost of Methane. As economic and scientific
research continues to develop in the future, the values should be revised, and we also offer
recommendations for that future revision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 1]
Our comments are summarized in six sections: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.l]
1. Introduction: The SCC is an important policy tool.
2. The Interagency Working Group's (IWG) analytic process was science-based, open, and
transparent.
3. The SCC is an important and accepted tool for regulatory policy-making, based on well-
established law and fundamental economics.
4. Recommendations on further refinements to the SCC.
5. Support for the Social Cost of Methane methodology, and recommendations on refinements.
6. Conclusion: Recommendations on the use of the SCC and Social Cost of Methane in regulatory
impact analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.l]
1. Introduction: The SCC is an important policy tool.
The SCC estimates the economic cost of climate impacts—specifically the additional economic harm
caused by one additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. SCC calculations are important
for evaluating the costs of activities that produce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate
change, such as burning fossil fuels to produce energy. The SCC is also important for evaluating the
benefits of policies that would reduce the amount of those emissions going into the atmosphere. For
example, in order to properly evaluate standards that reduce the use of carbon-intensive energy or that
improve energy efficiency—like the proposed standards—it is important to understand the benefits they
will provide, including the benefit of reducing carbon pollution and the harm it causes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1296-A1 p.2]
As with all economic impact analyses, the exercise can only provide a partial accounting of the costs of
climate change (those most easily monetized) and inevitably involves incorporating elements of
uncertainty. However, accounting for the economic harms caused by climate change is a critical
component of sound benefit-cost analyses of regulations that directly or indirectly limit greenhouse
gases. This endeavor is important because benefit-cost analysis is a central tool of regulatory policy in
-------
the United States, first institutionalized in a 1981 executive order by President Ronald Reagan. The
executive order currently in effect provides that agencies: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.2]
• "[P]ropose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its
costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);...
• "[S]elect, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);...
• "In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Where
appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values
that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and
distributive impacts."1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.2]
Benefit-cost analysis has long been a staple of agency rulemakings, usually conducted as part of the
regulatory impact analysis associated with proposed rules. Even though the analysis is generally not
able to encompass all of the effects of a policy, and it is challenging to translate impacts on health,
mortality, and welfare into dollar values, benefit-cost analysis is an important economic tool to help
inform decision-makers about the societal benefits of different policy choices. Of course, benefit-cost
analysis cannot be the sole criterion for making regulatory decisions, especially in cases where there are
overriding public health, equity, or safety imperatives.2 And in a few instances, legal protections
prohibit the consideration of benefit-cost analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.2]
Without an SCC estimate, regulators would by default be using a value of zero for the benefits of
reducing carbon pollution, implying that carbon pollution has no costs. That, sadly, is not the case, as
evidenced by the large body of research outlining the sobering health, environmental, and economic
impacts of rising temperatures, extreme weather, intensifying smog, and other climate impacts. If
anything, most evidence points to the fact that current numbers significantly underestimate the SCC. It
would be arbitrary for a federal agency to weigh the societal benefits and costs of a rule with significant
carbon pollution effects but to assign no value at all to the considerable benefits of reducing carbon
pollution.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.2-3]
Response:
EPA acknowledges this comment and notes that it has used the SC-C02 estimates as well as the Marten
et al. (2014) social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and social cost of N20 (SC-N20) estimates to monetize
the climate-related impacts of this rulemaking. Regarding the comment that the social cost of carbon
underestimates benefits, the EPA recognizes that none of the three integrated assessment models (IAMs)
fully incorporates all climate change impacts, either positive or negative; see EPA response to comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A 1.
Regarding EPA's response to sections 2 through 6 of the letter submitted by Institute for Policy
Integrity, see responses below to comment excerpts from EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0 827-1296-A 1.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity
Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 2
2. The IWG's analytic process was science—based, open, and transparent.
-------
To facilitate accounting for the costs of climate impacts and the benefits of reducing carbon pollution in
regulatory proceedings undertaken by different agencies, the United States government assembled an
Interagency Working Group (IWG) to develop an estimate of a social cost of carbon that can be utilized
in rulemakings and other pertinent settings across the federal government.4 The IWG's estimates—first
released in 2010 and updated in 2013 and 2015—have been used in numerous benefit-cost analyses
related to federal rulemakings.5 The IWG recently released an updated set of SCC estimates, centered at
approximately $40 per metric ton of C02 for emissions in the year 2015, in 2015 dollars at a 3%
discount rate.6 The 2015 SCC estimates are higher than those from 2010, reflecting the growing
understanding of the costs that climate impacts will impose on society. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1296-A1 p.3-4]
The increase in the SCC estimate is important because it reflects the growing scientific and economic
research on the risks and costs of climate change, but is still very likely an underestimate of the
economic cost of carbon emissions. The increase also reflects the costs of climate change that we are
already experiencing, such as those associated with sea level rise and rising temperatures. Climate
change is making coastal flooding, drought, and impacts from extreme weather worse. A rapidly
increasing body of evidence has linked ever more recent events directly to climate change.7 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.4]
The analytic work of the IWG has been transparent. The 2010 Technical Support Document (TSD) set
out in detail the IWG's decision-making process with respect to how it assessed and employed the
models.8 Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that "the working group's
processes and methods reflected the following three principles: Used consensus—based decision making,
Relied on existing academic literature and models, and Took steps to disclose limitations and
incorporate new information. "9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.4]
Because the 2013 IWG made no changes to the input assumptions and procedures for deriving its SCC
estimates, the 2013 TSD discussed only how the three Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) used in
the analysis were updated in the academic literature over the three-year interim period by the
independent researchers who have developed these models. The 2013 TSD also established that the
increase in the SCC estimate from 2010 to 2013 resulted solely from updates to the three underlying
IAMs.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.4]
The 2015 TSD update provided detailed responses11 to public comments collected through an
opportunity for public participation initiated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).12
Additionally, the comment period on these proposed standards are yet another opportunity for continued
dialogue about areas requiring further study. Such repeated comment processes and updates demonstrate
that the IWG's SCC estimates were developed—and are being used— transparently. Given their strong
grounding in the best science available, nothing should prevent the current, continued use of this well-
established estimate. As economic and scientific research continues to develop, future revisions will be
able to further refine existing estimates based on the latest peer-reviewed literature and the latest
updates to the quality of the overall modeling exercise. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.4-5]
Response:
The EPA acknowledges this comment and agrees that the process was science-based, open, and
transparent.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity
-------
Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 3
3. The SCC is an important and accepted tool for regulatory policy-making based on well-
established law and fundamental economics.
The legal and analytic basis for using the SCC is clear and well established. As a matter of law and
economics, uncertainty in benefits estimates does not mean they should be excluded from regulatory
impact analyses. No benefit or cost estimates are certain. Further, the courts have explicitly rejected the
argument that uncertainty in assessing the costs of climate impacts provided a basis for ignoring them in
assessing the benefits and costs of regulations, and executive orders dating back as far as the Reagan
administration have all issued guidelines specifying explicit consideration of benefits even if the precise
size of the benefit is uncertain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 5]
In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that agencies could not assign a
zero dollar value to the social costs of the impacts of climate change. It determined that failing to count
SCC benefits would be illegal. In this case, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) had decided not to count any avoided climate damages in issuing fuel economy standards.
The court concluded: "NHTSA's reasoning is arbitrary and capricious for several reasons. First while
the record shows that there is a range of values, the value of carbon emission reductions is certainly not
zero (emphasis added)."13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.5]
Like the Court of Appeals, executive orders dating back to 1981 have also required agencies to assess
benefits and costs even when significant uncertainty exists. Every president since (and including)
Ronald Reagan has issued directives requiring that agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses of proposed
regulations where permitted by statute.14 Specifically, agencies are directed to "take into account
benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative.. . and use the best available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible."15 The IWG's use of
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) reflects the best available, peer-reviewed science to tally the
benefits and costs of specific regulations with impacts on carbon dioxide emissions. While we address
ways for improvement in the next section, current IAMs include benefits and costs that have been
quantified to date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.5]
The bottom line is that the IWG has properly and lawfully used the best available techniques to quantify
the benefits of carbon emission reductions, basing its analysis on the peer-reviewed literature. When
agencies use the IWG's estimates of the SCC to calculate the benefits of a rulemaking, they have taken,
and will continue to take, comment on the SCC and the process used to derive that value. That is what
the law—and good policy—requires. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.5]
Response:
The EPA agrees with this comment.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity
Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 4
The IWG Correctly Used a Global SCC Value.
-------
To design the economically efficient policies necessary to forestall severe and potentially catastrophic
climate change, all countries must use a global SCC value. Given that the United States and many other
significant players in the international climate negotiations have already applied a global SCC
framework in evaluating their own climate policies, the continued use of the global value in U.S.
regulatory decisions may be strategically important as the United States seeks to set an example for
other countries, harmonize regulatory systems, and take the lead in ongoing international negotiations.
Binding legal obligations, basic ethical responsibilities, and practical considerations further counsel in
favor of the United States using a global SCC value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 6]
To avoid a global "tragedy of the commons" and an economically inefficient degradation of the world's
climate resources, all countries should set policy according to a global SCC value. The climate and
clean air are global common resources, meaning they are free and available to all countries, but any one
country's use—i.e., pollution—imposes harms on the polluting country as well as the rest of the world.
Because greenhouse gases do not stay within geographic borders but rather mix in the atmosphere and
affect climate worldwide, each ton of carbon pollution emitted by the United States not only creates
domestic harms, but also imposes additional and large externalities on the rest of the world, including
disproportionate harms to some of the least-developed nations. Conversely, each ton of carbon pollution
abated in another country will benefit the United States along with the rest of the world. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.6]
If all countries set their greenhouse gas emission levels based on only their domestic costs and benefits,
ignoring the large global externalities, the collective result would be substantially suboptimal climate
protections and significantly increased risks of severe harms to all nations, including to the United
States. "[E]ach pursuing [only its] own best interest. . . in a commons brings ruin to all."16 By contrast, a
global SCC value would require each country to account for the full damages of its greenhouse gas
pollution and so to collectively select the efficient level of worldwide emissions reductions needed to
secure the planet's common climate resources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.6]
Thus, well-established economic principles demonstrate that the United States stands to benefit greatly
if all countries apply a global SCC value in their regulatory decisions. A rational tactical option in the
effort to secure that economically efficient outcome is for the United States to continue using a global
SCC value itself. The United States is engaged in a repeated strategic game of international negotiations
and regulatory coordination, in which several significant players— including the United States—have
already adopted a global SCC framework.17 For the United States to now depart from this implicit
collaborative dynamic by reverting to a domestic-only SCC estimate could undermine the country's
long-term interests in future climate negotiations and could jeopardize emissions reductions underway
in other countries, which are already benefiting the United States.18 A domestic-only SCC value could
be construed as a signal that the United States does not recognize or care about the effects of its policy
choices on other countries, and signal that it would be acceptable for other countries to ignore the harms
they cause the United States. Further, a sudden about-face could undermine the United States'
credibility in negotiations. The United States has recently reasserted its desire to take a lead in both
bilateral and international climate negotiations.19 To set an example for the rest of the world, to advance
its own long-term climate interests, and to secure greater cooperation toward reducing global emissions,
strategic factors support the continued use a global SCC value in U.S. regulatory decisions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.6-7]
Though the Constitution balances the delegation of foreign affairs power between the executive and
legislative branches, "[t]he key to presidential leadership is the negotiation function. Everyone agrees
that the President has the exclusive power of official communication with foreign governments."20 The
development and analysis of U.S. climate regulations are essential parts of the dialogue between the
-------
United States and foreign countries about climate change. Using a global SCC value communicates a
strong signal that the United States wishes to engage in reciprocal actions to mitigate the global threat of
climate change. The President is responsible for developing and executing the negotiation strategy to
achieve the United States' long-term climate interests. Currently, the President has instructed federal
agencies to use a global SCC value as one important step that encourages other countries to take
reciprocal actions that also account for global externalities. The President's constitutional powers to
negotiate international agreements would be seriously impaired if federal agencies were forced to stop
relying on a global SCC value.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.7]
In fact, the United States has already begun to harmonize with other countries its policies on climate
change and on the valuation of regulatory benefits. The recent U.S.-China agreement is but the latest
example. For instance, the United States has entered into a joint Regulatory Cooperation Council with
Canada, which has adopted a work plan that commits the two countries to synchronizing "aggressive"
greenhouse gas reductions, especially in the transportation sector.22 A separate Regulatory Cooperation
Council with Mexico calls generally for improving and harmonizing policy "by strengthening the
analytic basis of regulations,"23 and its work plan acknowledges the transboundary nature of
environmental risks.24 Mexico and Canada have both adopted greenhouse gas standards for vehicles that
harmonize with the U.S. standards25 and that calculate benefits according to a global SCC value.26
Canada has also used the IWG's global SCC value in developing carbon dioxide standards for its coal-
fired power plants, estimating $5.6 billion (Canadian dollars) worth of global climate benefits.27 The
direct U.S. share of the net benefits from that Canadian regulation will likely total in the hundreds of
millions of dollars.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.7-8]
Further efforts at regulatory harmonization are currently underway. For example, the United States is
now negotiating a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union, and a key
element is regulatory coordination.29 The European Union has already adopted an Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS) to cap its greenhouse gas emissions, and its Aviation Directive is just one of the climate
policies that could be shaped by these negotiations.30 The European Commission has indicated its
willingness to further reduce its ETS cap if other major emitters make proportional commitments31—a
result that will only occur if countries consider more than their own domestic costs and benefits from
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, several individual European nations—including the
32 33 34 35
United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Norway —have adopted a global SCC value for use in
their regulatory analyses. Some other European countries, such as Sweden, have adopted carbon taxes
that implicitly operate as a high SCC that accounts for global externalities.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1296-A1 p.8-9]
As further evidence of how the United States' use of a global SCC value is already influencing other
international actors to follow suit, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) applies in its policy reviews
an SCC estimate based on the IWG number.37 Given the potential influence of the IMF on the
environmental policies of developing countries,38 the pull that the IWG's global estimate has at the IMF
could be very advantageous to the United States, by motivating industrializing countries to use similar
numbers in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.9]
In addition to this compelling strategic argument—namely, that it is rational for the United States and
other countries to continue their reciprocal use of a global SCC value to achieve the economically
efficient outcome on climate change (and avoid catastrophic climate impacts)—legal obligations further
prescribe using a global SCC value. A basic ethical responsibility to prevent transboundary
environmental harms has been enshrined in customary international law.39 For the United States to
knowingly set pollution levels in light of only domestic harms, willfully ignoring that its pollution
directly imposes environmental risks—including catastrophic risks—on other countries, would violate
-------
norms of comity among countries. The United States would be knowingly causing foreseeable harm to
other countries, without compensation or just cause. Given that the nations most at risk from climate
change are often the poorest countries in the world, such a policy would also violate basic and widely
shared ethical beliefs about fairness and distributive justice. Indeed, taking a global approach to
measuring climate benefits is consistent with the ideals of transboundary responsibility and justice that
the United States commits to in other foreign affairs40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.9]
Binding international agreements also require consideration and mitigation of transboundary
environmental harms. Notably, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—to
which the United States is a party—declares that countries' "policies and measures to deal with climate
change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost."41 The
Convention further commits parties to evaluating global climate effects in their policy decisions, by
"employing] appropriate methods, for example impact assessments. . . with a view to minimizing
adverse effects on the economy, on public health and on the quality of the environment, of projects or
measures undertaken by them to mitigate or adapt to climate change."42 The unmistakable implication of
the Convention is that parties—including the United States—must account for global economic, public
health, and environmental effects in their impact assessments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.9-
10]
Similar obligations exist in domestic U.S. law as well. For example, the U.S. National Environmental
Policy Act recognizes "the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems"43 and
requires federal agencies to include reasonably foreseeable transboundary effects in their environmental
impact statements.44 While some individual statutes under which federal agencies will craft climate
policies may be silent on the issue of considering extraterritorial benefits, arguably the most important
statute for U.S. climate policy—the Clean Air Act—requires the control of air emissions that affect
other countries and so encourages a global assessment of greenhouse gas effects. Specifically, Section
115 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA and the states to mitigate U.S. emissions that endanger foreign
health and welfare.45 The global perspective on climate costs and benefits required by that provision
should inform all regulatory actions developed under the Clean Air Act, and may provide useful
guidance under other statutes as well.46 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 10]
Presidential orders on regulatory analysis also support use of a global SCC value. In 2012, President
Obama issued Executive Order 13,609 on promoting international regulatory cooperation.47 The Order
built on his previous Executive Order 13,563, which in turn had affirmed its 1993 predecessor,
Executive Order 12,866, in requiring benefit-cost analysis of significant federal regulations.48 Though
White House guidance published in 2003 on regulatory impact analysis under E.O. 12,866 assumed that
most analyses would focus on domestic costs and benefits, it ultimately deferred to the discretion of
regulatory agencies on whether to evaluate "effects beyond the borders of the United States."49 More
importantly, since the publication of that guidance, President Obama has issued his own supplemental
orders on regulatory analysis, including E.O. 13,609, which clarified the importance of international
cooperation to achieve U.S. regulatory goals. This 2012 order explicitly recognizes that significant
regulations can have "significant international impacts,"50 and it calls on federal agencies to work
toward "best practices for international regulatory cooperation with respect to regulatory
development."51 By employing a global SCC value in U.S. regulatory development, and by encouraging
other countries to follow that best practice and account for the significant international impacts of their
own climate policies, federal agencies will advance the mission of this presidential order on regulatory
harmonization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.10-11]
Finally, two practical considerations counsel in favor of a global SCC value. First, unlike some other
significant international environmental impacts, no methodological limitations block the quantitative
-------
estimation of a global SCC value. In recent regulatory impact analyses for major environmental rules,
EPA has qualitatively considered important transnational impacts that could not be quantified. For
example, in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, EPA concluded that a reduction of mercury
emissions from U.S. power plants would generate health benefits for foreign consumers of fish, both
from U.S. exports and from fish sourced in foreign countries. EPA did not quantify these foreign health
benefits, however, due to complexities in the scientific modeling.52 Similarly, in the analysis of the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, EPA noted—though could not quantify—the "substantial health and
environmental benefits that are likely to occur for Canadians" as U.S. states reduce their emissions of
particulate matter and ozone—pollutants that can drift long distances across geographic borders.53 Yet
where foreign costs or benefits are important and quantifiable, other federal agencies frequently include
those calculations.54 Given that sophisticated models already exist to quantify the global SCC, the global
estimate is appropriate to use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 11]
Second, a global SCC value is in the national interest because harms experienced by other countries
could significantly impact the United States. Climate damages in one country could generate large
spillover effects to which the United States is especially vulnerable. The mesh of the global economy is
woven tightly, and disruptions in one place can have consequences around the world. As seen
historically, economic disruptions in one country can cause financial crises that reverberate globally at a
breakneck pace.55 In a similar vein, national security analysts in government and academia increasingly
emphasize that the geopolitical instability associated with climatic disruptions abroad poses a serious
threat to the United States.56 Due to its unique place among countries—both as the largest global
economy with trade- and investment-dependent links throughout the world, and as a military
superpower—the United States is particularly vulnerable to international spillover effects. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 11-12]
The 2010 TSD included a rigorous examination of global versus domestic SCC estimates.57 Consistent
with the above discussion, the 2010 IWG reached the conclusion to estimate a global SCC value, citing
both the global impacts of climate change and the global action needed to mitigate climate change. The
IWG restated these arguments in the 2013 TSD, and refers back explicitly to its discussion in the 2010
TSD.58 EPA and NHTSA should continue using a global SCC estimate in their regulatory impact
analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 12]
Response:
EPA agrees that a focus on global SC-GHG estimates in RIAs is appropriate and has applied global SC-
C02, SC-CH4, and SC-N20 estimates to the analysis of the benefits in the final rulemaking. In
particular, EPA agrees with the commenter's discussion of the global nature of GHG emissions—that
each ton of GHGs emitted by the United States creates damages within the country and abroad—and
with the commenter's conclusion that "each ton of carbon pollution abated in another country will
benefit the United States along with the rest of the world." As noted by the commenter, the global
economy is tightly interconnected and the United States is especially vulnerable to international
spillover effects. The impacts of climate change that occur beyond the borders of the United States will
affect the interests of U.S. citizens and U.S. national security interests. EPA agrees with the
commenter's interpretation, as described in this excerpt, of recent reports on geopolitical instability
associated with climatic disruptions abroad and the threat such disruptions may pose to the United
States. For example, the National Research Council Climate and Social Stress assessment concluded
that it is prudent to expect that some climate events "will produce consequences that exceed the capacity
of the affected societies or global systems to manage and that have global security implications serious
-------
enough to compel international response."213 As discussed in Section I.A of the Preamble, the NRC
National Security Implications assessment recommends that, due to climate change, the United States
should be preparing for increased needs for humanitarian aid; responding to the effects of climate
change in geopolitical hotspots, including possible mass migrations; and addressing changing security
needs in the Arctic as sea ice retreats. Section I.A of the Preamble discusses other scientific assessments
about the impacts of climate change and presents additional examples of climate change impacts within
the United States.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity
Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 5
4. Recommendations on further refinements to the SCC.59
The IWG process uses assumptions that accord with economic and scientific theory. Economic models,
and the scientific analyses they draw from, are of course improving continuously. Future updates to the
SCC should build on these and go further. As further refinements better account for climate change
impacts not yet incorporated into the modeling, all indications are that the estimated benefits of curbing
carbon pollution will rise substantially over current estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1
p. 12]
The IWG appropriately used consumption discount rates rather than returns on capital
With respect to the discount rate, the IWG conducted sensitivity analysis of the results to three constant
consumption discount rates: 2.5%, 3%, and 5%; for each of the discount rates, the TSDs reported the
various moments and percentiles60 of the SCC estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 12]
The discount rate is one of the most important inputs in models of climate damages, with plausible
assumptions easily leading to differences of an order of magnitude in the SCC. The climate impacts of
present emissions will unfold over hundreds of years. When used over very long periods of time,
discounting penalizes future generations heavily due to compounding effects. For example, at a rate of
1%, $1 million 300 years hence equals over $50,000 today; at 5% it equals less than 50 cents.61 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 12]
The discount rate changed by a factor of five, whereas the discounted value changed by more than five
orders of magnitude. Depending on the link between climate risk and economic growth risk, even a rate
of 1% may be too high.62 Uncertainty around the correct discount rate pushes the rate lower still.63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 13]
The IWG correctly excluded a 7% discount rate, a typical private sector rate of return on capital, for
several reasons. First, typical financial decisions, such as how much to save in a bank account or invest
in stocks, focus on private decisions and utilize private rates of return. Private market participants
typically have short time horizons. However, here we are concerned with social discount rates because
213 National Research Council. (2013). Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis. Committee
on Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on Social and Political Stresses, J.D. Steinbruner, P.C. Stern, and J.L.
Husbands, Eds. Board on Environmental Change and Society, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. See page 20. Available at
http://www.nap.edu/download.php7record id= 14682#.
-------
emissions mitigation is a public good, where individual emissions choices affect public well-being
broadly. Rather than evaluating an optimal outcome from the narrow perspective of investors alone,
economic theory would require that we make the optimal choices based on societal preferences (and
social discount rates). Second, climate change is expected to affect primarily consumption, not
traditional capital investments.64 OMB guidelines note that in this circumstance, consumption discount
rates are appropriate.65 Third, 7% is considered much too high for reasons of discount rate uncertainty
and intergenerational concerns (further discussed below). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.13]
The IWG correctly adopted as one of its discount rates a value reflecting long-term interest rate
uncertainty, and—as a primary extension to current results—should go further by directly implementing
a declining discount rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 13]
The IWG was correct in choosing as one of its discount rates an estimate based upon declining discount
rates (2.5%). Since the IWG undertook its initial analysis, a consensus has emerged among leading
climate economists that a declining discount rate should be used for climate damages to reflect long-
term uncertainty in interest rates. Arrow et.al. (2013) presents several arguments that strongly support
the use of declining discount rates for long-term benefit-cost analysis.66 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1296-A1 p. 13]
Perhaps the best reason is the simple fact that there is considerable uncertainty around which interest
rate to use: uncertainty in the rate points directly to the need to use a declining rate, as the impact of the
uncertainty grows exponentially over time. The uncertainty about future discount rates could stem from
a number of reasons particularly salient to climate damages, including uncertainties in future economic
growth, consumption, and the interest rate reaped by investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1
p. 14]
A possible declining interest rate schedule for consideration by the IWG is the one proposed by
Weitzman (2001).67 It is derived from a broad survey of top economists and the profession at large in a
climate change context and explicitly incorporates arguments around interest rate uncertainty. Arrow
et.al. (2013, 2014), Cropper et.al. (2014), and Gollier and Weitzman (2010), among others, similarly
argue for a declining interest rate schedule and lay out the fundamental logic.68 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1296-A1 p. 14]
Moreover, the United States would not be alone in using a declining discount rate. It is standard practice
for the United Kingdom and French governments, among others.69 The U.K. schedule explicitly
subtracts out an estimated time preference.70 France's schedule is roughly similar to the United
Kingdom's. Importantly, all of these discount rate schedules yield lower present values than the constant
2.5% Newell-Pizer rate, suggesting that even the lowest discount rate evaluated by the IWG is too
high.71 The consensus of leading economists is that a declining discount rate schedule should be used,
consistent with the approach of other countries like the United Kingdom. Adopting such a schedule
would increase the SCC substantially from the administration's central estimate, suggesting that even
the high end of the range presented by the administration is likely too low. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1296-A1 p. 14]
Response:
The EPA acknowledges this comment and notes that the discount rates have not changed in the final
analysis.
-------
Regarding the commenters' recommendation that the interagency working group (IWG) use a declining
discount rate for the social cost of carbon (SC-C02): EPA agrees that this is an important area of
emerging research and will share these recommendations with the IWG. However, no widely-accepted
declining discount rate schedule has yet been developed. Some key technical issues warrant careful
consideration before adopting a declining discount rate schedule, such as determining how to update the
discount rate schedule as uncertainty is resolved over time and ensuring that the use of declining
discount rates does not lead to the possibility of time-inconsistent choices. A workshop sponsored by the
federal government resulted in a paper in Science authored by thirteen prominent economists who
concluded that a declining discount rate would be appropriate to analyze impacts that occur far into the
future (Arrow et al., 2014). However, additional research and analysis is still needed to develop a
methodology for implementing a declining discount rate and to understand the implications of applying
these theoretical lessons in practice. The EPA will continue to follow and evaluate the latest science on
the use of declining discount rates in intergenerational discounting.
In addition, EPA and other members of the U.S. Interagency Working Group on the social cost of
carbon are seeking independent expert advice on technical opportunities to update the SC-C02 estimates
from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A committee convened by the
Academies is reviewing the state of the science on estimating the SC-C02, and will provide expert,
independent advice on the merits of different technical approaches for modeling and highlight research
priorities going forward. The Academies' review will focus on the SC-C02methodology, but
recommendations on how to update many of the underlying modeling assumptions will also likely
pertain to the SC-CH4 and SC-N20 estimates. Going forward, the EPA will evaluate its approach to
estimating the SC-GHGs based upon any feedback received from the Academies' panel.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity
Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 6
The IWG's choice of three IAMs was fully justified but should still be revisited in its next iteration.
In its calculations of the SCC, the IWG relied on the three Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)
available at the time, all with a long record of peer-reviewed publications that link physical and
economic effects: the Dynamic Integrated Model of Climate and the Economy (DICE),72 the Climate
Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation, and Distribution (FUND),73 and Policy Analysis of the
Greenhouse Effect (PAGE).74 The government's first SCC estimates, published in 2010, used the then-
current versions of the models; the recent update employed revised, peer-reviewed versions of the
models but maintained the underlying assumptions of the 2010 IWG analysis. As stated by the 2010
IWG, "the main objective of [the 2010 IWG modeling] process was to develop a range of SCC values
using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and economic
literatures."75 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.14-15]
DICE, FUND, and PAGE are well-established, peer-reviewed models. They represent the state-of-the-
art IAMs. Each of these models has been developed over decades of research, and has been subject to
rigorous peer review, documented in the published literature. However, updates to the SCC should also
consider other models that are similarly peer reviewed and based on the state of the art of climate-
economic modeling. One such model is Climate and Regional Economics of Development (CRED);
another is the World Bank's Environmental Impact and Sustainability Applied General Equilibrium
(ENVISAGE) model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.15]
-------
CRED borrows its fundamental structure from William Nordhaus's DICE and RICE models but also
offers significant changes. For one, it uses updated damage functions and Marginal Abatement Cost
Curves (MACC). Moreover, it uses different global equity weights, and uses additional state-of-the-art
methodologies.76 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 15]
ENVISAGE represents a broader modeling effort by the World Bank, where perhaps the largest
contribution is a more detailed sectoral breakdown, using 57 different sectors.77 This level of analysis
allows for a more detailed view of agriculture as well as food and energy sectors that are particularly
important to any climate-economy modeling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 15]
Moreover, the broader policy and research community at large ought to consider creating the right
incentive structure within the economic and scientific community to engage many more researchers on
working with the core IAMs. Doing so could speed up the process of capturing the latest research on
climate damages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 15]
No model fully captures the costs of climate impacts to society. In fact, virtually all uncertainties and
current omissions point to a higher SCC value. That makes it essential to use the established IWG
process, which provides for updating the SCC estimates every two to three years in order to capture the
advances in physical and social sciences that have been incorporated into the models during the
intervening period, in order to revisit both the choice of models and the key inputs used.78 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 15]
Response:
The EPA acknowledges the commenters' recommendations for potential opportunities to improve the
social cost of carbon (SC-C02) estimates and has considered each one in the context of this rulemaking,
which uses the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates. EPA recognizes the importance of the estimates to be as
complete as possible and continues to engage in research on modeling and valuation of climate impacts.
In addition, EPA and other members of the U.S. Interagency Working Group on the SC-C02 are seeking
independent expert advice on technical opportunities to update the SC-C02 estimates from the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A committee convened by the Academies is
reviewing the state of the science on estimating the SC-C02, and will provide expert, independent
advice on the merits of different technical approaches for modeling and highlight research priorities
going forward. The Academies' review will focus on the SC-C02 methodology, but recommendations
on how to update many of the underlying modeling assumptions will also likely pertain to the SC-CH4
estimates. Going forward, the EPA will evaluate its approach to estimating the SC- C02 and SC-CH4
based upon any feedback received from the Academies' panel.
After careful evaluation of the full range of comments and associated technical issues described in this
RTC, EPA has determined that it will continue to use the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates in the final
rulemaking analysis. In particular, the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates represent the best scientific
information on the impacts of climate change available in a form appropriate for incorporating the
damages from incremental emissions changes into regulatory analysis. Therefore, EPA has presented
the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates in this rulemaking. EPA will continue to consider these comments
and will share the recommendations with the IWG as it moves forward with the Academies process.
In addition, regarding model selection: EPA agrees that the selection of the three IAMs—DICE, FUND,
and PAGE—was the most appropriate for the purpose of estimating the SC-C02. EPA and all of the
other IWG members made this determination when they began developing the SC-C02 estimates in
2009-2010. DICE, FUND, and PAGE are the most widely used and widely cited models in the
-------
economic literature that link physical impacts to economic damages for the purposes of estimating the
SC-C02. Moving forward, EPA will continue to follow and evaluate the latest peer reviewed literature
applying IAMs. As previously noted, EPA and all of the other IWG members are seeking external
expert advice on the technical merits and challenges of using additional models (e.g., CRED,
ENVISAGE) to estimate the SC-C02 and/or removing existing models from the ensemble (DICE,
FUND, and PAGE) used to estimate the SC-C02.
Finally, EPA agrees that it is important to update the SC-C02 periodically to incorporate improvements
in the understanding of greenhouse gas emissions impacts. EPA will also share with the IWG the
commenters' recommendation that the "broader policy and research community at large... consider
creating the right incentive structure within the economic and scientific community to engage many
more researchers on working with the core IAMs."
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity
Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 7
The IWG should update its socio-economic assumptions to reflect the latest Shared Socioeconomic
Pathways (SSPs).
One key input is the use of socio-economic scenarios reflected in the choice of economic growth rates
and emissions trajectories. Current IWG socio-economic and emissions scenarios were chosen from the
Stanford Energy Modeling Forum exercise, EMF-22, and consist of projections for
income/consumption, population, and emissions (C02 and non- C02). The IWG selected five sets of
trajectories, four of which represent business as usual (BAU) trajectories (MiniCAM, MESSAGE,
IMAGE, and MERGE models) and a fifth that represents a C02 emissions pathway with C02
concentrations stabilizing at 550 ppm. Given the possibility of increases in emissions above those
expressed by Business As Usual Scenarios, a high- C02 emissions pathway should also be considered.
The assumptions used in calculating the SCC should be updated regularly to reflect the latest thinking
around possible scenarios, reflecting the latest Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs).79 These SSPs
represent the latest, consistent pathways, feeding, for example, into the latest IPCC report. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 16]
The current inclusion of CO2 fertilization benefits likely overstates its effects.
The models do not reflect recent research on agricultural changes, which suggest the C02 fertilization is
overestimated, particularly in the FUND model, and that much, if not all, of the fertilization benefits
may be cancelled out by negative impacts on agriculture (e.g., extreme heat, pests, and weeds).80 If the
agency is not able to adequately model all agricultural impacts it should, at a minimum, remove C02
fertilization benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 16]
The specific functional form assumptions in IAMs ought to be re-evaluated
Climate damages in IAMs are assumed to affect levels of economic output rather than economic growth
rates. Similarly, standard modeling assumptions assume multiplicative damage functions— i.e.
substitutability across economic sectors—rather than additive functions—i.e. limited substitutability
across sectors. IAMs ought to probe the impacts of both assumptions. Recent literature supports the
conclusion that climate change will effect economic growth rates.81 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-
A1 p.16]
-------
Similarly, models ought to better capture the impacts of wildly heterogeneous climate damages. Each of
the models used to calculate the SCC assume one representative household, going as far as to consider
damages by relatively large regions. Such averaging ignores the enormously diverse effects of damages.
It similarly contributes to not fully capturing the effects of extreme outcomes and tail risks. Instead,
models ought to attempt to capture a much broader array of damages and climate impacts.82 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 16-17]
The IWG used solid economic tools to address uncertainty and ought to go further in capturing the full
extent of its implications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 17]
The IWG was rigorous in addressing uncertainty. First, it conducted Monte Carlo simulations over the
IAMs specifying different possible outcomes for climate sensitivity (represented by a Roe and Baker
Distribution).83 It also used five different emissions growth scenarios and three discount rates. Second,
the IWG reported the various moments and percentiles84 of the resulting SCC estimates. Third, the IWG
put in place an updating process, e.g., the 2013 revision, which updates the models as new information
becomes available.85 As such, the IWG used the various tools that economists have developed over time
to address the uncertainty inherent in estimating the economic cost of pollution: reporting various
measures of uncertainty, using Monte Carlo simulations, and updating estimates as evolving research
advances our knowledge of climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 17]
The Monte Carlo framework took a step toward addressing what is the most concerning aspect of
climate change, the potential for catastrophic damages, i.e., low probability/high damage events. These
damages come from: uncertainty in the underlying parameters in IAMs,86 including the climate
sensitivity parameter; climate tipping points87—thresholds that, when crossed, cause rapid, often
irreversible changes in ecosystem characteristics; and "black swan" events—which refer to unknown
unknowns.88 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 17]
The analysis used a right-skewed distribution of temperature (as captured in the Roe Baker climate
sensitivity parameter) and an increasing, strictly convex damage function;89 this correctly results in
right-skewed distributions of damage and SCC estimates. By using the mean values of these estimates
instead of the median, IWG estimates partially captured the effects of small probability, higher damages
from high-level warming events.90 To reflect uncertainty in estimates resulting from the right-skewed
distribution of SCC estimates, the IWG reported the SCC value for the 95th percentile from the central
3% discount rate distribution.91 This is done to reflect the estimation uncertainty in terms of the
possibility of higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1296-A1 p. 17-18]
While the IAMs take different approaches to explicitly modeling tipping points, which to a great extent
is lacking in current versions of FUND and DICE, the IWG improved (but in no way fixed) the
representation of uncertain catastrophic damages with the Monte Carlo analysis. Still, black swan events
go completely unaddressed in the IWG modeling framework, and therefore the SCC estimates do not
reflect the value of preventing the occurrence of catastrophic events.92 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1296-A1 p. 18]
In addition to choosing an appropriate discount rate and sensitivity analyses around different SSPs,
another important parameter to which the SCC estimates are sensitive is Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
(ECS)—how the climate system responds to a constant radiative forcing, which is typically expressed as
the temperature response to a doubling of C02 concentration in the atmosphere.93 In its current iteration,
the IWG conducted extensive sensitivity analyses over a range of equilibrium climate sensitivity
estimates.94 The assumptions are clearly stated in the TSD. In addition to its sensitivity analysis, the
-------
IWG conducted a Monte Carlo simulation over the climate sensitivity parameter and the other random
variables specified within the three IAMs.95 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p. 18]
The range for the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is derived from a combination of methods that
constrain the values from measurements in addition to models. These include measured ranges from
paleoclimate records, observed comparisons with current climate, as well as responses to recent climate
forcings. The currently agreed "likely" range for the ECS (from both the IPCC TAR and AR5) is 1.5-4.5
degrees Celsius. Physical constraints make it "extremely unlikely" that the ECS is less than 1 degree
Celsius and "very unlikely" greater than 6 degrees Celsius.96 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1296-A1 p. 18]
A host of analyses points to the costs of such uncertainty—both for values that go outside the "likely"
range and for uncertainty within it: in short, the optimal SCC tends to increase with increased
uncertainty, sometimes dramatically so.97 While the current treatment of uncertainty around climate
sensitivity by the IWG highlights a range of possible uncertainties, a reconsideration of the assumptions
feeding into the SCC ought to take the latest advances highlighting the potentially higher costs of deep-
seated uncertainty into account. Additionally, the IWG should consider whether it relies too heavily on
its 95th percentile estimates as a catchall to cover for limitations in its treatment of uncertainty and
catastrophic damages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1296-A1 p. 19]
Response:
The EPA acknowledges the commenters' recommendations for potential opportunities for the IWG to
update the scenarios for the SC-C02 and has considered it in the context of this rulemaking, which uses
the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates. EPA has acknowledged that the projection of the scenarios beyond
2100 has greater uncertainty than shorter-term projections and will continue to monitor the literature,
including the development of extended RCP/SSP scenarios, for ways to improve the estimated
trajectories and improve internal consistency. EPA and other members of the IWG on the SC-C02 are
seeking independent expert advice on technical opportunities to update the SC-C02 estimates from the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A committee convened by the Academies
is reviewing the state of the science on estimating the SC-C02, and will provide expert, independent
advice on the merits of different technical approaches for modeling and highlight research priorities
going forward. The Academies' review will focus on the SC-C02 methodology, but recommendations
on how to update many of the underlying modeling assumptions will also likely pertain to the SC-CH4
estimates. Going forward, the EPA will evaluate its approach to estimating the SC- C02 and SC-CH4
based upon any feedback received from the Academies' panel.
Regarding the remaining comments (i.e., treatment of C02 fertilization benefits, the recommendation to
re-evaluate the functional form assumptions in the IAMs, treatment of uncertainty): As noted in the
OMB Response to Comments on SC-C02, to date, the interagency working group (IWG) has accepted
the models as currently constituted, and omitted any damages or beneficial effects that the model
developers themselves do not include.214 The IWG recognizes that none of the three IAMs fully
incorporates all climate change impacts, either positive or negative. Some of the effects referenced by
commenters (e.g., "catastrophic" effects, disease, and C02 fertilization) are explicitly modeled in the
damage functions of one or more of the current models (although the treatment may not be complete),
and the model developers continue to update their models as new research becomes available. In fact,
the IWG undertook the 2013 SC-C02 revision because of updates to the models, which include new or
214 OMB's Response to Comments on SC-C02 is available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-response-to-comments-final-july-2015.pdf
-------
enhanced representation of certain impacts, such as sea level rise damages. In addition, some of the
categories mentioned by commenters are currently speculative or cannot be incorporated into the
damage function for lack of appropriate data. Using an ensemble of three different models was intended
to, at least partially, address the fact that no single model includes all of the impacts. EPA recognizes
that there may be effects that none of the three selected models addresses (e.g., impacts from ocean
acidification) or that are likely not fully captured (e.g. catastrophic effects).
EPA also recognizes that the impacts of climate change on agriculture is an area of active research and
that methodological and data challenges persist. As a result there is uncertainty as to the magnitude of
these impacts and the role of interactions between changes in the climate and other factors, such as C02
fertilization, temperature, precipitation, ozone, pests, etc. Additionally, these effects are likely to vary
widely across regions and crops. However, with high confidence the IPCC (2013) stated in its Fifth
Assessment Report (AR5) that "[b]ased on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops,
negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts." As
noted above, the IWG's approach to date has been to rely on the damage functions included in the three
IAMs by their developers.
EPA recognizes that it is important to update the SC-C02 periodically to incorporate improvements in
the understanding of greenhouse gas emissions impacts and will continue to follow and evaluate the
latest science on impact categories that are omitted or not fully addressed in the IAMs. EPA and other
members of the U.S. Interagency Working Group on the social cost of carbon are seeking independent
expert advice on technical opportunities to update the SC-C02 estimates from the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A committee convened by the Academies is reviewing the state
of the science on estimating the SC-C02, and will provide expert, independent advice on the merits of
different technical approaches for modeling and highlight research priorities going forward. The
Academies' review will focus on the SC-C02 methodology, but recommendations on how to update
many of the underlying modeling assumptions will also likely pertain to the SC-CH4 estimates. Going
forward, the EPA will evaluate its approach to estimating the SC- C02 and SC-CH4 based upon any
feedback received from the Academies' panel.
In addition, EPA notes that in two of the IAMs (DICE and FUND), climate damages do affect the
realized rate of economic growth in the models. However, EPA recognizes that the magnitude and
pathway by which climate change may affect economic growth rates is an active area research.
After careful evaluation of the full range of comments and associated technical issues described in this
Response to Comments, EPA has determined that it will continue to use the Marten et al. SC-CH4
estimates in the final rulemaking analysis. In particular, the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates represent
the best scientific information on the impacts of climate change available in a form appropriate for
incorporating the damages from incremental emissions changes into regulatory analysis. Therefore,
EPA has presented the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates in this rulemaking. EPA will continue to
consider these comments, including the commenters' question about use of the 95th percentile estimate,
and will share the recommendations with the IWG as it moves forward with the Academies process.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity
Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 8
5. Support for the Social Cost of Methane methodology, and recommendations on continued
improvements.
-------
The agencies expect the heavy-duty truck standards to decrease methane emissions because of reduced
refueling, the use of less methane-intensive auxiliary power units in lieu of diesel engines during idling,
and upstream emission reductions as overall fuel demand falls.98 EPA also proposes a methane cap for
engines and standards for natural gas vehicles." (EPA considers, if natural gas vehicles displace diesel
vehicles, whether the resulting greenhouse gas impacts would be positive or negative, but make no
conclusion other than the impact would be minor; however, clearly this could have a substantial impact
on the net methane emissions of the rule.100) The agencies estimate that the standards could reduce up to
232,000 metric tons of methane per year (which is up to 5.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-
equivalent per year, according to the agencies' low global warming potential estimate of 25, or
approximately between 8.4 million and 20.4 million metric tons using the latest IPCC values for
methane's relative global warming potential).101 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1296-A1 p. 19]
EPA and NHTSA do not, however, include a monetary estimate of these methane reductions in their net
benefits calculations. Instead, EPA conducts a sensitivity analysis that examines two different
methodologies: (1) converting methane reductions to carbon dioxide-equivalent units using relative
global warming potentials, or (2) directly estimating the Social Cost of Methane using a methodology
based on the same techniques the Interagency Working Group developed to estimate the SCC. EPA
indicates that it plans use the Social Cost of Methane approach in the rule's final regulatory impact
analysis, pending favorable review of a recent analysis conducted by Marten et al}02 That review has
now, in fact, been completed, and EPA is already using the Social Cost of Methane approach in other
proposed rulemakings.103 In the final heavy-duty truck rule, EPA and NHTSA should both use the
Social Cost of Methane metric—to more accurately reflect the true benefits of the standards and to
enhance the rigor and defensibility of the final rule.104 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.19-20]
The Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon has, to date, focused exclusively on
carbon dioxide. The SCC can be roughly adjusted to approximate the costs of other greenhouse gases by
multiplying by the relative global warming potential of those gases. Scientists, however, have long
argued that the full social costs of specific, non-carbon dioxide gases like methane should be assessed
through separate models and methodologies, which would more accurately account for varying
atmospheric life spans, among other differences.105 At least a dozen published studies, dating back to
1993, have estimated the social cost of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, including methane.106
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.20]
EPA proposes to use Social Cost of Methane estimates based on one of the most recent peer-reviewed
articles: Marten et al}01 Marten et al. takes a reasonable (although conservative) approach to estimating
the Social Cost of Methane and currently constitutes "the best available science" to inform agency
regulation.108 Specifically, Marten et al. builds on the methodology used by the Interagency Working
Group to develop the SCC. The study maintains the same three integrated assessment models, five
socioeconomic-emissions scenarios, equilibrium climate sensitivity distribution, three constant discount
rates, and aggregation approach that were agreed upon by the Interagency Working Group.
Consequently, many of the key assumptions underlying the Social Cost of Methane estimates have
already gone through a transparent, consensus-driven, publically reviewed, regularly updated process,
since they were borrowed from the Interagency Working Group's thoroughly vetted methodology.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A 1 p.20]
Yet while sharing that carefully built framework with the SCC estimates, Marten et al.'s Social Cost of
Methane estimates directly account for the quicker time horizon of methane's effects compared to
carbon dioxide, include the indirect effects of methane on radiative forcing, and reflect the complex,
nonlinear linkages along the pathway from methane emissions to monetized damages. Marten et al. was
not only published in a peer reviewed economics journal, but EPA undertook additional internal and
-------
peer review of the approach.109 Marten el al.'s estimates thus are reasonable and appropriate
measurements of the Social Cost of Methane. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.20]
In fact, Marten el al. 's estimates are conservative and very likely underestimate the true Social Cost of
Methane. To start, as the authors note, because their methodology followed the Interagency Working
Group's approach, all limitations that apply to inputs and modelling assumptions for the SCC also apply
to the Social Cost of Methane. As discussed above, omitted damages, socio-economic assumptions, the
treatment of uncertainty and catastrophic damages, and so forth all suggest the Social Cost of Methane
is underestimated, just as the SCC is. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.20]
Additionally, the integrated assessment models shared by both the Social Cost of Methane and the SCC
include some features better suited to assessing carbon dioxide effects than methane effects, and so
likely underestimate the costs of methane. For example, a countervailing benefit of carbon dioxide
emissions—enhanced fertilization in the agricultural sector—is included in the underlying models used
to develop both the SCC and Social Cost of Methane, yet does not apply to methane emissions.110
Similarly, the damage functions used by the integrated assessment models assume some level of
adaptation to climate change over time, but because methane is a much faster-acting climate pollutant
than carbon dioxide, there is less opportunity for technological advancement or political progress to
adapt to the climate damages imposed by methane emissions. Methane also has indirect but significant
effects, via its contribution to surface ozone levels, on global health and agriculture, and such effects
need to be included either in the Social Cost of Methane or elsewhere in the cost-benefit analysis, but
currently are not.111 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.20-21]
Overall, the Marten et al. methodology provides reasonable, direct estimates that reflect updated
evidence and provide consistency with the Government's accepted methodology for estimating the
SCC. The agencies should use these Social Cost of Methane estimates in the final heavy-duty truck rule.
Doing so would increase the total net present value of the rule's greenhouse gas benefits by about $1.5
billion to $12 billion (2012$), or approximately 4 to 7 percent, depending on discount rate.112 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.21]
At the same time, the agencies should work toward the future refinement of these Social Cost of
Methane estimates. Because the Social Cost of Methane and the SCC share many assumptions and
methods, it may make sense for the Interagency Working Group to review and update both metrics. In
any case, any future improvements made to the SCC methodology should also be incorporated into and
adjusted for the Social Cost of Methane estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.21]
If the agencies for some reason decline to follow the Marten et al. approach, they could still use the
global warming potential adjustment as a less accurate, lower-bound estimate. However, instead of the
outdated multiplier of 25 for methane, the agencies should utilize the latest global warming potential
estimates for methane issued by the IPCC: 85 to 87 times greater than carbon dioxide after 20 years and
30 to 36 times greater than carbon dioxide after 100 years (after making the recommended adjustment
for fossil methane).113 Given the short life of methane, the agencies should at least conduct sensitivity
analysis over the entire global warming potential range, instead of merely utilizing the lower 100-year
timescale range. Again, though, the Social Cost of Methane approach is the more reasonable and
preferred way to value this rule's important methane reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1
p.21-22]
Response:
-------
EPA acknowledges this comment and notes that the recommendation about using a global warming
potential adjustment is no longer relevant because EPA has used the Marten et al. (2014) social cost of
methane (SC-CH4) and social cost of N20 (SC-N20) estimates to monetize the climate-related impacts
of this rulemaking. EPA has included those estimates in the main benefits analysis. EPA agrees that the
Marten et al. methodology provides reasonable, direct estimates that reflect updated evidence and
provide consistency with the interagency working group's (IWG) SC-C02 estimates.
EPA recognizes the importance of the SC-GHG estimates to be as complete as possible and continues to
engage in research on modeling and valuation of climate impacts, which would support improvements
to SC-CH4, SC-N20, and SC-CO2 estimates. EPA will share with the interagency working group (IWG)
the commenters' recommendation to consider reviewing and updating both SC-C02 and the SC-CH4.
EPA will continue to follow and evaluate the latest science on impact categories that are omitted or not
fully addressed in the IAMs. As previously noted, EPA and the other IWG members are seeking
external expert advice on the technical merits and challenges of potential approaches to update the
damage functions in future revisions to the SC-C02 estimates, which would likely inform updates to the
SC-CH4 estimates. See response to Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 7, in RTC Section 11.8, for
complete discussion.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity
Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 9
6. Conclusion: Recommendations on the use of the SCC and Social Cost of Methane in regulatory
impact analyses.
EPA and NHTSA should continue to use the latest IWG estimates of the SCC, and should start using the
Social Cost of Methane estimates. The current estimates are biased downwards: more can and should be
done to improve the estimates and to ensure, through regular updates, that they reflect the latest science
and economics. However, the necessary process of improving the ability of the SCC and Social Cost of
Methane to fully reflect the costs of climate impacts to society cannot hold up agency rulemaking
efforts. The values provide an important, if conservative, estimate of the costs of climate change and the
benefits of reducing carbon pollution. To ignore these costs would be detrimental to human health and
well-being and contrary to law and Presidential directives to agencies to evaluate the cost of pollution to
society when considering standards to abate that pollution. In the context of agency rulemakings, the
SCC and Social Cost of Methane provide the best available means to factor those costs into benefit-cost
analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.22]
In using the estimates in their regulatory impact analyses, however, EPA and NHTSA should also
include a qualitative assessment of all significant climate effects that are not currently quantified in the
monetized estimate. The IWG acknowledged its incomplete treatment of both catastrophic and non-
catastrophic damages, and instructed agencies that "These caveats. . . are necessary to consider when
interpreting and applying the SCC estimates."114 Those instructions are consistent with Executive
Orders on regulatory analysis, which tell agencies to "assess. .. qualitative measures of costs and
benefits that are difficult to quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider."115 Before the IWG
published its first estimates in 2010, some agencies included a detailed chart of unquantified climate
effects in their regulatory impact analyses.116 However, most recent rulemakings only reference
unquantified benefits from non- C02 gases and from co-pollutants, and list none of the significant,
unquantified climate effects from carbon dioxide.117 In the final greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency
standards and the final regulatory impact analyses, EPA and NHTSA should detail all significant,
-------
unquantified climate effects, as consistent with administration-wide policy, the IWG's instructions, past
agency practices, and best economic practices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.22-23]
We also suggest that EPA and NHTSA encourage the IWG to regularly update the SCC and Social Cost
of Methane, as new economic and scientific consensus emerges. Such updates are in line with the stated
intentions of the IWG, which committed to "updating these estimates as the science and economic
understanding of climate change.. . improves." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1296-A1 p.23]
1 Exec. Order No. 13,563 §§ l(b)-(c), 76 Fed. Reg. 3,821 (Jan. 18, 2011); see also infra on how this and
subsequent orders, including Exec. Order No. 13,609, inform the use of a global SCC value.
2 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12,866 in 1993, establishing new guidance for benefit-cost
analysis and explicitly directing agencies to consider, in addition to costs and benefits for which
quantitative estimates are possible, "qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to
quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider." Exec. Order No. 12,866 § 1(a), 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735
(Sept. 30, 1993).
3 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1199 (9th Cir.
2008) (holding unlawful NHTSA's fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles when NHTSA
ascribed a value of "zero" to the benefits of mitigating carbon dioxide, reasoning that "NHTSA assigned
no value to the most significant benefit of more stringent CAFE standards: reduction in carbon
emissions" (emphasis added)).
4 The IWG involved a large number of agencies, including the Council of Economic Advisers, Council
on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of
Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic Council, Office of Energy and
Climate Change, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the
Department of the Treasury. See INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON THE SOCIAL COST OF
CARBON, TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT: SOCIAL COST OF CARBON FOR
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12,866 (2010) [hereinafter
"2010 TSD"], available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-
agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf.
5 The SCC has been used in numerous notice-and-comment rulemakings by various agencies since it
was published in 2010, and each of these occasions has provided opportunity for public comment on the
SCC. See, e.g., Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes
Washers, 77 Fed. Reg. 32,381 (May 31, 2012); Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation
Standards for Residential Dishwashers, 77 Fed. Reg. 31,964 (May 30, 2012); Energy Conservation
Program: Energy Conservation for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies, 77 Fed. Reg. 18,478
(Mar. 27, 2012); Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode and
Off Mode for Microwave Ovens, 77 Fed. Reg. 8526 (Feb. 14, 2012); Energy Conservation Program:
Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers, 77 Fed. Reg. 7282 (Feb. 10, 2012);
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards and
Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment, 77 Fed.
Reg. 2356 (Jan. 17, 2012); 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. 74,854 (Dec. 1, 2011); Oil and Natural
Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Reviews, 76 Fed. Reg. 52,738 (Aug. 23, 2011); Energy Conservation Program: Energy
-------
Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps, 76 Fed. Reg. 37,549 (June 27, 2011); Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation
Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners, 76 Fed. Reg. 22,324 (Apr. 21,
2011); Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts,
76 Fed. Reg. 20,090 (Apr. 11, 2011); National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, 76 Fed. Reg. 13,852 (Mar. 14, 2011);
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles, 75 Fed. Reg. 74,152 (Nov. 30, 2010); Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units, 75
Fed. Reg. 63,260 (Oct. 14, 2010); Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 75 Fed. Reg. 59,470 (Sept. 27,2010);
Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, 75
Fed. Reg. 45,210 (Aug. 2, 2010). The undersigned organizations have provided comment on the SCC in
a number of these proceedings.
6 INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON, TECHNICAL
SUPPORT DOCUMENT: TECHNICAL UPDATE OF THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON FOR
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12,866 (2015); see also
INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON, TECHNICAL
SUPPORT DOCUMENT: TECHNICAL UPDATE OF THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON FOR
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12,866 (2013) [hereinafter
"2013 TSD"], available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-
update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analvsis.pdf.
7 See generally Thomas C. Peterson et al. eds., Explaining Extreme Events of2012 from a Climate
Perspective, 94 BULL. AMER. METEOR. SOC. Sl-74 (2013), and IPCC, Special Report: Managing
the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (2012). On the
scientific research connecting weather and other climate-related events to climate change, see Peter A.
Stott et al., "Attribution of Weather and Climate-Related Events." In Climate Science for Serving
Society, edited by Ghassem R. Asrar and James W. Hurrell. Netherlands: Springer s307-37 (2013).
8 See generally 2010 TSD, supra note 4.
9 GAO, REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS: Development of Social Cost of Carbon Estimates,
GAO-14-663 (2014).
10 The 2010 and 2013 IWGs did very little to adjust the three IAMs. The main adjustment by IWG was
to DICE to ensure that the IAM had an exogenous growth path that matched FUND and PAGE for the
purposes of modeling various socio-economic and emission scenarios. Id. at 24.
11 OMB & Interagency Working Group, Response to Comments on Social Cost of Carbon (July 2015).
12 OMB, Notice of Availability and Request for Comments, Technical Support Documents: Social Cost
of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, 78 Fed. Reg. 70,586 (Nov. 26, 2013).
13 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1200 (9th Cir.
2008) (emphases added).
14 Stuart Shapiro, The Evolution of Cost—? Benefit Analysis in U.S. Regulatory Decision making, in
HANDBOOK ON THE POLITICS OF REGULATION 385-392 (David Levi-Faur ed., 2011).
-------
15 Exec. Order No. 13,563 §§ l(a)-(c), 76 Fed. Reg. 3,821 (Jan. 18, 2011) (emphasis added).
16 Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 SCIENCE 1243 (1968).
17 See infra notes 26 and 32 to 35, and accompanying text, detailing use of a global SCC value by
Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Norway.
18 See ROBERT AXELROD, THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION 10-11 (1984) (on repeated
prisoner's dilemma games).
19 EXEC. OFFICE OF THE PRES., THE PRESIDENT'S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 17-21 (2013).
20 Phillip R. Trimble, The President's Foreign Affairs Power, 83 AM. J. OF INTL. L. 750, 755 (1989).
21 See David Remnick, The Obama Tapes, NEW YORKER, Jan. 23, 2014, available at
http://www.newvorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/01/the-obama-tapes.html (quoting interview
with President Obama: "[M]y goal has been to make sure that the United States can genuinely assert
leadership in this issue internationally, that we are considered part of the solution rather than part of the
problem. And if we are at the table in that conversation with some credibility, then it gives us the
opportunity to challenge and engage the Chinese and the Indians, as long as we take into account the
fact that they've still got, between the two of them, over a billion people in dire poverty. . . . This is why
I'm putting a big priority on our carbon action plan here. It's not because I'm ignorant of the fact that
these emerging countries are going to be a bigger problem than us. It's because it's very hard for me to
get in that conversation if we're making no effort.").
22 UNITED STATES-CANADA REGULATORY COOPERATION COUNCIL, JOINT ACTION
PLAN, at 16 (2011), available af http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/us-
canada rcc joint action plan.pdf.
23 UNITED STATES-MEXICO HIGH-LEVEL REGULATORY COOPERATION COUNCIL,
WORK PLAN at 3 (2012), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/united-states-mexico-high-level-regulatorv-
cooperation-council-work-plan.pdf.
24 Id. at 11 (noting that oil drilling activities in the Gulf of Mexico conducted by either country "present
risks for both countries, and both countries would benefit from a common set of drilling standards").
25 See INT'L COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSP., MEXICO LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE C02 AND
FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS 4 (Policy Update, July 2013), available at
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCTupdate Mexico
LDVstandardsJuly2013.pdf (noting that Mexico's standards were based on the U.S. and Canadian
standards).
26 See Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations, SOR/2013-24, 147
Can. Gazette pt. II, 450, 544 (Can.), available at http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2013/2013-03-
13/html/sor-dors24-eng.html ("The SCC is used in the modelling of the cost-benefit analysis .... It
represents an estimate of the economic value of avoided climate change damages at the global level. . . .
The values used by Environment Canada are based on the extensive work of the U.S. Interagency
-------
Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon.") (emphasis added); Instituto Nacional de Ecologia,
Mexico, Regulatory Impact Analysis on PROY-NOM-163- SEMARNAT-ENER-SCFI-2012, Emisiones
de bidxido de carbono (C02) provenientes del escape y su equivalencia en terminos de rendimiento de
combustible, aplicable a vehiculos automotores nuevos de peso bruto vehicular de hasta 3857
kilogramos (July 5, 2012), available at
http://207.248.177.30/mir/formatos/defaultView.aspx?SubmitID=273026 ("[S]e obtienen beneficios
ambientales por la reduction del consumo de combustible, los cuales se reflejan en beneficios a la salud
de la poblacion en el caso de contaminantes criterio, y en beneficios globalespara las emisiones
evitadas de C02.") (emphasis added).
27 Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity Regulations,
SOR/2012-167, 146 Can. Gazette pt. II, 1951, 2000, 2044 (Can.), available at
http ://www. gazette. gc .ca/rp-pr/p2/2012/2012-09- 12/html/sor-dors 167-eng.html.
28 $5.6 billion in Canadian dollars is worth $5.0 billion in U.S. dollars (using February 2014 conversion
rates). Seven to twenty-three percent of $5 billion is between $350 million and $1.15 billion. See 2010
TSD, supra note 4, at 11 (provisionally calculating the direct U.S. share of a global SCC value at
between 7-23%, though ultimately recommending "that using the global (rather than domestic) value ...
is the appropriate approach," for reasons consistent with these comments).
29 See EUR. COMM'N, TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP: THE
REGULATORY PART (2013).
30 See SIERRA CLUB, THE TRANSATLANTIC FREE TRADE AGREEMENT: WHAT'S AT
STAKE FOR COMMUNITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT at 9-10 (2013).
31 Eur. Comm'n, Working with International Partners,
http://www.e.europa.eu/clima/policies/international ("The EU is offering to step up its 2020 reduction
targets to 30% if other major economies commit.").
32 ECONOMICS GROUP, DEFRA, U.K., THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON AND THE SHADOW
PRICE OF CARBON: WHAT THEY ARE, AND HOW TO USE THEM IN ECONOMIC
APPRAISAL IN THE UK 1 (2007); see also Ministry of Finance, Norway, Cost-Benefit Analysis:
Carbon Price Paths, available at http://www.regieringen.no/en/dep/fin/Documents-and-
publications/official-norwegian-reports-/2012/nou-2012-16-2/10.html?id=713585 ("The United
Kingdom has changed its method for the valuation of greenhouse gas emissions. Prior to 2009, the
estimated global social cost of carbon was used, but one [sic] has now switched over to pricing in line
with the necessary marginal cost of meeting long-term domestic emission reduction targets in
conformity with the EU Climate and Energy Package.").
33 See Balazs Egert, France's Environmental Policies: Internalising Global and Local Externalities 8-
10 (OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 859, 2011), available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgdpn0n9d8v-en (discussing global impacts and France's history of
calculating the SCC); Oskar Lecuyer & Philippe Quirion, funded by the European Union's Seventh
Framework Programme, Choosing Efficient Combinations of Policy Instruments for Low—? Carbon
Development and Innovation to Achieve Europe's 2050 Climate Targets—Country Report: France at 8
(2013) (noting the prospects for a carbon tax in 2014-15, and explaining that "A 2009 stakeholder and
expert group led by the 'Conseil d'analyse strategique' (a public body in charge of expertise and
stakeholder dialogue) set the optimal level of the carbon tax (the social cost of carbon) at € 32/tCO 2 in
2010, and rising to € 100 in 2030 and € 200 in 2050.").
-------
34 Testimony of Howard Shelanski, OIRA Admin., before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't
Reform's Subcomm. on Energy Policy, Healthcare, and Entitlements, July 18, 2013, at 3 (explaining
that the global SCC value estimated by the IWG is consistent with values used by Germany and the
United Kingdom).
35 See Ministry of Finance, supra note 32 (explaining that, for projects not already covered by a binding
emission limitation, the carbon price should "be based on the marginal social cost of carbon," meaning
"the global cost of emitting one additional tonne of C02e"). Note that Norway has joined the E.U.'s
trading scheme.
36 Henrik Hammar, Thomas Sterner & S. Akerfeldt, Sweden's C02 Tax and Taxation Reform
Experiences, in REDUCING INEQUALITIES: A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE
(Genevey, R. et al. eds., 2013).
37 E.g., Benedict Clements et al., International Monetary Fund, Energy Subsidy Reforms: Lessons and
Implications 9 (IMF Policy Paper, Jan. 28, 2013).
38 See Natsu Taylor Saito, Decolonization, Development, and Denial, 6 FL. A & M U. L. REV. 1, 16
(2010) (quoting former IMF counsel as saying "today it is common to find these institutions [IMF and
World Bank] requiring their borrowing member countries to accept and adhere to prescribed policies on
environmental protection").
39 See PHILIPPE SANDS, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 241 (2d
ed. 2003) (noting that "the responsibility not to cause damage to the environment of other states or of
areas beyond national jurisdiction has been accepted as an obligation by all states[;] . . . there can be no
questions but that Principle 21 [of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment] reflects a
rule of customary international law").
40 See Paul Baer & Ambuj Sagar, Ethics, Rights and Responsibilities, in CLIMATE CHANGE
SCIENCE AND POLICY (Stephen Schneider et al., eds., 2009).
41 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, S. Treat Doc. No. 102-38,
1771 U.N.T.S. 107, Article 3(3) (emphasis added); see also id. at Article 3(1) ("The Parties should
protect the climate system for the benefit ofpresent and future generations of humankind, on the basis
of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capabilities.") (emphasis added); id. at Article 4(2)(a) (committing developed countries to adopt policies
that account for "the need for equitable and appropriate contributions by each of these Parties to the
global effort").
42 Id. at Article 4(l)(f) (emphasis added); see also id. at Article 3(2) (requiring parties to give "lull
consideration" to those developing countries "particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate
change"). See also North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (1993), 32 I.L.M. 1480,
art. 10(7) (committing the United States to the development of principles for transboundary
environmental impact assessments).
43 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(F).
44 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, GUIDANCE ON NEPA ANALYSIS FOR
TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACTS (1997), available at
http://www.gc.noaa. gov/documents/transguide.pdf; see also CEQ, DRAFT NEPA GUIDANCE ON
-------
CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS at 2 (2010), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gOv/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100218-nepa-consideration-effects-ghg-
draft-guidance.pdf (defining climate change as a "global problem"); see also Exec. Order No. 12,114,
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 44 Fed. Reg. 1957 §§ 1-1, 2-1 (Jan. 4, 1979)
(applying to "major Federal actions... having significant effects on the environment outside the
geographical borders of the United States," and enabling agency officials "to be informed of pertinent
environmental considerations and to take such considerations into account... in making decisions
regarding such actions").
45 42 U.S.C. § 7415.
46 For details on the applicability of Section 115, see Petition from the Institute for Policy Integrity, to
EPA, for Rulemakings and Call for Information under Section 115, Title VI, Section 111, and Title II of
the Clean Air Act to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Feb. 19, 2013); see also Nathan Richardson,
EPA and Global Carbon: Unnecessary Risk, COMMON RESOURCES, Feb. 28, 2013 (explaining how
Section 115 authorizes use of a global SCC value when regulating under other Clean Air Act
provisions).
47 77 Fed. Reg. 26,413 (May 4, 2012).
48 Id. § 1 (explaining the order intends to "promot[e] the goals of Executive Order 13563"); see also
Exec. Order No. 13,563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, § 1(b), 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan.
18, 2011) (reaffirming Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,741 (Sept. 30, 1993) and requiring
benefit-cost analysis).
49 OMB, CIRCULAR A-4, at 15 (2003). In sharp contrast to the Circular's ultimate deferral to agencies
on the issue of considering transboundary efficiency effects, the Circular makes very clear that
international transfers and distributional effects should be assessed as costs and benefits to the United
States: "Benefit and cost estimates should reflect real resource use. Transfer payments are monetary
payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources available to society. . . . However,
transfers from the United States to other nations should be included as costs, and transfers from other
nations to the United States as benefits, as long as the analysis is conducted from the United States
perspective." Id. at 38 (emphasis original). In other words, even if federal agencies use a global SCC
value to assess efficiency effects relating to their climate policies, that global valuation will not prevent
the agencies from also counting international transfers or distributional effects that benefit the United
States as benefits. See Comments from the Institute for Policy Integrity, to EPA, on Proposed
Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards, at 12-13 (Nov. 27,
2009) (explaining that, depending on the relevant statutory mandate, agencies may calculate a
monopsony benefit to the United States even while using a global SCC value).
50 77 Fed. Reg. at 26,414, § 3(b).
51 77 Fed. Reg. at 26,413, § 2(a)(ii)(B) (defining the goals of the regulatory working group).
52 EPA, REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE FINAL MERCURY AND AIR TOXICS
STANDARDS at 65 (2011) ("Reductions in domestic fish tissue concentrations can also impact the
health of foreign consumers... [and] reductions in U.S. power plant emissions will result in a lowering of
the global burden of elemental mercury ....").
-------
53 Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone,
75 Fed. Reg. 45,209, 45,351 (Aug. 2, 2010).
54 E.g., Unique Device Identification System, 78 Fed. Reg. 58,786 (Sept. 24, 2013) ("[I]n our final
regulatory impact analysis we include an estimate of the costs to foreign labelers."); Standards for the
Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, 78 Fed. Reg. 3504
(Jan. 16, 2013) (including costs to foreign farms); U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulatory
Agenda, RIN 1651-AA96 Definition of Form 1-94 to Include Electronic Format (2013) (preliminarily
estimating net benefits to foreign travelers and carriers).
55 Steven L. Schwarz, Systemic Risk, 97 GEO. L.J. 193, 249 (2008) (observing that financial collapse in
one country is inevitably felt beyond that country's borders).
56 See, e.g., Department of Defense, Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (2014); CNA Military
Board, National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change (2014).
57 2010 TSD, supra note 4, at 10-11.
58 2013 TSD, supra note 6, at 14-15.
59 The following section relies heavily on Richard L. Revesz et al., Global Warming: Improve
Economic Models of Climate Change, 508 NATURE 173 (2014), on Gemot Wagner & Martin L.
Weitzman, Climate Shock, Princeton University Press (2015), on Frank J. Convery & Gemot Wagner,
Reflections—Managing Uncertain Climates: Some Guidance for Policy Makers and Researchers
(forthcoming in REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND POLICY) as well as on
several papers cited in footnotes throughout.
60 The moments of a distribution (of SCC estimates in this case) are, loosely speaking, the various
values that describe the distribution's shape: what value is the distribution centered around (mean); how
wide is the distribution (the variance); whether the distribution is lopsided (skewness); and whether it is
tall and skinny or short and fat (kurtosis). A percentile is a statistical measure of the value (the SCC
value in this case) below which a specified percentage of (SCC) observations falls. The 1st percentile
indicates the SCC value above which (the other) 99% of observed SCC values fall. The 99th percentile
indicates the SCC value below which 99% of all observed SCC values fall.
61 Dallas Burtraw & Thomas Sterner, Climate Change Abatement: Not "Stern " Enough? (Resources
for the Future Policy Commentary Series, Apr. 4, 2009), available
at http://www.rff.org/PublicationsAVPC/Pages/09 04 06 Climate Change Abatement.aspx.
62 "If climate risk dominates economic growth risk because there are enough potential scenarios with
catastrophic damages, then the appropriate discount rate for emissions investments is lower tha[n] the
risk-free rate and the current price of carbon dioxide emissions should be higher. In those scenarios, the
"beta" of climate risk is a large negative value and emissions mitigation investments provide insurance
benefits. If, on the other hand, growth risk is always dominant because catastrophic damages are
essentially impossible and minor climate damages are more likely to occur when growth is strong, times
are good, and marginal utility is low, then the "beta" of climate risk is positive, the discount rate should
be higher than the risk-free rate, and the price of carbon dioxide emissions should be lower." Robert B.
Litterman, What Is the Right Price for Carbon Emissions?, REGULATION, Summer 2013, at 38, 41,
available at http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2013/6/regulation-v36n2-l-
l.pdf
-------
63 See following subsection.
64 "There are two rationales for discounting future benefits—one based on consumption and the other
on investment. The consumption rate of discount reflects the rate at which society is willing to trade
consumption in the future for consumption today. Basically, we discount the consumption of future
generations because we assume future generations will be wealthier than we are and that the utility
people receive from consumption declines as their level of consumption increases. . . . The investment
approach says that, as long as the rate of return to investment is positive, we need to invest less than a
dollar today to obtain a dollar of benefits in the future. Under the investment approach, the discount rate
is the rate of return on investment. If there were no distortions or inefficiencies in markets, the
consumption rate of discount would equal the rate of return on investment. There are, however, many
reasons why the two may differ. As a result, using a consumption rather than investment approach will
often lead to very different discount rates." Maureen Cropper, How Should Benefits and Costs Be
Discounted in an Intergenerational Context?, 183 RESOURCES 30, 33.
65 See CIRCULAR A-4, supra note 49, at 33.
66 The arguments here are primarily based on: Kenneth J. Arrow et al., Determining Benefits and Costs
for Future Generations, 341 SCIENCE 349 (2013); Kenneth J. Arrow et al., Should Governments Use a
Declining Discount Rate in Project Analysis?, REV ENVIRON ECON POLICY 8 (2014); Richard G.
Newell & William A. Pizer, Discounting the Distant Future: Flow Much Do Uncertain Rates Increase
Valuations?, 46 J. ENVTL. ECON. & MGMT. 52 (2003); Maureen L. Cropper et al., Declining
Discount Rates, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW: PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS (2014); S.K.
Rose, D. Turner, G. Blanford, J. Bistline, F. de la Chesnaye, and T. Wilson. Understanding the Social
Cost of Carbon: A Technical Assessment. EPRI Report #3002004657 (2014).
67 Martin L. Weitzman, Gamma Discounting, 91 AM. ECON. REV. 260, 270 (2001). Weitzman's
schedule is as follows:
1-5 years 6-25 years 26-75 years 76-300 years 300+years
4% 3% 2% 1% 0%
68 Arrow et al. (2013, 2014), Cropper et al. (2014), supra note 66. Christian Gollier & Martin L.
Weitzman, How Should the Distant Future Be Discounted When Discount Rates Are Uncertain? 107
ECONOMICS LETTERS 3 (2010).
69 Id.
70 Joseph Lowe, H.M. Treasury, U.K., Intergenerational Wealth Transfers and Social Discounting:
Supplementary Green Book Guidance 5 (2008), available at http://www.hm-treasurv.gov.uk/d/4(5).pdf.
The U.K. declining discount rate schedule that subtracts out a time preference value is as follows:
0-30years 31-75 years 76-125 years 126-200years 201-300years 301+years
3.00% 2.57% 2.14% 1.71% 1.29% 0.86%
71 Using the IWG's 2010 SCC model, Johnson and Hope find that the U.K. and Weitzman schedules
yield SCCs of $55 and $175 per ton of C02, respectively, compared to $35 at a 2.5% discount rate.
Laurie T. Johnson & Chris Hope, The Social Cost of Carbon in U.S. Regulatory Impact Analyses: An
Introduction and Critique, 2 J. ENVTL. STUD. & SCI. 205, 214 (2012).
-------
72 William D. Nordhaus, Estimates of the social cost of carbon: concepts and results from the DICE—
72013R model and alternative approaches, 1 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMISTS 1 (2014).
73 David Anthoff & Richard S.J. Tol, THE CLIMATE FRAMEWORK FOR UNCERTAINTY,
NEGOTIATION AND DISTRIBUTION (FUND), TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION, VERSION 3.6
(2012), available at htto://www.fund-model.org/versions.
74 Chris Hope, The Marginal Impact of C02 from PAGE2002: An Integrated Assessment Model
Incorporating the IPCC's Five Reasons for Concern, 6 INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT J. 19 (2006).
75 2010 TSD, supra note 4, at 1.
76 Frank Ackerman, Elizabeth A. Stanton & Ramon Bueno, CRED: A New Model of Climate and
Development, 85 ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 166 (2013).
77 World Bank, ENVISAGE, http://go.worldbank.org/8DTXIDMRM0 (last visited Feb. 4, 2014).
78 2010 TSD, supra note 4, at 1-3 ("The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement of the many
uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect
increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts .... Specifically, we have set a
preliminary goal of revisiting the SCC values within two years or at such time as substantially updated
models become available, and to continue to support research in this area.").
79 Kristie L. Ebi et al.. A New Scenario Framework for Climate Change Research: Background,
Process, and Future Directions, 122 CLIMATIC CHANGE 363, 368 (2014).
80 FRANK ACKERMAN & ELIZABETH A. STANTON, CLIMATE ECONOMICS: THE STATE
OF THE ART 45-56 (2013); Wolfram Schlenker et al., Will U.S. Agriculture Really Benefit From
Global Warming? Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic Approach, 95 AM. ECON. REV. 395, 395-
406 (2005). See also: Fisher, Anthony C., W. Michael Hanemann, Michael J. Roberts, and Wolfram
Schlenker. 2012. 'The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Evidence from Agricultural Output and
Random Fluctuations in Weather: Comment.' American Economic Review, 102(7): 3749-60. DOI:
10.1257/aer. 102.7.3749
81 See Melissa Dell et al., Temperature shocks and economic growth: Evidence from the last half
century, 4 AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL: MACROECONOMICS 66-95 (2012); R. Bansal &
M. Ochoa Temperature, aggregate risk, and expected returns (National Bureau of Economic Research
No. wl7575, 2011); E.J. Moyer et al., Climate impacts on economic growth as drivers of uncertainty in
the social cost of carbon (University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research
Paper 652, 2013); S. Dietz & N. Stern, Endogenous Growth, Convexity of Damage and Climate Risk:
How Nordhaus'Framework Supports Deep Cuts in Carbon Emissions, 125 THE ECONOMIC
JOURNAL 574-620 (2015); F.C. Moore & D.B. Diaz Temperature impacts on economic growth
warrant stringent mitigation policy, NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE (2015).
82 See, for example, National Science Foundation-funded work by Per Krusell and Anthony A. Smith
on "A Global Economy-Climate Model with High Regional Resolution" using 19,000 agents (each
covering a 1 x 1° area of land).
83 See infra note 95.
-------
84 See supra note 60.
85 The federal government has committed to continuing to update SCC estimates to account for new
information. The IWG stated in its 2010 TSD that "[i]t is important to emphasize that the interagency
process is committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate
change and its impacts on society improves over time. Specifically, we have set a preliminary goal of
revisiting the SCC values within two years or at such time as substantially updated models become
available, and to continue to support research in this area. In the meantime, we will continue to explore
the issues raised in this document and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency
process." 2010 TSD, supra note 4, at 3.
86 In this case, parameters are the various characteristic that describe the underlying climate and
economic systems.
87 See generally Timothy M. Lenton et al., Tipping Elements in the Earth's Climate System, 105 PNAS
1786 (2008).
88 Standard decision theory under uncertainty addresses "known unknowns," which are unknowns for
which we can specify a probability distribution function. In the cases of "unknown unknowns," i.e.,
'black swan' events, we cannot specify a probability distribution function, raising a host of additional
questions. See, e.g., Richard J. Zeckhauser, Investing in the Unknown and Unknowable, CAPITALISM
& SOCIETY vol. 1, iss. 2, art. 5 (2006).
89 An increasing, strictly convex climate damage function implies a damage function that is strictly
increasing in temperature at an increasing rate.
90 The point here is that we miss the big picture if we ignore the "tails" (the upper-most values in the
case of the right-skewed SCC), and as a result come to the wrong conclusions. An everyday analogy is
airplane safety regulation: safety is protected by guarding against the low-probability but highly
dangerous events. With climate change we do not have the luxury of knowing with certainty how
damaging the extremes could be or whether they will be triggered by greenhouse gases accumulating in
the atmosphere; all we know is that there is a very real possibility they could occur and could be
devastating.
91 This approach partially captures catastrophic damages via tipping points through the PAGE model.
92 See, e.g., Peter Howard, Omitted Damages: What's Missing from the Social Cost of Carbon (Cost of
Carbon Project Report, 2014), and van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., and W. J. W. Botzen, A lower bound to
the social cost of C02 emissions, 4 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 4 (2014).
93 See INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, CLIMATE CHANGE 2013:
THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS—SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS 14 (2013).
94 Specifying the climate sensitivity parameter as a random variable has a basis in PAGE02, which
species a probability distribution function for the parameter. The IWG calibrated the Roe and Baker
distribution, a right-skewed distribution, to characterize the probability distribution function of this
parameter. The 2010 TSD explains the IWG's choice of the Roe and Baker distribution. The right-
skewed nature of the climate sensitivity parameter's probability distribution function is independent of
the IWG's choice of the Roe and Baker distribution. Rather, this skewness results from the IPCC's
finding that values of the climate sensitivity parameter above 4.5 degree Celsius cannot be excluded. As
-------
a result, all of the probability distribution functions fit by the IWG for the climate sensitivity parameter
were skewed to the right (see Figure 2 in the 2010 TSD), including Roe and Baker. See 2010 TSD,
supra note 4, at 14, fig. 2.
95 A Monte Carlo simulation will run an integrated assessment model thousands of times, each time
randomly picking the value of uncertain parameters from a probability distribution function, i.e. a
function that assigns a probability to each possible parameter value. In the case of the SCC, the IWG ran
10,000 Monte Carlo simulations for each of the three IAMs and five socio-economic scenarios,
randomizing the value of climate sensitivity, i.e., the change in average global temperature associated
with a doubling of C02, and all other uncertain parameters in the IAMs by the original authors. For each
randomly drawn set of values, the IAM estimated the associated damages, with the final SCC estimate
equaling the average value across all 10,000 runs, five socio-economic scenarios, and then across all
three models. Therefore, each SCC estimate is calculated using 150,000 runs.
96 IPCC, supra note 93, at 14.
97 E.g., Robert S. Pindyck, Uncertain Outcomes and Climate Change Policy, 63 J. ENVTL. ECON. &
MGMT. 289 (2012); Martin L. Weitzman, GHG Targets as Insurance Against Catastrophic Climate
Damages, 14 J. PUB. ECON. THEORY 221 (2012); Robert S. Pindyck, The Climate Policy Dilemma, 1
REV. ENVTL. ECON. & POL'Y 219 (2013); Gemot Wagner & Richard J. Zeckhauser, Confronting
Deep Uncertainty on Climate Sensitivity: When Good News is Bad News, ('Beyond IPCC' Presentation,
October 17, 2014).
98 80 Fed. Reg. 40,138, 40,404-05 (July 13, 2015).
99 Id. at 40,175, 40,208, 40,510.
100 Id. at 40,510.
101 Id. at 40,404-05. Note that the agencies seem to only count domestic upstream emissions, and thus
may significantly undercount upstream effects. For latest IPCC values, compare IPCC Working Group
I, Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8:
Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing (2014) at 633, 711-712, 714 (Table 8.7), available at
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wglAVGlAR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf (and see the
adjustment identified in note B).
102 Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold & A. Wolverton (2014). Incremental CH4
andN20 Mitigation Benefits Consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-C02 Estimates, Climate
Policy, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.912981.
103 See 80 Fed. Reg. 52,099, 52,145 (Aug. 27, 2015).
104 See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1202 (9th
Cir. 2008) (finding NHTSA's decision to assign zero value to carbon reductions to be arbitrary and
capricious).
105 See Disa Thureson & Chris Hope, Is Weitzman Right? The Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases in an
IAM World 21 (Orebro University-Swedish Business School Working Paper 3/2012).
-------
106 See, e.g., Marten et al at 7 (describing eleven prior studies estimating the social cost or global
damage potential associated with methane).
107 Alex L. Marten et al., Incremental CH4 andN20Mitigation Benefits Consistent With the US
Government's SC-? C02 Estimates, Climate Policy (2014).
108 See Executive Order 13,563, 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (January 18, 2011).
109
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/social%20cost%20methane%20white%20paper%20applicatio
n%20and%20peer%20review.pdf
110 Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, Technical Support Document: Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, 12 (February 2010), available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-
RIA.pdf ("Impacts other than temperature change also vary across gases in ways that are not captured
by GWP. For instance . . . damages from methane emissions are not offset by the positive effect of C02
fertilization."). Martin et al (2015) state that "A comparison across models further highlights the
importance of C02 fertilization impacts on the global damage potential. C02 emissions, and the
resulting increase in atmospheric concentration, have the potential to increase yields in the agriculture
and forestry sector. This characteristic is not shared by other GHG emissions. Accordingly, the FUND
model, which explicitly captures this effect, exerts downward pressure on the SC- C02 that is not
present for the SC-CH4 and SC-N20 , allowing for the possibility of substantially higher global damage
potential estimates. The results based on the FUND model presented in this article exhibit this effect;
however, the C02 fertilization effect is not explicitly modelled in DICE and PAGE and therefore they
are found to produce lower estimates of the global damage potential. For example, using the 3%
discount rate, the global damage potential for CH4 as estimated by FUND ranges between 58 and 88
depending on the scenario, whereas it ranges from 19 to 28 for DICE and PAGE. As the DICE and
PAGE models only consider two natural system impacts, temperature and sea level, if they do implicitly
include potential C02 fertilization benefits, they are included by using the temperature anomaly as a
proxy for the increasing atmospheric C02 concentration. Fertilization benefits would therefore be
allowed to falsely accrue to perturbations of other GHG emissions besides C02. It is not clear the degree
to which these models try to incorporate C02 fertilization effects and therefore the degree to which this
issue is of concern."
111 A study by Sarofim et al. (2015) finds that reductions in surface ozone levels from the mitigation of
methane emissions would provide additional global health benefits from avoided cardiopulmonary
deaths equal to 60 to 140% of climate benefits identified by Marten. Similarly, Shindell (2014) finds
that the impact of methane on agriculture, via changes in surface ozone, are valued at $22 and $27 per
ton, for 5% and 3% discounting respectively, in addition to his study's estimates for climate and
climate-health related damages.
112 80 Fed. Reg. 40138, 40461; see also Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis at Table 8-14. The estimated
non- C02 GHG total net benefits using the GWP approach would increase by about $760 million to $11
billion (2012$), depending on discount rate, or approximately 3 percent. U.S. EPA, Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis, Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2 at 8-41 (June 2015).
113 IPCC Working Group I, Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis, Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing (2014) at 633, 711-712, 714 (Table
-------
8.7), available at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wgl/WGlAR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
(see the adjustment identified in note B for fossil methane).
114 2010 TSD, supra note 4, at 29.
115 Exec. Order No. 12,866 § 1(a); see also OMB, Circular A-4.
116 E.g., EPA, 420-D-09-001, DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:CHANGES TO
RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD PROGRAM 690 tbl. 5.3-4 (2009).
117 Compare EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for
Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants, EPA-
452/R-14-002, at tbl. ES-5 (2014) (listing multiple unquantified effects from co-pollutants, but marking
"global climate impacts from C02" as fully monetized) with Peter Howard, Omitted Damages: What's
Missing from the Social Cost of Carbon (Cost of Carbon Project Report, 2014) (detailing the many
significant effects not quantified in the SCC).
Response:
The EPA acknowledges this comments and agrees with the recommendation to use the Marten et al.
approach in the final rulemaking analysis. Regarding the recommendations to improve the estimates, see
response to Institute for Policy Integrity, Excerpt 7, in RTC Section 11.8, for complete discussion.
Regarding the recommendations to include a qualitative assessment of impacts omitted from the SC-
C02 and SC-CH4 estimates: EPA notes that it is not possible at this time to provide a precise list of each
model's treatment (i.e., included, excluded) of climate impacts. EPA further notes that the table
referenced by the commenter,215 which was published in a May 2009 draft regulatory impact analysis
that was issued prior to the interagency working group's development of the 2010 SC-C02 estimates,
itemizes some of the impacts omitted from only one model. Subsequent to the publication of this draft
RIA, the interagency working group (IWG) developed SC-C02 estimates based on an ensemble of three
models. The IWG's 2010 SC-C02 Technical Support Document presents a robust discussion of this key
analytical issue, e.g., how each model estimates climate impacts, the known parameters and assumptions
underlying those models, and the implications of incomplete treatment of impacts (catastrophic and non-
catastrophic) for the SC-C02 and SC-CH4 estimates. Moreover, the discussion in the SC-C02 TSD
underscores the difficulty in accurately distilling the treatment of impacts in table-form for all three
models. Most notably, the use of aggregate damage functions—which consolidate information about
impacts from multiple studies—in two of the models, which were not addressed in the table referenced
by the commenter, poses a challenge in listing included impacts. For example, within the broad
agricultural impacts category, some of the sub-grouped impacts are not explicitly modeled but are
highly correlated to other subcategories that are explicitly modeled. Therefore, EPA continues to
determine that it is more appropriate to rely on the qualitative discussion in the TSDs about uncertainty.
EPA has also updated the RIA Section 4.3 discussion to reference several publications that identify and
discuss some of the important, unquantified climate effects.
EPA agrees that it is important to update the SC-C02 and SC-CH4 periodically to incorporate
improvements in the understanding of greenhouse gas emissions impacts and will continue to follow
215 EPA, 420-D-09-001, DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS: CHANGES TO RENEWABLE FUEL
STANDARD PROGRAM 690 tbl. 5.3-4 (2009).
-------
and evaluate the latest science on impact categories that are omitted or not fully addressed in the IAMs.
As previously noted, EPA and the other IWG members are seeking external expert advice on the
technical merits and challenges of potential approaches to update the damage functions in future
revisions to the SC-C02 estimates, which would likely inform updates to the SC-CH4 estimates. Finally,
the RIA also continues to discuss climate change impacts, specifically an overview of the 2009
Endangerment Finding and climate science assessments released since then (see RIA, Chapter 4).
Regarding the recommendation for regular updates, see response to Institute for Policy Integrity,
Excerpt 8, in RTC Section 11.8.
Organization: Mannix, Brian
Social Cost of Carbon
The goal of the President's Climate Action Plan is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The
proposed Phase 2 standards will primarily reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, although some other
greenhouse gases are also covered, and are converted to their "carbon equivalent" for purposes of the
analysis. The RIA uses a Social Cost of Carbon (SCC, or SC-C02) to assign benefits to the estimates of
reduced emissions. There are numerous complexities and controversies surrounding the estimation of
the SCC. Nonetheless, as we have argued elsewhere, it is correct, in principle, for agencies to use a
uniform SCC in evaluating programs designed to reduce carbon emissions.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1222-A1 p.5]
In doing a sensitivity analysis, the RIA uses multiple estimates of the SCC - including one that is
intended to explore the "fat tails" of the probability distribution. "The fourth value is the 95 th percentile
of the SC-C02from all three models at a 3 percent discount rate. It is included to represent higher-than-
expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SC-C02distribution
(representing less likely, but potentially catastrophic, outcomes)."9 Note, however, that only the hot tail
is considered. We know from the geological record that very large climate risks exist on the cold side. A
major glacial advance, which has happened dozens of times in the past, would wipe out much of North
America and northern Europe. The RIA's use of only one tail of the distribution is an indication of bias
in the analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.5]
There is another flaw in the SCC used to calculate the climate benefits of the standards: the agencies are
using an estimate that is global. That is, the SCC mostly (an estimated 80% to 93%) represents benefits
that accrue to other countries, rather than to the United States. This is a useful exercise to go through as
part of an international conversation on climate change and what to do about it. It is not, however,
suitable for estimating the benefits of a unilateral domestic rulemaking.10 Imposing costs on U.S.
businesses and consumers in order to deliver benefits to other countries cannot be characterized as a
"big step to grow our economy."11 Nor is it clear that delivering foreign aid is consistent with the
statutory authorities on which the agencies rely in this rulemaking. A domestic SCC would be a sounder
basis for evaluating the benefits of the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.5-6]
Response:
The comments regarding the aggregation of the SC-C02 estimates and general application in a
rulemaking context mirror those submitted to the Office of Management and Budget's separate
comment solicitation on the SC-C02 (78 FR 70586; November 26, 2013). As a member of the
interagency working group (IWG) on SC-C02, EPA has carefully examined and evaluated comments
submitted to OMB's separate solicitation. EPA has also carefully examined and evaluated all comments
-------
received regarding SC-C02 through this rulemaking process and determined that the IWG responses to
the comments on the OMB solicitation address the comments on the aggregation of SC-C02 estimates
and use of the estimates in this RIA. Specifically, EPA concurs with the IWG's response to these
comments and hereby incorporates them by reference.216
In addition, EPA and other members of the U.S. Interagency Working Group on the SC-C02 are seeking
independent expert advice on technical opportunities to update the SC-C02 estimates from the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A committee convened by the Academies is
reviewing the state of the science on estimating the SC-C02, and will provide expert, independent
advice on the merits of different technical approaches for modeling and highlight research priorities
going forward. The Academies' review will focus on the SC-C02 methodology, but recommendations
on how to update many of the underlying modeling assumptions will also likely pertain to the SC-CH4
estimates. Going forward, the EPA will evaluate its approach to estimating the SC-C02, SC-CH4, and
SC-N20 based upon any feedback received from the Academies' panel.
After careful evaluation of the full range of comments and associated technical issues described in this
RTC, EPA has determined that it will continue to use the SC-GHG estimates in the final rulemaking
analysis. In particular, the current SC-C02 estimates and the Marten et al. SC-CH4 and SC-N20
estimates represent the best scientific information on the impacts of climate change available in a form
appropriate for incorporating the damages from incremental emissions changes into regulatory analysis.
Therefore, EPA has presented these estimates in this rulemaking. EPA will continue to consider these
comments and will share the recommendations with the IWG as it moves forward with the Academies
process.
The remainder of this section elaborates on these comments in the context of this rulemaking.
EPA acknowledges the commenter's endorsement of federal agencies in principle using harmonized
SC-C02 estimates to evaluate programs designed to reduce carbon emissions. EPA has determined
using the current SC-C02 figures to estimate the value to society of marginal reductions in C02
emissions in Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866 is appropriate both in principle
and in practice.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that use of the 95th percentile SC-C02 estimates
introduces bias to the analysis. As the 2010 TSD discusses, the SC-C02 estimates derived from the three
integrated assessment models have several significant limitations that could lead to a substantial
underestimation of the SC-C02. These limitations include the incomplete treatment and monetization of
non-catastrophic damages, the incomplete treatment of potential "catastrophic" damages, and
uncertainty in extrapolation of damages to high temperatures. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report,
which was the most current IPCC assessment available at the time of the IWG's 2009-2010 review,
discussed these limitations and concluded that it was "very likely that [SCC] underestimates" climate
change damages. Based on the current scientific understanding of climate change and its impacts, and
on the limitations of the IAMs in quantifying and monetizing the full array of potential "catastrophic"
and non-catastrophic damages, EPA and the other members of the IWG concluded that the distribution
of SCC estimates may be biased downwards. Since then, the peer-reviewed literature has continued to
support this conclusion. For example, the IPCC Fifth Assessment report observed that SC-C02
estimates continue to omit various impacts that would likely increase damages. The 95th percentile
216 Referred to as the "OMB Response to Comments on SC-C02." In particular, see pgs 25 to 28, 30-32 at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-response-to-comments-final-july-2015.pdf.
-------
estimate was included in the recommended range for regulatory impact analysis to address these
concerns.
In addition, as acknowledged in the 2010 TSD, the SC-C02 estimates derived from the three IAMs did
not take into consideration the possibility of risk aversion. That is, individuals may have a higher
willingness-to-pay to reduce the likelihood of low-probability, high-impact damages than they do to
reduce the likelihood of higher-probability, lower-impact damages with the same expected cost. The
inclusion of the 95th percentile estimate in the SC-C02 values was also motivated by this concern. In
contrast, EPA is not aware of systematic upward biases in the estimates comparable to the downward
biases discussed above. For this reason, while EPA and other members of the IWG have been fully
transparent regarding the entire range of uncertainty reflected in the probability distributions, EPA did
not include a 5th percentile estimate in the selected range for regulatory impact analysis.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that application of a global SC-C02 to calculate the
benefits of domestic rulemaking is not appropriate. As discussed in the 2010 SC-C02 Technical
Support Document (TSD), the IWG determined that a global measure of SC-C02 is appropriate in this
context because emissions of most greenhouse gases contribute to damages around the world and the
world's economies are now highly interconnected.217 To reflect the global nature of the problem, the
SC-C02 incorporates the full damages caused by C02 emissions and other governments are expected to
consider the global consequences of their greenhouse gas emissions when setting their own domestic
policies.
Carbon dioxide is a global pollutant with global consequences. Carbon dioxide, in addition to methane,
N20 and other GHG emissions, contributes to warming of the atmosphere, which over time leads to
increased air and ocean temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, melting and thawing of global
glaciers and ice, increasingly severe weather events, such as hurricanes of greater intensity, and sea
level rise, among other impacts. Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 202(a), the EPA Administrator found
that GHGs in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. In
particular, the Administrator found that the mix of six greenhouse gases (C02, CH4, N20, HFCs, PFCs,
and SF6) is "global in nature because the greenhouse gas emissions emitted from the United States (or
from any other region of the world) become globally well mixed, such that it would not be meaningful
to define the air pollution as the greenhouse gas concentrations over the United as somehow being
distinct from the greenhouse gas concentrations over other regions of the world" (74 FR 66517;
December 15, 2009). Any pollutant with an atmospheric lifetime of greater than one or two years
becomes well-mixed globally. One attribute of a well-mixed substance is that the location of emission
has little impact on the consequences of those emissions, such that a ton of methane emitted in the US
will have just as much an impact on global temperatures as a ton of methane emitted in Australia.
As stated in the OMB Response to Comments on SC-C02, if all countries acted independently to set
policies based only on the domestic costs and benefits of carbon emissions, it would lead to an
economically inefficient level of emissions reductions which could be harmful to all countries, including
the United States, because each country would be underestimating the full value of its own reductions.
The same applies to methane emissions because methane is, as discussed in the previous paragraph, a
well-mixed global pollutant with global consequences. This is a classic public goods problem because
each country's reductions benefit everyone else and no country can be excluded from enjoying the
benefits of other countries' reductions, even if it provides no reductions itself. In this situation, the only
217 2010 SC-C02 TSD available in the docket and at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf
-------
way to achieve an economically efficient level of emissions reductions is for countries to cooperate in
providing mutually beneficial reductions beyond the level that would be justified only by their own
domestic benefits. By adopting a global estimate of the SC-C02 or the SC-CH4 or the SC- N20 , the
U.S. government can signal its leadership in this effort. In reference to the public good nature of
mitigation and its role in foreign relations, thirteen prominent academics noted that these "are
compelling reasons to focus on a global [SC-C02]" in a recent article on the SC-C02 (Pizer et al., 2014).
In addition, there is no bright line between domestic and global damages from greenhouse gas
emissions, such as C02, methane, and N20. Adverse impacts on other countries can have spillover
effects on the United States, particularly in the areas of national security, international trade, public
health and humanitarian concerns.
GHG emissions in the United States will have impacts abroad, some of which may, in turn, affect the
United States. For this reason, a purely domestic measure is likely to understate actual impacts to the
United States. Also, as stated above, the EPA and the other members of IWG believes that accounting
for global benefits can encourage reciprocal action by other nations, leading ultimately to international
cooperation that increases both global and U.S. net benefits relative to what could be achieved if each
nation considered only its own domestic costs and benefits when determining its climate policies. As a
party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United States is actively
engaging with the international community to find solutions and promote global cooperation on climate
change. As of May 2016, over 170 nations have signed the Paris Agreement on climate change,
signifying worldwide commitment to reduce GHG emissions.
Further, as explained in the 2010 TSD, from a technical perspective, the development of a domestic SC-
C02 was greatly complicated by the relatively few region- or country-specific estimates of the SC-C02
in the literature, and impacts beyond our borders have spillover effects on the United States, particularly
in the areas of national security, international trade, and public health. As a result, it was only possible
to include an "approximate, provisional, and highly speculative" range of 7 to 23 percent for the share of
domestic benefits in the 2010 TSD. This range was based on two strands of evidence: direct domestic
estimates resulting from the FUND model, and an alternative approach under which the fraction of GDP
lost due to climate change is assumed to be similar across countries.
Regarding the commenter's criticism that the SCC does not consider the risks of cooling, there are no
credible projections of future temperatures over the next century that include any appreciable
probability that temperatures will decline. This is because the elevated concentrations of greenhouse
gases already in the atmosphere are projected to lead to future warming even in the absence of future
increases in concentrations until the Earth system returns to a radiative balance: future emissions of
greenhouse gases (and in particular carbon dioxide due to its long lifetime) will lead to even more
warming.
Finally, EPA notes that the commenter has not provided any basis for his assertion that an estimated 80
to 93 percent of the SC-C02 represents benefits that accrue to other countries. This figure is not
presented in the Gayer and Viscusi paper referenced by the commenter.
8 Brian Mannix & Susan E. Dudley, "Public Comment on the Interagency Technical Support
Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under
Executive Order No. 12866." The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center,
Washington, DC. February 26, 2014.
https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/files/downloads
/OMB_2013-0007_SCC.pdf
-------
9 RIA, p. 8-37.
10 Gayer and Viscusi note that "imposing a global perspective on benefits will increase the apparent
desirability of the policy but will overstate the actual benefits to the American people."
See Ted Gayer and Kip Viscusi, "Determining the Proper Scope of Climate Change Benefits." The
George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, Washington, DC. June 4, 2014.
http://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/files/downloads/
Gayer-
Viscusi_Determining%20the%20Proper%20Scope%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Benefits.pdf
11 Remarks by the President on Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
February 18, 2014.
Organization: Michaels and Knappenberger
It is clearly inappropriate to relate immeasurable and unverifiable impacts to economic gains. The EPA,
nevertheless, does this through using the social cost of carbon (SCC), attributing $100 billion of
economic savings through the alleviation of future climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-
Alp.l]
EPA's determination of the SCC is discordant with the best scientific literature on the equilibrium
climate sensitivity and the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide—two critically important parameters for
establishing the net externality of carbon dioxide emissions. It is based upon the output of Integrated
Assessment Models (IAMs) which have little utility because of their great uncertainties. They provide
no reliable guidance as to the sign, much less the magnitude of the social cost of carbon. Additionally,
as run by the Interagency Working Group (IWG), whose results were incorporated by the EPA in this
proposal, the IAMs produce illogical results that indicate a misleading disconnection between climate
changes and the SCC value. Additionally, new research strongly suggests that the scientific research on
the SCC is biased in favor of high SCC values, and that when this bias is accounted for, the SCC value
used by the EPA is inflated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 1-2]
Considering the improprieties surrounding the determination of the SCC by the current Administration,
their determination should never be used federal rulemakings. It is better not to use any value for the
SCC in cost/benefit analyses, than to include one which is clearly improper, inaccurate and misleading.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.2]
The combination of a lack of measurable climate impacts with the lack of logical cost estimates renders
this proposed regulation unjustifiable. Consequently, we suggest that it should be withdrawn. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.2]
And perhaps most remarkable of all, is that although the climate risks were not "formally estimated,"
the EPA determines that the climate impacts resulting from the proposed regulation will lead to "net
economic benefits exceeding $100 billion making this a highly beneficial rule" (Federal Register, Vol.
80, No. 133, pg 40169). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.6]
Things that one can neither measure nor detect cannot be assigned any discrete cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1206-A1 p.6]
-------
This occurs throughout the EPA's ill-advised application of the ill-suited and ill-determined social cost
of carbon (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 133, pg 40456). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.6]
Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon
The EPA incorporates the social cost of carbon (SCC) value determined through a process conducted by
the federal Interagency Working Group (IWG) that was initially established in 2010 and subsequently
revised on several occasions. The EPA uses the SCC value established by the IWG in its May 2013
update. Therefore, our comments largely reflect the contents of the IWG 2013 SCC justifications and
the EPA's reliance upon them. We note that recently, in July 2015, the IWG, through the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has reaffirmed the 2013 SCC value, and offered responses to criticism
of that determination. However, the IWG (2015) response is inadequate to alleviate the concerns that we
express in this set of comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.6]
The IWG continues to ignore a large amount of relevant science such that the current SCC value (as
incorporated by the EPA in this rulemaking) should be considered invalid and discarded. It is better not
to include any value for the SCC in federal cost/benefit analyses such as this one, than to include one
which is knowingly inaccurate and thus potentially misleading. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
p.6]
Domestic vs. Global Costs
During the public comment period associated with new regulations such as this one which incorporate
the SCC, a clear distinction should be made between domestic costs/benefits and foreign cost/benefits—
and numerical calculations of each provided in all cost/benefits analyses included in the proposal (to be
included in the main body of the proposal). In this way, the public can readily judge for itself (rather
than have to defer on the judgement of the IWG) the value of the regulation. As it currently stands, the
public likely has little idea as to how large a percentage of the benefits of the proposed EPA regulations
on domestic activities are conferred upon foreign nations under the guise of the SCC. We recommend
reporting the results of the domestic SCC calculation in the main body of the proposed regulation. As it
stands presently, the situation is clearly not as "transparent" as it should be. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1 p.7]
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
In May 2013, the Interagency Working Group (IWG) produced an updated SCC value by incorporating
updates to the underlying three Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) used in its initial 2010 SCC
determination. But, at that time, the IWG did not update the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)
employed in the IAMs. This was not done, despite there having been, since January 1, 2011, at least 14
new studies and 20 experiments (involving more than 45 researchers) examining the ECS, each
lowering the best estimate and tightening the error distribution about that estimate. Instead, the IWG
wrote in its 2013 report: "It does not revisit other interagency modeling decisions (e.g., with regard to
the discount rate, reference case socioeconomic and emission scenarios, or equilibrium climate
sensitivity)." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.7]
This decision was reaffirmed by the IWG in July 2015. But, through its reaffirmation, the IWG has
again refused to give credence to and recognize the importance of what is now becoming mainstream
science—that the most likely value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity is lower than that used by the
IWG and that the estimate is much better constrained. This situation has profound implications for the
-------
determination of the SCC and yet continues to be summarily dismissed by the IWG. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1206-A1 p.7]
The earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity is defined in the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost
of Carbon 2010 (hereafter, IWG2010) report as "the long-term increase in the annual global-average
surface temperature from a doubling of atmospheric C02 concentration relative to pre-industrial levels
(or stabilization at a concentration of approximately 550 parts per million (ppm))" and is recognized as
"a key input parameter" for the integrated assessment models used to determine the social cost of
carbon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.7]
The IWG2010 report has an entire section (Section III.D) dedicated to describing how an estimate of the
equilibrium climate sensitivity and the scientific uncertainties surrounding its actual value are developed
and incorporated in the IWG's analysis. The IWG2010, in fact, developed its own probability density
function (pdf) for the ECS and used it in each of the three IAMs, superseding the ECS pdfs used by the
original IAMs developers. The IWG's intent was to develop an ECS pdf which most closely matched
the description of the ECS as given in the Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nation's
Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change which was published in 2007. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1 p.7]
The functional form adopted by the IWG2010 was a calibrated version of Roe and Baker (2007)
distribution. It was described in the IWG2010 report in the following Table and Figure (from the
IWG2010 report): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.8]
[Table 1, 'Summary Statistics for Four Caliberated Climate Sensitivity Distributions', and Figure 2,
'Estimates of the Probability Density Function for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity', can be found on p.8
of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1206-A1]
The calibrated Roe and Baker functional form used by the IWG2010 is no longer scientifically
defensible; nor was it at the time of the publication of the IWG 2013 SCC update, nor at the time of the
July 2015 update. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.8]
The figure below vividly illustrates this fact, as it compares the best estimate and 90% confidence range
of the earth's ECS as used by the IWG2010/2013/2015 (calibrated Roe and Baker) against findings in
the scientific literature published since January 1, 2011. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.8]
Whereas the IWG2010/2013/2015 ECS distribution has a median value of 3.0°C and 5th and 95th
percentile values of 1.72°C and 7.14°C, respectively, the corresponding values averaged from the recent
scientific literature are 2.0°C (median), 1.1°C (5th percentile), and 3.5°C (95th percentile). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.9]
These differences will have large and significant impacts on the SCC determination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1206-A1 p.9]
[Figure, 'Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity', can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1]
The IWG2010 report noted that, concerning the low end of the ECS distribution, its determination
reflected a greater degree of certainty that a low ECS value could be excluded than did the IPCC. From
the IWG2010 (p. 14): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 10]
-------
"Finally, we note the IPCC judgment that the equilibrium climate sensitivity "is very likely larger than
1.5°C." Although the calibrated Roe & Baker distribution, for which the probability of equilibrium
climate sensitivity being greater than 1.5°C is almost 99 percent, is not inconsistent with the IPCC
definition of "very likely" as "greater than 90 percent probability," it reflects a greater degree of
certainty about very low values of ECS than was expressed by the IPCC." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1 p. 10]
In other words, the IWG used its judgment that the lower bound of the ECS distribution was higher than
the IPCC 2007 assessment indicated. However, the collection of the recent literature on the ECS shows
the IWG's judgment to be in error. As can be seen in the chart above, the large majority of the findings
on ECS in the recent literature indicate that the lower bound (i.e., 5th percentile) of the ECS distribution
is lower than the IPCC 2007 assessment. And, the average value of the 5th percentile in the recent
literature (1.1°C) is 0.62°C less than that used by the IWG—a sizeable and important difference which
will influence the SCC determination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 10]
In fact, the abundance of literature supporting a lower climate sensitivity was at least partially reflected
in the new IPCC assessment report issued in 2013. In that report, the IPCC reported: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 10]
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C {high confidence), extremely
unlikely less than 1°C {high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C {medium confidence). The
lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4... [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 10]
Clearly, the IWG's assessment of the low end of the probability density function that best describes the
current level of scientific understanding of the climate sensitivity is incorrect and indefensible. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 10]
But even more influential in the SCC determination is the upper bound (i.e., 95th percentile) of the ECS
probability distribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 10]
The IWG2010 notes (p. 14) that the calibrated Roe and Baker distribution better reflects the IPCC
judgment that "values substantially higher than 4.5°C still cannot be excluded." The IWG2010 further
notes that [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 10]
"Although the IPCC made no quantitative judgment, the 95th percentile of the calibrated Roe & Baker
distribution (7.1 °C) is much closer to the mean and the median (7.2 °C) of the 95th percentiles of 21
previous studies summarized by Newbold and Daigneault (2009). It is also closer to the mean (7.5 °C)
and median (7.9 °C) of the nine truncated distributions examined by the IPCC (Hegerl, et al., 2006) than
are the 95 th percentiles of the three other calibrated distributions (5.2-6.0 °C)." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p. 11]
In other words, the IWG2010 turned towards surveys of the scientific literature to determine its
assessment of an appropriate value for the 95th percentile of the ECS distribution. Now, more than five
years hence, the scientific literature tells a completely different story. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-
Alp.ll]
Instead of a 95th percentile value of 7.14°C, as used by the IWG2010, a survey of the recent scientific
literature suggests a value of 3.5°C—more than 50% lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 11]
-------
And this is very significant and important difference because the high end of the ECS distribution has a
large impact on the SCC determination—a fact frequently commented on by the IWG2010. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 11]
For example, from IWG2010 (p.26):
"As previously discussed, low probability, high impact events are incorporated into the SCC values
through explicit consideration of their effects in two of the three models as well as the use of a
probability density function for equilibrium climate sensitivity. Treating climate sensitivity
probabilistically results in more high temperature outcomes, which in turn lead to higher projections of
damages. Although FUND does not include catastrophic damages (in contrast to the other two models),
its probabilistic treatment of the equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter will directly affect the non-
catastrophic damages that are a function of the rate of temperature change." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p. 11]
And further (p.30):
Uncertainty in extrapolation of damages to high temperatures: The damage functions in these IAMs are
typically calibrated by estimating damages at moderate temperature increases (e.g., DICE was calibrated
at 2.5 °C) and extrapolated to far higher temperatures by assuming that damages increase as some power
of the temperature change. Hence, estimated damages are far more uncertain under more extreme
climate change scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 11]
And the entirety of Section V [sic] "A Further Discussion of Catastrophic Impacts and Damage
Functions" of the IWG 2010 report describes "tipping points" and "damage functions" that are
probabilities assigned to different values of global temperature change. Table 6 from the IWG2010
indicated the probabilities of various tipping points. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 11]
[Table 6, 'Probabilities of Various Tipping Points from Expert Elicitation', can be found on p. 12 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1]
The likelihood of occurrence of these low probability, high impact, events ("tipping points") is greatly
diminished under the new ECS findings. The average 95th percentile value of the new literature survey
is only 3.5°C indicating a very low probability of a warming reaching 3-5°C by 2100 as indicated in the
3rd column of the above Table and thus a significantly lower probability that such tipping points will be
reached. This new information will have a large impact on the final SCC determination using the IWG's
methodology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 12]
The size of this impact has been directly investigated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 12]
In their Comment on the Landmark Legal Foundation Petition for Reconsideration of Final Rule
Standards for Standby Mode and Off Mode Microwave Ovens, Dayaratna and Kreutzer (2013) ran the
DICE model using the distribution of the ECS as described by Otto et al. (2013)—a paper published in
the recent scientific literature which includes 17 authors, 15 of which were lead authors of chapters in
the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report. The most likely
value of the ECS reported by Otto et al. (2013) was described as "2.0°C, with a 5-95% confidence
interval of 1.2-3.9°C." Using the Otto et al. (2013) ECS distribution in lieu of the distribution employed
by the IWG (2013), dropped the SCC by 42 percent, 41 percent, and 35 percent (for the 2.5%, 3.0%,
5.0% discount rates, accordingly). This is a significant decline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
p. 12]
-------
In subsequent research, Dayaratna and Kreutzer (2014) examined the performance of the FUND model,
and found that it too, produced a greatly diminished value for the SCC when run with the Otto et al.
distribution of the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Using the Otto et al. (2013) ECS distribution in lieu
of the distribution employed by the IWG (2013), dropped the SCC produced by the FUND model to
$11, $6, $0 compared with the original $30, $17, $2 (for the 2.5%, 3.0%, 5.0% discount rates,
accordingly). Again, this is a significant decline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 12]
The Dayaratna and Kreutzer (2014) results using FUND were in line with alternative estimates of the
impact of a lower climate sensitivity on the FUND model SCC determination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p. 13]
Waldhoff et al. (2011) investigated the sensitivity of the FUND model to changes in the ECS. Waldhoff
et al. (2011) found that changing the ECS distribution such that the mean of the distribution was
lowered from 3.0°C to 2.0°C had the effect of lowering the SCC by 60 percent (from a 2010 SCC
estimate of $8/ton of C02 to $3/ton in $1995). While Waldhoff et al. (2011) examined FUNDv3.5, the
response of the current version (v3.8) of the FUND model should be similar. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p. 13]
Additionally, the developer of the PAGES model, affirmed that the SCC from the PAGES model, too
drops by 35% when the Otto et al. (2013) climate sensitivity distribution is employed (Hope, 2013).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 13]
These studies make clear that the strong dependence of the social cost of carbon on the distribution of
the estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (including the median, and the upper and lower
certainty bounds) requires that the periodic updates to the IWG SCC determination must include a
critical examination of the scientific literature on the topic of the equilibrium climate sensitivity, not
merely kowtowing to the IPCC assessment. There is no indication that the IWG undertook such an
independent examination. But what is clear, is that the IWG did not alter its probability distribution of
the ECS between its 2010, 2013, and 2015 SCC determination, despite a large and growing body of
scientific literature that substantially alters and better defines the scientific understanding of the earth's
ECS. It is unacceptable that a supposed "updated" social cost of carbon does not include updates to the
science underlying a critical and key aspect of the SCC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 13]
We note that there has been one prominent scientific study in the recent literature which has argued, on
the basis of recent observations of lower tropospheric mixing in the tropics, for a rather high climate
sensitivity (Sherwood et al., 2014). This research, however, suffers from too narrow a focus. While
noting that climate models which best match the apparent observed behavior of the vertical mixing
characteristics of the tropical troposphere tend to be the models with high climate sensitivity estimates,
the authors fail to make note that these same models are the ones whose projections make the worst
match to observations of the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades. The figure
below shows the observed global surface temperature history from 1951-2013 compared with the
temperature evolution projected by the collection of models used in the new IPCC 2013 report. We
broke the climate models down into two groups—those which have a climate sensitivity greater than
3.0°C (as suggested by Sherwood et al., 2014) and those with a climate sensitivity less than 3.0°C. The
Figure shows that while neither model subset does a very good job is capturing evolution of global
temperature during the past 15-20 years (the period with the highest human carbon dioxide emissions),
the high sensitivity models do substantially worse than the lower sensitivity models. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 13]
-------
[Chart, 'Observed and Modeled Global Temperature Evolution 1951-2013', can be found on p.14 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1]
While Sherwood et al. (2014) prefer models that better match their observations in one variable, the
same models actually do worse in the big picture than do models which lack the apparent accuracy in
the processes that Sherwood et al. (2014) describe. The result can only mean that there must still be
even bigger problems with other model processes which must more than counteract the effects of the
processes described by Sherwood et al. After all, the overall model collective is still warming the world
much faster than it actually is (see Figure below). In fact, for the observed global average temperature
evolution for the past 30 years largely lies below the range which encompasses 95% of all climate
model runs—an indication that the observed trend is statistically different from the trend simulated by
climate models. And for periods approaching 40 years in length, the observed trend lies outside of
(below) the range that includes 90% of all climate model simulations—and indication that the observed
trend is marginally inconsistent with climate model simulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
p. 14]
We note that our statistics are based upon both the warm and the cold departures from predicted trends.
In reality, the cold departure is what is of most interest from a policy perspective—for if warming is
being demonstrably overpredicted, then policies based upon models that are in error are a substantial
regulatory overreach. Our probability estimates are conservative as values at the .05 level are actually at
the 2.5th percentile for warmth from the model ensemble. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 14]
These results argue strongly against the reliability of the Sherwood et al. (2014) conclusion and instead
provide robust observational evidence that the climate sensitivity has been overestimated by both
climate models, and the IWG alike. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 14]
[Chart, 'Models vs. Observations', can be found on p. 15 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1]
Agricultural Impacts of Carbon Fertilization
Carbon dioxide is known to have a positive impact on vegetation, with literally thousands of studies in
the scientific literature demonstrating that plants (including crops) grow stronger, healthier, and more
productive under conditions of increased carbon dioxide concentration. A recent study (Idso, 2013)
reviewed a large collection of such literature as it applies to the world's 45 most important food crops
(making up 95% of the world's annual agricultural production). Idso (2013) summarized his findings on
the increase in biomass of each crop that results from a 300ppm increase in the concentration of carbon
dioxide under which the plants were grown. This table is reproduced below, and shows that the typical
growth increase exceeds 30% in most crops, including 8 of the world's top 10 food crops (the increase
was 24% and 14% in the other two). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 15]
[Table, 'Average percentage increase in biomasss of each of the world's 45 most important food crops
under an increase of 300 ppm of carbon dioxide', can be found on p. 16 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1]
Idso (2013) found that the increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that took place
during the period 1961-2011 was responsible for increasing global agricultural output by 3.2 trillion
dollars (in 2004-2006 constant dollars). Projecting the increases forward based on projections of the
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, Idso (2013) expects carbon dioxide fertilization
-------
to increase the value of agricultural output by 9.8 trillion dollars (in 2004-2006 constant dollars) during
the 2012-2050 period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 16]
This is a large positive externality, and one that is insufficiently modeled in the IAMs relied upon by the
IWG in determining the SCC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.16]
In fact, only one of the three IAMs used by the IWG has any substantial impact from carbon dioxide
fertilization, and the one that does, underestimates the effect by approximately 2-3 times. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 16]
The FUND model has a component which calculates the impact on agricultural as a result of carbon
dioxide emissions, which includes not only the impact on temperature and other climate changes, but
also the direct impact of carbon dioxide fertilization. The other two IAMs, DICE and PAGE by and
large do not (or only do so extremely minimally; DICE includes the effect to a larger degree than
PAGE). Consequently, lacking this large and positive externality, the SCC calculated by the DICE and
PAGE models is significantly larger than the SCC determined by the FUND model (for example, see
Table A5, in the IWG 2013 report). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 16-17]
But even the positive externality that results from carbon dioxide fertilization as included in the FUND
model is too small when compared with the Idso (2013) estimates. FUND (v3.7) uses the following
formula to determine the degree of crop production increase resulting from atmospheric carbon dioxide
increases (taken from Anthoff and Tol, 2013a): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 17]
C02 fertilization has a positive, but saturating effect on agriculture, specified by [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p. 17]
Afu = yrln(C02t/275) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.17]
where
-Af denotes damage in agricultural production as a fraction due to the C02 fertilization by time and
region; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 17]
-t denotes time; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 17]
-r denotes region; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 17]
-C02 denotes the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (in parts per million by volume); [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 17]
-275 ppm is the pre-industrial concentration; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 17]
-y is a parameter (see Table A, column 8-9). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 17]
Column 8 in the table below shows the C02 fertilization parameter (yr) used in FUND for various
regions of the world (Anthoff and Tol, 2013b). The average C02 fertilization effect across the 16
regions of the world is 11.2%. While this number is neither a really weighted, nor weighted by the
specific crops grown, it is clear that 11.2% is much lower than the average fertilization effect compiled
by Idso (2013) for the world's top 10 food crops (35%). Further, Idso's fertilization impact is in
-------
response to a 300ppm C02 increase, while the fertilization parameter in the FUND model is multiplied
by ln(C02t/275) which works out to 0.74 for a 300ppm C02 increase. This multiplier further reduces the
16 region average to 8.4% for the C02 fertilization effect—some 4 times smaller than the magnitude of
the fertilization impact identified by Idso (2013). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 17]
[Table, 'Impact of climate change on agriculture in FUND model', can be found on p. 18 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1]
Although approximately four times too small, the impact of the fertilization effect on the SCC
calculation in the FUND model is large. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 18]
According to Waldhoff et al. (2011), if the C02 fertilization effect is turned off in the FUND model
(v3.5) the SCC increases by 75% from $8/ton C02 to $14/ton C02 (in 1995 dollars). In another study,
Ackerman and Munitz (2012) find the effective increase in the FUND model to be even larger, with
C02 fertilization producing a positive externality of nearly $15/ton C02 (in 2007 dollars). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 18]
Clearly, had the Idso (2013) estimate of the C02 fertilization impact been used instead of the one used in
FUND the resulting positive externality would have been much larger, and the resulting net SCC been
much lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.18]
This is just for one of the three IAMs used by the IWG. Had the more comprehensive C02 fertilization
impacts identified by Idso (2013) been incorporated in all the IAMs, the three-model average SCC used
by the IWG would be been greatly lowered, and likely even become negative in some IAM/discount
rate combinations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 18]
In its 2015 Response to Comments Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866, the IWG admits to the disparate ways that C02 fertilization is included in the
three IAMs. Nevertheless, the IWG quickly dismisses this as a problem in that they claim the IAMs
were selected "to reflect a reasonable range of modeling choices and approaches that collectively reflect
the current literature on the estimation of damages from C02 emissions." This logic is blatantly flawed.
Two of the IAMs do not reflect the "current literature" on a key aspect relating to the direct impact of
C02 emissions on agricultural output, and the third only partially so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-
A1 p.19]
C02 fertilization is a known physical effect from increased carbon dioxide concentrations. By including
the results of IAMs that do not include known processes that have a significant impact on the end
product must disqualify them from contributing to the final result. The inclusion of results that are
known a priori to be wrong can only contribute to producing a less accurate answer. Results should only
be included when they attempt to represent known processes, not when they leave those processes out
entirely. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 19]
The justification from the IWG (2015) that "[h]owever, with high confidence the IPCC (2013) stated in
its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) that ?'[b]ased on many studies covering a wide range of regions and
crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive ones.'"
is completely irrelevant as C02 fertilization is an impact that is apart from "climate change." And
further, the IAMs do (explicitly in the case of FUND and DICE or implicitly in the case of PAGE)
include damage functions related to the climate change impacts on agriculture. So not only is the IWG
justification irrelevant, it is inaccurate as well. The impact of C02 fertilization on agricultural output and
its impact on lowering the SCC must be considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 19]
-------
The Misleading Disconnect Between Climate Change and the Social Cost of Carbon in the Integrated
Ass ess men t Models
It is generally acknowledged, the results from IAMs are highly sensitive not only to the model input
parameters but also to how the models have been developed and what processes they try to include. One
prominent economist, Robert Pindyck of M.I.T. recently wrote (Pindyck, 2013) that the sensitivity of
the IAMs to these factors renders them useless in a policymaking environment: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p. 19]
Given all of the effort that has gone into developing and using IAMs, have they helped us resolve the
wide disagreement over the size of the SCC? Is the U.S. government estimate of $21 per ton (or the
updated estimate of $33 per ton) a reliable or otherwise useful number? What have these IAMs (and
related models) told us? I will argue that the answer is very little. As I discuss below, the models are so
deeply flawed as to be close to useless as tools for policy analysis. Worse yet, precision that is simply
illusory, and can be highly misleading. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 19]
... [A]n IAM-based analysis suggests a level of knowledge and precision that is nonexistent, and allows
the modeler to obtain almost any desired result because key inputs can be chosen arbitrarily. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p. 19]
Nevertheless, EPA has incorporated the IWG2013 determinations of the SCC into the cost/benefit
analysis of this proposed regulation—ill-advisedly so in our opinion. Consider the following: the social
cost of carbon should reflect the relative impact on future society that human-induced climate change
from greenhouse gas emissions would impose. In this way, we can decide how much (if at all) we are
willing to pay currently to reduce the costs to future society. It would seem logical that we would
probably be more willing to sacrifice more now if we knew that future society would be impoverished
and suffer from extreme climate change than we would be willing to sacrifice if we knew that future
society would be very well off and be subject to more moderate climate change. We would expect that
the value of the social cost of carbon would reflect the difference between these two hypothetical future
worlds—the SCC should be far greater in an impoverished future facing a high degree of climate change
than an affluent future with less climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.19-20]
But if you thought this, you would be wrong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.20]
Instead, the IAMs as run by the IWG2013 (and reflected in the July 2015 update) produce nearly the
opposite result—the SCC is far lower in the less affluent/high climate change future than it is in the
more affluent/low climate change future. Such a result is not only counterintuitive but misleading.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.20]
We illustrate this illogical and impractical result using the DICE 2010 model (hereafter just DICE) used
by the IWG2013 (although the PAGE and the FUND models generally show the same behavior). The
DICE model was installed and run at the Heritage Foundation by Kevin Dayaratna and David Kreutzer
using the same model set up and emissions scenarios as prescribed by the IWG2013. The projections of
future temperature change (and sea level rise, used later in the Comment) were graciously provided to
us by the Heritage Foundation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.20]
The figure below shows the projections of the future change in the earth's average surface temperature
for the years 2000-2300 produced by DICE from the five emissions scenarios employed by the
IWG2013. The numerical values on the right-hand side of the illustration are the values for the social
cost of carbon associated with the temperature change resulting from each emissions scenario (the SCC
-------
is reported for the year 2020 using constant $2007 and assuming a 3% discount rate—numbers taken
directly from Table A3 of the IWG2013 report). The temperature change can be considered a good
proxy for the magnitude of the overall climate change impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
P-20]
[Figure, 'Temperature Change (DICE)', can be found on p.21 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1]
Notice in the figure above that the value for the SCC shows little (if any) correspondence to the
magnitude of climate change. The MERGE scenario produces the greatest climate change and yet has
the smallest SCC associated with it. The "5th Scenario" is a scenario that attempts to keep the effective
concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 550 ppm (far lower than the other scenarios) has a SCC
that is more than 20% greater than the MERGE scenario. The global temperature change by the year
2300 in the MERGE scenario is 9°C while in the "5th Scenario" it is only 3°C. The highest SCC is from
the IMAGE scenario—a scenario with a mid-range climate change. All of this makes absolutely no
logical sense—and confuses the user. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.21]
If the SCC bears little correspondence to the magnitude of future human-caused climate change, than
what does it represent? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.21]
The figure below provides some insight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.21]
[Figure, 'Global GDP (DICE)', can be found on p.22 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1]
When comparing the future GDP to the SCC, we see, generally, that the scenarios with the higher future
GDP (most affluent future society) have the higher SCC values, while the futures with lower GDP (less
affluent society) have, generally, lower SCC values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.22]
Combining the results from the two figures above thus illustrates the absurdities in the IWG's use of the
DICE model. The scenario with the richest future society and a modest amount of climate change
(IMAGE) has the highest value of the SCC associated with it, while the scenario with the poorest future
society and the greatest degree of climate change (MERGE) has the lowest value of the SCC. A logical,
thinking person would assume the opposite. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.22]
While we only directly analyzed output data from the DICE model, by comparing Tables 2 and Tables 3
from the IWG2010 report, it can be ascertained that the FUND and the PAGE models behave in a
similar fashion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.22]
This counterintuitive result occurs because the damage functions in the IAMs produce output in terms of
a percentage decline in the GDP—which is then translated into a dollar amount (which is divided by the
total carbon emissions) to produce the SCC. Thus, even a small climate change-induced percentage
decline in a high GDP future yields greater dollar damages (i.e., higher SCC) than a much greater
climate change-induced GDP percentage decline in a low GDP future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1 p.22]
Who in their right mind would want to spend (sacrifice) more today to help our rich decedents deal with
a lesser degree of climate change than would want to spend (sacrifice) today to help our relatively less-
well-off decedents deal with a greater degree of climate change? No one. Yet that is what the SCC
-------
would lead you to believe and that is what the SCC implies when it is incorporated into federal
cost/benefit analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.22]
In principle, the way to handle this situation is by allowing the discount rate to change over time. In
other words, the richer we think people will be in the future (say the year 2100), the higher the discount
rate we should apply to damages (measured in 2100 dollars) they suffer from climate change, in order to
decide how much we should be prepared to sacrifice today on their behalf. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1 p.23]
Until (if ever) the current situation is properly rectified, the IWG's determination of the SCC is not fit
for use in the federal regulatory process, such as this EPA regulation, as it is deceitful and misleading.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.23]
Sea Level Rise
The sea level rise module in the DICE model used by the IWG2013/2015 produces future sea level rise
values that far exceed mainstream projections and are unsupported by the best available science. The sea
level rise projections from more than half of the scenarios (IMAGE, MERGE, MiniCAM) exceed even
the highest end of the projected sea level rise by the year 2300 as reported in the Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see figure). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p.23]
[Figure, 'Sea Level Rise (DICE)', can be found on p.23 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1]
How the sea level rise module in DICE was constructed is inaccurately characterized by the IWG2013
(and misleads the reader). The IWG2013 report describes the development of the DICE sea level rise
scenario as: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.23]
"The parameters of the four components of the SLR module are calibrated to match consensus results
from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).6" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24]
However, in IWG2013 footnote "6" the methodology is described this way (Nordhaus, 2010): [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24]
"The methodology of the modeling is to use the estimates in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4)." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24
"Using estimates" and "calibrating" are two completely different things. Calibration implies that the sea
level rise estimates produced by the DICE sea level module behave similarly to the IPCC sea level rise
projections and instills a sense of confidence in the casual reader that the DICE projections are in
accordance with IPCC projections. However this is not the case. Consequently, the reader is misled.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A 1 p.24]
In fact, the DICE estimates are much higher than the IPCC estimates. This is even recognized by the
DICE developers. From the same reference as above: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24]
"The RICE [DICE] model projection is in the middle of the pack of alternative specifications of the
different Rahmstorf specifications. Table 1 shows the RICE, base Rahmstorf, and average Rahmstorf.
-------
Note that in all cases, these are significantly above the IPCCprojections in AR4[emphasis
added] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24]]
That the DICE sea level rise projections are far above the mainstream estimated can be further
evidenced by comparing them with the results produced by the IWG-accepted MAGICC modelling tool
(in part developed by the EPA and available from http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.24
Using the MESSAGE scenario as an example, the sea level rise estimate produced by MAGICC for the
year 2300 is 1.28 meters—a value that is less than 40% of the average value of 3.32 meters produced by
the DICE model when running the same scenario (see figure below). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-
A1 p.24]
[Figure, 'Projected Sea Level Rise (MESSAGE)', can be found on p.25 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1]
The justification given for the high sea level rise projections in the DICE model (Nordhaus, 2010) is that
they well-match the results of a "semi-empirical" methodology employed by Rahmstorf (2007) and
Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.25]
However, subsequent science has proven the "semi-empirical" approach to projecting future sea level
rise unreliable. For example, Gregory et al. (2012) examined the assumption used in the "semi-
empirical" methods and found them to be unsubstantiated. Gregory et al (2012) specifically refer to the
results of Rahmstorf (2007) and Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1
p.25]
The implication of our closure of the [global mean sea level rise, GMSLR] budget is that a relationship
between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR is weak or absent in the past. The lack of a
strong relationship is consistent with the evidence from the tide-gauge datasets, whose authors find
acceleration of GMSLR during the 20th century to be either insignificant or small. It also calls into
question the basis of the semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR, which depend on calibrating a
relationship between global climate change or radiative forcing and the rate of GMSLR from
observational data (Rahmstorf, 2007; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009; Jevrejeva et al., 2010). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.25
In light of these findings, the justification for the very high sea level rise projections (generally
exceeding those of the IPCC AR5 and far greater than the IWG-accepted MAGICC results) produced by
the DICE model is called into question and can no longer be substantiated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1206-A1 p.25]
Given the strong relationship between sea level rise and future damage built into the DICE model, there
can be no doubt that the SCC estimates from the DICE model are higher than the best science would
allow and consequently, should not be accepted by the IWG as a reliable estimate of the social cost of
carbon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.25-26]
And here again, the IWG (2015) admits that these sea level rise estimates are an outlier on the high end,
yet retains them in their analysis by claiming than they were interested in representing a "range" of
possible outcomes. But, even the IWG (2015) admits that the IPCC AR5 assigned "a low confidence in
projections based on such [semi-empirical] methods." It is internally inconsistent to claim the IPCC as
an authority for limiting the range of possibilities explored by the IAMs (which it did in the case of
-------
equilibrium climate sensitivity) and then go outside the IPCC to justify including a wildly high estimate
of sea level rise. Such inconsistencies characterize the IWG response to comments and weaken
confidence in them. We thereby suggest that our comments should be considered independently from
the IWG (2015) response. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.26
We did not investigate the sea level rise projections from the FUND or the PAGE model, but suggest
that such an analysis must be carried out prior to extending any confidence in the values of the SCC
resulting from those models—confidence that we demonstrate cannot be assigned to the DICE SCC
determinations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.26]
High Social Cost of Carbon Estimates
A few papers have appeared in the recent scientific literature that have argued that the SCC should be
considerably higher than that determined by the IWG. However, these papers suffer from serious flaws.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.26]
For example, Van den Bergh and Botzen (2014) purport to make a "conservative" estimate of the SCC
that is nearly four times larger than the central estimate made by the IWG. This estimate suffers from
the many of the issues described previously—a low discount rate, high climate sensitivity, and little to
no positive benefits from agriculture. By including all sorts of imagined bad climate outcomes—with
high monetary damages—and being largely dismissive of positive impacts, high SCC values are readily
created by the authors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.26]
Another recent analysis which arrived at an estimate of the social cost of carbon that was considerably
higher than those made by the IWG was conducted by Moore and Diaz (2015). However, a careful
examination shows that the assumptions made and methodologies employed therein produce a non-
robust and ultimately unreliable result (McKitrick, 2015). Applying a better and more thorough
methodology leads to results which are virtually opposite to those initially reported by Moore and Diaz
(2015)—one in which the social cost of carbon is quite low and perhaps even positive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1206-A1 p.26]
According to McKitrick (2015), the major underlying flaw in the Moore and Diaz paper is the reliance
on the results of Dell et al. (2012) in which a warming climate was linked to economic declines in both
rich and poor countries. Using a more up-to-date dataset, McKitrick shows that the negative economic
linkage to a warming climate is statistically insignificant and "not a robust basis for a policy assertion."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A 1 p.26]
Furthermore, McKitrick (2015) shows that if a the more standard methodology is applied, where the
temperature changes are really-weighted rather than weighted by country-level population, the
relationship between economic growth and temperature change reverses for rich countries and becomes
statistically significant. According to McKitrick (2015), "each degree of warming significantly increases
the annual income growth rate in rich countries by over 2 percentage points," while in poor countries,
the relationship "is statistically insignificant." In conclusion, McKitrick (2015) finds: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1206-A1 p.27]
The fact that the relevant poor-country coefficients are statistically insignificant implies they should not
have been relied upon in Moore and Diaz (2015). And since the rich country coefficient corresponding
to the [integrated assessment model] IAM structure is positive and significant, Moore and Diaz (2015)
should actually have reported an acceleration of economic growth in rich countries associated with
rising temperatures and a correspondingly reduced SCC. Also, since the rich countries begin with a
-------
larger GDP it is also likely that the overall global effect of warming on income growth would be
positive, even applying the poor country coefficient. In any case the computations in Moore and Diaz
(2015) are uninformative since they used coefficients from DJO based on an incomplete sample and a
definition of temperature incompatible with their IAM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.27]
Bottom line is that the Moore and Diaz (2015) high SCC estimates as well as the Dell et al. (2012)
results upon which they were based, do not stand up under careful re-analysis. In fact, when assessed
properly, they produce a low SCC estimate, in support of our overall analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1206-A1 p.27]
And finally, Havranek et al. (2015) reviewed the collective literature on the social cost of carbon
estimates (809 estimates across 101 studies) and concluded that it suffers from selective reporting—with
negative values (i.e., social benefits of carbon dioxide emissions) being largely downplayed or
unreported. According to Havranek et al.: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.27]
Our results are consistent with a situation when some authors of primary studies report preferentially
estimates for which the 95% confidence interval excludes small values of the SCC, which creates an
upward bias in the literature. In other words, we observe that small estimates of the SCC are associated
with less uncertainty (expressed as the approximate standard error used to compute the lower bound of
the confidence interval) than large estimates. The finding suggests that some small estimates with large
uncertainty—that is, not ruling out negative values of the SCC—might be selectively omitted from the
literature. Our results also indicate that selective reporting tends to be stronger in studies published in
peer-reviewed journals than in unpublished manuscripts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.27]
After applying a correction for the selective reporting, Havranek et al., conclude that the upper bound
for the SCC from the collective literature is close to the mean value determined by the IWG—an
indication that the IWG mean value is inflated: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.27]
The result is USD 39 (= 134 • 1.07/3.67), which suggests that the upper boundary for mean estimates
reported in the literature and corrected for selective reporting is remarkably close to the central estimate
of 40 used by the US Government's Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IWGSCC,
2015). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.27-28]
Further, and rather importantly, Havranek et al., note that selective reporting likely plagues other aspects
of the climate change literature, further leading to an inflated SCC value as produced by the IWG:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.28]
Moreover, other studies suggest that some of the parameters used for the calibration of integrated
assessment models, such as climate sensitivity or the elasticity of intertemporal substitution in
consumption, are likely to be exaggerated themselves because of selective reporting, which might
further contribute to the exaggeration of the SCC reported in individual studies—including the results of
the Interagency Working Group. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.28]
Do the EPA and the IWG understand that they are contributing additional material and evidence that the
Obama Administration is involved in clear and present scientific and economic mendacity? These new
papers provide additional evidence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.28]
Conclusion on Social Cost of Carbon
-------
The social cost of carbon as determined by the Interagency Working Group in their May 2013 Technical
Support Document (updated in November 2013 and July 2015) and used by the EPA in its proposed
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles—Phase 2 is unsupported by the robust scientific literature, fraught with uncertainty, illogical,
and thus completely unsuitable and inappropriate for federal rulemaking. As such, use of the SCC in
cost/benefit analyses in this proposed rulemaking should be suspended and not revisited until to above-
mentioned weaknesses are fully rectified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.28]
Given the uncertainties that are involved, the EPA should cease the use of the SCC in this and all
regulatory analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1206-A1 p.28]
Ackerman, F., and C. Munitz, 2012. Climate damages in the FUND model: a disaggregated analysis.
Ecological Economics, 77, 219-224.
Anthoff, D., and R.S.J. Tol, 2013a. The climate framework for uncertainty, negotiation and distribution
(FUND), technical description, version 3.7, http://www.fund-model.org/publications
Anthoff, D., and R.S.J. Tol, 2013b. The climate framework for uncertainty, negotiation and distribution
(FUND), tables, version 3.7, http://www.fund-model.org/publications
Dayaratna, K., and D. Kreutzer, 2013. Comment on the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office (EERE) Proposed Rule: 2013-08-16 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products:
Landmark Legal Foundation; Petition for Reconsideration; Petition for Reconsideration; Request for
Comments, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-PET-0043-0024
Dayaratna, K., and D. Kreutzer, 2014. Unfounded FUND: Yet another EPA model not ready for the Big
Game, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/unfounded-fund-yet-another-epa-model-not-
ready-for-the-big-game.
Dell, M, et al., 2012. Temperature shocks and economic growth: evidence from the last half century.
American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 4, 66-95 http://dx.doi.Org/10.1257/mac.4.3.66
Gregory, J., et al., 2012. Twentieth-century global-mean sea-level rise: is the whole greater than the sum
of the parts? Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1, in press.
Havranek, T., et al., 2015. Selective Reporting and the Social Cost of Carbon, Energy Economics, doi:
10.1016/j.eneco.2015.08.009
Hope, C., 2013. How do the new estimates of transient climate response affect the social cost of C02?
http://www.chrishopepolicy.com/2013/05/how-do-the-new-estimates-of-transient-climate-response-
affect-the-social-cost-of-co2/ (last visited May 5, 2014)
Idso, C. 2013. The positive externalities of carbon dioxide: Estimating the monetary benefits of rising
C02 concentrations on global food production. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, 30pp.
-------
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Solomon, S., et al. (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 996pp.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. Climate Change 20013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Final Draft Accepted in the 12th Session of Working Group I and the 36th Session of
the IPCC on 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden.
McKitrick, R., 2015. Comment on: Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent
mitigation policy, by Moore and Diaz. Nature Climate Change, in review.
Moore, F.C. and Diaz, D.B., 2015. Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent
mitigation policy. Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2481.
Nordhaus, W., 2010. Projections of Sea Level Rise (SLR),
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/SLR_021910.pdf
Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C.
Johnson, R. Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens, and M. R.
Allen, 2013. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geoscience, 6, 415-416.
Pindyck, R. S., 2013. Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? Journal of Economic
Literature, 51(3), 860-872.
Rahmstorf, S., 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science, 315, 368-
370, doi: 10.1126/science. 1135456.
Ring, M.J., et al., 2012. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmospheric and
Climate Sciences, 2, 401-415, doi: 10.4236/acs.2012.24035.
Sherwood, S. C., S. Bony, and J-D. Dufresne, 2014. Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to
atmospheric convective mixing. Nature, 505,37-42, doi:10.1038/naturel2829.
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2013. The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes
during 1955-2011 simulated with a ID climate model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science,
doi: 10.1007/sl3143-014-0011-z.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., and W.J.W. Botzen, 2014. A lower bound to the social cost of C02 emissions.
Nature Climate Change, 4, 253-258, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2135.
Vermeer, M. and S. Rahmstorf, 2009. Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106, 51, 21527-21532, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907765106.
Waldhoff, S., Anthoff, D., Rose, S., and R.S.J. Tol, 2011. The marginal damage costs of different
greenhouse gases: An application of FUND. Economics, The Open-Access E-Journal, No. 2011-43,
http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2011-43
-------
Wigley, T.M.L., et al. MAGICC/SCENGEN v5.3. Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas
Induced Climate Change/A Regional Climate Scenario Generator.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/
Response:
The comments regarding the SC-C02 estimates and general application in a rulemaking context mirror
those submitted to the Office of Management and Budget's separate comment solicitation on the SC-
C02 (78 FR 70586; November 26, 2013). As a member of the interagency working group (IWG) on
SC-CO2, EPA has carefully examined and evaluated comments submitted to OMB's separate
solicitation. EPA has also carefully examined and evaluated all comments received regarding SC-C02
through this rulemaking process and determined that the IWG responses to the comments on the OMB
solicitation address this commenter's statements about SC-C02 (use of global values, treatment of
equilibrium climate sensitivity, C02 fertilization and sea level rise in the models, the validity of
integrated assessment models used to develop the estimates) and use of the estimates in this RIA.
Specifically, EPA concurs with the IWG's response to these comments and hereby incorporates them by
reference.218
Furthermore, EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the OMB Response to Comments on
SC-CO2 does not address the commenter's statements, which were submitted both to this rulemaking
and to OMB's separate comment solicitation on SC-C02 (78 FR 70586; November 26, 2013). The
commenter has not provided evidence supporting their assertion they have not received a response that
addresses their comments; the remainder of this response elaborates on this point.
Also, EPA and other members of the U.S. Interagency Working Group on the SC-C02 are seeking
independent expert advice on technical opportunities to update the SC-C02 estimates from the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A committee convened by the Academies is
reviewing the state of the science on estimating the SC-C02, and will provide expert, independent
advice on the merits of different technical approaches for modeling and highlight research priorities
going forward. The Academies' review will focus on the SC-C02 methodology, but recommendations
on how to update many of the underlying modeling assumptions will also likely pertain to the SC-CH4
and SC-N20 estimates. Going forward, the EPA will evaluate its approach to estimating the SC-C02,
SC-CH4, and SC-N20 based upon any feedback received from the Academies' panel.
After careful evaluation of the full range of comments and associated technical issues described in this
RTC, EPA has determined that it will continue to use the SC-GHG estimates in the final rulemaking
analysis. In particular, the current SC-C02 estimates and the Marten et al. SC-CH4 and SC-N20
estimates represent the best scientific information on the impacts of climate change available in a form
appropriate for incorporating the damages from incremental emissions changes into regulatory analysis.
Therefore, EPA has presented these estimates in this rulemaking. EPA will continue to consider these
comments and will share the recommendations with the IWG as it moves forward with the Academies
process.
The remainder of this section elaborates on the points raised by the commenter in the context of this
rulemaking.
218 Referred to as the "OMB Response to Comments on SC-C02." See
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-response-to-comments-final-july-2015.pdf.
-------
Global and domestic values
See response to "Mannix, Brian," in RTC Section 11.8.
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
The EPA strongly disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the Interagency Working Group on the
social cost of carbon (IWG) does not give credence to mainstream science, in particular for studies on
equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The EPA is aware that this is an active area of research and as
stated in OMB's Response to Comments on the SC-C02, the IWGremains committed to updating the
SC-C02 estimates to incorporate new scientific information and accurately reflect the current state of
scientific uncertainty regarding the ECS. While EPA acknowledges that the ECS distribution, along
with other climate modeling inputs to the SC-C02 calculation, should be updated periodically to reflect
the latest scientific consensus, care must be exercised in selecting an appropriate range of estimates for
this important parameter. Many studies estimating climate sensitivity have been published, based on a
variety of approaches (instrumental record, paleoclimate observations, models, etc.). These individual
studies report differing values and provide different information. Picking a single study from the high or
low end of the range, or even in the middle, will exclude relevant information. A valid representation of
uncertainty regarding climate sensitivity should be obtained from a synthesis exercise such as that done
by the IPCC that considers the full range of relevant studies.
As noted in the SC-C02 TSDs, the EPA and the other IWG members are committed to periodic updates
in the estimates to reflect ongoing developments in our understanding of the science and economics of
climate change.219 Moreover, the EPA has determined that the current SC-C02 estimates continue to
represent the best scientific information on the impacts of climate change available in a form
appropriate for incorporating the damages from incremental C02 emissions changes into regulatory
analyses. As previously noted, the EPA and other members of the U.S. Interagency Working Group on
the social cost of carbon are seeking independent expert advice on technical opportunities to update
these estimates from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
To date, the Committee has released an interim report, which recommended against doing a near term
update of the SC-C02 estimates. In particular, the Committee concluded that the "equilibrium climate
sensitivity (ECS) is only one parameter affecting the social cost of carbon (SCC). Each of the three SCC
integrated assessment models also embodies a different representation of the climate system and its
underlying uncertainties, including relationships and parameters beyond the ECS. Therefore, updating
the ECS alone within the current SCC framework may not significantly improve the estimates." (PDF
page 56).220
The Committee elaborated:
219 EPA notes that the 2013 update was based on new versions of each IAM. The 2013 update did not revisit the
2010 modeling decisions with regards to the discount rate, reference case socioeconomic and emission scenarios,
and equilibrium climate sensitivity distribution. Rather, improvements in the way damages are modeled are
confined to those that have been incorporated into the latest versions of the models by the developers themselves
and published in the peer-reviewed literature.
220 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Assessment of Approaches to Updating
the Social Cost of Carbon: Phase 1 Report on a Near-Term Update. Committee on Assessing Approaches to
Updating the Social Cost of Carbon, Board on Environmental Change and Society. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press, doi: 10.17226/21898. See PDF page 56, for quoted text.
-------
. .there would not be sufficient benefit of modifying the estimates to merit a near-term update
that would be based on revising a specific parameter in the existing framework used by the IWG
to reflect the most recent scientific consensus on how global mean temperature is, in
equilibrium, affected by C02 emissions. Furthermore, the committee does not recommend
changing the distributional form used to capture uncertainty in the equilibrium C02 emissions-
temperature relationship. Rather than simply updating the distribution used for equilibrium
climate sensitivity—the link that translates C02 emissions to global temperature change—in the
current framework, the IWG could undertake efforts toward the adoption or development of a
common representation of the relationship between C02 emissions and global mean surface
temperature change, its uncertainty, and its profile over time" (page 12).
For future revisions, the Committee recommended the IWG move efforts towards a broader update of
the climate system module consistent with the most recent, best available science, and also offered
recommendations for how to enhance the discussion and presentation of uncertainty in the SC-C02
estimates. Specifically, the Committee recommended that "the IWG provide guidance in their technical
support documents about how [SC-C02] uncertainty should be represented and discussed in individual
regulatory impact analyses that use the [SC-C02]" and that the technical support document for each
update of the estimates present a section discussing the uncertainty in the overall approach, in the
models used, and uncertainty that may not be included in the estimates. At the time of this writing, the
IWG is reviewing the interim report and considering the recommendations. The EPA looks forward to
working with the IWG to respond to the recommendations and will continue to follow IWG guidance on
SC-C02.
EPA also notes that at the time the 2013 SC-C02 update was released, the most authoritative statement
about ECS appeared in the IPCC's AR4. Since that time, the IPCC issued a Fifth Assessment Report
that updated its discussion of the likely range of climate sensitivity compared to AR4. The new
assessment reduced the low end of the assessed likely range (high confidence) from 2°C to 1.5°C, but
retained the high end of the range at 4.5°C. Unlike in AR4, the new assessment refrained from
indicating a central estimate of ECS. This assessment is based on a comprehensive review of the
scientific literature and reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record for the
atmosphere and oceans, and new estimates of radiative forcing.
Several of the post-AR4 studies highlighted by the commenter were cited in the AR5 assessment. In
particular, both Aldrin et al. (2012) and Otto et al. (2013) were cited in both Chapter 10 and Chapter 12
of the AR5 Working Group I assessment. Eight of the authors of Otto et al. (2013), including the lead
author, were authors of Chapter 12 for AR5's Working Group I and one was a lead author for the
chapter. Hence it is clear that the IPCC considered Otto et al. (2013) in its synthesis of literature on the
ECS. More broadly, the AR5 climate sensitivity distribution likely incorporates much of the literature
identified by the commenters. EPA will continue to follow and evaluate the latest science on the ECS.
As discussed in Section I. A.2 of the Preamble, the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and in the OMB
Response to Comments on SC-C02, among other resources, the links between C02 and temperature are
established beyond question by laboratory measurements, physical theory, paleoclimate observations,
instrumental observations, and observations of other planets. Climate change and its impacts, such as
sea level rise, have been exhaustively documented, and synthesized internationally by the IPCC and
domestically by the U.S. National Climate Assessment. Based on the wide acceptance of these
conclusions in the scientific community, EPA believes that: (1) anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases are causing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to rise to levels
unprecedented in human history; (2) the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is exerting
a warming effect on the global climate; (3) there are multiple lines of evidence, including increasing
average global surface temperatures, rising ocean temperatures and sea levels, and shrinking ice in
-------
glaciers, ice sheets, and the Arctic, all showing that climate change is occurring, and that the rate of
climate change in the past few decades has been unusual in the context of the past 1000 years; (4) there
is compelling evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of
recent observed increases in average global temperature; (5) atmospheric levels of most greenhouse
gases are expected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future; and (6) risks and impacts to public
health and welfare are expected to grow as climate change continues, and that climate change over this
century is expected to be greater compared to observed climate change over the past century.
While there are inherent uncertainties associated with modeling climate systems over long time spans,
the general circulation models (GCMs) upon which estimates of ECS and other climate science research
are based have been extensively evaluated. For example, since 1989 the DOE has had a large program
(The Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison) dedicated to evaluating these models.
The ECS parameter is a useful parameter for summarizing the strength of the climate system's response
to accumulating GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. However, it is influenced by many highly
complex and uncertain natural processes, some of which adjust over very long periods of time.
Therefore, persistent uncertainty about the ECS is not surprising. Furthermore, persistent uncertainty
does not suggest an absence of useful information. However, EPA does not agree that progress has not
been made in reducing this uncertainty. Over the last 30 years the scientific community has elucidated
many aspects of the climate system's response to GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere. While the
AR5 "likely" range is slightly larger than that of AR4, the assessment presented greater confidence in
the tails. AR5 found that climate sensitivity is very unlikely to be greater than 6°C, whereas AR4 stated
that the "lack of strong constraints limiting high climate sensitivities prevents the specification of a 95th
percentile bound." Similarly, while the AR5 and the IPCC's (2001) Third Assessment Report (TAR)
bounds look similar, the TAR bounds were presented as a range without estimated probabilities.
Comments on C02 Fertilization and on Sea Level Rise
The commenter has misconstrued the IWG's response to comments (in the OMB RTC on SC- C02) on
carbon fertilization, also referred to as C02 fertilization.221 The commenter (Michaels and
Knappenberger) has referenced text that responded to conflicting public comments, which were
submitted to OMB's separate solicitation, about damage functions. In particular, these public comments
"disagreed about whether the IAMs overestimate or underestimate C02 fertilization effects in the
agriculture and forestry sectors" (OMB Response to Comments on SC-C02, page 9). The IWG
response, which is only partially quoted by this commenter, acknowledged uncertainty about climate
change impacts on agriculture and quoted the IPCC's observation that findings from the peer-reviewed
literature of negative impacts of climate change on crop yields are more common than positive impacts.
Specifically, the IWG stated on page 10:
"As a result there is uncertainty as to the magnitude of these impacts and the role of interactions
between changes in the climate and other factors, such as C02 fertilization, temperature,
precipitation, ozone, pests, etc. Additionally, these effects are likely to vary widely across
regions and crops. However, with high confidence the IPCC (2013) stated in its Fifth
Assessment Report (AR5) that "[b]ased on many studies covering a wide range of regions and
crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive
impacts."
221 See OMB Response to Comments on SC-C02, pages 9-10,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-response-to-comments-final-iulv-2015.pdf.
-------
The distinction that the commenter draws here between COThe "positive impacts" mentioned in this
passage from AR5 include primarily studies from high-latitude regions but do not exclude the effects of
C02 fertilization. In fact, the IPCC explicitly states that there are "stimulatory effects on crop yields"
associated with C02 fertilization and correctly identifies C02 fertilization as one of multiple factors that
interact with changes in the climate.222
The commenter's misinterpretation of the IWG response and AR5 passage notwithstanding, EPA
disagrees with the commenter's assertion that models that exclude "known processes" should be
omitted. To date, the EPA and other members of the IWG have accepted the models as currently
constituted, and omitted any damages or beneficial effects that the model developers themselves do not
include. The EPA recognizes that none of the three IAMs fully incorporates all climate change impacts,
either positive or negative. Some of the effects (e.g., damages related to agriculture broadly and C02
fertilization specifically) are explicitly modeled in the damage functions of one or more of the current
models (although the treatment may not be complete), and the model developers continue to update their
models as new research becomes available. The IWG undertook the 2013 revision because of updates to
the models, which include new or enhanced representation of certain impacts, such as sea level rise
damages. In addition, some of the categories are currently speculative or cannot be incorporated into the
damage function for lack of appropriate data. Using an ensemble of three different models was intended
to, at least partially, address the fact that no single model includes all of the impacts. We recognize that
there may be effects that none of the three selected models addresses (e.g., impacts from ocean
acidification) or that are likely not fully captured (e.g. catastrophic effects). However, EPA strongly
disagrees with the commenter that models that do not include all known processes should therefore be
omitted. The science underlying the assessment and valuation of climate change impacts is constantly
evolving. In 2007 the Ninth Circuit Court remanded a CAFE fuel economy rule to DOT for failing to
monetize the benefits of the C02 emissions reductions in its regulatory impact analysis, noting that "the
value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero."223 As discussed in this document and in the
RIA, EPA has determined that the current estimates continue to represent the best scientific information
on the impacts of climate change available in a form appropriate for incorporating the damages from
incremental C02 emissions changes into regulatory analyses.
EPA acknowledges the comments on the sea level rise projections in DICE and the Agency recognizes
that sea level rise projections are an area of ongoing research. One key issue involves projections of
melt from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The IPCC AR5 report notes there is a possibility
of sea level rise "substantially above" their best estimate of a likely range because of uncertainties
regarding the response of the Antarctic ice sheet (AR5 Working Group I, Chapter 13). In AR5 the IPCC
also discusses semi-empirical methods, stating a low confidence in projections based on such methods,
which calibrate a mathematical model against observations rather than projecting individual processes.
However, the IPCC did not entirely discount these methods. Further supporting the use of semi-
empirical methods, the U.S. National Climate Assessment uses an average of the high end of semi-
empirical projections in order to define their "Intermediate-High" Scenario (Parris et al., 2012).
Additionally, recent NRC assessments have also produced higher sea level rise projections than the
IPCC: the NRC Sea Level Rise assessment projects a global sea level rise of 0.5 to 1.4 meters (1.6 to 4.6
feet) by 2100, the NRC National Security Implications assessment suggests that "the Department of the
222 The paragraph in AR5 that elaborates on the observation about the frequency of studies finding negative
impacts compared to positive impacts states, "C02 has stimulatory effects on crop yields in most cases, and
elevated tropospheric ozone has damaging effects. Interactions among C02and ozone, mean temperature,
extremes, water, and nitrogen are non-linear and difficult to predict (medium confidence)" (WGII, AR5 Part A, pg
47).
223 See http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gOv/datastore/opinions/2007/l 1/14/0671891.pdf.
-------
Navy should expect roughly 0.4 to 2 meters [1.3 to 6.6 feet] global average sea-level rise by 2100,"34
and the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment states that an increase of 3°C will lead to a sea
level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter (1.6 to 3.3 feet) by 2100. Therefore, it is reasonable for one out of three
models used by the IWG to include some reliance upon semi-empirical methods.
EPA continues to find this response, which was also presented by the IWG in the OMB Response to
Comments on SC-C02, to be valid and relevant, and therefore disagrees with the commenter's
suggestion that EPA disregard it. In particular, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that
the IWG has inconsistently used the IPCC to justify methodological decisions, such as the development
of the ECS distribution, and the treatment of sea level rise in DICE. The IPCC is an authoritative
assessment but it is not the only assessment of the peer-reviewed literature. The fact that the IPCC AR5
did not entirely discount semi-empirical methods and the fact that both the highly credible and
extensively reviewed U.S. National Climate Assessment and assessments from the National Research
Council projected higher rates of sea level rise than did the IPCC led EPA and other members of the
IWG to conclude that this approach is reasonable for one of the three models.224
Moreover, the commenter has not demonstrated why or how this response lacks validity, particularly in
light of the fact that EPA and the other members of the IWG are seeking independent expert advice on
technical opportunities to update the SC-C02 estimates from the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. EPA is aware that more sophisticated yet still relatively simplified climate
models, such as MAGICC, could be used to replace the highly simplified climate science components of
the three IAMs. However, given the range of climate models available and the technical issues
associated with such a change, replacing the climate modules or other structural features of the IAMs
requires additional investigation before it can be applied to SC-C02 estimation. A committee convened
by the Academies is reviewing the state of the science on estimating the SC-C02, and will provide
expert, independent advice on the merits of different technical approaches for modeling and highlight
research priorities going forward.
Integrated Assessment Models Used to Estimate the SC-C02
EPA strongly disagrees that the estimates are "deceitful and misleading." The SC-C02 TSDs fully
document the methodology used to develop the estimates and the considerations that led the IWG to
adopt this methodology. EPA acknowledges uncertainty in the SC-C02 estimates but disagrees that the
uncertainty is so great as to undermine use of the SC-C02 estimates in regulatory impact analysis. The
uncertainty in the SC-C02 estimates is fully acknowledged and comprehensively discussed in the TSDs
and supporting academic literature. As noted in the SC-C02TSDs, the EPA and the other IWG members
are committed to periodic updates in the estimates to reflect ongoing developments in our understanding
of the science and economics of climate change, including the treatment of uncertainty.
Regarding the models, DICE, FUND, and PAGE are the most widely used and widely cited models in
the economic literature that link physical impacts to economic damages for the purposes of estimating
the SCC. As stated in the 2010 TSD:
These models are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and used in the IPCC
assessment. ... These models are useful because they combine climate processes, economic
224 As stated in the 2014 National Climate Assessment, page 3, the NCA "draws from a large body of scientific,
peer-reviewed research, as well as a number of other publicly available sources" that have been "carefully
reviewed... to ensure a reliable assessment of the state of scientific understanding." See
http://nca2014. globalchange. gov/downloads.
-------
growth, and feedbacks between the climate and the global economy into a single modeling
framework. ... Other IAMs may better reflect the complexity of the science in their modeling
frameworks but do not link physical impacts to economic damages.
In addition, the National Academies of Science (NAS) identified these three models as "the most widely
used impact assessment models" in a 2010 report (NAS, 2010). Furthermore, in a comprehensive
literature review and meta-analysis conducted in 2008, the vast majority of the independent impact
estimates that appeared in the peer-reviewed literature were derived from FUND, DICE, or PAGE (Tol,
2008).
While the development of the DICE, FUND and PAGE models necessarily involved assumptions and
judgments on the part of the modelers, the damage functions are not simply arbitrary representations of
the modelers' opinions about climate damages. Rather they are based on a review by the modelers of the
currently available literature on the effects of climate change on society. The conclusions that the
modelers draw from the literature, and the bases for these conclusions are documented, and all three
models are continually updated as new information becomes available. While EPA recognizes that there
are limitations with these models, including some of those discussed in Pindyck (2013), IAMs
nonetheless provide valuable information for regulatory impact analysis. In a recent article in the peer-
reviewed literature, Weyant (2014) addressed this issue as follows:
While Pindyck's observations about the empirical weaknesses of IAMs or calculations of the
SCC are worthy of careful study, the conclusion that IAMs are therefore useless fundamentally
misconceives the enterprise. IAMs and the [SC-C02] are conceptual frameworks for dealing
with highly complex, non-linear, dynamic, and uncertain systems. The human mind is incapable
of solving all the equations simultaneously, and modeling allows making "If..., then..."
analyses of the impacts of different factors. The models have provided important insights into
many aspects of climate-change policy.
EPA has thus determined that it was appropriate for the IWG to base the SC-C02 estimates on the
DICE, FUND and PAGE models. Moving forward, EPA will continue to follow and evaluate the latest
peer reviewed literature applying IAMs. As previously noted, EPA and all of the other IWG members
will seek external expert advice on the technical merits and challenges of using additional models (e.g.,
CRED, ENVISAGE) to estimate the SC-C02 and/or removing existing models from the ensemble
(DICE, FUND, and PAGE) used to estimate the SC-C02.
Regarding potential inconsistencies between scenarios and IAMs, given the nature of estimating the SC-
C02 and available data/resources, a full harmonization along all possible dimensions of the three IAMs
used to estimate the SC-C02 with the four models used to develop the scenarios was not possible.
Therefore, the IWG chose to harmonize the models with respect to the scenario variables to which SC-
C02 estimates are most sensitive (GDP, population, and emissions) using common techniques in the
literature. The scenarios used were developed by highly respected international modeling groups and
published in the peer-reviewed literature. In terms of potential inconsistencies across scenario variables
past 2100, an effort was made to account for some basic correlations among scenario variables in the
post-2100 extrapolation. For example, extrapolations were based on GDP per capita growth, which
implicitly correlates population and GDP growth, rather than GDP levels or growth alone. Similarly,
extrapolations were based on C02 emissions intensity with respect to GDP, which correlates emissions
and GDP growth, rather than C02 emissions levels or growth alone.
Consistent with historical observations, it is expected that growth rates of rapidly developing economies
will exceed those of already developed economies in the near term. Scenarios with projections of global
economic growth that exceed recent trends in developed economies are consistent with this expectation.
-------
The chosen scenarios capture a wide range of potential future states of the world, but were not intended
to represent a comprehensive accounting of the full range of uncertainty, and therefore it is possible that
future outcomes will fall outside of this range. EPA and the members of the IWG have acknowledged
that the projection of the scenarios beyond 2100 has greater uncertainty than shorter-term projections
and will continue to monitor the literature, including the development of extended RCP/SSP scenarios,
for ways to improve the estimated trajectories and improve internal consistency.
11.8 Monetized Non-GHG Health Impacts
Organization: BYD Motors
The current version of the plan will have real benefits for public health and will provide total cost of
ownership benefits for fleet operators over the life of the vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1
p.l] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.227.]]
Response:
We agree that the rulemaking will have real benefits for the public and have demonstrated these benefits
in the regulatory impact analysis that accompanies this rulemaking.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Scope of costs and benefits
The NPRM requests comment on whether any costs or benefits are omitted from the analysis. CARB
staff supports the inclusion of all quantifiable impacts of reductions in GHG and non-GHG pollutants.
Specifically, CARB staff suggests the inclusion of ecosystem benefits from reduced non-GHG
pollutants including those to crops as outlined in Murphy et al. (1999). Changes in fugitive emissions
from altered driving patterns on paved roads may also impact agriculture and ecosystem health. These
impacts should be included in the analysis to the extent that they can be quantified.79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 182]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Economic value of reduction in criteria pollutants
The NPRM requests comment on the economic valuation of reductions in criteria pollutants resulting
from the proposed rulemaking. CARB staff supports the inclusion of criteria pollutant emission
reductions as well as consideration of the impacts on toxic air contaminants such as diesel PM. CARB
staff also suggests the impact of local pollutants be based on source-specific estimates of marginal
damage.86 CARB staff supports continued full-scale air quality modeling for the final rulemaking to
capture local variability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 186]
-------
79 (Murphy et al., 1999) Murphy, J.J., M.A. Delucchi, D.R. McCubbin, and H.J. Kim, "The cost of crop
damage caused by ozone air pollution from motor vehicles," Journal of Environmental
Management: 55, 273-289.
86 (Muller and Mendelsohn, 2009) Muller, N.Z. and Mendelsohn, R., "Efficient pollution regulation:
getting the prices right," American Economic Review: 99(5), 1714-39. (Muller and Mendelsohn, 2012)
Muller, N.Z. and Mendelsohn, R., "Efficient pollution regulation: getting the prices right: reply,"
American Economic Review: 102(1), 608-12.
Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter that the analysis would benefit from the full inclusion of all
quantifiable impacts of reductions in GHG and non-GHG pollutants. EPA endeavors to include all of
the human health and environmental impacts that can be quantified and monetized. However, the full
complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM, ozone, other criteria pollutants,
and toxic air pollutants remain unquantified because of current limitations in methods or available data.
We have not quantified a number of known or suspected health effects linked with ozone, PM, and other
criteria pollutants for which appropriate health impact functions are not available or which do not
provide easily interpretable outcomes (e.g., changes in heart rate variability). Regarding diesel PM, a
toxic air pollutant, we do not estimate the change in health risk associated with reductions in diesel PM
based on current limitations in methods and available data. However, we capture benefits related to
reductions in diesel PM to the extent that diesel PM is included in measured PM2 5. Additionally, we are
unable to quantify a number of known welfare effects, including reduced crop damage, reduced acid and
particulate deposition damage to cultural monuments and other materials, and environmental benefits
due to reductions of impacts of eutrophication in coastal areas. As a result, the health benefits
quantified in this section are likely underestimates of the total benefits attributable to the standards.
Please refer to Appendix 8A (and Table 8A-2) for a full description of the health and welfare impacts
EPA is currently able to quantify.
EPA had planned on including PM- and ozone-related health benefits based on full-scale photochemical
modeling in its analysis for the FRM. However, as described in Chapter 8.6 of the RIA, we have not
included the results from the primary analysis because, out of necessity, the air quality modeling was
based on emissions inventories that reflected the form of the standards as they were proposed, not
finalized (air quality modeling results are presented in Appendix 6A). The length of time needed to
prepare the inventories and run the air quality model required EPA to make air quality modeling input
decisions early in the analytical process, and therefore made it impossible to base the health impacts
analysis on the emissions changes associated with the final rulemaking.
The chief limitation when using air quality inventories based on emissions from the proposal is that they
can diverge from the estimated emissions of the final rulemaking. How much the emissions might
diverge and how that difference would impact the air quality modeling and health benefit results is
difficult to anticipate. For the FRM, EPA concluded that when comparing the proposal and final rule
inventories, the differences were enough to justify moving the typical Calendar Year (CY) benefits
analysis (based on air quality modeling) from the primary estimate of costs and benefits to a
supplemental analysis presented in Appendix 8A.225 While we believe this supplemental analysis is still
illustrative of the standard's potential benefits, EPA has instead chosen to characterize the CY benefits
in the primary analysis in a manner consistent with the Model Year (MY) lifetime analysis. That is, we
225 See Chapter 5 of the RIA for a presentation and discussion of the differences between the proposal inventories
used to conduct the air quality modeling and the final rule inventories.
-------
apply PM-related "benefits per-ton" values to the CY final rule emission reductions to estimate the PM-
related benefits of the final rule.
Organization: Fuller, Tony
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 149.]
Also I was thinking given the larger role the Federal government has been taking in healthcare and the
costs associated with it, the monetary savings for the government alone should be a factor that should be
considered.
Response:
EPA agrees that avoided health care costs from improvements in air quality should be accounted for in
our rulemaking analyses. We account for criteria pollutant-related health improvement benefits in our
regulatory impact analysis that supports this rulemaking.
11.9 Energy Security Impacts
Organization: Achates Power, et al.
The rulemaking has the potential to secure an even safer future by saving up to 200,000 more barrels of
oil per day by 2035.1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1762-A2 p.2]
1 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Newly Proposed Heavy-duty Truck Efficiency Standards for
2018-2029, (July 2015), available at http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/proposed-
heavy-duty-vehicles-standards.pdf.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Energy security analysis
The NPRM requests comment on the estimation of energy security benefits of the proposed rulemaking.
CARB staff supports the estimation of energy security benefits and suggests that the benefit to national
defense be included in the estimation. The National Research Council (2013) estimates that inclusion of
the impact to national defense could impact the estimation of energy security benefit by 25 percent.
CARB staff recommends additional analysis to determine methodologies to incorporate the impact of
national defense in the analysis of energy security.87 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 186]
87 (NAS, 2013) National Research Council, "Transitions to alternative vehicles and fuels," The National
Academies Press: Washington, D.C.
Organization: Competitive Enterprise Institute et al.
-------
Although the ostensible purpose of the rule is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and oil
imports, the climate and energy-security benefits of the rule are entirely speculative and vanishingly
small at best. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.2
II. The rule's climate and energy security benefits are vanishingly small at best and completely
unverifiable.
The proposed standards, which phase in during model-years 2021-2027, apply to four types of HDVs:
(1) combination tractors (semi-trucks), (2) trailers pulled by combination tractors, (2) heavy-duty
pickups and vans, and (4) vocational trucks (a wide-ranging assortment of trucks and buses). The
agencies estimate that the technologies needed to comply with the proposed standards will cost $25
billion but that the rule will generate $230 billion in net benefits over the lifetime of vehicles sold in the
regulatory timeframe, including $170 billion in fuel savings.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.5-
6]
Although the ostensible objectives of the rule are to reduce GHG emissions and oil consumption, the
climate and energy-security benefits, if any, are speculative and no one will actually experience them.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.6]
Energy Security Impact The agencies argue that the "concentration" of global petroleum production in
"potentially unstable" countries poses a significant energy-security risk to the U.S. economy. They
worry that turmoil or conflict in those nations could cut global petroleum supply by as much as 10%,
"leading to an unprecedented price shock." They are also concerned that OPEC could use "monopoly
power" to "restrict oil supply relative to demand."16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.7]
While such risks are possible, their likelihood is small and diminishing. Despite ongoing warfare in
Middle East, UN sanctions that cut Iran's oil exports nearly in half,17 Russia's invasion of Crimea,18 and
continuing warfare in Ukraine,19 the price of crude oil is lower than at any time since February 2009.20
U.S. motorists enjoyed the lowest Labor Day gasoline prices in a decade.21 The decline in oil and
gasoline prices, despite geopolitical tensions, is a testament to the ingenuity of U.S. producers, who
have used directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing to increase domestic production every year since
2008.22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.8]
Rather than restrict output to raise prices, OPEC is following a "no production cuts" policy,23 with Saudi
Arabia increasing output to a record 10.4 million barrels per day (MMBD) in the second quarter of
2015.24 Perhaps OPEC members simply don't want to lose even more market share to North American
producers. Or perhaps they want to drive oil prices below the U.S. fracking industry's production costs.
Whatever the case, the proposed rule would do nothing to diminish Russia and OPEC's share of world
oil production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.8]
Other policies would more effectively shift global production from Russia and OPEC to the United
States and Canada. Those include repeal of the crude oil export ban,25 timely approval of major
infrastructure projects such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, and allowing more oil and gas exploration in
U.S. coastal waters and federal lands, such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).26 The
White House recently declined to comment on an Energy Information Administration (EIA) study
finding net economic benefits from oil exports,27 and the administration's policies on Keystone28 and
ANWR29 are counterproductive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.9]
-------
NHTSA estimates its fuel economy standards will reduce U.S. oil imports by 0.16 MMBD in 2025, 0.37
MMBD in 2030, and 0.65 MMBD in 2040.30 So by 2040, the rule would avoid 10% of projected
imports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.9]
[Table IX-23 can be found on p.9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
Imports as a share of total production declined from 60% in 2005,31 to 40% in 2012,32 to 27% in
2014.33 EIA expects the decline in import dependence to continue. The agency's 2015 Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO 2015) forecasts net U.S. oil and petroleum product imports in four cases. In the reference
case, the net import share falls from 33% in 2013 to 17% in 2040.34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-
A2 p.9]
[Figure ES4 can be found on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
If imports as a share of consumption fall to 17% in 2040, and the proposed rule cuts imports by 10%, it
will reduce national consumption by 1.7%. Such a minor change would do little to ameliorate price
shocks from major disruptions in global petroleum supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.10]
16 80 FR 40465
17 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Under sanctions, Iran's crude oil exports have nearly
halved in three years, June 24, 2015, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=21792
18 Amanda Macias, "A detailed look at how Russia annexed Crimea," Business Insider, March 24,
2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/how-russia-took-crimea-2015-3
19 James Miller, "Russian-Backed Rebels Are Restarting the War in Ukraine," FP, June 8, 2015,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/08/russian-backed-rebels-are-restarting-the-war-in-ukraine/
20 Reuters, "U.S. oil ends down at $38.24 a barrel; lowest since February 2009," August 24, 2015,
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/23/
21 Sanjay Salomon, "Will gas prices drop to $2 a gallon? AAA says yes," Boston.Com, September 8,
2015, http://www.boston.com/cars/news-and-reviews/2015/09/08/will-gas-prices-drop-below-gallon-
aaa-saysyes/pIYXydqvML2jGuMHkS7ejO/story.html
22 U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA improves monthly reporting of crude oil production,
August 31, 2015, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22732
23 Rania L. Gamal and Alex Lawler, "OPEC concern widens about oil drop, but cuts still ruled out,"
Reuters, August 21, 2015, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/opec-oil-prices-
idUKL5N 1OW1C72015 0821
24 Robert Grattan, "EIA cuts 2016 oil price forecast as crude trades below 6-year low," Fuel Fix,
August 11, 2016, http://fuelfix.eom/blog/2015/08/l l/eia-cuts-2016-oil-price-forecast/#34624101=0
-------
25 Lifting the ban could increase U.S. petroleum exports by 5.7 million barrels per day by 2035 in
EIA's High Oil and Gas Resource Case if OPEC cuts output to raise crude oil prices. Charles Ebinger
and Heather L. Greenley, Changing Markets: Economic Opportunities from Lifting the U.S. Ban on
Crude Oil Exports, Policy Brief 14-02, Brookings Institution, September 2014,
http://www.brookings.edU/~/media/research/files/reports/2014/09/09%208%20facts%20about%20crude
%20oil%20production/crude%20oil%20exports%20web.pdf
26 Institute for Energy Research, Policy Area: ANWR (accessed 8/31/2015),
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/anwr/
27 Amy Harder and Christian Berthelsen, "Government Report Finds Economic Benefits of Oil
Exports," The Wall Street Journal, September 1, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/government-report-
finds-economic-benefits-ofoil-exports-1441118093
28 Josh Lederman, "Keystone XL: U.S. review taking 5 times longer than average," AP, August 12,
2015, http://news.yahoo.com/keystone-xl-review-drags-5-times-longer-average-071504564~
politics.html
29 Juliet Eilperin, "Obama administration to propose new wilderness protections in Arctic refuge -
Alaska Republicans declare war," Washington Post, January 26, 2015,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energyenvironment/wp/2015/01/25/obama-administration-to-
propose-new-wilderness-protections-in-arctic-refugealaska-republicans-declare-war/
30 80 FR 40467
31 Elizabeth Shogren, "Foreign Oil Imports Drop As U.S. Drilling Ramps Up," NPR, January 24, 2012,
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145719179/foreign-oil-imports-drop-as-u-s-drilling-ramps-up
32 U.S. Energy Information Administration, How dependent are we on foreign oil? May 10, 2013,
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/foreign_oil_dependence.cftn
33 U.S. Energy Information Administration, How much petroleum does the United States import and
from where? (accessed 8/31/2015), http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
34 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2015, April 2015, p. ES-4, Figure
ES4, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
A number of other benefits round out the total. The largest component of this category is the national
energy security benefits of reduced oil consumption and oil imports. Unlike past rulings that paid lip
service to these benefits, EPA/NHTSA value the security benefits at a little over $11/barrel in 2020,
rising to almost $18/barrel in 2040. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.48]
Organization: Investor Network on Climate Risk
Lastly, strong standards will serve to mitigate the economic risks associated with our continuing
dependence on oil as well as climate change. Strong standards would save an estimated 1.4 million
barrels of oil per day by 2030.4[NHTSA-2014-0132-°113-A1 p 2]
-------
In addition, climate change presents significant long-term risks to the global economy, and to investors
across all asset classes. Strong standards will serve to mitigate that risk by providing significant GHG
reductions; the standards we propose have the potential to save 270 million metric tons of GHG
emissions annually by 2030 4 [NHTSA-2014-0132-0113-A1 p.2]]
4 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
2014. Big fuel savings available in new trucks. Web. http://aceee.org/files/pdf/fact-sheet/truck-savings-
0614.pdf, Factsheet accessed June 29, 2015.
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts (web) - (4,452)
In addition to financial benefits, vehicle efficiency has national security and environmental benefits. By
using less petroleum, we can help reduce our imports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1252-A1 p.l]
Burning less fossil fuel also means less pollution and related illnesses such as asthma [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1252-A1 p.l]
Organization: Operation Free
I am a veteran of the United States Navy and a member of Operation Free, a nationwide coalition of
more than 5,000 veterans who advocate for securing America with clean energy. I applaud the Obama
administration for proposing standards that will make our trucks cleaner and more efficient. I joined the
military because I care deeply about protecting our country. I am here today because along with a
consensus of senior military and national security experts, I believe that we face a serious threat to our
national security: dependency on oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1175 p.l] [These comments can also
be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 191 -192.]
Although trucks are only 7% of the total number of vehicles on the roads, they consume 25% of fuel
often that same fuel that we had to protect going through the Strait of Hormuz. This marks a significant
percent of emissions relative to the number of trucks on the road. With these new regulations, we will
save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles on the road an important step in
combatting oil dependency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1175 p.2] [These comments can also be found
in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 193.]
Currently, oil is essential for the military to defend us. Everything from tanks to fighter jets to Humvees
use oil, and delivering it on the battlefield is a dangerous job. In Afghanistan, 1 in every 24 fuel convoys
ended with a casualty; oil trade routes are slow, scheduled, and frequent, making them easy targets for
the enemy. These rules benefit the military because trucks won't have to refuel as frequently, which can
be dangerous and costly in combat zones. Additionally, too much of our money for oil ends up in the
hands of hostile countries and extremist fighters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1175 p.2][These
comments can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 192-193.]
While these new EPA regulations make great strides to mitigate the impacts of carbon emissions such as
reducing GHG emissions by 1 billion metric tons over the life of vehicles on the road we must take
further measures to reduce our oil dependency in the interest of national security. Analysis shows that
with modern engineering capabilities, stronger standards could reduce trucks' fuel use by 40% by 2025.
Continued progress in environmental standards made by the EPA are vital to the well-being of our
-------
nation and the global community. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1175 p.2] [These comments can also be
found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 195-196.]
In raising our standards for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency, we strengthen our national
security by supporting the U.S. economy, increasing global stability, and sending fewer of our men and
women into harm's way. Once again, I applaud the administration for proposing standards to make our
trucks more efficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1175 p.2][These comments can also be found in
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 196.]
Organization: Securing America's Future Energy
Additional revisions should be considered to enhance the immediate effectiveness of the proposed Phase
2 standards with regard to increasing national energy security through reductions in medium-and heavy-
duty vehicle petroleum demand. These revisions would also eliminate the differential treatment of
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers relative to their light-duty counterparts, resulting in a
more seamless, integrated policy for motor vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy regulation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.l]
The U.S. transportation sector relies on oil for 92 percent of its total energy consumption. This
dependence leaves the U.S. economy vulnerable to volatile price conditions. Increasing vehicle fuel
efficiency is one of the most effective tools for decreasing the oil intensity of the U.S. economy, and
thereby enhancing economic and national security. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.3]
Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles represent the fastest growing component of U.S. transportation oil
demand. Strengthening fuel economy standards for these vehicles is a critical part of any efforts to
enhance U.S. energy security. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.3]
However, improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency alone will not insulate the U.S. economy from the
volatile oil price conditions typical of the global oil market. Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE)
recommends multiple revisions to the proposed rule that if adopted will help strengthen U.S. energy
security by achieving even greater oil savings over the long term through the wider use of medium and
heavy-duty vehicles powered by alternative fuels. Specifically, SAFE recommends: (1) extending 49
USC 32905 manufacturing incentives into the medium- and heavy-duty sector and (2) implementing
advanced technology credits for medium- and heavy-duty natural gas vehicles and reinstating them for
technologies that qualify for the credit under Phase I. SAFE also provides comments on the agency's
considerations related to upstream natural gas vehicle emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1
p.3-4] [This comment can also be found in section 12.3 of this comment summary]
The Energy Security Implications of Petroleum in Transport
Almost 40 percent of total U.S. primary energy demand is met by oil, giving it an economic significance
unmatched by any other fuel.1 The transportation sector accounts for more than 70 percent of total U.S.
oil consumption of approximately 19 mbd.2 This sector relies on oil for 92 percent of its total energy
consumption-97 percent when including ethanol blending—and has no readily available substitutes.3
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.4]
Between 2011 and 2014, the country's reliance on oil led to an average economy-wide spend of almost
$880 billion per year on petroleum products, equivalent to more than 5 percent of U.S. gross domestic
product.4 These high levels of spending—more than twice what they were in the early 2000s—strain the
budgets of consumers, businesses, and governments alike.' Higher oil prices also added $1.2 trillion to
-------
the U.S. federal debt between 2002 and 2012, and every U.S. recession for the past 40 years has been
preceded by, or coincided with, an oil price spike.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.4]
Although oil prices, and thus U.S. spending on oil, are expected to be markedly lower in 2015—a
forecast $54 per barrel versus $99 per barrel in 2014 and approximately $595 billion versus $850 billion
in 2014, respectively—total U.S. spending on petroleum fuels exceeded a combined $3.5 trillion
between 2011 and 2014.7 Households are also expected to spend less on gasoline in 2015, at levels
slightly below those last seen on an annual basis in both 2009 (during the Great Recession) and 2005.8
Nevertheless, and despite rising domestic oil production, the United States still sends nearly $1 billion
abroad each day to pay for oil, often to countries that are hostile to U.S. interests.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1282-A1 p.4]
The extreme economic importance of oil to the United States creates adverse national security
challenges. Notably, more than 50 percent of daily oil supplies transit through seven major chokepoints
in often unstable regions, particularly the Middle East.10 The U.S. military is placed in harm's way to
protect these maritime supply routes and vulnerable energy infrastructure across the globe. U.S. oil
dependence also weakens the country's ability to address foreign policy challenges, including those with
Iran. Effective sanctions on Iran's oil industry as far back as 2005 were undermined by the impact such
sanctions would have on global oil prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.4]
Uncertain events around the world also contribute to volatility in global oil markets and oil prices. For
example, conflict in Yemen has affected oil prices despite Yemen's minimal oil production capacity, in
part due to the country's strategic location adjacent to the Bab el-Mandeb strait and shared border with
Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Russia's incursions into Ukraine and subsequent international sanctions, the
emergence and expansion of Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL) in Northern Iraq and
Syria, and other developments increase concerns over the security and stability of global oil supplies.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.4-5]
The global oil market is also frequently subject to unpredictable—and sometimes anti-competitive—
behavior from oil-producing countries that supply it, most notably from members of the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). For example, the organization's November 2014 decision
not to reduce output despite a growing imbalance between global oil demand and supply helped
contribute to a more than 50 percent decline in oil prices between the summer of 2014 and January
2015, resulting in levels of oil price volatility not observed since 2009, among other impacts.11 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.5]
Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles represent a sizable portion of U.S. transportation-related oil demand.
In total, commercial trucks accounted for 2.8 mbd of U.S. oil consumption in 2013, equal to 20 percent
of transportation-related oil consumption, a share that was second only to light-duty vehicles.12 Long-
haul heavy-duty trucks accounted for more than 70 percent of the oil consumed by trucks.13 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.5]
In noticeable contrast to the light-duty vehicle segment, energy and oil use by medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles is forecast to rise, not fall, over the next 25 years from 2.8 mbd today to approximately 3.4 mbd
in 2040. This rise in demand is attributable to an increase in the number of medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles on U.S. roads (and corresponding increase in total vehicle miles driven), plus only very gradual
improvements in vehicle fuel economy. Without the Phase 2 rule, for example, the U.S. Department of
Energy forecasts that the average fuel economy of diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles will increase by
17 percent over the next 25 years, from 6.15 miles per gallon (mpg) to 7.21 mpg.14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1282-A1 p.5]
-------
Analysis commissioned by SAFE finds that achieving the improvements required by the Phase 2 rule
are both technologically feasible and cost effective.15 Subsequent analysis of the potential fuel savings
finds that demand attributable to medium and heavy-duty vehicles could decline by almost 0.5 mbd by
2030 (-13 percent) and by nearly 0.8 mbd (-20 percent) by 2040 due to the rule.16 As a result, total
onroad fuel use could decline by 4.5 percent by 2030 and 7.5 percent by 2040, respectively.17
Reductions of this magnitude are good for the security and economic prosperity of the United States. As
such, SAFE supports the rulemaking with the following recommendations aimed at strengthening the
energy security aspects of the proposed rule and increasing the flexibility of the rule to facilitate real-
world compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.5]
Before finalizing the Phase 2 fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards, there are several
issues SAFE believes that EPA and NHTSA could address to enhance their immediate effectiveness
with regard to strengthening U.S. energy security through reductions in medium- and heavy-duty oil
use. The suggested revisions would also eliminate the differential treatment of medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle manufacturers relative to their light-duty counterparts, resulting in a more seamless integrated
policy for motor vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1282-A1 p.6]
The United States depends on oil to power 92 percent of its transportation sector, a virtual monopoly.
This strategic commodity is priced on an unfree, volatile global oil market, posing serious risks to our
national and economic security—the government spends an estimated $67.5 billion annually just on
protecting oil supply lines around the world, and consumers and businesses are forced to pay whenever
conflict or supply disruptions cause an oil price spike. Reducing the nation's overall oil intensity is a
critical step towards curtailing U.S. exposure to such volatility, thus improving energy security. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1462-A1 p.l]
1 EPA, NHTSA, 'Cutting Carbon Pollution, Improving Fuel Efficiency, Saving Money, and Supporting
Innovation for Trucks,' June 2015, at 2.
2 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015.
3 Id.
4 SAFE analysis based on data from BEA.
5 SAFE analysis based on data from BEA and EIA.
6 SAFE, Oil and the Debt, October 2013, at 1; and SAFE analysis based on data from BEA, EIA, and
the National Bureau of Economic Research.
7 SAFE analysis based on data from EIA.
8 SAFE analysis based on data from BLS, Census Bureau, and EIA.
9 SAFE analysis based on data from EIA (2014 data).
10 See, e.g., EIA, World Oil Transit Chokepoints, November 10, 2014, at 2.
-------
11 SAFE analysis based on data from EIA.
12 U.S. DOE, ORNL, Transportation Data Energy Book, Edition 33.
14 SAFE analysis based on data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015.
15ICCT, Cost effectiveness of advanced efficiency technologies for long-haul tractor-trailers in the
2020-2030 timeframe, April 2015.
16 SAFE-commissioned analysis based on data from EPA and NHTSA.
Response:
In the proposal to this rule, the agency solicited comments on quantifying the military benefits from
reduced U.S. imports of oil. Reduced U.S. imports of oil, particularly from potentially unstable areas,
could reduce the need for the U.S. military to protect flows of oil from those areas. The California Air
Resources Board (CARB) notes that the National Research Council (NRC) attempted to estimate the
military costs associated with U.S. imports and consumption of petroleum. The NRC cited estimates of
the national defense costs of oil dependence from the literature that range from less than $5 billion per
year (GAO, 2006; Parry and Darmstadter, 2004) to $50 billion per year or more (Moreland, 1985;
Ravenal, 1991; Kaufmann and Steinbruner, 1991; Copoulos, 2003; Delucchi and Murphy, 2008).
Assuming a range of approximate range of $10 billion to $50 billion per year, the NRC divided national
defense costs by a projected U.S. consumption rate of approximately 6.4 billion barrels per year (EIA,
2012). This procedure yielded a range of average national defense cost of $1.50 - $8.00 per barrel
(rounded to the nearest $0.50), with a mid-point of $5/barrel (in 2009$). EPA acknowledges this NRC
study, but has not included the estimates as part of its cost-benefit analysis for this rule.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and others argue that there are little, if any, energy security
benefits associated with this rule. In large part CEI argues that oil supplies are plentiful and that current
oil prices are low so that reduced consumption of petroleum products due to this rule would have no
effect on energy security. However, the discussion of current low oil prices ("lowest Labor Day
gasoline prices in a decade") does not assure the absence of future oil supply shocks or price shocks, or
even speak to their reduced likelihood. CEI points out that the current low oil prices have been
observed before as recently as a decade ago, as they have in more than one instance before that. For
example, oil prices were even lower in 1999. But in the intervening periods, oil supply and price shocks
have continued to recur, and the recent price record only amplifies oil's high historical price volatility.
Also, sharply lower world oil prices do not clearly imply greater energy security for the U.S. Current
low world oil prices may reduce the U.S. fracking industry's tight oil production (as CEI points out), or
other sources of oil supplies around the world. Some have hypothesized that reduction in oil production
outside of OPEC may be the objective of some OPEC producers. With low oil prices, the U.S. oil
import share over time might be larger, increasing the U.S. dependence on imported oil.
Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), Operation Free and the Investor Network on Climate Risk
agree that this rule does improve America's energy security. SAFE goes on to state that several policy
options should be included in this rule to further enhance energy security. The Agency agrees that this
-------
rule enhances America's energy security, but does not have information to evaluate the policy options
that SAFE proposes.
11.10 Other Impacts
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Accidents, congestion, and noise
The NPRM requests comment on the input metrics used in the analysis of accidents, congestion, and
noise. CARB staff supports the holistic inclusion of these inputs and suggests that the inputs related to
congestion, accidents, and noise be consistent with any anticipated changes in vehicle usage, including
VMT, mode switching, and route modification, due to the rebound effect of the proposed rulemaking.
Any modification to the rebound effect from continued research should be reflected in the estimation of
accidents, congestion, noise, and increased travel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.187]
Response:
The agencies agree with the commenter that accidents, congestion and noise due to increased VMT
from rebound driving should be quantified in the regulatory impact analysis. If net operating costs of a
heavy duty vehicle decline, then we expect a positive rebound effect. Increased vehicle use associated
with a positive rebound effect contributes to increased traffic congestion, motor vehicle crashes, and
highway noise. Depending on how the additional travel is distributed throughout the day and on where
it takes place, additional vehicle use can contribute to traffic congestion and delays by increasing traffic
volumes on facilities that are already heavily traveled during peak periods. These added delays impose
higher costs on drivers and other vehicle occupants in the form of increased travel time and operating
expenses. Because drivers do not take these added costs into account in deciding when and where to
travel, they must be accounted for separately as a cost of the added driving associated with the rebound
effect.
Our approach in this final rule is identical to that used in the proposal. EPA and NHTSA rely on
estimates of congestion, crash, and noise costs caused by pickup trucks and vans, single unit trucks,
buses, and combination tractors developed by the Federal Highway Administration to estimate the
increased external costs caused by added driving due to the rebound effect.226 The FHWA estimates are
intended to measure the increases in costs from added congestion, property damages and injuries in
traffic crashes, and noise levels caused by various classes of trucks that are borne by persons other than
their drivers (or "marginal" external costs). EPA and NHTSA employed estimates from this source
previously in the analysis accompanying the light-duty 2012-2016 vehicle rulemaking. Given the lack
of alternative estimates in the literature, the agencies continue to find them appropriate for this analysis
after reviewing the procedures used by FHWA to develop them and considering other available
estimates of these values.
FHWA's congestion cost estimates for trucks, which are weighted averages based on the estimated
fractions of peak and off-peak freeway travel for each class of trucks, already account for the fact that
226 These estimates were developed by FHWA for use in its 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study; see
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/index.htm (last accessed July 21, 2010)
-------
trucks make up a smaller fraction of peak period traffic on congested roads because they try to avoid
peak periods when possible. FHWA's congestion cost estimates focus on freeways because non-
freeway effects are less serious due to lower traffic volumes and opportunities to re-route around the
congestion. The agencies, however, applied the congestion cost to the overall VMT increase, though
the fraction of VMT on each road type used in MOVES range from 27 to 29 percent of the vehicle miles
on freeways for vocational vehicles and 53 percent for combination tractors. The results of this analysis
potentially overestimate the congestions costs associated with increased truck use, and thus lead to a
conservative estimate of benefits.
Organization: California State Senator Ricardo Lara
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 56.]
In California, we understand that climate change is not just an abstract concept but a public health crisis
that is disproportionately impacting our most vulnerable communities, namely the poor and
communities of color.
Response:
We agree that elevated concentrations of GHG emissions in the atmosphere may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare of current and future generations. We also agree that
children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to these climate-related health effects.
The impacts addressed by this action will reduce these adverse impacts within communities where the
population may be especially vulnerable.
Organization: Walmart Transportation
Although perhaps not to be addressed within this rule, in the drive for greater fuel efficiency we
encourage consideration of the significant impact of initiatives broader than equipment. Opportunities in
congestion reduction, speed, payload efficiency, and infrastructure maintenance and upgrades will result
in environmental, safety, and economic benefits far surpassing equipment innovations. A system view
and approach will be essential to ensuring the vitality of the backbone of the U.S. economy. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0117-A1 p.2]
Response:
While the initiatives outlined by the commenter could very well result in beneficial impacts, they fall
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
11.11 Employment Impacts
Organization: Achates Power, et al.
Our nation relies heavily on medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses to keep our economy moving.
The Phase 2 rulemaking has the potential to be a significant economic driver of jobs and prosperity, by
rewarding innovative solution providers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1762-A2 p.2]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
-------
The Phase 2 program also offers the potential of new jobs in the design and production of new vehicle
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.5][This comment can also be found in section 1.1
of this comment summary]
Organization: BlueGreen Alliance
These standards will increase fuel efficiency and cut greenhouse gas emissions from long-haul trucks—
along with full size pick-ups, other trucks, buses, and vocational vehicles. These standards can also
continue America's auto and manufacturing resurgence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1246-A2 p.l]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.71.]]
The BlueGreen Alliance and its 15 labor and environmental partners recognize the importance of the
proposed medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reduction rule.
America's economy depends on leadership in building the next generation of clean globally competitive
energy and vehicle technology. These new standards can provide a critical opportunity to sustain jobs,
further reduce the pollution driving climate change and foreign oil dependence while enhancing the
competitiveness of U.S.-manufactured trucks in global markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1246-A2
p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.71-
72.]]
For the past decade, the auto industry (in the light-, medium- and heavy-duty sectors), and American
workers—represented by the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers and others—have been on
the front lines when it comes to rebuilding manufacturing jobs and building the world-leading
technology needed to achieve deep cuts in carbon pollution and save consumers billions at the pump.
Soon to be released research carried out by several of our partners finds more than 380 plants that are
manufacturing fuel efficient medium- or heavy-duty vehicles or their components today in states all
across the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1246-A2 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.72.]]
These companies include major assemblers—like Freightliner manufacturing long haul trucks in
Cleveland, North Carolina and companies making key subsystems—like Volvo Mack Powertrain, with
semi-truck powertrain manufacture and advanced engine test facilities in Hagerstown, Maryland. They
also include large and small manufacturers of components, trailers, tires, and the steel and aluminum
that goes into them, such as Nexteer in Saginaw, Michigan; Bridgestone, in Tennessee; and Eaton in
California, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Ohio. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1246-A2 p.3]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.72-73.]]
[Map of US manufacturers of fuel efficient medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are components can be
found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1246-A2]
Done right, this standard can spur investment, secure and grow jobs, and enhance U.S. competitiveness
across these businesses and technologies—and the industry as a whole. With this rule EPA and NHTSA
have the opportunity both to encourage continued investment in manufacturing more fuel-efficient
trucks in the US and to ensure that these trucks can be designed and built without causing boom and
bust cycles in vehicle purchasing and therefore employment. The final rule can and should do both.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1246-A2 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.73.]]
We greatly appreciate the thorough and systematic process EPA and NHTSA have undertaken in
developing this proposal. It is critical that an effective final rule works for the environment, for the
-------
economy and for the thousands of hard-working American women and men in the heavy truck,
component and related industries. The auto industry and autoworkers have been at the forefront in
proving that America can lead globally in combating climate change while rebuilding our
manufacturing sector and creating and sustaining quality jobs. We urge the agencies to continue their
thorough and deliberate process to ensure that the final truck rule will continue this trajectory. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1246-A2 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.73.]]
Together, the previous rounds of car and light-duty truck and medium- and heavy-duty truck standards
achieve the largest greenhouse gas reductions ever undertaken in the U.S. and one of the largest
globally. We thank EPA and NHTSA for their work to date and look forward to working with the
agencies and all our partners to ensure that we keep on combating climate change by building great
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1246-A2 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.73-74.]]
Organization: Ceres
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 201-202.]
Strict standards are also key to retaining the U.S. leadership position in efficient truck manufacturing
and expanding job opportunities in that sector. We are currently the world leader in the development,
production, and use of energy-efficient and hybrid trucks. Without strong standards in place, companies
and investors will lack the requisite certainty to invest in the development and production of new
technologies that will allow us to retain our primary position and increase job growth.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
C. Fuel efficiency standards have positive impact on truck industry and employment
EDF preformed an extensive market analysis of heavy-duty vehicle purchases between 1992 and 2014
matched with the 2007 and 2010 engine standards.118 Appropriately controlling for macroeconomic
trends, our analysis showed that there was smooth growth in vehicle demand prior to, and during,
implementation of the 2014 Phase 1 fuel efficiency standards. As further evidence, model year 2014
heavy-duty trucks saw the highest sales since 2005.119 The results of our analysis support the premise
that fuel savings provide an advantage in the competitive market. Lower freight costs drive higher
demand for freight transport and demand for freight transport drives demand for new vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.25] [This comment can also be found in section 11.7 of this comment
summary]
Our analysis also concluded that fuel efficiency standards insulate the heavy truck market from fuel
price shocks - and that market stability translates into employment stability. In a marketplace without
standards, not all manufacturers produce fuel-efficient models (e.g., the light-duty vehicle market pre-
CAFE standards). When fuel prices spike, more fuel-efficient vehicles are in greater demand, shifting
demand across manufacturers and disrupting sales and employment. Analysis by MIT and Northwestern
economists found that for manufacturers on which CAFE standards are binding, marketing more fuel-
efficient models reduces the impact of fuel-price shocks on aggregate new-vehicle demand and
dampening the cross manufacturer impacts of fuel price shocks.120 Consistent with their results, we
found that demand for heavy-duty vehicles becomes less sensitive to fuel price changes as fuel economy
of new heavy-duty vehicles increases - and lower variability in demand for heavy-duty vehicles means
-------
steadier sales and employment. Combining employment and wage with fuel prices and vehicle standards
over the last 35 years, we found that over time fuel efficiency standards are associated with declining
impacts of fuel price shocks on employment and wages in light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.25]
Despite these findings with respect to the Phase I program, some have suggested that previous criteria
pollutant standards have resulted in "boom and bust" purchasing. This comparison is inappropriate,
however,121 and, in any event, our analysis shows that there was no meaningful adjustment in market
purchasing due to those standards.122 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.25]
118 Rittenhouse and Zaragoza-Watkins, Strategic Response to Environmental Regulation: Evidence
from U.S. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Air Pollution Regulations, MIT CEEPR Working Paper, (2015).
119 "Healthy Demand Overall for Trucks in September," Heavy Duty Trucking, available at
http://www.truckinginfo.eom/channel/fleet-management/news/story/2014/10/healthy-demand-overall-
for-trucks-in-september.aspx?ref=rel-recommended (last accessed November 5, 2014).
120 Busse, et al., Who is Exposed to Gas Prices? How Gasoline Prices Affect Automobile
Manufacturers and Dealerships, No. wl8610, National Bureau of Economic Research (2012).
121 Fuel economy standards are not likely to impact new-vehicle sales, because, unlike criteria pollutant
standards, the benefits of improved fuel-economy accrue directly to the vehicle purchaser. While
improving the fuel-economy of new vehicles won't be costless, fuel-savings will provide offsetting
benefits directly to the consumer. They quickly pay back the up-front investment cost, lower the long-
run cost of operating the vehicle, and provide a critical advantage in the highly competitive freight
industry.
122 Rittenhouse and Zaragoza-Watkins, Strategic Response to Environmental Regulation: Evidence
from U.S. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Air Pollution Regulations, MIT CEEPR Working Paper, (2015).
Organization: Gilroy, JD
A third thing I find praiseworthy about the proposed standards is that they seem to involve powerful
economic benefits even aside from environmental and health benefits—allegedly 124,000 jobs by 2030
and a ratio of benefits to costs of 10 to 1, or a savings for truckers of $160 billion after new technology
upgrades are paid off. That is probably why the affected industries have been largely supportive of the
new standards, some even meeting the standards before required to do so, and that is a fourth reason I
like them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0751 p.2]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
We reject the false calculus that environmental regulations always cost jobs. It is not a zero-sum
equation. Thoughtful, well-constructed regulations crafted with input from stakeholders can protect the
environment while simultaneously protecting existing jobs and creating jobs in new advanced
technology sectors of the economy. This can be a win-win for the environment and the economy. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.2]
-------
We urge EPA and NHTSA to tread carefully in order to avoid creating economic insecurity for the
hardworking men and women who toil in the industries affected by this proposal. Any new regulations
should not negatively disrupt the economy or create a "pre-buy/no-buy" cycle that results in layoffs or
job losses for American workers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.2]
A significant market disruption is not only bad for workers; it is bad for the overall economy, which is
still recovering from the Great Recession. Layoffs, regardless of their duration, are obviously bad for the
workers who lose their jobs. Surrounding communities are also negatively impacted as families
suddenly have less to spend on housing, car payments, groceries, clothes and other essential and
discretionary items. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.2]
This is not a theoretical concern for UAW members. In mid-2006, there were almost 18,000 UAW
members working at Freightliner, Navistar, Mack, Volvo and Peterbilt. By mid-2007, the number of
active workers was down to just under 13,000 with over 4,000 workers laid-off This occurred before
the Great Recession and market disruptions caused by regulations were undoubtedly a major factor.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.2]
In 2008, the number of laid-off workers increased to over 6,000 and in 2009, there were over 10,000
laid-off UAW members at those manufacturers. The chart below shows UAW membership in the
industry from 2004 to 2014: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.2]
[Chart can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2]
These are much more than statistics. UAW members not only lost their jobs, many of them lost their
homes and the stress brought on by financial insecurity led to divorces and other family crises. We have
no interest in repeating scenes of boarded up storefronts on our main streets or families losing their
homes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.3]
We urge EPA and NHTSA to ensure that the new regulations do not create economic uncertainty for
working families by creating significant market disruptions. In order to achieve this goal the final rule
must be consistent with the following principles: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.4]
• Regulations Cannot Disrupt the Market
• Single National Program
• Regulatory Certainty
• Accurate Technology Market Penetration, Cost and Reliability Assumptions and Testing
Protocols
• Flexibility to meet stringency standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1248-A2 p.4]
Regulations Cannot Disrupt the Market or Create Economic Uncertainty for Working Families [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.4]
As previously mentioned engine regulations in the past have had adverse economic consequences and
contributed to a pre-buy/no-buy boom and bust cycle. This proposal must guard against creating these
conditions. Severe market disruptions would not only be bad for workers, they would also be bad for the
environment and would undermine the regulation's foundational goal of reducing harmful greenhouse
gas emissions and increasing fuel efficiency. If fleets and other customers pull ahead truck purchases
due to concerns about increased cost or unproven technology, the end result is more higher-polluting
and less fuel efficient trucks on the road for a longer period of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-
A2 p.4] [This comment can also be found in section 11.7 of this comment summary.]
-------
UAW members in this industry suffered economic hardship caused by regulations during the last decade
and we are sensitive to the potential impacts of Phase 2 regulations and are watching this process
closely. The EPA established a comprehensive national program establishing emission standards in
2007 and 2010 for diesel engine emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM).
The regulation's intent was to reduce the harmful emissions of NOx and PM from the truck fleet by 90
and 95 percent respectively, dramatically reducing the threat those pollutants posed to public health.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.5]
Many truck fleets and other customers, weary of increased costs and new and possibly problematic
technology, pulled ahead truck orders prior to the implementation of the 2007 standard. The effect of
this pre-buy was felt by the thousands of UAW members and other workers who worked overtime
building as many legacy engines as they could prior to the standard and then were laid off once the
standards took effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.5]
Overall UAW membership in the medium and heavy-duty truck sector did not meaningfully recover
until 2012. It would be an error to attribute the lay-off of 10,000 UAW members in 2009 solely to the
pre-buy associated with the 2007 engine standards because clearly, the Great Recession and the closure
of an assembly plant were also major contributors to the downturn in overall sector employment and
UAW membership. However, it is important to understand that some of these workers only returned to
work within the last few years. Truck makers are hiring new workers for the first time in many years
and workers are concerned about the potential of the negative impact of regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1248-A2 p.5]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
UAW members support an achievable and realistic Phase 2 standard that is good for the environment
and manufacturing workers (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827; NHTSA-2014-0132). We reject
the false argument that environmental protections and economic growth are not compatible. The final
rule must be carefully crafted in order to avoid economic disruption of the medium- and heavy-truck,
vocational, van, and heavy-duty pickup markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1 p.l]
The recently released commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency technology study-
Report #2 [(Reinhart, T. E. (2016, February). Commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel
efficiency technology study - Report #2. (Report No. DOT HS 812 194). Washington, DC: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration)] confirms that the proposed Alternative Four is not feasible and
could lead to major economic disruptions in an industry that is already sensitive to the ups and downs of
our economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1 p.l]
UAW members and their families know first-hand the cyclical nature of the medium- and heavy-duty
truck, vocational, van, and heavy-duty pickup markets. They have also experienced the pre-buy/no-buy
disruption that can be caused by regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1 p.2]
The Class 8 heavy-duty truck market was strong most of last year. However, in the latter part of 2015
and into 2016, heavy truck orders dropped significantly. In response, heavy truck manufacturers began
laying off workers and cutting production. To date, Daimler and Volvo have announced the layoff of as
many as 3,400 UAW members. Non-union PACCAR has also reduced their workforce in U.S. facilities.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1 p.2]
The following chart illustrates UAW membership in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector since
2004: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1 p.2]
[Chart can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1]
This recent history warrants caution as we can't predict the ups and down of the market during the term
of the Phase 2 standards. However, we can work together to reduce the likelihood of the Phase 2
-------
standards creating economic hardship for not only hardworking men and women who assemble and
make parts for trucks, but also their neighbors and communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1
p.2]
Alternative Three proposes a 4% improvement in per vehicle fuel consumption and C02 improvement
by MY 2027 compared to MY 2017 for diesel engines. According to the technology study, diesel
engines can achieve this level of stringency without forcing problematic technologies like waste heat
recovery. The study states, "Overall, diesel engines offer a potential for 2% to 5% improvement beyond
the requirements of the Phase 1 GHG regulations." The study lists the potential diesel engine
improvement for long haul engines as 2-5%, medium-duty/vocational as 2-4% and pickup as 3-4% —all
without waste heat recovery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1 p.2]
We are concerned that increasing engine stringency to levels that require an unrealistic market
penetration and forcing expensive and unproven technologies will significantly disrupt the market and
create hardships for manufacturing workers and their families. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1895-A1
p.2]
Organization: Mannix, Brian
Employment Impacts
As required by President Obama's Executive Order 13563 (January 18, 2011), the RIA includes an
analysis of employment impacts of the proposed standards.12 President Obama's message announcing
the standards indicated that he believed they would "bring jobs back to America." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1222-A1 p.6]
The RIA acknowledges the difficulty of the task, reviews the literature, and makes heroic efforts to
develop a credible model that would allow it to forecast job impacts within the motor vehicle
manufacturing sector. Ultimately it is not able to reach a definitive conclusion: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1222-A1 p.6]
The overall effect of these proposed rules on motor vehicle sector employment depends on the relative
magnitude of the output effect and the substitution effect. Because we do not have quantitative estimates
of the output effect, and only a partial estimate of the substitution effect, we cannot reach a quantitative
estimate of the overall employment effects of these proposed rules on motor vehicle sector employment
or even whether the total effect will be positive or negative.13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.6]
The RIA reaches similar conclusions about other sectors likely to be affected. One danger of this type of
partial equilibrium analysis, which focuses primarily on the sectors directly affected by a rule, is that the
analysis might have identified direct employment impacts while missing indirect impacts in sectors
beyond the scope of the analysis. This is Bastiat's classic "seen and unseen" problem, and the RIA
appears to be sensitive to the danger: "In an economy with full employment, the primary employment
effect of a rulemaking is likely to be to move employment from one sector to another, rather than to
increase or decrease employment."14 It might have added that the same is likely to be true in an
economy that does not exhibit full employment, at least within the limits of our ability to analyze such
effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1 p.6]
This does not mean that unemployment is not a serious and chronic problem, nor that regulation is not
an important cause of it. Regulation may be especially harmful when it inhibits recovery from a
recession, and there are good reasons to examine the effect of regulatory policy on employment more
broadly. Nonetheless, unless the rule affects the terms of employment directly, a forecast of
employment impacts is not likely to be reliable or informative for any particular regulatory decision.
-------
The RIA is right to be cautious about generating such forecasts.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1222-A1
p.7]
12 RIA Section 8.11, p. 8-93 ff.
13 RIA, p. 8-101.
14 RIA, p.8-103.
15 For a more complete discussion of this problem, see Brian F. Mannix, "Employment and Human
Welfare: Why Does Benefit-Cost Analysis Seem Blind to Job Impacts?" Chapter 10 in Does Regulation
Kill Jobs?, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013; Cary Coglianese, Adam Finkel, and Christopher
Carrigan, editors.
Organization: NAFA Fleet Management Association
Additionally, the proposed standards place greater strain on driver and technician resources (capability),
which are two vocational areas where fleets are becoming more challenged to hire enough (and
qualified) employees. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.2-3] [This comment can also be found in section
11.2 of this comment summary.]
Many fleets have seen an increase in downtime, which has manifested itself in driver productivity
issues, shop capacity concerns and an overall increase in the number of spare vehicles required to have
on hand to ensure that enough units are available to serve customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1011
p.3] [This comment can also be found in section 11.2 of this comment summary.]
Lastly, fleets have had to increase training significantly to stay on top of the changes that have increased
our technician counts across the country. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.3] [This comment can also be
found in section 11.2 of this comment summary.]
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
NRDC believes that the Phase 2 rule will protect existing manufacturing jobs in the medium- and
heavy-duty industry and could potentially lead to job growth in the sector as tighter standards require
the development, production and installation of technologies to improve efficiency and reduce
emissions. Included in these comments is analysis conducted by NRDC with the BlueGreen Alliance
that shows that more than 36,600 engineers, technicians and assembly workers are employed in over
380 facilities across 43 states to develop, design and build components and trucks that help haul goods
using less fuel. The Phase 2 standards will play an important role in maintaining these jobs and
positioning U.S. manufacturers to be global leaders in truck technology, especially as other nations
implement their own truck fuel efficiency programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p.2]
Employment Impacts
NRDC believes that the Phase 2 heavy truck can have a positive impact on U.S. employment. We
expect the standards to drive technology innovation that will increase labor intensity. We also expect the
fuel savings that result from lower fuel consumption in shipping goods will be at least partially passed
-------
on to consumers, providing the ability to inject more money into the broader economy and growing
jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1220-A1 p. 10]
The Phase 2 standards are also likely to protect existing jobs. U.S. leadership in setting truck standards
has encouraged U.S. vehicle and component manufacturers to establish engineering, development and
manufacturing facilities in the U.S. to make world-leading truck technologies. As a result, the U.S. has a
competitive edge for providing technologies that will be desired globally as more countries adopt more
stringent truck standards. As noted in the proposed rule, EPA and NHTSA have "met with regulatory
counterparts from several other nations who either have already or are considering establishing fuel
consumption or GHG requirements, including outreach with representatives from the governments of
Canada, the European Commission, Japan, and China." A strong standard in the U.S. can help ensure
fuel-efficient technologies are produced here to serve the domestic and international markets as they
develop. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 10-11]
i. More than 36,600 Jobs are Associated with Producing Cleaner, More Fuel Efficient Trucks
Working with the BlueGreen Alliance, NRDC is assessed the number of U.S. jobs associated with
making and applying technologies that improve fuel efficiency in medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
These are jobs represent private investment in the capabilities to meet necessary emissions and
efficiency standards. By setting strong, long-term standards, the agencies provide continued market
certainty to protect these existing investments and to encourage greater investment in jobs that produce
additional fuel-saving technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 11] [[These comments can
also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, pp. 44-45]]
Today, more than 36,600 engineers, technicians and assembly workers are employed in over 380
facilities across 43 states to develop, design and build components and trucks that help haul goods using
less fuel. Below, the facility locations are placed on a map and employment is tabulated by state. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 11] [[These comments can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1372, p. 45]
[Map of U.S. Manufacturers of Fuel Efficient Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Components and
table of states and number of facilities and employment can be found on p. 12-13 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1]
ii. Methodology
The facilities captured in the table and map above are locations where components and vehicles are
developed, designed, manufactured and/or assembled to improve fuel efficiency and lower carbon
pollution in the on-road medium- and heavy-duty vehicle industry. The technologies produced by the
facilities are expected to be deployed to meet standards through 2018 and will be important in achieving
standards in subsequent years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 13-14]
The company facilities and employment included in this analysis are specifically involved in the
medium-and heavy-duty truck market including buses and vehicles used in a variety of commercial
uses. Many of the researched companies also are involved in the light duty automotive industry (as well
as other industries including off-road equipment), but those included must be directly involved in the
medium-and heavy-duty industry. The report includes components related to powertrain, the vehicles
themselves (including trailers) and add-on componentry to adapt vehicles to various applications. We do
not include componentry unless it is specifically related to fuel-saving activities. For example,
companies that are involved in fuel saving activities including aerodynamic improvement are included,
-------
while those producing structural components for these vehicles are not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1220-A1 p. 14]
This data should be viewed as a conservative estimate. We have not included facilities unless it could be
specifically confirmed that the location provides products for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. In some
cases the facilities (particularly of larger companies) have not been included because the information
available could not provide that direct connection that is needed. It is likely that this requirement has
significantly reduced the number of locations that are included, since in many cases it was difficult to
obtain information on specific locations of companies that have multiple facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 14]
Employment estimates are conservative. We excluded employment figures for facilities where a no
employment number was available. For facilities that serve both the automotive and medium- and
heavy-truck markets, such as makers of turbochargers and plants assembling both light-duty and heavy-
duty pickups, we counted only 5 percent of the total facility employment. The 5 percent is an
approximation of the economic value of the medium- and heavy-duty market relative to the automotive
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 14]
The company, facility and employment database was developed by vehicle industry experts at Baum
and Associates using a range of primary sources, including: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 14]
• Available lists of major original equipment manufacturers and suppliers in the medium- and
heavy-duty truck industry
• Membership directory of the NTEA-The Association for the Work Truck Industry,
• Databases including Hoovers and Lexis/Nexis,
• Internet research,
• Press reports from a wide variety of sources regarding fuel saving activities, and
• Direct contact with companies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 14]
Organization: Newell Coach Corporation
We also think it is worthy of consideration that the recreational vehicle industry is somewhat unique in
that it offers products that are manufactured virtually exclusively by skilled labor in the United States.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1319-A1 p.2]
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
There are presently thirty-four motorhome manufacturing sites in the United States employing 8,732
full-time employees. The annual employee payroll is over $619.7 million, and motorhome manufacturer
revenues exceed $3.63 billion.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.9]
Nearly 100% of motorhomes sold in the U.S. are made here. Roughly 66% of all motorhomes are
produced in the state of Indiana, with many others manufactured in Iowa, Alabama, Texas and
California. It is an industry dominated by small volume manufacturers. About half of all motorhome
manufacturers produce fewer than one hundred motorhomes per year. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1 p.9]
The Proposed Rule will have negative impact on motorhome shipments and jobs RVIA contracted with
John Dunham and Associates31 (Dunham) to assess the economic impact that compliance with the
proposed Phase 2 standards could have on the motorhome industry. The methodology for this model is
-------
available in Appendix C. In simplistic terms, Dunham's model assumes that some change in price will
have an impact on motorhome sales (shipments)32 and that this impact on sales will in turn impact
industry jobs, wages, economic output, government tax revenue, etc. RVIA asked Dunham to estimate
the economic impacts for the following four scenarios: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This
comment can also be found in section 11.3 and 11.7 of this comment summary]
Scenario 1: Motorhomes buyers factor 100% of fuel savings into their purchase decision (8.5 years of
discounted fuel savings were subtracted from estimated incremental cost increases; costs based on EPA
ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can also be found in
section 11.3 and 11.7 of this comment summary]
Scenario 2: Motorhomes buyers factor 100% of fuel savings into their purchase decision (8.5 years of
discounted fuel savings were subtracted from estimated incremental cost increases; costs based on
motorhome industry ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can
also be found in section 11.3 and 11.7 of this comment summary]
Scenario 3: Motorhome buyers do not factor fuel savings into their purchase decision (costs based on
EPA ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can also be found in
section 11.3 and 11.7 of this comment summary]
Scenario 4: Motorhome buyers do not factor fuel savings into their purchase decision (costs based on
motorhome industry ICMs were used) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.20][This comment can
also be found in section 11.3 and 11.7 of this comment summary]
The results of Dunham's assessment for 2021MY, 2024MY and 2027MY are found in the following
three tables below. Additional details are located in Appendix D. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1
p.21][This comment can also be found in section 11.3 and 11.7 of this comment summary]
[Charts, economic impacts, can be found on p.21-22 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1]
In RVIA's view, Scenario 4 represents the most likely outcome. Scenario 4 reflects costs based on an
ICM that is more representative of actual practice in the motorhome industry which, as we have already
discussed, is distinctly different from other vocational vehicle segments (largely because motorhomes
are not purchased for commercial purposes). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 22][This comment
can also be found in section 11.3 and 11.7 of this comment summary]
Scenario 4 also reflects the fact that the average motorhome buyer, unlike the commercial vehicle fleet
manager, likely places little value on future fuel savings when purchasing a motorhome. These are not
vehicles purchased for daily driving or commercial purposes. Rather, the purchaser generally focuses on
cost, features and other factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p. 22] [This comment can also be
found in section 11.7 of this comment summary]
Looking at Scenario 4 and 2024MY standards, we estimate that a total of 1,553 jobs would be lost. Of
these, 460 would be motorhome manufacturing jobs. This is over 5% of the existing 8,732 motorhome
manufacturing jobs that exist today in the thirty-four motorhome manufacturing sites in the United
States. With motorhome manufacturing jobs located in a handful of rural communities in a small
number of states, applying the proposed standards will have serious negative impact on these
communities. The rule would negatively impact not just motorhome manufacturing employees (460 lost
jobs) but also motorhome dealers and component part suppliers (144 and 404 lost jobs, respectively).
-------
Also negatively impacted would be persons outside the industry who live in these manufacturing
communities. Lost wages are estimated at nearly $118 million. Federal, state and local governments will
also have about $34 million fewer tax dollars to invest in social programs, and infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.22][This comment can also be found in section 11.7 of this comment
summary]
Regardless of the scenario and the extent to which our industry and the communities that manufacture
motorhomes are affected, the negative impacts for our industry cannot be ignored. We have concrete
evidence showing what happens when motorhome shipments decline. It has been only six years since
2009 when nearly two-thirds (64%) of all direct motorhome manufacturing employees lost their jobs.33
As of 2013, the latest year for which data is available, there are 43% fewer motorhome manufacturer
businesses and still 59% fewer motorhome manufacturer employees than pre-recession. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.22-23][This comment can also be found in section 11.7 of this comment
summary]
While the estimated job losses associated with this rule do not approach the numbers experienced just a
few years ago during and after the recession, they will still result in much pain and suffering,
particularly for a handful of low-income rural communities that are only now just starting to recover
from the recession. At the very least, EPA must consider these economic costs and impacts under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 12898. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1 p.23][This comment can also be found in section 11.7 of this comment summary]
10 RVs: Moving the Economy, 2015 Economic Impact Study prepared for RVIA by John Dunham and
Associates: New York.
11 Statistical Surveys, Inc.
31 John Dunham & Associates (JDA) is an economic specialist in regulatory analysis. JDA generates
economic and fiscal impact studies from a national level down to geographic regions, municipalities,
marketing areas or Federal and state legislative districts. See http://suerrillaeconomics. com/.
32 According to John Dunham and Associates, the base elasticity for motorhomes is -0.905, suggesting
that a 10 percent change in prices will reduce demand by 9 percent (see Appendix C).
33 Based on U.S. Economic Census data, available at: www.census.gov/econ.
Response:
Comments from Achates Power, ACEEE, BlueGreen Alliance, Ceres, EDF, NRDC, and JD Gilroy
expressed support for the standards' potential positive effect on the labor market. Comments included
arguments that the standards will drive new jobs, reward organizations that innovate with respect to fuel
efficiency, and help solidify and maintain the U.S. position as a leader in industries related to HD
vehicle manufacturing and fuel efficiency technology.
Both NRDC and BlueGreen Alliance point to joint research that estimates that there are currently more
than 36,600 jobs at over 380 facilities in the United States that are involved in the manufacturing
process for fuel efficient medium- or heavy-duty vehicles or their components. They argue that the
standards will help to sustain and add to those jobs as investment in the industry increases.
-------
The agencies discuss employment impacts in Preamble Section IX.L and RIA Chapter 8.11. Although
we are unable to quantify all possible pathways in which the standards can affect employment, our
analysis suggests that employment effects in the regulated sector (the motor vehicle, trailer, and parts
manufacturing sectors) are likely to be modest. We do not quantify changes in employment that result
from the output effect (changes in demand for fuel efficient vehicles), which is part of the argument that
NRDC and BlueGreen Alliance allude to in their comments. We agree that increases in employment are
associated with the increased use of efficiency technologies; the estimates for substitution-effect
employment in Preamble IX.L.2.b and RIA Chapter 8.11.2.2 aims to approximate employment impacts
for those employers due specifically for the need for additional technologies. Thus, our analysis agrees
with the comment from UAW that environmental regulations need not cost jobs, as well as with the
BlueGreen Alliance that the standards may promote investment that contributes to jobs, and with Ceres
that the U.S. can be an international leader on efficiency technology. Comments from Brian Mannix
point out the difficulty associated with generating complete employment forecasts that include all direct
and indirect effects. He concludes that the agencies are correct to be careful about estimating a
definitive forecast.
Additional comments from UAW urge EPA and NHTSA to exercise caution in a general sense to ensure
that the standards avoid market disruptions or "pre-buy/no-buy" boom and bust cycles. UAW suggests
that in the past, market disruptions caused by pre-buy in anticipation of the 2007 and 2010 NOx and PM
standards contributed to the lay-off of 10,000 UAW workers in 2009, which was also partly driven by
the Great Recession. As pointed out in the comments from EDF and discussed in Preamble Section
IX.F.2, RIA Chapter 8.4.2, and Chapter 11.7.2 of this Response to Comments, fuel economy standards
are less likely to cause disruptions to vehicle purchasing trends since increases in costs for new
technology are offset by fuel savings that accrue to the vehicle owner. This makes the standards
fundamentally different from the past standards discussed in UAW's comments.
NAFA Fleet Management Association expressed concern that the standards would make it more
difficult to hire qualified drivers and technicians, and would require additional employee training. EPA
expects that normal market forces will help alleviate labor shortages, should they occur. If the rule
increases demand for skilled labor, economic theory suggests that there should eventually be increased
wages and job opportunities as companies comply with the standards. Without evidence on increased
costs for employee training or wage increases, we have not included them in our regulatory analysis.
The rule may provide the regulatory certainty necessary for companies to make investments in new
technology, additional employee training, or higher wages for qualified technicians.
Newell Coach Corporation and the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) note that the
recreational vehicle (RV) industry is unique in offering products made "virtually exclusively" in the
U.S. RVIA cites contracted analysis with John Dunham & Associates that estimates the effects of the
standards on the RV industry. As discussed in Section 11.7 of this Response to Comments, the concern
is that the RV industry is at risk to suffer significant negative effects due to the rule, based, in part, on
the question of whether RV consumers will factor fuel savings into their purchase decisions. If
consumers do not consider fuel savings, then increases in RV price due to complying with the rule could
reduce sales, eventually leading to job losses. The RV industry was disproportionately hurt during the
Great Recession and has only recently experienced a recovery.227 As RVIA itself notes, the employment
227 Quiggle, Ben. "RV sales projected to be stronger in 2016 thanks to low gas prices, steady economy," The
Elkhart Truth, March 6, 2016. http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/business/2016/03/03/RV-sales-projected-to-be-
stronger-in-2016-thanks-to-low-gas-prices-steady-economy.html, accessed 3/28/2016; Morris, Frank. "Ready For
A Road Trip? RVs Are Rolling Back Into Fashion," Morning Edition on NPR, March 28, 2016.
-------
impacts due to the recession were much larger than even their high-level estimates of employment
impacts due to the standards: while RVIA's estimate of the maximum impact of the standards on
employment is about 5 percent of current employment levels, it notes that nearly two-thirds of direct
manufacturing employees lost their jobs in the recession. Preamble Section IX.L and RIA Chapter 8.11
discuss evidence that macroeconomic conditions appear to have a much more significant effect on
employment than does environmental regulation. We also note, again, that the final rule provides
optional standards for custom chassis vocational vehicles, including motorhomes, which are less
stringent than the main standards, and which may satisfy many of this commenter's concerns with the
proposal. (The custom chassis standards were developed, in part, in response to this and similar
comments).
The analysis by John Dunham & Associates also provides indirect and induced effects - that is, effects
beyond the direct manufacturing sector - of their estimated sales and employment changes. As
discussed in Preamble IX.L and RIA Chapter 8.11, these effects are likely to be small in the scope of the
national economy when the economy is near full employment; at such times, environmental regulation
is more likely to move employment from one sector to another rather than to have a major effect on total
employment. In times of significant unemployment, those impacts are likely to be larger. Because we do
not know the state of the macroeconomy at the time that these standards will come into effect, the
agencies focus our employment analysis on the directly regulated sector, with qualitative assessment of
closely related sectors.
As also discussed in Preamble Section IX.L and RIA Chapter 8.11, employment effects of regulation are
due not only to the output effect, the effect on sales of vehicles, but also to the substitution effect, the
increased labor costs associated with complying with the standards: part of the increased costs due to
meeting the standards goes into labor involved with designing, producing, and installing fuel-saving
technologies. The analysis by John Dunham & Associates does not take into account the employment
increases associated with this "substitution effect," and thus is very likely to overstate the decrease in
employment associated with the standards. For these reasons, as with overall employment impacts in the
HD sector, we expect modest impacts on employment in the RV sector.
11.12 Cost of Ownership and Payback Analysis
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
In the RIA on page 7-45 under section 7.2.4 "Payback Periods," Table 7-47 shows a payback period for
MHs for additional new technology (via a MOVES calculation), that exceeds 23 years. The next closest
"long" payback period on the chart is for school buses at 11 to 18 years (at both a 3% or 7% discounted
rate and dependent on the fuel choice). This highlights the large difference in the use patterns of MHs
versus the other vocational vehicle classes. In other words, as noted above, MHs are seldom driven over
the course of a full year. Thus, when compared to most of the other vocational classes, MHs simply do
not generate operational costs on par with vocational vehicles from which significant cost savings could
occur (e.g., throughmore mpg). Indeed, the operational savings per year created through increasing the
efficiency of MHs would be comparatively miniscule when compared with vocational vehicles that may
be driven long distances every day or standard delivery or service routes. Given a "payback period" in
excess of 23 years, consumers would literally have no incentive to purchase a more efficient vehicle.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.49][This comment can also be found in section 6.4 of this
comment summary]
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/28/468172578/ready-for-a-road-trip-rvs-are-rolling-back-into-fashion, accessed
3/28/2016.
-------
Response:
The agencies considered potential payback as part of the consideration of the rule's costs, and have
concluded that payback is one reason for finding the costs of the Phase 2 standards to be reasonable.
We disagree with the assertion that consumers do not care about fuel savings and do not consider fuel
savings when purchasing a new vehicle. Allison is claiming here that it is an important and, perhaps, the
primary consideration in making a new vehicle purchase, at least for purchases of motor homes. We
acknowledge that the payback metric for motor homes is not attractive due to fewer miles travelled and
may not entice buyers into showrooms to get the more efficient motor homes. Importantly, the final
rules contain custom chassis provisions meant to result in a simpler, less costly set of vehicle
technologies than the primary standards would otherwise require.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Technology Costs Remain Suspect
ATA believes the agencies underestimated the costs of various technologies making the payback period
on these technologies much longer than is stated in the proposed rule. A fleet owner typically demands
an 18-month payback on technology purchases. If the actual payback extends beyond 24 months, it will
likely lead to the risk of increased fleet pre-buy, low-buy, and no-buy scenarios. The Phase 2 Rule
currently envisions a maximum 24-month payback period. If variables such as predicted technology
costs, MPRs, and fuel costs are not accurate, fleet payback periods for equipment may not be recognized
during the period of equipment ownership. Moreover, likely additional costs for maintenance and
downtime for new technologies need to be wholly accounted for under the rule. If payback on
equipment purchases is pushed beyond ownership periods, there is little or no incentive for fleets to
make the initial investments in technologies under Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 10]
To further expand upon this point, let's focus on one payback period variable. The table below is an
abbreviated version of the fuel pricing forecasts contained in the June 2015 Phase 2 Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (with an additional line added for present-day fuel pricing comparisons). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 10]
[Table, '2014 Early Release Reference Case Fuel Prices 92012$/gallon', can be found on p. 10 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1]
If diesel fuel costs are indeed more than 50% higher than present day fuel pump prices, it is logical to
assume that estimated payback periods are reduced (assuming the agencies have accurately forecasted
future technology pricing). Moreover, likely additional costs for maintenance and downtime for new
technologies need to be wholly accounted for under the rule. If these assumptions are incorrect or
lacking and payback on equipment purchases is pushed beyond typical ownership periods (oftentimes
36-48 months), there is little or no incentive for fleets to make investments in technologies under Phase
2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A 1 p. 10]
Increased Warranty, Maintenance, and Downtime Costs Should be Included
The proposed Phase 2 standards represent a more technology-forcing approach than Phase 1, predicated
on use of both off-the-shelf technologies and emerging technologies that are not yet in widespread use.
Past experience with emerging technologies in heavy-duty engines has shown that warranty claims,
where an operator takes a vehicle out of service to a maintenance facility to have a part under warranty
-------
replaced, tend to be higher during the initial years of introduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1
p. 12]
As shown in Appendix 3, based on warranty claims data required to be submitted to CARB, particulate
filter-related warrantee claims were at 35% during their initial year of introduction (2007), decreased to
18% during the second year and fell to 4% during the fifth year (2011, the last year of data provided).
Similarly, SCR-related warranty claims were at 20% during their initial year of introduction (2010) and
decreased to 10% during the second year (2011). Also of note is how other technologies were affected
during the introduction of a new technology. For example, warranty claims for engine/ECM/other
components increased from 22% prior to the introduction of particulate filters to 90% during the first
year this technology was introduced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 12]
This data highlights the fact that additional warranty, maintenance and downtime costs result when new
or significantly altered technologies are introduced. It appears the proposed rule only includes increased
maintenance costs associated with tires. Based on operational cost data collected from motor carriers,
the cost of repair and maintenance accounts for 6-9% of the marginal cost of operating a truck.10 This is
3 to 4 times more than tire costs. ATA requests the agencies to further examine the warrantee claims
and operational cost data to develop an algorithm that accounts for additional warranty, maintenance
and downtime costs as part of the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 12-13]
10 American Transportation Research Institute, An Analysis of the Operational Cost of Trucking: 2015
Update (September 2015).
Response:
We respond to comments regarding pre-buys in Section 11.7.2 of this Response to Comments. Further,
we do not believe that extending paybacks beyond 24-months will result in pre-buys/low-buys/no-buys.
We have included many more maintenance items in our maintenance cost estimates for the final rules.
Please see RIA 7.2.3 for more details. Comments regarding the 2007/2010 criteria pollutant rule are
addressed in Section 15.10.4 of this Response to Comments.
Organization: Amy's Kitchen et al.
Strong standards will be good for businesses, the trucking industry and American consumers.
Importantly, the financial benefits of strong standards will be significantly greater than the costs. These
lower life cycle costs will start accruing as soon as the first new trucks enter into service. In fact,
trucking will see lower life cycle costs right away and these savings will grow to $0.21 cents a mile in
2040;x that is an annual savings potential of more than $25 billion.xl [NHTSA-2014-0132-0232-A1 p.2]
x Lowell, D., EPA/NHTSA Phase 2 Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Standards for Heavy-Duty
Trucks: Projected Effect on Freight Costs, MJ Bradley & Associates. April 2014.
xi Ceres, Environmental Defense Fund. Report confirms cleaner, fuel efficientfreight trucks yield big
savings over the long haul. Ceres. Ceres and EDF, June 2015. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
http://www.ceres.org/industry-initiatives/transportation/truck-standards-fact-sheetAssumes 120 billion
freight miles a year.
-------
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: Association for the Work Truck Industry (NTEA)
Fuel Efficiency Payback
With regard to Alternative 3, in 2027 when the standard is fully phased in, heavy-duty vehicles across
all classes would achieve up to the following C02 emissions and fuel use reductions.
• 24 percent for combination tractors designed to pull trailers and move freight when compared
to Phase 1 standards
• 8 percent for trailers when compared to an average model year 2017 trailers
• 16 percent for pick-up trucks and light vans when compared to Phase 1 standards [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.3]
Further, the proposal calculates figures for expected payback periods based on the additional costs
associated with the proposed standards and the economic savings based on the increased fuel efficiency
expected with Alternative 3. The proposal estimates "Reasonable Payback Periods for the Trucking
Industry In model year 2027," for the buyer of a new vehicle. The notice states that the buyer would
recoup the extra cost of technology used to achieve the standard (Alternative 3) within:
• 2 years for a tractor/trailer combo
• 3 years for pick-ups and vans
The expected payback periods for tractor/trailer combinations and pick-ups/vans seems reasonable.
Most companies would look towards a 2-3 year payback period for moderate fuel efficiency gains.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1187-A1 p.4
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: BYD Motors
The current version of the plan will have real benefits for public health and will provide total cost of
ownership benefits for fleet operators over the life of the vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1182-A1
p. 1] [This comment can also be found in section 11.9 of this comment summary] [[These comments can
also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.227.]]
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: CALSTART
Vocational Vehicles. As we shared at the Long Beach workshop, CALSTART recently published a
report, titled "Higher Fuel Efficiency: Working for Fleets," which assessed the business case for fleets
from higher fuel efficiency trucks that might be driven by a new fuel economy rule. This report has
highlighted two core issues: that there are achievable technologies that can provide higher efficiency on
the rule timeline, and that these technologies on whole can be cost-effective and provide reasonable
payback to fleets using them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2][This comment can also be
found in section 6.1.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 152.]]
-------
To understand the payback issue we took a different approach from the Agencies. We worked with a
cross section of fleets representing various applications and truck types nationwide to validate the key
components of a fleet business case assessment model, collaborating with the NAFA Fleet Management
Association and its fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2][This comment can also be found in
section 6.1.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 152.]]
In developing the model, we also surveyed fleets on their support for and concerns about increased fuel
efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2][This comment can also be found in section 6.1.2
of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, pp. 152-153.]]
- Interestingly, we found 87-percent of fleet managers responding supported rules driving higher fuel
efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2][This comment can also be found in section 6.1.2
of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, pp. 152-153.]]
- Their primary concern was cost; though 89-percent said they would be willing to pay more up front for
fuel efficient trucks if they knew they would pay back over their life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-
A1 p.2] [This comment can also be found in section 6.1.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments
can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 153.]]
- They also expressed concern about reliability and maintenance costs. This does have relevance for the
rule duration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2][This comment can also be found in section
6.1.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 153.]]
Using the life cycle cost model we validated with fleets we assessed business cases in seven specific
truck use profiles: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2][This comment can also be found in section
6.1.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 153.]]
- Class 8 Over the Road; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found
in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 153.]]
- Class 8 Regional Haul; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found
in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 153.]]
- three medium duty use profiles: Urban, rural/intra-city and work site support; and [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2][This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.153.]]
- Class 2B pickups and vans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.153.]]
While structured before your draft rules were released, the categories are very similar to the three
vocational segments you are proposing and which we do support. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1
p.2] [This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments can
also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 153.]]
-------
We looked at different technology packages that were most applicable to each use profile, assembling
packages that could achieve up to a 40 percent reduction of fuel use over 2010 baseline trucks. These
packages, and their projected costs, were adapted from National Research Council and Transportation
Research Board studies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.3][This comment can also be found in
section 6.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 154.]]
Our top level findings were these: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.3][This comment can also be
found in section 6.2 of this comment summary]
- We found there is a reasonable business case payback, based on fleet-validated cost assessment tools,
for higher fuel economy trucks at levels proposed in the rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1
p.3] [This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments can
also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 154.]]
- The stringency levels we modeled in the report were, in most cases, actually higher than those
proposed in the Alternative 3 language. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.3][This comment can
also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 154.]]
- We saw the potential for higher fuel economy targets than those proposed in several use profiles -
particularly urban trucks, regional trucks and those vehicles with high work site idle time. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.3][This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment
summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420,
p.154.]]
- The biggest variables for payback were utilization - the mileage and fuel used - and the upfront cost
of the technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.3][This comment can also be found in section
6.2 of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, pp. 154-155.]]
- Fleets have suggested that modeling payback sensitivity to maintenance cost would be helpful and we
encourage the Agencies to develop this information to address fleet concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1190-A1 p.3][This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 155.]]
As mentioned, the report used different - and generally higher - assumptions for stringency than those
recommended in the Agencies' preferred Alternative 3. Below we highlight the comparisons between
the segments we studied, the corresponding segment in the rule (where there is one), and the stringency
proposed in the draft rules compared with those studied in the report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-
A1 p.3][This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary]
[Table of segments studied and results can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1190-Al][This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary]
More can be done in Class 8, particularly as concerns advanced engines such as being developed by
innovative firms and work being done at the existing OEM levels. However, we believe the Class 8
segment stringency appears both achievable and drives GHG reductions close to the reduction path
needed to achieve climate stability. In contrast, we are concerned that the vocational segments as
proposed do not meet the same level of reduction path and we believe they could, while still providing
-------
fleet users with the functionality they need and a payback they can afford. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1190-A1 p.3][This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary]
In shaping the final rule, we believe the Agencies' payback projections from efficiency are reasonable
and real. Indeed, we see a strong case for higher efficiency targets than those currently called for
particularly in several vocational segments. We also see the ability to further push improvements in
engine technology than proposed while still making sure those engines are a component of a full vehicle
strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.9][This comment can also be found in section 6.1 of
this comment summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1420, p. 155.]]
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: Ceres
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 201.]
Despite higher up-front costs, advanced fuel-efficient trucks will more than pay for themselves over a
typical ownership period due to fuel cost savings. In fact, a joint analysis by Ceres and the
Environmental Defense Fund found these standards would reduce freight costs by 3 percent in 2030 and
7 percent in 2040, an estimated $34 billion annual saving potential.
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: City of West Hollywood
Setting a strong second-phase standard will help fleets save more money on fuel. For example,
manufacturers could improve the efficiency of transit buses, school buses, utility trucks and other
'vocational' vehicles by almost a third by 2025, with technology that would pay for itself in fuel savings
in less than 4 years (compared to an average life of 15 years for an average transit bus, for example).
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0056-A1 p.2]
Payback times for heavy-duty pickups and vans would be less than three years. And for tractor-trailers,
efficient technology could pay for itself completely in only 13 months. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0056-A1
p.2]
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO)
In addition to class 8 trucks, the phase two rules will apply to vocational vehicles as well as pickup
trucks and vans. Compliance with the rules will raise initial vehicle costs in all market segments.
However, savings on fuel will pay for these increased initial costs. The EPA estimates payback periods
-------
will be 2 years for class 8 tractors/trailers, three years for pickups, and 6 years for vocational vehicles.
Clean Fuels Ohio appreciates the need and value for these rules despite increased up-front costs.
Assuming EPA estimates are correct, payback periods for tractors, trailers and pickups fall within a
reasonable timeframe for most commercial users. We do have concerns about the 6-year estimated
payback for vocational vehicles, since this timeframe falls outside of planned ownership duration for
many companies who buy vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1192-A1 p.2]
Clean Fuels Ohio is hopeful that advancements in vehicle efficiency technologies will shorten this
payback period to lessen the hardship on this industry sector. Clean Fuels Ohio also applauds the EPA
for suggesting creative approaches, such as "delegated assembly," that leverage innovation in the work
truck industry by smaller-scale technology developers and third-party installers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1192-A1 p.2]
Response:
Vocational vehicle payback periods are difficult to estimate given the variety of duty cycles and vehicle
types in the vocational vehicle sector. We provide our estimates in a table in final RIA Chapter 7.2.4.
We do not believe that the payback periods we have estimated will result in pre-/low-/no-buy outcomes.
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
Early in the PHASE IINOPR, the agencies offer a fundamental observation about the proposed rule that
is highlighted in Figure VI-1. "The standards will result in significantly lower operating costs for
vehicle owners (unlike the 2007 standard, which increased operating costs)." Unlike many
environmental regulations, this joint fuel economy/environmental regulation produces so much fuel
savings that it pays for itself. Two-thirds of the benefits come in the form of fuel savings and these
benefits are over five times as large as the costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.47]
[Figure VI-1 can be found on p.47 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: Edison Solar Inc.
Finally, we know that improving truck fuel efficiency can is achievable and can be done affordably:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1176-A1 p.2]
• In model year 2027, a new tractor-trailer owner would recoup the extra cost of technology used to
achieve the standards within 2 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1176-A1 p.2]
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: First Industries Corporation
(2) EPA underestimates technology costs, meaning that payback periods will be longer than EPA
estimates [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.2]
-------
EPA Underestimates the Costs of Various Technologies
Because EPA underestimates the costs of various technologies, the payback period on these
technologies is actually much longer than is stated in the proposed rule. This is especially of importance
as the agencies present the 'average' cost per truck of this rule, whereas customers must pay the actual
costs at time of purchase; therefore, actual costs not 'average costs' should be estimated by the rule. Our
customers typically demand an 18-month payback on technology. If the actual cost payback extends
beyond two years, it will lead to a pre-buy/no-buy situation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.4]
The estimated costs of the following technologies as presented in the proposed rule are too low: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.4]
Warranty Costs and Downtime: The EPA must consider warranty costs and downtime in making its
calculations of costs and pay back periods. This is especially important, and difficult to do, when the
technology needed to meet the proposed rule is not yet adopted. However, such costs are critical in a
customer's purchasing decision and will not be insignificant for a rule that pushes new technology into
the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1145-A2 p.5]
Response:
Unfortunately, we do not understand the comment about our use of "average" costs rather than "actual"
costs. Presumably the comment is meant to differentiate between cost estimates and price impacts. It is
true that we do not attempt to estimate prices. Warranty costs are included in our markups estimating
indirect costs. Downtime is not expected for the technologies projected for use. Downtime associated
with prior EPA regulations should not be seen as an indication that downtime will occur in association
with this regulation.
Organization: Gilroy, JD
A third thing I find praiseworthy about the proposed standards is that they seem to involve powerful
economic benefits even aside from environmental and health benefits—allegedly 124,000 jobs by 2030
and a ratio of benefits to costs of 10 to 1, or a savings for truckers of $160 billion after new technology
upgrades are paid off. That is probably why the affected industries have been largely supportive of the
new standards, some even meeting the standards before required to do so, and that is a fourth reason I
like them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0751 p.2][This comment can also be found in section 11.12 of
this comment summary]
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: Hoosier Environmental Council
From an economic perspective, we support this rule as it will lead to net savings for Indiana truck
owners, for whom fuel accounts for 40% of their operating cost (American Trucking Associations) and
for which payback periods is projected to be as short as two years for later model year tractor-trailers.
This is especially important for Indiana, which has made logistics a growth priority, as Indiana ranks in
the top 10 in more than 40 logistics-related metrics (Indiana Economic Development Corporation).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1245-A1 p.l]
-------
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: NAFA Fleet Management Association
Trucking fleets can better absorb cost increases associated with the purchase of fuel efficiency
technologies if they deliver reasonable payback periods. We are concerned that the actual costs of Phase
2 technologies for model year 2017-2027 vehicles will greatly exceed the agencies' estimates. Fleets
look at the total cost of ownership (TCO) —acquisition costs, fuel, personnel, maintenance, overhead,
road charges, insurance, residual values, and taxes, to name a few components of TCO [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0111-A1 p.2]
Fleet managers are responsible for the entire capital budget for new and replacement vehicles. Multi-
year capital forecasts are done annually. The capital approval and release for spending is an annual
exercise and depends on the organization's resources. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.2] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 179.]]
When deciding to purchase or lease a vehicle, a fleet manager looks first at the cost of the vehicle and
how that cost affects the annual vehicle replacement budget. The initial cost of the vehicle is always a
concern. The projected lifecycle costs and the payback period do factor in to making the business case
for a vehicle; and no variable cost is more important than fuel. The projected payback periods in the
proposal are based on fuel savings, but after cost, a fleet's primary focus is on making sure that the
vehicle and drivetrain features meet the specific work and duty-cycle needs, before considering fuel
savings. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 179.]]
A review of the American Trucking Research Institute analysis data find that the operational costs have
increased about 8-9% year over year. (See Table below) [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p.2]
[Table can be found on p.2 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1]
There are also indirect costs related to excessive warranty repair recovery, as well as the external work
required because vehicles increasingly need to be sent to the dealers due to complexity of the new
technology. The latter causes increases in downtime, as the dealers are overwhelmed and ill equipped at
times to handle the capacity and capability issues. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0111-A1 p. 13]
Response:
We have made every effort to put forth what we believe to be the best cost estimates available to us.
Realize that we do not attempt to estimate price impacts because so many factors go into eventual
pricing, but we have attempted to estimate the increased costs necessary to comply with the standards.
As such, we do not believe that the actual costs will greatly exceed our estimates.
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Return on Investment Projections
Odyne has constructed basic payback models for medium and heavy-duty truck systems to assist the
EPA in its market penetration and cost assumptions for Phase Two final rule development. The figures
-------
included here are best estimates using available industry and Odyne-specific data. Projections made here
are based on plug-in hybrid systems for vocational trucks with PTOs that are able to attain full workday
duty cycle GHG reductions of up to 50% or better. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1239-A1 p. 10]
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Cost of Trucks
The agencies claim an owner of a new truck designed under the proposal will be able to recoup costs in
"less than two years" due to fuel savings, however, the agencies have yet to show a direct connection
between specific technologies and specific costs savings. The GEM model that the agencies utilized to
make these estimates does not reflect all types of operations or geography. Moreover the OEMs have
unmistakably declared that such a payback period is unrealistic considering the actual costs of the
rule. Again, the agencies estimated that a new MY 2027 tractor will cost roughly between $10,000 and
$13,000 more due to the Phase II standards. Nevertheless, this is based on the false assumption that
typical heavy-duty truck costs $100,000. According to the OOIDA Foundation's Owner-Operator
Member Profile Survey, the average price of a new truck today is $123,351. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p.41-42]
[Chart 2 can be found on p.42 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1]
While a $10,000 increase, which is an underestimation of actual costs, does not seem to be a large sum
to the agencies proposing the rule, this cost is quite substantial for an owner-operator who takes home a
net revenue of approximately $30,000 per year. If an individual were to purchase a new 2016 Kenworth
T660 and a new 2016 Reitneour Dropdeck flatbed trailer for $164,593 and $49,5 00,46 respectively,
before taxes and fees. This price does not include the additional costs for chains, tarps, nylon straps,
ratchet binders, etc., which are necessary in order to secure a load to the trailer. Even with a promise of
a return on their investment via improved fuel economy, which again, is not realistic, the investment
must be attainable in order to receive any positive benefits from the technology. An increase of $10,000
can easily put the purchase of a new truck out of reach for an owner-operator or small fleet. Simply
stated, if the cost of the equipment exceeds the point where a person can attain credit in order to
purchase it, an owner-operator will not buy it. This is an increasingly likely scenario with the Phase 2
NPRM, thus the opportunity for safe and experienced drivers to become an owner-operator will be
reduced. It is important for the agencies to also include as part of their cost and benefit analysis, the
increased purchase price of used trucks in response to the uptick in demand for vehicles without Phase
II technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.42-43]
Warranty, Maintenance, and Downtime Costs
The proposed rule will force new technologies into the market and with new technologies will come
increased warranty costs, maintenance costs, and costs associated with increased downtime. The
proposed rule only counts some of the increased maintenance costs associated with tires. In doing so,
the agencies are greatly underestimating the overall impact of new technology. The agencies should
calculate in the analysis additional warranty, maintenance and downtime costs. In an April 2014 Board
Meeting, OOIDA Board Member Lewie Pugh presented to the EPA a 7-foot long printout of everything
that had gone wrong with the MaxxForce engine truck that he had purchased in 2011. He said, "When
-------
the truck breaks down, the mechanics don't even know what's wrong. They don't know how to work on
them. The dealership I go to is packed with trucks with emission problems.48" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1244-A1 p.45]
If an Alternative that forces new technologies is chosen by the agencies, the impact of increased repairs
beyond traditional warranty coverage needs to be taken into account. Small business owners and fleets
cannot continue to bear the cost of forced technologies and the ensuing repairs. The irony with this
situation is that any increased warranty coverage would increase the purchase price of a new
truck. Additionally, this will negatively impact the resale value of the truck. For example, the trucks
subject to the Phase I standards, such as the MaxxForce engine which caused large amounts of
downtime, will be passed along to the new consumer, without an extended warranty, many owner-
operators could be placed out of business. According to the OOIDA Foundations Member Profile
Survey, 74 percent of owner-operators purchase used trucks. Any unreliable or problematic truck
produced as a consequence of the Phase II standards will eventually be placed on the used market, thus
adversely impacting owner-operators who purchase them several years into the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1244-A1 p.45-46]
46 http://www.trailermarketinginc.net/
48 "EPA takes notes on OOIDA concerns."
Response:
The commenter states that, "the agencies have yet to show a direct connection between specific
technologies and specific costs savings." We respond to comments regarding GEM in Section 2 of this
Response to Comments, the effectiveness of engine technologies in Section 3 of this Response to
Comments, and the effectiveness of tractor technologies in Section 4 of this Response to Comments.
Our cost estimate for tractors is not in any way based on a false assumption that the cost of a tractor is
$100,000. We take a bottom up approach to estimating our tractor cost by first estimating individual
technology costs, then estimating their adoption rates, then estimating the resulting cost impact. That
estimate is independent of the total cost or price of a tractor. We mentioned the $100,000 tractor only as
a means of providing some scale. Most readers of our regulatory documents are far more familiar with
light-duty vehicle prices in the $25,000 to $40,000 range. So it was seen as important to provide some
scale when presenting a cost impact on the order of $10,000 to $13,000. If a tractor is more like
$123,000, that simply means the cost impact of the new standards is a lower percentage than we
suggested when we used the $100,000 value. As for increased warranty, we include these in our indirect
cost markups. As for downtime, we do not foresee any increased downtime associated with the
technologies expected in response to the new standards.
Organization: PepsiCo
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 43.]
The EPA and NHTSA's approach to evaluate current and future technology adoption into the heavy-
duty truck industry with an average two-year payback is a fair assumption and creates a standard built
on facts and grounded in logic.
-------
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: Quasar Energy Group
Finally, we know that improving truck fuel efficiency can is achievable and can be done affordably:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1335-A1 p.2]
In model year 2027, a new tractor-trailer owner would recoup the extra cost of technology used to
achieve the standards within 2 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1335-A1 p.2]
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
The economic savings touted by the agencies, to the extent they materialize, will not be seen by the
renting and leasing industry. The agencies' economics are premised on the notion that increased up-
front costs due to the addition of expensive fuel-economy technologies will be made up later, in whole
or in part, through future savings via reduced fuel consumption and thus fuel expenditures. Proposed
Standards, at 40483. In the vehicle leasing context, whatever benefits may accrue from reduced fuel
expenditures will be reaped by the vehicle operator/lessee, not the lessor. That scenario, in turn, may
tend to favor vehicle ownership over leasing - an outcome that could result in negative environmental
and economic outcomes to society overall given the benefits provided by the leasing industry.3 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.4]
3 See, e.g., "Driving the Bottom Line: Environmental Impact Supports Case for Company-owned Fleets
Vice Driver Reimbursement" (American Automotive Leasing Association, 2008) (available at
http://www.enterprise.com/content/fleets/pdf7whitePaperenvironmental.pdf).
Response:
The new standards are not intended to provide benefits or costs to any individual stakeholder out of line
with any other stakeholder. In fact, the new standards are meant to result in net benefits to society,
which they do. We do not believe that the current market will undergo any meaningful disruption due to
the new standards.
Organization: Werner Enterprises
There are several key areas the Agencies need to address: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
- Accurately reflect operators' total cost of ownership [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
- Correct underestimated costs of technology and maintenance costs meaning the payback periods will
be longer than estimated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
-------
Response:
The commenter has not provided sufficient detail for us to consider possible improvements to our
estimates. We have made changes as discussed throughout the final RIA in an effort to improve every
aspect of our analysis.
Organization: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
If the standards for work trucks (e.g., Ford F-250 or Ram 2500 pickups) are finalized as proposed, these
vehicles that are used for RV towing would need to become more fuel efficient during the 2021-2027
timeframe. The fuel economy standards would reduce fuel consumption by 2.5% each year such that by
2027 these vehicles would consume 16% less fuel than pre-2021 vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1261-A1 p.26]
According to agency estimates, these improvements will cost an estimated $493 in 2021 to $1,366 in
2027. Thus, for a $40,000 work truck, the price increase would range from 1.2% to 3.4%. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p.26]
Although EPA finds that the savings at the pump may eventually offset the increase in cost associated
with the fuel savings technology required for compliance with work truck standards, we are concerned
that the cost increase associated with this regulation, when coupled with cost increases relating to a
number of other regulatory requirements coming from CARB and NHTSA, will cause harm to the RV
industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.26]
If the cost of purchasing a towable RV, such as a travel trailer, fifth-wheel, folding camping trailer, or
truck camper and the vehicle needed to tow the RV is no longer cost-competitive with other recreation
alternatives, consumers will leave 'RV'ing' for a more affordable alternative such as boating. This could
have a devastating impact on the RV industry and more specifically the same small rural communities
that produce motorhomes (see Section VIII). EPA should more carefully consider the impact of this
regulation in conjunction with other regulations. In fact, this is required by Section 1(b) of Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) which states that, when issuing new
regulations, agencies shall tailor their regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable,
the costs of cumulative regulations." (emphasis added). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1261-A1 p.26-27]
Operating in a vacuum can have dangerous consequences and EPA should carefully consider the cost
impact of not just this regulation on tow vehicles but other regulations that are in development or likely
to be put into effect in the next decade by either NHTSA or EPA that could affect these vehicles. As
EPA is conducting this rulemaking jointly with NHTSA and closely coordinating with CARB, there is
no reason why these three agencies, the primarily regulators of the auto industry in the U.S., should not
be able to undertake this very important task of looking at what future regulatory requirements are on
the horizon and what will be the cumulative costs associated with them in the aggregate. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1261 -A 1 p.27]
Response:
RVIA has raised concerns that the increased price for pickups hauling recreational vehicles (RVs) might
reduce interest in RVs, and people might switch to another activity, such as boating. We note that, for
HD pickups generally used for hauling RVs, the savings outweigh the costs within the third year of
ownership (see RIA Chapter 7.2.4). We are unaware of evidence on the combined effects of higher up-
front costs and lower operating costs on the purchase or use of pickups for hauling RVs: the lower
-------
operating costs might encourage use, even if the higher up-front costs might discourage purchase. We
are also unaware of evidence that people interested in "RVing" might choose instead to do something so
different, such as boating, based on the increased cost of the pickup needed to tow the RV.
RVIA would also like the agencies to consider the costs of future regulations as well as current ones in
its estimates. We include in the reference case the costs of all existing regulations on vehicles. Because
it is impossible to know the requirements or costs of future regulations before they are finalized, it is not
possible to include the costs of future regulations in this analysis.
11.13 Safety Impacts
Organization: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Lightweight plastic and composite materials have the ability to reduce vehicle weight without
compromising safety, and Congress has taken steps to recognize that fact. Over the last 9 years,
Congress has directed NHTSA to create a safety roadmap for lightweight Plastic and Composite
Intensive Vehicles (PCIVs) through the THUD Appropriations bills. The report, titled "A Safety
Roadmap for Future Plastics and Composites Intensive Vehicles"3 and published in 2007, evaluates the
potential safety benefits of PCIVs to enable their deployment by 2020. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1147-A2 p.4]
In support of the Roadmap's implementation, NHTSA conducted a study to lightweight a 2008
Silverado by approximately 20% utilizing plastic and polymer composites.4 The lightweight study
vehicle was shown to maintain equivalent safety based upon NCAP test results. The study, entitled
"Investigation of Opportunities for Lightweight Vehicles Using Advanced Plastics and Composites"
was finalized and published by NHTSA in 2012. As in comments submitted in 2011 in response to the
Phase I, ACC continues to urge EPA/NHSTA to make full implementation of the PCIV safety roadmap,
because it not only exhibits the full performance potential that PCIVs hold, but also recognizes the
importance of ensuring safety at each phase of product development. ACC stands ready to assist the
agencies in this regard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1147-A2 p.4]
The high strength and energy absorption of structural polymer composites can also improve crash safety
by strengthening vehicle compartments to help protect passengers during crashes.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1147-A2p.5]
3 NTHSA. A Safety Roadmap for Future Plastics and Composites Intensive Vehicles' (DOT HS 810
863), 2007;
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crashworthiness/Vehicle%20Aggressivity%20and%20Fleet
%20Compatibility%20Research/810863 .pdf.
4 NTHSA. "Investigation of Opportunities for Lightweight Vehicles Using Advanced Plastics and
Composites" (DOT HS 811 692), 2012;
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crashworthiness/Plastics/811692.pdf
5 Aviva Brecher and John Brewer, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and Stephen
Summers and Sanjay Patel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Characterizing and
Enhancing the Safety of Future Plastic and Composite Intensive Vehicles (PCIVs), http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0316.pdf
-------
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
NHTSA Should Continue to Review and Analyze Potential Safety Impacts of Fuel Efficiency
Technologies
In June 2015, NHTSA published its Review and Analysis of Potential Safety Impacts of and Regulatory
Barriers to Fuel Efficiency Technologies and Alternative Fuels in Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.12
This report undertook a safety analysis of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles equipped with fuel
efficiency technologies and/or using alternative fuels (i.e., CNG, LNG, propane, biodiesel, and power
train electrification). This peer-reviewed study included a comprehensive literature review,
complemented with inputs from subject matter experts, and a scenario-based hazard analysis. Specific
fuel efficient technologies examined included: Intelligent Transportation Systems and telematics, speed
limiters, idle reduction devices, tire technologies (single-wide tires, TPMS and ATIS), aerodynamic
components, longer-combination vehicles, and light-weighting materials. Federal and state safety
regulations and voluntary technical standards affecting fleet adoption rates of fuel efficient technologies
and alternative fuels were discussed, as were potential regulatory barriers. The findings, while based on
literature reviews up though 2013 and prior to the implementation of Phase 1, suggest that potential
safety hazards identified can be prevented or mitigated by complying with safety regulations, voluntary
standards, and industry best practices. The study did not identify any major regulatory barriers to rapid
adoption of fuel efficient technologies and alternative fuels by both medium and heavy-duty fleets.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 17]
ATA is pleased that NHTSA has undertaken such a study and asks that DOT's Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center continue to assess and evaluate potential safety impacts that may be
attributed to the use of fuel efficiency devices. ATA recommends that regular updates and publication of
results be undertaken on an established schedule as determined by NHTSA but not less frequent than
once every three years. Such analysis should build upon the technologies already identified under the
2015 report and should be expanded to include warranty claim reviews as well as fleet interviews and
surveys. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 17]
12 Brecher, A., Epstein, A. K., & Breck, A., Review and Analysis of Potential Safety Impacts of and
Regulatory Barriers to Fuel Efficiency Technologies and Alternative Fuels in Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC (Report No. DOT HS 812
159, June 2015).
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
We believe these are also important considerations for EPA in developing a final Phase 2 rules, as
follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.5]
• That it is mindful of the other requirements placed on industry relative to environmental
and safety requirements of commercial vehicles: Unlike passenger cars, commercial trucks
must adhere to a number of additional federal and state safety and operational
requirements. Provisions that impact fuel economy must not compromise safety or utility of the
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.6]
Organization: Optimus Technologies
Biodiesel
-------
Regarding the comment at 80 FR 40486 (Column 3, Paragraph 5) about issues with biodiesel
specifically that biodiesel has "presented some operational safety concerns dependent on blending
fraction, such as material compatibility, bio-fouling sludge accumulation, or cold-weather gelling,"
Optimus Technologies would like the EPA and NHTSA to be aware of Optimus' biodiesel conversion
system which is retrofitted onto diesel vehicles (for which Optimus has achieved EPA compliance) and
eliminates the problems with material compatibility and cold-weather gelling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1276-A1 p.3]
Response:
Thank you the comment. The conversion systems would need to be considered by the manufactures as
an alternative technology as they have internal vehicle requirements for packaging, quality,
serviceability and other factors. Safety and legal requirements of this technology would need to be
addressed during complete system testing. The testing methods of each manufacturer are proprietary and
provisioned to different vehicle applications.
11.14 Consumer Impacts
Organization: Amy's Kitchen et al.
Strong standards will be good for businesses, the trucking industry and American consumers.
Importantly, the financial benefits of strong standards will be significantly greater than the costs. These
lower life cycle costs will start accruing as soon as the first new trucks enter into service. In fact,
trucking will see lower life cycle costs right away and these savings will grow to $0.21 cents a mile in
2040;x that is an annual savings potential of more than $25 billion." [NHTSA-2014-0132-0232-A1 p.2]
x Lowell, D., EPA/NHTSA Phase 2 Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Standards for Heavy-Duty
Trucks: Projected Effect on Freight Costs, MJ Bradley & Associates. April 2014.
xi Ceres, Environmental Defense Fund. Report confirms cleaner, fuel efficientfreight trucks yield big
savings over the long haul. Ceres. Ceres and EDF, June 2015. Web. 17 Feb.
2016. http://www.ceres.org/industry-initiatives/transportation/truck-standards-fact-sheet Assumes 120
billion freight miles a year.
Organization: Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy
In turn, these benefits would accrue to consumers and the greater economy; under stricter standards, the
average U.S. household stands to save $250 per year in lower priced goods.3 [NHTSA-2014-0132-0095-
A1 p. 1-2]
3 Cooper, Mark Dr. and Gillis, Jack. "The Consumer Benefits of Increasing the Fuel Economy of
Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks." The Consumer Federation of America. February 2014. Web.
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Paying-the-Freight.pdf
Organization: Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO)
EPA also has suggested that the proposed rule will help bring down the costs of transporting goods, with
the average household saving $150 a year by 2030, assuming the savings and costs are passed through
to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1192-A1 p.2]
-------
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
As discussed below, the fuel consumption of medium and heavy duty trucks is an important consumer
issue and the performance standard approach taken by the agencies is exactly the right approach. Our
technical expertise is not in the design and construction of these consumer durables, it is in the design
and implementation of minimum energy standards focusing on their impact upon consumers. We
believe that knowing how to build an effective standard is at least as important to arriving at a
successful energy saving outcome as knowing how to build a consumer durable. Moreover, although we
do not claim expertise in the technical design of consumer durables, we do claim expertise in the
economic analysis of technologies. Our analysis combines a review of the technical economic studies
prepared by others and evidence on the market performance of heavy duty trucks to determine whether
there are significant potential consumer savings that would result from a higher standard. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.7-8]
B. APPROACH AND OUTLINE
We approach the setting of standards from a uniquely consumer point of view,4 always starting from a
series of basic questions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 8]
- Will a standard save consumers money? If there appears to be potential savings, we ask: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.8]
- Why is there an efficiency gap that appears to impose unnecessary costs on consumers? If we find
market imperfections that prevent the efficiency gap from being closed and cost savings from being
realized, we then ask: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.8]
- Is a standard an appropriate policy and, if so, how can the standard be best designed to achieve the
goal of lowering consumer cost? If a standard seems to be a good option, we then ask: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.8]
- Does the proposed standard do a good job? Here we evaluate the standard EPA/NHTSA has proposed
against the answers to the first three questions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.8]
These comments are divided into five sections. We answer the first question above in two steps. First, in
Section II, we estimate the amount and cost of fuel consumed by the medium and heavy duty trucks
subject to the proposed rule compared to the amount of money households pay for gasoline and
electricity, which is the second largest home energy cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.8]
Then, in Section III, we show that consumers are very likely to "Pay the Freight. Household budgets
bear the burden of truck fuel costs indirectly in the cost of goods and services they buy. As a result, the
Phase II rule deserves close attention from the consumer point of view. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.9]
II. THE CONSUMER STAKE IN THE FUEL USE OF HEAVY DUUTY TRUCKS
Over the past decade public opinion polling by the Consumer Federation of America and other
organizations has revealed strong and widespread support for energy efficiency standards for consumer
durables including automobiles and households appliances.6 Because gasoline and electricity bills are
such a large part of household annual expenses - currently about $2,600 for gasoline and over $1400 for
electricity7 — it is not surprising that polls consistently elicit this support. Consumers clearly feel the
-------
pain in their pocketbooks and understand the economic impact of those energy costs on their household
budgets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.9-10]
Economic analysis has shown that there is a sound basis for consumer support of energy efficiency
standards.8 Although energy saving technologies require an investment, when they lower energy bills by
more than their cost, the result is ultimately net savings to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p. 10]
While direct household expenditures on personal energy consumption are significant, they are only part
of the consumer's expenditures on energy. Consumers also pay indirectly for the energy consumption in
the commercial and industrial sectors through the prices of goods and services. As shown in Figure 1-1,
the total residential energy consumption represents just over one-third of total national energy
consumption. In other words, almost two thirds of the nation's energy consumption takes place in the
production and distribution of goods and services and the costs incurred are recovered in the prices of
those goods and services. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 10]
[Figure 1-1, 'Energy consumption in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors' can be found on
p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 ]
In fact, these comments show that indirect freight truck fuel costs passed on to consumers are about half
as large as direct gasoline expenditures and almost equal to household electricity bills. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 11]
Consumers recognize that when fuel prices rise, so does the cost of consumer goods due to the cost of
transporting those goods. Conversely, because of competition, a reduction in transportation costs will
result lowering the cost of goods and services for consumers. Reducing the energy consumption of
medium and heavy duty trucks will reduce household expenditures by lowering the cost of all goods and
services. Therefore, the rulemaking currently underway regarding medium and heavy duty truck fuel
consumption deserves close scrutiny and support from consumers and consumer advocates. This section
examines the costs of energy used by medium and heavy duty trucks and the positive impact increased
truck9 fuel efficiency can have on America's households. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 11]
In this section we estimate the potential size of the indirect consumer expenditure. In the next section,
we discuss the evidence that the costs are passed through to consumers and survey evidence that shows
the public understands the impact of transport costs on their pocketbooks and the role of truck fuel
economy standards in alleviating the burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 11]
A. HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES FOR MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCK FUEL
Expenditures for transportation fuels, whether direct or indirect, are the result of the amount of energy
consumed and the price of that energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 11]
To estimate the potential consumer savings from improvements in the fuel economy of trucks, we first
estimated the fuel used by the three main vehicle categories (household light duty, commercial light
duty, and medium-heavy duty trucks). We undertake this analysis because different organizations that
analyze energy use slightly different categorizations of energy use by different types of vehicles, and we
want to make clear how we arrived at our figures. However, because light duty vehicles, which make up
the vast majority of households vehicles, are already covered by CAFE standards, we do not include
them in our analysis. We have been careful not to double count energy light duty consumption in our
-------
estimate of indirect household expenditures on medium and heavy duty transportation fuel. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 12]
Table II-1 (below) shows three different approaches to estimating household gasoline consumption. We
used several data sources to build our estimate: EIA Residential Consumption Survey, the Department
of Transportation's, National Household Transportation Survey; the Energy Information
Administration's Annual Energy Outlook; the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure
Survey; and the U.S. Department of Transportation's, Bureau of Transportation statistics each of which
estimates fuel usage by types of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 12]
[Table II-1, 'three methodologies for estimating the indirect, aggregate, annual household consumption
of transportation energy', can be found on p. 12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
The 2009 calculation compares an estimate based on the Bureau of Labor Consumer Expenditure
Survey to an estimate based on the National Household Transportation Survey, both for 2009. Using
each of the estimates, we divided the household expenditure by the average price per gallon to arrive at
the number of gallons per household. We then multiplied the household consumption by the total
number of households. The National Household Transportation Survey estimates the total number of
vehicle miles traveled by households. We divided this by the average miles per gallon of the light duty
vehicle fleet to arrive at the amount of gasoline consumed. These two estimates are quite close. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 13]
The 2010 estimate is based on EIA data that identifies the amount of energy consumed by automobiles
and light duty vehicles, medium duty vehicles and heavy duty trucks. The EIA data does not separate
out household and commercial use of light duty vehicles, so we used the Consumer Expenditure Survey
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate the gasoline consumed by households. We subtracted
this from the total for light duty vehicles, as reported in the Annual Energy Outlook, to determine the
amount of energy consumed by light duty vehicles that is not consumed by households. We call this
commercial light duty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.13]
As shown in Table II-1, this approach provides an estimate that is consistent with the Department of
Transportation data, which categorizes vehicles by axle length and the number of tires. Again, the
estimates are quite close, although they are lower than the estimate for 2009. There was a decrease in
consumption between 2009 and 2010 in the aggregate consumption. The consistency of this data
provides us with a substantial level of confidence in the amount of medium and heavy duty truck fuel
we use for our calculations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 13]
Table II-2 applies the BLS/EIA approach from Table II-l to the data for 2013 and 2014.10 We prefer this
approach since it can be updated easily. As a result, for 2013, we estimate 92 billion gallons of
household gasoline consumption and 43 billion in medium and heavy duty truck consumption. We
reduce the freight truck consumption by 11% to account for exports, since their cost burden would not
fall on consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 14]
[Table II-2, 'Household expenditures', can be found on p. 14 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1336-A1]
This confirms the conclusion we reached in our earlier analysis.11 We estimate 730 direct gallons per
household and 300 indirect gallons of diesel fuel consumption. Keeping in mind that diesel prices were
10% higher than gasoline prices in 2013, for every dollar that consumers spend on household gasoline,
they spend about $0.47 on freight transport fuel consumption. At an annual cost of nearly $1,200,
-------
households spend almost as much on freight truck fuel as they do on electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1336-A1 p. 15]
B. FUTURE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE TRENDS
Any cost/benefit analysis of a proposed standard must be forward looking and factor in expected costs at
the time of implementation. As shown in Figure II-2, the EIA projects lower prices for both gasoline
and diesel in 2020, followed by a steady increase in prices to 2030. The Figure shows both "real" prices,
which are adjusted to compensate for inflation and actual expected prices. The EIA, which is the
primary source that government agencies use for future pricing, projects diesel prices to rise slightly
faster than gasoline prices, which has been the trend for the past decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.15]
[Figure II-2, 'future prices, real and discounted', can be found on p. 15 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1]
Figure II-2 also shows the effect of "discounting" future prices. The reason to discount is that the use of
money has value. It could have been put to other uses and earned a return. The standard discount rates
established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for regulatory analysis are 3% for the
consumer discount rate and 7% for the producer discount rate.12 In our analysis of the proposed rule, we
use the consumer discount rate of 3%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 16]
As large as current household spending is on transportation fuel used by medium and heavy duty trucks,
it will become even larger in the future. Going forward, the new CAFE requirements will lower the
household impact of fuel costs associated with consumer and commercial light duty vehicles. On the
other hand, without some controls, the burden on households due to medium and heavy duty truck fuel
costs will only increase both absolutely and relative to their direct expenditures on gasoline. Figure II-3
shows that, historically, the fuel economy of medium-heavy duty trucks has not increased. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 16]
[Figure II-3, 'motor economy 1949-2011', can be found on p. 16 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1336-A1]
The most recent Annual Energy Outlook from the EIA, incorporating the new fuel economy standard
for light duty vehicles, projects a substantial decline in fuel consumption as a result of increasing fuel
economy standards, as shown in the top graph of Figure II-4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1
p. 17]
[Figure II-4, 'Trends in fuel economy and consumption mileage by vehicle type expected mpg', can be
found on p. 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
As shown in the bottom graph of Figure II-4, fuel consumption of light duty vehicles (and therefore
household gasoline) is projected to decline because the increase in fuel economy is larger than the
expected increase in miles driven.13 On the other hand, in spite of the recently adopted truck standard
(2014), the EIA projected MPG for these vehicles to remain flat. As the use of these vehicles increases,
the lack of MPG improvement and rising fuel prices will significantly increase fuel costs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 18]
Without long-term standards for freight trucks, fuel consumption of trucks is projected to increase
because fuel economy improvements will not keep up with increasing demand for freight services.
-------
Within 20 years, taking the price difference between gasoline and diesel into effect, the gap between
direct and indirect household expenditures on transportation energy will narrow considerably. As show
above, today, the burden imposed indirectly on household budgets by truck fuel consumption equals
about half the burden imposed directly by gasoline consumption. Without stronger fuel economy
standards for trucks, that burden will grow to 80% of the future gasoline burden because the current
light duty standard will drive down consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 18]
This analysis of the indirect cost burden that medium and heavy duty trucks place on household budgets
indicates that consumers have a big stake in the Phase II rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1
P-18]
III. COMMERCIAL FUEL COSTS ARE PASSED THROUGH TO HOUSEHOLDS
A. A COST OF DOING BUSINESS
While we have calculated the size of fuel expenditures on a per household basis, we must ask, "do
households actually pay these costs?" To a large degree, the answer is "Yes." These costs are just like
any other commercial costs in the economy. When a farmer pays for fertilizer or the delivery driver gets
his paycheck, these business costs are recovered in the price of the related goods and services. The same
is true with fuel costs. In fact, the Mid-Atlantic Freight Coalition confirms the pass-through of
transportation costs in a report on how transportation and logistics consume a significant portion of
household budgets. According to the report, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 19]
"the freight logistics system costs nearly $4,500 per person, which is spent moving and warehousing
goods. This $4,500 factors into the cost of every product we buy. Anything that industry or government
can do to make the logistics system more efficient will return benefits in terms of lower cost and greater
global competitiveness."14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.19]
Although this estimate of the size of the expenditure on freight logistics includes all transportation
modes (truck, rail, barge, etc.) and all costs, (equipment, maintenance, salaries, etc.), it acknowledges
the importance of transportation costs to the economy which includes truck fuel costs. In addition to the
pass-through of these costs to consumers, there is the significant dependence on foreign sources for this
fuel. Imported petroleum now makes up just under half (48%) of the total U.S. product supplied,15
which is a drain on the U.S. economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 19]
While the recognition that transportation costs are paid by consumers is obvious, the concept is
reinforced by two observations: First, although transportation costs are a small part of the total economy
(just under 3%), they are as large or larger, than several other sectors, including agriculture, mining,
utilities and construction (see Figure III-l). It is widely recognized that those costs are passed on to
consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p. 19]
[Figure III-l, 'gross domestic product by sectors', can be found on p. 19 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
Second, fuel costs are the single largest component of transportation costs, representing over one-third
of the total transportation costs (see Figure III-2). Fuel costs are slightly larger than driver pay and three
times as large as the cost of owning and insuring the truck. As transportation costs are passed through to
consumers, fuel is the largest component of that pass through. There is certainly no reason to believe
that fuel costs are less likely to be recovered from consumers than drivers' wages or owners' capital
costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.20]
-------
[Figure III-2, 'average truck operation costs', can be found on p.20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1]
B. ECONOMETRIC MODELS DEMONSTRATE THE PASS-THROUGH NATURE OF
TRANSPORTATION FUEL COSTS
The economic reality of the flow through to consumers of transportation fuel costs is reflected in the
way econometric models describe the growth of the economy. Such models are built on input/output
tables, and transportation costs are a significant input in the models. In building these models, the pass-
through of transportation costs is assumed, since transportation plays a fundamental role in the overall
cost of production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.21]
Transportation is an economic factor of production of goods and services, implying that relatively small
changes can have substantial impacts on costs, locations and performance... [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1336-A1 p.21]
Transport also contributes to economic development through job creation and its derived economic
activities. Accordingly, a large number of direct (freighters, managers, shippers) and indirect (insurance,
finance, packaging, handling, travel agencies, transit operators) employment are associated with
transport. Producers and consumers make economic decisions on products, markets, costs, location,
prices which are themselves based on transport services, their availability, costs and capacity.16 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A p.21]
The importance of transportation in these economic models is reflected in the high multiplier it is given.
In order to build a model of the economy, analysts study the places where a sector purchases inputs and
sells output. Typically, the more places that are touched by a sector, the larger its multiplier. Because
most economic models are built on the flow of goods and services through the economy, they depend on
the geographic scope and nature of activity within the economy being modeled. Transportation is
generally seen as a central input to measuring broader economic activity. To further reinforce the impact
of transportation costs on consumer pocketbooks, Figure III-3 presents the sector multipliers for the
state of California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.21]
[Figure III-3, 'Sector Multipliers for the California Economy', can be found on p.22 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
Transportation has the 20th largest multiplier, in a study of 60 California sectors. Not only is the
transportation cost multiplier above average, but it is substantially larger than the multipliers related to
petroleum production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.22]
In modeling the impact of higher fuel economy with these econometric models, it is important to
understand certain market factors. As the cost of transportation declines, demand for transportation
increases because the demand for goods and services increases due to their lower costs. In addition, as
the population and economy grows, the need for commercial transportation increases as well.
Nevertheless, the fuel savings from greater efficiency are much larger than the increase in consumption.
The net effect is to reduce expenditures on fuel as a percent of total output. In fact, the reduction in
energy consumption may be so large that the absolute level of consumption is lowered. This has a
positive effect on the economy. We consume less petroleum products and more of other goods and
services. Because those other goods and services have bigger multipliers, the economy expands. So it is
clear that the passthrough to consumers of truck fuel costs is important for both energy policy and
economic policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.22]
-------
C. PUBLIC OPINION
Since we have been able to demonstrate that these fuel costs are considerable and, in fact, likely to be
passed on as indirect costs to households, we should not be surprised to find that consumers understand
that fact (see Figure III-4). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.23]
Two recent Consumer Federation of America surveys, found that the vast majority of consumers (over
90%) understand that "some, most, or all" of the fuel costs of heavy-duty trucks, which transport
virtually every consumer good, are passed on to consumers, as shown in the upper graph of Figure III-4.
In fact, over 55 percent believe that "all or most" of these costs are passed on to the consumer. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.23] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.237.]]
In both of the CFA surveys, consumers clearly understood the possibility of these savings as nearly
three quarters of the respondents favored requiring truck manufacturers to increase the fuel economy of
large trucks (see the lower graph in Figure III-4).17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.23]
[Figure III-4, 'Consumer Attidues about freight fuel costs and standards', can be found on p.23-24 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1]
2. Pass-through
A second theoretical explanation that played an important part in the earlier analysis and was addressed
by EPA/NHTSA is the question of the pass-through of cost savings to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1336-A1 p.51] [This comment can also be found in section 11.5 of this comment summary.]
As a result of this proposed rulemaking, it is anticipated that trucking firms will experience fuel savings.
Fuel savings lower the costs of transportation goods and services. In a competitive market, some of the
fuel savings that initially accrue to trucking firms are likely to be passed along as lower transportation
costs that, in turn, could result in lower prices for final goods and services. Some of the savings might
also be retained by firms for investments or for distributions to firm owners. Again, how much accrues
to customers versus firm owners will depend on the relative elasticities of supply and demand.
Regardless, the savings will accrue to some segment of consumers: Either owners of trucking firms or
the general public, and the effect will be increased spending by consumers in other sectors of the
economy, creating jobs in a diverse set of sectors, including retail and service industries.41 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.51-52] [This comment can also be found in section 11.5 of this comment
summary.]
The pass-through issue also turns up in another key aspect of the overall analysis, the rebound effect.
The increase in consumption associated with the rebound effect occurs because consumers have more
money to spend. The first effect is through the reduction of the cost of travel, but there is a second effect
through the increase in disposable income available for other consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.52] [This comment can also be found in section 11.5 of this comment summary.]
Elasticities with respect to fuel price and fuel cost can provide some insight into the magnitude of the
HDV VMT rebound effect.... Freight price elasticities measure the percent change in demand for
freight in response to a percent change in freight prices, controlling for other variables that may
influence freight demand such as GDP, the extent that goods are traded internationally, and road supply
and capacity. This type of elasticity is only applicable to the HDV subcategory of freight trucks (i.e.,
combination tractors and vocational vehicles that transport freight). One desirable attribute of such
-------
measures for purposes of this analysis is that they show the response of freight trucking activity to
changes to trucking rates, including changes that result from fuel cost savings as well as increases in
HDV technology costs. Freight price elasticities, however, are imperfect proxies for the rebound effect
in freight trucks for a number of reasons. For example, in order to apply these elasticities we must
assume that our proposed rule's impact on fuel and vehicle costs is fully reflected in freight rates. This
may not be the case if truck operators adjust their profit margins or other operational practices (e.g.,
loading practices, truck driver's wages) instead of freight rates. It is not well understood how trucking
firms respond to different types of cost changes (e.g., changes to fuel costs versus labor costs).42 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.52] [This comment can also be found in section 11.5 of this comment
summary.]
These observations make it clear that there is a significant level of pass-through of cost savings. Given
the competitiveness of the trucking industry and its importance, we believe it is substantial.
EPA/NHTSA conclude that there will be pass-through, but they do not provide an estimate. Their
estimate of the rebound effect is moderate - 10% - based on a variety of factors. We have discussed this
earlier. Given the very large economic benefits, the magnitude of the rebound effect does not
significantly affect the bottom line of the analysis. Without specifying the precise level, it is clear that
pass-through is significant and has important macroeconomic benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1336-A1 p.52-53] [This comment can also be found in section 11.5 of this comment summary.]
VII. STRIKING THE BALANCE BETWEEN FUEL SAVINGS AND FEASIBILITY
In this section we examine the challenge of striking a balance between achieving the maximum energy
savings/emissions reductions and the constraints of feasibility. Failing to achieve the maximum
economically beneficial savings imposes a direct and significant harm on consumers - they are forced to
pay too much for the goods and services that they consume. Mandating technologies that are infeasible
will drive up costs and ultimately cause the performance standards to fail. These two considerations
deserve equal weight, particularly in a sector where efficiency improvements have been largely flat,
while the rest of the economy has been improving dramatically. The "burden of proof' established by
the underlying statutes does not favor one concern over the other and leaves the agencies a great deal of
discretion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1336-A1 p.58]
4 Appendix A is a presentation to the California Energy Commission's Energy Academy that
summarizes the analytic framework (Mark Cooper, "Energy Efficiency Performance Standards: Driving
Consumer and Energy Savings in California, February 20, 2014). Appendix B (Mark Cooper, Energy
Efficiency Performance Standards: The Cornerstone of Consumer-Friendly Energy Policy, October
2013) provides our comprehensive review of the literature and the detailed analytic framework we have
developed to examine performance standards.
6 Mark Cooper, 2013, Energy Efficiency Performance Standards: The Cornerstone of Consumer-
Friendly Energy Policy, Consumer Federation of America, presents an extensive bibliography of survey
analysis by the Consumer Federation of America and other consumer groups.
7 Based on Bureaus of Labor statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, for 2013 and 2013-2014
8 Cooper, 2013
-------
9 For the purposes of simplicity, in this paper, we will refer to medium and heavy duty trucks as 'freight
trucks'.
10 We estimate 2014 based on total products supplied and average price for the year, assuming a 1%
increase in the number of households and constant consumption per household. This is consistent with
the difference between the 2013 Consumer Expenditure Survey and the mid-year 2014 Consumer
Expenditure Survey. While price is down 3% between 2014 and 2013, expenditures are down 1.5% in
the year July 2013-July 2014. By the end of the year we would expect the increase in consumption
stimulated by declining prices to be offset by the decrease in consumption reflecting more fuel efficient
vehicles and the underlying trend. For diesel, we divide the total expenditures by the estimated number
of households.
11 Mark Cooper and Jack Gillis, Paying the Freight: The Consumer Benefits of Increasing the Fuel
Economy of Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks, Consumer Federation of America, February 2014.
12 EPA/NHTSA, PHASE IINOPR, p. 40434, PHASE II RIA, p. 8-1. The benefits and costs of these
rules are analyzed using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, consistent with current OMB guidance.
These rates are intended to represent consumers' preference for current over future consumption (3
percent), and the real rate of return on private investment (7 percent) which indicates the opportunity
cost of capital. However, neither of these rates necessarily represents the discount rate that individual
decision-makers use. The program may also have other economic effects that are not included here.
13 Population growth will increase vehicles on the road and overall miles driven.
14 Mid-America Freight Coalition "The Economic Importance of Freight," p. 2.
15 EIA, Monthly Energy Review, August 2015, Table 3.1.
16 Transportation and Economic Development Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodriguez and Dr. Theo
Notteboom, http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/conc7en/ch7clen.html, A regional analysis
reinforces this observation, Oregon, Transportation, Plan Update, Transportation and the Economy
Manufacturing is dependent on transportation to receive raw materials and to deliver its products.
Manufacturing is usually a highly competitive activity. Unless an area has other low cost attributes, high
transportation costs will cause manufacturers to leave or avoid that area
17 Both surveys were conducted by ORC International, and in each poll ORC surveyed over a thousand
Americans with an error rate of +/- 3%.
41 EPA/NHTSA, NPRM, p. 40482
42 EPA/NHTSA, NPRM, p. 40450, 40451.
Organization: Edison Solar Inc.
Because truck fuel consumption is so great (and growing), the benefits of improving truck fuel
efficiency are also great (and growing): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1176-A1 p.2]
-------
• Fuel savings will help bring down the costs of transporting goods, with the average household saving
$150 a year by 2030, assuming the savings and costs are passed through to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1176-A1 p.2]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Consumers also stand to benefit from a strong rule. The average United States household pays more
than $1,100 a year to fuel heavy trucks as companies pass some of their fuel costs on to
customers.81 The Consumer Federation of America found that more robust Phase 2 standards could
deliver as much as $400 in savings to an average household annually on services and goods by
2035.82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 18]
81 Consumer Federation of America (CFA), Paying the Freight: The consumer benefits of increasing
the fuel economy of medium and heavy-duty trucks, (2014), available
athttp://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Paying-the-Freight.pdf.
82 Id.
Organization: Hoosier Environmental Council
Furthermore, such savings (at the aggregate) will inevitably translate into savings for Indiana residents
in terms of the cost of their goods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1245-A1 p.l]
Organization: Illinois Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 254.]
Strong emission standards for heavy duty vehicles will save consumers money. According to the
National Resource Defense Council and their partner organizations that have researched these standards,
consumers will save more money by the decrease of the use of oil and the use of efficiency technology.
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
Importance of the Motor Vehicle Sector
The United States' motor vehicle sector is large, profitable and competitive. The domestic motor vehicle
industry is vital to the U.S. economy and it is imperative that we remain strong and competitive. Nearly
900,000 people worked in auto and auto-parts manufacturing alone. When jobs from other sectors that
are dependent on the industry are included, the auto industry is responsible for 7.25 million jobs
nationwide, or about 3.8% of private-sector employment. The industry generates tens of billions in tax
revenues across the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.3]
The motor vehicle industry is in many ways the cornerstone of our manufacturing sector. The economic
impact of the standards on the entire supply chain must be taken into account when analyzing the
proposed regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1248-A2 p.3]
-------
The current proposal is expansive and complex. The impact of costs associated with development and
production costs should be taken into account while drafting the final rule, including any costs
associated with disruption of program and capital cycles. It also covers a lengthy period of time as the
proposed regulations would be in effect until 2027. Regulatory certainty is an essential part of the
industry's ability to develop and market new advanced technologies and maintain product cycles
meeting stringency requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1248-A2 p.7]
Organization: Investor Network on Climate Risk
Furthermore, strong standards would also benefit consumers and the economy; as operating costs come
down due to more fuel-efficient trucks, consumers will see cost savings, which in turn will be reinvested
in the broader economy. Under strong standards, the average U.S. household stands to save $250 per
year in lower-priced goods.3 [NHTSA-2014-0132-0113-A1 p.2]
3 Cooper, Mark Dr. and Gillis, Jack. "The Consumer Benefits of Increasing the Fuel Economy of
Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks." The Consumer Federation of America. February 2014. Web.
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Paying-the-Freight.pdf
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts (web) - (4,452)
When businesses spend more on fuel, the cost is passed along to consumers through purchased goods
and services. According to the Consumer Federation of America, goods and services delivered by
medium- and heavy-duty trucks cost each U.S. household $1,100 in 2010. Assuming the fuel savings
from the new standards were passed along to consumers through the reduced cost of transported goods,
American families could save an extra $150 a year by 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1252-A1 p.l]
Organization: Midwest Truckers Association
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 267.]
we look forward to the next step in this rulemaking process and have been encouraged to see a rule that
can not only be an improvement for the environment, but also result in potential cost savings for these
truck operators. And, of course, then that's passed onto the consumer, who could benefit from the fact
that lower fuel consumption means less overhead costs. [This comment can also be found in section 1.1
of this comment summary]
Organization: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA)
NRMCA holds concerns with a number of specific issues in the joint EPA/NHTSA proposal. NRMCA
believes more attention should be placed on costs that inevitably will filter to downstream consumers of
new heavy-duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1146-A1 p.2]
Organization: Quasar Energy Group
Because truck fuel consumption is so great (and growing), the benefits of improving truck fuel
efficiency are also great (and growing): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1335-A1 p.l]
-------
Fuel savings will help bring down the costs of transporting goods, with the average household saving
$150 a year by 2030, assuming the savings and costs are passed through to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1335-A1 p.2]
Response:
Most of these commenters (Amy's Kitchen et al., Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy
(BICEP), CFO, CFA, Edison Solar, EDF, Hoosier Environmental Council, Illinois PIRG, Investor
Network on Climate Risk (INCR), Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts
(Pew), Midwest Truckers Association, Quasar Energy Group) state that the standards will save
consumers money, with estimates ranging from $150 per year by 2030 (DFO, Edison Solar, Pew,
Quasar Energy Group), to $250 per year in an unspecified year (BICEP, INCR) to $400 in 2035 (EDF).
CFA estimates that households spend about $1,200 per year on freight vehicle fuel, but do not in their
comments provide an estimate for the savings per household from implementation of the standards. The
agencies have not estimated the per-household savings. Preamble Section IX.M. includes estimates of
the payback period for MY 2027 vehicles. For HD pickups and vans, the payback period is in the third
year of ownership; it is in the fourth year of ownership for vocational vehicles; and early in the second
year for tractors/trailers.
CFA argues that the full net benefits of the standards will be passed along to households. As discussed
in Preamble IX.L.3.C, the agencies do not take a position on whether the savings will be passed along
fully to households, or whether some of those savings will instead either be retained by firms for
investment, or distributed instead to firm owners. Regardless, the net savings will accrue to some
segment of consumers, and we expect that there will be increased spending in other sectors of the
economy. We agree with CFA that stronger GHG/fuel economy standards will reduce fuel consumption
relative to the reference case.
CFA also notes the relatively high multiplier for transportation in California as a measure of the
importance of transportation in economic activity. Multipliers, such as those used in input-output
models, assume fixed relationships between inputs and outputs; they do not allow for substitution
effects due to changes in prices, either for inputs or for outputs. They may provide a reasonable
approximation of short-run effects for a small region or sector, where substitution effects may not be
very large, but they may be less suited for national-scale policies over time, where market adjustments
are more likely.228
As discussed in Preamble Section IX.L.2. and RIA Chapter 8.11.2.2, the agencies have used various
factors to estimate the effects on employment specifically of the increased costs due to the new
standards (employment due to substitution effects). As described there, these are the expected
employment requirements in the directly regulated sector per $1 million in expenditures in that sector;
they do not include multiplier effects in other sectors. We focus on the directly regulated sector because
it is likely to be the most strongly affected, and because other sectors typically are not solely reliant on
the regulated sector, and thus are likely to be more difficult to model well.
The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW) notes the importance of the motor vehicle industry to the U.S. economy and asks for
recognition of the effects on the supply chain, and investment cycles. The lead-time considerations in
the standards are intended to facilitate feasibility throughout the supply chain and over investment
228 See, e.g., Berck, Peter, and Sandra Hoffman (2002). "Assessing the Employment Impacts of Environmental and
Natural Resource Policy." Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 133-156.
-------
cycles. As UAW recognizes, setting the standards through 2027 provides the industry with the
regulatory certainty needed to plan for and achieve these requirements.
The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) asks that more attention be placed on costs
that will affect consumers of new heavy-duty vehicles. As other commenters observe, the fuel savings
as well as the up-front vehicle costs will affect the expenses to users of heavy-duty vehicles. The
specific impacts on costs to consumers of heavy-duty vehicles will depend on the time period over
which the vehicle owners amortize costs and the pass-through of both benefits and costs. Both of these
factors will depend on such factors as the market structure in the particular sector and the typical length
of ownership of vehicles in that sector
-------
12 Natural Gas Vehicles and Engines
This section addresses comments related to emission standards, test procedures, and other regulatory
provisions as they relate to natural gas vehicles and engines. This section also addresses comments
related to economic and environmental issues related to natural gas as a market fuel. Some of these
issues may also relate to LPG or other alternative fuels. See the rest of this document for issues of
general interest that also apply to natural gas and other alternative-fuel vehicles and engines.
12.1 General Comments on Natural Gas
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Natural Gas Vehicle Development and Deployment Must not be Stymied
Natural gas still remains the most promising alternative fuel available to the trucking sector. The
continued interest and investment in both vehicles and infrastructure, both in the public and private
sectors, has clearly indicated the potential of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Continued research and
improvements in both the efficiency and performance of such vehicles continues to grow. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.22]
In-Use Natural Gas Fuel Standards Should be Addressed Outside of the Rule
Several standards organizations currently are in the process of reviewing fuel specifications for natural
gas used as a motor fuel and may finalize such a standard in the future. SAE J1616 currently addresses
fuel specifications for natural gas motor fuel but is a recommended practice, not a required standard.
Based on the current level of discussion and level of usage of natural gas as a transportation fuel it is not
clear whether the current discussions will result in any changes to J1616 or a new fuel standard for
natural gas. Given that these discussions are currently ongoing, it would be premature for EPA to
propose a standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.22]
Organization: NGVAmerica
A. In-Use Fuel Specification for Natural Gas. The proposal discusses but does not propose
including an in-use fuel standard for natural gas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.2]
NGV America supports the decision by the agencies not to propose an in-use standard for natural gas
that is used as a motor fuel. Several standards organizations currently are in the process of reviewing
fuel specifications for natural gas used as a motor fuel and may finalize such a standard in the future.
SAE J1616 currently addresses fuel specifications for natural gas motor fuel but is a recommended
practice, not a required standard. Based on the current level of discussion and level of usage of natural
gas as a transportation fuel it is not clear whether the current discussions will result in any changes to
J1616 or a new fuel standard for natural gas. Furthermore, most, if not all, natural gas motor vehicle fuel
is primarily transported by natural gas pipeline utilities which are subject to regulation by their
respective state public utility agencies. Consequently, natural gas quality specifications almost always
differ from state to state, and sometimes between gas utilities within the same state, depending upon the
sources of the natural gas supplied to these utilities. Given the above circumstances and the lack of
consensus on a proper in-use standard, it would be premature for EPA or NHTSA to propose a standard.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.2]
-------
Response
and NGVAmerica, this final rulemaking does not contain any natural gas fuel quality regulations for
the natural gas consumed by the transportation sector. Such regulations were not proposed.
Organization: Autocar, LLC
Autocar has worked hard to support emissions reduction consistent with EPA's and NHTSA's
objectives. Across all three of its product lines, Autocar has aggressively embraced next-generation
clean engine technology. Over the past five years, 50-70% of Autocar's refuse trucks were assembled
with compressed natural gas ("CNG") engines or hydrostatic hybrid drive units. No other refuse truck
maker's product mix reflects a higher concentration of clean-burning vehicles. Autocar has built and
sold more than 6,000 CNG vehicles. The Company has dedicated itself to assembling environmentally-
sound products, which are then used in environmentally-sound processes such as recyclables collection
and transport of waste to landfills harvesting methane gas, which reduces greenhouse gases and offers a
source of renewable energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.6]
4.4.1 CNG and Hybrid Power. As set forth in the introduction to this letter, Autocar is an industry leader
in the integration of fuel-efficient CNG engines and hybrid power units11 in refuse trucks and street
sweepers. The positive effects of CNG and hybrid technology on fuel efficiency and pollutant emissions
are widely recognized and are acknowledged in the Proposed Regulations. Autocar's applications may
be more suited to CNG and hybrid power than other vocational applications. But these sophisticated
technologies come with a significantly higher purchase price. Autocar and its customers actively
participate in CNG and hybrid incentive programs from coast to coast. These programs have been
successful in bridging the cost gap between diesel trucks and CNG or hybrid trucks and infrastructure.
We encourage the agencies to build on that proven success and provide additional incentives for the
purchase of CNG and hybrid trucks, for Low-speed/Frequent-stop Vehicles as well as other vocational
and non-vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 15][This comment can also be
found in section 6.4 of this comment summary]
11 As currently designed for use in refuse vehicles, hybrid technology captures normally-wasted energy
from braking, converting that energy into available power to accelerate or drive the vehicle, thus
reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Testing methodologies for this technology must
accommodate the braking, load and terrain factors that are integral to measuring the gains derived from
hybrid refuse vehicles. Dynamometer testing will not demonstrate actual improvements in GHG
emissions and fuel consumption.
Response
The agencies have adopted interim provisions that allow the potential for small manufacturers like
Autocar to generate Phase 1 credits for producing natural gas vehicles. See Chapter 6.3 for responses to
comments on applying hybrid technologies to vocational vehicles including refuse trucks.
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
More specifically, our comments pertain to the components of the Proposal that relate to the use of
natural gas in our nation's trucks and buses. While natural gas fuels only a small percentage of our
-------
nation's new trucks, this clean, domestic, non-petroleum fuel powers a growing number of trucks and
buses in key niches, such as sanitation and solid waste, school and transit buses, urban delivery, port
drayage, and, where the fueling infrastructure supports it, long-haul trucking in certain locations. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 1-2]
We believe our recommendations will have meaningful impacts on the future use of natural gas in the
American trucking sector - a sector that delivers reduced greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air
pollutants, and operating costs for the companies that deliver our goods and for the public fleets that
serve our cities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A 1 p.2]
Organization: Clean Energy
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 248-249, 250-251.]
New territory is being blazed as the rule proposes to regulate additional aspects of natural gas vehicles,
which will ensure NGBs are providing their lowest emissions possible. These include standards for
LNG tank hold times and addressing possible methane emissions from open crank cases.
While we will ultimately defer to tank and engine manufacturers on how best to accomplish the aim of
these new regulations, we applaud EPA and NHTSA for addressing these issues that will ensure the
elimination of unnecessary methane leaks in engine systems.
Of course, the natural gas industry is not only a pioneer in eliminating the real impacts of mobile source
criteria emissions. It is also a leader in finding solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
investing heavily in renewable natural gas space. We would like to thank the EPA for updating the
renewable fuel standards to provide an even greater incentive to produce renewable natural gas on par
with other cellulosic fuels.
In conclusion, further greenhouse gas reductions from renewable natural gas, which is an ultra-low-
carbon fuel, have proven to be the lowest carbon fuel source for heavy-duty class 7 and 8 trucks,
outperforming both electric and fuel cell strategies. Combining both the advanced engine technology of
natural gas with renewable natural gas blends, and you suddenly have a cost-effective alternative that
can deliver power plant-equivalent criteria emissions and superior greenhouse gas performance for the
medium- and heavy-duty truck space.
Organization: National Waste & Recycle Association
Alternate technology and alternate fuel refuse trucks: Vehicles powered by alternative fuels such as
compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) are becoming commonplace in our
industry. The move toward further adoption of alternative fuel trucks is inexorable. These fuels can
lower the fleet's carbon output because they are less carbon-dense. In addition, a very small number of
vehicles are powered by methane biofuels produced from landfill gas. Expanded use of these alternative
fuels is limited in part by the need to develop a new infrastructure for fuel delivery. All new
technologies also face cost considerations. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A 1 p.4]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
-------
The final Phase 2 rule must do more to incentivize the purchase of alternate fuel and new technology
vocational trucks and tractors. Natural gas, propane, biofuel, hybrid, and/or plug-in electric vehicles
each offer a significant potential for reducing fuel use and GHG's. However, each of these alternatives
involves significant cost ($20,000-150,000 per vehicle), performance, infrastructure, and other concerns.
ATD supports the approach initiated in Phase 1 where an advanced technology credit scheme is utilized
to promote and reward the in-use adoption of these alternative fuels and new technologies. In addition,
the Phase 2 rule should strive to be fuel and technology "neutral," leaving it up to new vehicle
customers to determine the technologies and fuels that work best for them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1309-A1 p.9-10]
Organization: City of Lawrence, Indiana
A major beverage company in Lawrence has converted all of their semi-trailers to natural gas from
diesel. The transition began in October of 2013 with one tractor. The first eight compressed natural gas
tractors travel around 465,000 miles per year delivering beverages to 500 retail locations. The tractors
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by approximately 5 percent, or 266,561 pounds, annually and
displace 75,000 gallons of diesel fuel. CNG is also nontoxic, which means the new tractors won't harm
Indiana's vast farming lands. They now operate 79 CNG tractors throughout the State of Indiana. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1226-A1 p.l]
Response
As acknowledged by the AGA, SAFE, Clean Energy, the National Waste and Recycle Association,
NADA and the City of Lawrence, Indiana comments, natural gas is being used by a small portion of the
heavy-duty fleet here in the U.S., and its use could increase in the future. Natural gas likely provides
criteria pollutant emission reductions compared to conventional petroleum fuels. However, since the
purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption, the goal of the
agencies is to set fuel-neutral, heavy-duty truck tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards which will
neither encourage nor impede the possible use of natural gas. This way the market will decide the
extent that natural gas will play a role in fueling heavy-duty trucks. In keeping with the tailpipe
emissions approach, EPA is further regulating aspects of both the upstream and downstream methane
emissions points of the natural gas system in other regulatory actions. Because methane gas from
landfills is renewable, it receives a renewable fuel credit under the Renewable Fuels standard. See
Chapter 6.3 for responses to comments on applying hybrid and electrification technologies to vocational
vehicles. See Chapter 1.4 for responses to comments on advanced technology credits.
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA)
The NPRM proposes many standards regarding greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and fuel efficiency for
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles over 14,000 GVWR. Comments submitted herein are limited to GHG
and fuel efficiency standards in relation to liquefied petroleum gas or propane as a vehicular fuel
("autogas"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1272-A1 p.l]
Propane gas is used in millions of installations nationwide for home and commercial heating and
cooking, in agriculture, in industrial processing and as a clean air alternative engine fuel for both over-
the-road vehicles and industrial lift trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1272-A1 p.l]
In the NPRM, the agencies detail extensive assessment of gasoline, diesel and natural gas fuels without
inclusion of the progress and viability of autogas as an alternative fuel.1 Autogas offers unique fueling
possibilities with potentially substantial economic and environmental advantages. The low carbon
-------
content and high octane rating present a low GHG emission fuel optimum for spark-ignited combustion
engines.2 Comparatively, autogas produces 80 percent less GHG emissions than diesel, which is the
common fuel for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.3 In addition, the estimated infrastructure
development is less expensive than diesel or gasoline.4 As a by-product of natural gas production, the
volume of autogas continues to increase with greater domestic availability of natural gas.5 To this end,
NPGA urges EPA to recognize autogas as an exceptional alternative fuel capable of dramatically
improving the environmental impact of vehicle emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1272-A1 p. 1-2]
Autogas
The NPRM presents considerable analysis of the features and future potential of natural gas; however,
we believe the agencies are remiss in not acknowledging the progress and possibilities of autogas. The
agencies recognize the small but developing proliferation of natural gas powered medium- and heavy-
duty trucks.6 The agencies also recognize the potential of natural gas to displace diesel, particularly in
regards to heavy-duty trucks.7 Moreover, the agencies detail and assess the varying infrastructure
requirements, engine design and potential emissions concerns of compressed natural gas (CNG) and
liquefied natural gas (LNG).8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1272-A1 p.2]
We believe that autogas is on a parallel path of expansion and, supported by the environmental and
economic advantages,9 earns equal consideration from the agencies. The absence of its
acknowledgement among agencies' regulations and programs, in general, creates an unnecessary
hindrance. Relatedly, the agencies recognize that without particular allowances the utilization of natural
gas would be jeopardized.10 We argue that autogas is similarly situated in need, possesses an emissions
profile very similar to natural gas and should be treated with equal consideration as natural gas. Autogas
serves as a complementary fuel to natural gas that present unique capabilities to displace diesel. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1272-A1 p.2]
The agencies rely on forecasts by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to evaluate likely fuel
trends11 and, from there, prescribe GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards that may be achievable
beyond the next decade.12 Review of the latest projections from EIA demonstrate that popularity of
autogas is growing, "Consumption of ethane and propane . . . shows the largest increase of all petroleum
products in the AEO2015 Reference Case from 2013 to 2040."13 The Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO2015) further predicts a 1.3 percent annual growth rate of autogas over the next twenty years.14
The report also indicates that autogas use will largely parallel use of natural gas in the transportation
field over the next fifteen years.15 We request that the agencies review the latest data and estimations
from EIA in AEO2015, which substantially adjusts trend predictions originally featured in the previous
report, specifically in relation to the use of propane in the transportation industry.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1272-A1 p.2]
We also believe that propane has particular characteristics that accentuate and may propel future
utilization of dimethyl ether (DME). The agencies generally summarize the advantageous nature of
DME as a potential alternative fuel,17 but the possibilities are somewhat limited due to the lack of
necessary infrastructure, engine design and the high costs to supply refueling stations.18 However,
research studies have discovered that blends of propane and DME at varying ratios could provide an
optimum alternative fuel.19 Blends of propane and DME are a marriage of high fuel economy, low
emissions and high efficiency.20 Moreover, only modest modifications of diesel engines are necessary
for a DME/propane blend.21 The agencies briefly summarize the potential benefits of DME in the
NPRM,22 but, in light of the evident advantages propane offers in combination with DME, we believe it
is erroneous to omit discussion of incentives to encourage advancements in propane as an alternative
fuel. Further to this, NPGA continues to actively pursue research and development for the expanded use
-------
of autogas, particularly in regards to conventionally-fueled (gasoline or diesel) medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles that are significant contributors to GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1272-A1 p.2-3]
1 40 C.F.R. § 86.000-2 (definition of alternative fuel); see also 40 C.F.R. § 86.1803-01 (alternative fuel
distinct from natural gas).
2 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center,
Propane Fuel Basics, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/propane_basics.html.
3 Propane Education & Research Council, Propane Autogas vs. Diesel (2014)
http://www.propane.com/on-road-fleets/case-studies-and-fact-sheets/.
4 Id.; Propane Education & Research Council, Propane Autogas vs. Gasoline (2014)
http://www.propane.com/on-road-fleets/case-studies-and-fact-sheets/.
5 See Propane Education & Research Council, Propane Autogas vs. Gasoline (2014)
http://www.propane.com/on-road-fleets/case-studies-and-fact-sheets/.
6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles; Phase 2, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 Fed. Reg. 133, 40138, at 40502 (proposed July
13, 2015) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 9, 22, 85, 86, 600).
7 Id.
8 Id. at 40505
9 Infra page 1.
10 Supra note 6, at 40510.
11 Id. at 40509.
12 Id. at 40138.
13 Energy Information Administration, 2015 Annual Energy Outlook 16 (2015).
14 Id. at A-4.
15 See id., at Table B.2 Energy Consumption by Sector and Source.
16 Id. at E-9. "Jet fuel, motor gasoline and industrial propane use are each about 500 trillion Btu higher
in 2040 in AEO2015 than in AEO2014 , as a result of update and revisions made in the air
transportation model and lower petroleum fuel prices." Id.
17 Supra note 6, at 40512. Among the benefits the agencies identify are the ability to store DME in
liquid form in ambient temperatures, minimal engine redesign, and much lower global warming
potential than methane. Id.
-------
18 Id.
19 International DME Association, Frequently Asked Questions, What are the benefits of DME's use as
a transportation fuel? https://www.aboutdme.org/index.asp?bid=234#Q5 (2013).
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Supra note 6, at 40512
Response
In response to the NPGA and Autogas comments, the focus on diesel fuel and gasoline in the
rulemaking is, of course, due to the extent that these fuels are commonly used by heavy-duty trucks
today. While there is little natural gas use by heavy-duty trucks today (less than 1 percent), several
projections show a large increase in natural gas use because natural gas has been priced much lower
than diesel fuel in recent years and is projected to be priced favorably low again in future years. This
potentially is a concern because methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a very efficient heat
trapping gas which has the potential to exacerbate climate change. For these reasons, we conducted a
lifecycle analysis of natural gas trucks and reviewed projections of future use of natural gas use by
trucks. See Preamble section XI.B. We concluded there that CNG trucks are estimated to emit less
GHG emissions than diesel trucks and that LNG trucks with an average extent of boil-off emissions can
have about the same greenhouse gas footprint as diesel trucks (both estimates being dependent on the
assumed rate of thermal efficiency of the engines). Even though the Energy Information Administration
(EIA) projects increased use of LPG by heavy-duty trucks in the future, because LPG poses a much
smaller climate change risk compared to natural gas, we did not conduct a lifecycle analysis of LPG
trucks.
Organization: Siemens
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 252.]
And Siemens wishes to encourage the EPA to give high priority to implementing solutions that enable
renewable energy, such as decarbonized electricity, to achieve a similar shift in freight emissions, as has
been achieved for passenger transport.
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
The proposed rule should recognize the potential carbon advantage of natural gas, especially as
renewable natural gas (bio-methane) from landfills and dairy facilities is becoming a viable means of
reducing carbon emission of trucks to near zero. To be attractive as a truck fuel, this bio-methane must
be 'drop-in' and pipeline quality, so there is no way for the OEM to distinguish which, and how much of
each, fuel will be used in the future. Because the low carbon fuel standard is making renewable natural
gas competitive in price with natural gas in some areas for transportation, UPS suggests that the natural
gas vehicle be given a credit based on the average amount of renewable natural gas that is anticipated
for future use. UPS is already using renewable natural gas in California and looking for opportunities in
other areas of the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 12]
-------
Organization: VNG
While RNG can be substituted for fossil natural gas in any end use, including heating and power
generation, its strongest driver going forward will be the transportation sector. The reasons are two-fold.
First, because RNG as a motor vehicle fuel competes primarily with gasoline and diesel prices, it has a
greater economic advantage compared to competing against lower-cost coal and/or natural gas in the
heating and power sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p. 1-2]
Perhaps more importantly, the economics of RNG in transportation are helped enormously by the
generation and sale of credits under EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program - under which it is
counted as a highly valued cellulosic biofuel - and the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
program, under which it has the lowest carbon intensity of any fuel.2 These RFS and LCFS credit
revenue streams make RNG competitive on a cost basis with fossil natural gas, and are unavailable to
RNG used for non-transportation purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.2]
According to the RNG Coalition, the competitiveness of RNG with fossil CNG has enabled RNG to
account for 25% of NGV fueling nationally and 35% of NGV fueling in California - and these shares
could double by next year.3 The problem is that overall NGV fueling volumes are small because of the
relatively few NGVs currently on the road. In order to maximize the potential of RNG to deliver
methane emission reductions, NGVs fueled on RNG need to be counted in the millions rather than the
approximately 110,000 now on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.2]
Because the medium- and heavy-duty market is likely to provide the strongest demand driver for natural
gas and RNG vehicle fuel in the near term, advanced technology multipliers for NGVs in the current
rulemaking would help provide the demand growth needed to significantly accelerate the development
of this ultra-low carbon renewable fuel. Moreover, because of the enormous GHG benefits of RNG on a
lifecycle basis, these incentives would likely increase, not reduce, the overall benefits of this rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.2]
Increasing demand for RNG will yield diverse economic benefits as well. Municipalities, wastewater
treatment facilities, farms and other sources of methane emissions across the country will capture the
economic value associated with the use of RNG in the transportation sector while creating jobs and
fostering local energy independence and resilience in the process. Catalyzing these marketplace
dynamics will allow EPA to reduce these potent GHG emissions in a cost-effective manner, creating a
win-win-win-win scenario for methane sources, the transportation sector, consumers, and the climate.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.2]
2 California Air Resources Board. "Carbon Intensity Lookup Tables," Nov 2012.
http://www.arb.ca. gov/fuels/lcfs/lutables 11282012.pdf
3 Communications with David Cox, Director of Operations and General Counsel, RNG Coalition
Response
As pointed out by the Siemens, UPS and VNG comments, renewable natural gas (RNG) substantially
reduces the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by heavy-duty trucks which use RNG. Use of RNG by
heavy-duty trucks earns credits under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) nationally, as well as the
-------
Low Carbon Fuel Standard in California. Providing an additional credit for RNG under this rulemaking
as suggested by some commenters would be redundant and thus would not be appropriate.
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
WM operates the largest natural gas-fueled, heavy-duty truck fleet in North America. Nearly 25 percent
of our fleet comprises natural gas vehicles and greater than 90 percent of our new truck purchases each
year are compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles. We have found these trucks to be popular with our
customers and communities where we operate, good for our business and good for the environment.
Each natural gas truck eliminates the use of 8,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year. The cleaner-burning
natural gas vehicles have nearly zero particulate emissions, lower emissions of smog-forming pollutants,
and reduce GHG emissions by 20 percent. We are investing in new CNG fueling stations to support our
fleet and currently operate 79 facilities of which, more than 36 percent are open to the public or
municipal fleets. Our investment in fueling infrastructure has been an important step in promoting
municipal adoption of CNG vehicles, as the cost of fueling facilities can present a major barrier for local
governments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.1-2] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 100.]]
While we view natural gas vehicles as a bridge to future, even cleaner vehicles, we expect CNG
vehicles to be the predominant vehicle in our fleet for the near future, and quite possibly, into the scope
of this rulemaking, which covers MY 2021 through MY 2027. We are therefore focusing many of our
comments on the aspects of the rule that affect CNG, heavy-duty vocational trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1214-A2p.2]
Response:
We will highlight and discuss two different pieces of information in the Waste Management comment.
First, the commenter stated that compressed natural gas (CNG) engines emit 20% less greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG emissions) than diesel trucks. If the natural gas trucks emitted about the same amount
of methane emissions as diesel engines, this might be the case. However, the certification data shows
that natural gas trucks tend to emit about 1 gram per brake-horsepower-hour of methane, which is about
an order of magnitude greater than diesel fuel trucks. We estimate that the higher natural gas truck
methane tailpipe emissions combined with the lower thermal efficiency of spark-ignited natural gas
trucks makes natural gas trucks about the same in terms of GHG emissions as diesel fuel trucks when
assessed on a tailpipe basis. See Preamble Section XI. B.
Second, the commenter reinforced our observation that the installation of CNG and LNG refueling
facilities can be a major barrier to the growth in natural gas usage by heavy-duty trucks. This is one
reason why we believe that the growth in natural gas usage by heavy-duty trucks in the future will be
modest even if natural gas prices return to their large discount to diesel fuel retail prices.
12.2 Natural Gas Engine and Vehicle Technology 1721
12.2.1 General Technology Comments
Organization: American Power Group Inc (APG)
Would the EPA consider allowing NG fuel engine/vehicles (either dedicated or Mixed-Fueled) to report
only the NMHC values from the appropriate cert tests procedures similarly to how the ARB allows
NRCI Mixed-Fuel Tier 1 converted engines to report THC for diesel fueled operation and NMHC for
Mixed-Fuel operation? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197 p.l]
-------
1) Quench volumes within the piston, bore, cylinder head deck configuration: typical HHDD
engines are designed to directly inject diesel fuel, aimed into a centrally located re-entrant bowl within
the piston crown. Most (if not all), of the diesel fuel is combusted either in or very near this re-entrant
bowl. In a Mixed-Fuel configuration, the NG fuel comes into the combustion chamber pre-mixed with
the combustion air and this more homogenous NG fuel-air mixture gets compressed throughout the
entire volume inside the bore, above the piston and below the cylinder head deck. The NG fuel typically
will not compression ignite at compression ratios used by commercial HHDD engines and needs the
diesel fuel ignition to act as a pilot ignition source. The further the NG-air mixture is from the diesel
fuel pilot ignition source the less chance of complete NG combustion. As you move away from the re-
entrant bowl combustion chamber, out near the cylinder bore, the volume between the piston crown
edges and the cylinder bore which is above the top compression ring is a 'crevice volume' in which the
NG fuel (or most any fuel) will not combust. These crevice volume effects are evident in current OEM
HHDD NG engine CH4 emission data that shows 1.04-1.95 g/bhp-h (Cummins 8.8L and 11.95L
dedicated NG engines). Even the NG DI injected Westport HPDI technology suffers from 'crevice
volume' effects as the NG fuel must be injected much earlier in the compression cycle than the liquid
diesel fuel, allowing the NG fuel to mix with the combustion air well before the diesel fuel pilot ignition
event. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p.l]
Although S.I. engine OEM's have been studying and employing 'low crevice volume' piston designs to
reduce feed-gas HC emissions, the C.I. engine OEM has no compelling reason to employ 'low crevice
volume' piston designs for reasons already stated. It would be exorbitantly expensive for a Mixed-Fuel
SVM to research 'low-crevice-piston' and top compression ring configurations for all potential HHDD
engine applications, and change out all pistons, top rings and head gaskets during the Mixed-Fuel
conversion (approx. $10K-$15K/engine incremental variable cost). Any such base engine change
would also void the OEM's engine warranty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p. 1]
B. Would the EPA entertain the idea of having a CH4 0.1 g/bhp-h standard for converted Mixed-Fuel
engines when running in diesel fuel only operation and report only the NMHC criteria pollutant (or a
more flexible CH4 standard) during Mixed-fuel operation? This is patterned after the ARB E.O.
certification practice of allowing Mixed-Fuel converted NRCI Tier 1 engines of being certified to Tier 1
standards when running in diesel fuel operation and being certified to Tier 2 standards when running in
Mixed-Fuel operation. Please see ARB E.O. Cert # B-59U-2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p.3]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
8. NG Engines
DFs for NG engines - The agencies request comment on appropriate Deterioration Factors for
NG tailpipe emissions. Although we do not have an engine in the US market from which we can
measure the NG DF, the agencies' proposed diesel-based assigned deterioration factors seem
reasonable. 80 FR 40511. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.29]
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA)
Extension of Phase I Standards to 2020
The NPRM permits the current, Phase 1 emission and fuel efficiency standards for natural gas
compression ignition engines to continue until 2020.23 The agencies argue that an extension of the
current standards is necessary to allow natural gas engine manufacturers to develop and produce engines
-------
capable of meeting the Phase 2 standards. Presumably, the additional time for such manufacturers is
because the agencies seek to encourage production of alternatives. We find it inequitable for the
agencies not to extend the same to other alternative fuels, like propane autogas. The rationale for the
incongruent treatment is unclear, especially because the agencies' intend to apply the same emissions
standards to all compression ignition engines within the decade.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1272-A1
p.3]
Organization: NGVAmerica
Dual-Fuel Conversions
NGV America would like to raise several issues related to the application of the greenhouse gas
regulations to dual-fuel conversions; specifically, we refer here to the conversion of diesel fueled
engines modified to operate on a mixture of diesel and natural gas. It is our belief that compliance with
the new greenhouse gas emissions for such engines could be extremely difficult, particularly as it relates
to the limits on methane emissions. EPA's discussion of the methane cap does not indicate that there is
technology available for natural gas vehicles to meet these very low limits. The compliance pathway is
based on the averaging mechanism and the ability to offset methane emissions with lower carbon
dioxide emissions. NGV America and manufacturers of new natural gas engines (SI and CI) support this
regulatory approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1270-A1 p.7]
Manufacturers of new engines have indicated that they expect to meet the tighter controls on methane
through use of credits and averaging. However, natural gas/diesel dual-fuel conversions may not be able
to meet the new standards since they are likely to have somewhat higher methane emissions than a fully
optimized new natural gas engine. The current practice for converting such engines includes utilizing
much of the original engine including the piston crowns. NGV America asks that the EPA work with
manufactures to understand the difficulties associated with dual-fuel conversions and develop a
compliance strategy that continues to make this option available in the marketplace. The continued
ability of small manufacturers to produce such engines, and for businesses to utilize them, is an
important part of expanding the use of natural gas and demonstrating to fleets that natural gas is a viable
option in heavy duty applications. These engines also may be able to demonstrate lower levels of certain
criteria pollutants, with NOx emissions reduced by as much as 25 - 35 percent and therefore do provide
environmental benefits that should be encouraged. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.7]
One approach to regulating such engines might be to adopt a rule similar to CARB regulations for
non-road compression ignition engines. CARB allows Dual Fuel (Mixed-Fuel, Bi-Fuel) converted
Tier I engines to meet the Tier IINMHC standards when running on Dual Fuel (Diesel/NG), but V
meet the Tier I THC standard when running on diesel fuel only. We request that EPA allow mixed- N
fuel (Diesel/NG) applications to meet the proposed 0.1 g/bhp-hr methane standard when running in G
'diesel fuel only' operation and allow a higher methane level when running in mixed-fuel
(Diesel/NG) operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.7-8]Organization:
VNG is developing a nationwide retail compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling network for light-duty
and medium-duty vehicles. In contrast to selling CNG at private depots, utility yards, airports, and other
locations where drivers don't normally fuel, VNG collocates public-access CNG fueling facilities at
existing gasoline stations in order to provide a convenient and familiar fueling experience. While
initially focused on serving commercial fleets - and particularly fleets of the pickups and delivery vans
covered by the present rulemaking - VNG's fueling facilities can also support the adoption of natural
gas vehicles (NGVs) by mass-market consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.l]
-------
NGVs are a critical technology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from medium- and
heavy-duty trucks to near-zero levels today. As in the GHG rule for light-duty vehicles for model years
2017-2025, EPA should seek to accelerate NGV adoption by offering advanced technology incentives in
the current rulemaking. To this end, an advanced technology multiplier of at least 1.5 should be applied
in the Phase 2 program to NGVs as well as electric vehicles (EVs) and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), and
not for waste heat recovery and strong hybrid technologies (since EPA has based the Phase 2 standards
on the assumption that these technologies will see widespread deployment). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1208-A1 p.l]
There are two key reasons why such incentives are justified for NGVs alongside EVs and FCVs: the
ability of NGVs to achieve near-zero emissions through the use of renewable natural gas (RNG), which
delivers GHG reductions of 90% or more compared to diesel and is now providing 25% of NGV fuel
consumption nationally, as well as the ability of NGVs to accelerate the deployment of FCVs due to the
numerous synergies between these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.l]
Technological Synergies Will Accelerate Development of Hydrogen FCVs
Natural gas is largely composed of hydrogen, with four hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom in a
molecule of methane. Due to the chemical and physical similarities of hydrogen and methane, they
share a number of technology synergies, so that the proliferation of NGVs and natural gas fueling
infrastructure will facilitate and accelerate the deployment of FCVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-
A1 p.2]
In its rulemaking for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017-2025, EPA acknowledged that "CNG
investments have the potential to facilitate the introduction of hydrogen FCVs in several respects,"4
including innovations in advanced storage materials, innovations in tube trailer designs, improved
designs for compressors and fuel dispensers, and on-site production of hydrogen from natural gas
feedstock. These and other synergies were discussed in the white paper "Natural Gas Vehicles: An
Essential Bridge to Hydrogen," commissioned by VNG and written by the consultancy Energy Futures,
which found that "the synergies start with natural gas as the primary and cheapest feedstock for nearly
all hydrogen production today and continue through every step in the fuel supply chain."5 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.3-4]
Research into the link between NGVs and FCVs is ongoing at the Department of Energy, including a
recent report by Sandia National Laboratories, Transitioning the Transportation Sector: Exploring
the Intersection of Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Natural Gas Vehicles.6 Synergies on the infrastructure side
are especially strong, and the report includes a conceptual design for a multi-fuel station that utilizes a
stationary fuel cell to produce both hydrogen and electricity from pipeline natural gas (which could be
RNG), thus allowing for fueling of NGVs, EVs, and FCVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.3]
[Figure, 'Conceptual Design for a multi-fuel station', can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1]
In a variety of ways, increasing adoption of NGVs and the development of CNG fueling infrastructure
by companies like VNG will help ensure that the necessary vehicle technologies and fuels will be in
place for FCVs, accelerating and lowering the costs of this transition. EPA recognized this linkage by
awarding advanced technology multiplier incentives to NGVs in its light-duty rule, and a similar
multiplier should be given to NGVs under the current medium- and heavy-duty rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.3]
-------
The Need for Incentives
While NGVs are a relatively established technology compared to EVs and FCVs, they are still a very
small part of the market and face significant near-term barriers to adoption with many fleets due to less
infrastructure availability and higher up-front costs than petroleum-fueled vehicles. The fall in
petroleum-based fuel prices has also reduced the economic case for NGVs, which was expected to drive
market development after the shale gas boom. And, from a regulatory perspective, the growing
likelihood that NGVs will be fueled by RNG creates positive externalities that are not captured by a
focus on tailpipe emissions alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.3-4][This comment can also
be found in section 1.4.1 of this comment summary]
While a lifecycle emissions focus could be a possible solution in theory, VNG agrees with Natural Gas
Vehicles for America's (NGVA) position that the incorporation of full lifecycle emissions in the GHG
rule would create enormous complications and uncertainty in the accounting for every fuel, including
gasoline and diesel as well as alternatives like electricity, hydrogen, and natural gas. Keeping the
regulation's primary focus on tailpipe emissions will greatly simplify compliance planning for OEMs
and ensure that emissions are reduced across vehicles of all fuel types. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1208-A1 p.4] [This comment can also be found in section 1.4.1 of this comment summary]
At the same time, the continued use of advanced technology incentives could play a distinct but
important role in encouraging the development of technologies and fuels that will be able to provide
more game-changing emissions benefits in the future. Moreover, because the majority of NGV fueling
going forward can be expected to be RNG, the overall emission benefits of the rule are likely to increase
instead of being reduced. Thus, it would be most effective - as well as most consistent with the
precedent established by the Phase 1 regulation as well as the 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle regulations
- to use a simple multiplier of at least 1.5 for NGVs, EVs, and FCVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-
A1 p.4] [This comment can also be found in section 1.4.1 of this comment summary]
Regulatory incentives to encourage manufacturers to continue pursuing this vital near-term, near-zero
alternative could be critical to sustaining this market during this challenging economic time for non-
petroleum fuels, allowing for the long-term investments needed to reduce vehicle costs through higher
production volumes. And, beyond the benefits for EPA's GHG agenda, the promotion of RNG
development through greater NGV demand will help EPA achieve its goals for the increase of cellulosic
biofuel use under the RFS and the reduction of methane emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-
A1 p.4] [This comment can also be found in section 1.4.1 of this comment summary]
4 Federal Register, "2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule." 15 Oct 2012, p. 62815.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-10- 15/pdf/2012-21972.pdf
5 Cannon, James S. "Natural Gas: An Essential Bridge to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles." 2012.
http://vng.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Natural-Gas-An-Essential-Bridge-To-Hydrogen-Fuel-Cell-
Vehicles.pdf
6 Sandia National Laboratories. "Transitioning the Transportation Sector: Exploring the Intersection of
Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Natural Gas Vehicles." 9 Sept 2014.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/02/fl9/2015-01H2NG-Report-FINAL.pdf
-------
Response:
With respect to the APG and NGVAmerica comments on the methane standard, we are not allowing
manufacturers to report only the NMHC values from the certification tests procedures. Nor are we
relaxing the methane standards. As described in Section 12.3, methane is a significant greenhouse gas,
and the C02 trading option provides sufficient flexibility for manufacturers unable to meet the methane
standard.
The NPGA comment that the agencies are treating propane differently than natural gas appears to result
from a misreading of text from the NPRM. The agencies did not propose to do, nor are we finalizing
the type of change to which NPGA would object in this context.
Finally, with respect to the VNG comment, we are not adopting advanced technology multipliers for
natural gas vehicles. Such vehicles are already available in the marketplace, and do not represent the
kind of game-changing technology for which these Phase 2 multipliers are intended.
12.2.2 Natural Gas Emission Control Measures
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Tailpipe standards for natural gas vehicles
U.S. EPA and NHTSA state: "For 2014 and later OEM compression ignition natural gas trucks or
natural gas conversions of 2014 and later diesel trucks, the trucks must meet a 0.1 g/bhp-hr methane
emission standard in the case of a larger truck engine tested with an engine dynamometer, and a 0.05
g/mi methane emission standard in the case of smaller trucks tested on a chassis dynamometer. For
spark-ignited engines, the standards take effect in 2016. Natural gas truck manufacturers are allowed to
offset methane emissions exceeding the methane emission standard by converting the methane emission
exceedances into C02 equivalent emissions and using C02 credits. For the initial natural gas engine
certifications that U.S. EPA received for 2014, the truck manufacturers chose to continue to emit high
levels of methane (around 2 g/bhp-hr) and use C02 credits to offset those emissions. We don't know if
this practice of will continue in the future; however, for evaluating the lifecycle impacts of natural gas
heavy-duty trucks, the 2014 and later natural gas heavy-duty trucks may in fact have an emissions
profile more like the pre-2014 trucks and not like the 2014 and later trucks." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 163]
CARB staff suggests that U.S. EPA and NHTSA investigate the feasibility of more stringent tailpipe
standards for methane and N20. Considering the high-GWP of methane, a 0.1 g/bhp-hr methane
standard is equivalent to 4 to 8 percent of the proposed C02 standards, depending on vehicle and
vocation types. CARB staff also suggests that U.S. EPA and NHTSA consider eliminating or at least
phasing out the use of C02 credits in lieu of compliance with tailpipe methane standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 163]
Support Comment
Also, in 40 CFR 1036.801 (page 40602 of the NPRM), CARB staff supports the clarification that a dual
fuel engine can include 2 or more fuels as long as it does not operate on a continuous mixture of those
-------
2+ fuels, and the expanded definition of manufacturer to include those who assemble an engine, vehicle,
or piece of equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.188]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Natural gas
Delgado and Muncrief (2015) determined that inadequate attention towards limiting methane leakage
from heavy-duty natural gas vehicles (NGVs), could diminish the Phase 2 program benefits by as much
as 38 percent in 2040, if there was a major breakthrough in NGV sales and using 20-year global
warming potential for methane. We recommend that the agencies take every opportunity available
within the purview of this regulation to minimize methane emissions throughout the value chain and to
promote higher-efficiency natural gas engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 17]
There are a large number of potential locations for methane leakage throughout the natural gas value
chain (production, processing, transmission, distribution, storage and transfer, fueling station, refueling
events, vehicle tailpipe, vehicle crankcase, vehicle storage tank, vehicle fueling system). The agencies'
proposal addresses two of these by mandating closed engine crankcases and minimum LNG tank hold
times for NGVs. We are supportive of these aspects of the proposal. The remainder of the leakage
sources are not addressed in any way. One large potential source of methane emissions that would be
very practical to address in this rule is the vehicle tailpipe. Emissions levels of methane from the tailpipe
are significant, they could be in the range of 0.5% or more (of total fuel consumed) and can be
controlled to much lower levels with known aftertreatment control technology (See Dunn et al 2013;
Frazier, 2013). There is no incentive in the current proposal to place further controls on these emissions,
which means it is likely that they will continue at the current level. In addition, we encourage the
agencies to consider whether (a) C02-CH4 emission trading and (b) exclusion of engine CH4 emissions
within the GEM inputs may incentivize the increased deployment of higher-emitting natural gas engines
with greater short-term climate forcing impacts in the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4
p. 17]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Methane and PM Emissions from Stoichiometric Natural Gas Engines
Because methane is a potent climate forcing agent with Global Warming Potential (GWP) that is 25
times greater than C02 over a period of 100 years, we applaud the agencies consideration of both
upstream and downstream methane emissions from the growing fleet of natural gas trucks. EPA's
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) is an important source for updating the upstream GHG
inventories from the production and transportation of this alternate fuel. As the interest in natural gas as
a domestic energy source and transportation fuel grows, it leads to expansion of the fuel production and
transportation infrastructure. We are encouraged with EPA's intentions to further regulate methane
emissions from natural gas production facilities. The upstream production, distribution and
transportation of methane may be a significant contributor to the overall GHG contribution from this
fuel sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 13]
MECA is a long supporter of technology and fuel neutral standards and we believe that the proposed
provisions to control fugitive methane emissions from natural gas vehicles and engines represent a fair
and balanced approach to addressing the C02-equivalent emissions from the growing natural gas
vehicle sector. Because of the low vapor pressure of this alternate fuel, the potential source of emissions
-------
goes beyond just the tailpipe. Similar to the case of evaporative emissions from gasoline vehicles, it is
important to control the non-combustion related emissions from natural gas engines and fuel systems.
We support the EPA's inclusion of boil-off requirements for LNG vehicles in the Phase 2 proposal and
to require closed crankcases on all natural gas vehicles. MECA supports the reclassification, starting in
2021 under Phase 2, of natural gas engines according to their primary intended service classes, similar
to compression ignition engines. Although MECA lacks the expertise in suggesting the life cycle
climate impacts, a number of ongoing studies by California, EPA and others may provide additional
insight into how this may be done in the near future. California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard provides
methodology that producers may employ to revise climate impacts of newly developed production
pathways and this may serve as a model of how that may be done for upstream methane emissions. If
natural gas truck applications continue to grow, as some market analysts predict, EPA should consider
developing a separate set of engine efficiency standards that better reflect the full life cycle emissions of
natural gas vehicles including leakage and upstream emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3
P-13]
It is worth noting that stoichiometric, heavy-duty natural gas engines have been shown to emit large
numbers of ultrafine particulates that are largely the result of the consumption of lubricant oil during the
engine combustion process (see ARB's funded work published by West Virginia University on particle
emissions from stoichiometric natural gas bus engines published in Environmental Science &
Technology in June 2014). These stoichiometric heavy-duty engines are currently certified without
filters due to their low particulate mass emissions. The mass of metal oxide ash particles from these
natural gas engines were an order of magnitude greater than the mass of metal oxide ash emitted from a
2010 technology diesel engine equipped with a DPF and SCR system. The oxidative stress potential
(OS) of the PM was also characterized in-vitro through DTT and ROS assays. High correlation
coefficients were observed between the mass of lube oil-derived elemental species and both DTT and
macrophage ROS, suggesting that the chemical species forcing oxidative stress are metallic in nature.
The authors further suggest that, although the PM mass emissions from natural gas vehicles are low, the
presence of nucleation mode solid metal particles could pose significant health risks in the alveolar
regions of the respiratory system due to the higher surface area of these nanoparticles. Filters on these
stoichiometric natural gas engines would significantly reduce the ultrafine particle emissions from these
engines and provide additional climate and public health benefits. MECA encourages EPA to
investigate the health and climate benefits of applying filters to these engines and enact appropriate
policies that force the use of high efficiency filters on these engines to reduce ultrafine metal oxide
exposure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 13-14]
Response:
The comments describe how natural gas heavy-duty trucks have higher methane emissions than their
gasoline or diesel fueled heavy-duty trucks. To reduce the methane emissions from natural gas heavy-
duty trucks, the commenters propose to end the C02 credit trading program and incorporate natural gas
trucks into the GEM model. One of the commenters suggested increasing the stringency of the methane
emission standard.
Before addressing the various comments, it is useful to review the past and present methane emissions
from heavy-duty natural gas trucks, and then discuss what methane emissions might be from future
natural gas trucks.
Prior to when the heavy-duty methane emission standards took effect in 2014 for engine compliance
(0.1 gram per brake horsepower-hour) and in 2016 for chassis compliance (0.05 gram per mile), natural
gas heavy-duty trucks, as well as diesel fuel and gasoline trucks, simply needed to meet a nonmethane
hydrocarbon standard. Diesel fuel and gasoline heavy-duty trucks emitted low levels of methane as the
-------
nonmethane hydrocarbon standard also controlled methane levels. In fact, the phase 1 heavy-duty
methane emissions standards that took effect in 2014 and 2016 were set to essentially cap methane
emissions at their current levels for diesel and gasoline heavy-duty trucks (the methane emissions
standards were established to be two times higher than actual methane emissions). Since natural gas is
mostly methane, complying with the nonmethane hydrocarbon standard was not difficult using readily-
available aftertreatment technologies. However, methane emissions were high. Our certification data
showed that natural gas trucks generally emitted from 2-5 gram of methane per brake horsepower-
hour, which is approximately two orders of magnitude higher than diesel fuel and gasoline heavy-duty
trucks.
A review of our certification data shows that natural gas trucks certified after the methane tailpipe
standards took effect average about 1 gram per brake horsepower-hour. This is an improvement over
the unregulated levels, but still much higher than the standard. However, when the engine manufacturer
exceeds the methane emissions standard (providing that it is a large engine manufacturer, small engine
manufacturers are exempt from the phase 1 GHG standards), it must offset the methane emissions above
the methane emissions standard with excess carbon dioxide (C02) emission credits. Because methane
is a more potent heat trapping gas than C02, the engine manufacture must retire more grams of C02
credits than grams of methane emissions. Under the phase 1 HD GHG standards, 25 grams of C02
must be used to offset 1 gram of methane emission above the methane emissions standard, and under the
phase 2 HD GHG standards, 34 grams of C02 must be used to offset 1 gram of methane emissions.
These C02 credit trading values are based on methane's GWP under IPCC's AR4 and AR5 reports,
respectively, over 100 years. Thus, when evaluated over a 100 year timeline, trading C02 credits for
methane emissions will be GHG-neutral based on IPCCs assessment of the relative GHG impacts of
these two GHG gasses.
than today's trucks for several reasons. First, as the C02 emissions standards become more stringent,
the cost of achieving C02 emission reductions will increase. Therefore, trading C02 emission credits
against methane emissions above the methane emissions standard becomes more expensive. Second, as
just explained, when the phase 2 HD GHG emissions standards take effect, the engine manufacturers
will have to use even more C02 credits (34 vs 25) to offset higher methane emissions. This will further
increase the cost of offsetting those noncompliant methane emissions and creates an incentive to lower
the methane emissions from natural gas trucks. Third, over time, natural gas engine manufacturers will
likely be able to dedicate engineering resources to engineer low-cost methods to lower the methane
emissions of natural gas trucks. Combining new lower-cost means to achieve lower methane emissions
with the higher cost, and higher amount, of C02 credits will provide an incentive for natural gas engine
manufacturers to lower the methane emissions from their natural gas heavy-duty trucks.
One of the commenters suggested increasing the stringency of the methane emission standard for natural
gas trucks. Since the methane emissions standard applies to all heavy-duty trucks, if we were to identify
a cost-effective means to reduce methane emissions, we would likely consider increasing the stringency
of the methane emissions standard for all heavy-duty trucks. For the phase 2 HD GHG rulemaking, we
focused on achieving C02 emission reductions because C02 is the principal GHG gas and achieving
C02 emission reductions are likely less costly than trying to achieve methane emission reductions. If
there is a phase 3 HD GHG standard, we likely will reconsider the stringency of the HD methane
tailpipe standard.
Another comment suggested phasing-out the C02 credit trading program altogether. The agencies
typically find that allowing the regulated parties' flexibility on how to comply with emission control
standards is effective for achieving the greatest emission reduction at the lowest cost. If, however, if
the agencies makes a finding, or is provided information, that the greater flexibility provided by the
C02 credit trading program is detrimental to achieving GHG emission standards, then EPA may rethink
-------
its strategy. Since the volume of natural gas heavy-duty truck sales is so low at this point in time, EPA
would likely wait to make this type of assessment until natural gas heavy-duty trucks begin to comprise
a significant portion of the heavy-duty fleet. Based on our projected trend in methane emissions from
heavy-duty natural gas trucks described earlier, we believe that some of the concern about high natural
gas emissions will diminish.
12.2.3 Crankcase
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - Closed crankcase requirement for natural gas engines
CARB staff supports the Phase 2 proposal to require closed crankcases for all natural gas engines,
including those subject to compression ignition standards. An open crankcase has historically been
allowed for diesel-fueled engines, as recirculating those crankcase emissions with their high PM levels
could potentially foul turbochargers and aftercooler heat exchangers. Natural gas vehicles have low PM
emissions, and requiring a closed crankcase is appropriate. The European Union standard currently
compels the use of closed crankcase ventilation systems, and Cummins ISL G Euro V engines already
have closed crankcase ventilation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 165]
Organization: Enovation Controls (ENC)
2.3 Crankcase Emissions - Crankcase emissions should be controlled based on system type rather than
fuel type, maintaining harmonization with end user focus as specified elsewhere in the proposed rule.
CCR Title 13, Section 1971.1 addresses crankcase emissions such that all engines, whether using
compression ignition or spark ignition, are subject to monitoring crankcase ventilation (CV) systems
depending on whether the engine was certified as an open CV or closed CV system. No delineation is
made between fuel type, and we suggest that any crankcase emissions language in the Phase 2 proposal
should take a similar fuel-agnostic approach. The current language appears to leave gaps for liquid-
fueled engines that certify with a closed CV system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1 p.2]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Account for all on-vehicle methane and require efforts to reduce these emissions
EDF supports the close-crankcase requirement contained in the proposal. This step can significantly
reduce methane emissions, as evidenced by the recent CARB certification of the Cummins-Westport
ISL G Near Zero engine.177 With the closed-crankcase, methane emissions were cut 70% compared to
the standard ISL G engine.178 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.42]
Organization: Optimus Technologies
In addition, Optimus applauds the EPA's provision to require that all natural gas-fueled vehicles have
closed crankcases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1276-A1 p.l]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
We strongly support the agencies inclusion of controls for crankcase emissions on natural gas vehicles
and LNG tank hold times. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1329-A2 p.26]
-------
Organization: Securing America's Future Energy
... [W]e also generally support the addition of the closed crank case requirement and alterations to the
agencies' principal model methodology for natural gas vehicles....
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
Closed crankcases on HPDI natural gas engines would be ineffective for the following reasons: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.5]
The contribution of blow-by gases to exhaust methane emissions was measured by comparing the tail-
pipe out methane to the engine-out methane (measured upstream of the crankcase gases return). These
tests were conducted on June 9 and 10, 2014, on an engine that had already accumulated 3340 hours of
development, including some durability tests. The engine's age likely means that the measured blow-by
gases were higher than for an average engine. (We note that there is some uncertainty, as the
measurement method requires subtracting measurements of already low methane emissions from two
different analyzers). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.6]
[Table 1, 'Exhaust and crankcase methane emissions data', can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1]
Table 1 shows that the crankcase methane emissions account for approximately 1 percent of the total
methane emissions from the engine. Thus, we believe that requiring a closed crankcase to mitigate such
a marginal amount of emissions is superfluous. We note our support of the Phase 1 Rule's provisions on
this issue, which allowed for compression-ignition natural gas engines to vent crankcase emissions to
the atmosphere as long as the vented emissions were accounted for as part of the engine's tailpipe
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.6-7]
We Support the Proposed Requirement for Closed Crankcases on Natural Gas Engines, but
Strongly Recommend that the Agencies Include an Alternative Compliance Pathway for HPDI
Engines
The Proposal includes a requirement that all natural gas-fueled engines have closed crankcases,
beginning in model year 2021.24 This modifies the requirements of the HD Phase 1 Rule, which allowed
compression-ignition natural gas engines to vent crankcase emissions to the atmosphere as long as the
vented emissions were accounted for as part of the engine's tailpipe emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1223-A1 p.5]
We understand and agree with the justification for this proposed change for spark-ignited stoichiometric
engines, which are the most common engines on the market today. For these engines, returning the
ventilation from the crankcase to the intake is an effective strategy to reduce overall methane emissions.
We therefore support the agencies' proposed requirement for closed crankcases on spark-ignited
stoichiometric natural gas engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.5]
However, requiring High Pressure Direct Injection (HPDI) natural gas engines to have closed
crankcases would be an unnecessary and ultimately ineffective requirement. Further, it would introduce
unwarranted complexity, cost, and failure modes. We recommend that the agencies take the following
information and data into consideration, and we request the opportunity to discuss the potential for
-------
creating an alternative compliance pathway for HPDI engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1
p.5]
Closed crankcases on HPDI natural gas engines would be ineffective for the following reasons: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.5]
• During the compression stroke, the combustion chamber is predominantly filled with air.25 As a
result, the quantity of methane in the blow-by gases is very low, as can be seen in Table 1
below. We note that these levels are different from fumigated engines, which compress a
mixture of fuel and air in the combustion chamber, and therefore have a more significant
amount of fuel in the blow-by gases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.6]
• Because HPDI engines use late-cycle direct injection of the fuel, there is no air-fuel mixture in
the combustion chamber crevices. This also reduces the amount of contact between the air-fuel
mixture and the cylinder walls. As a result, the in-cylinder methane emissions are much lower
than in fumigated engines. This also results in much lower methane in the blow-by gases. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.6]
• Returning the blow-by gases to the intake is not effective in HPDI engines because these
engines operate with excess air, which is similar to diesel engines. Operating with excess air
means that returning crankcase emissions (which are already diluted to a great extent) to the
intake would form a mixture well below the flammability limit. Thus, a significant fraction of
the crankcase methane would simply go through the combustion chamber. Furthermore, the
exhaust temperature of a diesel cycle engine is almost always below the catalytic oxidation
temperature of methane, so this methane will not be significantly oxidized in the exhaust
oxidation catalyst. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A 1 p.6]
In support of this, and as summarized in Table 1 below, Westport has extracted representative data from
a pre-production HPDI 13L engine. The engine, which has mild EGR quantities, was calibrated for
EURO 6 emissions, but was operated over a cold and hot Federal Test Procedure (FTP) drive cycle. In
the drive cycle, the crankcase ventilation gas was piped to the exhaust pipe, downstream of the exhaust
after-treatment systems (EATS) and upstream of the tailpipe analyzer port. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1223-A1 p.6]
[Table 1, 'Exhaust and crankcase methane emissions data', can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1]
Further, requiring closed crankcases in HPDI engines may create unintended impacts on safety because
closed crankcases can impact the engine's failure modes. This could lead to unsafe engine operations or
engine damage. For example, if a natural gas fuel injector malfunctions, sufficient levels of natural gas
may be reintroduced to the cylinder intake air (through the crankcase ventilation system). This would
increase the power output of the engine independently from the driver demand before the fault is
detected and any mitigating action is taken. We note that stoichiometric engines are less susceptible to
this because there is no excess air in the intake. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.7]
Additionally, we recommend that the final Phase 2 Rule does not mandate specific engine designs or
architectures. Notwithstanding the fact that closing the crankcases of spark-ignition natural gas engines
resolves the issue of methane emissions from crankcases, we believe that the agencies should maintain
their standard approach of setting performance-based emissions standards that allow OEMs to meet the
standards in ways that meet their customer needs in the safest, most cost-effective manner possible.
Doing otherwise burdens OEMs with potentially avoidable weight, costs, and safety impacts and
complicates the task of bringing new products to market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.7]
-------
The agencies applied similar reasoning in their assessment of transmission architectures.26 Transmission
improvements create opportunities for fuel consumption improvements and GHG reductions, especially
in vocational vehicles' frequent start-stop operations. Though the agencies noted that "most vocational
vehicles currently use torque converter automatic transmissions (AT),"27 which increases fuel
efficiency, the agencies are not requiring that all vocational vehicles use AT in order to meet the
Proposal's emissions and fuel consumption standards. Rather, the agencies are allowing OEMs to bring
other products to market that will meet the standards in ways that best meet their customer needs, noting
that "other kinds of transmission architectures can meet customer needs, including automated manual
transmissions (AMT) and even some manual transmissions (MT)."28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-
A1 p.7]
For these reasons, we recommend that the agencies explore alternative or additional compliance
mechanisms for HPDI engines. Doing so will help ensure that methane emissions from the crankcases
of natural gas vehicles are safely and cost-effectively reduced. Towards that end, we request an
opportunity to discuss this issue further with you, as well as to provide additional information and data,
after the close of the public comment period to assist your efforts to reach the best approach to reducing
crankcase emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A 1 p.7]
Organization: NGVAmerica
G. NG Crankcase Emissions. EPA has proposed requiring that natural gas engines have closed
crankcases in order to reduce emissions. EPA requests comments on the feasibility and cost
effectiveness of requiring closed crankcases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.4]
We support the intent of further reducing emissions from natural gas engines and utilizing all available
cost-effective, commercially available technologies to continue to improve upon the emissions of
natural gas vehicles. We further support the use of closed crank case technology on spark-ignited
engines (i.e., natural gas engines that utilize spark-ignition as part of the combustion process regardless
of their classification). However, we have concerns with respect to the inclusion of a hard and fast rule
that imposes this requirement in cases where it may not be necessary for regulatory compliance such as
where other controls or strategies are able to show compliance with the regulations. We also are
concerned that the use of closed crank case systems in some applications may impact the safe operation
of natural gas vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.4-5]
The comments submitted by GNA on behalf of AGA, Clean Energy, and Westport Innovations provide
additional information relating to this issue. NGV America supports their comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1270-A1 p.5]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins opposes forcing closed crankcase ventilation (CCV) on HD non-diesel fueled engines [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.28]
Current HD diesel-cycle engines may discharge emissions such as crankcase gases into the atmosphere
as long as the emissions are measured and accounted for during certification and deterioration factor
(DF) testing. Since the discharged emissions are accounted for during certification testing, proper
technologies must be developed and applied to crankcase ventilation systems to ensure acceptable
performance to meet certification and customer requirements. In contrast to diesels, the agencies are
proposing to mandate natural gas fueled HD engines use a CCV system, regardless of emissions impact
-------
of an open crankcase system. Cummins does not support this provision as it mandates a specific
technology rather than setting a performance-based standard. Manufacturers should have the flexibility
to choose the appropriate technologies to meet standards and customer needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1298-A1 p.28]
Also, there is an inconsistency between the regulatory language and the Preamble on the
implementation timing. The Preamble (80 FR 40208) indicates this requirement would start in MY2021,
while the proposed rule would require "MY2007 and later non-diesel-fueled" engines to have CCV
systems. Any regulatory change should provide adequate lead-time for manufacturers to design and
validate a reliable system to meet any new requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.28]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Crankcase Emissions from Natural Gas Engines - The agencies request comment on the costs
and effectiveness of technologies that we have identified to comply with these provisions involving
closing the crankcase and recirculating all crankcase gases for natural gas engines. (80 FR 40208). The
EPA asserts that the agency will require closed crankcase on NG vehicles because this presents no
problem due to low PM emissions from NG engines. This begs an important question: why is the EPA
dictating a solution instead of just requiring a performance level? If the engine can meet the GHG limits
with open breather emissions included in the measured results, there is no reason why the agency should
require a closed breather. Moreover, we question the EPA's assertion that closed breathers are not an
issue. Aerosols may foul compressor wheels, and the entire discussion of the ease of implementing
closed crankcase ventilation ignores the HPDI technology, [redacted] In short, we recommend a
performance-based standard, measuring emissions and being required to hit a prescribed level. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.29]
Organization: Securing America's Future Energy
Closed Crankcase Requirement
The Proposal requires that all natural gas-fueled engines, beginning in model year 2021, have closed
crankcases. We support this requirement for spark-ignited stoichiometric engines, which are the most
common on the market today. However, crankcase emissions from High Pressure Direct Injection
(HPDI) engines account for approximately 1 percent of the total methane emissions from the engine.27
Therefore, applying this requirement to HPDI engines is ineffective, unnecessarily adding cost and
complexity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1462-A1 p.9]
SAFE supports the policy of setting performance-based emissions standards, rather than requiring a
particular technology approach. This approach creates an innovative environment and generally brings
clean technologies to market in the safest, most cost-effective manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1462-A1 p.9]
For these reasons, we recommend that the agencies consider not requiring crankcase closure, but instead
set equivalent performance standards that allow manufacturers to explore alternative or additional
compliance mechanisms for HPDI engines. Doing so will help ensure that methane emissions from
natural gas vehicles are safely and cost-effectively reduced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1462-A1 p.9]
-------
Response:
As described in the proposed rule, we believe that closed crankcases for compression-ignition and
spark-ignition engines are both technologically feasible and important for achieving an additional level
of emission control. However, we are aware that there are many instances in which secondary engine
manufacturers design and certify their engine configurations based on an engine from a different engine
manufacturer, and that closing the crankcase depends on proper designs for the engine block, valve
cover, and other engine components. As such, this technology change for natural gas would likely
require a substantial level of coordination with diesel engine manufacturers. We therefore plan to
address this as part of a separate rulemaking, which could require closed crankcases for all compression-
ignition engines (including diesel fueled engines) as early as model year 2021.
12.2.4 Emerging Technoloqies/OBD
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Liquid natural gas (LNG) boil-off warning systems
The NPRM requests comment on the feasibility and appropriateness of a regulatory requirement that
LNG-fueled vehicles include a warning system that would notify a driver of a pending boil-off event as
one means of reducing the frequency of such events in an effort to limit methane releases to the
atmosphere. U.S. EPA and NHTSA have suggested a warning light that would be illuminated once tank
pressure exceeded a threshold in addition to an audible, periodic chime. In addition, the RIA notes that
the components used as inputs to the boil-off warning system would be required to be monitored by
OBD, and the number of boil-off events tracked and reported. CARB staff agrees that it seems valuable
to have both a driver notification (so the operator can take action to prevent or mitigate a boil off) and
tracking of boil offs that actually occur to help quantify the occurrences and guide development future
requirements. However, CARB staff would like to note that tracking the history of boil-off events and
the methods used for boil-off would require new communication messages to be defined in both SAE
Standards J1939 and J1979 if the information is to be downloaded via scan tool. Because these data are
currently not standardized, CARB staff suggests a simpler near term approach such as requiring
installation of a dedicated light that would illuminate if the undesired boil-off to the atmosphere event
occurred. This light could be designed to only be cleared by a dealership technician. Additionally, the
light could provide the same information as the scan tool messages without implementation of new scan
tool messages by blinking at key-on engine-off to indicate the exact number of undesired boil-off events
that occurred on the vehicle since the memory was last cleared. As the necessary standardization
required to obtain boil-off event information is developed, both driver notification and event tracking
via OBD could be implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 106]
Note that if boil offs generally only occur when the vehicle is parked, a warning system would have to
be active when the operator has shut down the vehicle. This means either the engine control module (or
some other module on the vehicle) has to be kept alive during the vehicle shutdown period or some type
of hardware (e.g., latching pressure-based, mechanical switches) has to be incorporated to sense
the overpressure condition during the shutdown period. Both of these are feasible and have been done in
OBD system implementations. However, it is not clear what the benefit is if the operator is not near the
vehicle and is unable to respond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 106-107]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
-------
Comment - Methane leak detection
While CARB staff supports the use of OBD to detect and provide a warning for when methane leaks
from the CNG or LNG fuel system occur, staff is not certain if an actual methane leak check is required
under the current requirements, or if rationality and functionality of sensors and components is required,
or both. If a leak detection monitor is required, staff suggests that the leak size or leak rate be clearly
defined. Additionally, it is important to note that simple rationality and functionality of sensors and
components, which is what is required by comprehensive component monitoring, do not inherently
indicate leaks in the system. A full system check would be required in order to ensure detection of CNG
or LNG fuel system leaks. While feasibility of leak detection has not been determined, tank pressure
profiles should follow predictable behavior and provide the basis for a monitoring strategy. In reality,
the operator might notice a leak in many instances due to odor or a change in fuel level disproportionate
to driving before the diagnostic system has adequate time to identify the leak and store a fault code.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 107]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Account for all on-vehicle methane and require efforts to reduce these emissions
Methane is emitted from natural gas trucks at the tailpipe and crankcase, and vented from liquefied
natural gas (LNG) fuel tanks. The Phase 2 proposal makes important strides in reducing these
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.42]
The agencies also took an important step to recognize the significant potential for methane emissions
from LNG fuel tanks.179 EDF supports the agencies' decision to require a minimum hold time for these
tanks. However, the proposed five-day requirement is insufficient. It reflects current industry practice,
falling well short of the existing capacity of LNG tank technology. For example, Chart Industries, a
leading producer of LNG tanks, brought to market a tank capable of a 10-day hold time in 2013.180
Westport also claims a 10-day hold time with its existing Ice Pack tank.181 Given that ten days is
achievable today, the final rule should require at least this level of performance in 2021. The agency
should consider further strengthening this standard in 2024 and 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-
A1 p.42]
G. Require on-board monitoring to track boil-off events
The agencies requested comment on the use of on-board monitoring to track boil-off events as well as
other methane discharges. EDF believes that requiring this data collection will enhance the ability of
manufacturers, fleets, and refueling station owners to quantify the magnitude of methane emissions and
take steps to minimize these emissions. Additionally, this data will provide the agencies with improved
data quality on which to design effective future policies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.46]
179 Preamble at 793-795; 817; 1020-1021.
180 Lockridge, D., "Chart Improves LNG Truck Fuel System," Heavy Duty Trucking, (April 8, 2013),
available at http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/fuel-smarts/product/detail/2013/04/chart-improves-
lng-truck-fuel-system. aspx
-------
181 Westport, "Leveraging the Benefits of Cold LNG," available at
http://www.westport.com/products/fuel-storage-and-delivery/ice-pack-lng-tank-system/benefits (last
accessed September 23, 2015).
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment - More efficient natural gas storage
The NPRM states that an adsorbent for natural gas (ANG), called metal organic framework (MOF) for
storing CNG, has been developed and is being tested for large scale use. The substance stores the same
quantity of natural gas in a smaller volume at the same pressure (about 60 percent of the energy density
of diesel fuel), or stores the same density of natural gas at a lower pressure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 164]
CARB staff believes there is potential in the both adsorbent technology as well as conformable tanks.
CARB staff suggests that to the extent that those technologies contribute to lighter weight tanks in the
future, U.S. EPA and NHTSA should consider either revising the natural gas weight "penalties" or
allow the manufacturers to get credit under the off-cycle technology credits (formerly referred to as
"innovative technologies"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 164]
Response:
We asked for comment on requiring onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems on heavy-duty natural gas
trucks to track methane leaks or boil-off events, or for other possible indicator systems to warn vehicle
operators about potential impending methane releases to the environment. For a variety of reasons, we
did not pursue these ideas for the final rulemaking.
One reason why we did not pursue OBD systems on natural gas heavy-duty trucks is that since the
proposed rulemaking there has been a dramatic reduction in crude oil prices, and EIA projects continued
low crude oil prices, which further reduces the chance that natural gas will make much headway
displacing diesel fuel use by heavy-duty trucks. The low number of natural gas trucks would have an
insignificant environmental impact even if there are some high methane emissions from natural gas
trucks from time to time. Also it would be burdensome to manufacturers to require the addition of OBD
systems on such a low production engine or truck.
Another reason why we did not pursue OBD systems on natural gas heavy-duty trucks is that we do not
know the extent of the problem that we would be attempting to fix. We have no data on the number and
quantity of methane that boils-off from LNG fueled natural gas trucks.229 We also don't have any data
on the number of trucks which are leaking natural gas fuel and the magnitude of those leaks.
Without data for the number of boil-off events and the quantity of emissions per boil-off event, we still
sought a simple, low cost method for detecting and registering a boil-off event with an OBD system.
The simplest system we thought of would be to install a position sensor on the boil-off pressure relief
valve (PRY) which would mechanically detect whether the PRY opened. If the PRY opened, the OBD
229 The lifecycle analysis contained a sensitivity analysis based on an assumption that a boil-off event occurs
during each period between when the truck operator refuels his LNG truck with LNG. The sensitivity analysis,
however, was not based on any specific emissions or truck operations data, although it did try to model the impact
based on hearsay that some truck operators manually "boil-off their LNG tanks prior to refueling to lower the
tanks pressure to enable faster refueling.
-------
system would register the opening and we could perhaps assume a quantity of methane released to the
environment. We shared our idea with a PRV manufacturer which produces at least some of the PRVs
used on natural gas trucks.230 The manufacturer explained that PRV release events most likely would
only be very small releases in which the PRV only opens a very small amount allowing the natural gas
to only weep from the valve. The manufacturer explained that the very low heat intake in very well
insulated LNG tanks would only allow a weeping of natural gas from the PRV for boil-offs from the
LNG tank. For this type of release, a position sensor on the valve would likely not be sensitive enough
to detect that the valve had in fact opened and had released natural gas as part of a boil-off event. Thus,
a change of valve position to indicate boil-off events may not be a viable idea for detecting boil-off
events.
We also sought a simple, low cost method for detecting leaks from CNG and LNG tanks that could be
registered with the OBD system. For CNG systems, a pressure sensing device could measure whether
there is a loss of pressure when the truck is not operating. This loss of pressure could be caused by a
leak from the CNG system. The problem with the idea is that decrease in temperature could also cause
a reduction in pressure which might be misinterpreted to be a reduction in pressure attributed to a leak.
Thus, it would be necessary to measure both pressure and temperature to ensure that decrease in
temperature is not responsible for the lowering pressure reading when the truck is not operating. When
we ran through the calculations, only a very small change in temperature would be necessary to cause a
sufficiently high loss in pressure that could indicate a possible leak. Thus, we would either have to
resort to only sensing a fairly large leak, or abandon the idea of trying to detect a leak altogether to
avoid indicating false positive leaks from CNG storage on heavy-duty trucks. However, natural gas has
an odorant which may be detectable by the vehicle operator before this idea of a pressure/temperature
sensors would, and the additional cost of the leak detection system would not be necessary. This sort of
idea for detecting leaks from CNG trucks would require much more thought and analysis before being
considered. A conceptually more realistic idea would be to set up a leak detecting system in the high
pressure piping downstream of the CNG tanks, provided that the high pressure piping was isolated from
the CNG tanks by a solenoid operating valve when the truck is not operating. This high pressure piping
has a lot of pipe joints and is a more likely location for leaks than the CNG tanks. Again, this sort of
idea would need some additional thinking and analysis before it were to be pursued.
The agencies note the ideas by CARB to incentivize the use of ANG as an innovative technology. As
we describe in the proposed rulemaking, using ANG in an enclosed CNG system is one possible
strategy for reducing the chance for boil-off events, but also have a similar storage density of LNG. As
noted by CARB, this is a promising technology that if commercialized, then we will consider such
incentives if the technology helps to reduce methane emissions and the industry does not voluntarily opt
for the technology on its own. We went through a similar thought process when we considered pressure
and temperature sensors for detecting leaks from LNG tanks. There are similar complications to this
concept as well. Perhaps a more likely idea would be to measure whether the vacuum seal for the LNG
tank has been compromised, which would cause a much faster heat influx into the LNG tank. The LNG
tank manufacturer we spoke to stated that a complete loss of vacuum would cause frequent boil-off
events to the point that the truck operator would likely immediately seek to have the problem remedied.
The PRV manufacturer we spoke to said that there is not an off-the-shelf vacuum pressure detector that
could be readily used for this service because of the ultra-cold temperatures involved. While leaks from
CNG systems are likely to be detected from the odorant added to natural gas, LNG does not contain
odorant after it has been liquefied. Thus, relying on the odorant to help find leaks is not a viable
solution for LNG as CNG, unless if an odorant can be added to LNG after it was liquified. Again, these
ideas require additional thought, analysis and perhaps some testing.
230 Conversation with Dino Dinafrio of Generant on March 31, 2016.
-------
12.2.5 Aerodynamic Performance of Natural Gas Vehicles
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
It is difficult for PACCAR or any OEM to assess the aerodynamic impact of dealer / body builder
installed natural gas fuel tanks. PACCAR conservatively places these vehicles in Bin I for aerodynamics
and therefore cannot obtain credits.
Organization: Volvo Group
Natural Gas Aerodynamic Impact
Because of the high volume tanks required for on-board compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel storage and
the cylindrical shape required to contain high pressure, we are unable to use conventional aerodynamic
treatments for CNG fueled tractors. In addition, the extra space required for CNG tanks increases the
trailer gap, further increasing the vehicle drag. Under the Phase 1 rule, this has resulted in loss of credits
for every CNG tractor sold. With the engine included as part of the vehicle simulation in Phase 2, we
expect the lower GHG emissions from the NG engine to help offset the poor aerodynamics, but there is
still some risk that this regulation could be detrimental to expansion of natural gas utilization if engine
efficiency and methane emissions cannot achieve sufficient GHG advantage over diesel. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.48]
Response:
We do not believe that natural gas vehicles inherently have worse aerodynamic performance. Rather,
we believe aerodynamic inefficiency for current vehicles is a result of non-optimized designs. As
natural gas comprises a larger portion of the fuels used by the heavy-duty truck sector, we expect that
tractor cabs will be optimized to accommodate storage of natural gas without harming aerodynamic
performance.
12.3 GHG Lifecycle Analysis for Natural Gas Vehicles
12.3.1 Methane GWP
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
The EPA Must Promulgate Specific Lifecycle-Based Limits on Tailpipe Emissions from Natural
Gas Vehicles and Engines
Several groups have undertaken detailed "well-to-wheels" analyses of the climate cost-benefit tradeoff
for switching from gasoline or diesel to natural gas in the transportation sector using the most recent,
research-based estimates of methane's global warming potential ("GWP") and atmospheric lifetime,
upstream leakage rates from natural gas operations, and efficiency differences between diesel and
natural gas engines. The overarching message is that with current technology switching to natural gas
heavy-duty trucks will cause net harm to the climate in the coming decades to centuries.80 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 15-16]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
A. A new, more comprehensive lifecycle analysis of NGVs is needed
-------
The agencies' attempt to quantify the climate impact of natural gas trucks should be strengthened in
several ways. The agencies relied exclusively on data from the Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI),
leading to a lifecycle analysis (LCA) that likely underrepresents the amount of methane emitted into the
atmosphere across the natural gas supply chain. The agencies also relied on outdated Global Warming
Potentials (GWPs) for methane, which do not reflect the latest available science on methane's impact on
the climate system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.39-40]
In the proposed Phase 2 standards, EPA takes critical steps in providing such an LCA. However, there
are a number of areas for improvement, as highlighted in this paper, especially concerning sensitivity
analyses related to upstream methane emissions, GWPs, and the carbon dioxide-credit program. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.40]
B. Use the current and appropriate GWP values for methane emissions
Each greenhouse gas has its own potential to impact the climate, and those impacts can differ over time.
To evaluate the climate impact of a non-C02 greenhouse gas, such as methane, one methodology is to
convert those emissions to a unit equivalent to C02, using the GWP of the gas at issue. GWP is a
measure of the climate forcing potential of a gas (such as methane) relative to C02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.41]
The most recent IPCC establishes the 100-year GWP for methane at a figure of at least 28, meaning that
methane is 28 times more potent than C02 over a 100-year period.175 However, because methane causes
greater climate damage over shorter rather than longer time frames, choosing a 100-year GWP will
undervalue the short-term impacts of methane. Accordingly, the benefits of methane reductions should
also be valued using the most recent 20-year GWP for methane, which is at least 84. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.41]
These GWP values for methane (28 over 100 years and 84 over 20 years) are conservative because they
do not include climate-carbon ("cc") feedbacks (which are feedbacks between climate change and the
carbon cycle). The latest IPCC report concludes that when cc is considered, methane has an even higher
GWP on both 100- and 20-year timeframes of 34 and 86, respectively. Other scientific analyses have
likewise determined that methane is an even more potent climate forcer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.41]
While EPA does consider both 20-year and 100-year GWPs in its LCA, the GWP values it uses should
be updated to the estimates referenced above from the latest IPCC report. In addition, the shorter-term
impacts of methane are important when comparing emissions from natural gas vehicles to that of diesel
vehicles. In recent research, Camuzeaux et al. have found that switching from diesel to natural gas
heavy-duty fleets could create damages to the climate for 50 to 90 years before the fuel switch would
create any climate benefits, due to the short term impact of methane emitted to the atmosphere across
the natural gas value chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.41]
As a direct application of these considerations, we urge EPA to incorporate short-term GWPs when
establishing the GHG equivalence value of methane within the rule's carbon dioxide credit program.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.41 ]
Organization: NGVAmerica
J. GWP Values for Methane (CH4) and N20. EPA has proposed using the GWP values identified
in the IPCC Fourth Assessment [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.8]
-------
NGVAmerica strongly supports the continued use of the GWP values used under the Phase 1 rules.
These GWP values have long-standing acceptance and are used for purposes of the greenhouse gas
regulations covering light and medium duty passenger cars, and also for numerous other EPA rules.
Using these values provides consistency and uniformity across a number of regulatory programs and
allows efficient comparisons across these regulatory programs. Therefore, we strongly urge EPA to
continue to use the GWP values adopted under Phase 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.8]
Organization: ICCT
Delgado and Muncrief (2015) determined that inadequate attention towards limiting methane leakage
from heavy-duty natural gas vehicles (NGVs), could diminish the Phase 2 program benefits by as much
as 38 percent in 2040, if there was a major breakthrough in NGV sales and using 20-year global
warming potential for methane. We recommend that the agencies take every opportunity available
within the purview of this regulation to minimize methane emissions throughout the value chain and to
promote higher-efficiency natural gas engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 17]
Organization: American Gas Association
Establishing a global warming potential (GWP) is a critical issue in any GHG program. EPA has wisely
adopted a single GWP that it uses consistently in all of its programs and reporting obligations. More
specifically, EPA consistently uses a 100-year GWP of 25 for methane. This GWP was established in
the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007. We strongly support
maintaining this approach for the Phase 2 Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.2]
Examples of EPA's use of the AR4 GWP include:[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-Al p.2]
* The LD Phase 1 Rule, the LD Phase 2 Rule, and the HD Phase 1 Rule;5,6,7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1223-A1 p.2]
* EPA's Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories;8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
* The recently-announced strategy to reduce methane from the oil and natural gas industry;9 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
* The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule;10 and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
* The national inventory of GHG emissions and sinks. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
In addition to ensuring internal consistency among EPA's many greenhouse gas programs, maintaining
the use of the AR4 GWP also enables EPA to coordinate its data with the data collected by EPA
pursuant to its obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). Doing so "improves EPA's ability to analyze corporate, national, and sub-national GHG
data consistently, enhances communication of GHG information between programs, and gives outside
stakeholders a consistent, predictable set of GWPs to avoid confusion and additional burden."12 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
We strongly support the continued use of the AR4 GWP in this Proposal. Furthermore, we believe that
changing the GWP should be an agency-wide decision, and not an outcome of any particular sector-
specific rule. Anything else could result in a patchwork of inconsistent metrics being used across the
array of EPA programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.3]
-------
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
WM Supports the Use of the Agency-wide GWP Value for Methane
WM supports the use of the global warming potential (GWP) for methane that was published in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). In 2014
revisions to the Federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule program (GHGRP), EPA adopted the IPCC's
AR4 GWP values for selected GHGs and explained their adoption was to "increase the accuracy of the
C02e estimates collected under the GHGRP to better inform EPA policies. The AR4 GWPs will
complement the reporting metrics used in other U.S. climate programs, including the Inventory that is
submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.5]
Maintaining consistency across EPA climate programs and with the UNFCCC is essential to ensure the
comparability and reliability of GHG measurement and reporting. Using consistent GWPs enables the
agencies to review more efficiently data collected across multiple domestic climate programs, and to
reduce the potential for errors. Use of consistent GWPs also reduce the burden for the regulated
community and regulators that would need to track differing GWPs used across multiple federal
programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.6]
Parties to the UNFCCC, including the U.S., have agreed to submit annual reports in 2015 and future
years using the GWP values from the IPCC AR4. The U.S. government has not agreed to change GWPs
pursuant to subsequent IPCC assessment reports. We think it is wholly appropriate and consistent for
OTAQ to continue using a methane GWP of 25, based on a 100-year timeframe. Should the Federal
government determine that subsequent revisions to GWPs are appropriate; a broader rulemaking that
encompasses all the domestic climate programs would be the appropriate mechanism to make that
change - not the OTAQ rulemaking, which is narrowly focused on medium and heavy-duty truck
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.6]
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law
GWP Values for Credit Programs: The agencies ask whether they should continue using the IPCC 4th
Assessment Report values for relative global warming potentials on a 100-year timescale to calculate
the credits for non-carbon dioxide gases. They should not. Under Executive Orders 12,866 and 13,563,
agencies are required to use the "best available science" in rulemaking.5 The 4th Assessment Report is
outdated and no longer reflects the global scientific consensus about relative global warming potentials.
At a minimum, the agencies should update the values to reflect the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.
Moreover, focusing solely on the 100-year timescale overlooks the more potent effects of some
greenhouse gases, like methane, in the short term. The agencies should consider the 20-year timescale
estimates. One option to consider might be averaging the 20-year and 100-year estimates.
5 Exec. Order No. 13,563 §l(a) (Jan. 18, 2011).
Response
The Phase 1 GHG rule included a compliance alternative allowing heavy-duty manufacturers and
conversion companies to comply with the respective methane or nitrous oxide standards by means of
over-complying with C02 standards (40 CFR 85.525). More specially, EPA allows manufacturers to
use C02 credits (generated from the same averaging set) to comply with the methane and nitrous oxide
-------
requirements after adjusting the C02 emission credits based on the relative GHG equivalents. To
establish the GHG equivalents used by the C02 credits program, the Phase 1 heavy-duty vehicle
rulemaking incorporated the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report GWP values of 25 for CH4 and 298 for
N20, which are assessed over a 100 year lifetime. EPA is largely continuing this allowance for Phase
2.
Since the Phase 1 rule was finalized, a new IPCC report has been released with new GWP estimates.
EPA asked for comment on whether the methane GWP used to establish the GHG equivalency value for
the C02 Credit program should be updated to those established by IPCC in its Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5). The IPCC AR5 presents four different potential values for the GWP of methane over a 100 year
lifetime, ranging from 28 to 36. These values are the result of slightly different calculation methods.
Therefore, we not only requested comment on whether to update the GWP for methane to that of the
AR5, but also on which value to use from this report. The GWPs of 28 and 30 are both a result of using
a carbon cycle approach consistent with that used in the Fourth Assessment Report. This carbon cycle
approach included a climate-carbon feedback when calculating the lifetime of a pulse of carbon dioxide
emissions, but did not include any climate-carbon feedback when calculating the impacts of a pulse of
non-C02 greenhouse gas emissions. As the GWP is the ratio of the impact of a pulse of non-C02 GHG
emissions relative to a pulse of carbon dioxide emissions, a second approach was presented where the
non-C02 GHG pulse also included climate-carbon feedbacks. This second approach yields GWP values
of 34 or 36. For the purposes of this rule, EPA is choosing the approach that includes climate-carbon
feedbacks for both non-C02 and C02 pulses, as the agency considers this the approach most likely to be
adopted by the international scientific community in future assessments on the timescale of this rule.
The IPCC presents the value of 34 as the default value for the methane GWP, but also reports a value of
36 for "fossil" methane to take into account the atmospheric C02 that would result from the oxidation of
methane in the atmosphere.
We received a number of comments on this issue. For the most part, the environmental community
favored using the more recent GWP value and even some commented that EPA should use a methane
GWP based on a 20 year timeframe. On the other hand, the natural gas industry and natural gas truck
manufacturers commented that EPA should not update to the newer GWP values but continue to use the
methane GWP value from the AR4 IPCC report because EPA is still using the methane GWP from the
AR4 today in other contexts. Although EPA is currently using AR4 values in other contexts, it is
unlikely that EPA will still be using AR4 values in 2021 when the Phase 2 requirements begin. Thus,
commenters opposing the use the methane GWP from the later IPCC report are not persuasive. EPA
will continue to base the credit adjustment on a 100 year timescale because it seems to best balance
short-term versus long-term effects of climate change.
Of the possible 100 year methane GWP values presented in the IPCC AR5 report, EPA is choosing to
use the value of 34 because it is the primary value presented by the IPCC and because the approach of
not accounting for the C02 oxidation product within the GWP for methane is consistent with prior IPCC
practice.231 The use of this GWP for credit adjustments will not begin until 2021, when the Phase 2
engine standards go into effect. The choice of this GWP value for future rules on this timescale does
not prejudice the choice of other GWP values for use in regulations and other purposes in the near term.
To be consistent across all its programs and reporting, EPA is using the global warming potentials
(GWP) based on the AR4 IPCC report for our analyses in this rulemaking. An important driver for
using the AR4 values for GWPs is the United Nations which requires that individual nations report their
GHG emissions to the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) using
231 The corresponding N20 value from the AR5 report is 298, which is the same as the value used in Phase 1.
-------
GWP values from the AR4 IPCC report and based on 100 year time period. EPA updated to the GWP
values in IPCCs AR4 report when the UNFCCC decided to use the GWP values from that report.
The agencies understand that methane's GWP varies based on the time periods over which the heat
trapping impact of methane is evaluated. EPA uses 100 years as the timeframe for evaluating GHG
impacts in unity with the reporting requirements to the UN and because it seems to provide the best
compromise between the short term and the long term effects of climate change. To show the effect that
different GWPs based on different timeframes have on the lifecycle impact, the agencies also provided
lifecycle comparisons between natural gas heavy-duty trucks and diesel fuel heavy-duty trucks when
methane and nitrous oxide are evaluated over 20 year and 500 year timeframes. See RIA 13.1.4.
12.4 Other Lifecycle Comments'!744
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
We recommend that the agencies remove the GHG Lifecycle Analysis for Natural Gas Vehicles
Since the first Clean Air Act regulations were adopted more than forty years ago, EPA has adopted
emissions standards for vehicles without considering the upstream impacts of the fuels used in those
vehicles. Instead, EPA's approach has been to regulate upstream emissions at the source. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.8]
In this Proposal, the agencies have stated that "compliance is based on vehicle fuel consumption and
GHG emission reductions, and does not reflect any so-called lifecycle emission properties."30 We
strongly agree with this approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.8]
Nevertheless, the agencies have asked for comments on including a GHG lifecycle analysis for natural
gas vehicles in the Proposal as well as the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA).31 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1223-A1 p.8]
We recommend that the agencies remove the GHG lifecycle analysis for natural gas vehicles from both
the Proposal and DRIA unless they include a GHG lifecycle analysis for all fuels used by trucks to be
regulated by the final rule, i.e., gasoline, diesel, natural gas, electric, and fuel cells. We believe that
either approach would enable the agencies and the general public to more accurately compare fuels
being used in the truck and bus sectors. Including a GHG lifecycle analysis only for natural gas vehicles
will be prejudicial to the use of natural gas vehicles in those settings where it is cost-effective to do so,
and incorrectly implies that other fuels do not have upstream emissions impacts or other lifecycle
impacts that should be considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.8]
If the agencies decide to include a lifecycle analysis in the Proposal and DRIA, we request the
opportunity to provide additional data or other materials to the agencies after the close of the comment
period, and to continue the dialogue about this issue thereafter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A 1
p.8]
25 Methane may be present in very small amounts if exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is used.
30 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40159.
-------
31 Phase 2 Proposal, pages 40389, 40506-40514; "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis." Proposed
Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2, June 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420dl5900.pdf.
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
B. EPA Must Take a Coherent Approach to Regulating Upstream Emissions from Vehicles
The Proposed Rule extensively analyzes upstream and downstream emissions related to natural gas
vehicles. EPA utilizes 2012 methane emission estimates from the most recent GHG Inventory report
and '[r]ather than attempt to disaggregate [specific emissions from different equipment used in natural
gas production] from the rest of process emissions in the GHG Inventory . . . used the estimated
emissions for these sources provided by GREET.' EPA also totaled C02 and nitrous oxide emissions for
the upstream and downstream portions of the natural gas system and converted these values into C02
equivalents. EPA then compared the life cycle emissions of natural gas against the base fuel it was
replacing, diesel. Additional analysis was completed as between different types of natural gas vehicles.
Although EPA does not propose provisions to address or account for such emissions, the agency does
ask for comment as to '[w]ould it be appropriate to adjust the tailpipe GHG emission standard for
natural gas vehicles by a factor to reflect the life cycle emissions of natural gas vehicles relative to
diesel vehicles?' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 12]
The treatment of natural gas vehicles in the Proposed Rule demonstrates two things. First, EPA believes
that it is entirely capable of assessing complex information regarding upstream emissions. The agency
examined various technologies and made use of existing inventory information and other assessments of
the GHG impacts of producing, transporting and using natural gas in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
Second, EPA believes that the information contained in the Proposed Rule is sufficient to allow for a
final rule that addresses such life cycle emissions. Specifically, EPA indicates that 'we may consider
adopting such provisions in the final rule . . .' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 12-13]
While AISI takes no position on whether EPA should promulgate such natural gas standards in the final
rule, it would be arbitrary for EPA to address some life cycle emissions while ignoring information
submitted in our comments and elsewhere regarding the benefits of addressing the life cycle emissions
of materials. Such a disparate treatment could not be justified on the basis of the available information.
Information regarding energy used (and other life cycle impacts) to produce steel is of high quality and
compares favorably with the information that EPA relies on to assess GHG emissions associated with
upstream natural gas production. Similar high quality information about other heavy truck materials is
available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 13]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Natural Gas Carbon Footprint Should Exclude Upstream Emissions
ATA supports the long-standing practice of only regulating tailpipe emissions as opposed to accounting
for the life-cycle carbon footprint associated with natural gas combustion. Assessing and determining
upstream emissions is an extremely complicated undertaking. State and federal regulations are, or will
soon, address upstream carbon emissions both at production and distribution networks. Therefore, we
support the decision not to include upstream emissions in the standards used to regulate motor vehicles
and engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.22]
-------
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Neutral/Provide Additional Information Comment
Comment - Phase 2 standards apply exclusively at the vehicle tailpipe and do not reflect lifecycle
emissions
CARB staff understands the reasoning behind U.S.EPA and NHTSA's proposal to apply Phase 2
standards exclusively at the vehicle tailpipe (rather than reflecting full lifecycle emissions), in order to
better harmonize the fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards. CARB staff also appreciates the
inclusion of a lifecycle analysis for natural gas and diesel trucks, even though the proposed standards
are tailpipe only, as it illustrates the relative GHG benefits of different vehicle/fuel combinations and the
potential reduction in the tailpipe GHG benefits of CNG due to methane leakage during refueling or
LNG boil-off as the vehicle sits idle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 160]
CARB staff suggests including BEVs and FCEVs in the lifecycle analysis. Those technologies are
extremely efficient at utilizing energy for motive power and the lifecycle results are compelling. GVWR
are expected to produce significantly less GHG emissions than similar MY conventional diesel fueled
trucks on a WTW basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 160]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Natural gas engines must meet the Phase 2 diesel or gasoline tailpipe C02 standards
According to the NPRM, natural gas engines must meet the Phase 2 diesel or gasoline standards
(depending on the service application) and fuel consumption is then calculated according to their
tailpipe C02 emissions. This would likely create a small balanced incentive for natural gas use. A
natural gas vehicle that achieves approximately the same fuel efficiency as a diesel powered vehicle
would emit 20 percent less C02; a natural gas vehicle with the same fuel efficiency as a gasoline
vehicle would emit 30 percent less C02.65 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 160-161]
CARB staff believes that future natural gas engines, if certified to one of CARB's optional NOx
standards and operated on renewable natural gas,66 would reduce both NOx and GHG emissions. Many
stakeholders are advocating for broad use of natural gas vehicles in California, particularly in the South
Coast Air Basin and other areas that need near-term NOx reductions to meet federal ozone ambient air
quality standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 161]
However, as shown in U.S. EPA and NHTSA's lifecycle analysis, if methane emissions from the
vehicle and from upstream production and distribution are not well controlled (for example, boil-off
from LNG vehicles that are parked for multiple days), natural gas engines have the potential to actually
increase GHG emissions. It is important to strengthen natural gas engine and vehicle requirements to
ensure we maximize the benefits of the cleaner fuel as well as the most efficient vehicle technology.
CARB staff will continue to work with U.S. EPA and NHTSA as well as engine and vehicle
manufacturers to require the use of efficient engine and vehicle technology, reduce NOx emissions, and
minimize fugitive methane emissions. Additional comments on requirements are also included. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 161]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
-------
Comment - Lifecycle emissions incorporated into the certification level
Based on U.S. EPA and NHTSA's lifecycle analysis, the impact of leaks and other methane emissions
that occur upstream of the vehicle can potentially be large enough to more than offset the C02 benefit
of natural gas vehicles as measured at the vehicle tailpipe. U.S. EPA and NHTSA are considering
separate action to control these upstream emissions. U.S. EPA and NHTSA are concerned that the high-
GWP of methane makes even small leaks of natural gas of concern. The NPRM requests comment on
whether it would be appropriate to adjust the tailpipe GHG emission standard for natural gas vehicles to
reflect the relative lifecycle emissions relative to diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 161-
162]
U.S. EPA and NHTSA state that if, for example, they were to determine that the lifecycle climate
impacts of natural gas vehicles were 150 percent of the tailpipe GHG emissions, while the lifecycle
climate impacts of diesel vehicles were 135 percent of the tailpipe GHG emissions, they could
approximate the relative climate impacts by setting the natural gas tailpipe emission standard 10 percent
lower than the diesel tailpipe standard. U.S. EPA and NHTSA state "We recognize that there is
significant uncertainty in assessing these relative climate impacts, and that they could change as new
production methods and/or regulations go into effect. Thus commenters supporting making such an
adjustment are encouraged to address this uncertainty. Commenters are also encouraged to address how
such an adjustment for GHG emissions would impact the closely coordinated EPA and NHTSA heavy-
duty Phase 2 program including how a potential adjustment for upstream methane emissions for natural
gas fueled vehicles would impact the coordination of EPA GHG regulations with the NHTSA fuel
consumption regulations." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 162]
CARB staff believes that future natural gas engines, if certified to one of CARB's optional NOx
standards and operated on renewable fuels, have the potential to reduce both NOx and GHGs and
provide needed near term reductions. To ensure those reductions are realized, it is important to
strengthen natural gas engine and vehicle requirements to maximize the benefits of the cleaner fuel as
well as the most efficient vehicle technology. CARB staff believes it is appropriate to have separate
standards for natural gas engines and also important that actions be taken to minimize methane
emissions from both the vehicle and the upstream natural gas production and distribution system. Steps
to minimize emissions from the vehicle should include requiring a closed crankcase, limiting boil-off
from LNG vehicles, and limiting tailpipe methane and N20. Additional comments on requirements are
also included. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 162]
As for adjusting tailpipe standards to account for upstream emissions, the ICCT in their "Assessment of
Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Vehicle Emissions: Implications and Policy Recommendations," July 2015,
recommends an approach that would phase-in the inclusion of upstream emissions in the certification
for natural gas heavy-duty vehicles. CARB supports phasing-in inclusion of upstream emissions in the
certification for natural gas heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 162]
Neutral/Provide Additional Information Comment
Comment - Supplemental and clarifying information regarding WTW analysis of CNG and LNG
and comparison to CARB results.
CARB staff has four main comments regarding the WTW analysis presented in the NPRM: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 167]
-------
1. The analysis should use GREET's U.S. diesel result, and should identify the version of
GREET used. U.S. EPA and NHTSA use a 2005 NETL analysis to determine the carbon
intensity of U.S. diesel. Given that a version of Argonne National Laboratory's GREET model
was used for the majority of U.S. EPA and NHTSA's WTW natural gas analysis, CARB staff
recommends using the result from the same version of GREET for diesel. If they are based on a
different baseline, the results should not be expressed in percent reduction from diesel; it would
be preferable to use the same U.S. diesel baseline, or just report the carbon intensity directly.67
Also, the NPRM does not identify the version of the GREET model used in U.S. EPA and
NHTSA's WTW analysis of natural gas fuels (first mention of the use of the GREET model
occurs on page 40404). Argonne National Laboratory releases an update nearly every year and
20132014 versions included changes to natural gas systems, so it is important to note the model
year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 167]
2. USEPA accurately portrays CARB's August 2014 WTW analysis, but we would like to
share some updated information based on our work since then. On page 40508-40509, the
NPRM presents draft results from CARB's August 2014 WTW analysis. CARB staff has since
finalized its estimates of WTW carbon intensity for CNG and LNG: without adjusting for
natural gas vehicle fuel economy, the carbon intensity of CARB's North American natural gas
to CNG pathway is 78.36 gC02e/MJ, or 76.82 percent of CARB-ULSD WTW emissions and
the carbon intensity of CARB's North American natural gas to LNG pathway is 84.55
gC02e/MJ, or 82.89 percent of CARB- Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) WTW emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 167-168]
3. U.S. EPA and NHTSA's WTW analysis results in the NPRM are similar to CARB's and
where they differ, the differences are primarily due to unique California circumstances.
CARB staff agrees that the U.S. EPA and NHTSA's results "are very similar to those estimated
by CARB and when there are differences, the differences are as expected." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 168]
CARB staff believes that the carbon intensity of CNG determined by U.S. EPA and NHTSA is lower
than the result in CARB's analysis primarily because the transmission distance from Western U.S.
natural gas sources to end users in California is greater than the national average. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 168]
CARB staff estimates the carbon intensity of LNG to be lower than U.S. EPA and NHTSA's analysis,
due to the following factors: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 168]
• CARB staff assumes a typical liquefaction stage thermal efficiency of 90 percent (resulting in
8.44 gC02e/MJ for the liquefaction stage), rather than 80 percent (which would result in 18.29
gC02e/MJ using California grid electricity), reflecting an assumption that most LNG used in
California is produced at large centralized facilities. Under the LCFS, each LNG producer must
demonstrate the actual efficiency, meaning some individual LNG pathways will result in higher
WTW emissions than given in CARB's illustrative scenario;
• CARB staff does not quantify any venting from the refueling or the vehicle operation stages due
to lack of data, but does not disagree with the sensitivity analysis used by U.S. EPA and
NHTSA; and
• There may be differences in the mode and distance of LNG transport; the U.S. EPA and
NHTSA document does not provide sufficient information to determine the transportation and
distribution assumptions or their resulting impacts.
4. CARB staff does not recommend U.S. EPA and NHTSA rely on the U.C. Davis study
referenced on page 40509 of the NPRM, as we believe that study is flawed.68 The U.C. Davis study
-------
used GREET 2014 to explore the role of natural gas in the U.S. trucking industry, and reported that:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 169]
(A) CNG has higher WTW GHG emissions than LNG, and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 169]
(B) CNG and LNG have higher WTW GHG emissions relative to diesel when used in spark-ignited
engines (with EER=0.9). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 169]
CARB staff disagrees with this analysis and finds that under most scenarios, when a methane GWP of
25 is used, both CNG and LNG have a life cycle GHG benefit over diesel. CARB staff believes the UC
Davis report reached incorrect conclusions due to using flawed assumptions, including inappropriately
using default transport parameters in GREET 2014 (which tend to reduce assumed LNG transport
emissions), incorrect assumptions regarding the efficiency of LNG-fueled heavy-duty pilot ignition
engines, and not quantifying losses from the LNG vehicle tanks, among others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 169]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Supplemental and clarifying information regarding CARB analysis
There is a misprint/typo on page 13-22: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 169]
For the CARB emissions estimates, we used the estimates made for what it terms purposes" using the
2013 version of the CARB GREET model as published in August, 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 169]
CARB staff believes this should read: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 170]
For the CARB emissions estimates, we used the estimates made for what it terms "illustrative purposes"
using the 2013 draft version of the CA-GREET2.0 model as published in August, 2014. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 170]
Regarding the statement comparing CARB and U.S. EPA results on page 13-22, "CARB estimates that
CNG engines emit 76 percent of the C02eq emissions as a diesel truck, while our analysis estimates that
CNG engines emit 81 percent of the C02eq emissions as a diesel truck," the "percent of diesel
emissions" basis does not provide a direct comparison of the CNG results, as CARB and U.S. EPA do
not use the same diesel emissions as baseline. In the CA-GREET2.0 analysis, CARB-ULSD was
determined to have a carbon intensity of 102.01 gC02e/MJ, while U.S. EPA and NHTSA appear to use
approximately 93 gC02e/MJ as a baseline (98,000 g/MMBtu, estimated from Figure 13-2 of the RIA).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 170]
While CARB staff does not object to the value used as a diesel baseline (this value is meant to reflect
the national average WTW emissions of diesel fuel and CARB staff can provide no insight on the
accuracy of results outside of California), we suggest that CNG, LNG and diesel should be compared
using the same model in order to obtain the most robust results. Given that a version of Argonne
National Laboratory's GREET model was used for the majority of U.S. EPA and NHTSA's WTW
natural gas analysis, we recommend using the result from the same version of GREET for diesel. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1267 p. 170]
-------
The parameters used to determine methane leakage, LNG boil-off, process energy demand, and the
impacts of these inputs are presented clearly and comprehensively; however, the NPRM do not provide
information on the transportation and distribution assumptions or resulting impacts modeled for the
CNG or LNG pathways. These transport modes and distances are a major driver of the difference
between the GREET and CA-GREET2.0 model results. If default transport parameters from GREET
2014 were used in U.S. EPA and NHTSA's analysis, the following table provides a breakdown and
contrast of the differences in the two models. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 170]
[Table 17 can be found on p.171 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
65 This is because natural gas has lower carbon content than either diesel or gasoline.
66 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msDrog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2016/cummins mhdd a0210630 8d9 0d20-
OdOl ng.pdf and http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2016/cummins ub a0210629
8d9 0d20-0d01 ng.pdf for Cummins natural gas certification on 8.9L engines to 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx
standard, September 2015.
67 CARB staff finds the WTW emissions of California ULSD to be 102 g C02e/MJ, approximately 9
gC02e/MJ higher than the value U.S. EPA uses to represent the WTW emissions of average U.S. diesel
(approximately 93 gC02e/MJ or 98,000 g/MMBtu, which we estimate from Figure 13-2 of the RIA).
This lack of common baseline confounds the comparison between the NPRM's and CARB's results for
natural gas fuels.
68 (Jaffe, 2015) Jaffe, Amy Myers, "Exploring the role of Natural Gas in U.S. Trucking," NextSTEPS
Program, UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, February 18, 2015.
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
The EPA Must Promulgate Specific Lifecycle-Based Limits on Tailpipe Emissions from Natural
Gas Vehicles and Engines
As currently proposed, the Phase 2 standards tailpipe methane would be maintained at Phase 1 levels
(0.1 g/bhp-hr or 0.5 g/mi) and C02 emissions limits for natural gas vehicles and engines would be the
same as those that apply to diesel engines. The only difference would be the requirement for closed
crankcases on natural gas engines. This is an important step as it can reduce the amount of methane that
is emitted during operation of the engine. But closure of crankcases is only one of a number of
technology options that should be considered to reduce methane emissions during operation, including
more effective methane catalysts and elimination of dynamic venting.76 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1460-A1 p. 15]
The EPA is proposing to require manufacturers to follow the industry standard of a 5-day or less
holding limit for LNG vehicles, which we support. The EPA also requested comment regarding other
measures to limit boil-off events and associated emissions from LNG vehicles. The Center urges the
EPA to require on-board monitoring and warning systems. In addition, we support the EPA in its
intention to reduce fugitive methane emissions during refueling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1
P-15]
-------
On the other hand, we have grave concerns with the EPA's proposal to allow natural gas vehicles to be
treated as diesel engines for the purpose of tailpipe emissions. The EPA notes that per unit of fuel
consumed, natural gas vehicles are able to meet the same tailpipe efficiency standard more easily than a
gasoline or diesel engine, creating an "incentive" for natural gas vehicles. The Proposed Rule asserts
that this is an "appropriate" balance between climate and energy security,79 but the Center strenuously
disagrees. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 15]
A single tailpipe standard does not account for the difference in upstream emissions between natural gas
and diesel; nor does it account for the reduced work efficiency of natural gas as opposed to diesel
engines. The large difference in upstream emissions and the potency of methane as a global warming
pollutant necessitates a separate natural-gas specific standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1
P-15]
The Proposed Rule and Draft Regulatory Impacts Analysis ("RIA") also include a lifecycle analysis for
natural gas and diesel engines. The EPA performed a sensitivity analysis for differing thermal (work)
efficiencies as well as for different methane global warming potentials. One of the largest influences
comes from choice of GWP, which we address below. Another key predictor is whether the vehicle is in
compliance with the 2014 and beyond methane tailpipe standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1
p. 16]
The question of compliance with methane tailpipe standards is particularly relevant to the Proposed
Rule. Post-2014 vehicles theoretically must comply with the Phase 1 methane tailpipe standards,
although over 90 percent of vehicles on the road are older vehicles that do not have to comply with the
standard. Furthermore, due to credits and trading provisions, manufacturers of new engines can - and do
- avoid complying with the standard by applying credits generated from conventional engines. As the
Proposed Rule indicates, manufacturers to date are solely applying credits and continuing to build
natural gas engines that have high methane emissions: 2 g/bhp-hr as opposed to the 0.1 g/bph-hr 2014
standard. This is a massive and unacceptable volume of excess methane. As such, the trading provisions
that allow the application of C02 credits to methane should be abolished, or in the alternative, credits
should be translated using an accurate 20-year methane GWP that includes carbon cycle feedbacks (see
discussion below). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 16]
The EPA's sensitivity analysis for lifecycle methane emissions also failed to include a key parameter:
natural gas methane leakage rates. The recent literature indicates that the leakage rates assumed by the
EPA are significant underestimates. If the leakage rates were appropriately adjusted to reflect current
data, the lifecycle emissions for natural gas vehicles would be well above those of diesel engines. These
data are reviewed below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 16]
The Proposed Rule does raise the possibility of a standard that is weighted by the difference between
upstream and downstream emissions for natural gas as opposed to diesel vehicles. We support a
weighted standard so long as the most current research findings are used to assess the life-cycle
emissions for each fuel. In the sections below we review the current research. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1460-A1 p. 16]
The Upstream Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Are Larger than Current EPA Emission
Factors
The other key factor in determining climate impacts from the use of natural gas is upstream methane
emissions, i.e., leaking and venting during extraction, processing, storage and transmission of natural
gas. The EPA has standard emission factors of 1.14 percent for conventional gas and 1.2 percent for
-------
shale gas. These are based on "bottom up" estimates of leakage and venting. The recent literature,
however, is rife with top down and analytical studies of methane leakage that show significantly higher
levels of methane leakage from natural gas operations - two-fold or more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1460-A1 p.17-18]
For instance, Miller and colleagues recently used atmospheric measurements to estimate that actual
methane emissions are about 1.5 times larger than EPA estimates.87 Observations from oil and gas
operations in Colorado indicate that inventories underestimate methane emissions by at least a factor of
two.88 Leakage rates over a Utah gas field were recently estimated at 6.2 to 11.7%, well above the rates
assumed by national inventories.89 A study of leakage rates in the Barnett Shale region of Texas
indicated that leakage rates were 1.5 to over 4 fold higher than EPA estimates, especially at gathering
compressor stations.90 A more detailed study of methane emissions from natural gas gathering and
processing found that methane leakage rates were double the rate EPA assumes for the U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Inventory, resulting in a volume of methane that is one-third the total emissions estimated for all
natural gas operations.91 This discrepancy was due primarily to large rates of leakage from gathering
stations, which are not subject to separate emissions quantification for the purposes of the EPA's U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 18]
Moreover, EPA's data for oil and combined oil/gas wells omit the impact of hydraulic fracturing. A
recent white paper from Environmental Defense Fund summarizes findings from a number of studies to
conclude that emissions factors used in EPA's current inventory underestimate methane emissions from
oil wells that employ hydraulic fracturing.92 Hydraulic fracturing and associated techniques are
widespread and continue to expand at a rapid pace, making it all the more necessary that EPA update its
emission factors, which were developed for conventional wells. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1
P-18]
Another major source of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector is leaks from pneumatic devices.
A recent study calculated emission factors for pneumatic devices to find that national emissions from
this source are likely at least twice the amount predicted using the emission factors in the U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory.93 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 18-19]
Recent reports have also substantiated an alarming rate of leaks from decaying gas pipeline systems
across the country, creating the need for systematic, on-the-ground data collection to obtain an accurate
quantification of emissions from this source. For example, according to a recent study, the two
distributors of natural gas in New York City and Westchester County reported 9,906 leaks in their
combined system for 2012 alone, and gas distributors nationwide reported an average of 12 leaks per
100 miles of the 1.2 million miles of gas main pipes across the country.94 More than 5,800 leaks were
detected from aging gas pipelines underneath the streets of Washington, D.C.95 These samples indicate
that EPA's data are incomplete, and we urge the EPA to note this fact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1460-A1 p. 19]
Finally, a recent study raised the possibility that sensors used to measure methane leakage for the
purpose of "bottom-up" inventories, such as those compiled by the EPA, may have fundamental flaws
such that methane will be consistently under-estimated.96 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 19]
The EPA has requested input regarding the treatment of uncertainty related to methane emissions. At the
outset, it should be noted that there is now such a large body of evidence that EPA's emission factors
underestimate actual fugitive methane from natural gas operations that the "uncertainty" surrounds not
the discrepancy between the emission factors and actual leakage, but the magnitude of said discrepancy.
With regard to selecting new emission factors, the Center advocates for an approach that raises the
-------
emission factors by a multiplier that harmonizes the peer-reviewed literature, giving particular emphasis
to top-down studies and selecting a multiplier in the range most often reported in the literature. On a
longer-term basis, we recommend that the EPA undertake an independent, detailed and reliable study of
methane leakage rates that could be used to modify and verify the current best available values. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 19]
In sum, a complete and accurate well-to-wheels analysis is absolutely crucial to ensure that natural gas
engines, which are increasing in market share, do not undermine the potential benefits of the proposed
standards. Multiple studies have come to the conclusion that switching to natural gas transportation can
hasten climate change, especially in the near term. One study found that climate benefits could be
eroded by as much as 39 percent.97 This robust result underscores the need to ensure that from this point
forward natural gas engines are not incentivized, but rather placed on an even playing field with
conventional diesel engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 19]
76 See INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, ASSESSMENT OF
HEAVY-DUTY NATURAL GAS VEHICLE EMISSIONS: IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS 23-24 (July 2015) ("ICCT Natural Gas Truck Report"), available at
http://theicct.org/assessment-heaw-dutv-natural-gas-vehicle-emissions-implications-and-policv-
recommendations.
80 R. A. Alvarez et al., Greater focus needed on methane leakage from Natural Gas Infrastructure, 109
PROC. NATL. ACAD. SCI. 6435 (2012), available at
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435.full.pdf; J. R. Camuzeaux et al., Influence of Methane
Emissions and Vehicle Efficiency on the Climate Implications of Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Trucks, 49
ENVIRON. SCI. TECHNOL. 6402 (2015), available at
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b0Q412; ICCT Natural Gas Truck Report, supra note 76.
87 S. M. Miller et al., Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States, 100 PROC. NATL.
ACAD. SCI. 20018 (2013).
88 G. Petron et al., Hydrocarbon emissions characterization in the Colorado Front Range: A pilot study,
117 J. GEOPHYS. RES. D04304 (2012).
89 A. Karion et al., Methane emissions estimate from airborne measurements over a western United
States natural gas field, 40 GEOPHYS. RES. LETT. 4393 (2013).
90 D. R. Lyon et al., Constructing a Spatially Resolved Methane Emission Inventory for the Barnett
Shale Region, 49 ENVIRON. SCI. TECHNOL. 8147 (2015), available at
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es5Q6359c.
91 A. J. Marchese et al., Methane Emissions from United States Natural Gas Gathering and Processing,
ENVIRON. SCI. TECHNOL. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02275 (2015), available at
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b02275.
92 Environmental Defense Fund, CO-PRODUCING WELLS AS A MAJOR SOURCE OF METHANE
EMISSIONS: A REVIEW OF RECENT ANALYSES (Mar. 2014) available at
-------
http://blogs.edf.org/energvexchange/files/2014/03/EDF-Co-Droducing-Wells-WhiteDaDer.Ddf; see also
blog post by David Lyon available at http://blogs.edf.org/energvexchange/2014/03/13/latest-epa-
greenhouse-gas-inventorv-mav-not-reflect-full-scope-of-oil-and-gas-emissions/. We note that the
recently released proposed updates to the NSPS for oil and gas operations would extend the green
completion requirement to oil and oil/gas wells, but would not apply to existing wells.
93 D. Allen et &\., Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United
States, 110 PROC. NATL. ACAD. SCI. 17768 (2013).
94 Patrick McGeehan et al., Beneath Cities, a Decaying Tangle of Gas Pipes, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 24,
2014), available at http://www.nvtimes.com/2014/03/24/nvregion/beneath-cities-a-decaving-tangle-of-
gas-pipes.html?hp& r=0.
95 Robert B. Jackson et al., Natural Gas Pipeline Leaks Across Washington, D. C., 48 , ENVIRON. SCI.
TECHNOL. 2051-2058 (Jan.16, 2014), available at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404474x.
96 T. Howard, University of Texas study underestimates national methane emissions at natural gas
production sites due to instrument sensor failure, ENERGY SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING doi:
10.1002/ese3.81 (2015).
97ICCT Natural Gas Truck Report, supra note 76 at 17.
Organization: Clean Energy
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.251.]
Lastly, we appreciate the scope of the rule, which looks more at the tailpipe emissions, rather than
lifecycle emissions, which we believe should be addressed but in other regulatory frameworks.
Organization: Enovation Controls (ENC)
2.1 Lifecycle Analysis for GHG - It is inaccurate to suggest any significant impact to the overall GHG
impact of Natural Gas production resulting from use in on-highway vehicles. First, natural gas
combustion results in less C02 than traditional fossil fuel per unit of usable energy. The chemical
makeup of natural gas, which is mostly CH4, readily lends itself to producing more water and less C02
as a result of the combustion process when compared to diesel and gasoline. Second, fugitive methane
emissions result from both oil and natural gas production process from well to end user - excluding any
naturally-occurring methane production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1 p.l]
Considering only natural gas production, vehicle-specific natural gas usage is a small fraction of total
US natural gas use. As of 3 l-July-2015, the US Energy Information Administration tracked that in
2014, 0.12% of natural gas consumption in the US is consumed in vehicle power (32,850 Mmcf for
vehicle power compared to total consumption of 26,818,618 Mmcf). Figure 1 shows the trend of
vehicle-related natural gas consumption in the US. Even the most aggressive extrapolation of the trend
would result in minor impact to overall natural gas consumption by vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1203-A1 p. 1-2]
[Figure 1 can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1]
-------
ENC submits that lifecycle analysis for GHG focused on methane emissions does not belong in the
Phase 2 proposal. It is sufficiently and appropriately addressed in EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4776 with
a holistic approach to all fugitive methane emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1 p.2]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Based on evaluation of these options against the guiding principles stated above, the best overall options
appear to be Option 1 or 2 (without refueling and boil-off emissions), in conjunction with Option 5 (to
account for refueling and boil-off emissions). Option 1 or 2 can be implemented based on the precedent
of the EV compliance factor used in the LD GHG rules. Following this precedent provides a lot of
benefits in considering an upstream compliance approach for the Phase 2 rule. Under Options 1 or 2, an
upstream compliance factor would be established as part of the compliance framework, providing
regulatory stability to manufacturers for product planning. The tailpipe standard would be left intact,
preserving consistency with the NHTSA fuel economy rule. These options can be applied to any of the
fuels, and provide incentive to reduce upstream emissions where higher than those for conventional
diesel. The primary difference between Options 1 and 2 is the focus on natural gas; Option 1 would
consider only methane, and while applying to all fuels it would clearly be most stringent for natural gas
trucks, out of concern that upstream methane emissions will undercut lower tailpipe C02 emissions.
Option 2 provides a more fuel-neutral option, in that upstream emissions for all GHGs would be
assessed, allowing more tradeoff between CH4, C02 and N20, which will help level the playing field
more across different fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A3 p.9]
In conjunction with Options 1 or 2, Option 5 then provides a means to incentivize reductions in
refueling and boil-off emissions on LNG trucks. This option can be designed off of the A/C credit
program used for LD vehicles, which provides a template for successful implementation. A challenge
will be establishing a test procedure or model to determine credits for emission reduction technologies,
and verify these emission reductions. Test procedures in place for evaporative and refueling emissions
from gasoline vehicles may be adaptable to natural gas vehicles. The physical nature of vapor emissions
also lends itself well to development of a compliance model, similar to GEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1312-A3 p.9]
Overall, our assessment finds that upstream emissions can be accounted for in the Phase 2 rule,
following the precedents established in the LD GHG rules. Concerns with the potential magnitude of
GHG emissions in lifecycle emissions, especially for natural gas trucks, suggests that these emissions
should be directly accounted for in some way in the Phase 2 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A3
p.9][See EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A2]
B. EDF supports accounting for upstream methane emissions from natural gas
The agencies have requested comment on accounting for upstream emissions in the standards for natural
gas and other trucks, and we urge the agencies to finalize a rule that includes such accounting. Reducing
upstream emissions from natural gas trucks is integral to ensure the final program delivers on its climate
protection goals. A recent ICCT study found that "inadequate attention to technologies designed to limit
methane leakage ... would diminish the program benefits by as much as 38 percent."73 By including the
upstream emissions from natural gas trucks in the final program, the agencies will strengthen the
integrity of the program. We provide recommendations for improving the methodology in Section VII
below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 16]
Final rule must ensure fuel savings and greenhouse gas reductions from natural gas vehicles
-------
Diesel is the current dominant fuel for heavy trucks. While it is likely to remain the most widely used
fuel throughout the Phase 2 proposal, gasoline and natural gas are each making inroads in different
market segments. EPA should ensure that these other technologies are likewise subject to rigorous
environmental standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.39]
EDF is particularly concerned about the ability of natural gas trucks to deliver real-world greenhouse
gas reductions. Given the significant impact of upstream methane emissions, a recent ICCT study found
that "inadequate attention to technologies designed to limit methane leakage ... would diminish the
program benefits by as much as 38 percent."168 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.39]
The finding from ICCT is consistent with other leading research. A recent study by Camuzeaux et al in
Environmental Science & Technology found that switching heavy-duty truck fleets from diesel to
natural gas could lead to worse climate impacts over the next 50 to 90 years than remaining with diesel
because of the powerful effect that methane has on global warming in the near-term.169 (Attachment 1)
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.39][Attachment 1 can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312-A2]
While natural gas trucks lead to increased climate damage for decades compared to diesel trucks today,
over the course of the Phase 2 program these vehicles have the potential to provide immediate, sizable
climate benefits. Camuzeaux et al found that - with improvements to the vehicles and the natural gas
supply chain - "fuel switches have the potential to produce climate benefits on all time frames."
Similarly, ICCT found that natural gas trucks could "increase the Phase 2 regulatory program's 2040
benefits by 11 million tons of C02e, or 7 percent"170 if best practices to reduce methane emissions on-
vehicle and across the supply chain are adopted. With improvements to the proposal, the final Phase 2
program could avoid an unintended consequence of additional climate damage from a switch to natural
gas trucks and instead enhance the climate benefits of the program by enabling natural gas trucks to
deliver on their climate potential. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.39]
A. A new, more comprehensive lifecycle analysis of NGVs is needed
The agencies' attempt to quantify the climate impact of natural gas trucks should be strengthened in
several ways. The agencies relied exclusively on data from the Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI),
leading to a lifecycle analysis (LCA) that likely underrepresents the amount of methane emitted into the
atmosphere across the natural gas supply chain. The agencies also relied on outdated Global Warming
Potentials (GWPs) for methane, which do not reflect the latest available science on methane's impact on
the climate system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.39-40]
The GHGI estimates U.S. natural gas methane emissions based mainly on bottom-up estimates of
methane emissions. It is based heavily on data collected in the 1990s and recent data suggest that the
Inventory likely underestimates actual emissions and does not fully include important sources like those
found in the gathering and boosting segment. For example, new research conducted in Texas' Barnett
Shale, one of the country's largest production areas, finds methane emissions are 50% higher than
GHGI estimates.171 Other recent studies have made similar conclusions, predicting the underestimation
is in the range of 25-75% below actual emissions.172 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.40]
In addition, the LCA in the proposal predicts that methane emissions will only rise by 4% from 2012
levels by the year 2025, while natural gas production is expected to increase by about 22%. However,
the most recent GHGI, which was not available for this LCA, shows a 3% increase in methane
emissions over 2012-2013, which suggests these projections may be understated. Accordingly, we
recommend EPA develop a sensitivity analysis to the existing LCA using the numerous recent field
-------
studies conducted over the past few years aimed at better characterizing national methane emissions
from the oil and natural gas sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.40]
EPA recognizes a number of other gaps in the LCA that have not been addressed. For compressed
natural gas (CNG) trucks, due to lack of quantifiable data, EPA does not estimate emissions from
refueling or small leaks in the CNG fuel storage system. The LCA also does not include estimations for
fugitive emissions from fuel piping for either CNG or LNG trucks. Furthermore, there is a significant
amount of uncertainty in the estimation for the quantity of boil-off and venting emissions from LNG
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.40]
In the proposed Phase 2 standards, EPA takes critical steps in providing such an LCA. However, there
are a number of areas for improvement, as highlighted in this paper, especially concerning sensitivity
analyses related to upstream methane emissions, GWPs, and the carbon dioxide-credit program. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.40]
E. Adopt a full fuel cycle accounting approach for alternative fuels
While on-vehicle methane emissions are an important factor, it is the methane emissions associated with
the production, processing and distribution of natural gas that largely determine the amount of climate
damage natural gas fleets cause compared to diesel fleets.183 In order for the Phase 2 program to
accurately reflect the climate impact of natural gas trucks, the final standards must reflect the full
lifecycle impact of using these and other trucks. Therefore, an upstream emissions analysis should be
incorporated into efficiency standards in some capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.43]
The agencies have used this approach before. In the historic light-duty standards, the agencies
developed an upstream compliance factor to reflect the upstream impact of electric vehicles. While
these vehicles emit much less C02 at the tailpipe, the compliance factor takes into account the
generation or production of the fuel source upstream of the tailpipe.184 This strategy could be applied in
a parallel manner to NGVs to account for the full impact of their C02 and methane emissions. An
upstream compliance factor could be calculated given current estimates of the upstream impact for a
respective NGV, and later adjusted accordingly based on improved GHGI estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.43]
The agencies asked for comments about including lifecycle emissions in the final program, as well as
the feasibility of doing so while maintaining the linkage between the EPA standards and the NHTSA
standards. Eastern Research Group has examined the options (Attachment 2), concluding ."..upstream
emissions can be accounted for in the Phase 2 rule, following the precedents established in the LD GHG
rules. Concerns with the potential magnitude of GHG emissions in lifecycle emissions, especially for
natural gas trucks, suggests that these emissions should be directly accounted for in some way in the
Phase 2 rule." Given the viability of this pathway, EDF urges the agencies to adopt full lifecycle
accounting in the final standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.43]
73 Delgado and Muncrief, Assessment of Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Vehicle Emissions: Implications and
Policy Recommendations, International Council for Clean Transportation (July 2015).
168 Delgado and Muncrief, Assessment of Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Vehicle Emissions: Implications
and Policy Recommendations, International Council for Clean Transportation, (July 2015).
-------
169 Camuzeaux, et al., Influence of Methane Emissions and Vehicle Efficiency on the Climate
Implications of Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Trucks, Environmental Science & Technology, (May 2015).
170 Delgado and Muncrief, Assessment of Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Vehicle Emissions: Implications
and Policy Recommendations, International Council for Clean Transportation, (July 2015).
171 Hamburg, S., "New Research Finds Higher Methane Emissions Reduction Opportunities in Texas'
Barnett Shale Region," EDF Blogs: Energy Exchange, (July 7, 2015), available at
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2015/07/07/new-research-finds-higher-methane-emissions-
reduction-opportunities-in-texas-barnett-shale-region/.
172 Petron, G. et al., Hydrocarbon emissions characterization in the Colorado front range: A pilot study,
J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 117, (2012).
175 Joussaume, et al., eds., Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Table 8.A. 1
(2013), available at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5 WGI-12Doc2b
FinalDraft All.pdf.
183 Camuzeaux, et al., Influence of Methane Emissions and Vehicle Efficiency on the Climate
Implications of Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Trucks, Environ. Sci. Technol., (2015).
184 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Federal Vehicle Standards, Arlington, VA, (2015),
available at www.c2es.org/federal/executive/vehicle-standards.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law
Upstream Emissions and Electric and Natural Gas Vehicles: The agencies propose phasing-out the
advanced technology credits. In our comments on the Phase 1 rulemaking, Policy Integrity explained the
problems of treating advanced electric vehicles as if they had zero emissions, especially in combination
with applying a 1.5 multiplier to electric vehicle credits. Phasing out the credits partly addresses this
concern. However, the agencies continue to treat electric vehicles as if they have zero emissions,
focusing only on the tailpipe and ignoring upstream emissions from electricity generation. Somewhat
contradictorily, the agencies are also considering a lifecycle approach to natural gas vehicles that would
count upstream emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1195-A 1 p.2]
To accurately compare the greenhouse gas emissions associated with different vehicle types, the
agencies must consider lifecycle emissions for all power sources. By contrast, limiting the analysis to
downstream emissions or considering upstream emissions for only some power sources will undermine
the efficacy of the standards by irrationally favoring vehicles whose climate impacts occur upstream.
See our previous comments on lifecycle emissions analysis in the context of efficiency standards.4
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1195-A1 p.2]
4 See http://policyintegrity.org/documents/10.19_.10_Comments_on_DOE_Full_Fuel_Cycle_.pdf. at 4
(arguing that ignoring upstream emissions "arbitrarily tips the scales in favor of power sources with
superior downstream efficiency over those with superior upstream efficiency").
Organization: National Waste & Recycle Association
-------
We are pleased that the agencies declined to propose any provisions that would adjust the compressed
natural gas or the liquid natural gas vehicle standard to account for upstream emissions of methane that
occur from natural gas production, processing, transmission and distribution. We wholeheartedly
support this approach. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071 -A 1 p.4]
Organization: NGVAmerica
E. Consideration of Upstream Emissions. The proposal includes an extensive discussion of
upstream emissions and full fuel cycle energy use and emissions. However, the proposal leaves in
place a regulatory approach that applies the long-standing practice of only regulating tailpipe
emissions and those emissions immediately associated with the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1270-A1 p.3]
NGV America supports the agencies' approach to regulating vehicle and engine emissions. Assessing
and determining upstream emissions is highly complicated, a moving target subject to changes as new
upstream emission rules and voluntary efforts are implemented. Including upstream emissions would
greatly complicate the adoption of final rules for this program. As EPA has noted, upstream emissions
are addressed by a host of other statutory-mandated programs and are best addressed by regulations that
focus on, and control the source of emissions. We further believe that it is inefficient to require
manufactures to address emissions through vehicle controls that will soon be reduced or even eliminated
by new regulatory controls. Therefore, we support the decision not to include upstream emissions in the
standards used to regulate motor vehicles and engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.3-4]
With respect to upstream emissions, the Preamble includes an extensive discussion related to natural gas
vehicles. We respectfully request that this information not be included in the final rule given that similar
attention to, and discussion of, other fuels has not been provided in the rule. If the full fuel cycle
benefits and attributes of natural gas are to be included, a detailed discussion of the emissions of other
fuels should also be included and commenters should be provided an opportunity to review this
information and comment on the attributes of all fuels. In addition, any discussion of upstream
emissions should carefully consider what percentage of natural gas in each state is or would be used as
motor vehicle fuel, so that the total upstream emissions associated with the production and
transportation of natural gas are discounted and adjusted accordingly when calculating upstream
emissions for natural gas as a motor vehicle fuel. Finally, the introduction of renewable natural gas
(RNG) into the motor-vehicle fuel market should also be included as many pathways for production of
RNG have very low carbon intensity values and some are actually carbon-negative. An example of use
of RNG for transportation fuel is California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard. As of 2014, RNG accounts
for up to twenty-five percent of California's natural gas transportation fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1270-A1 p.4]
Organization: Optimus Technologies
With respect to upstream emissions, the Preamble includes an extensive discussion related to natural gas
vehicles. We respectfully request that this information not be included in the final rule given that similar
attention to, and discussion of, other fuels has not been provided in the rule. If the full fuel cycle
benefits and attributes of natural gas are to be included, a detailed discussion of the emissions of other
fuels should also be included and commenters should be provided an opportunity to review this
information and comment on the attributes
Lifecycle Emissions
-------
From Optimus' review of the proposed rule as well as discussion with employees at the EPA, the EPA
does not currently incorporate lifecycle emissions into the process of engine/vehicle certification. One
of the bases for this decision seems to be the assumption that EV HD vehicles will not enter the market
during the regulatory period; "we project very limited adoption of all-electric vehicles into the [heavy-
duty] market" (see 80 FR 40159, Column 1). This assumption seems to neglect the fact that other
alternative fuel technologies (besides EV) exist. Optimus Technologies believes that the EPA should
begin to evaluate engines/vehicles on a lifecycle emissions basis, especially when
evaluating technologies that allow engines/vehicles utilize alternative fuels. For instance, a natural-gas
engine may show reduced C02 tailpipe emissions when compared to its diesel counterpart. However,
the same natural-gas engine may show increase C02 lifecycle emissions. One example of this is a
recent Argonne National Laboratory study completed on transit buses.5 An excerpt and chart from that
study are below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1276-A1 p. 1-2]
""The GHG emissions per VMT for transit buses are illustrated in Figure 5. The emissions per VMT for
CNG transit buses are not statistically different from those of diesel buses with a 100-year GWP
horizon. However, when considering a 20-year GWP horizon, CNG buses emit significantly more
GHGs than do their petroleum-fueled counterparts, with emissions that are 34% higher for conventional
NG and 20% higher for shale NG. To reduce GHG emissions, CNG buses will need to exceed our Base
Case fuel economy assumptions." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1276-A1 p.2]
[Figure 5, 'Well-to-wheels life-cycle GHG emissions per VMT - Transit Bus. Two time horizons - 100-
year and 20-year - are considered', can be found on p.2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1276-A1]
The already excellent GREET model should serve as a way to evaluate various engines/vehicles/fuels in
a non-biased and consistent manner. For instance, using unmodified GREET 2014 data, a car fueled
with ultra-low sulfur diesel emits (on a well-to-wheel basis) 391.276 g/mi. A dedicated CNG car emits
(again on a well-to-wheel basis) 406.277 g/mi (an increase of 14.951 g/mi).6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1276-A1 p.2-3]
The EPA has objected to a lifecycle emissions approach in the past for multiple reasons including the
belief that including lifecycle GHG emissions would disrupt the harmonization of EPA and NHTSA
rulings and the belief that the RFS properly incentivizes alternative fuels (see 77 FR 51701).7 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1276-A1 p.3]
On the first belief, Optimus sees no reason why the addition of lifecycle GHG emissions would upset or
go against the dual goals outlined in Phase I (see 76 FR 57109, Column 2) of reduction of dependence
on oil, achievement of energy security, and amelioration of global climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1276-A1 p.3]
Regarding the second belief, RFS does an excellent job of incentivizing the production alternative fuels
but fails to directly incentivize the use of alternative fuels and associated technologies by engine/vehicle
OEMs. The regulatory environment surrounding the RFS (including the R1N program and tax credits)
has been in constant flux recently so that producers of alternative fuels rarely pass those incentives on to
consumers. RINs and tax credits essentially assist in holding alternative fuel producers above water
during periods of regulatory uncertainty and low petroleum prices. The proposed rule should consider
incentivizing technologies that integrate alternative fuels at the OEM level and push the market towards
a low carbon fuel economy in a way that RFS cannot. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1276-A1 p.3]
-------
The EPA argues (in 77 FR 51701) that "the tailpipe performance measurement of alternative fuels
provides sufficient incentives for their use" and integration with engine/vehicle OEMs. Optimus
Technologies argues that the full lifecycle emissions and the use of the off-cycle technology credit (see
section below) should be used by the EPA to further incentivize, or in some cases, disincentivize the use
of alternative fuels and their associated technologies by vehicle/engine OEMs (in the event that they
produce vehicles with higher lifecycle GHG emissions). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1276-A1 p.3]
5 http ://www.transportation, anl.gov/pdfs/EE/813.PDF
6 GREET model downloaded from: https://greet.es.anl.gov/greet/index.htm
7 https://federalregister.gOv/a/2010-8159
Organization: Securing America's Future Energy
Specifically, we recommend that EPA and NHTSA equilibrate the treatment of non-petroleum fuels
across the light- and heavy-duty sectors by: (1) extending 49 USC §32905 manufacturing incentives into
the medium- and heavy-duty sector and (2) implementing advanced technology credits for medium- and
heavy-duty natural gas vehicles. We also provide comments on the agency's considerations related to
upstream natural gas vehicle emissions below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p. 1-2]
At the same time, SAFE believes the regulation of upstream emissions is more appropriately addressed
under separate regulatory frameworks that hold those upstream entities directly accountable. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1462-A1 p.4]
Specifically, SAFE recommends that the agencies equilibrate the treatment of non-petroleum fuels
across the light- and heavy-duty sectors by: (1) extending 49 USC §32905 manufacturing incentives into
the medium- and heavy-duty sector and (2) implementing advanced technology credits for medium- and
heavy-duty natural gas vehicles and reinstating them for technologies that qualify for the credit under
Phase I. Finally, comments on the considerations related to upstream natural gas vehicle emissions (as
requested in the proposed Phase 2 rule) are offered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.6]
Treatment of Upstream Natural Gas Emissions
Traditionally, with the limited exception of vehicles powered by energy sources that are recharged
through off-board fuel combustion, emissions associated with the upstream production and distribution
of vehicular fuels have been regulated independently of established motor vehicle GHG and fuel
economy standards.27 There is fundamentally sound rationale behind such an approach since vehicle
manufacturers have no authority over the production and distribution of vehicular fuels. Fuel producers
and distributors are separately regulated entities subject to controls established for their respective
industries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.9]
Nevertheless, the EPA and NHTSA have requested comment on whether it would it be appropriate to
adjust the tailpipe GHG emission (and, by extension, fuel consumption) standards for natural gas
vehicles by a factor to reflect the lifecycle emissions of natural gas vehicles relative to diesel-powered
vehicles. While the benefits of such an approach might possibly be rationalized in a more static and
certain world, it is difficult to envision any type of a practical and equitable system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1282-A1 p.9]
-------
Vehicle manufacturers have no control over upstream fuel production and distribution, yet under a
lifecycle approach vehicle manufacturers would be required to discount motor vehicle technology
impacts for the actions (or inactions) of independently regulated entities or the agencies that regulate
them, even as they vary across time or regions. Would vehicle manufacturers suffer the consequences of
upstream regulatory stringency decisions over which they have no control? Given that production
methods and associated controls are continually evolving, how would upstream evolutionary impacts be
reflected in regulated downstream adjustments in a timely fashion? Lifecycle adjustments would have to
be dynamically applied to previously certified vehicles since the upstream emissions performance of
fuels being utilized in both new and existing vehicles would be equally affected. Further, since any
adjustment would be based on the ratio of upstream performance for two fuels, how would differences
in the uncertainty of a generalized lifecycle estimate for each fuel be resolved? Clearly, there are a
number of complex issues that would need to be address before equitable upstream adjustments could
even be practically considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p. 10]
Even ignoring practicalities, a lifecycle approach would, at a minimum, require an adjustment factor to
be developed for all fuels, not simply natural gas, as well as for all vehicle sectors. Adopted standards
applicable to light-duty natural gas (or any other alternatively-fueled) vehicles are not subject to
lifecycle adjustment. Given that such adjustments would be fuel, not vehicle, specific, there is no basis
for establishing an adjustment that is isolated to the heavy-duty sector. In recognition of these various
issues, and given the diversity of fuel portfolios and carbon emissions at utilities around the country
(which will also change over time), SAFE believes that the appropriate approach to regulating carbon
emissions throughout the economy is to regulate them at the point of combustion and not at the point
where the power is consumed. SAFE recommends that the EPA and NHTSA abandon any potential
lifecycle approach and focus on adopting cost effective control strategies for regulating vehicle and
upstream entities separately. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p. 10]
27 Note: Generally, vehicles powered by energy sources that are recharged through off-board fuel
combustion are all-electric or plug-in electric hybrid vehicles whose batteries are recharged using
energy generated through upstream fuel combustion. Upstream combustion and distribution losses for
such vehicles are considered in determining light-duty vehicle fuel economy and will be considered
beginning as early as model year 2020 in determining light-duty vehicle C02 emissions. Prior to model
year 2020 and for some period thereafter until a specified vehicle production threshold is exceeded, all-
electric vehicle operation is assumed to emit zero C02. Upstream emissions for all-electric heavy-duty
vehicles are not considered throughout the proposed Phase 2 period (i.e., C02 emissions and fuel
consumption for such vehicles are assumed to be zero).
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
Alternative fuels
While diesel and gasoline vehicles currently represent the vast majority of new heavy-duty vehicles sold
today, advances in technology, favorable differences in alternative fuel prices, and state and national
policies supporting alternative fuel trucks will lead to a growing number of alternative fueled vehicles
being deployed during the timeframe of the rule. However, evaluating only tailpipe emissions from
natural gas and electric vehicles underestimates the climate impacts of these vehicles compared to
gasoline and diesel vehicles raising concerns about the real benefits of the standards under different
market projections. For example, analysis by the ICCT shows that natural gas fueled trucks could
represent as much as 20 percent of the new truck sales under favorable market conditions. In that case,
-------
they found as a result of methane leakage both on the vehicle and upstream of the vehicle, the climate
benefits of the proposed rule could be diminished by as much as 38% in 2040 using a 20-year global
warming potential for methane (Delgado and Muncrief 2015). While the likelihood of this scenario is
uncertain, it illustrates the importance of looking beyond simply tailpipe emissions in evaluating vehicle
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.26]
We strongly support the agencies inclusion of controls for crankcase emissions on natural gas vehicles
and LNG tank hold times. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.26] [This comment can also be found
in section 12.5, 12.7 and 13.2.3 of this comment summary.]
However, these do not fully capture the sources of methane emissions from natural gas trucks. In
addition, electric trucks are evaluated as have 0 g/mile emissions, which does not fully reflect this
vehicle technology's actual climate impact. While the current low volumes of electric trucks do not
present a significant concern, the market for these vehicles will likely increase over the time frame of
the regulation, and when they make up a substantial part of the market, real benefit erosion will occur.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.26-27]
To ensure the program produces the estimated benefits and to accurately capture the climate impact of
vehicles regulated under the standards, the agencies should consider a phase-in of requirements to
include the upstream emissions for natural gas and electric trucks, relative to diesel and gasoline
vehicles, in vehicle certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.27]
Organization: VNG
NGVs are the Primary Driver of Renewable Natural Gas Development
Renewable natural gas (RNG) is methane captured from renewable sources like landfills, dairy farms,
and sewage treatment plants, then processed to be chemically identical to fossil natural gas and
transported through the same pipeline system. Because methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and RNG
captures methane that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere, its use achieves lifecycle GHG
reductions of 90% or more compared to diesel in C02-equivalent terms1 - and even greater positive
impacts in the near term since methane is a potent short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP) that both EPA
and the California Air Resources Board are beginning to target more aggressively in their climate
policies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1208-A1 p.l]
1 National Petroleum Council. "Renewable Natural Gas for Transportation: An Overview of the
Feedstock Capacity, Economics, and GHG Emission Reduction Benefits of RNG as a Low-Carbon
Fuel." 1 Aug 2012. http://www.npc.org/reports/FTF Topic papers/22-RNG.pdf
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
WM Supports Maintaining the Phase 1 Compliance Flexibility Framework in Phase 2
In the Phase 1 rule, EPA provided a compliance approach, which allows OEMs to certify their engines,
using carbon dioxide (C02) credits to meet the nitrous oxide (N20) and methane standards. OEMs may
convert all measured emissions to C02 equivalent credits using the global warming potentials (GWP) of
-------
N20 and methane. An OEM may offset excess methane or N20 emissions with the appropriate number
of C02 reduction credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.2]
Continuing this compliance framework in the Phase 2 rule is particularly important to the future
compliance of natural gas (NG) vehicles. Since NG vehicles generate higher methane emissions, but
lower C02 emissions, the flexibility afforded by continuing the Phase 1 offset provisions will allow
their continued compliance under Phase 2. We support the agencies' inclusion of this flexibility
allowing OEMs to balance emissions among the three GHGs in the proposed Phase 2 rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.2]
WM works closely with our manufacturing partners and over the last decade, we have seen steady
improvements in heavy-duty natural gas technology. Our OEM partners are already working on
technologies for future model years that will enable significant reduction of fugitive emissions from NG
vehicles - making an already clean technology even more environmentally beneficial. Extension of the
Phase 1 compliance framework into Phase 2 will also support further adoption and use of vehicles
fueled with renewable natural gas (RNG). NG vehicles may employ RNG with no changes to either the
vehicle or fueling infrastructure. Use of RNG results in even greater GHG reductions on a lifecycle
basis (upwards of 90%) than the already significant GHG reductions achieved with use of fossil NG. A
flexible Phase 2 compliance framework will allow EPA to achieve lower GHG emissions from medium
and heavy-duty trucks while also supporting continued growth of in production and use of renewable
transportation fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.2-3] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 101.]]
We note that the agencies are taking comment on adoption of provisions that would "adjust the GHG
emission standard for NG vehicles by a factor to reflect lifecycle emissions of NG vehicles relative to
diesel vehicles." However, there is no explanation or fully formed regulatory concept describing how
those provisions might be applied, how lifecycle emission factors would be established, or how lifecycle
accounting would affect other vehicle fuels. We find that the language is not sufficiently descriptive to
enable commenters to understand the "adjustment factor" that the agencies are contemplating and
provide meaningful comments and information. As a result, the agencies have no basis for using any
input on this topic in a final rule. Should the agencies determine that lifecycle emission factors are
appropriate, we believe it would be incumbent upon the agencies to issue a new proposal to ensure the
regulated and affected stakeholders are afforded appropriate notice and an opportunity to provide
comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.3]
Were the agencies to consider developing regulatory provisions featuring a "lifecycle approach" for
natural gas, they would completely upend the basic architecture of the Phase 1 rule. Furthermore, the
EPA would be forced, under this new framework, to develop lifecycle analyses of all vehicle fuels, as
all vehicle fuels - including gasoline, diesel and electricity -have upstream emissions. Undertaking such
an analysis would significantly complicate and delay final promulgation of the Phase 2 rule with no
additional GHG benefits beyond those that are, or will be accomplished through other EPA programs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.3]
As a next step to further reducing the GHG footprint of our NG fleet, we are using the gas produced by
our landfills to power our trucks with biomethane. We fuel 380 refuse trucks in California with RNG
from our Altamont Landfill and we will be fueling several hundred more vehicles with RNG produced
at our Milam, Illinois landfill. We are also working with other landfill owners to purchase RNG to fuel
additional vehicles. WM plans to fuel as many of its NG trucks with renewable fuel as we can. The RFS
program has helped facilitate this switch to even lower GHG emitting fuels than fossil natural gas. NG
vehicles are also a technology pathway to lower NOx emissions. While this rule is focused on fuel
-------
efficiency and GHG reductions, EPA should think holistically and recognize co-benefits of other
pollutant reductions that a technology can offer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.4-5] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.101.]]
The recent proposals complement the Agency's 2012 standards. In addition to reducing both VOCs and
methane from hydraulically fractured oil wells, the new proposals extend emission reduction
requirements further downstream, covering equipment in the natural gas transmission segment of the
industry not regulated by the 2012 rule. EPA has also proposed to require owner/operators to find and
repair leaks, a significant source of VOC and methane emissions. These new standards are expected to
achieve additional reductions of up to 400,000 short tons of methane in 2025, the equivalent of reducing
7.7 to 9 million metric tons of C02 equivalent. These rules, along with the Agency's proposed
voluntary Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program, and upcoming actions from the Department
of Interior's Bureau of Land Management, will help ensure significant methane reductions from the oil
and gas sector. Given the significant work already underway to reduce lifecycle emissions of fossil fuel
and methane and VOC emissions from the natural gas sector, there is no reason for EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality to use the Phase 2 rule to require methane reductions from vehicles to
offset upstream NG sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.5]
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
WM, therefore, strongly recommends the agencies abstain from incorporating lifecycle GHG emissions
accounting in the Phase 2 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.4]
EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard Already Addresses Lifecycle Emissions of Fossil Fuel
EPA already implements a regulatory program, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the goal of which
is to achieve reductions in lifecycle GHG emissions associated with replacing transportation diesel with
increasing volumes of certain renewable fuels. Further, the Administration and EPA are addressing
upstream methane emissions associated with natural gas through a host of regulatory programs that will
significantly reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Any attempt to regulate trucks with
the goal of mitigating upstream emissions would be redundant and far less effective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1214-A2p.4]
The EPA Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program is designed to ensure that transportation fuel sold in
the U.S. contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel, and thus achieves a lower fossil carbon content.
The RFS program requires EPA to evaluate the GHG lifecycle emissions associated with each category
of renewable fuel to assess the GHG reductions that will be realized from its use as a replacement for
diesel fuel. The transportation fuels market is required to increase its use of renewable fuels over time to
both reduce sector GHG emissions, and to promote production and use of homegrown, clean fuel
alternatives to imported petroleum fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.4]
The RFS program has helped stimulate the production and use of renewable natural gas (RNG) as a
transportation fuel. Historically, RNG from landfills, wastewater treatment plants and anaerobic
digesters has been beneficially used to produce electricity. On a GHG lifecycle basis, RNG as a
cellulosic biofuel is among the lowest carbon intensive renewable fuels available, with GHG reductions
of nearly 90% as compared to the diesel fuel it replaces. Due in large part to the RFS program and the
California Low Carbon Fuel Standard, WM is increasing its production and use of RNG as a
transportation fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.4]
-------
The Administration's Methane Strategy Will Achieve Significant Upstream Methane Reductions
from the Oil & Gas Sector
The Administration's Methane Strategy is a key component of the President's Climate Action Plan, with
a goal of achieving reductions in methane emissions from the oil and gas sector of 40 to 45 percent
below 2012 levels by 2025. EPA began with an April 17, 2012 New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) for natural gas wells, along with requirements for several other sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from storage tanks and other gas production equipment. A key component of the
2012 rules was a requirement to capture emissions from hydraulically fractured and re-fractured natural
gas wells - a step estimated to yield a 95 percent reduction in VOCs, and a similar methane reduction
co-benefit. Although VOCs are the regulated pollutant, EPA estimated significant reductions of 1.0 to
1.7 million short tons of methane (about 19 to 33 million tons of C02 equivalent). Following upon this
first rule, EPA proposed a suite of rules August 18, 2015 to reduce further methane emissions from a
broader array of sources within the oil and gas industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1214-A2 p.5]
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
NATURAL GAS ENGINES MUST BE HELD TO A MEANINGFUL STANDARD THAT
PREVENTS METHANE EMISSIONS FROM UNDERMINING CLIMATE BENEFITS
It is essential that the EPA use its full authority to address "well-to-wheels" methane emissions
associated with natural gas vehicles and engines. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a radiative
forcing of approximately 0.48 W/m2,69 and, at least as importantly, its comparatively short atmospheric
lifetime means that its emissions over the next few decades will exert an even larger warming influence
than will C02 emissions over this period. This dual nature of methane's influence mean that aggressive
methane mitigation will be critical in slowing the near-term rate of climate change, avoiding climatic
tipping points, and moderating current climate impacts such as Arctic sea-ice loss, ice sheet melt,
permafrost thaw, and declining seasonal snowpack.70 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 14]
The extraction, processing, storage and transmission of natural gas is the second largest source of
fugitive methane emissions in the United States according to the EPA's U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory,
71 and may be the largest source if updated leakage factors are used. The Obama Administration has
targeted methane emissions as an important component of climate mitigation and meeting international
climate commitments.72 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 14]
It is important to address methane emissions from heavy duty natural gas vehicles and engines due to
the potential for market expansion. Natural gas vehicles are currently a small part of the medium- and
heavy-duty engine fleet: about one percent. But the EIA expects this market share to rise rapidly, with
growth rates up to 14 percent per year. One report placed market share for new tractors at 50 percent in
2025. Overall heavy-duty fleet expectations have been placed around 20 percent by both the National
Resource Council and the National Petroleum Council. All of these forecasts underline the importance
of setting meaningful standards for natural gas vehicles in this rulemaking as the impacts will be much
multiplied relative to the existing fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p. 14]
As proposed, the Phase 2 standards for natural gas vehicles and engines could result in significant and
unintended climate harm. The Center appreciates that the EPA recognizes the potential for methane
leakage from natural gas systems and vehicles to offset the C02 reductions of the standards. We
respond below to a number of EPA's requests for comment related to the treatment of methane from
natural gas vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.14]
-------
2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles— Phase 2; Proposed Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 40,138, 40,141 (July 13, 2015) ("Proposed Rule").
69 G. Myhre et al., Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, in CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE
PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS. CONTRIBUTION OF WORKING GROUP I TO THE FIFTH
ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
IPCC Table 8.2 at 678 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2013) ("Myhre 2013").
70 Drew Shindell et al., Simultaneously Mitigating Near-term Climate Change and Improving Human
Health and Food Security, 335 SCIENCE 183 (2012); J. J. West et al., Scenarios of methane emission
reductions to 2030: abatement costs and co-benefits to ozone air quality and human mortality, 114
CLIMATIC CHANGE 441 (2012).
71 See, e.g., US EPA, GHG INVENTORY, supra note 3 at ES-6.
72 Obama Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions (Mar. 2014), available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategv to reduce methane emissions 2014-03-
28 final.pdf.
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Center for Biological Diversity (web) -
(4,429)
The proposed free pass for natural gas engines must also be eliminated. Natural gas engines currently
make up a small portion of the truck-engine market, but that market share is predicted to rise rapidly.
We simply can't afford the methane leakage from natural gas production and transmission, nor the harm
to our communities and wildlife if the standards incentivize more fracking for natural gas. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1167-A1 p.l]
Organization: Optimus Technologies
However, as Optimus has stated above, the company believes that the proposed rule is lacking and
requires additional consideration to achieve the goals the EPA set out to do. If the intended rule was
written to address climate change, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions must be taken into account. The
proposed rule is intended to be fuel-neutral, but Optimus believes the standards do not reflect that
intention. The effects of the proposed rule on alternative fuel technologies (especially small volume
alternative fuel engine converters) needs additional clarification and consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1276-A1 p.4]
Response:
The agencies are aware of methane's potency as a heat trapping gas. The heat trapping potency of
methane, coupled with several projections which showed rapid penetration of natural gas fuel into the
heavy-duty truck sector, are the primary reasons why, for this rulemaking, the agencies conducted a
lifecycle analysis comparing natural gas heavy-duty trucks to diesel heavy-duty trucks and projected the
growth of natural gas use by heavy-duty trucks.
-------
Substantial amounts of new information on methane emissions from oil and gas systems have become
available recently from a number of channels, including EPA's GHG Reporting Program, industry
organizations, and research studies by government, academic, and industry researchers. Separate from
this analysis, as part of the annual development process for EPA's GHG Inventory, this year EPA
reviewed the substantial body of new studies, and conducted early and extensive engagement and
communication with stakeholders on updates to oil and gas sector emission estimates. Based on this
review of new information and stakeholder input, EPA revised its estimates of methane emissions from
natural gas and petroleum wells, natural gas processing plants and the natural gas transmission, storage
and distribution systems for the 2016 U.S. GHG Inventory report to the United Nations Framework
Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC). Comparing the most recent GHG Inventory estimate for
2013 to the previous GHG Inventory estimate for 2013, methane emissions are about one-third higher
for the aggregated natural gas systems than the previous estimate. These revised methane emissions
estimates are incorporated in the final rule natural gas heavy-duty truck lifecycle analysis.
Recognizing the contribution of U.S. methane emissions to climate change, in 2015, the Obama
Administration announced a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sectors by 40 to
45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. EPA has been taking steps, and intends on taking additional
steps, to reduce the methane emissions from the natural gas and petroleum sectors. In 2012, EPA
finalized New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) which require that emissions from natural gas
wells that are hydraulically fractured be controlled using flaring or reduced emission completions
(RECs). Starting in 2015, RECs are required for natural gas well completions and workovers. The
NSPS also regulates the emissions from certain new petroleum and natural gas production, processing,
and transmission and storage equipment. EPA continues to promote Natural Gas Star, a flexible
voluntary partnership that encourages oil and natural gas companies to adopt proven, cost-effective
technologies and practices that improve operational efficiency and reduce methane emissions. Further,
EPA launched the Methane Challenge program in March of 2016 in which oil and gas companies make
and track ambitious commitments to reduce emissions. On May 12, 2016, EPA finalized regulations
(2016 NSPS OOOOa) which, among other things, include methane emission standards for oil and gas
equipment used across oil and gas sources previously regulated in the 2012 NSPS OOOO for VOCs,
and require the use of RECs at hydraulically fractured oil wells. In addition, in March of 2016, EPA
and Canadian Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced plans to align with the US
goal for 40 to 45 percent reductions of methane from the oil and gas sector relative to 2012 emissions.
. The goal of the various actions is to achieve an aggregated 40 to 45 percent reduction in methane
emissions relative to methane emissions in 2012.
The agencies are also taking action to further limit the GHG emissions from natural gas heavy-duty
trucks. Starting with the 2021 model year, if a heavy-duty truck manufacturer uses carbon dioxide
(C02) credits to offset methane emissions above the methane tailpipe emissions standard, EPA is
requiring that the truck manufacturer must use 34 grams of C02 to offset 1 gram of methane emissions
(based on the relative GWPs from IPCC AR5) which is increased from today's C02 credits standard
which is 25 grams of C02 to offset 1 gram of methane emissions (based on the relative GWPs from
IPCC AR4). While the EPA is continuing the flexibility of the C02 credit trading program, the EPA is
taking appropriate action to update the credit trading program to reflect the recent update to the methane
GWP. The agencies are also putting in place a 5 year hold time requirement for liquefied natural gas
(LNG) storage tanks on LNG-fueled heavy-duty trucks which must be met throughout the truck's useful
life. A warranty requirement applies to LNG heavy-duty storage tanks as well.
The various upstream and vehicle emission standards being pursued by EPA is expected to improve the
lifecycle performance of natural gas trucks.
-------
Some commenters stated that the agencies should use a full lifecycle assessment of the greenhouse gas
emissions of natural gas heavy-duty trucks for this rulemaking. Other commenters stated that only the
tailpipe emissions of heavy-duty natural gas trucks should be considered and actions to limit methane
emissions from the upstream sector should be pursued separately. As our analysis in the Preamble and
RIA shows, the sales volume of natural gas trucks is projected to be very low during the period that the
Phase 2 HD GHG standard apply; thus, it is not important to assess and regulate the GHG performance
of natural gas heavy-duty trucks on a full lifecycle basis because any impact on GHG emissions,
whether natural gas trucks are higher or lower emitting in GHG emissions, would be very small.
However, if we ignore the projected sales volume of natural gas heavy-duty trucks and review the full
lifecycle performance of natural gas heavy-duty trucks compared to diesel heavy-duty trucks on their
face value, the lifecycle analyses leads us to conclude that natural gas heavy-duty trucks may in fact
have about the same lifecycle impact as diesel heavy-duty trucks. See Preamble section XI.B.
Therefore, evaluating GHG emissions of natural gas heavy-duty trucks based solely on their tailpipe
emissions would be adequate. Finally, EPA regards it as a rational strategy to control upstream
emissions by directly regulating upstream emission sources, rather than by attempting indirect control
through lifecycle-based standards for natural gas heavy duty vehicles. EPA also takes the commenters'
point that it would be arbitrary to establish lifecycle-based standards for only one vehicle fuel, and not
all of the others. See also 77 FR 51702 (Aug. 27, 2012) and Section 1.8 of this RTC further explaining
various reasons why it is reasonable for the heavy duty standards to be tailpipe based.
Reviewing Figure 13.2 of the RIA which is based on GWPs evaluated over a 100 year time period, our
assessment of CNG heavy-duty trucks show them to be lower emitting in C02-equivalent emissions
than diesel fuel heavy-duty trucks, while our analysis shows LNG heavy-duty trucks to be higher
emitting in C02-equivalent emissions. The primary reason why LNG trucks are higher emitting in
GHG emissions is because we assume that LNG will be produced by smaller, less efficient liquefaction
plants. If LNG trucks source their LNG from a much more efficient LNG export facility (which is the
case in California), the lifecycle emissions of LNG heavy-duty trucks is much like that of CNG heavy-
duty trucks. If our boil-off sensitivity analysis for LNG trucks is reflective of actual natural emissions,
then LNG trucks would be much higher emitting than diesel fuel trucks, although we would not base a
lifecycle analysis on a sensitivity analysis - we would need actual boil-off emissions data which we do
not have. See also the similar analysis in Preamble section XI.B and Figure 1 to that chapter.
Some commenters stated that we should conduct our lifecycle analysis using methane's global warming
potential based on 20 years. While EPA continues to use 100 year GWPs as the primary metric to
evaluate the relative climate impact of different greenhouse gas emissions, EPA has also used 20 year
GWPs in sensitivity analysis in the RIA. Reviewing Figure 13.4 of the RIA which is based on 20 year
GWPs, our lifecycle assessment shows CNG heavy-duty trucks to be higher emitting in C02-equivalent
emissions than diesels, and LNG heavy-duty trucks even higher emitting (based on a low-efficiency
LNG liquefaction plant). However, there are two large uncertainties in our lifecycle analysis which
makes our lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of natural gas versus diesel fuel heavy-duty trucks
tentative. First, there is uncertainty in the diesel fuel lifecycle analysis. As noted above, EPA
reassessed GHG emissions from the petroleum sector as part of the 2016 GHG inventory and EPA's
updated methane emissions from the sector are estimated to be much higher than previous estimates.
However, the updated GHG emissions analysis of the petroleum sector are not yet integrated into the
GREET model which converts aggregated GHG emissions to fuel-specific emissions (this sort of fuels-
specific analysis cannot be easily determined from the GHG Inventory; thus, we were not able to revise
the diesel fuel lifecycle GHG analysis ourselves). This change will likely increase the calculated
lifecycle GHG emissions of diesel fuel heavy-duty trucks which would make natural gas- fueled heavy
duty vehicles look relatively better. However, the 2016 NSPS requires emissions reducing activities at
new and modified petroleum production sites including reduced emission completions (RECs) of new
oil wells completed with hydraulic fracturing which will then reduce those higher diesel fuel-associated
-------
GHG emissions. We don't know the net effect of these two changes. Second, EPA has committed to
further regulate the methane emissions from existing natural gas and petroleum sources. Assuming that
these future regulations are put into place, it would improve the relative lifecycle GHG impacts of
natural gas heavy-duty trucks. However, since these rules have not yet even been proposed, it is
virtually impossible to project the lifecycle GHG emissions of natural gas heavy-duty trucks relative to
that of diesel heavy-duty trucks.
The identified uncertainties in the GHG emission profile of both natural gas and diesel fuel would make
establishing a full lifecycle assessment for natural gas heavy-duty trucks uncertain and speculative. In
the future, the agencies may pursue additional steps to reduce lifecycle methane emissions from natural
gas heavy-duty trucks, or choose to assess the GHG performance of natural gas heavy-duty trucks on a
full lifecycle basis, for example, it becomes clear that natural gas truck sales begin to increase
significantly above today's levels, or if new data and analyses related to natural gas and diesel fuel
lifecycle emissions indicate a need for further action, and it proves possible to rationally develop
lifecycle-based standards for gasoline, diesel, and other heavy duty vehicle fuels. The Energy
Information Administration's (EIA's) most recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 2015) projects that
crude oil prices will remain relatively low compared to natural gas prices for the next 15 years. Thus,
natural gas heavy-duty truck fuel consumption is not projected by EIA to exceed 1 percent of total
heavy-duty trucks fuel consumption until after 2035 which is well after the phase 2 GHG standards are
phased-in. Thus, even if the GHG emissions impact of natural gas heavy-duty trucks is higher or lower
than diesel heavy-duty trucks, if natural gas truck sales remain very low as forecasted by EIA, then there
would be little impact on the US GHG inventory.
12.5 Projected Use of LNG and CNG
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
F. Revisit projected growth of natural gas vehicles in heavy-duty sector
The agencies improperly characterize the potential use of natural gas trucks in its proposal and draft
regulatory impact assessment. Specifically, the agencies concluded, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-
A1 p.43]
"... based on our review of the literature and external projections we believe that the use of natural gas
is unlikely to become a major fuel source for medium and heavy-duty vehicles during the Phase 2 time
frame. Thus, since we project natural gas vehicles to have little impact on both overall GHG emissions
and fuel consumption during the Phase 2 time frame, the agencies see no need to propose fundamental
changes to the Phase 1 approach for natural gas engines and vehicles. " [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1312-A1 p.43-44]
Both findings are incorrect and could undermine the benefits of the final Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.44]
The agencies' finding that "natural gas is unlikely to become a major fuel source for medium and
heavy-duty vehicles during the Phase 2 time frame" is based on U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) market projections.186 As EPA notes, the EIA projections are an outlier among
other projections187 and are flawed. Most significantly, the projections account only for high-pressure
direct injection engines (HPDI).188 Yet, in 2013, the only manufacturer of HPDI engines discontinued
their production, citing high-costs compared to spark-ignited natural gas engines.189 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.44]
-------
Moreover, the EIA projections fail to accurately reflect current sales. The market for natural gas-fueled
heavy-duty trucks expanded by 20% in 2014 with 10,480 units sold.190 These trucks are Class 8 heavy
trucks including tractor-trailers, transit buses, and refuse trucks. Transit buses and refuse trucks saw the
highest levels of natural gas adoption at 30% and 43% respectfully.191 The significant increase in market
share for natural gas trucks is consistent with industry forecasts by ACT research192 and the National
Petroleum Council ("NPC").193 Current sales volumes are 4.5 times greater than recent projections of
sales from the EIA.194 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.44]
The discrepancy between market data and EIA projections continue in 2015. Recent industry data
suggest total sale volumes of on-highway applications are expected to be 3,300 units in 2015.195 These
numbers, which do not include the refuse trucks and transit buses units that are leading NGV sales, are
triple EIA projections.196 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.44]
The agencies discount ACT, NPC and others by noting, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.44]
"[t]he first observation we can make about all these reports is that they start out assuming that natural
gas use is 2 percent of the Class 8 heavy duty truck fleet in 2012. However, that level of natural gas
vehicle penetration of the heavy-duty fleet is not supported by other data sources."197 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.45]
This is a misreading of the projections, which represent new vehicle sales and not total penetration of
the existing fleet. As we note above, new trucks sales in 2014 were consistent with NPC projections.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.45]
The agencies also claim thatNGVs are likely to drive less than diesel trucks, citing dated information
from the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) comparing light and medium heavy-duty trucks
with diesel heavy trucks.198 Given the fact that the agencies failed to break out low-mileage duty cycles,
such as refuse trucks and transit buses that have significantly embraced natural gas engines, it is not
surprising the agencies found thatNGVs travel fewer miles than heavy diesel trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1312-A1 p.45]
This conclusion is counter to how fleets operate over-the-road trucks. Palmer Trucks puts over 200,000
a year on its natural gas trucks.199 In reference to its NGVs, Dillon Transport recently noted "we want to
run those trucks 1,000 miles per day if we can."200 Saddle Creek has run its NGV trucks 34 million
miles since 2012 while growing fleet size from 40 to 175 trucks.201 Companies that buy NGVs for over-
the-road duty maximize the mileage on these vehicles. It is core to the business case for choosing these
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.45]
The conservative EIA projections fail to account for another critical market development: new natural
gas trucks are increasingly able to offer significant NOx reduction benefits compared to diesel trucks.
The California Air Resources Board certified the Cummins-Westport 8.9-liter ISL G engine at 0.02
grams NOx per brake horsepower-hour.202 Given the ability of this engine to deliver lower NOx, its
adoption is likely to benefit from the deployment of public funds to mitigate local air pollution
concerns.203 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.45-46]
186 RIA at 955.
187 RIA at 953.
-------
188 Chase, N. (U.S. Energy Information Administration), correspondence with EDF, (August 2015).
189 Clevenger, S., "Westport to End 15-Liter LNG Engine, Citing High Cost of Building Power Plant,"
Transport Topics, (November 11, 2013).
190 Tita, B., "Slow Going for Natural-Gas Powered Trucks," Wall Street Journal, (August 25, 2014),
available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/natural-gas-trucks-struggle-to-gain-traction-1408995745.
191 Act Research, "NG Reality Check: Moving from Infancy to Adolescence," (September 2014).
192 Id.
193 National Petroleum Council, Advancing Technology for America's Transportation Future, (August
2012).
194 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2014: Freight Transportation Energy Use, Reference case, (May
2014).
195 "Westport, Fuel Systems Announce Merger," Transport Topics, (September 1, 2015), available at
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=39327&t=Westport-Fuel-Systems-
Announce-Merger
196 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2015: Supertab 68, New Vehicle Sales, Heavy,
Compressed/Liquefied Natural Gas, (April 2015).
197 RIA at 952.
198 RIA at 958.
199 "Palmer Trucks CNG Industry Leaders," available at www.palmertrucks.com/cng/ (last accessed
September 23, 2015).
200 Crissey, J., "Natural gas reality check, Part 2: Early adopters are staying the course," Commercial
Carrier Journal, (June 1, 2015), available athttp://www.ccjdigital.com/natural-gas-reality-check-part-2-
early-adopter-are-staying-the-course/#sthash.isB4oevF.8eerSlb9.dpuf.
201 Saddle Creek Logistics, "Growth of CNG at Saddle Creek Fuels Interest in Natural Gas," (February
2015), available at http://www.sclogistics.com/news-resources/press-releases-news/growth-of-cng-at-
saddle-creek-fuels-interest-in-natural-gas#sthash.wlOKaezV.wUjshuev.dpuf.
202 California Air Resources Board, On-Road Certification for Cummins-Westport ISLG 8.9L,
(September 2015), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2016/cummins
mhdd a0210630 8d9 0d20-0d01 ng.pdf
203 Nemec, R., "NGV Market Penetration Still Small Despite Bullish Advocates," Natural Gas
Intelligence, (September 21, 2015), available at http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/103730-ngv-
market-penetration-still-small-despite-bullish-advocates.
-------
Response:
For the final rulemaking, the agencies further reviewed the economics of purchasing and using natural
gas trucks. Based on this additional review, the agencies have the following responses to the comments
raised by EDF.
First, we continue to support the conclusion we reached for the proposed rulemaking which is that it is
unlikely that natural gas will become a major (major defined as 5% of the total fuel consumed) fuel
source for medium and heavy-duty vehicles during the Phase 2 timeframe. This is further supported by
the fact that crude oil prices started to decline during 2014 and continued their decline during
2015. While crude oil prices increased during the spring of 2016, as of early summer of 2016 they are
still about half of what they were during the first part of 2014 when crude oil prices averaged at or
above $100 per barrel. Speaking to one LNG station owner, they explained that they shut down one
LNG retail station because the LNG trucks that normally refuel at that LNG retail station were "parked"
because LNG was priced relatively higher than diesel fuel.232 EIA projects that crude oil prices will
remain low for the foreseeable future, and at these crude oil prices, purchasing natural gas-fueled heavy-
duty trucks is not a cost-effective option for most fleet operators. Another factor influencing low
natural gas usage by heavy-duty trucks is that natural gas prices are projected to be higher in the latest
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 2015) compared to AEO 2014.
Despite the lower crude oil prices, natural gas truck sales are continuing. We believe that this does not
raise serious questions about our payback analysis, but instead reflects upon certain special
circumstances for truck fleets for the use of natural gas. For example, a fleet owner that signed a
contract to purchase the natural gas trucks based on earlier fuel prices
There are likely special cases where the purchase of natural gas trucks make sense, even in today's poor
pricing environment. For example, some states offer subsidies for the purchase of natural gas trucks, or
for the construction of CNG or LNG refueling facilities. These subsidies explain why EIA fuel sales
data shows such high natural gas sales to the transportation sector for those states which offer these
subsidies. However, states may have little tolerance for continuing these subsidies over the long term,
particularly if the sales of natural gas trucks begin to increase.
Another favorable market for using natural gas trucks are the trucks which transport petroleum or
natural gas liquids out from a fossil-fuel producing region. For example, the Eagle Ford shale play
produces natural gas liquids and also produces a significant amount of natural gas. Providing that the
natural gas can be made clean enough out in the field, it could be compressed and distributed to CNG
trucks at a much lower price point than the natural gas which must be moved into and out of storage and
be transported through both the natural gas transmission and distribution systems.
Some natural gas trucks and urban buses are purchased because of their desirable emissions
profile, such as low NOx emissions, and these purchases are more likely to continue for air quality
issues and not just for economic reasons. These trucks purchased for low NOx are likely urban buses
purchased by municipalities which likely are driven short distances in stop-and-go driving consuming
only a modest amount of natural gas.
232 Conversation with Jon Wadsworth of BLU on May 2, 2016.
-------
Another category worth mentioning are the refuse trucks which use landfill gas, which may be quite
cheap since it is available free at landfills and it receives a renewable fuels credit. See the comments of
Waste Management. But landfill gas poses almost no greenhouse gas risk to the environment.
Finally, there are trucks which driven an ultra-high mileage, such as the 200,000 mile per year class 8
trucks referred to by EDF. These trucks likely could pay down the higher purchase price of natural gas
trucks more quickly. The problem with this argument is that these trucks are estimated to comprise less
than 1% of the total population of heavy-duty trucks, and other trucks cannot simply be driven more ~
their driving profile (i.e., stop-and-go urban driving and limited use) limits their mileage accumulation
and increases the time it takes to pay-off the higher cost of purchasing a natural gas truck.
While these various situations can provide sales opportunities for natural gas trucks, their sales are
likely to comprise a very small fraction of the heavy-duty truck fleet. Unless natural gas prices are
substantially lower than diesel fuel prices the longer pay off of the higher upfront purchase cost of a
natural gas truck is likely to slow the adoption of natural gas as a heavy-duty truck fuel.
12.5.1 Applying Standards to Natural Gas Vehicles
Organization: NGVAmerica
F. NG Fuel Economy Measurement. The agencies intend to continue the practice of measuring the
fuel economy of natural gas engines and vehicles based on measurement of C02 emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.4]
NGV America supports the decision to continue the practice of measuring the fuel economy of
all fuel types based on C02 emissions. The Preamble states that fuel consumption is based on a "one-to-
one relationship between fuel efficiency and tailpipe CO 2 emissions." This practice provides regulatory
certainty for all fuel types and is consistent with previous rules for light and heavy duty motor vehicles.
Moreover, it provides a reasonable incentive for natural gas manufacturers, since natural gas vehicles
with the same efficiency as gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles produce less C02 emissions. EPA
indicates that this benefit is about 20-30 percent, which we believe is a reasonable incentive given that
natural gas powered vehicles in most cases offset 100 percent of the petroleum that would otherwise be
used and one of the goals of the fuel economy rules is to reduce petroleum reliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1270-A1 p.4]
Organization: Enovation Controls (ENC)
3.1 Contradictory Statement - Section XI on Natural Gas Vehicles and Engines states that ."..since we
project natural gas vehicles to have little impact on both overall GHG emissions and fuel consumption
during the Phase 2 time frame, the agencies see no need to propose fundamental changes to the Phase 1
approach for natural gas engines and vehicles." (P. 775, EPA Phase 2 Proposal) It is unclear if this
statement supersedes all discussion of natural gas regulation proposals for Phase 2. We respectfully
request clarification on whether or not Phase 1 carryover for natural gas engines and vehicles is indeed
the approach proposed by the document. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1 p.3]
3.2 Lean-Burn vs Stoichiometric Combustion - Also within Section XI on Natural Gas Vehicles
and Engines, the statement that a diesel-fueled engine converted "to run on natural gas by adding a
spark plug and changing calibration strategy to rely on stoichiometric combustion" implies that
stoichiometric combustion is required to run a natural gas engine using spark ignition. (P. 776, EPA
Phase 2 Proposal) This statement is misguided because, absent of emissions requirements, the spark-
ignited natural gas engine can indeed run lean-burn combustion, and does so in EU4 and lower
-------
emissions levels for heavy-duty applications. At EU6 and US standards for 2018, the decision to use
Stoichiometric combustion with EGR is driven by cost and the likely desire to use a three-way catalyst
rather than using a diesel aftertreatment solution. It is technically feasible to use a lean-burn solution
with SCR, but at significantly higher system cost and with higher end-customer maintenance. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1 p.3]
Organization: Securing America's Future Energy
Reconsider Application of 49 USC §32905 Manufacturing Incentives
The manufacture of non-petroleum fueled light-duty vehicles is incentivized through the application of
volumetric adjustment factors under 49 U.S.C. §32905. Generally one gallon of non-petroleum fuel
consumption is treated as 15 percent of one gallon, so that regulatory fuel economy is 6.67 times higher
than measured fuel economy.18 This incentive, originally established under the Alternative Motor Fuels
Act of 1988, has been renewed and expanded many times over the intervening years, including as
recently as 2014 when expanded allowances for dual fuel natural gas vehicles were added. In short,
there is a long legislative history that affirmatively demonstrates congressional intent to facilitate the
production and widespread use of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs).19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-
A1 p.6]
In the absence of similarly explicit statutory requirements for heavy-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA
elected not to extend the §32905 allowances to such vehicles when the Phase 1 GHG and fuel economy
rules were developed, and to maintain this restriction in the Phase 2 proposal.20 Although there is no
supporting discussion in the Phase 2 proposal, it is clear from discussion included in the final Phase 1
rule that both EPA and NHTSA understand quite clearly the implications of this decision—both in
terms of promoting alternative fuels and decreasing manufacturer flexibility—affirmatively stating that
the adopted approach of not applying light-duty-equivalent incentives 'could have the disadvantage of
not doing more to encourage some cost-effective means of reducing petroleum consumption by trucks,
and the accompanying energy security costs' and that adopting distinct GHG and fuel economy standard
incentives 'might enable manufacturers to achieve the twin goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and decreasing consumption of petroleum-based fuels in a more cost-effective manner.21 The Phase 1
discussion also affirms that EPA and NHTSA will reconsider the non-expansion of the light-duty-
equivalent incentives in establishing future heavy-duty requirements (76 FR 57125). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1282-A1 p.6]
SAFE is specifically requesting that EPA and NHTSA undertake such reconsideration and formally
expand the §32905 incentives to heavy-duty vehicles. Such expansion will make available to heavy-duty
vehicle manufacturers the same incentives that are available to their light-duty counterparts, as well as
introduce provisions into the heavy-duty rule that are fully consistent with the statutorily established
goal of promoting non-petroleum fuels. From a fueling perspective, there is no rational reason to treat
heavy-duty manufacturers differently than their light-duty counterparts. If introducing an AFV into the
light-duty fleet is deemed important for national and economic security, and explicit incentives are
provided to promote such introduction, introduction of an AFV into the heavy-duty fleet should
contribute to the same goal and be worthy of the same incentives. Any other determination is arbitrary,
as it effectively results in differential treatment of the same fuel.22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1
p.6-7]
We recognize that EPA and NHTSA are proposing a fuel economy determination for heavy-duty AFVs
that takes advantage of the differential carbon contents of such fuels relative to gasoline and diesel.
However, the resulting fuel economy benefit for a fuel such as natural gas is equivalent to a multiplier
of 1.25 to 1.5, versus the 6.67 multiplier available to light-duty natural gas vehicle manufacturers. EPA
and NHTSA should adopt the same fuel economy incentives for alternative fuels across both sectors.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1282-A1 p.7]
-------
18 Note: Since fuel economy is measured as X miles per Y gallons, adjusting Y gallons to 0.15Y gallons
effectively increases fuel economy by 1 divided by 0.15 (i.e., by a factor of 6.66).
19 Note: Intent of legislative action derived from the 'Purpose' clause of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act
of 1988.
20 Note: As used in these comments, the terminology 'heavy-duty' is intended to include both medium
and heavy-duty vehicles as included in the EPA and NHTSA Phase 2 GHG and fuel economy proposal.
21 See, e.g., Phase 1 discussion at 76 FR 57123 through 76 FR 57125.
22 Note: EPA and NHTSA 'justify' such differential treatment in their discussion of the Phase 1 rule by
citing the benefits of reduced reporting and compliance determination requirements, coupled with the
possibility that providing the § 32905 incentives might lead to little increased production of alternative
fueled vehicles or that alternative fuels may be imported. However, all of these 'justifications' are
independent of market sector and would apply equally to light- and heavy-duty manufacturers. Clearly,
such rationales were rejected when statutory requirements were established to provide incentives in the
light-duty sector so it is not at all clear why they would carry more weight in rejecting these same
incentives for the heavy-duty sector.
Response:
We continue to believe that a C02 standard is the most effective way for EPA to set efficiency standards
for heavy-duty engines and vehicles under the Clean Air Act. With respect to SAFE's comments, EPA
notes that we are adopting our Phase 2 standards to control greenhouse gas emission as allowed under
the Clean Air Act, including the authority to set fuel-neutral performance standards.
The agencies noted in the NPRM Preamble that we are not adopting fundamental changes to the Phase 1
program, but noted elsewhere that we are adopting Phase 2 standards for all engines in this rule,
including those fueled by natural gas. Readers are encouraged to read the regulatory text to fully
understand the requirements being adopted.
We agree that spark-ignition natural gas engines can rely on lean-burn fueling strategies and have
revised the Preamble accordingly.
12.5.2 Converters and Dual-Fuel Conversions 1776
Organization: NGVAmerica
H. Alternative Fuel Converters [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.5]
The Preamble provides little discussion of the coverage of aftermarket alternative fuel conversions. In
communications with EPA staff, however, NGV America has learned that EPA is proposing to regulate
all alternative fuel conversions as part of these Phase 2 regulations. This is noteworthy because it is a
change from the Phase 1 rules that according to EPA exempted small businesses from having to comply
with the medium and heavy duty greenhouse gas emission standards. Since most alternative fuel
conversions are produced by small businesses, this change is expected to impact most of the businesses
that produce alternative fuel conversions for medium and heavy duty vehicles, and it will have a major
impact on this industry segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.5]
NGV America supports EPA's efforts to ensure that alternative fuel conversions are clean and efficient
and comply with the Clean Air Act. NGV America members are committed to complying with
-------
certification and compliance requirements for aftermarket conversion systems, and are on record as
advocating that federal and state incentives such as tax credits and grant programs only go to systems
that comply with EPA regulations. NGVAmerica members are sometimes placed at an economic
disadvantage and lose out on business to companies that opt not to comply with the current EPA
regulations for aftermarket systems. Adding another layer of regulatory compliance will only exacerbate
this situation for those companies that are committed to following the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1270-A1 p.6]
NGV America appreciates that EPA over the years has recognized the unique status of aftermarket
conversion companies and has adopted compliance pathways that include regulatory flexibility and
exemptions where appropriate. We therefore support the proposed flexibilities and delayed compliance
schedule for aftermarket converters proposed in the Phase 2 proposal. We would urge EPA however to
go further and provide several additional changes and clarifications to the proposal as indicated here.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.6]
NGV America requests that EPA clarify that compliance for alternative fuel conversion systems
manufactured by small businesses under Phase 2 is not mandatory until 2023. It is our understanding
that this was intended, and that the reference to 2019 in section 1819-14 was not. In any case, we would
urge EPA to amend the regulatory text so that compliance for conversion manufactures under Phase 2
starts no sooner than it does for new engines produced by small manufactures (i.e., 2022), and provides
the additional year indicated for alternative fuel systems (i.e. 2023). It would be helpful if this were
expressly stated in Part 85 Subpart F which includes specific requirements for alternative fuel
conversions. We also urge EPA to clarify that for small business manufacturers, who produce
alternative fuel aftermarket conversion systems, regulatory coverage shall only extend to the
modification of engines that were originally manufactured in 2022 or later. This additional clarification
is necessary to ensure that aftermarket systems installed on 2021 and earlier engines, or vehicles by
small manufacturers, are not covered when they occur post-2021. Since those engines were covered
under Phase 1 and not Phase 2, the regulation of conversions on such systems should continue to be
regulated under Phase 1 rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.6]
Organization: Optimus Technologies
Effect on Small Volume Alternative Fuel Engine Converters
Optimus Technologies requests clarity regarding how the proposed rule will affect small volume
alternative fuel engine converters that install alternative fuel conversion systems into vehicles after the
first retail sale (or introduction into retail commerce). Optimus is aware of the one-year delays available
for increases in stringency. Clarity around what those increases are would be helpful. Reading the
proposed rule, it is unclear which proposed regulations apply strictly to OEMs and which also apply to
small volume alternative fuel engine converters. For instance, will small volume alternative fuel engine
converters be required to submit fuel economy data when submitting engine certification packages?
Will small volume alternative fuel engine converters need to use the GEM software? [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1276-A1 p.3]
Organization: NGV America
NGV America agrees with the [Preamble] statement and supports the agencies' decision. The one area of
potential clarification would be for aftermarket conversion systems (not new engines or vehicles) where
the practice has been to retain the original classification of the vehicle/engine undergoing conversion.
This would mean that an in-use medium duty diesel engine converted so that it retains the diesel cycle,
-------
would continue to be classified as a diesel engine. The conversion manufacturer would then have to
certify or demonstrate compliance with the standards originally applied to the vehicle/engine
undergoing conversion. Similarly, if a heavy-duty gasoline engine used in a vehicle rated at 19,500 lbs.
GVWR or higher were converted to operate on natural gas, and the engine continued to be an Otto-
Cycle engine, the conversion systems would be subject to the Otto-cycle standards, not the
compression-ignition standards. Clarifying the treatment of aftermarket conversion would help avoid
any possible confusion concerning this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.3]
Response:
It is apparent from the comments that we need to provide an overview of EPA's policy regarding
aftermarket fuel conversions as that relates to the prohibitions in the Clean Air Act. As a starting point,
EPA requires that manufacturers of new engines and new vehicles obtain certification to allow them to
sell their engines and vehicles in the United States. If manufacturers sell new engines or new vehicles
without certifying, they would be in violation of CAA section 203(a)(1).
Companies that modify a certified engine or a certified vehicle are subject to the tampering prohibition
in CAA section 203(b)(1). The statute broadly prohibits removing or rendering inoperative emission
controls. This applies in a straightforward way for modifications such as removing aftertreatment
devices or reprogramming an engine's ECU for high-performance applications. This is not
straightforward for fuel conversions. EPA has therefore adopted regulations at 40 CFR part 85, subpart
F, to provide a path for companies performing aftermarket fuel conversions to demonstrate that their
conversions do not remove or render inoperative emission controls. If a company performing
conversions meets all the specified requirements, their conversions are exempt from the tampering
prohibition. A company performing aftermarket fuel conversions without certifying under 40 CFR part
85, subpart F, is not in violation of the introduction-into-commerce violation of CAA section 203(a)(1).
The one-year delay in emission standards applies for manufacturers of new engines or vehicles
certifying to standards under 40 CFR part 86, 1036, or 1037. This means that those manufacturers are
exempt from the introduction-into-commerce prohibition under CAA section 203(a)(1) during that time,
which means that they do not need to certify their engines or vehicles to the GHG standards that would
otherwise apply for that year.
Companies performing aftermarket fuel conversions are subject to the tampering prohibition in CAA
section 203(b)(1), with no one-year delay. The whole premise of the conversion provisions in 40 CFR
part 85, subpart F, is that the tampering exemption applies where the company is able to make a
demonstration that the modified engines and vehicles continue to operate at a level of emission control
that is consistent with the original certified configuration. The expectation is that conversions are
preserving the level of performance also for GHG emissions as established for the certified
configuration when operating on the alternative fuel. This same approach applies for both Phase 1 and
Phase 2 GHG standards. We would have no basis under the statute to allow conversions that increase
emission levels above those of the original certified configuration.
If companies performing aftermarket fuel conversions would choose to act as a manufacturer and certify
the engines or vehicles to the criteria emission standards that apply under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A or
S, respectively, they would then qualify for the one-year delay in complying with GHG standards.
We agree with NGV America that the 2019 date is incorrect. We have revised that to state that small
manufacturers are exempt from GHG standards until January 1, 2022. The one-year delay for
-------
conversions is not in addition to the one-year delay for other small manufacturers; rather, the one-year
delay for alternative-fuel engines applies for each new standard as it applies to new model years.
If any engines or vehicles are not yet certified to GHG standards (from small or non-small
manufacturers), the GHG requirements do not apply for conversions of those engines or vehicles.
Similarly, if any engines or vehicles are certified to Phase 1 GHG standards, the Phase 2 GHG
requirements do not apply for conversions of those engines or vehicles. Standards for conversions never
exceed the stringency of standards corresponding to the certified configuration.
Companies performing aftermarket fuel conversions must test engines or vehicles and submit
information as specified in 40 CFRpart 85, subpart F. This generally involves emission measurements
to show that modified engines or vehicles continue to meet applicable emission standards. This would
never involve using GEM.
Aftermarket fuel conversions involving a change from, for example, compression-ignition to spark-
ignition engine technology continues to be subject to the same standards. Since the aftermarket
requirements relate to the statutory tampering prohibition, the modified engines or vehicles are judged
relative to the original certified configuration, regardless of the operating characteristics of the modified
engines or vehicles.
-------
13 Amendments to Phase 1 Standards
13.1 General Comments
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Changes to Phase 1: There should be no changes to Phase 1. 80 FR 40519. It is too late for us to revise
aero numbers or our delegated assembly procedures, given the agencies' lead time requirements, which
require four years' lead time for NHTSA and require a joint program for the EPA (see Massachusetts v.
EPA 549 U.S. 497, 532, 2007, where the Supreme Court stated that "there is no reason to think the two
agencies [EPA and NHTSA] cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency"). We
are busy working on Phase 2, to go back and adjust computer systems or delegated assembly at this
point in time is too much for our limited groups. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 111]
[Comment is also in 1.4.4 for delegated assembly.]
Response:
The final rule mostly includes only a variety of minor changes to the Phase 1 program. In most of these
cases, we add options and flexibility, either to reduce burden or to align with the Phase 2 program.
There are also several technical amendments where we make corrections or adjustments to testing or
compliance procedures for more effective implementation. We are specifically not making changes to
the Phase 1 emission standards, GEM simulations, aerodynamic bins, or other aspects of the regulation
that define stringency. We have also taken steps to ensure that the Phase 1 amendments do not
substantially alter data collection and submission requirements. The rest of this Section 13 describes the
specific amendments to the Phase 1 program in greater detail. Section 1.4.4 describes our approach to
delegated assembly.
13.2 EPA Amendments
13.2.1 Pickups and Vans
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The CARB staff supports the language added to 40 CFR 86.1819-14 clarifying that the C02 standards
must be met over the full useful life. CARB staff supports the addition of language setting broad
applicability and pulling out specific further requirements. This approach by U.S. EPA and NHTSA will
close potential loopholes for engines/vehicles that are difficult to fit into existing language. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 189]
For non-medium-duty passenger vehicle heavy-duty vehicles, the emissions standards in 40 CFR
86.1819 apply for the currently defined useful life of 11 years, 120,000 miles though MY 2020, then
increase to 150,000 miles/15 years with MY 2021 and beyond. Under 40 CFR 1036.108 (d), a 150,000
mile/15 year useful life over which compliance must continue is also specified (page 40585 of the
NPRM). CARB staff supports the increased useful life for vocational class 2b through 5 vehicles from
110,000 miles/10 years to 150,000 miles/15 years as specified in 40 CFR 1037.105 (e)(1). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 189]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Part 86 Changes - We agree with all the changes done in Part 86.
-------
Response:
We are adopting the provisions as proposed and as supported by the commenters.
13.2.2 Differentiating Spark-Ignition and Compression-Ignition Engines
Organization: Power Solutions International (PSI)
One area of the proposed rule seems to discriminate against spark-ignition engines while favoring
compression ignition engines. We are specifically concerned with the language pertaining to spark-
ignition engines that operate on fuels other than gasoline and are "engines that qualify as medium
heavy-duty or heavy heavy-duty and do not operate on gasoline." The proposed rule would require such
spark-ignition engines to comply with standards applicable to compression-ignition engines. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1161-A1 p.l]
We feel this language will put some spark-ignition engines at a disadvantage and will potentially
"regulate" these engines out of the market. In turn, this language seems to give an advantage to diesel
derived spark-ignition alternative fueled engines (all of which are fueled by CNG fuel only) and may
"regulate" these engines into the market. The language in the proposed rule appears to be derived from
the diesel engine manufacturer sector, specifically from those manufacturers that offer diesel derived
spark-ignition engines that operate on CNG fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1161-A1 p.l]
Diesel engine derived spark-ignition engines are converted from compression-ignition engines. In some
cases up to 80% of the diesel derivative components are used in converting the spark-ignition engine
variant. Cummins Westport advertises the commonality between their NGISX/ISL/ISB engines and
their Cummins diesel derivatives. These diesel derived spark-ignition engines are generally turbo-
charged with CAC, have high compression ratio and are specifically targeted for CNG or LNG fuel.
These engines are typically not targeted or sold to applications that use LPG, which requires
compression ratios similar to what is used for gasoline fuel. These diesel derived spark-ignition engines
are design for rebuild and can be sold into Class 8 line haul applications and down into medium heavy-
duty vocational markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1161 -A 1 p.2]
Our company supplies spark-ignition engines into the heavy duty on highway vocational vehicle sector.
We supply engines into markets classified as light heavy-duty and medium heavy-duty. Our engines are
"fuel agnostic" and are capable of being fueled by gasoline, LPG or CNG. Our engine long blocks are
similar regardless of fuel type. Our engines are derived from the automotive sector, some of which are
supplied by General Motors Powertrain and some are PSI/internally produced engine blocks. All of our
on highway heavy duty spark-ignition engine products are derived and carried over from the automotive
market. Our engines do not have cylinder liners and are not designed for rebuild. Our on highway heavy
duty engines are all designed as spark-ignition and do not have a compression-ignition derivative. Our
engines are can be sold to the light heavy duty and up into the medium heavy-duty market. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1161-A1 p.2]
The current proposed rule, as written, will put our spark-ignition engine products at a distinct
disadvantage as compared with "diesel derived" spark-ignition alternatively fueled engine products.
Diesel derived spark ignition engines are designed for heavy heavy-duty and are sold down to medium
heavy-duty. They carry over 80% of the diesel content, are specifically targeted for CNG fuel and are
designed for rebuild. These engines are designed to have an identical interface/foot print as the diesel
derivative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1161-A1 p.2]
-------
A better approach to this regulatory language is presented below. Either approach presented would
provide a more level playing field for engine manufacturers supplying non-gasoline fueled spark-
ignition engines into the heavy duty vocational vehicle market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1161-A1
p.2]
Proposal for non-gasoline spark-ignition language:
Option 1:
Unless other specified, spark-ignition engines that qualify as medium heavy-duty or heavy heavy-duty
and operate on LPG or CNG must meet all the emission standards and other requirements of this part
that apply for compression-ignition engines, if a manufacturer has derived the spark-ignition engine
from a similar compression-ignition base engine block. If an engine qualifies as medium heavy-duty or
heavy heavy-duty and operates on LPG or CNG and is derived from a similar gasoline fueled spark-
ignition engine block, the engine must meet all emission standards and other requirements of this part
that apply to spark-ignition engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1161-A1 p.2]
Option 2:
Alternatively, the language for Phase 2 could be such to keep all spark ignition engines, regardless of
fuel type, regulated the same as gasoline (627 g/hp-hr standard). This would eliminate any biasing
toward the higher BMEP "diesel derived" spark ignited engines that exists in the Phase 2 NPRM today,
and would effectively put all spark ignited engine on equal footing regardless of fuel type and design
origin. Diesel derived spark ignited CNG fueled engines could still have the option to comply with the
compression ignition standard, should they choose (as they do today in Phase 1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1161-A1 p.3]
We feel that the language we are proposing in Option 1 will sufficiently distinguish between dedicated
spark-ignition engines and diesel derived spark-ignition engines and will not discriminate either. We
feel it would also be acceptable to regulate all spark ignited engines to the 627 g/hp-hr standard,
regardless of gasoline or alternative fuel. We are hopeful that the significant nature of this issue is taken
into consideration so the final rule can specify requirements that are fair and appropriate for all
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1161-A1 p.3]
Organization: ROUSCH CleanTech
We are concerned about the proposed changes to the standards applying to spark-ignited engines using
clean alternative fuels for MHD/HHD. Two specific paragraphs are included here for reference
(emphasis added): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1007-A1 p.2]
o "We are also proposing that these provisions would apply equally to engines fueled by any
fuel other than gasoline or ethanol, should such engines be produced in the future. Given the
current and historic market for vehicles above 19,500 lbs GVWR, EPA believes any alternative
fueled vehicles in this weight range would be competing primarily with diesel vehicles and
should be subject to the same requirements as them. We request comment on all aspects of
classifying natural-gas and other engines for purposes of applying emission standards. See
Sections XI and XII for additional discussion of natural gas fueled engines. " rEPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1007-A1 p.2]
-------
o We believe that this discussion is problematic on several levels: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1007-
A1 p.2]
o The "current and historic market for vehicles above 19,500 GVWR" includes a wide variety of non-
diesel engines. Gasoline engines are offered in commercial stripped chassis and RV chassis up to
26,000# GVWR, and chassis-cab chassis up to 33,000# GVWR. Propane autogas engines are currently
offered in all Type C school bus chassis, accounting for approximately 10% of the market, and both
CNG and gasoline options have recently been announced for introduction in the next year. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1007-A1 p.2]
o The treatment of "alternative fuels" here is unique to any other context we are aware of. In all other
regulatory framework, and in all practical market consideration, natural gas, ethanol, and propane are all
considered clean alternative fuels to gasoline. The sole exception to this is the traditional exception that
EPA has given diesel engine manufacturers who converted their engines to spark ignition natural gas—
those manufacturers were allowed to certify under the compression ignition standards if it was to their
benefit. We find it hard to imagine any context in which EPA would encourage the use of gasoline as a
substitute for diesel, but discourage those same engines operating on natural gas or propane—but this is
exactly what the regulation proposes. Propane is simply not a diesel replacement fuel in any relevant
context—its octane and burn characteristics do not allow it to be easily used on a Cl-based engine, and
there are no current propane engines that are based on CI designs. Natural gas has several historic
advantages here—very high knock resistance, and the exclusion of methane from historic pollutant
standards—that has allowed its use on Cl-based engines, but there is very little penetration of these
engines below 33,000#. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1007-A1 p.2-3]
o "We are not aware of any currently certified engines that would change from compression-
ignition to spark-ignition under the proposed clarified approach. Nonetheless, because these
proposed standards implicate rules for criteria pollutants (as well as GHGs), the provisions of
CAA section 202 (a)(3) (C) apply (for the criteria pollutants), notably the requirement of four
years lead time. We are therefore proposing to continue to apply the existing interim provision
through model year 2020.110 Starting in model year 2021, all the provisions would apply as
described above. Manufacturers would not be permitted to certify any engine families using
carryover emission data if a particular engine model switched from compression-ignition to
spark-ignition, or vice versa. However, as noted above, in practice these vehicles are already
being certified as CI engines, so we view these changes as clarifications ratifying the current
status quo. " rEPA-HQ-QAR-2014-0827-1007-A1 p.3]
o The paragraph above is technically correct, in that it should only apply to engines that are currently
certified as compression-ignition. However, the proposed regulatory change doesn't only apply to those
engines—it applies to all SI engines "other than gasoline or ethanol." Therefore, the logic presented is
simply wrong. Using the last complete HD certification data available on the EPA website (20141), it
shows spark-ignited engines, certified to SI standards, from BAF, Bi-Phase Technologies, Clean Fuel
USA, Greenkraft, ICOM, Landi Renzo, NGV Motori, Roush, Westport, and IMPCO; these engines are
all offered in vehicles above 19,500# GVWR (school bus, straight truck, stripped chassis). The only SI
engines listed as certified to CI standards are those from Cummins; to the best of our knowledge these
engines have little or no market acceptance below 33,000# GVWR. This change would have significant
impact to the market below 33,000#. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1007-A1 p.3]
We also believe that the proposed change would cause an unintended distortion of the Class 6/7 market.
As proposed, an engine manufacturer which supplies propane or CNG engines, based on conventional
SI engine technology, to chassis OEM's (including at least ROUSH CleanTech and PSI/PTI currently)
-------
would be required to meet the compression ignition standards. These same engines, if certified as
conversions, would only be required to meet the spark ignition (gasoline) standards. This makes no
sense—it is the same engine, used by the same customer in the same way. Encouraging these engines
(which the customer always intends to use on the clean alternative fuel) to circumvent the full OEM
certification procedure and move into the conversion standards is a clear market distortion, and will
likely reduce the environmental benefits that would be accomplished from a complete OEM
certification. Requiring the conversion manufacturers to certify under the CI standard would be even
worse; the changes to useful life alone would be prohibitively expensive for a conversion manufacturer.
Therefore, we think that this is another strong justification for keeping the certification standards the
same for gasoline and clean alternative fuels used on gasoline-based engine technologies (whether they
were conversions or not). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1007-A1 p.3]
In general, we believe that the proposal appears to have been developed primarily focused on the Class
8 (over 33,000#) GVWR market, and because of this, that the only alternative fuel that was studied in
any detail was natural gas. We believe that the proposed changes below 33,000# would harm consumer
choice; are not supported in the text; and are not consistent with actual market conditions. However, we
understand the agencies' concern about the potential "loophole" in Class 8 applications which could
result in CI manufacturers achieving a competitive advantage through use of the SI standard for natural
gas engines which are otherwise fully capable of meeting the CI standard. Therefore, we propose the
following revisions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1007-A1 p.3-4]
• Keep the Phase 1 GHG compliance logic in place for all engines certified for use in vehicles up
to 33,000# GVWR (LHD/MHD). Spark-ignited engines certify to the proposed SI standards,
regardless of fuel type, and vehicles using these engines will certify to the proposed SI vehicle
standards. CI engine manufacturers may choose to certify their SI engines under the CI
standards; engines certified in this manner will be considered CI for the purposes of averaging,
banking, and trading. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1007-A1 p.4]
• Engines fueled partially or wholly by natural gas, used in vehicles above 33,000# GVWR, must
certify to the CI standards, regardless of ignition type. Spark-ignited engines using gasoline
must be certified to the SI standards; SI engines using clean alternative fuels other than natural
gas may be certified as SI engines or CI engines at the choice of the manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1007-A1 p.4]
We believe that this approach protects the consumer choice in the existing Class 6/7 market; eliminates
a potential incentive to use gasoline instead of propane/natural gas in these products; and still ensures
there is no incentive for Class 8 engine manufacturers to certify as spark-ignited to take advantage of the
higher GHG standard. In this way, we think it is fully consistent with the stated intention of Phase 2, and
protects all of the proposed environmental benefits better than the original proposal. In the long run, we
think that accounting for full life-cycle emissions for all fuels, and ensuring a robust credit trading
marketplace between manufacturers, will hopefully eliminate the need for the split SI/CI standards
altogether. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1007-A1 p.4]
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Classification of Spark Ignited CNG Engines
The agencies requested comment (80 Federal Register 40207) on re-classifying natural-gas engines for
purposes of emission and GHG regulations. AAPC does not agree with EPA's proposal to reclassify all
natural gas and propane fueled vehicles > 19,500 lbs. GVWR from "spark ignition" to "compression
ignition" status. While liquid natural gas storage systems and large displacement turbo charged engines
-------
with spark ignition and three way catalysts are an emerging competitor to urea/SCR diesel technology,
naturally aspirated spark ignited CNG and propane engines serve entirely different needs and segments
much closer to their gasoline powered SI counterparts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.30]
AAPC proposes that Phase 2 compressed natural gas / propane emissions classification be subject to the
following three criteria: (1) Is the GVWR> 37,0001bs? (2) Is the engine boosted? (3) Is advertised /
certified peak torque of the engine > 15 bar BMEP? Only if the answer to any of these questions is
"yes" should the engine/vehicle be subjected to the compression ignition standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1238-A1 p.30]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Support Comment
Comment - Natural gas engines and vehicles certifying according to intended service class
CARB staff supports the Phase 2 proposal to require any natural gas engine qualifying as a medium
heavy-duty (19,500 to 33,000 lbs GVWR) or heavy heavy-duty (over 33,000 lbs GVWR) natural gas
engine to be subject to all the emission standards (GHG and criteria pollutant) and other requirements,
including the longer useful life and warranty provisions, that apply to compression ignition engines.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 164-165]
CARB supports the proposal to require medium heavy-duty and heavy heavy-duty engines to meet
compression ignition requirements (useful life, warranty, not-to-exceed limits, criteria pollutant
standards) because they are more stringent and protective of air quality compared to the comparable
spark-ignited requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 165]
CARB believes there are some 6.8 to 9 liter natural gas engines (produced by BAF, Greenkraft, Impco,
Landi Renzo, and Power Solutions) that are currently being certified to the Otto-cycle requirements that
may be offered in the future in medium heavy- and even heavy heavy-duty vehicle configurations, and
thus could ultimately be impacted by the proposed requirements. Many of these natural gas "converters"
offer vehicles primarily in the light heavy-duty classes, and there is some possibility that with the
additional requirements they may no longer choose to offer medium heavy-duty and heavy heavy-duty
natural gas vehicles. However, this should have minimal market impact as Cummins is already
certifying their spark-ignited natural gas engines to the compression ignition requirements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 165]
40 CFR1036.150 (e) Alternate phase-in standards (page 40587 of the NPRM) states "[w]here a
manufacturer certifies all of its model year 2013 compression-ignition engines within a given primary
intended service class to the applicable alternate standards of this paragraph (e), its compression ignition
engines within that primary intended service class are subject to the standards of this paragraph (e) for
model years 2013 through 2016." Then follows an untitled table, the last line of which is labeled
"Model Years 2016 and later," and provides standards of 576 g/hp-hr for light heavy-duty and medium
heavy-duty engines, and 555 g/hp-hr for heavy-duty diesel engines. CARB staff believes this last line of
the table should be labeled "Model Years 2016 through 2020." The presumably unintended implication
in this table as written is that if a manufacturer follows this alternate phase-in schedule, the
manufacturer may continue to certify engines to the same standard after 2016 and throughout Phase 2.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 190]
-------
Organization: NGVAmerica
C. Classification of NG Engines. The notice indicates that the agencies plan to continue the
practice of regulating most heavy duty natural gas engines as compression ignition engines.
NGV America supports the decision to retain the current regulatory framework used to classify natural
gas engines. We are not aware of any manufacturers who have requested a change in classification.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.2-3]
Organization: American Power Group Inc. (APG)
C. With regard to Chuck Moulis note 6 August 2015 stating the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1197-A1 p.3]
For non-new vehicles (whether inside or outside of the useful life), we proposed: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1197-A1 p.3]
• No delay in the applicable standards under §85.525. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p.3]
• That small converters showing compliance with the applicable part 1036 engine standards under
§85.525 would not be required to separately show compliance with the part 1037 vehicle standards as
long as the pre-conversion vehicle was certified to the part 1037 standards and the converter does not
modify certified vehicle components such as tires, axles, and transmissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1197-A1 p.3]
Trying to understand the implications of the above statements to a non-new fully OEM certified HHDD
engine (before conversion) and how it would relate to a HHDD (>26K #'s) mixed-fuel converted engine.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p.3]
- GHG standards would apply to mixed-fuel engine emissions under 85.525 and 1036.108 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1 p.3]
[Table from NPRM under 1036.108 greenhouse gas emissions standards can be found on p.3-4 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1197-A1]
It would appear the C02, CH4 and N20 standards for HHDD engine Mixed-Fuel conversion in a tractor
for a SVM starting in Jan 2023 would be C02.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Definitions
The definition of compression ignition in 40 CFR1036.801 has been expanded to include gas turbines
and 'certain' spark-ignited engines. CARB staff believes it would be appropriate to either state here
which spark-ignited engines are to be treated like compression ignition and subject to the requirements
of compression ignition or to provide a reference to the appropriate section so describing, which would
appear to be 40 CFR1036.140. 40 CFR 1036.140 (a) states that medium heavy-duty and heavy heavy-
duty engines that do not run on gasoline must meet compression ignition standards, even if they are
-------
spark-ignited engines. Gasoline-fueled (including dual fuel) medium heavy-duty and heavy heavy-duty
meet spark-ignited standards. Light heavy-duty spark-ignited engines meet spark-ignited requirements
regardless of fuel. Thus, CARB staff suggests the following modification to the definition of
compression ignition in 40 CFR 1036.801: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.188]
Compression ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating, internal-combustion engine that is not a
spark-ignited engine. Note that 40 CFR 1036.1 also deems gas turbine engines and other engines to be
compression-ignition engines. Note also that certain spark-ignited engines are subject to the
requirements for compression-ignition engines, specifically, per 40 CFR 1036.140(a), medium heavy-
duty and heavy heavy-duty engines that do not operate on gasoline, even if they are spark-ignited
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 189]
The CARB staff supports the lengthening of the useful lives of class 2b through 8 engines and vehicles
to more properly reflect their actual use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 189]
Response:
As noted in the proposed rule, EPA's objective in setting standards for alternative-fuel engines is to
adopt requirements that create a level playing field for competitive products. For Class 5 and smaller
vehicles for example (light heavy-duty), it is clear that there is a substantial market position for
gasoline-fueled engine. On that basis, we proposed an approach that would allow alternative-fueled
spark-ignition engines to meet the same standards that apply for other spark-ignition engines. For bigger
vehicles, it was not so clear that there was enough of a market position for gasoline-fueled or other
spark-ignition engines to justify setting less stringent standards for alternative-fueled spark ignition
engines. The outcome to avoid is one in which an alternative-fueled engine gains a competitive
advantage in a market that is dominated by compression-ignition engines, which are subject to more
stringent C02 standards.
We have concluded that Class 8 vehicles (heavy heavy-duty) are clearly dominated by compression-
ignition engines. As such, alternative-fueled engines, whether they are derived from gasoline or diesel
engines or created as a new engine design, should be subject to the same emission standards as all the
other engines competing in that market.
The situation for engines used in Class 6 and Class 7 vehicles (medium heavy-duty) is less clear-cut.
Most of these vehicles use compression-ignition engines, but there is a viable market niche for gasoline-
fueled engines. For the final rule, we are opting not to adopt the proposed approach. We are instead
setting the standards for medium heavy-duty engines to correspond to the actual engine type, with all
spark-ignition engines subject to the same standards that apply for gasoline-fueled engines. Given that
some of these engines are already certified to standards for compression-ignition engines, we are also
adopting a provision allowing manufacturers to opt into the more stringent compression-ignition
standards.
In order to balance our concerns about alternative-fueled engines certifying as spark-ignition, but
competing with compression-ignition engines, we are finalizing a restriction against medium heavy-duty
alternative-fueled engines generating emission credits relative to the spark-ignition standards.
Manufacturers of such engines may generate emission credits only if they choose to certify the engines
to the compression-ignition Aftermarketstandards. Aftermarket fuel conversions are certified to meet the
specified standards to gain an exemption from the tampering prohibition. As such, converted engines are
generally required to meet the same standards that applied to the engine when it was new. The final rule
includes a one-year delay for small businesses with respect to meeting new emission standards adopted
in this rule.
-------
We revised the final rule to no longer state that spark-ignition engines are subject to the standards that
apply for compression-ignition engines. We instead have made the emission standards for heavy heavy-
duty engines to be universal, applying equally to both spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines.
This approach prevents the confusion addressed by the comment from California ARB.
We have revised the applicability dates for the phase-in standards in §1036.150 as suggested by
California ARB.
We are adopting the useful-life provisions for engines as proposed and supported by California ARB.
13.2.3 Evaporative Emission Testing for LNG Vehicles
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
Industry is Better Situated to Determine LNG Tank Hold-Times
EPA has proposed adopting industry standard SAE J2343 which requires a 5-day hold-time for natural
gas tank boil-off on vehicles powered by LNG. ATA supports the decision of EPA to defer to, and
reference, industry standards relating to hold-times for LNG tanks. The current standards address
concerns related to emissions from natural gas vehicles that could be parked for long periods of time
without use. Concerns related to vehicles that are parked and unused for longer periods of time can, and
should be addressed by operational practices such as starting up the vehicle for a short period of time to
relieve pressure, or scheduling to ensure that vehicles do not remain parked for long periods of time.
Compliance demonstrations of the 5-day hold-times should be the responsibility of tank manufacturers
or fuel system packagers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.23]
We Support the Proposed Requirement for Industry to Adhere to the Recommended Practices as
Defined in SAE J2343 for Evaporative Emissions from LNG Vehicle Fuel Systems
We support the proposed inclusion of the requirement to adhere to SAE J2343 as a means of
demonstrating compliance with the five-day hold time requirement.18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-
A1 p.4]
However, in the final rule, we strongly recommend that the agencies clarify that SAE J2343 applies to a
vehicle's fuel system, rather than the engine or vehicle itself. This is an important distinction and one
that is not clearly made in the Proposal. Engines and vehicles, as required under the Phase 1 Rule and
the Phase 2 Proposal, demonstrate compliance through engine bench or chassis dynamometer tests, as
well as simulation in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM).19 However, demonstrating
compliance with SAE J2343 cannot be performed using any of those tests or simulations. Thus, we are
providing recommend language below, which will help the agencies better reflect the difference
applications of SAE J2343 and the Phase 2 Proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.4]
The SAE J2343 standard specifies a minimum five-day hold time. However, as the agencies noted, the
standard provides little description regarding the procedure for determining the amount of time between
a refueling event and initial venting.20 We provide the following three recommendations to help the
agencies clarify the application of SAE J2343: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.4]
• We recommend that the agencies revise the existing language that "the vehicle must remain
parked..."21 to state clearly that "the tank must remain immobile..." This reflects a more accurate
-------
description of SAE J2343's application to the vehicle's fuel system, rather than the engine or
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.4]
• We recommend that the agencies either expand the proposed ambient temperature range of 20-
30°C to 10-30°C, or include a temperature correction factor. This revision would provide OEMs
and integrators located in northern U.S. states and Canada a more equitable opportunity to
conduct fuel systems compliance tests. Further, we note that this broader temperature range of
10-30°C will have minimal impacts as the inner tank temperature is roughly -140°C. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.4]
• We recommend that the agencies revise the existing language that "This standard and procedure
are consistent with Section 9.3.5 of NFPA 52, except that NFPA specifies a three-day hold
time"22 to become "This standard and procedure are consistent with Section 9.3.5 of NFPA 52,
except that NFPA specifies a three-day hold time and requires a stabilization period not
otherwise required in SAE J2343." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.5]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Request for Comment on Extending the 5 Day Hold Time for LNG Vehicles - [redacted] [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 110]
LNG venting test: The agencies discuss an LNG venting test but fail to clarify: is the test at any
temperature between 20 and 30'C that the EPA chooses on an audit? In other words, if the system is
designed, tested, and demonstrated to pass on a series of 5 days with ambient temperatures varying
naturally between 20 and 30'C but the EPA audits by taking the vehicle to a controlled-temperature shed
and testing at exactly 30'C for five straight days, under which test the system fails, is that a failed
audit? [Redacted], we think that the proposed change to the test procedures is acceptable. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 110]
L. 5 Day Hold Time for LNG Vehicles. EPA has proposed adopting industry standards per SAE
J2343 that address natural gas boil off on vehicles powered by LNG. This standard requires a 5-
day hold time but EPA has requested comments on extending this to 10-days. EPA has requested
comment on who should be responsible for certifying compliance with these requirements and
how this responsibility could be delegated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.9]
NGVAmerica supports the decision of EPA to defer to, and reference, industry standards relating to
hold times for LNG tanks. At this time, we are unable to support modifying requirements for natural gas
tanks to extend hold times beyond what is currently recognized by natural gas safety standards. We
appreciate EPA's concerns relating to hold times and its interest in understanding whether additional
hold times are feasible or necessary. The current hold times are based on a 4-day weekend that includes
allowance for holidays. We believe that the current standards address concerns related to emissions
from NGVs that could be parked for long periods without use. Any additional concerns related to
vehicles that are parked and unused for longer periods of time can and should be addressed by
operational practices such as starting up the vehicle for a short period of time to relieve pressure, or
scheduling to ensure that vehicles do not remain parked for long periods of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1270-A1 p.9]
In terms of responsibility for demonstrating compliance with these standards, it is likely that only tank
manufacturers or fuel system packagers would be able to demonstrate this compliance. The existing
vehicle regulations, such as chassis testing and engine dynamometer testing, would not be sufficient to
demonstrate compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p. 10]
-------
NGVAmerica welcomes additional discussion of this issue with EPA and affected industry. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p. 10]
M. Other Issues Related to LNG Vehicles: LNG Boil-Off Warning Systems; Capturing and/or
Converting Methane Refueling or Boil-Off Emissions; On-Board Monitoring Requirements for
Boil-Off Events and Venting at Refueling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p. 10]
EPA discusses a host of other issues relating to LNG vehicles and possible emissions. With respect to
these issues, we reiterate our support for EPA's decision to rely on existing industry standards for LNG
vehicles. We are unable to endorse new requirements or additional regulations when it is not clear what
technologies exist to address these issues or how they would impact the safety of operating natural gas
vehicles. We welcome additional discussion with EPA on how these standards can be revised or
expanded to address issues of concern. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.10]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In addition, the proposed evaporative emission requirements for LNG vehicles need to be modified to be
more consistent with the longstanding and accepted industry guidelines that are incorporated by
reference into the proposed regulatory requirements. Proposed section 1037.103(e) incorporates SAE
Recommended Practice J2343 and NFPA 52 into the mandated LNG vehicle leak requirements.
However, SAE J2343 and NFPA 52 each specify LNG tank requirements, while the agencies' proposed
requirements would apply to a vehicle that is built with an LNG tank. For the reasons stated above, and
to be consistent with SAE J2343 and NFPA 52, the evaporative emission standard should apply to the
tank itself, not the vehicle, regardless of whether it is installed by the vehicle manufacturer or some
subsequent manufacturer.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.44-45]
[T]he proposed changes to the Phase 1 requirements for LNG venting should not be finalized, as those
changes also would amount to retroactive amendments to the overall stringency and cost of the Phase 1
program in violation of administrative due process and the CAA's leadtime and stability provisions.
Moreover, the proposed LNG venting process is ill-defined, lacks a sufficiently definite test temperature
and pressure, and fails to include the necessary audit parameters and procedures. In sum, there is no
reason to pull those proposed provisions forward, especially when to do so would disrupt the
implementation and feasibility of Phase 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.22]
2 If vehicle manufacturers are to be made responsible for testing LNG tanks, better clarity will be
required with respect to the starting conditions for such testing, including with respect to LNG tank
temperature and pressure.
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
We strongly support the agencies inclusion of controls for LNG tank hold times. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1329-A2 p.26]
Organization: Volvo Group
LNG Tank Venting
-------
Volvo Group supports the agencies' efforts to establish hold time requirements for Liquid Natural Gas
(LNG) tanks. These are vital since venting is the largest source of evaporative emissions on LNG
vehicles, and controlling emissions from tank venting was not addressed in the Tier 3 rulemaking of
April 28, 2014. Since the 100 year Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 is 28-36 times greater than
C02 , it is appropriate that precautions are taken to limit tank venting and its greenhouse gas emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.46]
The requirements proposed in 1037.103(e) (Evaporative and refueling emission standards) are vague
and ambiguous. They make indirect reference to two industry recommended practices without
specifying how these conflicting recommended practices should be specifically applied. The Agency
stipulates a vehicle test to demonstrate LNG tank hold times, whereas SAE J2343 and NFPA 52 specify
"tank only" hold time requirements. Demonstration tests performed by tank manufacturers today
according to these recommended practices are "tank-only" tests conducted in controlled environments.
Volvo Group believes that since LNG tank hold time is dependent on tank design, and has little or no
dependence on vehicle installation conditions, fulfillment of any hold time requirements should be met
with tank-only demonstrations. Demonstration tests conducted on the tank itself, complete with
associated valves, vents and other plumbing, can be conducted in a more controlled environment than is
possible after the tanks are installed on the vehicle. This also avoids multiple tests of the same tank
design by various vehicle manufacturers, which would unnecessarily add cost, especially given that
LNG is today a low volume segment of the vehicle market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.46-
47]
Section 1037.103(e) specifies the hold time measurement is to start after a "conventional refueling
event" without a clear definition of the event itself, or what is meant by a "conventional" event. SAE
J2343 (section 4.2) and NFPA 52 (section 9.3.5) each specify unique yet incomplete procedures for the
filling/refueling event. A robust test should specify the starting temperature and/or pressure, and
quantity of LNG already in the tank, as well as the amount of fuel to be added or tank fill level, and the
temperature and/or pressure of the LNG added during the refueling event. Without this specificity
concerning starting conditions, the requirements are an incomplete assessment of tank performance, and
leave far too much to the discretion of the manufacturer. The Agency also specifies the hold time to start
"without a stabilization event" (section 1037.103(e)) which also needs to be defined, as it is not
mentioned in SAE J2343. On the other hand, NFPA 52 requires that the LNG be stabilized at the start of
the hold time test, which contradicts the agencies' proposed requirements. EPA should clarify their
expectations with respect to these conflicting requirements. In addition section 1037.103(e), SAE J2343,
and NFPA 52 all specify different ambient temperature requirements for the duration of the hold time
test; EPA should specify a single allowable ambient temperature range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.47]
Volvo Group supports the EMA comments that propose that the tank manufacturer certify the tank hold
time performance with the agencies. This is necessary when considering the fact that LNG tanks are
frequently installed by secondary manufacturers and the aforementioned inefficiency in requiring each
vehicle manufacturer to repeat the testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.47]
The Agency requested comments as to whether they should increase the LNG tank hold time
requirement beyond the current SAE J2343 hold time of 5 days. Volvo Group supports the interest to
prolong tank hold times, but only cautions that the agencies consider the technical feasibility of a longer
hold time requirement, especially recognizing that the requirement must be fulfilled for the useful life of
the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.47]
-------
Again, the Volvo Group supports the agencies actions to promulgate improved procedures to limit the
venting of high global warming potential (GWP) methane into the atmosphere. The proposal can be
improved by clarifying, beyond the details in the industry recommended practices today, the refueling
procedures and starting conditions for the refueling event. EPA should also consider additional
requirements for fueling station equipment and refueling practices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.48]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
PACCAR should not be further burdened with the responsibility for determining leakage [from LNG
vehicles], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.30]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Proposed evaporative emissions testing provisions for LNG vehicles
The NPRM requests comment on all aspects of the proposed provisions for LNG vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 120]
CARB staff supports regulatory action encouraging long hold times before boil off emissions are
emitted, but suggests clarifying the requirements. The draft Phase 2 regulatory language states,
"Liquefied natural gas vehicles must meet the requirements in Section 4.2 of SAE J2343 (incorporated
by reference in § 1037.810), which specifies that vehicles meet a five-day hold time after a refueling
event before the fuel reaches the point of venting to relieve pressure." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 120]
SAE Standard J2343 states the following regarding LNG venting and tank design: "Vehicle LNG Tanks
shall have a design hold time (build pressure without relieving) of 5 days after being filled net full and
at the highest point in the design filling temperature/pressure range." (Section 4.2 of SAE Standard
J2343) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p. 120-121]
The SAE Standard J2343 covers the test initial conditions adequately: 1) fill level and 2) thermal energy
in the tank as expressed in either temperature or pressure of the fuel, and the draft Phase 2 regulatory
language specifies that the vehicle must remain parked away from direct sun with ambient temperatures
between (20 and 30) degree Celsius throughout the measurement procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 121]
However, the SAE Standard J2343 does not give detail about how fill level, thermal energy in tank, or
venting would be measured. For example, the fuel flow rate threshold or minimum fuel mass emission
that defines a venting event needs to be specified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 121]
CARB staff recommends specifying the required measurement techniques for determining hold time.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 121]
There is also need for durability requirements for LNG tanks. At present the NPRM proposal is for 5
days for new vehicles only with no restriction on subsequent degradation of vacuum insulated tanks. A
minimum durability of the insulation is imperative to controlling boil off emissions over the life of the
vehicle. CARB staff recommends the following language be added: "vehicle mounted LNG tank
-------
insulation shall continue to meet SAE Standard J2343 hold time standards through the emissions
warranty period of the vehicle." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.121]
Support Comment
Comment - Proposal to require 5-day hold time for LNG vehicles
CARB supports the Phase 2 proposal to require a 5-day hold time for LNG vehicles, to reduce the
potential for an LNG boil-off event. Manufacturers would have to follow current industry recommended
practice, SAE Standard J2343 for 5-day hold time to limit boil-off emissions from LNG vehicles. Boil-
off events occur when a LNG truck is parked or driven very little, the fuel vaporizes, and the pressure
inside the tank increases to a maximum of 230 pounds per square inch (psi) and a safety release valve
releases the methane gas to vent excess pressure. CARB staff concurs that the venting characteristics
inherent in LNG vehicles are an emissions concern, and recommends adoption of this requirement.
CARB staff believes this is a good step towards limiting the release of methane from natural gas fueled
vehicles, and that this will better standardize the requirements. CARB may consider similar
requirements in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 166]
Organization: NGV America, et al
Additional Comments
EPA had additional communications with industry representatives to further work out the test
procedures associated with LNG venting. Most of these additional comments were related to EPA's
suggested secondary in-use test based on vehicle testing to establish an allowable pressure rise
corresponding to the five-day hold time requirement. Manufacturers suggested a standard of 25 kPa per
hour instead of EPA's specified 9 kPa per hour. This greater allowance was largely intended to account
for a high degree of variability from operators and other third parties performing tests with a wide range
of experiences for refueling, parking, and reading pressure gauges. The accuracy and readability of the
pressure gauges themselves were a substantial consideration. Manufacturers also suggested revising the
in-use procedure to (1) more closely mimic the refueling event used for tank testing, (2) include a short
drive after refueling to help stabilize fuel temperature and pressure inside the tank, and (3) define a
window of tank pressures (345 - 900 kPa) to establish a proper starting condition for testing.
Organization: Enovation Controls (ENC)
3.3 Fuel Tank Safety - Safety references are made on page 779 with respect to Natural Gas vehicles.
Fuel systems for natural gas vehicles are thoroughly vetted in the Heavy Duty market and are subject to
extensive, thoughtfully-considered federal regulations, ISO standards and ANSI guidelines. Applicable
U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards include: 49 CFR 571.303 Fuel System Integrity of
Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles, ISO 15500-9:2012; 49 CFR 571.304 Compressed Natural Gas Fuel
Container Integrity; and 49 CFR 393.68 Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Containers. Additional
guidelines include: National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 52 Vehicular Gaseous Fuel Systems
Code, 2013; ANSI/IAS NGV 2 Standard for Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Containers; and ANSI/AGA
NGV3.1/CGA 12.3 Fuel System Components for Natural Gas Powered Vehicles. We submit that no
change is required to existing regulations, and that any future modification to fuel tank regulation should
be contained within existing regulatory framework. The section in question in the Phase 2 proposal
regarding fuel tank safety is not value-added and should be removed from the Phase II proposal. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1203-A1 p.3]
-------
Organization: Quantum Technologies
XIII. Amendments to Phase 1 Standards
(3) EVAPORATIVE EMISSION TESTING FOR LNG VEHICLES [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1154-
A1 p.2]
Heavy-duty vehicles fueled by natural gas have for many years been subject to evaporative emission
standards and test procedures. While fuel systems containing gasoline require extensive design features
to handle vented fuel, fuel systems containing natural gas generally prevent evaporative losses by
remaining sealed. In the case of compressed natural gas, there is a voluntary consensus standard, ANSI
NGV1-2006, that is designed to ensure that there are no leaks or losses during a refueling event. Since
compressed natural gas systems remain sealed indefinitely once the refueling event is complete, we
understand that complying with the ANSI refueling standard is sufficient to demonstrate that the vehicle
also complies with all applicable evaporative emission standards. The Light-Duty Tier 3 final rule
included provisions to clarify that compressed natural gas systems meeting the applicable ANSI
standard are deemed to comply with EPA's evaporative emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1154-A1 p.2]
Quantum proposes the following alternative to the XIII. Amendments to Phase 1 Standards [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1154-A1 p.2]
(3) EVAPORATIVE EMISSION TESTING FOR LNG VEHICLES [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1154-
A1 p.2]
Although the ANSI NGV1-2006 specified CNG refueling device is the correct choice for light duty
applications, Quantum believes that specifying only ANSI NGV1-2006 limits better options for
refueling heavy duty CNG trucks. The ANSI NGV 1-2006 CNG refueling device is very low in flow
capability for a heavy duty application. It is common for heavy duty applications to have CNG fuel
capacities between 40 to 280 diesel gallon equivalent (DGE). This heavy duty CNG tank capacity is far
greater than the typical light duty CNG tank capacity (less than 20 DGE). The small ANSI NGV1-2006
CNG refueling device would cause excessive fill times on heavy duty applications with no benefit to
evaporative refueling emissions. Commonly used higher flow CNG refueling devices for heavy duty
vehicles meet the requirements of ECE R110 Annex 4F 4.2, and have greater than twice the cross
sectional flow area of an ANSI NGV1-2006 device. ECE R110 Annex 4F is comparable to ANSI
NGV1-2006 from an evaporative and refueling emissions performance requirement. Like ANSI NGV1-
2006, ECE R110 Annex 4F is also designed to ensure that there are no leaks or losses during a refueling
event. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1154-A1 p.2]
By allowing the alternative ECE R110 Annex 4F 4.2 in addition to ANSI NGV1-2006 specified CNG
refueling devices, the intent of meeting all applicable evaporative emissions is still maintained, and
faster filling rates needed for larger heavy duty CNG tank capacities is allowed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1154-A1 p.2]
Response:
We are retaining the five-day hold time described in SAE J2343 for the final rule, as supported by most
commenters. We agree to some extent with commenters expressing a concern that technological
feasibility has not been established for achieving hold times longer than five days throughout a vehicle's
useful life.
Before describing detailed responses to the comments, it is important to clarify the context of the
proposed hold-time requirement. EPA's evaporative emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles apply
-------
equally to gasoline-fueled and gaseous-fueled vehicles. As such, LNG vehicles are today subject to the
current evaporative emission standards and test requirements, even though those standards and test
procedures were designed around the technologies associated with gasoline-fueled vehicles. The hold-
time requirement is intended to create a parallel compliance demonstration that applies in lieu of the
conventional evaporative emission standards. The objective of pursuing a hold-time standard is to
capture the current best practices for manufacturers of LNG fuel systems to ensure that vehicles and
their fuel tanks are properly designed and manufactured to contain fuel during normal operation (and
non-operation) to the greatest degree that can be achieved with available technology.
Because the hold-time standard is an alternative means of demonstrating compliance with an existing
standard, the minimum lead-time requirement does not apply. In fact, while we specify a start date of
January 1, 2020, we are specifically creating an allowance for manufacturers to certify based on the
SAE J2343 protocol directly upon completion of the final rule. It is also the case that the existing
framework of requirements that apply under voluntary consensus standards adopted by industry and
other associations does not address the concerns associated with EPA's evaporative emission standards,
which requires that we adopt provisions to allow for certifying LNG vehicles.
We have revised the measurement procedure for the hold-time test to be focused on the vehicle's fuel
tank as the test article. We have similarly revised the certification protocol to allow either vehicle
manufacturers or tank manufacturers (or assemblers) to certify with respect to the hold-time standard for
evaporative emissions, even if a different company certifies the vehicle with respect to exhaust
emissions. We agree with AGA that operational practices play an important role in managing LNG
boil-off; however, we understand those practices to be supplemental to adopting a performance standard
in line with current industry practice to establish a certain level of performance for LNG systems. This
is especially true given that the reference to SAE J2343 allows us to rely on that industry standard for
hold-time performance as a means of demonstrating compliance with existing evaporative emission
standards.
We have revised the test procedure to address the concerns raised by AGA: (1) We specify that the fuel
tank must be at rest, rather than requiring that the vehicle be parked. (2) We allow for ambient
temperatures down to 10° C to allow for more flexibility to account for varying temperature control over
the 120 hours it takes to complete the test. We would not expect such testing to often go below 20° C,
but agree with the comment this this has a minor effect on cryogenic behavior. It is also the case that the
vehicles remain subject to the hold-time standard at the high end of the temperature range. (3) We have
removed the reference to the analogous hold-time protocol adopted by the National Fire Protection
Association to avoid confusion.
The proposed approach to allow for valid tests at ambient temperatures ranging from 20 to 30° C is
identical to what has applied for almost all engine and vehicle testing for the last 40 years. It means that
a test is valid if temperatures remain within the specified window. This means that a test is valid if
ambient temperatures stay at 30° C throughout the measurement procedure. We emphasize this by
specifying the temperature range as being between (20 and 30)° C rather than 25±5° C, which means
that there is no expectation that testing involves a targeted setpoint at any specific temperature within
the specified range. As noted in the previous paragraph, we are expanding the specified temperature
range, largely based on the reasoning that this still allows for testing at 30° C and therefore does not
compromise the stringency of the standard.
We agree with Volvo that LNG refueling station operators and upstream suppliers should properly
manage LNG delivery and storage to allow for consistent refueling at proper temperatures and
pressures. Many stations are able to receive fuel vented from vehicle tanks, which is a good and
effective way to avoid venting to the atmosphere. We do not have the authority to require such systems,
or to require certain financial arrangements for the exchange of vented fuel. We believe market forces
are adequate to address the concern.
-------
We have revised the measurement procedures to address the concerns expressed by California ARB and
Volvo. We specify a refueling event to automatic shutoff, which adequately addresses the tank fill level
and quantity of dispensed fuel. We address the starting point for the hold-time measurement based on
the tanks stabilized pressure after refueling to address thermal energy level and the temperature and fill
level of the tank before refueling. The time to pressure relief is as simple as operating a clock or
stopwatch. We specify the start time based on tank pressure, and we identify pressure venting as the
event that defines the end of the test. We allow manufacturers to devise their own method to establish
the time at which pressure venting occurs, consistent with good engineering judgment.
We agree with California ARB's concerns about system durability and the proposal, in fact, described
the hold-time standards as being subject to warranty and useful life requirements. We have revised the
final rule to state directly that the warranty and useful-life provisions apply for the LNG venting
standards.
Regarding the in-use test, we have revised the specified procedure to incorporate all the items identified
by the industry group. However, we continue to believe that 9 kPa per hour is the appropriate standard
to allow for in-tank pressure increases corresponding to the five-day hold time. This allows for a 20
percent margin beyond the 7.5 kPa per hour that correlates directly with a five-day hold time. The 20
percent margin accounts for the possibility of nonlinear pressure increases over time, variability from
different starting conditions and ambient temperatures, and the accuracy of measurement equipment.
The pressure reading for comparing to the standard is a difference between two measurements, which
greatly reduces concerns about accuracy and readability. Any inaccuracy or imprecision in one
measurement would generally be canceled out in the second measurement. Manufacturers can also take
steps to improve the precision and readability of installed pressure gauges. A digital readout, for
example, would eliminate variability associated with reading pressure values from an analog gauge.
Manufacturers can also take steps to provide clear instructions on proper preconditioning and
measurement procedures. Finally, if there is a dispute regarding proper measurements, manufacturers
can arrange for further testing with more carefully controlled conditions and practices to ensure that the
test results are reliable.
We recognize the concern described by Optimus for heavy-duty refueling rates. However, we learned
that the recommended European protocol is based on systems up to 3000 psi and is therefore not valid
for most heavy-duty CNG vehicles in the United States. Representatives of the natural gas industry
responded to the comment suggesting the European protocol by recommending that we instead
reference a recently published supplement to ANSI NGV1, which accommodates the higher flow rates
corresponding to heavy-duty vehicles and current refueling technology. We are accordingly revising the
regulation to reference this additional ANSI document, which is known as CSA IR-1-15, "Compressed
Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) High Flow Fueling Connection Devices."
13.2.4 Additional LNG Technology Considerations
Organization: American Gas Association (AGA) et al.
We Recommend that the Agencies Conduct Additional Research on Boil-Off and Refueling
Emissions
We commend the agencies on their efforts to collect information on monitoring and warning
systems.45 However, we caution that such technologies are not well known or researched today. We also
note that the boil-off emissions themselves are the result of a critical safety feature used to avoid
catastrophic failure of the LNG tanks in the case of over-pressurization. We thus recommend that any
efforts to incorporate boil-off monitoring or warning systems into the onboard diagnostics should not
-------
interfere with the critical boil-off release system, especially in emergency cases such as collisions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 11 -12]
Due to the lack of currently available solutions and the concern that any proposed solution may impinge
on the key safety components of the boil-off system, we recommend that the agencies conduct
additional technical research on this issue. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the
agencies to research, evaluate, and demonstrate the appropriate methods to monitor, quantify, and
prevent boil-off releases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 12]
In response to the agencies request for additional information, we are also providing the following data
on the quantification of vapor released during boil-off events. The Phase 2 Proposal states that each
event has the potential of releasing 5,300 - 15,800 grams of methane, which translates to 132,000 -
400,000 grams C02e.46 However, from a GHG perspective, the amount of vapor released in one event is
much less important than the amount of vapor released over a given period - such as the day after the
hold time has been exceeded, for example. The amount of vapor is highly dependent on the dynamics of
the pressure release valve (PRV) - some PRVs release relatively larger quantities at less frequent
intervals while other PRVs release smaller quantities at more frequent intervals. For reference, we
consider that, when a natural gas tank has reached its maximum pressure set point, it will boil off
between 2 - 3% of its maximum content per day. As an example, a 150 gallon LNG tank contains
240,000 grams of LNG that may boil off 5,000 grams of methane during the course of a whole day. We
would be pleased to discuss with the agencies any further data needs to better quantify boil off
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 12]
We also caution the agencies that the market for certain emissions capture technologies, such as
methane canisters, combustion, or conversion via a catalyst,47 is still very early in its development and
many of these technologies are still demonstrating proof-of-concept. Westport has studied
experimentally the concept of returning methane vapor to the engine intake, and has identified a number
of challenges and opportunities in doing so. We are currently reviewing the specific technologies and
strategies identified in the Proposal (methane canisters, combustion, or conversion via a catalyst), and
would welcome the opportunity to work with the agencies on further research. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1223-A1 p. 12]
It is worth noting that we do see potential value in developing a standardized method to return natural
gas tank vapors to the station, perhaps through the integration of technology installed on vehicles'
natural gas tanks and natural gas refueling stations. We recommend that the agencies continue to
maintain an open dialogue with industry representatives on this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-
A1 p.12]
Further, we provide the following recommendations regarding how the agencies can improve the
explanation of the LNG fuel system, including guidance on the terms "supercooled" and
"vacuum."48 "Supercooled" refers to the process of lowering the temperature of a liquid or gas below its
freezing point without it changing phases (i.e., without the liquid or gas becoming solid).49 Additionally,
we have never found a vacuum condition in an LNG tank, because the LNG fuel system always operates
above atmospheric pressure - a condition rendering the creation of a vacuum inside the LNG tank
impossible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 12-13]
We also find that the agencies' language "that the pressure of the LNG is well below the pressure at
which the natural gas vent valve would relieve the LNG pressure" does not correctly explain the physics
of the system.50 We provide the following language as a suggestion to guide the agencies and request
-------
that the agencies follow up directly for any further information: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1
P-13]
LNG must be kept below -161 °C to stay in its liquid state.51 Even if an LNG tank is well insulated, a
small amount of heat from the atmosphere will still be able to transfer from the exterior tank to the LNG
fuel inside the tank. As the temperature of LNG in the tank increases, the density decreases and the
pressure increases. When the vehicle is in operation, liquid or vapor is withdrawn from the tank to fuel
the engine, which helps maintain the pressure within the operating range of the tank. When the tank is
refueled, the introduction of new LNG fuel from the station also decreases the temperature and pressure
to the desired level. Thus, under normal operation of an LNG truck, the pressure is maintained within
the design operating range and there is no release to the environment. However, if a vehicle is left
unused for several days, the pressure inside the tank will eventually increase above the design operating
range and some vapor will be released from the tank to prevent over-pressurization of the tank. This
vapor is referred to as boil-off [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 13]
Finally, we object to the statement that "an LNG truck is inherently high emitting since if the truck were
to be parked long enough its entire contents would be emitted to the environment."52 We note that, while
it is true that a truck parked for a long time will vent, LNG truck owners are incentivized by the low cost
of LNG as a fuel to use these vehicles at high utilization rates - in other words, they are unlikely to sit
more than 5 days unused in normal operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.13]
We Recommend that the Agencies Conduct Additional Research on Extended Hold Time Length
for LNG Vehicle Fuel Tanks
On the issue of hold times, the agencies noted that SAE J2343's five-day hold time will only apply to
new LNG vehicles.53 This understandably causes the agencies concern over the treatment of aging
vehicles, which may have diminished insulating properties that could result in shorter hold times.
Though we are unable to submit data at this time, we support the agencies' efforts to research the
availability and feasibility of tank technologies that would enable a 10-day hold time and recommend
that the agencies continue to maintain an open dialogue with industry representatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 13]
We would also like to draw the agencies' attention to the potential for extending hold time and limiting
boil-off through the use of LNG fuel temperature management along the distribution chain, at the LNG
station, and on the vehicles. When LNG is produced, the fuel temperature is -280°F and stored at near
atmospheric pressures (~15 psi). During transportation to the fueling station and storage in the station
typically, the fuel temperature rises marginally to around -260°F and the corresponding pressure
(referred to as saturation pressure) of the LNG rises to ~30 psi. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1
p. 14]
LNG, if introduced to the LNG vehicle tank at this temperature and saturation pressure, could enable
10-day hold times. However, LNG stations customarily add heat energy to the fuel. Typically, this
results in the LNG fuel temperature rising to -220°F at 120 psi. The additional pressure is required by
many vehicle fuel systems to move the fuel out of the fuel tank, through the vaporizer, and into the
engine's injectors. This "warm" fuel serves as the basis for the 5-day hold time under SAE J2343.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p. 14]
We are aware of LNG storage systems currently available on the market from multiple manufacturers
that can receive "cold" fuel (-260°F at ~30 psi) instead, thereby enabling extended hold times. We
would therefore welcome a dialogue with the agencies on further research into truck and station systems
-------
and processes that could make further use of "cold" LNG fuel to increase hold times and reduce the risk
of boil-off emissions occurring. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1223-A1 p.14]
Organization: Volvo Group
The Agency also requested comment on a proposed LNG vehicle boil-off warning system. The cost and
complexity of a system needs to be weighed against its benefit. Most venting events occur when a
vehicle is not used for an extended period of time, particularly for engine systems that can pull vapor
from the LNG tank (typical for SI engines) to lower the pressure via evaporative cooling. During such
down time when the vehicle is not in use, a message/warning cannot be observed by the operator to take
the appropriate action. A warning system would be more useful if it provided an estimated time to a
venting event (assuming vehicle is parked) and also a warning if the LNG tank needs maintenance by
detecting deterioration of insulating properties. This could be done by evaluating LNG warming (or
pressure increase) rate in relation to fill level and ambient conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.47]
A final area the Agency should address is the high variability of LNG temperature and pressure at retail
fuel delivery stations. This variability can be caused by the temperature and pressure of the LNG as
delivered to the refueling station, throughput of LNG in the dispensing equipment, design of the
station's tanks and dispensing equipment, use of systems to maintain LNG temperature and pressure,
and other factors. This variability can force vehicle operators to vent the vehicle's tank(s) to the
atmosphere to reduce tank pressure to enable refueling. The agencies should require that refueling
stations be equipped with recovery systems that allow operators to vent the vehicle's tank(s) back into
the station's fuel supply. In addition, the stations should be required to credit the operator for the
quantity of fuel returned to the station, so as to incentivize this action on the part of the operator. This
would allow for more complete tank filling, potentially improved vehicle hold times, and reduced
venting to the atmosphere. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.47-48]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM also requests comments on other potential requirements to control LNG boil-off emissions.
These include control technologies like methane canisters, a methane burner, a catalyst to convert the
methane to C02, an on-board monitoring requirements to track boil-off events, and other ways to
reduce emissions from LNG refueling. CARB staff has not made final determinations on the efficacy of
those technologies at this time, but will further investigate their effectiveness. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 166]
As estimated in U.S. EPA and NHTSA's lifecycle analysis, each boil-off event has the potential to
release from 3 to 9 gallons of LNG for each boil off event, depending on the fill level of the LNG tank.
And because methane has a global warming potential that is 25 times higher (assessed over 100 years)
than C02, that equates to 132,000 to 140,000 grams of C02 equivalent emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 166]
45 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40511.
46 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40512. This is based on CH4's GWP of 25 on a 100-year timeframe.
47 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40511.
-------
48 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40506.
49 Rathz, T. "Undercooling of a liquid." National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January
2010.htto://science .nasa.gov/ssl/msad/dtf/underl. htm / http://www.webcitation.org/5miJauR7S.
50 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40506.
51 "Frequently Asked Questions About LNG." California Energy
Commission, http://www.energv.ca.gov/lng/faq.html.
52 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40506.
53 Phase 2 Proposal, page 40510.
Response:
We recognize that manufacturers and vehicle operators are motivated to prevent both catastrophic and
incidental venting of LNG, for safety and economic reasons. We are nevertheless interested in exploring
further ideas of diagnostics, monitoring, control, and refueling practices to provide further assurance
that the industry will reduce the frequency and severity of venting. The information provided is a good
step in that direction.
13.2.5 Stockpiling Provisions for Heavv-Dutv Highway Engines
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Stockpiling: The EPA's proposal for years when emission standards change, allowing three
months to use of a prior year's engine in the year that the standards change and an additional several
engines upon a showing of hardship, is a good proposal as it gives vehicle manufacturers the clarity we
need and is realistic in its three month changeover date. What is problematic is the number of engines
allowed past the three month date on showing of hardship. In particular, fifty engines is much less than
one day's production; if a manufacturer has a hardship, fifty engines will only allow the manufacturer to
weather a portion of day. The number should be at least 1,000 engines, which would better help us in
the event of unexpected circumstances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 120]
The EPA proposes redundant yet conflicting changeover and stockpiling rules. In
1037.601(a)(1) the EPA proposes to prohibit using an engine from a prior year, which means that
engines built in December or November are essentially unusable (given our current engine model year
changeovers), but the agency modifies that requirement in 1037.601(a)(2). The EPA should eliminate
the duplicative and overly constrictive rules in (a)(1), given that in the very next subparagraph (a)(2) the
agency erodes the rule. Moreover, in (c), the EPA proposes to apply 1068.101, which invokes
1068.105(a), which has different changeover and stockpiling rules than the EPA concurrently proposes
in 1037. The EPA has proposed mutually conflicting rules and needs to be consistent. A better approach
would be simply to write that it is a violation of the regulations to sell a tractor or vocational vehicle
with an engine from the previous calendar year installed in the vehicle any later than three months into
the next year, except 1) in years when there are no changes to the emission regulations in which case the
three month limitation does not apply or 2) when the manufacturer successfully petitions the agency for
the fifty engine flexibility (which, as we note above, should be several times greater). 1037.601(a)(1)
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 120]
-------
Organization: GILLIGLLC
GILLIG requests the agencies review the proposed March 31 end date for installing engines built before
the date of any new or changed standard. GILLIG does not build stock transit buses. As previously
mentioned, each bus is custom built to unique customer specifications. There is one engine
manufacturer in our market segment and the engines are limited to one diesel, one CNG and one
diesel/hybrid offering. If the engine manufacturer has an unforeseen delay in certification or production
of the new model year engines, and this delay occurs late in the prior model year, as a vehicle
manufacturer we cannot order more of last year's engines and have them built and delivered in time, we
cannot substitute other like engine models because there are none, and we cannot move up production
buses using other certified engines because of other long lead time parts availability. At that point,
getting written permission from EPA to use prior year's engines past the March 31 date, as provided for
in the rule, provides no remedy. Having no engines with which to build vehicles would bring transit bus
production at GILLIG to a standstill, delay delivery of replacement buses to municipalities responsible
for sustaining transportation services, impact jobs at those municipalities, inconvenience those who
travel and depend on public transportation, and be financially devastating for our business and our
employees. GILLIG has long had the production philosophy to build no more than one bus for a
customer in any given day. This helps reduce risks from production issues arising from design
problems, parts availability, etc. Additionally, transit buses are typically purchased in fleet quantities to
maintain commonality for drivers, spare parts and maintenance. Building out a fleet for a customer can
require many months of production time. For the above mentioned reasons, GILLIG would request the
agencies allow for installing engines built before the date of any new or changed standard through June
of the new emissions standard year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1156-A1 p.5-6]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
PACCAR supports the proposed 90-day window after the end of the engine Model Year to address the
issue of stockpiling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.30]
Organization: Volvo Group
Revisions to Stockpiling Provisions
As a general matter, Volvo Group supports the codification and clarification of existing guidance
designed to prevent the unnecessary stockpiling of engines by vehicle and engine manufacturers during
years when emissions standards change. Volvo Group further supports EPA's recognition of particular
challenges manufacturers may face during years when new emissions standards take effect. While the
rule should account for the need by manufacturers for some flexibility in transitioning to new
technology, however, it also must provide objective, clear and unambiguous rules for manufacturers to
follow. To remain in accord with the spirit and intent of the Clean Air Act, the rule also must create a
level playing field (i.e. one that does not effectively punish manufacturers who comply in a timely
manner with new EPA standards, while rewarding those who do not), and must ensure that cleaner
engines are introduced into the marketplace as quickly as possible, taking into account the need for
flexibility in transition to the use of new, often very complex technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.72]
Volvo Group believes that the intent of both the Clean Air Act and EPA's existing guidance 15 is to
ensure there is a level playing field among vehicle and engine manufacturers subject to new emissions
standards. Additionally, the Act and the guidance are intended to ensure that the introduction of new
-------
engines into the market is not unnecessarily delayed, while taking into account the need by
manufacturers for flexibility in transitioning to often complex new technologies. Volvo Group supports
EPA's efforts to bring law and order to manufacturers' product transition schedules when new standards
come into effect, as represented in the amendments proposed in the NPRM. In fact, Volvo Group has
been a strong proponent for clear rules that prohibit the stockpiling of engines and that ensure timely
transition. Volvo Group does have concern, however, that EPA's proposal did not give full
consideration to certain business entities that have relatively low volumes, but for whom many orders
are by municipalities for a large quantity of vehicles, often delivered at one time, and for which one of
the basic requirements is that all vehicles be of identical specification and even of the same model year.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.73]
EPA's rule must maintain a level playing field during the transition to new emissions standards, and
must ensure technology is introduced into the marketplace expeditiously. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.73]
This principle is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Clean Air Act, which requires manufacturers
who are unable to introduce compliant technologies due to technological challenges to pay
nonconformance penalties (NCPs) designed to remove any competitive advantage they might realize by
continuing the sale of older engines. The statute requires that EPA establish such NCPs through a
rulemaking that ensures the penalties are "increased periodically in order to create incentives for the
development of production vehicles or engines which achieve the required degree of emission
reduction" and which "remove any competitive disadvantage to manufacturers whose engines or
vehicles achieve the required degree of emissions reductions..." CAA § 206(g), 42 U.S.C. § 7525(g).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A 1 p.73]
Left unchecked, a manufacturer's stockpiling practices could have precisely the effect Congress
intended to avoid. With the increasing stringency of new emissions standards for heavy-duty diesel
engines, engine manufacturers are employing more complex, more expensive engine technologies. Due
to their increased cost and complexity, engines that comply with the most recent emission limits are
generally less desirable to customers than those compliant to the former standard - thus creating an
incentive for manufacturers to stockpile older engines, and a disincentive for them to initiate
introduction of new ones. Even with the advent of fuel efficiency standards, which on their face might
be perceived as driving the introduction of products more desirable to commercial vehicle customers
due to an anticipated reduction of fuel consumption costs, purchasers are often skeptical of products that
introduce new technologies not formerly known in the marketplace. Vehicle and engine manufacturers
that have prepared for timely introduction of new technology, therefore, are placed at a competitive
disadvantage to manufacturers that will delay introduction and rely on continued sale of the engines and
vehicles compliant to the previous standards for a longer period of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.73]
There is unfortunate historical evidence of these forces at work. During the months following the new
2010 standards, the mere hint of availability of 2009 engines was generating a chill in market demand
for 2010 engines, with customers refusing to place orders for the new technology as long as they knew
the older technology was still available. As a result, vehicle manufacturers offering 2010 technologies
were already finding the need to discount their vehicles significantly to generate interest from
customers, if interest could be generated at all. The result of an ineffective anti-stockpiling policy,
therefore, is precisely the opposite of what the Clean Air Act envisions - it imposes a penalty on the
leader as opposed to the laggard. In addition, although all manufacturers eventually had to transition to
2010 engines at some point - and thus the manufacture of vehicles using 2009 engines was temporary -
the operation of these higher emitting engines will continue for many years. As such, excessive
-------
stockpiling, although a temporary practice, can result in considerable additional emissions when total
emissions over the lifetime of the engine are considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.73-74]
Volvo Group believes that EPA's intentions to fortify their stockpiling provisions are an important step
forward to securing, at times of transition to new engine or vehicle standards, that stockpiling abuses do
not occur, and that the playing field is leveled to avoid disadvantaging manufacturers who establish
timely product transition schedules. Volvo Group is quite concerned, however, that EPA's proposed
language leaves too much room for creative interpretation that gives license to abuses, and will continue
to leave manufacturers who seek to work to the spirit and intent of the regulations at the mercy of those
willing to push all limits to gain an unfair market advantage. In fact, given the customer desire for lower
cost and less complex engines, the marketplace essentially forces each manufacturer to build and utilize
older engines to the regulated limits or be boxed out of the market until competitors exhaust their
supply. This practice is costly due to high inventory costs and production disruptions that impact
manufacturers, suppliers, and employees. Volvo Group recommends that EPA consider more robust
bright line provisions that ensure a level playing field and that better account for the business practices
of certain low volume manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.74]
While Volvo Group supports the implementation of the current provisions of 40 CFR 1068 as proposed,
we believe there is room for improvements that would better protect against unlawful stockpiling while
also addressing some of the nuances of the heavy-duty, on-highway sector. To the extent additional
amendments to the current provisions require additional rulemaking, Volvo Group supports
implementation of the current provisions as an interim measure. They are an improvement to the current
prohibitions to stockpiling that currently exist for heavy-duty highway engines. We believe, however,
that additional refinements to the current provisions are necessary and urge EPA to consider such
improvements either in the current rulemaking process, or in a follow-up process shortly following the
adoption of the current provisions. Volvo Group is willing to work with the Agency to that end. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 74]
EPA's rule must be unambiguous and apply the same objective standards to all manufacturers. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 74]
Volvo Group supports EPA's adoption of the Part 1068 provisions that designate the "date of
manufacture" of an engine as the date the crank is installed in the block. This convention has been used
in the industry for many years, and has become a settled process within the manufacturing scheduling
and record systems for many manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.74]
The provisions at 40 CFR 1068.103(j) as proposed to now apply to heavy-duty highway engines state:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.74]
You may not circumvent the provisions of § 1068.101(a)(1) by stockpiling engines with a date of
manufacture before new or changed emission standards take effect by deviating from your normal
production and inventory practices. [EPA-HQ-OAR- 2014-0827-1290-A1 p.75]
The term "normal production and inventory practices" is vague and needs to be better defined and
delineated to provide clear and consistent guidance on acceptable practices. This language appears to
focus primarily on the practices of individual manufacturers without setting a clear, industry-wide
standard. Moreover, what EPA considers to be "normal inventory" is subject to multiple possible
interpretations and variations, depending on the idiosyncrasies of any one company. It is therefore ripe
for abuse. EPA must clarify what it intends by this term through the use of objective standards that will
apply equally to all manufacturers. The terms, though now appearing in CFR provisions rather than
-------
guidance, still do not provide for the kind of bright line criteria that are necessary to ensure a level
playing field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.75]
Volvo Group appreciates that EPA has attempted to achieve greater clarity by expanding on the
language in Section 1068.103(j), but remains concerned that it is unacceptably vague. The additional
language provides: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.75]
For most engines you should plan to complete the assembly of an engine of a given model year into its
certified configuration within the first week after the end of the model year if new emission standards
start to apply in that model year. [EPA-HQ- OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.75]
Once more, the term "most" is ambiguous and will lead to inconsistent interpretation. EPA should better
define what qualifies as an acceptable number of engines in this regard. EPA also should objectively
define what it means to "complete" an engine. The language continues: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.75]
For special circumstances it may be appropriate for your normal business practice to involve more time.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.75]
The manufacturing environment, especially in the transition period of a standards change year, is
fraught with challenges that might be considered "special circumstances," but should not justify
stockpiling. Volvo Group is concerned that this provision will be abused in attempts to justify the
opportunity to push production practices in ways that otherwise would be deemed stockpiling. It appears
that 1068.103 leaves this "special circumstances" determination, and the additional freedom that comes
with it, up to the manufacturer. Under this condition, the manufacturer is given a deadline to complete
the remainder of engines (of displacement less than 2.5 liters per cylinder): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.75]
For engines with per-cylinder displacement below 2.5 liters, if new emission standards start to apply in a
given year, we would consider an engine not to be covered by a certificate of conformity for the
preceding model year if the engine is not assembled in a compliant configuration within 30 days after
the end of the model year for that engine family. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.75]
According to this provision, we see that the first bright line requirement is introduced. Unfortunately,
the example that follows in the text weakens, or at minimum confuses, the earlier text: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.75]
For example, in the case where new standards apply in the 2010 model year, and your normal
production period is based on the calendar year, you must complete the assembly of all your 2009 model
year engines before January 31, 2010, or an earlier date consistent with your normal production and
inventory practices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.76]
[Note: The 30 day provision seems to be inconsistent with the January 31 deadline posed in the
example] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A 1 p.76]
In the example, there's no mention of "special circumstances," and the "or" proposition seems to leave
the choice to the manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.76]
-------
Volvo Group is of the opinion that bright line provisions must be the backbone of anti-stockpiling
provisions, not simply the backstop. It's on this basic principle that we will base our recommendations
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.76]
The Agency should effectively define what they mean by "most" when defining the required completion
date of an engine manufacturer's prior model year engines that are not complete as of December 31. The
requirements should be quantified and scheduled in a way that is controllable and auditable. We would
propose eliminating the "normal production and inventory practices" criteria, and provide for specific
deadlines. An example of such a provision might look like this: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.76]
Of the engines having a date of manufacture before the first day of a model year in which new standards
apply, and that are not completed by the end of the prior model year, 80% of those that are certified to
the prior model year's standards must be completed within 7 days of the new model year. The remainder
of the prior model year engine builds must be completed by January 31 of the new model year. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.76]
There is certainly room for discussion in setting the language to determine the most appropriate dates
and percentages, but this kind of language accomplishes two things. First, it restrains build practices
tightly enough to avoid that a manufacturer generates a high quantity of stockpiled "crank in block"
partial engines, because the manufacturer could not "work off' a large inventory in such a limited
timeframe. Second, it provides much greater certainty, and hence ensures a level playing field. Even if
the Agency settles on parameters which are slightly more "forgiving" than they might prefer, at least
they can be confident of the outcome in any given standards change event, and if there is a small degree
of "play" in the provision, each manufacturer can use that play according to his needs. This is especially
true of the provision to complete the remainder (20%, in the framework proposal above) of engines by
January 31, whereby each manufacturer can deal with its own "special circumstances" as needed, but
without Agency review and without uncertainty. In fact, there need not be any special circumstances
present to complete the builds by January 31, yet every manufacturer would have identical rules to play
by, with a reasonably tight control on engine quantities from the prior model year. The outcome will
certainly be far better than what has been witnessed during, and long following, past standards changes.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A 1 p.76]
The Volvo Group also believes that there need not be, and therefore should not be, any provisions that
sets distinct deadlines on the basis of the size of the engine, whether absolute displacement or per-
cylinder displacement. The reason the deadline for completion was conditioned to displacement per
cylinder in the original Part 1068 language was because the production volumes of such engines, in the
non-road sector, for example, were low, and it was deemed appropriate to allow additional time for the
completion of such engines. Volvo Group believes that this is not the case for heavy-duty highway
engines, and therefore completion dates should not be conditioned to a displacement or displacement
per cylinder basis. If, however, the Agency decides to retain this discriminator, it should clarify which
deadline applies to engines having a displacement of 2.5 liters per cylinder (the current language
addresses only engines greater than or less than 2.5 liters per cylinder). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.76-77]
Turning to vehicle assembly controls, Volvo Group finds the language of 40 CFR 1068.105 to be
similarly flawed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.77]
If new engine-based emission standards apply in a given model year, your equipment produced in that
calendar year (or later) must have engines that are certified to the new standards, except that you may
-------
continue to use up normal inventories of earlier engines that were built before the date of the new or
changed standards. For purposes of this paragraph (a), normal inventory applies for engines you possess
and engines from your engine supplier's normal inventory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014- 0827-1290-A1 p.77]
[Note: At a technical level, the following language would be preferable: ."..you may continue to use up
normal inventories of engines certified to the prior model year standards." The term "earlier engines" is
somewhat vague and undefined, and some engines "built before the date of the new or changed
standards" can be installed without restriction if they're certified to the new standards]. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.77]
Again, terminology like "normal inventories" is vague and ambiguous, and ripe for abuse, though it is
correct that EPA makes it clear that this includes engines in the engine manufacturer(s)' inventories as
well. It should also include engines "in transit," or better define "possession." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.77]
The provision of 1068.105 continues: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.77]
You may not circumvent the provisions of § 1068.101(a)(1) by stockpiling engines that were built
before new or changed standards take effect. Similarly, you may not circumvent the provisions of §
1068.101(a)(1) by knowingly installing engines that were stockpiled by engine suppliers in violation of
§ 1068.103(f). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.77]
...and is further limited by 40 CFR 1037.601: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.77]
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.105(a) apply for vehicle manufacturers installing engines certified
under 40 CFR part 1036 as further limited by this paragraph (a)(2). If new engine emission standards
apply in a given model year, you may install engines built before the date of the new or changed
standards under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.105(a) through March 31 of that year without our
approval; you may not install such engines after March 31 of that year unless we approve it in advance.
Installing such engines after March 31 without our prior approval is considered to be prohibited
stockpiling of engines. In a written request for our approval, you must describe how your circumstances
led you and your engine supplier to have normal inventories of engines that were not used up in the
specified time frame. We will approve your request for up to three additional months to install up to 50
engines under this paragraph (a)(2) if we determine that the excess inventory is a result of unforeseeable
circumstances and should not be considered circumvention of emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.77]
The requirements in this section are in fact, clearer than in the previous sections with respect to
installing prior model year engines. While they are noted as further limiting the provisions of
1068.105(a), the provisions in the subject section seem to lose the limitation of "normal inventory," and
address directly a hard-stop completion date. Some manufacturers would take this to be the predominant
limiting provision, with little regard for normal inventory practices. In the case of the subject language,
at least, there is a requirement to lay out the "unforeseeable circumstances" that EPA could consider
before granting an approval for "up to three additional months to install up to 50 engines" [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.77-78]
Once again, the Volvo Group finds these provisions to be unacceptably ambiguous; they must be shored
up so as to have all manufacturers working to the same clear requirements and limitations. Any
manufacturer's actions should be objectively auditable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.78]
-------
One of the problems is that "normal inventory" can be variable according to market conditions. What is
normally held constant, however, is the number of engines "in float" relative to the rate of vehicle
production rate. There is nothing out of the ordinary, for example, about a manufacturer ramping up
production of the "pre-buy" engines and vehicles being phased out at the end of the model year. In this
case, vehicle production would increase as the end of the year approaches. As long as vehicle
production is ramped up at the same rate as engine production so as not to proliferate the inventory of
prior model year engines, and the engine production provisions that protect against stockpiling as
discussed above are respected, there should be no real cause for concern about stockpiling. It's for this
reason that Volvo Group suggests that the Agency might consider using a calculation of the ratio of the
engines in float (total number of complete engines in the possession of the vehicle manufacturer, and in
the possession of the engine manufacturer, or in transit to the vehicle manufacturer) to the weekly
vehicle build quantity, as a control parameter. This "float ratio" may differ from one manufacturer to the
next, but should be relatively constant for any given manufacturer. The control parameter may have to
incorporate a "lag function" to accommodate delivery lead times, the lag being duration of each
manufacturer's choosing within a limited range. Manufacturer-specific variations and production issues
can be smoothed out by setting the control parameters on a four-week rolling average basis. The process
may require some weekly accounting and reporting of engine quantities and build rates, but in the end
may be a reliable parameter to monitor, or to request of manufacturers as an audit mechanism. Specific
allowable limitations could be placed on the maximum degree of variation of such a control parameter.
The period of control could be pre-defined in the regulation, for example, during the 6 months before
and 6 months after a standards change. Alternatively, there could be an "observation period" of 6
months prior to the end of the model year, followed by a control period in the new model year. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.78]
The methodology as outlined is merely an example of what might be several possible objective,
controllable and auditable means to ensure that engines are not being stockpiled and that the playing
field is leveled. The Volvo Group is willing to explore other bright line options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.78]
The last concept that the Volvo Group thinks the Agency must consider is linked to the production
practices of low volume vehicle manufacturers. Typically, low volume manufacturers have much more
variation in their processes, and take an extended period of time, perhaps as much as a year or more, to
complete a customer order from the first vehicle built to the last. This is sometimes the case for low
volume manufacturers that sell large orders to municipalities, wherein the contract has a strong demand
that all vehicles be built of exactly the same specification. In these cases, there will be a need to
continue to install the prior model year engines into vehicles for an extended period of time. Though the
time period may be extended, the volume of engines remains low by the nature of the business.
Accommodating this need among low volume manufacturers could be managed in different ways. First,
the Agency might consider a unique set of requirements for low volume manufacturers. The "float ratio"
example is likely not well suited to low volume manufacturers, given the mathematical variability that
naturally comes from lower volumes, but also because there's less of a refined "rhythm" to the assembly
process in such production environments. So, the Agency could consider allowing a certain "carry-over"
volume, either in the absolute, or as a percentage of annual production volumes. Another possibility is
that the set carry-over engine quantity could be applied also to the higher volume highway market, such
that that volume is not included in the float ratio calculation. This would serve as another mechanism to
provide flexibility necessary for changes to the industrial setup or component supply issues that often
arise in a model year changeover or a high demand pre-buy market, while applying flexibility evenly
with all manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.78-79]
-------
Volvo Group would be very willing to bring proposals and to take part in any discussions to develop
sound, workable concepts that meet industry's needs and ensure the goals of the Agency are met in the
transition to a new standard. The key is to set specific bright line requirements that provide certainty,
require a minimum of Agency approvals or interventions, and ensure a level playing field. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.79]
As a final note, the Volvo Group believes stockpiling prohibitions will, as a practical matter, be a matter
for necessary controls only with respect to changes to engine standards. Concerning changes
to vehicle standards, we don't think there will be issues of concern with respect to stockpiling. This is
largely due to the fact that the Phase 2 GHG standards as proposed tie standards changes to the model
year of the vehicle. Because manufacturers routinely introduce the new model year vehicles many
months before the calendar year of applicability (for example, most manufacturers
introduced 2012 model year vehicles in the first quarter of 2011), the vehicles compliant to the new
standards are introduced well ahead of the regulated effective date. To the extent that a manufacturer
might modify this convention by delaying introduction of the new model year to a date much closer to
the "latest January 1" effective date, any actions by the manufacturer to build a large number of the
prior model year vehicles before years' end should not be construed as stockpiling, so long as all those
vehicles were completed by the end of the year. In such a case, the agencies may have to modify the
definition of "date of manufacture" for vehicles, to ensure that it is clear and deterministic, and void of
opportunity for gaming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.79]
Revisions to Stockpiling Provisions
While not addressed in the NoDA, EPA's NPRM proposed to apply certain non-road prohibitions
against stockpiling to highway heavy-duty engines and vehicles when new emissions standards take
effect. As a general matter, Volvo Group supports the codification and clarification of existing guidance
designed to prevent the unnecessary stockpiling of engines by vehicle and engine manufacturers during
years when emissions standards change. Volvo Group further supports EPA's recognition of particular
challenges manufacturers may face during years when new emissions standards take effect. While the
rule should account for the need by manufacturers for some flexibility in transitioning to new
technology, however, it also must provide objective, clear and unambiguous rules for manufacturers to
follow. To remain in accord with the spirit and intent of the Clean Air Act, the rule also must create a
level playing field (i.e. one that does not effectively punish manufacturers who comply in a timely
manner with new EPA standards, while rewarding those who do not), and must ensure that cleaner
engines are introduced into the marketplace as quickly as possible, taking into account the need for
flexibility in transition to the use of new, often very complex technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1928-A1 p.25-26]
The Volvo Group submitted extensive comments to EPA's proposed changes to heavy-duty highway
engine and vehicle stockpiling provisions in the July 13, 2015 NPRM. Our comments were supportive
of EPA's intention to clarify acceptable practices with respect to timely completion of engines
compliant to prior standards in a standards change year, and timely installation of said engines into
vehicles. In fact, Volvo seriously questioned the strength of EPA's reliance on "normal production and
inventory practices," and lack of clarity as to what might constitute "special circumstances." We made
suggestions as to how the stockpiling prohibitions should be improved to provide bright line, auditable
requirements by which all manufacturers could reliably be measured, so as to avoid the abuses that have
been witnessed in previous standards change years. The Volvo Group insists that such improvements
are necessary to ensure a level playing field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.26]
-------
In our NPRM comments, we also expressed concern that EPA's proposal did not give full consideration
to certain business entities that have relatively low volumes, but for whom many orders are by
municipalities for a large quantity of vehicles, and for which one of the basic requirements is that all
vehicles be of identical specification and even of the same model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1928-A1 p.26]
Anticipating that EPA will determine that some of the recommendations made by the Volvo Group are
too extensive to be completed in this rulemaking, we would like to take this opportunity to reinforce
some of our earlier comments to the NPRM. We support the implementation of the provisions of 40
CFR 1068 as proposed, but we believe some changes to the proposal are necessary to ensure successful
implementation in the heavy-duty highway sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.26]
Volvo Group supports EPA's adoption of the Part 1068 provisions that designate the "date of
manufacture" of an engine as the date the crank is installed in the block. This convention has been used
in the industry for many years, and has become a settled process within the manufacturing scheduling
and record systems for many manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.26]
In our NPRM comments, we incorrectly cautioned that the example cited in 40 CFR 1068(g) was in
contradiction with previous language. We cited the text"... we would consider an engine not to be
covered by a certificate of conformity for the preceding model year if the engine is not assembled in a
compliant configuration within 30 days after the end of the model year for that engine family" as being
contradicted later by "For example, in the case where new standards apply in the 2010 model year, and
your normal production period is based on the calendar year, you must complete the assembly of all
your 2009 model year engines before January 31, 2010,..." (italics ours, in both cases). Since our
comments were submitted, we've determined that there is no contradiction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1928-A1 p.26-27]
Further to the provisions of Part 1068, the Volvo Group also believes that there need not be, and
therefore should not be, any provisions that set unique deadlines on the basis of the size of the engine,
whether absolute displacement or per-cylinder displacement. The proposed provisions provide greater
flexibility for completing engines having a "per-cylinder displacement at or above 2.5 liters." The
reason the deadline for completion was conditioned to displacement per cylinder in the original Part
1068 language was because the production volumes of such engines, in the non-road sector, for
example, were low, and it was deemed appropriate to allow additional time for the completion of such
engines. Volvo Group believes that this is not the case for heavy-duty highway engines, and therefore
completion dates should not be conditioned to a displacement or displacement per cylinder basis. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.27]
Finally, the Volvo Group thinks the Agency must consider the production practices of low volume
vehicle manufacturers. Typically, low volume manufacturers have much more variation in their
processes, and take an extended period of time, perhaps as much as a year or more, to complete a
customer order from the first vehicle built to the last. This is sometimes the case for low volume
manufacturers that sell large orders to municipalities, wherein the contract has an absolute demand that
all vehicles be built of exactly the same specification. In these cases, there will be a need to continue to
install the prior model year engines into vehicles for an extended period of time. Though the time period
may be extended, the volume of engines remains low by the nature of the business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1928-A1 p.27]
Accommodating this business critical need among low volume manufacturers could be managed in
different ways. First, the Agency might consider a unique set of requirements for low volume
-------
manufacturers. For example, the Agency could consider allowing a certain "carry-over" volume, either
in the absolute, or as a percentage of annual production volumes for these low volume manufacturers.
Another possibility is that an absolute carry-over engine quantity could be applied also to the higher
volume highway market, such that that volume is not included within the volume considered according
to other prohibition controls the Agency has proposed. This would serve as another mechanism to
provide flexibility necessary for changes to the industrial setup or component supply issues that often
arise in a model year changeover or a high demand pre-buy market, while applying flexibility evenly
with all manufacturers, and accommodating the unique needs of the low volume manufacturers. The
Volvo Group would be very willing to work with the Agency to determine appropriate carry-over
volume limitations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.27]
Response:
Volvo's comments effectively capture the logic, rationale, and objectives underlying the proposed
limitations on stockpiling and inventory practices in the transition to new, more stringent emission
standards.
Daimler's concern about engine volumes seems to indicate an expectation that the proposed limits apply
for ongoing engine production in the year that new emission standards start to apply. This is not the
case. The stockpiling provisions of 40 CFR 1037.601 describe how vehicle manufacturers may continue
to install previous-tier engines in the year that new emission standards have already started to apply.
Vehicle manufacturers must plan their engine orders to comply with emission standards. For the high-
volume production described by Daimler, we would expect manufacturers to order engines on a weekly
basis, with engine installations proceeding at the same pace. Such a vehicle manufacturer would not find
itself several months after the transition to new emission standards with a need to install thousands of
additional previous-tier engines. We believe the proposed provisions properly establish the need to
continue with established ordering and build practices, subject to clear deadlines for installing previous-
tier engines.
We have revised the language in 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(1) to more broadly establish the principle that
heavy-duty vehicles need to have certified engines to avoid violating statutory prohibitions. We have
also reduced the risk of noncompliance related to mismatched model years between engines and
vehicles by identifying the vehicle's model year as being dependent on the engine's model year in Phase
2. Specifically, starting with vehicles built on or after January 1, 2021, the vehicle's model year is the
same as the calendar year corresponding to the vehicle's build date, though we also allow the vehicle's
model year to be one year previous to match the engine's model year. The provisions in 40 CFR
1068.105 do not conflict with the proposed provisions in 40 CFR 1037.601; rather, the highway-specific
provisions add clarity and further limitations that go beyond what applies under 40 CFR 1068.105.
Gillig describes a production scenario that closely matches the proposed stockpiling provisions of 40
CFR 1037.601. As a low-volume manufacturer, they have a normal practice of managing engine
inventories for an extended interval requiring installation of a common engine platform over a several-
month production run. This will generally be complete within three months after new emission
standards take effect, but EPA approval can accommodate further use of previous-tier engines for three
additional months. A further flexibility implied by Gillig's comments is that we should perhaps allow
engine manufacturers to produce new previous-tier engines after the new emission standards already
apply. This would introduce a host of problems for EPA oversight, enforceability, level playing field,
etc.; we are therefore not pursuing that option. We believe the provisions as proposed adequately
address the concerns of low-volume vehicle manufacturers as expressed by Gillig.
Volvo's comments address inventory and stockpiling practices for both vehicle manufacturers (40 CFR
1037.601 and 1068.105) and engine manufacturers (40 CFR 1037.103). We first address comments
related to inventory and stockpiling practices for vehicle manufacturers.
-------
The final rule at 40 CFR 1037.601 restates the provision from 40 CFR 1068.105 describing as a starting
point that we disallow departing from normal inventory practices, even if that does not cross the "bright-
line" dates in the regulation. We believe the combined approach of accommodating normal inventory
practices, subject to a firm deadline, appropriately balances the need for a clear, objective, and
enforceable requirement with the variety of industry build practices and the unpredictability of building
vehicles for an uncertain market.
We agree that the term "earlier engines" in 40 CFR 1068.105(a) is not helpful. Since the rest of that
sentence already describes those engines as being built before the date of new or revised emission
standards, we believe it is best to simply delete the word "earlier."
We believe that the regulation allowing for "inventory" to include engines both at the equipment
manufacturer and "from the engine supplier's normal inventory" clearly also allows for engines in
transit.
Volvo's suggested approach would add a significant complexity to tighten up inventory practices in the
three-month transition period specified in the regulation. We believe the proposed provisions, as
modified for the final rule, establish clear deadlines with a reasonable accommodation for varied
production volumes and market uncertainty. We will monitor manufacturers' behavior in the coming
transition to new emission standards, and will consider further refining the inventory and stockpiling
provisions based on that experience.
Volvo also commented on the stockpiling provisions for engine manufacturers in 40 CFR 1068.103.
Volvo objected to referencing "normal production and inventory practices" for engine manufacturers.
As with the vehicle-manufacturer provisions described above, we believe it is necessary to combine a
flexible approach with a bright-line date to accommodate varied production volumes and market
uncertainty. This is profoundly applicable for the provisions in 40 CFR part 1068, which apply to
sectors ranging from lawnmowers and snowmobiles to locomotives and ocean-going vessels. We
adopted more specific requirements for heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers, and can consider more
specific requirements for heavy-duty highway engine manufacturers in the future; however, in the
current rule, we believe the general approach that already applies under 40 CFR 1068.103 appropriately
addresses the issue for heavy-duty highway engines. In particular, the one-month backstop specification
applies as an objective standard for all sizes and power ratings of heavy-duty highway engines, since
they all have per-cylinder displacement well below 2.5 liters. Applying the more subjective "normal
inventory" standard for most engines and applying the objective one-month deadline for all engines
properly balances the need to accommodate varied production volumes and market uncertainty.
We believe Volvo's suggested approach of requiring 80 percent of engines completed after effective
date of new standards is arbitrary, unnecessary, and contrary to our expectation that there will be
numerous circumstances where such an objective criterion would inappropriately limit a manufacturer's
ability to manage their transition to the new standards.
We believe the example cited for compliance with 2010 standards properly describes the balance
between the subjective and objective compliance criteria. We also believe "completing engine
assembly" has a plain meaning. Ready to ship. It is not clear why Volvo wants us to revise the
regulation to address engines with per-cylinder displacement of exactly 2.5 liters, since the existing CFR
text already references engines "at or above 2.5 liters."
13.2.6 Compliance and Other General Provisions
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Clean Air Act Section 203 Tampering Provisions will Cause Hesitation for Fleets
-------
Fuel-efficient, add-on equipment on a tractor or trailer is now considered to be emission control devices
subject to the provisions under Clean Air Act Section 203. In the past it was abundantly clear that
modifications made to an EPA-certified "engine" that increased emission levels was considered
tampering and subject to an enforcement action. It would be a stretch to envision that Congress' original
intent was to characterize mismatched tires with different levels of rolling resistance, pieces of plastic,
or non-functioning tire inflation systems as being subject to enforcement actions under Section 203's
tampering provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 13-14]
Fleets continue to express concerns over the potential for future enforcement actions involving such
mundane matters by either the agencies or states. If such actions do indeed occur, fleets will seriously
decide whether to specify fuel-efficient equipment when they place their orders with OEMs. In the
alternative, fleets will invest in fuel-efficient equipment in the aftermarkets which will not benefit
OEMs in meeting their targets or the agencies' objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 14]
Section 207 of the Clean Air Act states that compliance by vehicles and engines "in use" is done
through manufacturer warranties that are provided to purchasers. Several of the equipment maintenance
concerns under Phase 2 will therefore be addressed under appropriate warranty claims. Once such
warranties expire, it follows that enforcement burdens will likely shift onto fleets. An overriding
presumption must be recognized that fleets purchasing expensive, fuel-efficient technologies have both
the interest and intent to use and maintain such equipment. To do otherwise would be economically
counter-productive and ill-conceived. Therefore, ATA strongly recommends that any enforcement
actions that may be directed at fleets (beyond engine alterations) be addressed with "fix-it" tickets
versus financial penalties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p. 14]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
The final Phase 2 rule should not impose downstream "tampering" liabilities related to fuel economy
and GHGs. While Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act makes it unlawful for "any person to
render inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate
purchaser," that provision makes no sense in the context of fuel use and GHG reduction controls (42
USC 7522). If anything, commercial vehicle customers are economically incentivized to maintain and
operate their vehicles with the goal of maximizing, not reducing fuel efficiency (and thus GHG
emissions performance). Since similar incentives have not historically existed with respect to criteria
emissions, EPA's tampering policies have made sense when applied to components related to such
emissions. Notably, changes to aerodynamics or tires, for example, are expected in the normal course of
truck or tractor operations, and in some cases, may be done for safety reasons (winter tires, skirt and
fairing modifications, etc.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 11]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Rewording in 1037.241(was b, now a): the EPA changes the regulations to say that a vehicle is
noncompliant if its GEM score is above the applicable standard, but the EPA needs to add in something
like 'unless the vehicle's exceedance is covered by credits accumulated from some other vehicle.'
1037.241 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.131]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Support Comment
-------
The definition of basic vehicle frontal area in 40 CFR 1037.801 (page 40661 of the NPRM) would be
enhanced by an illustration. The language states that "basic vehicle frontal area means the area enclosed
by the geometric projection of the basic vehicle along the longitudinal axis onto a plane perpendicular to
the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, including tires but excluding mirrors and air reflectors." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 189]
Neutral/Provide Additional Info Comment
Comment - Manufacturer data submittal
The NPRM discusses ways to streamline the submittal of manufacturer data, avoid unnecessary
duplication, and allow timely access to the data by both U.S. EPA and NHTSA, for example by
allowing manufacturers to submit compliance data to U.S. EPA's VERIFY database system for use by
both U.S. EPA and NHTSA. When CARB staff proposes its California's Phase 2 regulations, we will
seek ways to similarly allow CARB staff timely access to Phase 2 compliance data, potentially by
requiring all manufacturers who wish to certify in California to submit data to CARB simultaneous with
submittal to U.S. EPA and NHTSA. CARB staff looks forward to finding the most efficient way to
allow this access. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.191]
Organization: Chemours Company FC, LLC
Chemours recommends that imported Medium- and Heavy-Duty vehicles should also comply with this
new standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1231-A 1 p.l]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Wording Change to 1036.130(b)(5)
The words "steady-state" should be deleted. In this subsection of 1036, EPA states, "Describe how your
certification is limited for any type of application. For example, if you certify heavy heavy-duty engines
to the C02 standards using only steady-state transient FTP testing, you must make clear that the engine
may not be installed only in tractors. " The section is referring to the FTP transient test but calls out
."..steady-state transient FTP testing," which are opposite conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-
A1 p.31]
Response:
With respect to tampering and certified configurations, we note that the CAA prohibits—
"for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element of design installed
on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this
title prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser, or for any person knowingly to
remove or render inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and
delivery to the ultimate purchaser."
Because this is a statutory requirement, NADA's position that it "makes no sense in the context of fuel
use and GHG reduction controls" is not relevant to this rulemaking. The plain meaning of this provision
leads us to conclude that we have no alternative other than to apply the tampering prohibition to the
range of parts and specifications that vehicle manufacturers rely on to establish their certified
configuration. This is not so different from applying this same principle to fuel injectors or catalytic
converters. The emission standards are premised on manufacturers producing their vehicles in a certified
-------
configuration, and specifying maintenance that allows for a reasonable expectation that in-use vehicles
will continue to operate consistent with that original certified configuration. See Section 1.4 of this
RTC for additional discussion of permissible modifications.
We disagree with ATA that "Section 207 of the Clean Air Act states that compliance by vehicles and
engines "in use" is done through manufacturer warranties that are provided to purchasers." The Act
includes many provisions directly addressing, including the prohibition against tampering. In fact,
section 207(c)(3)(A) specifies how the manufacturers must inform operators of proper maintenance. A
vehicle manufacturer's certification includes a review of those maintenance instructions, which is
intended to address the manufacturers' burden to demonstrate that the specified maintenance will occur
with in-use vehicles. While we may pursue a case against fleet operators or other vehicle owners that
violate the tampering prohibition by installing tires or other replacement components that do not
conform to the manufacturer's original certified configuration, consistent with the statute, we could also
focus on the manufacturer's role to ensure that in-use vehicles are getting anticipated maintenance as
described in the application for certification. Thus, actions against the manufacturer would not excuse
an operator from a tampering violation under the Act. ATA "recommends that any enforcement actions
that may be directed at fleets (beyond engine alterations) be addressed with "fix-it" tickets versus
financial penalties" but provides no legal basis for EPA to do so.
We address Daimler's concern about demonstrating compliance in the context of an averaging program
in two ways. The proposed rule already described that an individual vehicle or family is compliant or
noncompliant based on its performance relative to the "applicable standard," which we note as being the
Family Emission Limit in cases involving generation or use of emission credits. For the final rule, we
are expanding this discussion to provide more clarity. In addition, the regulations at 40 CFR 1037.750
describe the manufacturer's obligation to determine at the end of each model year whether there is a
deficit credit balance for the year, and to describe plans for resolving any existing credit deficit.
"Basic vehicle frontal area" has been part of the EPA regulation for several decades. We may pursue an
illustration that clarifies the meaning of the term, but believe this is not needed in the regulation.
We expect to work with California ARB as part of the effort to coordinate data management as part of
our respective compliance programs.
The new standards apply to all new engines and vehicles, with specific standards applying based on the
applicable model year, consistent with the Clean Air Act. This applies to both domestically produced
and imported products.
We have corrected the typographical error of including "steady-state" in 40 CFR 1036.130(b)(5).
13.2.7 Compliance Provisions for Tires
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
Requirements of Tire & Component Manufacturers:
On page 40278 and in footnote 246, the rule mentions that EPA is considering adopting regulatory text
addressing obligations for tire manufacturers. Specifically, the EPA asks that, in the event they discover
tires on certified trailers that do not conform to the regulations, that they require the tire manufacturer to
recall and replace the nonconforming tires. TTMA supports this concept and suggests that when and if
regulatory authority is granted, if possible, it be extended in two specific ways. First, that the recall and
replace provisions not be limited to tire manufacturers, but to all suppliers of regulated trailer
components including Automatic Tire Inflation Systems and Aerodynamic Components. As EPA
alludes to in footnote 246, the industry would be uniquely challenged by recall and replace provisions if
-------
a tire manufacturer is found to be out of compliance, but the same situation would apply if an
aerodynamic skirt were also found to be out of compliance. Second, if the agency insists on collecting
data for every trailer made, that the agency tracks the relevant performance figures from component
manufacturers (CRR for tires, Delta CDA for aero-devices) and allows the manufacturers to select the
actual component they fitted when filing with the Agency so that it will auto populate with the correct
figure. This would have two major advantages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 16]
First it would prevent transcription errors as manufacturers filed with the agency. Second, it would
provide the Agency with a database of trailers that may have been fitted with a given tire or aero-device
in the event that they determine that a recall is required. Provision would still be needed for trailer
manufacturers to enter their own data in the event they are using components of their own manufacture
or their own testing of particular device combinations as the Agency is encouraging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1172-A1 p. 17]
Organization: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
EPA Should Not Add Regulatory Text Giving the Agency Authority to Recall Trailer Tires
In the Preamble, EPA requested comment on whether it should add regulatory text that would
essentially give the agency authority to recall trailer tires that do not conform to the regulations. As
support for this idea, EPA points to section 207(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act, the Act's recall
provision. Section 207(c)(1) notes that: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.21-22]
If the Administrator determines that a substantial number of any class or category of vehicles or
engines, although properly maintained and used, do not conform to the regulations ... of this title, when
in actual use throughout their useful life ... [the Administrator] shall require the manufacturer to submit
a plan for remedying the nonconformity of the vehicles or engines... [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-
A1 p.22]
Section 216 of the Clean Air Act defines manufacturer as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or
assembling of new motor vehicles ... or [any person] who acts for and is under control of any such
person." The plain language of these provisions seems to provide EPA with recall authority over
manufacturers of vehicles and engines only, not over other part manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1304-A1 p.22]
The legislative history provides additional evidence that Congress did not intend to give EPA recall
authority over other part manufacturers. The portions of the U.S. House Committee Report and the
Conference Report that covered section 207 only mention vehicles and engines as the products that
could be recalled under that section of the Clean Air Act.21 The House Committee also envisioned
testing of vehicles and engines to be quick, easy, and uniform, which seems incongruous to the testing
process for tires.22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.22]
Additionally, tires are a consumable item, not a durable component of the trailer and EPA has
historically focused on durable components of vehicles for recall purposes. In addition, unlike many
other emissions-related vehicle components, a tire's efficiency improves (tire rolling resistance
decreases) as a tire wears, thus improving the tire's contribution to fuel economy. In the most recent and
publicly available guidance document on recalls, EPA tracked vehicle and engine recalls by problem
category and none of the categories seem comparable to tires. For example, EPA recalls have primarily
been related to the catalytic system, the fuel delivery system, or the computer system based on their
-------
direct impact on emissions. A tire's impact on emissions is more attenuated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1304-A1 p.22-23]
If EPA's recall regulations were applied to tires, it is unclear how they would be enforced. The agency
has acknowledged that insignificant defects do not warrant recalls. In the proposal, EPA does not
discuss tolerances or other policies to account for manufacturing or testing variability. Similar issues
have been addressed in Europe, where regulations setting rolling resistance performance thresholds set a
regulatory allowance of 0.3 kg/T to accommodate sources of variability.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p.23]
Other global regions that have adopted the allowance of +0.3 kg/t allowance for conformity of
production testing include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.23]
The Brazilian Regulation # R544 "Conformity Assessment Requirements For New Tires" [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.23] South Korea "Regulations for Measurement of Energy Efficiency of
Tires for Motor Vehicles, and Its Rating and Identification" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.23]
Without an alignment procedure that addresses sources of testing variability (machine alignment,
machine drift, production variation, etc.), demonstrating non-compliance would be very difficult. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.23]
EPA Should not Expand Authority to Include Tire Recalls. In part because there is no reference
laboratory, and to be consistent with the Clean Air Act, its legislative history, and EPA's past practice,
EPA should not add regulatory text giving the agency authority to recall trailer tires. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1304-A1 p.2]
Rolling Resistance Machine Alignment. RMA renews its call for the agencies to establish a reference
laboratory for use in correlating rolling resistance data generated in support of this rule and to provide a
clear and unambiguous guide to the compliance tests that the agencies may conduct to enforce this
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.2]
Tire Rolling Resistance Testing. The agencies Should Specify a Procedure for a Tire Rolling
Resistance Reference Machine, Consistent with ISO 28580
i. A reference machine is necessary to limit the effects of machine-to-machine variation.
In the NPRM, the agencies have proposed to continue to allow use of either STL or Smithers in testing
based on their conclusion that lab-to-lab variability is very small and would not significantly affect RRc
values. Consistent with its comments during Phase I of this regulation, RMA advocates that
EPA/NHTSA establish a reference machine, pursuant to the requirements of ISO 28580. Establishing a
reference machine in this regulation would be consistent with NHTSA's approach in the consumer tire
information rulemaking. In its final rule on its Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program,
NHTSA states, "NHTSA must specify [a reference laboratory] for the purposes of implementing this
rule so that tire manufacturers know the identity of the machine against which they may correlate their
test results." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.5]
In the final rule for Phase I of this regulation, the agencies recognized the value of machine alignment in
measuring rolling resistance consistently across multiple machines in multiple locations. However, the
agencies stated that "Because the test procedure has not been finalized and heavy-duty LATs
[Laboratory Alignment Tires] are not currently defined, the agencies are postponing the use of these
elements of ISO 28580 to a future rulemaking." International Standard ISO 28580:2009,7 together with
-------
its accompanying TR 16377:2012s specifies an alignment method using a set of two predetermined tires
measured by both the candidate and reference machines (Clause 3.10 of IS028580:2009). The standard
provides criteria for any user of the standard, such as a government agency or its designated alignment
lab to select alignment tires for alignment purposes. In particular, alignment tires must meet the criteria
of clause 10.4, which provides specifications for (a) the minimum range of tire rolling resistance values
between the alignment tires, (b) alignment tire section width, (c) alignment tire outer diameter, (d) load
index values and (e) the number of alignment tires (two). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.5-6]
The fact that the ISO 28580 standard does not list specific alignment tires should not be viewed as a
barrier to establishing a reference machine for purposes of this rule. In the case of Passenger Car Tires,
ISO identified alignment tires in a letter submitted to the NHTSA docket (NHTSA-2010-0036-
0016).9 No manufacturer or lab has volunteered to provide specific alignment tires for Truck Bus tires.
However, the operator of a selected reference machine could simply select regular production tires that
meet the specifications for alignment tires in the ISO standard and sell them to candidate laboratories as
part of a RR alignment service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.6]
ii. RMA challenges the Agencies' assertion that the machine variability is very small and does not
vary over time.
In the NPRM, the agencies conclude that lab-to-lab variability is very small and would not have a
significant impact on RRc values. RMA member company experts continuously study rolling resistance
measurements, relative machine performance and machine-to-machine correlations. Two RMA
members have provided correlation studies for inclusion in these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1304-A1 p.6]
The first RMA member company ("Company A") provided data showing rolling resistance
measurements from 19 tires, three replicates each, with tires tested at both Smithers and STL. A
summary of that data is included in Figure 1. These data show that while the measurements taken at
both labs are similar, they are not identical, and highlight the need for a reference machine. Company A
also shows in Figure 2 that the laboratories can be correlated, with an R2 value of 0.9029. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.6-7]
[Figure 1, 'Company A RRc Data for Truck/Bus Tires, Measured at STL and Smithers (kg/T)', and
Figure 2, 'Company A Rolling Resistance Correlation data between STL and Smithers (kg/T)', can be
found on p. 7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1]
The second RMA member company ("Company B") has studied the correlation between Smithers and
STL over time. Included is an illustration from that work. Figure 3 contains comparisons among several
tires tested at both STL and Smithers in 2011 and 2014. Company B also correlated its own machine to
both Smithers and STL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.8]
These data show several important reasons why machine alignment is critical. First, while Smithers and
STL are well correlated, they do not produce the same results. It is important to understand that
differences in measured rolling resistance coefficient (RRc), even small percentage differences, can be
very meaningful to a tire company, particularly in business and auditing or compliance contexts.
Second, this analysis shows that the percent difference in tested values at the two labs is not the same
for all tires tested. In fact, some tires perform better at one lab, while others perform better at the other.
The example comparison at the bottom of Figure 3 shows this phenomenon. Third, the values at each
lab drift over time. In Figure 3, tires 1A, 3C and 4B were tested in 2011 and 2014. The values for each
-------
of these tires changed from 2011 to 2014. Further, the values correlated between the two labs but did not
remain constant across the two testing periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p.8]
iii. A reference machine is necessary to limit the effects of measurement drift over time.
Establishing a reference machine is important to limit the effects of machine-to-machine variation and
manage machine drift over time. Even accepting the view the agencies state in the NPRM that "agencies
believe the lab-to-lab variation for the STL and Smithers laboratories would have very small effect on
measured rolling resistance values," this analysis only addresses one aspect of the alignment - machine-
to-machine variation. 80 Fed. Reg. at 40283. The other aspect, management of machine drift over time,
should also be addressed in the regulation. The effect of drift and how to manage it can be evaluated by
comparing rolling resistance measurements from a tire company's machine to results for the same tires
using the machines at STL and Smithers. To illustrate this point, Company B has conducted such an
evaluation and presents measurements of the tires it compared in Figure 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1304-A1 p.8]
[Figure 3, 'Company B Correlations Between STL and Smithers for ISO 28580 Truck/Bus Tires', can be
found on p. 9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1]
[Figure 4, 'Company B Correlation Data Among Company B, STL and Smithers', can be found on p. 10
of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-13 04-A1]
Company B also provided Figure 5 and Figure 6, below, which illustrate the correlation among
Smithers, STL and Company B in 2011 and 2014. These two figures show that while Company B's
machine was well-correlated with both Smithers' and STL's machines in 2011, the correlation equations
are different for each machine. The same phenomenon was observed in 2014. In addition, the
correlations shifted from 2011 to 2014, which indicate measurement drift. Measurement drift can be
managed by periodic re-correlation. While this illustration shows management of drift for certification
and compliance measurement purposes, the agencies should also address drift from the perspective of
rolling resistance target-setting or compliance auditing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 10]
[Figure 5 and 6, 'Company B Truck/Bus RR Correlation of Smithers and STL' in Oct 2011 and March
2014, can be found on p.l 1 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1]
Two AIAG manuals speak to the management of drift, specifically for automotive parts, which evolve
with measurement. Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA)10 and Statistical Process Control (SPC)11 are
both good manuals for guidance on how to apply statistics in real applications. In the MSA manual see
Chapter IV, Sections A and C, particularly V7 and V8. In the SPC manual, Chapter III on Regression
Charts and Residual Charts are helpful. Generally, the recommendation is that the next rolling resistance
value should be predicted based on the known evolution and the statistical analysis should be conducted
based on the error to the predicted value. These manuals can be ordered from www.aiag.org. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1304-A1 p. 12]
The agencies also have invited comment on whether "tire testing facilities are interested in and willing
to commit to developing a reference machine."12 Of course, in considering whether to establish a
reference machine, it is critical that a testing firm agree to serve to develop and maintain that machine.
In order to gauge interest among those in the tire testing community, RMA recommends that the
agencies create a request for proposal (RFP) and post it to www.FedBusOpps.gov, as NHTSA did when
it established its National Alignment Lab for passenger car tire rolling resistance testing. Using this
process would be the one true mechanism to gauge interest among testing firms. It is unlikely that a
-------
testing firm would telegraph its business plans in the context of a rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1304-A1 p. 12]
7 ISO 28580:2009 Passenger car, truck and bus tires ~ Methods of measuring rolling resistance ~
Single point test and correlation of measurement results.
8 ISO/TR 16377:2012 Further clarification of ISO 28580.
9 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2010-0036-0016.
10 DaimlerChrysler Corporation (Auburn Hills, Mich.). (2010). Measurement Systems Analysis:
Reference manual; [MSA], Southfield, Mich.: Automotive Industry Action Group.
11 Automotive Industry Action Group., Chrysler Corporation., Ford Motor Company., & General
Motors Corporation. (2005). Statistical process control (SPC): Reference manual. Southfield, MI:
Automotive Industry Action Group.
12 Id.
Response:
As discussed in Section I.C(l)(f) of the FRM preamble, CAA section 207(c)(1) requires "the
manufacturer" to remedy certain in-use problems. The remedy process is to recall the nonconforming
vehicles and bring them into conformity with the standards and the certificate. The regulations for this
process are in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart F. EPA is also adopting regulatory text addressing recall
obligations for component manufacturers and other non-certifying manufacturers. Under EPA
regulations, we can require any person meeting the definition of manufacturer for a nonconforming
vehicle to participate in a recall. However, we would normally presume the certificate holder to have
the primary responsibility.
We agree with that the Rubber Manufacturers Association that CAA section 207(c)(1) effectively
assigns recall liability to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. However, EPA
remains of the view that in the event that vehicles (e.g. trailers) do not conform to the standards in-use
due to nonconforming tires, tire manufacturers would have a role to play in remedying the problem. In
this (hypothetical) situation, a tire manufacturer would not only have produced the part in question, but
in the case of a trailer manufacturer or other small vehicle manufacturer, would have significantly more
resources and knowledge regarding how to address (and redress) the problem. Accordingly, EPA
would likely require that a component manufacturer responsible for the nonconformity assist in the
recall to an extent and in a manner consistent with the provisions of CAA 208 (a). This section specifies
that component and part manufacturers "shall establish and maintain records, perform tests where such
testing is not otherwise reasonably available under this part and part C of this subchapter (including fees
for testing), make reports and provide information the Administrator may reasonably require to
determine whether the manufacturer or other person has acted or is acting in compliance with this part
and part C of this subchapter and regulations thereunder, or to otherwise carry out the provision of this
part and part C of this subchapter...". Any such action would be considered on a case-by-case basis,
adapted to the particular circumstances at the time.
-------
We also encourage manufacturers of tractors, trailers, and vocational vehicles to pursue their own
business arrangement with their suppliers to address the in-use performance of products from those
suppliers. This applies equally to tires, tire-pressure systems, aerodynamic devices, and any other
components needed for demonstrating compliance with emission standards. This is also no different
than arrangements that are presumably already in place for a wide range of engine and vehicle
components, especially aftertreatment devices, where the component supplier bears a disproportionate
responsibility for the overall compliance of the engine or vehicle relative to applicable emission
standards.
Moreover, in the case of tires meeting a certain performance level as part of GEM simulation, vehicles
manufacturers can declare their FELs so that measured rolling resistance slightly above the Tire Rolling
Resistance Level (TRRL) used for certification would not alone cause the vehicle to exceed the
emission standard (and thereby fail to conform to the regulation). On the other hand, where we specify
TRRL levels as design standards (such as for non-box trailers, and non-aero box vans), a tire that is
shown to exceed the specified TRRL would be a direct finding of not conforming to the regulation. In
such a case, we would expect to work with all affected trailer manufacturers to arrange for a remedy to
address the problem in a way that involves the tire manufacturer, in line with statutory limitations. For
example, the regulation identifies the tire manufacturer's statement reporting TRRL values to vehicle
manufacturers as a submission to EPA, which means that we have a role in determining the truthfulness
of that information if subsequent test results show that production and in-use tires do not meet reported
TRRL values.
There is a potential for future enhancements to our certification program to allow for real-time
information management and auto-populating data fields. This is currently more than we are able to do.
We intend to determine whether tires comply with emission standards the same way we have always
handled compliance with exhaust emission standards. We establish standards based on specified
measurement procedures. In the case of tires, we reference ISO 28580 and identify several clarifying
provisions in 40 CFR 1037.520. As a general matter, any testing meeting the published specifications is
considered a valid test for verifying TRRL values, either in the context of GEM inputs, or for
demonstrating compliance with design standards. Manufacturers are expected to account for this
variability when selecting TRRL values for compliance purposes. In fact, the (proposed and final)
regulation specifies that tire manufacturers may select TRRL values that are identical to measured
rolling resistance, or any higher value. This option to select a higher TRRL value is intended, among
other things to account for measurement variability when performing tests according to the procedure
specified in the regulation. In addition, the feasibility assessment for the Phase 2 standards is effectively
an extension of what was already established under the Phase 1 program, with manufacturers continuing
to incorporate compliance margins needed to meet standards.
We did not identify a reference laboratory for measuring tire rolling resistance by regulation. Individual
manufacturers may ask us to identify a laboratory to correlate their results to. EPA invites manufacturers
to do any amount of in-house or round-robin testing to better understand measurement variability,
whether that is from variability to account for the various tolerances within the specified procedure, or
lab-to-lab variability, variability from aging equipment, or variability from any other source.
-------
13.3 Other Compliance Provisions for NHTSA
13.3.1 Standards and Credit Alignment
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Standards and Credit Alignment - The agencies request comment on whether optional compliance
should be allowed. We agree with the addition of significant digits to align the credit calculations. 80
FR 40521. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 118]
Response:
The final rule includes the provisions as proposed and as supported by the commenters.
-------
14 Other Regulatory Provisions
14.1 General Comments 1822
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers
The Alliance and Global Automakers (referred to jointly as "Automakers" in these comments) appreciate
the opportunity to provide comments on the light-duty (LD) vehicle issues contained within the Phase 2
heavy duty (HD) greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel efficiency proposed rule (the "HD NPRM"). We would
like to also thank the agencies for supplying the redline-strikeout version of all the regulatory changes.
This saves both agencies and automotive manufacturers review time and focuses limited resources to
important changes, thereby allowing a more extensive review. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271 -A 1 p.3]
This HD NPRM, in addition to containing new HD requirements, unexpectedly also contains several
proposals and requests for comments on significant regulatory changes specific to LD. Also, neither the
Preamble nor the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) contained discussions of the rationale or background
underlying many of these changes. While the Automakers agree that some of these changes are minor in
nature and do not need significant evaluation, some of the proposals are substantive. In particular, the
emission defect reporting and related provisions, and proposals to change the global warming potential
values for certain compounds are of significant concern. These proposals would benefit from a fulsome
discussion and analysis, and therefore we request that they be removed from this rulemaking and
addressed in a separate rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.3]
In addition to comments on the substantive light-duty issues described above, the Automakers also
provide comment on the agencies' approach to other light-duty issues contained within or related to this
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271 -A 1 p.3]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Proposed Technical Amendments
EPA is proposing numerous technical amendments as part of the NPRM process. EMA is in agreement
with most of the proposed amendments, and, in general, is not providing comments on those changes.
There are, however, certain proposed changes where EMA feels it is important to offer comments, and
those comments are set forth in detail below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.73]
Response:
We note and agree that there are several noteworthy and substantive amendments in addition to the wide
range of minor amendments. We address those amendments receiving specific comment in Section 13
and the rest of this Section 14.
-------
14.2 Amendments Affecting Gliders and Glider Kits
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Glider Kits
ACEEE fully supports EPA's proposal to establish GHG and criteria emissions standards for engines in
glider kits and NHTSA's proposal to include glider kits under its Phase 2 standards. The Phase 2
proposal will allow only engines that have been certified to meet current standards to be installed in new
glider vehicles (p.40174). The agencies have observed sharp increase in glider kit production (p.40529)
recently, which suggests that gliders are being used more and more as a loophole to avoid purchasing
engines that meet 2010 EPA emission standards, and potentially to avoid NHTSA safety regulations26.
These vehicles, unless regulated, will emit significantly higher NOx and PM emissions than from
equivalent vehicles being produced with new engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.29]
Recommendation: Glider Kits [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.30]
• Adopt standards for Glider vehicles in order to prevent them from using older engines with high
criteria emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1280-A1 p.30]
26 htto ://www3. epa. gov/otaa/climate/documents/420f15904.pdf
Organization: American Lung Association
The American Lung Association offers the following recommendations to strengthen the stringency and
timing of the proposal and address several key elements of California's commitment to protecting public
health and air quality. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.2]
The American Lung Association urges that the glider kit loophole be closed. Glider kits sales have
grown significantly. Many of the engines have substantially greater emissions of NOx and particulate
matter than current emissions standards allow. Glider kit manufacturers must no longer be able to
exploit this loophole leading to more health-threatening pollution. We urge you to finalize the
provisions that would close the glider kit loophole. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.3]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Gliders: Proposed amendment to U.S. EPA and NHTSA vehicle and engine standards
CARB staff supports U.S. EPA's proposal to end Phase 1 provisions in 40 CFRpart 1037 that: a) allow
used, remanufactured or rebuilt engines certified to pre-Phase 1 emission standards to be installed in
glider kits; and b) exempt glider kits and glider vehicles46 produced by small businesses from the
requirement to obtain a vehicle certificate47 for GHG emissions compliance. Since the adoption of the
federal 2007/2010 emission standards for PM and NOx, glider sales have significantly increased, and
-------
the Phase 1 provisions affecting glider kit and glider vehicle production did not inhibit the accelerated
growth in the glider market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 133]
U.S. EPA believes, and CARB staff concurs, that the proposed changes in the Phase 2 rulemaking are
necessary to curb the nearly 10-fold increase48 in the sale of glider vehicles with older engines (used,
remanufactured, or rebuilt), and the associated increase in emissions that has occurred since the
implementation of the 2007/2010 NOx and PM standards. While criteria pollutant increases due to the
sale of glider vehicles with older engines is somewhat constrained in California as a result of CARB's
Truck and Bus Regulation, which required the installation of DPFs on heavier trucks (GVWR over
26,000 lbs) starting in 2012, and engine upgrades to at least 2010 NOx and PM emission levels starting
in 2015 for lighter trucks (with GVWR under 26,000 lbs), CARB staff supports U.S. EPA 's proposal to
limit the production and sale of glider vehicles with older, higher-emitting engines for the nationwide
protection of human health and the environment and to close potential enforcement loopholes. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 133-134]
Glider kits and glider vehicles are currently exempt from NHTSA's Phase 1 fuel consumption
standards. Unlike U.S. EPA, NHTSA defines glider kits as motor vehicle equipment, not as motor
vehicles, and therefore is only considering the inclusion of completed glider vehicles in its proposed
Phase 2 requirements which will be similar in effect to U.S. EPA's proposal, including special
provisions for small business manufacturers. NHTSA is seeking comments from the glider industry
regarding its intent to include glider vehicles in its Phase 2 requirements. CARB staff supports
NHTSA's intent to apply Phase 2 requirements to completed glider vehicles and strongly encourages it
to develop provisions that align, to the extent possible, with U.S. EPA's proposed requirements. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 134]
46 "Glider kit" typically refers to a chassis and cab assembly produced by a manufacturer without a new
engine, transmission, or rear axle. "Glider vehicle" or "glider" typically refers to the completed
assembly of the glider kit with a used, remanufactured, or rebuilt engine, a transmission, and/or rear
axle. U.S. EPA considers "glider kits" to be incomplete motor vehicles, and, under the Clean Air Act,
has the authority to regulate incomplete motor vehicles, including un-motorized chassis.
47 Under Phase 1, U.S. EPA requires glider kits and gliders to obtain a vehicle certificate, except those
produced by small businesses. The engine installed in the glider kit is not required to certify to the Phase
1 engine standards. Thus, depending on the size of the business producing the glider kit or glider
vehicle, some are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Phase 1 vehicle certificate prior to
introduction into commerce as a new vehicle.
48 (U.S. EPA, 2015) "Frequently Asked Questions about Heavy-Duty Glider Vehicles and Glider Kits."
Organization: Capacity Trucks, Inc.
A terminal truck is a purpose-built truck: its only purpose is to move trailers in-yard more efficiently
and effectively than can be done with a traditional heavy-duty over-the-road truck. Seventy percent of
terminal trucks are built for off-road use only, operating only in yards. The terminal tractor industry is
very small with only 4,000-6,000 terminal trucks built per year, and is primarily comprised of small
businesses. Fifty percent of our competitors are small businesses and will be exempt from the proposed
Phase 2 regulations governing glider kits and glider vehicles because of their size. This will likely cause
a shift in the market and negatively impact our business.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1303-A1 p. 1]
-------
EPA should exempt engines that are still within their useful life—as measured by miles only, not
years—from the proposed regulations governing glider kits and glider vehicles. Terminal trucks take a
beating on the outside, while the powertrains remain intact. Capacity chassis are typically rebuilt or
refurbished due to severe duty and use, with terminal trucks operating two and three shifts per day at an
average speed of 20 mph. At the time of rebuilding/refurbishment, these trucks may be 5 years old or 25
years old, depending on the customer's use of the vehicle, but typically have limited miles on them.
Terminal trucks are rebuilt and refurbished due to their operating environment: a small confined area,
numerous impacts to trailers and docks or other obstructions, and corrosion from weather exposure.
When a truck couples to a trailer parked against a dock door, as much as 7-8 gs of force is transmitted
through the chassis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1303-A1 p. 1-2]
Vehicles with powertrains that are still within their mile and/or hour useful life should be exempted
from the rule. EPA should not use the years component of the useful life definition because customers
frequently bring in terminal trucks that are greater than ten years old but have very limited miles.
Reusing these powertrains with rebuilt/refurbished or new chassis and vehicle components has no effect
on overall emissions or negative environmental impacts, but results in important cost savings to our
customers, many of whom are small businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1303-A1 p.2]
Organization: Clarke Power Services
I. Amendments Affecting Gliders
A. Glider Definition Proposed Rules and Past Practices
1. Gliders and Glider Kits: The EPA has defined a Glider as a Motor Vehicle in the proposed
rules and as a Motor Vehicle, Gliders would be subject to the Model Year (MY) Phase 2 GHG
requirements. Reviewing past practices, the trucking industry over the last decade has worked under the
NHTSA guidance that a glider is a repair part not dissimilar to any rebuilt part that is used in the repair
and maintenance of heavy duty trucks and not a Motor Vehicle. The rebuilt engine in the Glider, as a
repair part, complies to the criteria pollutant rules for the MY of the engine that is rebuilt. As a repair
part, Gliders have been used by fleets to refresh or refurbish an "older" heavy duty truck that is beyond
its useful life (defined as a greater than 435,000 miles). Trucks beyond useful life often have rebuilt
engines, transmissions, and rear axle differentials installed to lengthen the miles and years a chassis can
be utilized to haul freight. Fleets move the rebuilt engine, transmission, and/or the rear axle differentials
from the "older" truck to the Glider after which the remainder of the "old" truck is salvaged removing it
from service. Trucking fleets that have made this truck repair process using a Glider repair part an
ongoing method for maintaining their fleet have dramatically changed the safety profile of their fleet.
Glider repaired trucks now have "new" cab, electronics, controls, brakes, and air conditioning along
with rebuilt engines, transmissions, and/or real axle differentials. The engine, transmission and axles are
supplied from the "older" truck, often called a "donor" truck in the industry, and are usually rebuilt. For
a fleet that does not have adequate capital (usually smaller fleets with less than 1000 heavy duty trucks
in service) to purchase new equipment utilizing a Glider as a replacement part gives a freshly
refurbished truck that has the following positive impacts: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.1-2]
a) Improved operating costs with less down time for maintenance which improves utilization and
reduces the number of trucks required to haul the same tonnage of freight.
b) Improved safety with the same braking, lane drift devices, dynamic cruise control, and blind spot
detection devices found on current MY heavy duty trucks.
-------
c) The new cab and controls improve driver skill level and safety.
d) Improved particulate, NOx, and GHG emissions of a newly rebuilt engine compared to worn oil
burning engine which is beyond its useful life. The engine is returned to the MY standard of the "donor"
truck.
e) New air-conditioning components reducing GHG emission compared to hydrofluorocarbon leakage
from the old components. Also the latest standard for refrigerant can be used on Glider equipment with
new air-conditioning components part of the kit.
This commenter recommends that used engines be eliminated as an option when assembling gliders. A
rebuilt engine that has been brought back to the original MY EPA emission standard is always a cleaner
option than a used engine installed in a Glider chassis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.2]
2. Phase-out and Exemptions for Small Trucking Fleets: It is the opinion of this commenter
that the intentions of trucking fleets using gliders as described in this paragraph are not motivated by
circumventing the EPA policies, but are most interested in being more efficient by removing old
equipment from service and introducing a significantly improved heavy duty truck in its place. This
being said, the agencies proposing the rule change should carefully access the impact on small trucking
companies. A delay of the rules with an "appropriate" phase-out of the oldest engines to ease the burden
on the small trucking fleets is needed. Also as part of the phase-out and to encourage the oldest engines
to continue to be retired, a hard look at and consideration of the 2010 engine specification for the small
fleet use in Glider equipment is also merited. A recommended schedule for Phase-out of older engines
in Gliders follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.2]
MY EPA Standard Phase out in Gliders by
1998-2003 2021
2004 - 2007 2023
2008 - 2009 2025
2010 2027
Further, with the potential impact being severe on small trucking companies that have adopted the
Glider repair part business model, exempting small trucking companies that have a history of
assembling gliders for their own use should be considered. The agencies should use similar logic on
exempting small fleets as other users of Gliders (Vocational Fleets) to limit the total number of Gliders.
For example each small trucking company's exemption could be the lesser of the average number of
Gliders built annually over the past 3 years or 150 units/year. This would limit the impact on GHG
emissions because of small numbers of Gliders and aid small fleets in remaining competitive providing
trucking capacity and driver jobs as transition is made. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.3]
3. Assemblers/Manufacturers of Gliders: There are two type of Glider Assemblers that have been
defined as Manufacturers by the agency's proposed new rules:[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-Al p.3]
a) Type 1 is an assembler/manufacturer that builds Gliders to sell directly to the industry either as a
retail or wholesale completed truck [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.3]
-------
b) Type 2 is an assembler/manufacturer that is contracted as a third party to assemble a complete
truck. This type of assembler never owns the glider and is not building to resell the final product to an
end user. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.3]
As defined above, Type 2 assemblers/manufacturers are often hired by small trucking company
customers to assemble the parts, components, and glider repair part into a completed truck. This type of
assembler also has several small businesses that are dependent upon it for a small quantity of Glider
assemblies each year. Further exemption should be evaluated for manufacturers dedicated to assembly
only with no intent or history of retail or wholesale selling of the completed truck. The logic is that
exempt Gliders for small businesses, vocational truck fleets, and off-highway and oil field operators can
all benefit from the synergies of a quality manufacturer that is hired to complete the exempt Glider. The
main qualification for this exemption would be that the Glider is never owned by the
assembler/manufacturer and is not intended for retail sale or wholesale to the end user of the truck. The
end user in this case owns the Glider and donor components throughout the assembly process. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.3]
4. Impact of Section XIV.B: The proposing agencies need to assess carefully the impact of
the proposed rules in light of past practice and the impact on small trucking companies and the
assemblers that support them. There were four impacted groups identified by the agencies; Trailer
Manufacturers, Alternative Fuel Converter, Vocational Chassis Manufacturer, and Glider Vehicle
Assemblers. However, one of the most impacted groups was not identified by the agencies, small
trucking companies. This commenter strongly recommends more diligent review of the impact on small
trucking companies as part of the small business initial impact study as required by the SBREFA. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.3]
5. Cap of Glider Assemblies: This commenter believes that the trucking company's decision to utilize
Gliders will rationalize itself based on economic factors. As newer MY engines have become more fuel
efficient, the demand for Gliders with cleaner engines will become the choice. Additionally, there is
growing shortages of older engines, since diesel engine blocks have limited life and can only be rebuilt
3 times. This industry is currently considering MY 2010 engines as the choice for Gliders moving
forward. So as the trucking industry transitions, this commenter recommends caps on non-exempt
Gliders based on three years of production as recommended by the Panel Report, c, subsection xi, page
40545; however, instead of using production years 2010-2012 to establish peak levels use production
years 2015-2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.4]
B. Gliders for Special Purpose Vocational Trucks Proposed Rules
1. Vocational Trucks related to Gliders: Throughout the proposed rules beginning with the
Executive Summary at Section D.(2) page 40142, the agencies discuss vocational trucks and define
them as "a wide variety of truck and bus types (e.g. delivery, refuse, utility, dump, cement, transit bus,
shuttle bus, school bus, emergency vehicles, and recreational vehicles." Clarity from the agencies in
relating vocational trucks to Gliders would be helpful. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.4]
a) 1037.630 Special Purpose Tractors states: "Vocational tractors are treated as vocational vehicles and
are exempt from the standards of § 1037.106....This allowance is intended only for vehicles that do not
typically operate at highway speeds, or would otherwise not benefit from efficiency improvements
designed for line-haul tractors. This allowance is limited to the following vehicle and application types:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.4]
-------
1. Low-roof tractors intended for intra-city pickup and delivery, such as those that deliver bottled
beverages to retail stores.
2. Tractors intended for off-road operation (including mixed service operation), such as those with
reinforced frames and increased ground clearance.
3. Model year 2020 and earlier tractors with a gross combination weight rating (GCWR) over
120,000 pounds...."
b) This commenter recommends the agencies provide clarity which is specificity related to Gliders in
the case of Special Purpose Tractors or Vocational Trucks. While exemptions from Phase 2 have been
suggested in the proposed rules the definition of Vocational Trucks should clearly include trucks that
are heavily modified for a vocational application. While heavy duty chassis, limited speeds when on-
highway, and predominately off-highway application were called out by the agencies there are several
vocational applications that the agencies intend to include in the proposed exclusions that are not clear.
For example many utility, dump, and concrete applications are supported by Vocational Gliders that
have mixed pattern of use i.e. stop and go city driving, urban highway driving, and/or rural highway
driving where speed may be in excess of 55 MPH but the truck is clearly a special use vocational truck.
The speed only test and/or the predominately off road test do not always apply to these types of
vocational trucks or the Gliders that support their industries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.4-
5]
2. Special Use Trucks: Other special use trucks for which Gliders are used and that need to brought to
the attention of the agencies are: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.5]
a) Auto Hauling Tractors: This is a special use tractor that is heavily modified with a substantially
lower roof than even a day cab. This low roof requires a modification that is not performed by a major
OEM but is contracted to a fabrication/modification "shop" The resulting vehicle is low in height and
also to the ground with low ground clearances. This low configuration is necessary to haul the number
of automobiles on a single load required to be cost, fuel consumption and therefore emissions per
delivered car effective. The auto hauling tractor has limited suppliers in the market place. Modified
Gliders assembled for this purpose is one of only two acceptable suppliers today. This commenter
recommends including auto hauling Gliders in the exemption rules being proposed for vocational
equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.5]
b) Safety Issues with Auto Hauling Tractors: Trucks conforming to MY 2014 emission requirements
have proven to be not-fit-for the purpose of auto hauling. There have been reported cases in the auto
hauling industry of fires that result from the regeneration cycle of MY 2014 and newer equipment that
have been modified to haul automobiles. Because of the low ground clearances of the auto hauler the
heat that is produced during the regen cycle has caught dry combustible material (grass and leaves) that
may be under the truck when it is parked. This has damaged equipment and the automobiles that were
being hauled. Using a Gilder with pre MY 2014 rebuilt engine solves this problem and is further
evidence that Auto hauling Gliders need be included as a vocational truck in the proposed rules. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.5]
c) Ultra-Light Weight Gliders: This is a Special Use Glider Truck that has been heavily modified to
lower the overall weight of the Truck by 1,500 lbs. These modifications allow certain products to be
transported more efficiently by loading more product into the trailer while conforming to the total
vehicle weight limit required by the DOT. A lighter truck means more freight per load, therefore less
loads are required to haul the same tonnage of product. A Glider can be produced that is the lightest
heavy duty truck on the road today and is well received by carriers hauling products like beverages;
-------
bulk powdered or liquid starches, syrups, and other bulk food grade products; and dry bulk and liquid
chemicals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.5]
3. 1031.631 Exemption ofvocational vehicles intended for off-road use: The chassis of vehicles in the
vocational industries in general and the off-road vehicles take a tremendous amount of load and torque
(twisting). This kind of use guarantees that the chassis will be worn out prior to the modifications that
were used to prepare the vehicle to be a vocational truck. The work box, crane, hydraulic lifts, etc. that
are required in the vocational application are expensive and are transferred to the next chassis. When the
replacement chassis is a Glider, then this commenter believes that the flexibility should be granted with
regard to the engine choice. This commenter recommends that one sentence should be struck from
1031.631; that sentence being "This section does not exempt engines used in vehicles from the
standards of 40 CFR part 86 or part 1036" atop of page 40655 . Striking this sentence will give
maximum flexibility once the agencies realize the vocational equipment being described may be older
than MY 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.5-6]
C. Exemption Caps for vocational: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.6]
1. Impact Study of number of Gliders: The agencies proposing the Phase 2 GHG gas rules have not
adequately defined the impact of the current number of Gliders which are assembled each year
(XIV,B,3, page 40528), since no production numbers are reported to the EPA. Since the total is
unknown, the impact on pollutants is also unknown; therefore additional studies need to be
made to adequately define the "right" number of Gliders allowed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1005-A1 p.6]
2. Vocational Caps: It is clear that the agencies propose to exempt vocational gliders, however, a
cap is also being considered in the rules; proposed as not more than 21,000 in any three year
period. This 7,000 average per year can be limiting to certain major U.S. industries and does not
allow for growth and replacement for all transportation segments. This commenter recommends
with regard to vocational trucks that no cap be mandated: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1
p.6]
a) The in-service life of a vocational truck exceeds 10 years and the equipment on the truck can be
moved from one chassis to the next. So capping the number of gliders will adversely impact the moving
of the very equipment needed to make the replacement Glider able to do the vocational work. The
investment to modify a Glider chassis for vocational applications is large and every time vocational
equipment can be moved to a new chassis it will be done. Caps become overly complicated when
replacement and growth Gliders are considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.6]
b) As the agencies have noted in their vocational definitions several different transportation segments
and major industries are using vocational equipment. Limiting or capping vocational trucks can have the
unintended effect of giving one transportation segment or industry access to Glider equipment over
another. This can drive cost up as availability is limited and offer a favored advantages to a selected few
U.S. industries that can pay. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.6]
c) As the agencies commented the over-all volume of vocational is relatively low so the need to cap
vocational is also low. So allowing each industry to rationalize the number of vocational vehicles
necessary each year is more prudent that trying to regulate an artificial cap. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1005-A1 p.6]
II. Small Business Proposed Rules related to Gliders [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.6]
-------
A. EPA Status Que and Proposed Cap of Glider Builds [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.6]
1. EPA Regulatory Status Quo Proposed Rules: Section XIV. B. (3) page 40529 This commenter is
also concerned about the economic impacts on small businesses that assemble gliders and build
glider kits. The agencies are correct in assuming that the activities of these small manufacturers
are for non-circumvention purposes. The proposed rules that maintains the regulatory status quo
for existing small businesses is supported. The additional point this commenter would make is
to expand the small businesses impacted to include small trucking companies that have a history
of assembling gliders in lieu of operating used equipment. Regulatory relief for this group
would also be appropriate with reasonable caps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1 p.7]
2. Cap of Gliders Allowed: The agencies ask for comment with regard to the methodology and
total number of Gliders allowed to be assembled by small businesses. It is the opinion of this
commenter that the number of small businesses engaged in Glider assembly is likely to decrease
with the rule changes being proposed. If this is accurate then using the history of total
production as the basis for establishing the limit on total production may disallow an otherwise
efficient small business from acquiring additional customers as other assemblers cease business.
A more equitable method would be to allow any small business assembler that has built a
minimum of 100 gliders within the last three years be granted an exemption for gliders being
built in any given year up to a cap of 300 gliders/year. This allows for competition and for high
quality small business assemblers to secure business from lesser assemblers. Additionally, the
vocational exemptions the agencies are proposing should also be made available to small
business assemblers and it is recommended that this cap would also be 300 vocational units
based on the definition of the final rules. The maximum cap with Gliders and Vocational
Gliders would be 600/year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A 1 p.7]
3. Timing: The EPA has solicited comment with regard to the timing of implementation of the
proposed rules. The proposed date of January 1, 2018 is tight to transition all of the stake
holders in the Glider industry. It is the opinion of this commenter that Phase 2 should be
postponed until January 1, 2020 assuming there has been adequate assessment of the impact on
the impacted groups including small trucking companies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1005-A1
p.7]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins supports limitations on the use of glider kits [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.41]
Glider kits are a necessary option for replacing damaged vehicles that still have usable powertrain
components. However, glider kits should not be used to circumvent the purchase of a currently certified
engine and aftertreatment system. Cummins urges the agencies to work with the industry to develop a
workable solution for glider kits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.41]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America and Detroit Diesel Company
• Memorandum discussing legal issues related to glider vehicles and glider kits (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1627, NHTSA-2014-0132-0189):
We submitted separately to the docket a letter going into detail on the EPA's memorandum. [This letter
can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1][EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1918-
A2 p.9]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
-------
I. Legal Issues with Glider Provisions
As DTNA expressed in its comments to the Phase 2 Proposed Rule, DTNA has concerns with EPA's
proposed regulation of'glider kits' and 'glider vehicles,' including EPA's legal authority for regulating
them. EPA's Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being carried out under the authority of the Clean Air Act
('CAA'), which does not provide EPA authority to regulate the sale of motor vehicle components. The
CAA only provides EPA with authority to regulate 'new motor vehicles' and their engines, defined as
'self-propelled' vehicles 'the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate
purchaser'—not non-motorized frames, cabs, and axles. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7522(a), 7550(3). In turn, any
regulation of glider kits is beyond the agency's authority. Further, glider vehicles when constructed
retain the identity of the donor vehicle, such that the title has already been exchanged, making the
vehicles not 'new' under the CAA. Thus, EPA lacks authority to regulate glider vehicles. And even if the
EPA had authority to regulate, the CAA requires 4-years' lead-time for new or revised NOx and PM
requirements and for regulations governing engine rebuilding practices, which has not been met under
the proposed regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.2] [[This comment can also be found
in section 1.3.1 of the Comment Summary.]]
A. Distinction Between 'Glider Kit' and 'Glider Vehicle'
As DTNA explained in its comments to the Phase 2 Proposed Rule, EPA has proposed two overlapping
and potentially confusing definitions: 'Glider kit means any of the following: (1) A new vehicle that is
incomplete because it lacks an engine, transmission, or axle; (2) A new vehicle produced with a used
engine (including a rebuilt or remanufactured engine); (3) Any other new equipment that is intended to
become a motor vehicle with a previously used engine (including a rebuilt or remanufactured engine)';
and 'Glider vehicle means a new vehicle produced with a used engine.' As EPA has proposed these
definitions, 'glider vehicle' is a subset of'glider kit,' whereas under industry usage and understanding,
the two are separate, and should remain so under the regulations. A 'glider kit' should instead be defined
as 'an assemblage of new vehicle components, including at a minimum the chassis, cab and front axle,
but lacking a new engine, transmission, and rear axle.' Once the glider kit is used to rebuild a truck, EPA
would consider it a 'glider vehicle.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.2]
EPA should clarify when a glider vehicle becomes a 'new motor vehicle' subject to regulation, as
NHTSA has done, by adopting a provision similar to 49 C.F.R. § 571.7(e). Under its regulations,
NHTSA considers a truck to be 'newly manufactured' and subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards when a new cab is used in its assembly, 'unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as
a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken
from the same vehicle.' 49 C.F.R. § 571.7(e) (emphasis added). In other words, as long as the engine,
transmission, and drive axle(s) are remanufactured and not new, and at least two of these components
were taken from the same vehicle, the resulting glider vehicle would not be a new motor vehicle subject
to regulation, and the glider kit used to build the glider vehicle could contain the third component
(remanufactured engine, remanufactured transmission, or remanufactured drive axle(s)). This
harmonization would be consistent with the agencies' commitment to establish a national GHG
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.2]
B. EPA Lacks Authority to Regulate 'Glider Kits' and 'Glider Vehicles'
The distinction between 'glider kits' and 'glider vehicles' is important because EPA lacks authority to
regulate vehicle parts, including assemblages of parts (without an engine) such as glider kits. EPA's
Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being carried out under the authority of the CAA, and the CAA does not
provide EPA authority to regulate the sale of motor vehicle components, which is all that glider kits are.
-------
The CAA only authorizes EPA to set emission standards for 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor
vehicle engines,' 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), and to prohibit the sale of uncertified 'new motor vehicles' and
'new motor vehicle engines,' see 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). "New motor vehicles' are defined under the
CAA as 'self-propelled' vehicles 'the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an
ultimate purchaser'—not non-motorized frames, cabs, and axles. 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2), (3). Because
glider kits do not contain engines, transmissions, and drive axles, and have no motive power, the CAA
does not authorize EPA to regulate the sale of glider kits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.2-
3] [[This comment can also be found in section 1.3.1 of the Comment Summary.]]
EPA's examples of CAA provisions that address certain vehicle components are inapplicable. EPA cites
to three CAA provisions granting it authority to regulate evaporative emissions, including from certain
components, and concludes from those specific provisions that it has authority to regulate all vehicle
components, whether or not they produce emissions in any form. Specifically, EPA cites to 'CAA
section 202(a)(6) (standards for onboard vapor recovery systems on 'new light-duty vehicles,' and
requiring installation of such systems); section 202(a)(5)(A) (standards to control emissions from
refueling motor vehicles, and requiring consideration of, and possible design standards for, fueling
system components), 202(k) (standards to control evaporative emissions from gasoline-fueled motor
vehicles).' EPA Legal Memo, at 3. From these examples, EPA concludes that it has authority to regulate
all vehicle components, a conclusion that is not justified under the language, of the Act. First, the fact
that the CAA lists specific components that EPA may regulate suggests that EPA lacks authority to
regulate other components that are not specifically listed, particularly given the broader dictate that EPA
may set emission standards only for 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor vehicle engines,' 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(1), and may prohibit only the sale of uncertified 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor vehicle
engines,' 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). Second, all of the examples cited by EPA relate to evaporative
emissions. Although EPA might be able to argue that it has authority to regulate evaporative emissions
from those specific components, and exhaust emissions from 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor
vehicle engines,' it is a stretch to say that EPA has authority to regulate all motor vehicle components.
This is particularly true where, as with glider kits, the components do not produce emissions on their
own. EPA itself recognizes that it cannot extend its argument to the smallest vehicle component—'This
is not to say that the Act authorizes emission standards for any part of a motor vehicle, however small,'
EPA Legal Memo, at 3—but nonetheless believes it has the authority to draw the line to include glider
kits and trailers. In fact, Congress drew the line in the CAA at 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor
vehicle engines,' and EPA may not extend its authority further than Congress allowed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1926-A1 p.3] [[This comment can also be found in section 1.3.1 of the Comment
Summary.]]
EPA also lacks authority to regulate glider vehicles. When constructed, glider vehicles retain the
identity of the donor vehicle, such that the title has already been exchanged, making the vehicles not
'new' under the CAA and not subject to EPA's regulatory authority. EPA's argument that glider
assemblers market their finished products as 'new trucks' is unavailing. A company's marketing
materials have no bearing on the statutory definition that governs EPA's authority. Although the CAA
may not reference Vehicle Identification Numbers as determinative of new motor vehicle status, the Act
does contain an express definition of 'new motor vehicles'—'self-propelled' vehicles 'the equitable or
legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser,' 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2), (3)—
which EPA is not free to disregard. Glider vehicles incorporate not just a used engine, as EPA suggests,
but the engine, transmission, and rear axle—the entire powertrain that comprises a significant portion of
a vehicle's cost and identity—from a previously owned vehicle. The glider kit, which may be considered
to be 'new' vehicle parts, is not self-propelled. The glider becomes self-propelled only when the
powertrain components are added, but cannot be a 'new motor vehicle' because the equitable or legal
title of those powertrain components has previously been transferred to an ultimate purchaser. [EPA-
-------
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.3-4] [[This comment can also be found in section 1.3.1 of the
Comment Summary.]]
C. Regulation of 'Glider Vehicles' Targets NOx/PM Emissions and Must Meet Statutory Lead-
Time Requirement
In addition, the proposed regulation of'glider vehicles' actually targets NOx/PM emissions rather than
GHG emissions, as EPA concedes, and is therefore inappropriate for inclusion in a GHG rule. Glider
sales actually create the potential to reduce GHG emissions by incorporating used and rebuilt engines in
newer, more aerodynamic vehicles. Rebuilt engines used in glider vehicles emit fewer GHGs, and new
cabs and low rolling resistance tires are more efficient than what they replace. Because regulation of
glider vehicles targets NOx/PM emissions, it should be done only in a separate rulemaking, if at all.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.4]
In addition, this separate rulemaking should be carefully drafted to meet statutory lead-time
requirements for NO and PM regulations as required by statute. NO and PM emissions standards are
subject to an express CAA lead-time requirement under which new or revised NOx and PM
requirements cannot take effect sooner than the model year commencing 4 years after a new or revised
standard is promulgated. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(C). As currently proposed, with an effective date of
January 1, 2018, the proposed glider regulations violate the 4-year lead-time requirement under the
CAA. Assuming the Phase 2 rule is finalized in early 2016, the earliest that the regulations governing
glider vehicles could take effect would be 2020, in compliance with the CAA lead-time requirement.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A 1 p.4]
For its proposed glider provisions, EPA purports to rely on its authority to regulate the 'practice of
rebuilding heavy-duty engines.' 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(D). However, EPA is not regulating engine
rebuilding practices, as evidenced by the lack of relevant proposed amendments to its engine rebuilding
regulations (40 C.F.R. §§ 86.004-40, 1068.120). Instead, EPA is attempting to regulate vehicle
rebuilding, which it clearly does not have the authority to do under the CAA. Congress granted EPA
authority to regulate 'new motor vehicles' and 'new motor vehicle engines' only, and while Congress
granted EPA authority to regulate engine rebuilding, it did not grant EPA similar authority to regulate
vehicle rebuilding. EPA's reliance on (3)(D) is misplaced with respect to its proposed regulation of
glider vehicles. Even if EPA were properly regulating heavy-duty engine rebuilding practices with its
proposed glider provisions, it would be subject to the same four-year statutory lead-time requirement.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A 1 p.4]
As currently proposed, EPA is attempting to regulate NO and PM in the GHG rule in a way it could not
undertake in a proper NOx and PM rulemaking. Under the CAA, EPA must allow four years of lead
time, at a minimum, before its proposed glider provisions would take effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1926-A1 p.4]
II. Alternative Provisions Proposed by EPA
In its draft legal memorandum, EPA proposes several alternative provisions for comment. These include
alternative provisions governing glider kit manufacturers, engine remanufacturers, and glider vehicles
using newer engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.5]
A. Alternative Provisions for Glider Kit Manufacturers as Manufacturers of Motor Vehicle Parts
-------
EPA proposes alternative provisions governing glider kit manufacturers that would apply in the event
that its primary implementation provisions are held inapplicable. EPA asserts that a glider kit sold in a
configuration that would not meet the tractor emission standard when the specified engine, transmission,
and axle are installed would 'cause' a violation of that standard in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1), or
could be considered a prohibited defeat device under 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B). Under 42 U.S.C. §
7522(a)(1), a manufacturer is prohibited from distributing in commerce, selling or offering for sale, or
introducing or delivering for introduction into commerce, a 'new motor vehicle' or 'new motor vehicle
engine' that is not covered by a certificate of conformity. As explained above, neither a glider kit nor a
glider vehicle meet the definition of 'new motor vehicle.' As a result, EPA's assertion that the sale of a
glider kit could 'cause' a violation of an emission standard applicable to a new motor vehicle fails for the
same reason that EPA does not have authority to regulate glider kits and glider vehicles—they are not
'new motor vehicles.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.5]
With respect to 'defeat devices,' the CAA prohibits 'any person' from manufacturing or selling or
offering to sell or installing 'any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat,
or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine in compliance with regulations under this subchapter, and where the person knows or should
know that such part or component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or put to such use.'
42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B). It is difficult to see how a 'principal effect' of a glider kit is to 'bypass,
defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine.' Because the engines installed in glider vehicles are typically older model year engines
subject to less stringent emission standards, a glider kit generally improves the GHG emissions
performance of the engine/vehicle. It is unclear how a glider kit could be said to 'bypass, defeat, or
render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in' these older model year engines, let
alone for that to be the glider kit's 'principal effect.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.5]
EPA proposes an alternative rule which would require glider kit manufacturers to do one of two things:
either a) affix a label on the glider kit stating that the 'glider kit is not to be used in combination with
tractors certified to the applicable phase 2 GHG standard,' or b) 'conduct testing (including aerodynamic
and tire testing) to show that the glider kit is consistent with the glider vehicle's final certified condition.'
EPA Legal Memo, at 8. Both of these alternatives still assume that EPA has authority under the CAA to
regulate glider kits as 'new motor vehicles' or as motor vehicle components and to regulate glider
vehicles as 'new motor vehicles,' which as explained above, EPA does not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1926-A1 p.5]
If EPA moves forward with regulating gliders, it should pursue a variation on the proposed cap rather
than these alternative rules. As DTNA explained in its comments to the Phase 2 Proposed Rule, a cap of
300 vehicles is too low given the abrupt change this regulation brings to the 50-year-old glider industry
and the disproportionate impact it will have on small businesses. A more reasonable approach would be
to begin with a higher initial cap and gradually reduce it over time to allow large and small businesses in
the glider industry to adapt to EPA's new requirements. Specifically, if EPA decides to implement a
certification requirement for glider vehicles, the small business exemption should start with a cap of
1,500 vehicles in 2020 (complying with the statutory lead-time requirement) and then reduce the cap by
250 each year for the next 3 years to 1,250 in 2021, to 1,000 in 2022, and finally to 750 vehicles in
2023. Such a phase-down would allow these small manufacturers to transition to other lines of business
and to move their employees to other types of work without extensive layoffs. Many small
manufacturers will already be limited by their highest annual sales volume and will not be affected by
the cap, while for those that are, the initial 1,500 vehicle cap and subsequent phase-down represents a
substantial reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.5-6]
-------
Further, EPA should clarify that the proposed glider provisions apply only to the final assembler of the
glider vehicle, as that is the only entity that knows what the final vehicle configuration will be. There is
no need for a glider kit manufacturer to label the assemblage of parts that it sells in accordance with the
delegated assembly provisions. It is obvious that the glider kit requires further assembly as it lacks an
engine, transmission, and/or rear axle. The regulations should require that only the glider vehicle, once
assembled and ready to drive, be labeled by the assembler. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.6]
B. Alternative Provisions for Enpine Remanufacturers
EPA is also considering alternative provisions for engine remanufacturers if the primary implementing
provisions are held to apply only to the glider vehicle assembler. Relying on its section 202(a)(3)(D)
authority, EPA would require any rebuilt/remanufactured motor vehicle engines to meet current model
year engine standards if they are intended to be installed in new motor vehicle chassis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1926-A1 p.6]
If EPA proposes to amend its heavy-duty engine rebuilding provisions (40 C.F.R. §§ 86.004-40,
1068.120), it must do so in a separate rulemaking subject to public notice and comment, rather than
making such a proposal in a draft legal memorandum entered into the Phase 2 Proposed Rule docket and
not proposed or explained in the Federal Register. Further, if EPA intends to rely on its authority to
regulate the 'practice of rebuilding heavy-duty engines' under 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(D) to amend the
heavy-duty engine rebuilding regulations, such amendment would be subject to the four-year statutory
lead-time requirement. The four-year lead-time and three-year stability requirements of 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(3)(C) are applicable to all of paragraph 3, which includes the engine rebuilding provision
contained in (3)(D). It is not enough for EPA to opine that the January 1, 2018 implementation date for
the glider provisions allows 'sufficient time to 'permit the development and application of the requisite
control measures' under 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(D). The four-year lead-time and three-year stability
requirements of (3)(C) provide an absolute minimum, even for engine rebuilding regulations, and then
EPA must determine whether additional time is required above and beyond that based on its
determination under the standard contained in (3)(D). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.6]
C. Glider Vehicles Using Newer Engines
Assuming EPA moves forward with its proposal to regulate glider kits and glider vehicles, EPA solicits
comment on certain potential flexibilities for glider vehicles using newer engines: (1) raising or
eliminating the cap on sales for engines that were certified to meet the 2010 NOx and PM standards, as
opposed to pre-2010 engines; (2) for vehicles using engines meeting the 2010 NOx and PM standards,
raising or eliminating the cap on sales for glider vehicles using engines still within their regulatory
useful life; and (3) for Class 8 vehicles, treating engines with high years/low mileage or low years/high
mileage (e.g., engines that are more than 10 years old but have fewer than 100,000 miles or that are less
than 3 years old regardless of mileage) as still within their useful life. EPA Legal Memo, at 9-10. DTNA
would support all of these potential flexibilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1926-A1 p.6-7]
EPA should eliminate the cap on sales for engines that were certified to meet the 2010 NOx and PM
standards. As EPA recognizes, the potential for adverse environmental effects from these engines is
significantly reduced when compared to pre-2010 engines that have higher criteria pollutant emissions.
This alternative would cover all 2010 and later engines without regard to their useful life and would
provide manufacturers with necessary flexibility going forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1
p.7]
-------
EPA should also eliminate the cap on sales for glider vehicles using engines that are still within their
regulatory useful life, including treating Class 8 engines with high years/low mileage or low years/high
mileage as being within their useful life. For Class 8 engines to be within their useful life under current
regulations, they must be both less than 10 years old and have fewer than 435,000 miles of use. As EPA
recognizes, some vehicles in very low use applications may have less than 100,000 miles after 10 years,
while other vehicles may reach 435,000 miles within a few years. EPA should treat these engines as
being within their useful life and eliminate the cap on sales for glider vehicles using these engines.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p. 7]
III. NHTSA Exemption
As DTNA expressed in its comments to the Phase 2 Proposed Rule, DTNA supports NHTSA's current
proposal to maintain its existing regulations with respect to glider kits and glider vehicles, under which
NHTSA does not consider glider kits to be motor vehicles, and not to include gliders under its Phase 2
program. Since at least 1975, NHTSA has recognized that 'use of a new 'glider kit' ['typically a cab,
frame rails, and front suspension'] in combination with the valuable components from an existing
vehicle' is 'common practice' in the industry. 40 Fed. Reg. 19,485 (proposed May 5, 1975). In response
to this common industry practice, NHTSA finalized a regulatory provision clarifying what it does and
does not consider to be a 'new vehicle,' striking an appropriate balance between common-sense, cost-
effective reuse of vehicle components and the need for adequate safety regulation of new vehicles. 40
Fed. Reg. 49,340 (Oct. 22, 1975). Under its regulations, NHTSA considers a truck to be 'newly
manufactured' and subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards when a new cab is used in its
assembly, 'unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle
are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.' 49 C.F.R. §
571.7(e) (emphasis added). DTNA supports the continuation of this long-standing regulatory provision.
To the extent that NHTSA has concerns about compliance, it should issue guidance and engage in
outreach to glider assemblers rather than revising its regulations. Further, NHTSA should not pursue
inclusion of gliders under its Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1926-A1 p.7]
8. Gliders
Legal Issues with Glider Provisions - DTNA has concerns with EPA's proposed regulation of
"glider kits" and "glider vehicles," including EPA's legal authority for regulating them. EPA's Phase 2
Proposed Rule is being carried out under the authority of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), which does not
provide EPA authority to regulate the sale of motor vehicle components. Moreover, the CAA
only provides authority to regulate "new motor vehicles" and their engines,2 defined as "self-propelled"
vehicles "the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate purchaser"—not
non-motorized frames, cabs, and axles. CAA §§ 203(a), 216(3). In turn, any regulation of glider kits is
beyond the agency's authority. Further, glider vehicles, when constructed retain the identity of the donor
vehicle, such that the title has already been exchanged, making the vehicles not "new" under the CAA.
So the EPA may not regulate them either. And even if the EPA had authority to regulate, the CAA
requires 4-years' lead-time for new or revised NOx and PM requirements and for regulations governing
engine rebuilding practices, which has not been met under the proposed regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 121-122]
Proposed Definitions of 'Glider Kit' and 'Glider Vehicle' - EPA has proposed two overlapping
and potentially confusing definitions: "Glider kit means any of the following: (1) A new vehicle that is
incomplete because it lacks an engine, transmission, or axle; (2) A new vehicle produced with a used
engine (including a rebuilt or remanufactured engine); (3) Any other new equipment that is intended to
become a motor vehicle with a previously used engine (including a rebuilt or remanufactured engine)";
-------
and "Glider vehicle means a new vehicle produced with a used engine." As EPA has proposed these
definitions, "glider vehicle" is a subset of "glider kit," whereas under industry usage and understanding,
the two are separate, and should remain so under the regulations. A "glider kit" should instead be
defined as "an assemblage of new vehicle components, including at a minimum the chassis, cab and
front axle, but lacking an engine, transmission, and rear axle." Once the glider kit is used to rebuild a
truck, EPA would consider it a "glider vehicle." The EPA-proposed definitions are confusing because
they conflate the two, which are typically sold by separate businesses. DTNA manufactures and sells
glider kits, while most glider assemblers sell glider vehicles but do not manufacture glider kits. The
third part of the proposed "glider kit" definition is simply too broad and vague to be workable: "Any
other new equipment that is intended to become a motor vehicle with a previously used engine
(including a rebuilt or remanufactured engine)" could potentially encompass any number of vehicle
parts. Any other assemblages of parts that EPA considers to be "new equipment that is intended to
become a motor vehicle " could potentially be regulated as a glider kit, down to the wiring that
constitutes a single headlight, or the glass and metal parts that together comprise a side mirror. This part
of the proposed definition should be deleted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 122]
EPA Lacks Authority to Regulate 'Glider Kits' - The distinction between "glider kits" and
"glider vehicles" is important because EPA lacks authority to regulate vehicle parts, including
assemblages of parts (without an engine) such as glider kits. EPA's Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being
carried out under the authority of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), and the CAA does not provide EPA
authority to regulate the sale of motor vehicle components, which is all that glider kits are. The CAA
only authorizes EPA to prohibit the sale of uncertified "new motor vehicles" and "new motor vehicle
engines." See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). "New motor vehicles" are defined under the CAA as "self-
propelled" vehicles "the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate
purchaser"—not non-motorized frames, cabs, and axles. 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2), (3). Because glider kits do
not contain engines, and have no motive power, the CAA does not authorize EPA to regulate the sale of
glider kits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 122-123] [This comment can also be found in
section 1.3.1 of this comment document]
Regulation of 'Glider Vehicles' Targets NOx / PM Emissions and Must Meet Statutory
Lead Time Requirement - In addition, the proposed regulation of "glider vehicles" actually targets
NOx/PM emissions rather than GHG emissions, as EPA concedes, and is therefore inappropriate for
inclusion in a GHG rule. Glider sales actually create the potential to reduce GHG emissions by
incorporating used and rebuilt engines in newer, more aerodynamic vehicles. Rebuilt engines used in
glider vehicles emit fewer GHGs, and new cabs and low rolling resistance tires are more efficient than
what they replace. Because regulation of glider vehicles targets NOx/PM emissions, it should be done
only in a separate rulemaking, if at all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 123] [This comment can
also be found in section 1.3.1 of this comment document]
In addition, this separate rulemaking should be carefully drafted to meet statutory lead-time
requirements for NOx and PM regulations as required by statute. NOx and PM emissions standards are
subject to an express CAA lead-time requirement under which new or revised NOx and PM
requirements cannot take effect sooner than the model year commencing 4 years after new or revised
standard is promulgated. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(C). As currently proposed, with an effective date of
January 1, 2018, the proposed glider regulations violate the 4- year lead-time requirement under the
CAA. Assuming the Phase 2 rule is finalized in early 2016, the earliest that the regulations governing
glider vehicles could take effect would be 2020, in compliance with the CAA lead-time requirement.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 123] [This comment can also be found in section 1.3.1 of this
comment document]
-------
For its proposed glider provisions, EPA purports to rely on its authority to regulate the "practice of
rebuilding heavy-duty engines." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(D). However, EPA is not regulating engine
rebuilding practices, as evidenced by the lack of relevant proposed amendments to its engine rebuilding
regulations (40 C.F.R. §§ 86.004-40, 1068.120). Instead, EPA is attempting to regulate vehicle
rebuilding, which it clearly does not have the authority to do under the CAA. Congress granted EPA
authority to regulate "new motor vehicles" and "new motor vehicle engines" only, and while Congress
granted EPA authority to regulate engine rebuilding, it did not grant EPA similar authority to regulate
vehicle rebuilding. EPA's reliance on (3)(D) is misplaced with respect to its proposed regulation of
glider vehicles.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 123] [This comment can also be found in section
1.3.1 of this comment document]
Even if EPA were properly regulating heavy-duty engine rebuilding practices with its proposed glider
provisions, it would be subject to the same four-year statutory lead-time requirement. The four-year
lead-time and three-year stability requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(C) are applicable to all of
paragraph 3, which includes the engine rebuilding provision contained in (3)(D). It is not enough for
EPA to opine that the January 1, 2018 implementation date for the glider provisions allows "sufficient
time to 'permit the development and application of the requisite control measures'" under 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(3)(D). The four-year lead-time and three-year stability requirements of (3)(C) provide an
absolute minimum, even for engine rebuilding regulations, and then EPA must determine whether
additional time is required above and beyond that based on its determination under the standard
contained in (3)(D). [EPA- HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 123] [This comment can also be found in
section 1.3.1 of this comment document]
Additional Considerations with Glider Provisions - Although EPA states that it considered
impacts on small businesses in drafting the Phase 2 Proposed Rule, the glider provisions particularly
impact small businesses and it is not clear that EPA fully considered the consequences the proposed
regulations will have or how they could be minimized. As EPA notes, the Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel process—which EPA undertook to meet its legal requirements under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act—included only one glider
assembler. As a result of this oversight, if EPA moves forward with regulation of glider vehicles in its
Phase 2 rule, which would not be appropriate under the CAA, there are a number of additional ways that
the proposal should be modified to mitigate the impacts of any glider regulation on small businesses,
jobs, and the economy in general. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 124]
'Glider Vehicle' Exemption Cap - EPA has proposed that small manufacturers would be
eligible for an exemption from EPA's proposed glider vehicle certification requirements under 40
C.F.R. § 1037.635 that would allow them to continue selling a limited number of glider vehicles. This
cap would be based on the manufacturer's highest annual sales volume for calendar years 2010 through
2014 up to a maximum of 300 exempt glider vehicles. A cap of 300 vehicles is too low given the abrupt
change this regulation brings to the 50-year-old glider industry and the disproportionate impact it will
have on small businesses. A more reasonable approach would be to begin with a higher initial cap and
gradually reduce it over time to allow large and small businesses in the glider industry to adapt to EPA's
new requirements. Specifically, if EPA decides to implement a certification requirement for glider
vehicles, the small business exemption should start with a cap of 1,500 vehicles in 2020 (complying
with the statutory lead-time requirement) and then reduce the cap by 250 each year for the next 3 years
to 1,250 in 2021, to 1,000 in 2022, and finally to 750 vehicles in 2023. Such a phase-down would allow
these small manufacturers to transition to other lines of business and to move their employees to other
types of work without extensive layoffs. Many small manufacturers will already be limited by their
highest annual sales volume and will not be affected by the cap, while for those that are, the initial 1,500
vehicle cap and subsequent phase-down represents a substantial reduction. The adjustment of the cap
-------
applicable to glider assemblers, coupled with the additional lead-time required under the CAA, is also
critical to saving as many as 1,000 jobs at Detroit Reman, where a substantial portion of the business is
driven by glider kit sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 124]
Applicability to Engine Model Years - As EPA recognizes, "the environmental impacts of
gliders using 2010 and later engines would be much smaller," and as a result, EPA's proposed
regulations should govern glider vehicles using pre-2010 engines only. As stated above, EPA's glider
regulation is intended to address NOx and PM emissions, which are primarily a concern with pre-2010
engines rather than 2010 and later engines. Based on engine core availability, glider vehicles using pre-
2010 engines will naturally decrease over time. While 2010 and later engines are not currently being
used in glider vehicles in large numbers, their future use would enable many of the benefits to the U.S.
economy from glider kit usage to continue, without the potential environmental impacts associated with
the use of pre-2010 engines. EPA should incentivize, rather than limit, the rebuilding and reuse of 2010
and later engines in glider vehicles because such use would generate all of the benefits of rebuilding the
engines and installing them in newer, more aerodynamic vehicles detailed above, including using 85%
less energy than manufacturing the engines new, without the potential drawbacks of higher NOx and
PM emissions. In the Phase 2 Proposed Rule, EPA proposes a requirement that glider vehicles
incorporate engines certified to meet standards applicable for the engine model year corresponding to
the vehicle's date of assembly but allows that earlier model year engines may be used "if the standards
were identical." 40 C.F.R. § 1037.635. EPA does not offer a definition of "identical standards," which
creates uncertainty. For example, new on-board diagnostics ("OBD") requirements may be introduced
in a model year where otherwise emissions standards remained the same. It is unclear whether, under
EPA's proposed regulations, an earlier model year engine could be used in a glider vehicle assembled in
a year when new OBD requirements are in effect. EPA should instead allow the use of any 2010 or later
engine in a glider vehicle, or at a minimum, define what it means by "identical standards." Although
EPA recognizes that "salvaging powertrains from vehicles otherwise destroyed in accidents" is a
"legitimate" purpose for producing glider vehicles, its requirement that glider vehicles incorporate
engines certified to meet standards applicable for the engine model year corresponding to the vehicle's
date of assembly could prevent this "legitimate" purpose from being met. As one example, under EPA's
proposal, a new truck built to meet current emission standards and purchased in December that is then
wrecked in February of the next year when new engine standards took effect, would require a brand-
new engine due to the new engine standards, even though the salvageable engine was only a few months
old. On a larger scale, if a fleet of more than 300 vehicles becomes wrecked—for example, in a flood—
but the engines are salvageable, EPA should not prevent a company, no matter its size, from restoring
the vehicles to service cost-effectively with glider kits and remanufacturing processes. EPA should
provide sufficient exemptions for "legitimate" rebuilds of wrecked vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. 124-125]
Eligibility for Small Manufacturer Exemption - EPA has proposed that only those small
businesses that sold glider vehicles in 2014 (under the provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 1037.150(j)) are
eligible for the exemption under 40 C.F.R. § 1037.635 that would allow them to continue selling a
limited number of glider vehicles. This is too narrow a window for sales and associated exemption
eligibility, and ignores business practices common to the industry. While some glider assemblers sell
glider vehicles each year, others may not, depending on the extent of their glider assembly operations
and their customers' demands. Some fleets order a few glider vehicles every year while others order
every other year or every few years. In addition, due to delays associated with manufacturing and
assembly, a customer might order a glider kit and not receive it for 12 months or more, with vehicle
assembly taking additional time. As a result, EPA's current proposal unfairly penalizes those small
businesses that did not sell gliders in 2014, but might have sold them in 2013 or 2015. Instead, EPA
should allow small businesses that sold any glider vehicles in the calendar year 2010-2014 time period
to be eligible for the exemption up to the highest annual sales volume from those years. This
-------
modification would still have the effect of preventing new market entrants (in 2015 and later), thereby
limiting future glider vehicle production as EPA intends with its proposal, but not unfairly put a
company out of business in year one simply because it did not sell a glider vehicle in 2014. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 125-126]
NHTSA Exemption - DTNA supports NHTSA's current proposal to maintain its existing
regulations with respect to glider kits and glider vehicles, under which NHTSA does not consider glider
kits to be motor vehicles, and not to include gliders under its Phase 2 program. Since at least 1975,
NHTSA has recognized that "use of a new 'glider kit' ["typically a cab, frame rails, and front
suspension"] in combination with the valuable components from an existing vehicle" is "common
practice" in the industry. 40 Fed. Reg. 19,485 (proposed May 5, 1975). In response to this common
industry practice, NHTSA finalized a regulatory provision clarifying what it does and does not consider
to be a "new vehicle," striking an appropriate balance between common-sense, cost-effective reuse of
vehicle components and the need for adequate safety regulation of new vehicles. 40 Fed. Reg. 49,340
(Oct. 22, 1975). Under its regulations, NHTSA considers a truck to be "newly manufactured" and
subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards when a new cab is used in its assembly, "unless the
engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at
least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle." 49 C.F.R. § 571.7(e) (emphasis
added). DTNA supports the continuation of this long-standing regulatory provision. To the extent that
NHTSA has concerns about compliance, it should issue guidance and engage in outreach to glider
assemblers rather than revising its regulations. Further, NHTSA should not pursue inclusion of gliders
under its Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 125]
2 The CAA does authorize the EPA to regulate engine rebuilding practices, so in that limited respect the
agency can regulate non-new products. But engine rebuilding is not at issue here. Moreover, given that
Congress authorized regulation of engine rebuilding and could have similarly authorized vehicle
rebuilding but did not, Congress made clear its intent not to authorize regulation of vehicle rebuilding.
Organization: Diesel 2 Gas, Inc.
Proposed EPA Glider Rule Detrimental To Lowering Heavy Duty Trucks Emissions [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1198 p.l]
Glider Kit Trucks are the only means by which hundreds of thousands of Class 8 Trucks can have
access to natural gas as an engine fuel. Several EPA approved dual fuel conversion systems are
currently being applied to heavy duty engines 2009 and older allowing trucks to operate with up to 60%
natural gas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1198 p.l]
Modern 2010 and newer Class 8 Truck engines cannot be converted efficiently to dual fuel mode with
any known technology. The electronics associated with these modern engines makes adaptation of dual
fuel conversions not achievable in the foreseeable future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1198 p.l]
Dedicated gas fired engines fail to meet the operating requirements of U.S. Class 8 Truck fleets in many
operating applications. The lower horsepower and torque, lower efficiency and range limitations of
dedicated gas engines prohibit many fleets from using them in their operating applications. Trucks
carrying heavy loads and trucks operating in mountainous terrains cannot use the gas fired engines.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1198 p.l]
-------
Without the availability of dual fuel conversion systems, these trucking applications cannot use natural
gas as an engine fuel and will continue to be limited to diesel as a fuel. Operators of these trucks rebuild
old engines of their old trucks that are less energy efficient than that of new Glider models. The effects
of this rule change will stop the progress of natural gas use in these trucking applications. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1198 p.2]
The effect of this rule change will have a detrimental effect on the development of dual fuel
technologies for Class 8 Trucks. Dual Fuel technologies have not been embraced by heavy duty engine
OEMs. Therefore the current EPA approved dual fuel technologies have been developed by small and
midsized and mostly U.S. companies. Owners of older trucks find it difficult to justify the expense of
converting their depreciated older trucks to dual fuel. Gliders have provided the best platform to deploy
these dual fuel systems allowing U.S. dual fuel manufactures to lead the world in heavy duty dual fuel
technologies. 'Dual Fuel Gliders' have allowed these U.S. companies to continue prove and improve
their technologies in the field. These sales provide resources for these companies to work on finding
technology improvements that may lead to the eventual conversion of modern heavy duty engines.
Without Gliders many of these technologies will fail to advance into reaching new post 2010 engines.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1198 p.2]
Without Gliders many of the current U.S. manufacturers of dual fuel conversion systems will fail. This
will give foreign companies an advantage in deploying their own inferior dual fuel technologies
overseas in countries where trucks are not required meet EPA standards. The effect of the proposed rule
will have a detrimental effect on U.S. companies leading the world in availing natural gas as a means to
lower the emissions of heavy duty engines. This rule will have a chilling effect on lowering U.S. and
global emissions from heavy duty truck engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1198 p.2]
EPA's own previous rulings in 2011 state the beneficial environmental impact of dual fuel aftermarket
conversion systems in many Class 8 Truck applications. The proposed rule is in conflict with EPA's
previous ruling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1198 p.2]
Organization: E-ONE
E-ONE would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed Phase 2 of the Heavy Duty
Greenhouse Gas rule 40 CFR 1037. More specifically E-ONE would like to comment on the proposal
that gliders will be required to meet current emission standards for the year in which they are produced.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1185-A1 p.l]
Gliders are an important product in the emergency vehicle industry. An emergency vehicle, while
critical to saving lives in the event of an emergency; typically does not drive very many miles over the
lifetime of the vehicle. The industry standard of the lifetime of an emergency vehicle is 10 to 20 years
in which an emergency vehicle may only have traveled 10-50,000 miles, although it is not uncommon
for an emergency vehicle of 30+ years of service to have the same amount of miles. E-ONE has found
that the durability of engines in class 8 emergency vehicles far surpass the longevity of the chassis that
they power, this can be attributed to the extreme environment that these vehicles have to
endure. Having the ability to purchase a glider allows municipalities with limited financial resources
capable of maintain a fleet that is required to save lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1185-A1 p. 1]
E-ONE's stance is that it would be advantageous to allow gliders, given that the donor engine is still
within its useful life based on mileage but not based on age. Doing so will allow the EPA to limit the
amount of gliders produced enough to make a significant difference in the emissions of heavy duty
-------
vehicles while still creating a standard that requires vehicles over time to continually increase in
emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1185-A1 p.l]
With ever changing technology and the need for increased safety and efficiency of fire protection it can
become a challenge for a community to determine when to replace a piece of fire apparatus. There is a
large financial burden to a community when a new fire apparatus is purchased. This being said, every
option needs to be explored to make the best financial decision for the community. While many large
communities have a replacement program in place for their apparatus where the impact of this cost can
be spread out, many smaller communities do not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1253-A1 p.l]
In our service shops we offer a glider kit program to extend the life of a fire truck for communities with
limited budgets. Fire trucks are historically extremely low mileage with many units as old as 10, 15 and
20 years with 10,000, 25,000 and 50,000 miles. The diesel engines and transmissions used in the fire
service are designed to perform for a minimum of 300,000 to 1,000,000 miles. This gives the
communities fire departments the ability to reuse these components, extending the life of the apparatus.
This thus gives them the ability to increase the safety and efficiency of the apparatus while reducing the
financial impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1253-A1 p.l]
Glider kits provide a new cab and chassis with the option to reuse the engine, transmission, axles, fire
pumps and apparatus bodies or any combinations of these components (components that have
considerable useful life remaining). This gives the small community department a piece of apparatus
that will provide several years of additional service without the cost of a new apparatus. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-125 3 -A 1 p.l]
If the ability to 'glider' fire apparatus is prohibited it will have a serious impact on many communities
and their fire departments across the country. When departments cannot afford to purchase new fire
apparatus their only option is to repair or refurbish their existing apparatus. Most fire departments across
the country are volunteer with limited budgets and sometimes purchase only one new truck and strive to
maintain that unit for as long as possible. We need to give these communities as many options as
possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1253-A1 p.l
I believe it would be a financial burden for many of these departments. With only one or two trucks and
no other options, most would have to disband and close for lack of funds to support new apparatus. This
could seriously affect the personal safety of lives in those communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1253-A1 p.l]
I have attached some letters for existing fire department so you can see firsthand their financial
situation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1253-A1 p.l]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
EDF supports closing the loophole for dirty glider kits
EDF fully supports EPA's proposal to establish GHG and criteria emissions standards for engines in
glider kits and NHTSA's proposal to include glider kits under its Phase 2 standards. These provisions
are important to close the current loophole for glider kit manufacturers - which currently allows an
older dirtier engine to be installed in a new body and certified as a new vehicle. EPA estimates
significant growth in glider kit production.74 And glider vehicles using pre-2007 engines have in-use
NOx and PM emissions tenfold the emissions from equivalent vehicles being produced with new
-------
engines. This combination could result in a significant increase in criteria emissions from in-use trucks
if the current loophole is not addressed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 16]
The proposal does not limit the use of glider kits or rebuilt engines - it simply requires that engines be
certified to the same standards (for both GHG and criteria standards) as apply for the calendar year of
the glider vehicle assembly. As noted in the Preamble, there has been adequate time for glider
manufacturers to transition to a compliance regime. And the agencies have determined that removing
the exemption for these glider vehicles will be cost-effective. The agencies should finalize these
important provisions to level the playing field and bring glider kits in line with all new truck standards.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p. 16]
74 80 Fed. Reg. (July 13, 2015) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2: Proposed Rule at 40529. (Hereinafter "Preamble").
Organization: Fitzgerald Truck Sales
Fitzgerald Truck Sales appreciates the opportunity to submit its comments on the Phase 2 Proposed
Rule. In section I we speak to the underestimated and under investigated economic impact to small
businesses and misconceptions about gliders and there part in a "Green" environment. In section II we
see some key elements making gliders part of this Phase 2 proposal, in our opinion, lacking a
comprehensive investigation and frankly confronting some legal challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1134-A1 p.l]
EPA and NHTSA have specifically requested comment on their proposed regulation of "gliders" as part
of the Phase 2 Proposed Rule. As used in the industry, a "glider kit" is a new cab, front axle, and frame
rail/chassis that uses existing or rebuilt drivetrain components (engine, transmission, and rear axle) to
repair or extend the life of a used truck. Fitzgerald Truck Sales rebuilds tractors using these OE
supplied glider kits, and has been building kits since 1989. Rebuilding tractors with glider kits drives a
significant volume and business to local economies especially in the smaller communities of Tennessee,
like Byrdstown, Crossville and Jamestown. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.l]
Glider History and its Economies - Glider kits have been around for almost 50 years and are used for
a number of reasons. Gliders are less expensive than new trucks and offer a more economical option for
smaller fleets and owner/operators to maintain the reliability of their commercial trucking
operations. The reused drivetrain components constitute approximately 30-50% of the value of a new
truck, which generates significant cost savings for small businesses and owner-operators. Rebuilding an
engine and transmission uses 85% less energy than manufacturing them new, and results in engines and
transmissions that are more reliable and efficient thatpre-rebuild. With improved aerodynamics and
low rolling resistance tires on trucks assembled from glider kits, these rebuilt vehicles actually have
better fuel efficiency than when they were new. The engines most commonly used in gliders actually
have better fuel economy and greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions than today's ultra-low NOx engines
(pre-EGR EPA98 S60s). Wrecked or otherwise damaged trucks can be put back on the road
economically by placing the undamaged powertrain components in a new cab/chassis. In addition to the
use of glider kits for rebuilds, many CNG fleet operators prefer to buy glider kits and power them
themselves, often recycling the fuel system or saving money on CNG system installation. Hundreds of
small businesses have come to rely on gliders over the past 50 years as a cost-effective way of doing
business. These businesses include glider distributors, glider assemblers, small fleets, owner/operators,
and other small businesses in the commercial trucking industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1
p.1-2]
-------
Additional Considerations with Glider Provisions
Although EPA states that it considered impacts on small businesses in drafting the Phase 2 Proposed
Rule, the glider provisions particularly impact small businesses and it is not clear that EPA fully
considered the consequences the proposed regulations will have or how they could be minimized. As
EPA notes, the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel process—which EPA undertook to meet its
legal requirements under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act—included only one glider assembler. As a result of this oversight, there are a number of
additional ways that the proposal should be modified to mitigate the impacts of any glider regulation on
small businesses, jobs, and the economy in general. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.2]
Economic Impacts
• Gliders as a whole represent over 10,000 units annually. While this is insignificant as compared
to new trucks sold it does support a very significant number of jobs both locally and
nationwide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.2]
• Fitzgerald Employs 285 employees locally, predominately in areas historically economically
challenged in recent years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.2]
• Fitzgerald supports 137 vendor/suppliers not including the OEM's and their downstream
support. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.2]
• The end user of Gliders is the smaller business owner and employer who may not be
economically competitive and is definitely at risk if such rulings were to attempt to force them
to rely solely on new equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.2]
• The independent truckers buying one or a few gliders does not have the purchasing power to
buy new trucks at the same acquisition costs as a large fleet placing them at a disadvantage.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.2]
• Beyond Fitzgerald, the Supporting OEM's like Daimler (DTNA) and Peterbilt and Kenworth
(PACCAR), employ hundreds of men and women in the creation, support and manufacture of
the base Glider chassis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.2]
• Detroit Diesel, is the largest supplier of rebuilt engines and engine parts in support of gliders
and maintains an entire manufacturing facility in Ohio that would be devastated by the current
proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.2]
"Glider Vehicle" Exemption Cap
EPA has proposed that small manufacturers would be eligible for an exemption from EPA's proposed
glider vehicle certification requirements under 40 C.F.R. § 1037.635 that would allow them to continue
selling a limited number of glider vehicles. This cap would be based on the manufacturer's highest
annual sales volume for calendar years 2010 through 2014 up to a maximum of 300 exempt glider
vehicles. A cap of 300 vehicles is too low given the abrupt change this regulation brings to the 50-year-
old glider industry and the disproportionate impact it will have on small businesses. A more reasonable
approach would be to begin with a higher initial cap and gradually reduce it over time to allow large and
small businesses in the glider industry to adapt to EPA's new requirements. Specifically, if EPA
decides to implement a certification requirement for glider vehicles, the small business exemption
should start with a cap equal to the 2015 sales levels of vehicles in 2020 (complying with the statutory
lead-time requirement) and then reduce the cap annually in levels that give business time to adjust. Such
a phase-down would allow these small manufacturers to transition to other lines of business and to move
their employees to other types of work without extensive layoffs. Many small manufacturers will
already be limited by their highest annual sales volume and will not be affected by the cap. The
adjustment of the cap applicable to glider assemblers, coupled with the additional lead-time required
-------
under the CAA, is also critical to saving literally thousands of jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-
Alp.3]
Legal Issues with Glider Provisions
We are not alone in our concerns with EPA's proposed regulation of "glider kits" and "glider vehicles,"
including EPA's legal authority for regulating "glider kits." EPA's Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being
carried out under the authority of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), which does not provide EPA authority to
regulate the sale of motor vehicle components. Moreover, the CAA requires 4-years' lead-time for new
or revised NOx and PM requirements, which has not been met under the proposed regulations. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.3]
Proposed Definitions of "Glider Kit" and "Glider Vehicle"
EPA has proposed two overlapping and potentially confusing definitions: "Glider kit means any of the
following: (1) A new vehicle that is incomplete because it lacks an engine, transmission, or axle; (2) A
new vehicle produced with a used engine (including a rebuilt or remanufactured engine); (3) Any other
new equipment that is intended to become a motor vehicle with a previously used engine (including a
rebuilt or remanufactured engine)"; and "Glider vehicle means a new vehicle produced with a used
engine." As EPA has proposed these definitions, "glider vehicle" is a subset of "glider kit," whereas
under industry usage and understanding, the two are separate, and should remain so under the
regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.3]
A "glider kit" should instead be defined as "an assemblage of new vehicle components, including at a
minimum the chassis, cab and front axle, but lacking an engine, transmission, and rear axle." Once the
glider kit is assembled using existing or rebuilt drivetrain components (engine, transmission, and rear
axle), then it becomes a rebuilt truck, which EPA would consider a "glider vehicle." The EPA-proposed
definitions are confusing because they conflate the two, which are typically sold by separate
businesses. DTNA sells glider kits but not glider vehicles, while most glider assemblers sell glider
vehicles but do not manufacture glider kits. The third part of the proposed "glider kit" definition is
simply too broad and vague to be workable: "Any other new equipment that is intended to become a
motor vehicle with a previously used engine (including a rebuilt or remanufactured engine)" could
potentially encompass a single headlight or side mirror as a "glider kit." This part of the proposed
definition should be deleted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134-A1 p.3-4]
Regulation of "Glider Vehicles" Targets NOv/PM Emissions and Must Meet Statutory Lead-Time
Requirement
In addition, the proposed regulation of "glider vehicles" actually targets NOx/PM emissions rather than
GHG emissions, as EPA concedes, and is therefore inappropriate for inclusion in a GHG rule. Glider
sales actually create the potential to reduce GHG emissions by incorporating used and rebuilt engines in
newer, more aerodynamic vehicles. Rebuilt engines used in glider vehicles emit fewer GHGs, and new
cabs and low rolling resistance tires are more efficient than what they replace. Because regulation of
glider vehicles targets NOx/PM emissions, it should be done only in a separate rulemaking, if at all. In
addition, this separate rulemaking should be carefully drafted to meet statutory lead-time requirements
for NOx and PM regulations as required by statute. NOx and PM emissions standards are subject to an
express CAA lead-time requirement under which new or revised NOx and PM requirements cannot take
effect sooner than the model year commencing 4 years after new or revised standard is promulgated. 42
U.S.C. § 7521(3)(C). As currently proposed with an effective date of January 1, 2018, the proposed
glider regulations violate the 4-year lead-time requirement under the CAA. Assuming the Phase 2 rule
-------
is finalized in early 2016, the earliest that the regulations governing glider vehicles could take effect
would be 2020, in compliance with the CAA lead-time requirement. As currently proposed, EPA is
attempting to regulate NOx and PM in the GHG rule in a way it could not undertake in a proper NOx and
PM rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1134-A1 p.4]
Organization: GATR Truck Center
GATR Truck Center strongly supports the agencies' proposal to impose new requirements on companies
assembling and offering for sale vehicles produced by installing used driveline components into new
glider kits. EPA and NHTSA should require that manufacturers of these glider-based vehicles comply
with all applicable and current greenhouse gas and criteria emissions standards. NHTSA should also
enforce the existing regulations that require manufacturers of glider-based vehicles to comply with all
applicable safety standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1010-A2 p.l]
Dealers such as ours have been subject to a growing unfair competition from this rapidly expanding
market of non-compliant vehicles. Over the past few years, an increasing number of our customers have
purchased these non-compliant glider vehicles at prices that are 25% less than our comparable new
compliant trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1010-A2 p.2]
GATR Truck Center supports the application of glider kits as a means to repair badly damaged vehicles,
while taking advantage of the remaining useful life in the damaged vehicle's driveline components.
When conducted within the requirements of 49 CFR 571.7[e), which sets forth NHTSA's rules for re-
use of driveline components for installation into a glider kit, we have no specific concerns with such
legitimate applications of glider kits. It's when these rules are violated, however, in an effort to offer for
sale an essentially new vehicle whose production costs and total cost of ownership may be tens of
thousands of dollars less than the fully compliant new products sold by our dealership that we strongly
object to such an unfair disruption of market competition. Unfortunately, this practice has become
widespread without consequence to the glider-based vehicle manufacturers, and it is unfairly and
negatively impacting our business. In many cases, the manufacturers of glider-based vehicles are not
collecting the 12% federal excise tax ('FET') that normally applies to new vehicle sales, giving
customers even further financial incentive to purchase glider vehicles rather than fully compliant new
vehicles. This abusive application of glider kits must be stopped; we strongly support the agencies'
efforts to do so through appropriate new regulations and enforcement of existing regulations. EPA and
NHTSA should seek to remedy this situation as soon as practicable, while protecting for the continued
use of glider kits for legitimate purposes as we have described. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1010-A2
p.2]
We refer you to the comments of the Volvo Group North America for a more complete analysis and set
of recommendations with respect to the regulation and enforcement of glider-based vehicles. GATR
Truck Center supports the comments submitted by Volvo Group North America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1010-A2 p.2]
The rapidly expanding glider-based vehicle market is seriously undermining the significant gains EPA,
NHTSA, and the heavy-duty vehicle industry have made to reduce criteria and greenhouse gas
emissions, reduce fuel consumption, and improve roadway safety. The market availability of these non-
compliant engines and vehicles poses an unfair competitive disadvantage to manufacturers that have
undertaken the enormous effort and investment necessary to comply with all applicable emissions, fuel
efficiency, and safety standards, and likewise an unfair competitive advantage to the dealer network
representing those OEM's. It is therefore imperative that the agencies follow through by finalizing
regulations that prohibit the production of glider-based vehicles for anything other than legitimate
-------
purposes, and that the agencies actively ensure compliance to those requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1010-A2 p.2]
Organization: Harrison Truck Centers
EPA and NHTSA have specifically requested comment on their proposed regulation of "gliders" as part
of the Phase 2 Proposed Rule. As used in the industry, a "glider kit" is a new cab, front axle, and frame
rail/chassis that uses existing or rebuilt drivetrain components (engine, transmission, and rear axle) to
repair or extend the life of a used truck. Harrison Truck Centers rebuilds tractors using these glider kits,
and has for over fifteen years. Rebuilding tractors with gliders kits drive a significant volume and
business to our area. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0059-A1 p.l]
Glider kits have been around for almost 50 years and are used for a number of reasons. Gliders are less
expensive than new trucks and offer a more economical option for smaller fleets and owner/operators to
maintain the reliability of their commercial trucking operations. The reused drivetrain components
constitute approximately 30-50% of the value of a new truck, which generates significant cost savings
for small businesses and owner-operators. Remanufacturing an engine and transmission uses 85% less
energy than manufacturing them new, and results in engines and transmissions that are more reliable
and efficient that pre-rebuild. With improved aerodynamics and low rolling resistance tires on trucks
assembled from glider kits, these rebuilt vehicles actually have better fuel efficiency than when they
were new. The engines most commonly used in gliders actually have better fuel economy and
greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions than today's ultra-low NOX engines (pre-EGR EPA98
S60s). Wrecked or otherwise damaged trucks can be put back on the road economically by placing the
undamaged powertrain components in a new cab/chassis. In addition to the use of glider kits for
rebuilds, many CNG fleet operators prefer to buy glider kits and power them themselves, often
recycling the fuel system or saving money on CNG system installation. Hundreds of small businesses
have come to rely on gliders over the past 50 years as a cost-effective way of doing business. These
businesses include glider distributors, glider assemblers, small fleets, owner/operators, and other small
businesses in the commercial trucking industry. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0059-A1 p. 1-2]
Harrison Truck Centers also repeated comments summarized above for Daimler.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Potential regulatory loophole
The ICCT recommends that the agencies ensure there are no regulatory loopholes whereby increasing
unforeseen numbers of trucks exploit regulatory exemptions to avoid deploying emission reduction and
efficiency technology. The ICCT spends a considerable amount of time investigating gaps between
policy objectives and their market outcomes. The U.S. exemption for gliders (i.e., "glider kits,"
"gliders," or "glider vehicles") in the criteria pollutant heavy-duty vehicle regulations is among the
more egregious and high-risk regulatory gaps. The glider kit provision that was previously used to assist
in bringing hundreds of repaired vehicles per year is now creating an entirely new market with tens of
thousands of sales per year, now with multiple suppliers competing in the space. This glider market is
predicated upon reduced costs from vehicles that are not regulated and not certified through the full
process that most modern tractors are. This is a clear distortion of the market and the exploitation of a
regulatory provision that was not foreseen to be used in such a way. We recommend that the agencies'
include glider kit-manufactured vehicles within the greenhouse gas emission and efficiency regulations,
as well as criteria pollutant emission regulations as soon as possible. Exemptions, if granted, would
ideally be restricted to a number that is consistent with pre-emission-regulation glider production - on
-------
the order of hundreds of units per year industry wide - and only those with legally or insurance-verified
evidence of inoperably damaged tractor frames. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p.16]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Heavy-Duty Glider Kits and Glider Vehicles
MECA strongly supports the agency's proposal to require that the engines installed in glider vehicles
meet the same criteria and GHG emission requirements as new engines certified in the same model year.
The recent rapid growth in the number of glider vehicles sold since 2007 to over 5,000 vehicles a year
shows the large emissions impact that this category of high emitters has on the overall contribution of
PM and NOx from heavy-duty engines. As new engines become cleaner in the future the contribution
from glider vehicles will continue to grow. Glider vehicles are classified as "new motor vehicles"
because they use a new chassis, although they can continue to use engines that are 10-15 years old and
emit 20-40 times more pollution than vehicles equipped with a new engine. The existing exemption of
glider vehicles from the latest pollution requirements represents a huge loophole in the regulation. Using
this "new motor vehicle" designation under the clean air act, glider vehicles could potentially qualify for
clean air incentive funding under some state in-use fleet programs while not meeting the intent or
emission reduction goals of those programs. Glider vehicles, equipped with old diesel engines, or
converted to alternative fuels could potentially compete for funding with newly manufactured trucks,
replacement engines or retrofit emission control devices. The proposed glider kit and glider vehicle
provision in this proposal takes an important step towards closing this loophole and MECA supports
inclusion of this provision in the final regulation and moving the implementation date ahead of the
proposed 2018 start date. There should be no "dirty diesel" loophole left in EPA's regulatory programs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 12] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.212.]]
MECA is concerned that the present proposed limited grandfathering of glider vehicle production for
existing small businesses would still allow the continued production of up to 300 assembled gliders a
year, per company. This exemption poses a significant threat to air quality as 300 trucks could emit the
same amount of NOx as 7500 new heavy duty trucks. EPA should include a phase-out of this glider
loophole completely that reduces the 300 glider kit limit per small existing business over a course of
three years after which full compliance is required. This should provide sufficient time for small
businesses to adapt their business models to produce and maintain clean diesels. Retaining a 300 per
year limit indefinitely could result in a disproportionate number of dirty vehicles to continue to be
produced and remain in the fleet for decades to come. To minimize the opportunity to abuse this
exemption, EPA might consider limiting the conditions under which a glider vehicle may be purchased
to legitimate situations such as when a vehicle is damaged in an accident and the engine can be
salvaged. Requirements should include record keeping guidelines to support legitimate transactions to
purchase glider vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 12]
Organization: Mississippi Furniture Xpress (MFX)
MFX, LLC is one of the companies who would be negatively impacted by passage of this ruling due to
our purchasing of glider trucks. This ruling would not only impact our company, but also our 150
employees as well as the numerous connected businesses with whom we contract and provide services
throughout the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1338-A1 p.l]
In the past EPA regulations have been imposed with no opportunity for discourse and their impact on
business and the livelihoods of those affected often not given consideration. This represents one of the
-------
many reasons that the citizens of this country are dissatisfied with government. I have worked in the
trucking industry for over 30 years and have seen the advancements related to safety and emissions by
the industry as a whole. The changes have been significant and positive; however, our industry faces a
constant barrage of costly and restrictive regulations that threaten our operations so greatly, that we as
business owners are deeply concerned that tighter regulations will be too costly, time consuming and
burdensome to overcome. Pending regulations by FMCSA regarding ELD's is enough to ruin many
small companies, much less adding more restrictive and burdensome EPA rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1338-A1 p.l]
We purchased used trucks when we began our company and nearly went bankrupt trying to keep them
running due to all of the problems caused by EPA regulations on engines after 2007. Those problems
continue to be devastating to companies who operate trucks with certain engines; the cost of repairs
often exceeds 50% of the cost of the truck itself. Buying glider trucks absolutely saved us from going
out of business due to repair costs for the used trucks we had purchased. Further regulations to these
trucks feels like overreach and we're unaware of studies which show that the small percentage of glider
trucks being sold have any appreciable impact on the environment, whereas they are most certainly
having a positive economic effect for the people and businesses that choose to purchase them. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-133 8-A1 p.2]
Our current understanding is that the EPA does not have legal authority for regulation of glider kits.
EPA's Phase 2 Proposed Rule is being carried out under the authority of the Clean Air Act ('CAA'),
which does not provide EPA authority to regulate the sale of motor vehicle components. Moreover, the
CAA requires 4-years' lead-time for new or revised NO,, and PM requirements, which has not been met
under the proposed regulations. EPA has been aware of the use of glider kits for over 35 years, and has
not attempted to regulate them because they are not 'new motor vehicles' or 'new motor vehicle engines'
under the CAA. As regulations by FMCSA have been repealed due to not having sufficient data to
support their assertions, this proposed ruling by the EPA seems open to challenge on the same basis.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-133 8-A1 p.2]
Thank you for the opportunity to comment; however, we strongly oppose this proposed ruling and ask
that it be abandoned due to the reasons cited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1338-A1 p.2]
Organization: Mondial Automotive
EPA and NHTSA have specifically requested comment on their proposed regulation of'gliders' as part
of the Phase 2 Proposed Rule. Mondial Automotive, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to submit its
comments on the Phase 2 Proposed Rule. As used in the industry, a 'glider kit' is a new cab, front axle,
and frame rail/chassis that uses existing or rebuilt drivetrain components (engine, transmission, and rear
axle) to repair or extend the life of a used truck. Mondial Automotive, Inc. is a downstream supplier of
Original Equipment Parts and Components that are used in the production of 'glider kits'. The 'glider kit'
industry drives a significant volume of business to local economies such as our community of College
Point, NY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A1 p.l]
Glider History and its Economies - Glider kits have been around for almost 50 years and are used for
a number of reasons. Gliders are less expensive than new trucks and offer a more economical option for
smaller fleets and owner/operators to maintain the reliability of their commercial trucking operations.
The reused drivetrain components constitute approximately 30-50% of the value of a new truck, which
generates significant cost savings for small businesses and owner-operators. Rebuilding an engine and
transmission uses 85% less energy than manufacturing them new, and results in engines and
transmissions that are more reliable and efficient thatpre-rebuild. With improved aerodynamics and low
-------
rolling resistance tires on trucks assembled from glider kits, these rebuilt vehicles actually have better
fuel efficiency than when they were new. The engines most commonly used in gliders actually have
better fuel economy and greenhouse gas ('GHG') emissions than today's ultra-low NO, engines (pre-
EGR EPA98 S60s). Wrecked or otherwise damaged trucks can be put back on the road economically by
placing the undamaged powertrain components in a new cab/chassis. In addition to the use of glider kits
for rebuilds, many CNG fleet operators prefer to buy glider kits and power them themselves, often
recycling the fuel system or saving money on CNG system installation. Hundreds of small businesses
have come to rely on gliders over the past 50 years as a cost-effective way of doing business. These
businesses include glider distributors, glider assemblers, small fleets, owner/operators, and other small
businesses in the commercial trucking industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A1 p. 1-2]
I. Additional Considerations with Glider Provisions
Although EPA states that it considered impacts on small businesses in drafting the Phase 2 Proposed
Rule, the glider provisions particularly impact small businesses and it is not clear that EPA fully
considered the consequences the proposed regulations will have or how they could be minimized. As
EPA notes, the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel process—which EPA undertook to meet its
legal requirements under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act—included only one glider assembler. As a result of this oversight, there are a number of
additional ways that the proposal should be modified to mitigate the impacts of any glider regulation on
small businesses, jobs, and the economy in general. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A1 p.2]
A. Economic Impacts
• Gliders as a whole represent over 10,000 units annually. While this is insignificant as compared
to new trucks sold it does support a very significant number of jobs both locally and nationwide.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A1 p.2]
• Mondial Employs 47 employees locally, predominately in a minority populated urban area.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A 1 p.2]
• The end user of Gliders is the smaller business owner and employer who may not be
economically competitive and is definitely at risk if such rulings were to attempt to force them
to rely solely on new equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A1 p.2]
• The independent truckers buying one or a few gliders does not have the purchasing power to
buy new trucks at the same acquisition costs as a large fleet placing them at a disadvantage.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A 1 p.2]
• OEM's like Daimler (DTNA) and Peterbilt and Kenworth (PACCAR), employ hundreds of men
and women in the creation, support and manufacture of the base Glider chassis. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1337-A1 p.2]
• Detroit Diesel, is the largest supplier of rebuilt engines and engine parts in support of gliders
and maintains an entire manufacturing facility in Ohio that would be devastated by the current
proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A1 p.2]
B. 'Glider Vehicle' Exemption Cap
EPA has proposed that small manufacturers would be eligible for an exemption from EPA's proposed
glider vehicle certification requirements under 40 C.F.R. § 1037.635 that would allow them to continue
selling a limited number of glider vehicles. This cap would be based on the manufacturer's highest
annual sales volume for calendar years 2010 through 2014 up to a maximum of 300 exempt glider
vehicles. A cap of 300 vehicles is too low given the abrupt change this regulation brings to the 50-year-
old glider industry and the disproportionate impact it will have on small businesses. A more reasonable
-------
approach would be to begin with a higher initial cap and gradually reduce it over time to allow large and
small businesses in the glider industry to adapt to EPA's new requirements. Specifically, if EPA decides
to implement a certification requirement for glider vehicles, the small business exemption should start
with a cap equal to the 2015 sales levels of vehicles in 2020 (complying with the statutory lead-time
requirement) and then reduce the cap annually in levels that give business time to adjust. Such a phase-
down would allow these small manufacturers to transition to other lines of business and to move their
employees to other types of work without extensive layoffs. Many small manufacturers will already be
limited by their highest annual sales volume and will not be affected by the cap. The adjustment of the
cap applicable to glider assemblers, coupled with the additional lead-time required under the CAA, is
also critical to saving literally thousands of jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A1 p.2-3]
In closing Gliders are a necessity to our national commerce. Catering to the smaller businesses and
truckers who survive using gliders as a necessary tool to compete in their markets. Gliders are indeed
'Green' in respects to the re-use of components, and putting cleaner and safer vehicles than those
replaced components and vehicles that would have been on the road otherwise. The EPA falls well short
in any assumption that restricting gliders unreasonably will drive our customers to in essence 'NEW
TRUCKS'. This is simply not the case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1337-A1 p.3]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Reconsider Actions Impacting Remanufactured Engines [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 11]
In addition to representing original equipment suppliers, MEMA also represents remanufacturers and
their suppliers. The proposed rule seeks to regulate non-new products under Phase 2, including gliders
and remanufactured engines. There remains a legitimate need and purpose for glider kits and
remanufactured engines and our members would like to support the reduction of potential objectionable
uses of the standards. However, MEMA is concerned that the direction being proposed by the agency is
swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction and has the potential to significantly impact this
industry segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 11]
Remanufactured parts are given an extended life, cost less to produce and purchase and minimize the
impact on the environment by not ending up in the waste stream. The motor vehicle remanufacturing
industry supports over 50,000 direct jobs in the U.S. and demonstrates a commitment to sustainability
through product innovation and the incorporation of more environmentally-friendly manufacturing
practices. The U.S. Congress has recognized the value of remanufactured parts and components as
exemplified by the "Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act" (S. 565), which directs federal agencies
to consider using remanufactured parts when maintaining federal vehicle fleets. This bill passed the
Senate on June 15 and the House of Representatives on September 28. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1274-A1 p. 11]
Remanufacturing is a standardized industrial process by which previously sold, worn or nonfunctional
products are refurbished to a better condition and performance in order to reuse resources and reduce
waste. The process incorporates technical specifications, including engineering, quality and testing
standards to yield warranted products. In addition to remanufactured engines other examples of
remanufactured components include: transmissions, alternators, starters, turbochargers, steering and
suspension components and electronic control modules. Remanufacturing preserves some of the value
of the original manufacturing - including energy costs, investment in capital and labor inputs - which
recycling alone cannot do. This process saves about 85 percent of the energy and material used to
manufacture similar new products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 11]
-------
MEMA has concerns about the NPRM's approach on gliders - particularly the agencies' proposals:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 12]
• to define used and remanufactured engines/equipment as "new" engines/equipment; [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1 p. 12]
• to impose on remanufactured engines the same compliance criteria as actual new engines for the
year in which it was remanufactured (for all emissions); and, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-
A1 p.12]
• to assert an earlier compliance timeline of MY2018. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1274-A1 p.12]
It is important to note that while a remanufactured component can be "manufactured again" to extend
the service life, there are constraints as to how much and to what degree you can alter a component to
meet newer design performance criteria beyond its original design. This task becomes increasingly more
challenging the more complex the component/system. Furthermore, the proposed scope of the
requirements for remanufactured engines would not only include GHG standards, but also all applicable
criteria pollutant emissions standards; yet this Phase 2 rulemaking is a GHG rule, not for other
pollutants. Also, the proposed timeline would kick in much sooner (by MY2018) than the other
compliance requirements (MY2021). This timeline is impractical in terms of production planning and
the remanufacturing process. Absent from the proposed rule are the data to demonstrate that the
proposal will have a net positive impact on reducing C02 emissions; nor is there a full evaluation of the
cost-benefit impacts the proposal will have on rebuilt and remanufactured engines and components. As
a result, while the NPRM assures that this is not a "ban" of glider kits - the proposed changes have the
potential to significantly burden and overwhelm the remanufacturing sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1274-A1 p. 12]
For all of these reasons, MEMA recommends that the agencies strike and remove the additional text
from the definition of "new" in part 1068.30 that states: "Note that in certain cases, used and
remanufactured engines/equipment may be 'new' engines/equipment." The remanufacturer members of
MEMA and MERA are prepared to work with the agencies on a practical approach to address the
government's concerns while still retaining this important industry sector for its intended and legitimate
role and purpose. As we represent different manufacturers in this space, we anticipate that they will
address these and related concerns in more detail in their company comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1274-A1 p. 12]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
We are also very much in favor of EPA's proposal to close the existing loophole for glider kits and
glider vehicles, under which used pre-2013 engines - with no limit on age - may be installed into new
glider kits without meeting applicable standards. We agree with EPA that its regulations should be
revised to require that only engines that have been certified to meet the prevailing standards be eligible
for installation into new glider kits. The sale of glider kits has increased 10-fold1 since the
implementation of federal 2007/2010 particulate matter (PM) and NOx emission standards. The
proposed changes will stem the unrestricted sale of glider vehicles with older, higher-emitting engines.
With respect to implementation of EPA's proposed glider requirements, we believe this should occur as
soon as possible but no later than January 2018. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.2] [[These
comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.52.]]
-------
1 U.S. EPA, Frequently Asked Questions about Heavy-Duty "Glider Vehicles" and "Glider Kits"
(2015), http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/documents/420fl5904.pdf.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
IV. GLIDER KITS
The Phase 2 proposal seeks to severely restrict the sale of glider kits by generally requiring that engines
used in glider vehicles be certified to the standards applicable to the calendar year in which assembly of
the glider vehicle is completed, and by requiring many rebuilders to obtain vehicle certificates. The
Phase 2 proposal also contains new definitions of "glider vehicle" and "glider kit" ostensibly based on a
common understanding of these terms.4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1932-A1 p. 3]
The Phase 2 proposal would continue to exempt small businesses using gliders to rebuild vehicles from
the need to obtain vehicle certificates, but would limit the exemption to an annual production of 200
units (production in excess of the capped amount would be allowed, but subject to all otherwise
applicable requirements including the Phase 2 standards). For example, a small business producing
between 100 and 200 glider vehicles per year would be allowed to do so without having to certify them
to current year GHG (and other emission) standards, so long as they meet applicable standards for the
year of their manufacture. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1932-A1 p.3]
In its 2015 comments, NAD A/A TD urged EPA and NHTSA to consider another alternative designed to
harmonize with NHTSA's long-standing "manufacture" exemption for vehicle rebuilding. That
exemption keys on there being a single "donor" vehicle from which two of three used components
(engine, transmission, and drive-axle) are incorporated into the rebuilt vehicle. This exemption from the
definition of "manufacturing" allows the rebuilder to avoid having to meet NHTSA manufacturer
registration and other requirements. NADA/ATD also suggested that when two of these three used
components are incorporated into a rebuilt vehicle, using a glider kit, the used engine would only be
required to meet emission standards applicable to its year of original manufacture and, if rebuilt, any
subsequent running changes. Obviously, no emissions certification would be required. Under that
alternative, it would matter not if the rebuilder was a small business or how many units were rebuilt in a
year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1932-A1 p.4]
With respect to the Memorandum referenced in the NODA, NADA/ATD is taking no position with
respect to the legal opinions expressed therein. On the other hand, NADA/ATD has reviewed and does
support certain additional glider engine considerations discussed in Section "I" of the Memorandum.
These include no regulation of 2010 and later engines and engines less than three-years-old, the reuse of
newer engines with remaining "useful life," and the reuse of low mileage older engines. Lastly, NADA
reiterates its support for the alternatives suggested in its 2015 comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1932-A1 p.4]
Glider Kits
The Phase 2 proposal seeks to severely restrict the sale of glider kits by generally requiring that engines
used in glider vehicles be certified to the standards applicable to the calendar year in which assembly of
the glider vehicle is completed, and by requiring many rebuilders to obtain vehicle certificates. The
Phase 2 proposal also contains new definitions of'glider vehicle' and 'glider kit' ostensibly based on a
common understanding of these terms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 12]
-------
The Phase 2 proposal also would continue to exempt small businesses using gliders to rebuild vehicles
from the need to obtain vehicle certificates, but would limit the exemption to an annual production of
200 units (production in excess of the capped amount would be allowed, but subject to all otherwise
applicable requirements including the Phase 2 standards). For example, a small business producing
between 100 and 200 glider vehicles per year would be allowed to do so without having to certify them
to current year GHG (and other emission) standards, so long as they meet applicable standards for the
year of their manufacture. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.12]
NADA/ATD urges EPA and NHTSA to consider another alternative designed to harmonize with
NHTSA's long-standing "manufacture" exemption for vehicle rebuilding. That exemption keys on there
being a single "donor" vehicle from which two of three used components (engine, transmission, and
drive-axle) are incorporated into the rebuilt vehicle. This exemption from the definition of
"manufacturing" allows the rebuilder to avoid having to meet NHTSA manufacturer registration and
other requirements. Likewise, NADA/ATD suggests that when two of these three used components are
incorporated into a rebuilt vehicle, using a glider kit, the used engine would only be required to meet
emission standards applicable to its year of original manufacture and, if rebuilt, any subsequent running
changes. Obviously, no emissions certification would be required. Under this alternative, it would
matter not if the rebuilder was a small business or how many units were rebuilt in a year. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 12]
4 40 CFR 1037.801.
Organization: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA)
NRMCA supports maintaining the flexibility of ready mixed concrete producers to utilize their already
purchased assets to their fullest capacity, such as with "glider kits." To this end, NRMCA opposes the
proposal's suggestion to require glider kits contain Phase 2 compliant engines7. Continuing to allow
ready mixed concrete producers the opportunity to utilize refurbished trucks, truck parts and engines is
an entrepreneurial inventiveness affording industry members economic and productivity advantages and
competitiveness. Changing the current glider kit system will undoubtedly cause undue harm and
hardship for many ready mixed concrete companies that base their business model on glider kits instead
of purchasing brand new trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1146-A1 p.3]
Upending the current glider kit system serves as an unnecessary coercion on market forces that alone
will inevitably pressure the phase out of pre-Phase 2 engines. Requiring glider kits to be Phase 2
compliant would be redundant, unnecessary, and unfairly expeditious on the ready mixed concrete
industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1146-A1 p.3]
NRMCA opposes any changes to the current glider kit schemes. NRMCA would like to highlight
comments recently reported on that were made by Matthew Spears, executive director of EPA's Heavy
Duty Diesel Program at a recent session of the American Trucking Association's Technology &
Maintenance Council (September 22,2015)8, in which he noted that the Phase 2 program changes to
glider kits may be left alone when applied to concrete mixer truck chassis. NRMCA would very much
support such a carve-out for ready mixed concrete trucks. As much, mixer trucks do fall in line with any
criteria that would exclude their coverage based on low-mileage and/or vocational use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1146-A1 p.3-4]
-------
7 80 Federal Register 40329, 40528
8 Tom Berg, "EPA Might Alter 'Implementation Roadmap' for GHG Phase 2 Rules,"
http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/fuel-smarts/news/storv/2015/Q9/epa-might-alter-implementation-
roadmap-for-ghg-phase-2-rules.aspx. September 23, 2015).
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Glider Vehicles and Glider Kits
NRDC supports the EPA proposal to clarify requirements for glider vehicle and kit manufacturers and
to require new gliders to use engines that meet the standards current to the year of the glider
manufacturing. The EPA action will ensure that there is not a large and growing loophole allowing
glider vehicles with high-emitting engines to displace new vehicles that meet current pollution
standards. NRDC agrees that these requirements should apply equally for GHG and non-GHG
pollutants. We also recommend thatNHTSA move forward with implementing similar requirements for
fuel consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1220-A1 p. 10]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar supports the portion of the NPRM that addresses gliders. Further, Navistar suggests that the
allowance is too high, and that gliders should either be limited to 200 per year or eliminated completely.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 14]
Organization: Neapco
The proposed rule would have an unfavorable impact on Neapco Components. If we were unable to sell
product to the glider kit industry, we would have to reduce our employment levels in Beatrice Nebraska
and Pottstown Pennsylvania. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1134 p. 1]
The proposed rule understates the benefits of a glider kit truck on the environment and also
underestimates the benefits of improved highway safety by replacing an older trucks with a glider kit
truck with many improved components. The option of purchasing a glider kit truck also benefits small
businesses who the government reports to be the primary source of new jobs in our country. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1134 p. 1]
Organization: NGVAmerica
K. Glider Vehicle Regulations [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.8]
EPA has proposed for Phase 2 that no small business entity could produce more than 300 glider vehicles
in any given model year without certifying (or recertifying) the vehicle and engine to the current EPA
standards. This level of volume will limit the ability of OEM truck manufacturers to support their
ongoing glider truck programs, which have proved beneficial to alternative fuel platforms and could be
a solid foundation for the growth of alternative fuel usage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.8]
NGV America, however, supports the proposal to provide a limited exemption for small manufacturers
who produce completed glider trucks using pre-2007 engines. As described elsewhere in our comments,
EPA should use the small business definitions currently set out in guidance provided for light duty
aftermarket retrofit manufacturers. SBA regulations, 13 CFR 121.201, define a "small business" by the
maximum number of employees; for example, this is currently 1,000 for heavy-duty vehicle
-------
manufacturing and 750 for engine manufacturing. These levels also should be used for purposes of the
Phase 2 rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.8]
We understand the concerns raised by EPA regarding the continued use of older engines in essentially
new vehicles and the propensity for this to greatly extend the life of some engines thereby delaying
improvements in emission benefits. This concern is well founded in cases where pre-2007 engines are
simply rebuilt and used with no improvements in emissions. However, modifying in-use engines to
operate on natural gas does lead to improvements and reductions in criteria emissions. Based on this
fact, we would urge EPA to expand the ability of glider manufacturers to continue to make use of pre-
2007 natural gas (or other alternative fuels) retrofitted engines that are certified or approved, and that
demonstrate significant emission reductions in criteria pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate
matter. One way to accomplish this would be to provide a separate allowance for gliders equipped with
alternative fuel engines, or increase the total number of allowances for companies utilizing alternative
fuel engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.9]
We also urge EPA to expand the opportunities for glider manufacturers to make use of 2010 compliant
engines that are retrofitted by small volume manufacturers to operate on alternative fuels. Post-2010
engines do not present the same issue with regard to potential in-use emissions and thus should not be
limited. We believe that adopting this policy comports with EPA's long standing policy of providing
additional flexibility to small volume manufactures of alternative fuel systems and would help expand
market opportunities for these companies and fleets interested in using alternative fuels. In some
applications, such as larger engines, this may be the only way a fleet can expand its use of natural gas.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.9]
Providing the flexibility described here will allow OEM Truck manufacturers to continue to produce a
limited number of gliders each year, and will encourage greater use of alternative fuel trucks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.9]
Organization: North American Repower
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 309.]
You have asked specifically about the glider kits. In your Preamble, you say that people are going to
glider kits to circumvent the Clean Air Act. That is not why they are doing it. Maybe you have more
information than I do. Maybe there is somebody specifically trying to do that.
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
The agencies should close the "Glider Kit" loophole.
We strongly support the proposed measure to ensure that glider kits are subject to the same applicable
regulations as other new trucks. This common sense measure will prevent gaming and will avoid
significant amounts of unnecessary emissions of GHGs, NOx, and PM2.5. The agencies request
comment on the appropriate magnitude of the exemption. While we agree that some minimal exemption
opportunity is probably appropriate in limited cases, we urge the agencies to set this number as low as is
practical without impeding small businesses with legitimate claims. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-
A1 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420,
pp.139-140.]]
-------
Organization: Nuss Truck & Equipment of Minnesota and Wisconsin
Nuss Truck & Equipment strongly supports the agencies' proposal to impose new requirements on
companies assembling and offering for sale vehicles produced by installing used driveline components
into new glider kits. EPA and NHTSA should require that manufacturers of these glider-based vehicles
comply with all applicable and current greenhouse gas and criteria emissions standards. NHTSA should
also enforce the existing regulations that require manufacturers of glider-based vehicles to comply with
all applicable safety standards. Dealers such as ours have been subject to a growing unfair competition
from this rapidly expanding market of non-compliant vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0918-A2
p.l]
Nuss Truck & Equipment sold glider kits in the past when our customers purchased to repair a wrecked
truck, or worn out cab, hood and frame on a heavy duty truck, or because they owned a truck that
recently had major investment in the powertrain, and it made sense to redeploy those components into a
glider kit. Glider kit usage in the early 2000's dropped off significantly as our OEM manufacturers
devoted time to building trucks to meet emission standards and not proposing a way around emissions
(2002 - 2007). Now, truck purchasers have the ability to purchase a powertrain combination that they
never owned in an existing truck, from assemblers who have chosen to exploit the law put in place that
was intended to clean up air pollution. The original intent of selling gilder kits has moved from a
rebuilding mechanism to now mainly evading diesel emissions EPA mandates. We see many truck
owners and small fleets from Minnesota and Wisconsin traveling long distances, passing by dozens of
legitimate truck dealers, to purchase glider kits directly from a manufacturer in another state, just to
avoid the current EPA emissions standards. That should not be a legally acceptable reason to purchase a
glider kit, if we all want clean air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0918-A2 p. 1]
Nuss Truck & Equipment supports the application of glider kits as a means to repair badly damaged
vehicles, while taking advantage of the remaining useful life in the damaged vehicle's driveline
components. When conducted within the requirements of 49 CFR 571.(e), which sets forth NHTSA's
rules for re-use of driveline components for installation into a glider kit, we have no specific concerns
with such legitimate applications of glider kits. It's when these rules are violated, however, in an effort
to offer for sale an essentially new vehicle whose production costs and total cost of ownership may be
tens of thousands of dollars less than the fully compliant new products sold by our dealership that we
strongly object to such an unfair disruption of market competition. Unfortunately, this practice has
become widespread without consequence to the glider-based vehicle manufacturers, and it is unfairly
and negatively impacting our business. In many cases, the manufacturers of glider-based vehicles are
not collecting the 12% federal excise tax ('FET') that normally applies to new vehicle sales, giving
customers even further financial incentive to purchase glider vehicles rather than fully compliant new
vehicles. This abusive application of glider kits must be stopped; we strongly support the agencies'
efforts to do so through appropriate new regulations and enforcement of existing regulations. EPA and
NHTSA should seek to remedy this situation as soon as practicable, while protecting for the continued
use of glider kits for legitimate purposes as we have described. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0918-A2
p.2]
We refer you to the comments of the Volvo Group North America for a more complete analysis and set
of recommendations with respect to the regulation and enforcement of glider-based vehicles. Nuss
Truck & Equipment supports the comments submitted by Volvo Group North America. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-0918-A2 p.2]
The rapidly expanding glider-based vehicle market is seriously undermining the significant gains EPA,
NHTSA, and the heavy-duty vehicle industry have made to reduce criteria and greenhouse gas
-------
emissions, reduce fuel consumption, and improve roadway safety. The market availability of these non-
compliant engines and vehicles poses an unfair competitive disadvantage to manufacturers that have
undertaken the enormous effort and investment necessary to comply with all applicable emissions, fuel
efficiency, and safety standards, and likewise an unfair competitive advantage to the dealer network
representing those OEM's. It is therefore imperative that the agencies follow through by finalizing
regulations that prohibit the production of glider-based vehicles for anything other than legitimate
purposes, and that the agencies actively ensure compliance to those requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0918-A2p.2]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
To compound this problem, the new proposal would limit the number of glider kits that could be
produced and sold -under the assumption that drivers who use them would have less incentive to
purchase a new truck that would achieve even greater efficiency. The unavailability of gliders kits is
not likely a sufficient factor to overcome the fact that new trucks may be prohibitively expensive for
many truck owners. The agencies should not discourage the modification of older equipment at the
expense of incremental environmental benefits. This is especially true considering that one of the major
benefits of a glider kit is reduced fuel consumption. When a reliable engine is placed into a new
aerodynamic tractor, this will clearly result in a reduction of GHG emissions, which should be
applauded by the agencies. If the agencies wish to address glider kits in any way OOIDA believes this
issue should be the subject of a separate rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1244-A1 p.44-45]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
I. Glider Standards: EPA and NHTSA Should Adopt Glider Regulations that Reflect the Needs of
Customers and Manufacturers.
Gliders are and have been for many years a key tool for fleet and individual vehicle owners to cost
effectively use all the vehicle major components, such as the engine, transmission, and rear axles, to
transport goods to the American consumer and to do so at the lowest cost possible. PACCAR
understands EPA's concern regarding oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions that comes from earlier
emission level engines that can be put into current model year gliders. Recognizing this concern as well
as the needs of the market, PACCAR provides the following recommendation for glider provisions in
the Phase 2 regulation. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p,2]
• GHG Vocational and Tractor vehicles should be allowed to have installed post-2010 emissions
engines with no volume or no mileage limitations on the engine [NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.2]
• Implementation of the requirement to install post-2010 emissions engines should be phase-in with full
implementation tied to the start of the Phase 2 GHG regulation in 2021, except for Small Business as is
noted below [NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.2
• EPA-defined Small Manufacturers would be exempt from the requirements of the GHG regulation
through 2021. The volume limit of gliders for 2018 through 2021 will be their highest build volume
between 2012 and 2014, inclusive, or 300 units, whichever is smaller. There is no restriction prior to
2018. As of 2022, the exemption requires the installation of post-2010 engines, same as for non-exempt
businesses. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.2]
a. Glider Manufacturers Do Not Have All the Details about the Final Glider Configuration.
-------
In NODA document EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1627 titled "Legal Memorandum Discussing Issues
Pertaining to Trailers, Glider Vehicles, and Glider Kits under the Clean Air Act" Section f. Controls on
Manufacturers of Glider Kits, EPA states that"... glider kits include the entire tractor chassis, cab, tires,
body, and brakes. Glider kit manufacturers thus control critical elements of the ultimate vehicle's
greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, all aerodynamic features and all emissions related to tire type."
EPA's understanding of the content of a glider kit and the extent of the data knowledge of the glider
manufacturer is incorrect. Gliders are built in a variety of configurations. Many do not have rear axles
installed, thus no information is known by the manufacturer on the axle configuration, the rear axle
ratio, or the rear tires. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.2]
In some cases, the vehicle is modified during the assembly process to change the cab / sleeper
configuration without the knowledge of the glider manufacturer. Other components that impact
aerodynamics such as exhaust system configuration and roof fairing designs are not known by the
manufacturer at the time of glider build. Thus the manufacturer does not always have the necessary data
needed as input to GEM for that glider, which challenges the concept that the glider manufacturer is
inherently the correct regulated entity for the glider as a finished vehicle. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1
p.2-3]
Additionally, in this same section, EPA states "Glider kit manufacturers also invariably know the final
configuration of the glider vehicle, i.e. the type of engine and transmission which the final assembler
will add to the glider kit. This is because the glider kit contains all necessary wiring, and it is necessary,
in turn, for the glider kit manufacturer to know the end configuration in order to wire the kit properly."
Again, the reality is different from EPA's understanding. The glider manufacturer does not always
provide engine or transmission wiring for the major components that will be installed. Wiring harnesses
can be ordered at the same time as the glider, but the reality is that the glider assembler often greatly
modifies the harness so that it will work for a completely different and unintended engine. For example,
wiring harnesses for a CAT engine are being reworked for a Detroit Diesel engine. It must be noted that
even though these two engines are installed in significant numbers in gliders, neither of these engines
are installed in PACCAR vehicles at the factory and have not been for nearly a decade. As a result,
significant rework is required that is uncontrolled by PACCAR. Also, this means that the glider
manufacturer does not necessarily know the engine or the transmission that will be installed.
Transmission information is used only to determine the correct driveline length. Multiple transmissions
that would have very different GEM inputs have the same effective lengths. Also, no information
regarding manual versus automated manual configuration of a transmission are provided with the glider
orders. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.3
b. Labeling of Gliders as "Not for Tractors " Adds No Value Under PACCAR 's Proposal.
In Section g. Alternative Provisions for Trailer and Glider Kit Manufacturers as Manufacturers of Motor
Vehicle Parts, EPA proposes a unique label for gliders that will be used in Vocational applications. In
the PACCAR proposal that is detailed at the start of this document, there is no difference between
Tractor and Vocational vehicles, therefore there is no need for a unique labeling requirement. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0223-A1 p.3]
c. Requirements for Rebuilt / Remanufactured Engines to Meet Current Engine Standards are Not
Needed.
The requirement outlined in Section h. Alternative Provisions for Engine Remanufacturers, that all
engines that are rebuilt or remanufactured must meet the current model year engine standard if the
engine is used in a glider is no longer required under the PACCAR proposal. Starting in 2021, all glider
-------
engines must be post-2010 engines in compliant configurations with the appropriate aftertreatment
system, thus eliminating this requirement and mitigating EPA's concern regarding pre-2010 engines
being rebuilt or remanufactured for installation into gliders. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.3]
d. PACCAR Agrees with Provision for Installation of Post-2010 Engines Without Restriction
PACCAR urges EPA to finalize the provision in Section i. Glider Vehicles Using Newer Engines, to
allow the installation of post-2010 engines, those meeting the 2010 NOx and PM emissions standards,
to be installed in gliders starting in 2021 without limitation to mileage, age, or quantity per manufacturer
or assembler. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.4]
e. Delegated Assembly Provisions Should Reflect the Information Known by and Available to the Glider
Manufacturer
PACCAR also urges EPA to revise 40 CFR 1037.130 Assembly instructions for secondary vehicle
manufacturers, to include only Sections (a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), and (c) as the provisions required
when delegated assembly is used to support the assembly of gliders by secondary manufacturers.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.4]
PACCAR sells glider kits through the Kenworth and Peterbilt dealer networks. [NHTSA-2014-0132-
0223-A 1 p.4]
[Table can be found on p.4 of docket number NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1]
Supporting contracts, audits, affidavits, and documentation for each assembler and on-going support for
each order of a glider are typically included with full delegated assembly provisions. EPA has not
properly anticipated or included in the regulation development the associated burden for such a large
number of assemblers if the Small Business exemption is removed. Limiting the delegated assembly
requirements is the appropriate action, regardless of the decision on the Small Business exemption.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.4]
PACCAR will work with the agencies on the appropriate content on gliders for end of year reporting.
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0223-A1 p.4]
Gliders
The current proposal limiting the build of glider kits per year with non-current emissions engines is
extremely stringent and overly burdensome to manufacturers, customers, and dealers. Also the
requirement that each non-exempt glider have a current year emissions engine will render many
powertrains as scrap parts even though they have recently been manufactured and are capable of
powering anew vehicle body. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.26]
Over the last three years, PACCAR has sold glider kits through the Kenworth and Peterbilt dealer
network to over 1,200 unique individual customers who have assembled gliders or had gliders
assembled for them. For model year 2014 alone, this number was more than 500 customers. In that
three-year period, PACCAR sold glider kits to support those customer through 78 different dealer
groups comprised of over 215 separate Kenworth and Peterbilt dealer locations across the United States.
The vast majority of these dealer groups purchased fewer than 50 glider kits from PACCAR each of
these years. Of these groups, 14 did not purchase any glider kits from PACCAR in 2014, the year on
which EPA proposes to base the limit for glider exemptions, but did purchase fewer than 50 glider kits
-------
in one or both of the preceding or trailing years. If EPA finalizes the rule as proposed, these dealers
would be unable to purchase PACCAR glider kits and provide customers with an option to retain
powertrains after January 1, 2018. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.26]
PACCAR understands EPA's concern about older, less efficient, higher-emission engines being
installed into gliders when newer, more efficient, and cleaner powertrains are available. However, many
glider purchasers have been involved in accidents, or have had other damage to the vehicle body, and
are left with a fully functional powertrain. EPA's proposal would unduly penalize those operators and
others who are not attempting to avoid purchasing newer-model year engines but are simply trying to
continue to use an existing, undamaged powertrain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.26]
PACCAR recommends that the agencies extend the effective date of any limitation to January 1, 2021
to align with the Phase 2 regulation implementation, which will provide more lead-time for the industry
to understand and accommodate the change in regulation. PACCAR also strongly recommends that the
agencies provide more flexibility for entities that did not assemble any gliders in 2014 but which have
done so between 2014 and the effective date of the Phase 2 final rule. Specifically, if the
implementation is set at the recommended January 1, 2021 date, EPA should allow the assembly of up
to 300 gliders per year for any individual company as exempt from the Phase 2 regulation, provided that
the engine/powertrain to be installed meets MY2010 or newer emission standards. EPA also should
allow without limit the assembly of gliders where the engine meets the emissions standard for the year
the glider was assembled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.26-27]
If the implementation is set at January 1, 2018 as proposed in the NPRM, then EPA should allow all
small businesses, as defined by federal regulations, to assemble a minimum of 50 gliders per year as
exempt from the engine / vehicle model year requirements, regardless of the emission standard of the
engine, and up to their maximum sales in 2013 or 2014, or 300. The agencies also should allow the
installation of engines that meet MY2010 or newer emission standards without a volume limit for any
company. This will mitigate the EPA concern about non-DPF engines from being installed at current
volumes and eliminates the issues of recently built powertrains not being allowed for installation in new
gliders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.27]
Organization: Reeves Brothers Trucking, Inc.
On The Economical End Of The Phase 2 Proposed By The EPA And NHTSA Regarding Greenhouse
Gas Emissions And Fuel Efficiency Standards For Medium And Heavy Duty Engines And Vehicles,
Gliders Are Less Expensive Than New Trucks And Offer A More Economical Option For Smaller
Fleets And Owner Operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1465-A2 p.l]
A Glider Kit Trucks Is Not Considered A New Vehicle. It Has New Cab, Front Axle And
Frame/Chassis with a Used Rebuilt Engine, Transmissions, Etc. Therefor Is Not Considered A New
Truck Under The CAA. The Impact That Phase 2 Will Have On Small Business Would Bear Heavily
On The Small Fleet and Single Owner/Operator. The Difference In A Glider Vehicle Compared To The
Cost of A New Vehicle Could Mean Thousands Of Dollars When Purchasing One. Cost Is A Special
Focus For Small Businesses. If The Price Is Unattainable They Are Less Likely To Purchase The
Vehicle. In The End The Financial Burden Is On The Builders And Buyers. Small Businesses Do Not
Have The Maintenance Capabilities Nor The Technology That Would Be Required To Keep New
Vehicles Maintained And The Maintenance Up To Date. It Would Not Be Cost Effectively To The
Small Businesses And The Burden Would Lie Upon Them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1465-A2 p.l]
-------
In Agreement, Rep. Diane Black Stated, The EPA's Phase 2 Proposal Would Unfairly Target the Glider
Kit Industry and Limit the Buyer's Choices. The Builder of The Glider Kit Vehicle Provide Numerous
Jobs To The Community And Surrounding Areas. If The Glider Kit Is Done Away It Would Be A Huge
Blow To The Community As Well As The Suppliers And Not To Forget The Small Businesses And
Owner Operators. The Bottom Line Is It Is Not An Economical Choice When Seen Thru The Small
Businesses And Owner/Operator Eyes When Considering The Cost Of Glider Vehicle Compared To A
New Vehicle Along With The Cost Of The New Technology And Maintenance It Would Require.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1465-A2 p.l]
Organization: Sierra Club
Close the glider kit loophole
We applaud the agencies for the proposed treatment of glider kits. In recent years, sales of glider kits
have skyrocketed, accounting for roughly two percent of all Class 8 vehicles manufactured annually.
Many of the engines used on these vehicles emit substantially greater amounts of NOx and particulate
matter than current emissions standards allow. Under the proposal, glider kit manufacturers will no
longer be able to exploit a loophole leading to more health-threatening pollution. We urge you to
finalize the provisions that would close the glider kit loophole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1277-A1
p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 190.]]
Organization: Terex Corporation
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 105-108.]
Comment number one, page 40529 of the proposal says that EPA requests comment on whether we
should allow larger manufacturers to produce some limited number of glider kits.
Therefore, Terex proposes that if the EPA sets limits on the quantity of gliders produced, it should not
be based solely on the number of employees the glider manufacturer has, but should also be based on
the number of on highway vehicles it produces similar to the way the off highway transition program for
equipment manufacturers is set up.
For example, Terex Corporation has approximately 20,000 employees globally, but only approximately
220 are involved in the manufacturer of gliders at one small facility located in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Should the proposed regulations continue unchanged, it would result in the redundancy of some 70 team
members at the Fort Wayne facility. Therefore, Terex proposes if a company manufactured fewer than
1,000 on highway vehicles annually between calendar years 2010 and 2014, then it should be eligible
for the same exemptions as a small manufacturer under the proposed 1037.635(b).
Comment number two, the proposed definition number three of 'glider kit' on page 40662 says that a
'glider kit' means 'any other new equipment that is intended to become a motor vehicle with a previously
used engine, include a rebuilt or remanufactured engine.' Terex requests further clarification and/or a
definition of 'other new equipment.' The intention of this request is to eliminate confusion over whether
certain new parts or assemblies that would be used to repair an existing vehicle would be considered as
'new equipment' by the EPA.
Comment number three, page 40229 says that building a glider out of salvaged powertrain from vehicles
destroyed in accidents is 'an arguably legitimate purpose,' and Terex agrees with the agencies on that.
-------
The proposed limitation on gliders doesn't distinguish between repaired vehicles and glider kits. Terex
suggests that language be added that allows for a used powertrain to be installed onto a new chassis for
the case of repairing a damaged vehicle, and not be subject to regulations that are newer than the
original bill date of the damaged vehicle.
And then my final comment number four is regarding page 40186. It says that six by six and eight by
eight vehicle configurations are only manufactured for specialized vehicles that require extra traction for
off road applications. They are very low volume sales, and their increased fuel consumption and C02
emissions are not significant in comparison to the overall reductions of the Phase 2 program.
Therefore, Terex suggests that vehicles with six by six and eight by eight configurations must be added
to the last of exemptions under the proposed 1037.635(b) concerning glider kits. Because these vehicles
operate off road, they are far more susceptible to wear and tear type frame damage that is premature
compared to the engines that were designed to operate for a million miles. For this reason, glidering six
by six and eight by eight vehicles is and has always been common industry practice, even before the
arrival of after treatment systems on diesel engines.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Glider Kits
The same problems noted above also would flow from the agencies' proposed treatment of glider kits.
Glider-kit manufacturers should not be held responsible for the ultimate downstream configuration of
the vehicle, so long as the glider-kit manufacturer has provided proper instructions to the vehicle
finisher for the installation of emission-related components. Beyond that, and just as in the case of
incomplete-vehicle manufacturers, the manufacturers of glider kits should not be transformed by
regulation into the de facto guarantors of separate business entities that complete the manufacture of
vehicles using glider kits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.36]
With respect to the agencies' other proposals for regulating glider kits, EMA supports the agencies'
proposal to provide a small business exemption for any business entity that employs less than 1000
people and that falls under the production cap set forth in proposed section 1037.635(c). A small
business exemption is necessary to avoid disproportionate impacts on a significant number of diverse
business entities, including the small businesses that participate in the assembly of gliders. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.36]
It should be noted that in their proposed regulation of glider kits, the agencies are, in effect, proposing to
adopt regulatory requirements for vehicle parts, as opposed to motor vehicles. The CAA defines a
"motor vehicle" as any "self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street
or highway." (See 42 U.S.C. §7550(2)). A glider kit is not self-propelled and so, on its own, is not a
"motor vehicle" within EPA's regulatory jurisdiction. Thus, the glider kit manufacturer is not an entity
over which EPA has regulatory authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.36]
Organization: Truck Country of Wisconsin
As you know, there are differences between the two agency's in their respective views on regulatory
frameworks for safety and air emissions and definitions of'glider kits' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1468-A1, p.l]
-------
NHTSA defines a 'glider kit' as motor vehicle equipment that primarily includes the chassis cab, but
generally does not include the engine or rear axles. EPA defines 'glider kits' to both the complete and
incomplete vehicles and applies its regulations to both. (See 40 CFR 1037.801 of EPA's proposed
regulatory text). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1468-A1, p.l]
I support EPA's definition of 'glider kits' as an important step to ensure uniformity between EPA and
NHTSA for the following reasons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1468-A1, p. 1]
Air pollution and emissions are a significant problem with 'Glider kits' support EPA's definition 'glider
kits' as an important step to ensure uniformity between the EPA and NHTSA for the following reasons:
1. We agree with EPA's assessment that most gliders manufactured today use remanufactured model
year 2001 or older engines. Typically these engines have and NOX and particulate matter (PM)
emissions 20 to 40 times higher than today's clean engines. Since 2010 when EPA's currentNOx and
PM standards for heavy duty engines took effect, glider sales have increased nearly 10-fold as compared
to the 2004-2006 time frame. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1468-A1, p.l]
2. We agree with EPA that this increase reflects an attempt to avoid using engines that comply with
EPA's 2010 standards, and is an attempt to circumvent the Clean Air Act purpose to protect human
health and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1468-A1, p.l]
3. The Trucking Industry has made enormous investments in new engines standards to comply with past
and future EPA regulations. We believe this circumvents these standards and will make it harder to meet
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1468-A1, p.l]
4. We agree with EPA's Clean Air Act definition of 'new motor vehicle' is not based on the condition of
the parts assembled to create the vehicle but rather encompasses the entire vehicle, even if they
incorporate some previously used components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1468-A1, p.2]
In conclusion, Truck Country supports the new EPA requirements are being proposed in the HD Phase 2
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. By proposing new requirements beginning January 1,2018 that would
generally require engines installed in new gliders to meet the same requirements as new emissions-
compliant engines- both for GHGs and for other harmful pollutants such as NOx and PM. Beginning in
model year 2021, Phase 2 standards for heavy duty vehicles would also apply to gliders. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1468-A1, p.2]
In addition, we oppose the HD Phase 1 exemption for small businesses that manufacture gliders for
model years 2018 and beyond and we fully support EPA's proposal to end this blanket exemption on
January 1, 2018. We agree with EPA to limit the grandfathering of existing small businesses that
currently install the used engines and other used parts into gliders. These special provisions allow too
much discrepancy to continue production of assembled gliders creating an already air quality problem
for industries who have to meet the Clean Power Plan and Ozone regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1468-A1, p.2]
Finally, we believe EPA's approach in resolving this issue in proposing these changes is in the best
interest to improving air quality in this country and create consistency between the two agencies.
Properly regulating the 'glider kit' issue will improve the health care of all citizens as we try to address
greenhouse gas emissions for future generations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1468-A1, p.2]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
-------
GLIDER KITS
UCS supports the closing of a loophole that currently allows glider kits—chassis and powertrains
assembled by a third party and sold as new trucks—to not comply with fuel economy, greenhouse gas,
and other pollution control regulations. These vehicles have traditionally played an important role in
maintaining investments when parts of trucks were rendered unusable due to accidents and until recently
only a few hundred a year were sold. In recent years, however, thousands of glider kits have been sold
annually to get around pollution control systems. This has led to extreme discrepancies in pollution from
OEM-manufactured new vehicles and new glider kit vehicles. EPA analysis shows that while glider kits
make up only 2 percent of Class 8 vehicle sales, they contribute nearly half of the total NOx and
particulate emissions from all new Class 8 vehicles (EPA and NHTSA 2015). These glider kit vehicles
should be regulated the same as any other new vehicle and this proposal will put them on equal footing
with other new trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1329-A2 p.13]
Organization: Volvo Group
Glider Vehicles and Small Manufacturer Exemption
Volvo Group strongly supports the agencies' proposal to take action within this proposed rulemaking to
require that companies selling new vehicles produced by installing used driveline components into new
glider kits certify the compliance of these vehicles and their engines to the prevailing greenhouse gas
and criteria emissions standards. The glider-based market, which has exploded over the last several
years, is built upon the allure of simpler, lower maintenance engine designs of the pre-2004 emissions
era, wherein these vehicles can be produced at a much lower cost due to the use of used driveline
components and exclusion of emission and safety related systems. In Volvo Group's view, glider-kits
can serve a legitimate purpose, that being a major repair to a vehicle that has been involved in an
accident and is damaged to the point that only some driveline components are reasonably salvageable.
Yet Volvo Group has deep concerns that the market which has emerged over recent years is one built
upon circumvention of today's stringent emissions standards rather than a legitimate use of glider kits,
and agrees with the agencies that the practice must stop or be significantly limited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.60-61]
Volvo Group also supports the agencies' proposal to eliminate the exemption to greenhouse gas and fuel
efficiency requirements for small manufacturers, but proposes that the exemption sunset sooner than the
agencies have proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.61]
Glider Kits can serve a Legitimate Purpose
The "glider kit" emerged some decades ago as an assemblage of new vehicle components absent the
engine, transmission, and rear axles (the "driveline"). These kits were produced by vehicle OEMs, and
made available for sale to dealers and other vehicle repair centers as a means to repair a vehicle that had
been badly damaged in an accident or similar event. This permitted re-use of driveline components that
had not yet accumulated end-of-life mileage by the time of the accident. Volvo Group believes this is a
reasonable and practical application for a glider-kit; namely as a means for an individual truck owner to
recover from such an unexpected event that would otherwise cut short the lifetime of a purchased capital
good. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.61]
For purposes of establishing acceptable practices concerning the application of glider kits in these
instances, and to clarify what practices would constitute creation of a new vehicle obligating the
-------
assembler to certain requirements under NHTSA safety regulations, NHTSA adopted language as
follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.61]
49 CFR §571.7 Applicability.
(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each standard set forth in
subpart B of this part applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle
equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.61]
* * * *
(e) Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck
will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of
the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a
minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from
the same vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.61]
Simply put, when assembling a motor vehicle using a new cab, as is the case with assemblies from
glider kits, the final vehicle assembly is a new motor vehicle unless the engine, transmission and rear
axle(s) are all used, and at least two of them come from the same donor vehicle. Said another way, if
any of the three driveline components is new, the finished assembly is a new motor vehicle. Or, if all
three are used components but were salvaged from more than two donor vehicles, the finished assembly
is a new motor vehicle. The final assembler of any new motor vehicle is obligated, at minimum, to: (a)
register with NHTSA as a vehicle manufacturer, (b) to create and register Vehicle Identification
Numbers (VINs) with NHTSA, (c) certify compliance of the finished vehicle to all applicable NHTSA
safety standards, (d) file reports regularly with NHTSA regarding safety defects, and (e) undertake
recall obligations to correct certain safety defects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.61-62]
New Glider Kit Market is Based on Avoiding Emission Controls
A new market has emerged based on use of glider kits to create essentially new vehicles that do
not comply with applicable safety, criteria emissions, or greenhouse gas standards.
While there is a limited, legitimate and practical application of glider kits in the heavy-duty truck
market, a market has emerged whereby new vehicles are being assembled from glider kits ~ not to
repair a wrecked vehicle ~ but rather to be offered for sale as new vehicles. These new vehicles are built
with used or remanufactured engines that are not compliant with current criteria emissions standards at
the time of vehicle manufacture. Similarly, neither these vehicles nor their installed engines are
compliant to applicable greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards at the time of
manufacture. Finally, these vehicles also do not comply with all applicable safety standards, and some
glider vehicle manufacturers appear not to be complying with all obligations incumbent upon a new
vehicle manufacturer per NHTSA regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.62]
Assemblers of glider vehicles ("glider vehicle," as used herein, means a fully assembled vehicle, built
from a glider kit, complete with used or remanufactured driveline components installed) have adopted a
number of business practices for producing these vehicles. Often, the rear axles installed on glider
vehicles are not, in fact, used components; they are actually new units as purchased from the glider-kit
supplier. Some engines installed are rebuilt before installation, others are remanufactured engines
purchased from a remanufacturing facility. The same holds true for transmission sourcing.
-------
Remanufactured engines typically are produced from a process that renders it impossible to link a
finished product to a source "donor vehicle." None of these practices appear to be consistent with
NHTSA regulations that allow the exception to the manufacturing of a new vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.62]
Not only can these new glider-based vehicle assemblies be seen as a circumvention of regulatory
obligations, they also set up an unfair competitive advantage to manufacturers of new motor vehicles
who are complying with all applicable emissions, fuel consumption, and safety standards. Today's
cleanest, most fuel efficient and safest vehicles are necessarily tens of thousands of dollars more costly
to produce, more expensive to maintain, and can cost more to operate, than glider-based vehicles. As
such, heavy-duty truck OEMs and their dealers are unfairly forced to compete with these higher-
emitting, less safe vehicles. Additionally, application of certain Internal Revenue Service rules can
result in new vehicle sales where the purchaser is not obligated to pay the 12% Federal Excise Tax
(FET) that normally applies to new vehicle sales, giving customers even further financial incentive to
purchase glider vehicles rather than fully compliant new vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.62]
These unfair competitive advantages have led to a boom in glider vehicle sales in recent years. EPA and
NHTSA state in the Preamble that total glider-based vehicle volumes were typically less than 1000 units
prior to 2007. The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel for the Phase 2 proposal, however, notes
that for 2011 and 2012, sales of glider vehicles "spiked to almost 4,000 per year." Moreover, based on
Polk registration data, Volvo Group estimates that 2014 glider-based sales were on the order of 6,000
units or more, about 3% of the total Class 8 market; and 6 times the pre-2007 estimates that EPA and
NHTSA appear to rely on in the proposal. Some assemblers report that plans for major expansions of
their assembly capacity are underway. Such a gross expansion will further frustrate the ability of OEM
dealers to compete in the marketplace with fully compliant products. Without regulatory intervention,
there's little reason to expect this trend to be reversed, and therefore regulatory intervention is
absolutely necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.62-63]
Glider-based Vehicles Have Huge Environmental Impact
Glider-based vehicle assemblies are having a huge impact on the environment, and introducing
undue risk to American roadways.
In response to EPA's Clean Diesel Program, manufacturers of heavy-duty engines introduced complex
and expensive technologies including exhaust gas recirculation systems, diesel particulate filters, and
selective catalytic reduction aftertreatment systems to achieve unprecedented reductions in NOx and
particulate matter. Most glider vehicle manufacturers are installing pre-2004 engines, which lack all of
the technologies mentioned above, and hence have substantially higher emissions. Even if these engines
were fully compliant with all requirements in place prior to the advent of clean diesel technology
requirements, the emissions from these engines compared to modern diesels are considerably higher.
EPA's own analysis as detailed in their recent glider Q&A document indicates that NOx and PM
emissions from glider vehicles at current sales levels are equivalent to about 80 percent of the total NOx
and PM emissions from the entire Class 8 sales fleet. Focusing on PM emissions, and applying the
emissions levels indicated in Argonne National Lab's recent update to the GREET Analysis13, at just
3% market penetration of the most egregious applications, the 2014 glider fleet emits twice the level of
PM emissions that the 97% entire fleet of compliant vehicle sales emits that same year. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.63]
-------
These numbers are astounding; little more justification is needed to understand the importance of EPA
taking action to address emissions from this market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.63]
While the impact of glider vehicles on heavy-duty greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption is
not currently believed to be on the same scale as that of criteria emissions, the requirements
promulgated in EPA's current and proposed greenhouse gas regulations, and the growth being witnessed
in the glider market, will certainly lead to a huge compliance gap between glider vehicles and fully
compliant vehicles. At present, the majority of manufacturers of glider vehicles fall under the small
manufacturer exemption to the GHG Phase 1 regulation, relieving them of any obligation to certify their
products to demonstrate conformance to EPA and NHTSA greenhouse gas and fuel consumption
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.63-64]
Finally, with respect to safety, heavy-duty OEMs are making huge investments to fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS"), so as to verify and deploy the best known
technologies to ensure the safety of American roadways. According to the current NHTSA regulation
and our understanding of the assembly practices and component sourcing applied by glider vehicle
manufacturers today, these manufacturers should likewise be responsible for all current applicable
FMVSS standards. It appears, however, that they are not meeting all of these requirements, including
full vehicle certification, safety defect reporting obligations, and reporting of vehicle VINs for purposes
of potential safety recall obligations. This practice is putting the safety of America's roadways at risk
and must be addressed. NHTSA must begin to take appropriate action to ensure these requirements are
fulfilled by all manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 64]
Volvo Group Supports Action to Reform Glider Market
Based on all the foregoing arguments, Volvo Group supports the regulatory action that EPA and
NHTSA are proposing to subject glider vehicles and their engines to the same criteria emissions and
greenhouse gas emissions requirements as apply to other new vehicles manufactured for sale in the
United States. Volvo Group believes that NHTSA also should take steps to fully enforce their existing
vehicle safety requirements applicable to glider based vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.64]
With respect to EPA requirements, it is first important to recognize and clarify that vehicles produced
from glider kits already are subject to GHG standards under 40 CFR Part 1037. This regulation applies
to "all new heavy-duty vehicles, except as provided in § 1037.5" (40 CFR § 1037.1). With the exception
of vehicles produced before 2014, none of the exclusions set forth under 1037.5 apply to vehicles
produced from glider kits. Accordingly, these vehicles have been subject to EPA regulations since Jan.
1, 2014. EPA has recognized as much. In the proposal, the Agency states: "For EPA purposes, C02
provisions of Phase 1 exempted gliders and glider kits produced by small businesses but did not include
such a blanket exemption for other glider kits. Thus, some gliders and glider kits are already subject to
the requirement to obtain a vehicle certificate prior to introduction into commerce as a new vehicle.
However, the agencies believe glider manufacturers may not understand how these regulations apply to
them, resulting in a number of uncertified vehicles. " 80 Fed. Reg. 40138, 40215. Furthermore, EPA has
identified at least one glider manufacturer that does not qualify as a small manufacturer, [RIA, Section
12.4], and it is unclear whether those that do have followed the requirements to notify EPA of their
intent to produce excluded vehicles and label those vehicles as excluded pursuant to 40 CFR §
1037.150(c). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.64]
While EPA believes some in the industry simply do not understand the Agency's regulations, Volvo
Group is concerned that EPA has underestimated the sophistication of many in this industry, for which
-------
ignorance of the rules should not be an excuse for failure to comply. These include large glider vehicle
manufacturers, which produce and sell complete glider vehicles that unquestionably are subject to GHG
regulations. These are sophisticated operations that must be held accountable for complying with all
EPA regulations to the same extent as other vehicle manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.64]
The small business exemption should be revoked sooner than EPA and NHTSA have proposed.
The sheer number of uncertified vehicles produced since 2014 also underscores a second significant
shortcoming of EPA's Phase 1 rule, which must be addressed in Phase 2; the small manufacturer
exemption at 40 CFR § 1037.150(c). The exemption, as currently applied, exempts manufacturers that
employ fewer than 1,000 employees. As explained in Volvo Group's comments on the Phase 1
regulation, this exemption creates a sizable loophole for many manufacturers that produce substantial
quantities of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.65]
EPA has proposed phasing out the small manufacturer exemption by 2022, or one year after all other
manufacturers are required to comply with the Phase 2 requirements. Volvo Group does not believe the
small manufacturer exemption was justified in Phase 1, and opposes further extension of this loophole
for another seven years. Volvo Group believes that the Small Manufacturer Exemption should be
phased out by January 1, 2018. Such a schedule gives these manufacturers an additional four years of
lead-time to meet Phase 1 GHG standards, above and beyond the lead-time afforded to their
competitors. Failing this, the agencies should simply eliminate the one year delay and remove the
exemption for the entirety of Phase 2, starting with the 2021 Model Year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.65]
Volvo Group is uncertain of the correct interpretation of the provisions of 40 CFR 1037.635. This
section is entitled "Glider Kits"; however, the agencies lay out the necessary conditions to qualify for
the limited production exemption described in that section as, ."..if you are a small manufacturer and
you sold vehicles in 2014 under the provisions of § 1037.1500." The provisions at 1037.150(j) permit a
manufacturer to install 2013 model year and earlier engines in vehicles (the provision has been revised
in this proposal to sunset with vehicles having a date of manufacture January 1, 2018 or later). Many
manufacturers, large and small, have installed 2013 model year engines in vehicles sold in 2014. This
may have included vehicles having a 2013 date of manufacture, or having a 2014 date of manufacture,
that were sold in 2014. There are no requirements to inform the agencies of the plan to sell vehicles
under the provisions of 1037.1500, nor to provide any reports to EPA. On its face, the limited volume
exemption at 1037.635 effectively applies to all small manufacturers of vehicles. If this was the
agencies' intent, Volvo Group opposes the provisions, and considers that small business should not be
afforded any exemptions. If this was not the agencies' intent, then Volvo Group proposes that the
agencies clarify the language to specify that the vehicles sold under the provisions of 1037.1500 must
have been vehicles produced by small manufacturers from glider kits, as the name of the section
implies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.65]
EPA Should Review Glider Exemption and Stockpiling Potential
Since glider vehicle producers assemble vehicles from parts purchased from OEMs, engine
remanufacturers and other suppliers, these companies do not require a substantial number of employees
to be able to produce a substantial number of vehicles. In this regard, EPA's small manufacturer
exemption also creates a sizeable loophole for many glider vehicle producers, which in turn were able to
produce (and continue to be able to produce) substantial numbers of uncertified glider vehicles. For this
reason, Volvo Group supports EPA's efforts to limit this loophole through the Phase 2 rulemaking, but
-------
is concerned that the Agency's efforts may be too little too late in terms of stemming the impact of
glider vehicles in undermining GHG and criteria emissions reductions achieved to date and in the future.
At a minimum, EPA should impose the proposed 300-vehicle annual limit on the production of glider
vehicles; although Volvo Group believes that even this limit likely far exceeds what is necessary to
allow for legitimate use of glider vehicles while preserving important emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.65-66]
EPA is proposing to provide an exemption that would allow most glider-vehicle manufacturers (those
that qualify as small manufacturers) to avoid criteria emissions and greenhouse gas/fuel consumption
requirements for a limited number of glider vehicle sales each year. The proposal would limit the
number of exempt vehicles any manufacturer can sell in a given year, starting in 2018 with respect to
engine compliance with criteria and C02 emissions/fuel consumption requirements, and 2022 with
respect to vehicle compliance with C02/fuel consumption requirements. The annual sales would be
limited to the manufacturer's highest annual sales volume over the years 2010 through 2014, or 300
units, whichever is less. Volvo Group questions why such an annual exemption is deemed necessary or
appropriate, especially in light of the considerations set forth herein. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.66]
In the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the agencies cite the recommendations of the Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel in support of the proposed glider provisions. In particular, the
agencies note "The Panel stated that it believes that the number of vehicles produced by small business
glider manufacturers is too small to have a substantial impact on the total heavy-duty inventory." (RIA
at 12-6) Nowhere in either the RIA or the SBAR Panel report, however, do any of the agencies provide
a basis for this conclusion. Significantly, there is no discussion of the "spike" in production in 2011 and
2012 that the SBAR panel otherwise describes. There is no discussion or investigation of corresponding
and increasing spikes in 2013 and 2014; or any acknowledgment - never mind further investigation - of
this alarming trend. And there is no analysis of the impact of increased incentives to produce glider
vehicles that will be generated by the GHG Phase 2 proposal. In summary, the agencies rely on a
conclusory finding to dismiss what is likely to be a potentially significant undermining influence on the
effectiveness of the GHG and criteria emissions regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 66]
First, EPA fails to take into account the incentive it is creating for more companies to engage in the
manufacture of glider vehicles by codifying an exemption to the GHG Phase 2 regulations for these
vehicles. As discussed earlier, while the proposal would be limited to entities that both installed engines
pursuant to 40 CFR § 1037.150(j) and qualify for the small manufacturer exemption, the universe of
entities that meet these criteria likely is larger than the universe of existing glider vehicle manufacturers.
Any entity that sold vehicles under the provisions of 40 CFR § 1037.150(j), regardless of its size at that
time, could enter the glider-vehicle business as long as it qualifies as a small manufacturer at the time it
elects to sell glider vehicles. If it elects to provide an exemption for glider vehicles, EPA should limit
the exemption to entities that both qualified as small manufacturers in 2014 and sold vehicles produced
from glider kits under the provisions of 40 CFR § 1037.150(j). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
p.66]
Second, it does not appear that EPA has adequately considered the impact of its decision to delay
imposition of any limits on these vehicles until 2018, when it proposes to require currently certified
engines. The Agency, in doing so, is creating still further incentive for substantially increased
production in 2016 and 2017. While pre-buys are a known consequence of new regulatory requirements
(as occurred in 2007 and could again in 2016 prior to the reduced engine GHG standards effective with
the 2017 model year), EPA need not exacerbate them by providing a window for the unfettered
manufacture of non-compliant vehicles. At a minimum, EPA should adopt additional stringent measures
-------
to prevent the stockpiling of glider vehicles after new standards take effect, and/or pull forward the 2018
sunset date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.66]
Moreover, even if the Panel's conclusion were accurate when viewed on the basis of production
inventory, this analysis makes no account of the impact these vehicles have on the emissions inventory.
As illustrated earlier, we find the impact to be huge. Given the magnitude of the environmental impact
these vehicles have compared to the fully compliant vehicles other manufacturers are obligated to sell, it
would seem appropriate not to include any such exemption, or to limit the number to much less than
300. The Panel recommendations cited continue by saying, "The Panel also stated that there should be
an allowance to produce some number of glider kits for legitimate purposes, such as for newer vehicles
badly damaged in crashes." If the agencies are seeking to provide adequate volume to cover what have
been characterized as "legitimate" applications of glider kits (wrecked vehicles and similar), it may be
more appropriate to promulgate regulations that define allowed practices (repair of badly damaged
vehicles) and prohibited practices (manufacture of new vehicles from new and used components that do
not comply with current criteria and GHG emission requirements). If the agencies are seeking to provide
a reasonable exemption to support the viability of small businesses already in existence today, we
believe the recommendation of the panel to limit the exemption to "allow sales levels as high as the
peak levels in the 2010-2012 timeframe," while retaining the condition that the annual volume never
exceed 300 units per manufacturer, is the absolute maximum relief that should be granted. However,
Volvo Group believes that the limit should be on the production of vehicles, rather than the sale. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.67]
EPA has requested comment on whether the Agency should permit the sale of glider vehicles on the
condition that they are equipped with 2010 or later model year engines, or somehow treat glider vehicles
equipped with 2010 and later engines differently. It's unclear from the request for comment whether this
provision would pertain to the units that are built under the limited annual small business exemption or
to those that are produced by companies that do not qualify for the small business exemption (and those
quantities sold in a year above the exemption cap). Anticipating that the latter is the intention, Volvo
Group does not support such a relaxation of the "full compliance" obligation that EPA and NHTSA
have proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.67]
Definition of "New Motor Vehicle," "Glider Kit" and "Glider Vehicle"
EPA has proposed adding new definitions of "glider kit" and "glider vehicle," and amending the
definition of "new motor vehicle" to highlight that vehicles produced from glider kits are subject to the
Clean Air Act, including 40 CFR Part 1037. As noted above, Volvo Group agrees with EPA that Part
1037, as currently drafted, already plainly covers these vehicles. That said, Volvo Group supports
efforts to clarify the applicability of Part 1037 in this regard, including clarification of relevant
definitions as appropriate. Volvo Group is concerned, however, that the proposed definitions and/or
amendments related to glider kits and vehicles may create additional confusion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.67]
First, EPA proposes to add, for purposes of clarification, the following to the definition of "new motor
vehicle": "For example, vehicles commonly known as 'glider kits' or 'gliders' are new motor vehicles. "
Volvo Group strongly supports the inclusion of language specifically recognizing vehicles produced
from glider kits in this definition. However, we are concerned with the inclusion of the term 'glider kit'
in this definition in so far as it indicates that all types of glider kits - taken alone - are subject to Part
1037 and the Clean Air Act. Where such a kit is incapable of being "self-propelled," it does not fall
within the definition of "motor vehicle" under CAA § 216(2). We would recommend EPA revise the
-------
language to state, "For example, vehicles produced from 'glider kits' are new motor vehicles. " [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.67]
Second, Volvo Group recommends that EPA amend the proposed definition of "glider kit" as follows:
Glider kit means a new vehicle that is incomplete because it lacks an engine, transmission, or drive axle.
A glider kit may include previously used parts. A glider kit becomes a new motor vehicle upon the
installation of an engine, transmission, and axles, regardless of whether the ultimate purchaser has
received title or placed it into service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.68]
Third, Volvo Group recommends that EPA amend the proposed definition of "glider vehicle" to state:
Glider vehicle means a vehicle produced from a glider kit, or a new vehicle produced with a used
engine. Volvo Group believes these definitions will more closely align EPA's proposed regulations to
current practices and ensure that vehicles produced from glider kits do not circumvent Clean Air Act
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.68]
EPA and NHTSA Actions addressing Glider Kits are Appropriate
The rapidly expanding glider-based vehicle market is seriously undermining the significant gains EPA,
NHTSA, and the heavy-duty vehicle industry have made to reduce criteria and greenhouse gas
emissions, reduce fuel consumption, and improve roadway safety. Even at just a few percent of total
Class 8 market sales, the level of PM and NOx emissions from these vehicles is on par with or exceeds
the emissions from the balance of sales fulfilled by fully compliant products. The market availability of
these non-compliant engines and vehicles poses an unfair competitive disadvantage to manufacturers
that have undertaken the enormous effort and investment necessary to comply with all applicable
emissions, fuel efficiency, and safety standards. It is therefore imperative that the agencies follow
through by finalizing regulation that prohibits the production of glider-based vehicles for anything other
than legitimate purposes and that the agencies actively ensure compliance to those requirements. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.68]
Also included in the NoDA were arguments related to the agencies' authority to regulate glider vehicles
and trailers. The Volvo Group fully supports EPA's and NHTSA's efforts to achieve efficiency gains
and criteria emissions reductions as related to gliders and trailers, and offer our comments that follow
accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.3] [[This comment can also be found in section
1.3.1 of the Comment Summary.]]
Comments on Legal Memorandum Pertaining to Trailers, Glider Vehicles, and Glider Kits under
the CAA - EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1627
Volvo agrees with EPA that the Agency has authority to establish emissions standards for complete new
motor vehicles, and further that glider vehicles - or vehicles manufactured from glider kits - constitute
complete new vehicles for purposes of the Agency's authority to establish emissions standards.5 Volvo
further agrees that the installation of non-new engines, such as rebuilt or remanufactured engines or
used engines from "donor" vehicles, in a glider vehicle in and of itself is not determinative of whether
that vehicle is new for purposes of compliance with Clean Air Act requirements. As we noted in our
comments on the Proposed Rule, glider kits can serve a legitimate purpose, such as allowing individual
truck owners to re-use drive line components that had not yet accumulated end-of-life mileage following
an accident or other event that renders the rest of the vehicle unusable.6 Volvo agrees, however, that
such legitimate uses should not become a loophole through which truck manufacturers are able to
produce otherwise new vehicles not subject to current emissions requirements merely by installing a
rebuilt, remanufactured, or otherwise non-new engine in the vehicle. For these same reasons, Volvo
-------
agrees that the assignment of a vehicle identification number (VEST) from a pre-existing vehicle to a
glider vehicle should not be determinative of whether the glider vehicle is new, as EPA notes.7 Rather,
EPA should consider a limited exemption for production of glider kits that permits their legitimate use
as replacement components, similar to what the Agency already provides for new replacement engines.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.24-25]
Volvo generally supports EPA's proposal to require that engines used in glider vehicles be certified to
standards for the model year in which these vehicles are assembled. See 80 Fed. Reg. 40528. Volvo also
agrees that this proposal is within EPA's legal authority given, as discussed above, glider vehicles are
essentially new motor vehicles. Moreover, the regulatory language proposed by EPA is appropriately
confined to a section of the regulations specifically applicable to glider kits, proposed 40 CFR §
1037.635. This is important, as this requirement, if applied more broadly, could impinge on the
legitimate and legal use by vehicle manufacturers of engines that have a model year different from the
calendar year in which a vehicle is assembled. For instance, vehicle manufacturers are permitted to use
previous model-year engines that remain in a vehicle manufacturer's existing inventory, even if the
engine model year differs from the calendar year in which the vehicle is manufactured. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1928-A1 p.25]
5 EPA's position, as referenced here, is set forth in the document entitled Legal Memorandum
Discussing Issues Pertaining to Trailers, Glider Vehicles, an Glider Kits under the Clean Air Act,
USEPA February 2016 - Draft, at 2. (hereafter "Legal Memorandum").
6 Comments of the Volvo Group, Oct. 1, 2015, at 61.
7 Legal Memorandum at 2.
13 The GREET Model Expansion for Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Heavy Duty Vehicles, ANL/ESD-
15/9, Argonne National Laboratory, May 2015
Organization: Worldwide Equipment Enterprises, Inc.
Worldwide Equipment strongly supports the agencies' proposal to impose new requirements on
companies assembling and offering for sale vehicles produced by installing used driveline components
into new glider kits. EPA and NHTSA should require that manufacturers of these glider-based vehicles
to comply with all applicable and current greenhouse gas and criteria emissions standards. NHTSA
should also enforce the existing regulations that require manufacturers of glider-based vehicles to
comply with all applicable safety standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0948-A2 p.l]
Dealers such as ours have been subject to a growing unfair competition from this rapidly expanding
market of non-compliant vehicles. Worldwide Equipment supports the application of glider kits as a
means to repair badly damaged vehicles, while taking advantage of the remaining useful life in the
damaged vehicle's driveline components. When conducted within the requirements of 49 CFR 571.7(e),
which sets forth NHTSA's rules for re-use of driveline components for installation into a glider kit, we
have no specific concerns with such legitimate applications of glider kits. It's when these rules are
violated, however, in an effort to offer for sale an essentially new vehicle whose production costs and
total cost of ownership may be tens of thousands of dollars less than the fully compliant new products
sold by our dealership that we strongly object to such an unfair disruption of market competition. It is
important to understand that the small number of companies ignoring the purpose and intent of the
-------
glider kit regulations are creating significant environmental issues as between 8,000 to 10,000 of these
noncompliant engines were put in to service in glider kit rebuilds last year alone. Unfortunately, this
practice has become widespread without consequence to the glider based vehicle manufacturers, and it
is unfairly and negatively impacting our business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0948-A2 p.2]
In addition to not having to follow the environmental regulations that legitimate dealers like Worldwide
have to follow, the manufacturers of glider-based vehicles, in many cases, are not collecting the 12%
federal excise tax ("FET") that normally applies to new vehicle sales, giving customers even further
financial incentive to purchase glider vehicles rather than fully compliant new vehicles. In addition to
creating an unfair financial advantage over legitimate dealers like Worldwide Equipment, this failure to
collect the appropriate taxes hurts local and state governments as well which has a direct impact on the
maintenance of transportation infrastructure that is so vital to the entire trucking industry. And this
abuse of the glider kit regulations, as noted, creates significant environmental damage through the use of
non-compliant engines and other components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0948-A2 p.2]
This abusive application of glider kits must be stopped and Worldwide Equipment, Incorporated
strongly support the agencies' efforts to do so through appropriate new regulations and enforcement of
existing regulations. EPA and NHTSA should seek to remedy this situation as soon as practicable.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0948-A2 p.2]
In conclusion, the rapidly expanding glider-based vehicle market is seriously undermining the
significant gains EPA, NHTSA, and the heavy-duty vehicle industry have made to reduce criteria and
greenhouse gas emissions, reduce fuel consumption, and improve roadway safety. The market
availability of these non-compliant engines and vehicles poses an unfair competitive disadvantage to
manufacturers that have undertaken the enormous effort and investment necessary to comply with all
applicable emissions, fuel efficiency, and safety standards, and likewise an unfair competitive advantage
to the dealer network representing those OEM's. It is therefore imperative that the agencies follow
through by finalizing regulations that prohibit the production of glider-based vehicles for anything other
than legitimate purposes, and that the agencies actively ensure compliance to those requirements. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0948-A2 p.3]
Response:
Environmental Impacts of Gliders
Current standards for NOx and PM are at least 90 percent lower than the most stringent previously
applicable standards, so the NOx and PM emissions of any glider vehicles using pre-2007 engines are at
least ten times higher than emissions from equivalent vehicles being produced with brand new engines.
80 FR 40528. However, most gliders being produced today use engines originally manufactured before
2002. Since these pre-2002 engines lack both EGR and exhaust aftertreatment, they would have NOx
and PM 20-40 times current engines. If miscalibrated, emissions could be even higher. Thus, each glider
vehicle using an older engine that is purchased instead of a new vehicle with a current MY engine
results in significantly higher in-use emissions233.
233 Thus, Mondial's statement that the 10,000 plus glider vehicles now produced annually is insignificant
compared to the total number of tractors produced is seriously misplaced. The 10,000 gliders have the
environmental impact of at least 200,000 fully compliant new tractors.
-------
Clarke Power Services commented that the EPA has "not adequately defined the impact of the current
number of Gliders which are assembled each year" and that "additional studies need to be made to
adequately define the "right" number of Gliders allowed." However, we do not see how the current
rates of production would affect the "right number" to allow going forward. As described below, even a
small number of glider vehicles using pre-2002 engines can have severe public health impacts. As
described in Section XIII.B of the FRM Preamble, EPA's final regulations focus more on the ensuring
the right type of gliders are produced using the right type of engines, rather than the right number. In an
effort to lessen economic impacts on small businesses, we are reluctantly allowing certain small
businesses to produce a limited number of glider vehicles using the higher emitting engines. However,
this allowance is not based on our estimate of current or future production rates.
While EPA does not have precise estimates of current glider production, it is clear that production of
glider vehicles has increased by an order of magnitude from what it was in the 2004-2006 time frame -
from a few hundred each year to thousands.234 EPA has previously estimated environmental impact of
5,000 glider vehicles per year, which would be roughly 2% of the Class 8 vehicles manufactured
annually. We estimated that at that rate, these gliders could account for as much as one-half of total
NOx and PM emissions from all new Class 8 vehicles.235 Several commenters supported EPA's
assessment of the environmental impacts of glider vehicles. Volvo suggested in its comments on the
NPRM that the impacts were even greater, estimating that 2014 glider sales were "on the order of
6,000" and that they emit twice as many tons of PM as the rest of the 2014 vehicles. Similarly, as
Volvo noted in its comments:
EPA's own analysis as detailed in their recent glider Q&A document indicates that NOx and
PM emissions from glider vehicles at current sales levels are equivalent to about 80 percent of
the total NOx and PM emissions from the entire Class 8 sales fleet. Focusing on PM emissions,
and applying the emissions levels indicated in Argonne National Lab's recent update to the
GREET Analysis236, at just 3% market penetration of the most egregious applications, the 2014
glider fleet emits twice the level of PM emissions that the 97% entire fleet of compliant vehicle
sales emits that same year.
Even some commenters opposing EPA's proposal acknowledged that glider sales are now over 10,000
units annually.237 No commenters disagreed with EPA's assessment of NOx and PM impacts. Clarke
Power Services suggested that the growing shortage of older engines will limit the impact of gliders.
However, as shown in Appendix A to this section, even a single year at current production rates has
serious public health consequences.
For the final rule, EPA has updated its analysis of environmental impacts of gliders, reflecting the
comments received. See Appendix A to this Section 14. We project that without the new restrictions,
glider vehicles on the road in 2025 would emit nearly 300,000 tons of NOx and nearly 8,000 tons of
diesel PM annually. Although glider vehicles would make up only 5 percent of heavy-duty tractors on
234 "Industry Characterization of Heavy Duty Glider Kits," MacKay & Company, September 30, 2013.
235 Frequently Asked Questions about Heavy-Duty "Glider Vehicles" and "Glider Kits", EPA-420-F-15-904, July
2015.
236 The GREET Model Expansion for Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Heavy Duty Vehicles, ANT/ESD-15/9,
Argonne National Laboratory, May 2015.
237 In its comments, Fitzgerald indicated that current sales of glider vehicles exceed 10,000 vehicles annually but
termed these amounts "insignificant" compared with the total number of trucks. Unfortunately, as shown in the
text above, this is not the case. Criteria pollutant emissions impacts of 10,000 glider vehicles is equivalent to at
least 200,000 fully compliant new trucks.
-------
the road, their emissions would represent about one-third of all NOx and PM emissions from heavy-
duty tractors in 2025. Put into monetary terms using PM-related benefit-per-ton values described in
Section IX. H, the removal of all unrestricted glider vehicle emissions from the atmosphere would yield
between $6 to $14 billion in benefits annually (2013$). It is clear that removing even a fraction of these
glider vehicles from the road will yield substantial health-related benefits. Moreover, the PM valuation
is for particulate matter generally. Although there is evidence suggestive of a causal relationship
between long-term PM2.5 exposures and carcinogenic effects (see 78 FR 3101/3 (Jan. 15, 2013), the
causal connection with diesel PM (diesel exhaust) and carcinogenic effects is stronger. As described in
Preamble Section VIII.A (6), exposure to diesel exhaust was classified as likely to be carcinogenic to
humans by inhalation from environmental exposures, in accordance with the revised draft 1996/1999
238 239
EPA cancer guidelines. ' A number of other agencies (National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization,
California EPA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) had made similar hazard
classifications prior to 2002. EPA also concluded in the 2002 Diesel HAD that it was not possible to
calculate a cancer unit risk for diesel exhaust due to limitations in the exposure data for the occupational
groups or the absence of a dose-response relationship. In the absence of a cancer unit risk, the Diesel
HAD sought to provide additional insight into the significance of the diesel exhaust cancer hazard by
estimating possible ranges of risk that might be present in the population. An exploratory analysis was
used to characterize a range of possible lung cancer risk. The outcome was that environmental risks of
cancer from long-term diesel exhaust exposures could plausibly range from as low as 10"5 to as high as
10"3.
238 U.S. EPA. (1999). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Review Draft. NCEA-F-0644, July.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from
http://cfpub.epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=54932.
239 U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of
Research and Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. pp. 1-1 1-2.
-------
A quantified risk analysis is included in Appendix A to this Section 14. As discussed further below, this
analysis indicates that for a single model year, assuming the use of 5,000-10,000 high polluting engines
in glider vehicles, PM25-related exposures are estimated to result in 350 to 1,600 premature mortalities.
Several commenters argued that EPA is precluded from adopting any controls on installation of high
polluting engines in glider vehicles until MY 2021. This could mean the production of 30,000 to 40,000
additional glider vehicles using the older high polluting engines. Using the same assumptions as above,
these three additional model years of production are estimated to result in an additional 2,100 to 6,400
premature mortalities. Some commenters seemed to suggest that the trend of increasing production of
glider vehicles with high polluting engines would eventually reverse itself, but this analysis shows that
EPA cannot simply wait for this problem to go away on its own.
The EPA regards these estimates as significantly conservative. First, based on the public comments
from both glider vehicle producers and producers of engines which comply with current standards, it
likely underestimates the number of glider vehicles with high-polluting engines produced today.
Second, the analysis considers only potential premature mortality attributable to exposure to PM25.
This is conservative for at least three reasons. First, it does not account for the carcinogenic potential of
diesel exhaust PM, which is a subset of PM25. Second, it does not consider other health and welfare
benefits of reducing exposure to PM2 5 (see Appendix Table A-5). Third, it does not quantify premature
mortality and other health effects attributable to exposure to ozone. Although ozone is not emitted
directly, the chief precursor is NOx (see Preamble section VIII.A (3) and 80 FR 65299-300 (Oct. 26,
2015)), which glider vehicles emit in huge quantities, as noted above.
Some commenters argued that gliders offer an efficiency advantage compared to continuing to use older
trucks, and that glider use also resulted in reduced HFC emissions from the A/C systems. However, this
is a false comparison. While it may have been valid when glider vehicle sales were less than 1,000 per
year, it is not valid for current sales. As supported by comments from truck manufacturers and
dealerships, glider sales now come at the expense of sales of fully compliant new trucks.240'241 Nor is the
commenters' assertion regarding HFC emissions persuasive given the A/C leakage controls for tractors
adopted in the Phase 1 rules. Some commenters stated that remanufacturing an engine and transmission
uses 85% less energy than manufacturing them new, but did not provide an analysis for EPA to
240 See, e.g., Comment from Nuss Truck: "Dealers such as ours have been subject to a growing unfair competition
from this rapidly expanding market of non-compliant vehicles. ... [TJruck purchasers have the ability to purchase a
powertrain combination that they never owned in an existing truck, from assemblers who have chosen to exploit
the law put in place that was intended to clean up air pollution. The original intent of selling gilder kits has moved
from a rebuilding mechanism to now mainly evading diesel emissions EPA mandates. We see many truck owners
and small fleets from Minnesota and Wisconsin traveling long distances, passing by dozens of legitimate truck
dealers, to purchase glider kits directly from a manufacturer in another state, just to avoid the current EPA
emissions standards. That should not be a legally acceptable reason to purchase a glider kit, if we all want clean
air."
241 The comment of Truck Country of Wisconsin similarly describes the competitive conumdrum facing dealers
selling tractors with compliant engines: "1. We agree with EPA's assessment that most gliders manufactured today
use remanufactured model year 2001 or older engines. Typically these engines have and NOX and particulate
matter (PM) emissions 20 to 40 times higher than today's clean engines. Since 2010 when EPA's current NOx and
PM standards for heavy duty engines took effect, glider sales have increased nearly 10-fold as compared to the
2004-2006 time frame; 2. We agree with EPA that this increase reflects an attempt to avoid using engines that
comply with EPA's 2010 standards, and is an attempt to circumvent the Clean Air Act purpose to protect human
health and the environment; 3. The Trucking Industry has made enormous investments in new engines standards to
comply with past and future EPA regulations. We believe this circumvents these standards and will make it harder
to meet compliance; and 4. We agree with EPA's Clean Air Act definition of 'new motor vehicle' is not based on
the condition of the parts assembled to create the vehicle but rather encompasses the entire vehicle, even if they
incorporate some previously used components."
-------
evaluate. Clarke Power Services commented that newly rebuilt engines have lower criteria emissions
than a "worn oil burning engine which is beyond its useful life." However, that is not relevant to this
discussion since engines can be rebuilt without replacing the chassis. The appropriate comparison is to
new vehicles with fully compliant new engines. When compared to these engines, even the most
carefully rebuilt and recalibrated 1998-vintage engine would have NOx and PM emissions at least 20
times as high as engines meeting current standards.
Finally, some commenters stated that glider engines actually have better fuel economy and greenhouse
gas ("GHG") emissions than today's low NOx engines. However, this is not true. Even before Phase 1,
engine manufacturers had improved fuel consumption significantly beyond 2009 levels. The 2014
Phase 1 standards required significant additional improvement and the Phase 1 2017 standards will
result in even more improvement. Fleets purchasing gliders would thus see greater efficiency
improvements by purchasing trucks meeting GHG standards for new vehicles and engines.
Potentially Legitimate Purpose of Gliders
Although EPA is addressing this issue because of the adverse public health and environmental impacts
of glider vehicles, many commenters (including some who supported EPA's proposed restrictions),
commented that glider kits serve a legitimate purpose in some cases. Most identified cases in which
relatively new vehicles suffer significant frame damage as the result of an accident or from a severe
duty application, without significant damage to the driveline. Volvo stated:
The "glider kit" emerged some decades ago as an assemblage of new vehicle components
absent the engine, transmission, and rear axles (the "driveline"). These kits were produced by
vehicle OEMs, and made available for sale to dealers and other vehicle repair centers as a
means to repair a vehicle that had been badly damaged in an accident or similar event. This
permitted re-use of driveline components that had not yet accumulated end-of-life mileage by
the time of the accident.
Some commenters misinterpreted EPA statements about the "most legitimate" use of gliders in the
NPRM and NODA to be a determination that some use of glider kits is legitimate. Although EPA has
not taken a position on whether such use of glider kits is truly legitimate, we do agree that
circumstances such as those addressed by Volvo represent their most legitimate use. Volvo commented
that any allowances for glider kits should be limited to these legitimate purposes. While we are
generally sympathetic to the goal of limiting the use of glider kits to the most legitimate circumstances,
we do not think it would be possible to enforce restrictions based on the intent of the operator or
assembler, so that such a regime would invite abuse (and thus serve to perpetuate environmentally
unsound practices). We are also concerned that it would be difficult to enforce requirements based on
the condition of the donor vehicle as a proxy for intent since the donor vehicle will typically be
destroyed as part of the process. To the extent we reflect any of these factors in our regulations, we
believe it will be more enforceable to base the requirements on the age and mileage of the engine, as
explained in the following section of this response.
Some commenters suggested that another legitimate purpose of glider kits is to improve efficiency. For
example, Clarke Power Services stated that trucking fleets purchasing glider vehicles "are not motivated
by circumventing the EPA policies, but are most interested in being more efficient by removing old
equipment from service and introducing a significantly improved heavy duty truck in its place." We do
not agree. First, the significant adverse public health and environmental consequences of order of
magnitude and greater increases in NOx and diesel PM emissions would exist even if the commenter
were correct. The commenter is in any case mistaken in suggesting that glider vehicles have a fuel
efficiency advantage over new tractors. As explained above, with the advent of the Phase 1 GHG and
-------
fuel consumption standards, fleets purchasing gliders would see greater efficiency improvements by
purchasing trucks meeting GHG standards for new vehicles and engines. Although this would cost
more upfront, these costs would be recouped via greater fuel savings within the first few years of
ownership.
Treatment of Donor Engines within their Useful Life
In section (i) of the legal memorandum on issues pertaining to trailers, glider kits, and glider vehicles
accompanying the Notice of Data Availability, EPA requested comment on finalizing special provisions
for gliders using engines that are still within their original regulatory useful life (10 years and 435,000
miles for Class 8 vehicles) that would allow relatively new engines to be reused in gliders without
recertification to standards corresponding to the year of assembly of the glider vehicle. Such engines
would necessarily be cleaner than the pre-2002 engines being used in most gliders today, and by 2021,
all would be compliant with the 2010 standards. This allowance would also be inherently consistent
with the most legitimate use of glider kits because no one would scrap a chassis within the useful life
unless it was severely damaged. Commenters generally supported this approach. Many also supported
the additional approach EPA discussed in conjunction with the NODA that would ignore miles if the
donor engine is less than three years old and ignore years if the engine had less than 100,000 miles.
(These additional allowances would provide some additional flexibility for an engine not fully within its
useful life). Some commenters argued that such a provision should only apply with respect to miles,
and that EPA should not restrict this flexibility based on engine age so as not to disadvantage engines in
very low usage applications. E-One's comments suggested that EPA should adopt provisions to address
emergency vehicles that last 10 to 20 years but may have traveled only 10-50,000 miles.
After considering these comments, EPA has decided to finalize the approach described in the NODA.
(As described later, the proposed small business flexibility is also being adopted, but as an interim
provision). We believe this addresses the most traditional, legitimate use of glider kits, which is for
vehicles in severe duty applications (such as cement mixers and dump trucks) that incur substantial
chassis damage before the engine reaches the 10-year end of its regulatory useful life. By 2020 nearly
all glider vehicles would have to be produced using engines meeting the 2010 NOx and PM standards
(since an older-than-10 year engine would be outside its regulatory useful life). Because the potential
for adverse environmental effects from such vehicles is significantly reduced (compared to the more
common current use of pre-2002 model year engines, with their much higher criteria pollutant
emissions), EPA is allowing their continued use in glider vehicles without recertification to more
stringent criteria pollutant standards, and without meeting GHG standards.
This approach provides this flexibility to very low use applications, such as those identified by E-One,
where donor engines have less than 100,000 miles after 10 years. The final regulations will thus allow
reuse of an engine more than 10 years old without recertification, as long as the engine can be shown to
have fewer than 100,000 miles on it. The environmental impact of allowing this should be minimal
because there should be very few engines that qualify and they will necessarily be in applications that
operate infrequently. (Any vehicles that operate more than 10,000 miles per year would exceed 100,000
miles before 10 years).
At the other extreme, some Class 8 vehicles may reach 435,000 miles within a few years. Today's
Class 8 engines and vehicles are generally expected to last well beyond this point, so such engines
would be installed in glider kits only if the chassis was defective or had been in a major accident. The
NODA approach, which is being adopted, treats these engines as being within their useful life as long as
they are less than 3 years old. This approach was supported by NADA. The environmental impact of
allowing this should also be minimal because there should be very few engines that qualify and they
will necessarily be engines certified to 2010 or later standards.
-------
Treatment of MY 2010 and Later Donor Engines
Several commenters supported allowing unlimited production of glider vehicles if they use engines
certified to 2010 or later NOx and PM standards, although Volvo opposed this concept. Daimler
commented that "2010 and later engines are not currently being used in glider vehicles in large
numbers," but Clarke Power Services commented that the "industry is currently considering MY 2010
engines as the choice for Gliders moving forward." EPA sees merit in this concept, but is concerned
that it may not be appropriate in perpetuity. Obviously, reuse of engines originally certified to the 2010
standards for criteria pollutants would not have the same adverse environmental impacts as the current
practice of reusing pre-2002 engines that have NOx and PM emissions 20-40 times higher than current
engines. However, they would not necessarily be as clean for GHG or criteria pollutants as brand new
engines with all new aftertreatment components. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 engine standards will result
in brand new engines with lower GHG emissions (and better fuel efficiency) than pre-Phase 1 engines.
And used 2010 aftertreatment components may be less effective at reducing NOx or PM than when
new. Moreover, as described in Section I of the FRM Preamble, EPA may adopt more stringent NOx
and/or PM standards for motor vehicles in the future. Thus, while using 2010 engines in glider vehicles
would greatly reduce the concerns about NOx and PM emissions relative to current gliders, it would not
eliminate all adverse public health and environmental impacts.
Sales patterns strongly support the idea that the surge in glider sales resulted from an attempt to avoid
the 2010 criteria pollutant standards. Thus, it seems likely most purchasers of gliders today would not
find gliders with 2010 engines nearly as attractive as they do current glider vehicles. Thus, we would
not expect such an allowance to result in a continuation of the current surge in glider sales.
In an attempt to balance these factors, EPA is finalizing an interim provision - a provision which will
sunset after EPA adopts new more stringent NOx standards - that will treat gliders using MY2010 and
later engines the same as those using engines within their useful life. This would avoid most of the
adverse impacts, especially for NOx and PM. Not requiring these engines to meet the latest GHG
standards could have some impacts, but they would likely be small, especially if glider vehicle sales
return to pre-2007 levels. EPA will continue to monitor sales patterns and may rescind this flexibility in
a future rulemaking.
Legal Authority to Regulate Complete Glider Vehicles and Incomplete Glider Kits
See Section 1.3.1 and preamble Section I.E.(l) for a discussion of EPA's authority to regulate glider
vehicles and glider kits. In addition, DTNA's argument that this rulemaking should not address gliders
because the primary focus of the rulemaking is control of GHGs rather than criteria pollutants, EPA
notes that it gave ample notice of all issues relating to gliders, and provided multiple opportunities for
public comment. The many comments on the issue from all types of stakeholders confirm the adequacy
of notice here. The further comment that regulations on GHGs should not deal with other pollution has
no legal basis. DTNA also commented that the engine rebuilding authority in section 202 (a)(3)(D) was
not properly invoked because EPA had not proposed to amend the engine rebuilding regulations. EPA
has included conforming amendments to 1037.150 (j), and 1068. 120 (f) in the final rules.
DTNA's argument that the rule addresses vehicle rebuilding, rather than engine rebuilding, is not
correct. In addition to the reasons addressed in Preamble Section 1.3, it is clear that the statutory
authority over engine rebuilding authorizes EPA to determine what standards a rebuilt engine shall
meet. See CAA section 202 (a)(3) (D) stating that "the Administrator may prescribe requirements to
control rebuilding practices, including standards applicable to emissions from any rebuilt heavy-duty
engines (whether or not the engine is past its statutory useful life)." Comments from, e.g. Mondial and
MEMA made clear that all of the donor engines installed in glider vehicles are rebuilt. See also
-------
http://www.trackingmfo.com/article/storv/2013/04/the-return-of-the-glider.aspx ("1999 to 2002-model
diesels were known for reliability, longevity and good fuel mileage. Fitzgerald favors Detroit's 12.7-liter
Series 60 from that era, but also installs pre-EGR 14-liter Cummins and 15-liter Caterpillar diesels. All
are rebuilt ").
Lead Time
See Section 1.3.1 of this RTC and preamble Section I.E.(l) for a discussion of EPA's statutory
obligation for lead time with respect to gliders and glider kits. From a more practical perspective, we
note that little lead time is needed for the changes being adopted. Glider kit manufacturers already offer
comparable vehicles that are fully compliant with current standards, and thus do not need extensive lead
time. Such vehicles are often identical to the completed glider vehicles other than the powertrains.
Most small glider vehicle assemblers do not need additional lead time because they will be allowed to
continue assembling gliders at pre-2015 rates. We are aware of one glider kit assembler that produces
more than 300 vehicles from glider kits each year and it will need to reduce its production in 2017 and
later. However, we do not believe that manufacturer truly needs additional lead time. This manufacturer
indicates that it fills orders for glider vehicles within three to six weeks from placement of the order,
which means the new restrictions should not impact any existing orders.242 Any vehicles that are
already on order should be completed before 2017. For 2017, the regulations will allow this
manufacturer to produce at its 2014 production rate. This 2017 restriction applies with respect to the
total annual production for 2017, so the manufacturer will be allowed to gradually reduce its production
of high polluting glider vehicles. This provides sufficient lead time for it to find compliant engines
before its production limit drops to 300 in 2018. It is unclear that additional lead time would change
anything for this manufacturer other than allowing it to produce additional high polluting glider
vehicles.
Finally, any consideration of lead time must necessarily be balanced against the potential environmental
and public health impacts. As shown in Appendix A to this section, even a small number of additional
glider vehicles would have severe impacts. For example, a one-year delay that allowed 10,000
additional glider vehicles to be produced with high polluting engines would result in the following
impacts:
• 415,000 tons of addition NOx emissions
• 6,800 tons of additional PM emissions
• 700 to 1,600 premature deaths
• $3 to $ 11 billion in PM-related monetized disbenefits
Given the severity of these impacts, delaying these provisions cannot be justified by merely the potential
for inconvenience to the industry. Rather commenters would needed to have demonstrated that it is not
feasible to comply with these requirements within the lead time provided. They have not done so. Most
commenters supporting additional lead time focused on statutory requirements that were addressed in
Section 1.3.1. Commenters that did address economic impacts merely speculated about the impacts or
made vague references to jobs or small business impacts. Of course, as many commenters pointed out,
glider vehicle production with high polluting engines comes at the expense of domestic manufacturers
producing engines complying with the latest criteria pollutant and GHG standards. See further
discussion of Economic Impacts below. No commenters provided any specific basis that would justify
242 Advertisement for Fitzgerald Glider Kits in Overdrive magazine (December 2015).
-------
delaying the prevention of premature mortalities and billions of dollars of benefits achievable by
implementing these provisions according to the final regulations.
Small Business Impacts
Several commenters expressed concern about the impact of the proposed changes on small businesses
that produce glider vehicles. However, commenters opposing the proposed requirements/clarifications
did not address the very significant adverse public health and environmental impacts of the huge
increase in glider vehicle production over the last several years. More importantly, EPA believes that
with the changes being made in the final regulations, any small businesses that have been focused on
producing gliders for traditional and legitimate purposes will not be significantly impacted by the new
requirements, since they can use donor engines within their regulatory useful life for either age or
mileage. Only those that have significantly increased production to create new trucks to circumvent the
2010 NOx and PM standards will have their sales significantly restricted. We are aware that Fitzgerald
Gliders currently produces more than 300 vehicles from glider kits, and they appear to all use pre-2002
engines. It will need to cut back on its production of these vehicles (although it can continue unlimited
production using low-polluting engines). Nevertheless, the company has previously acknowledged that
they could "make a profit at 300 a year."243 Now Fitzgerald Gliders comments that "300 vehicles is too
low given the abrupt change this regulation brings to the 50-year-old glider industry and the
disproportionate impact it will have on small businesses." However, it failed to acknowledge in its
comments that for most of the "50-year-old glider industry" total industry-wide production of glider
vehicles was much closer to 300 per year than to current production rates.244 Fitzgerald Gliders also
failed to note how rapidly they have increased production of glider vehicles over the last few years.
One commenter stated that EPA should also consider the impacts on small trucking companies. But
here too, for the same reasons, trucking companies that seek gliders for traditional, legitimate purposes
should be able to obtain them. Only those companies that seek to use older engines will be impacted,
and these companies can produce glider vehicles using readily available compliant engines.245
Some commenters argued that EPA did not include enough glider manufacturers in the SBREFA
process. However, EPA met its obligations under SBREFA. See generally RTC section 15.4. One of
the Small Entity Representatives was a manufacturer of glider vehicles. Small businesses also had two
opportunities to provide comments on the requirements. It is unclear how having additional glider
manufacturers involved in the process would have changed its result.
Volvo also commented that EPA should clarify that the exemption is limited to entities that both
qualified as small manufacturers in 2014 and sold vehicles produced from glider kits under the
provisions of 40 CFR § 1037.1500. We believe that this is what the final regulations clearly state.
However, DTNA commented that "EPA's current proposal unfairly penalizes those small businesses
that did not sell gliders in 2014, but might have sold them in 2013 or 2015." However, the small
business provisions are intended to prevent the regulations from having a significant impact on the
businesses. It is unclear how any restrictions of gliders could have any impact on a business that sold
none in 2014 that would meet the threshold for "significant." Clearly, glider sales cannot be an
important portion of a company's revenues if they sold none in 2014.
243 http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/storv/2013/04/the-return-of-the-glider.aspx.. accessed July 16, 2016.
244 "Industry Characterization of Heavy Duty Glider Kits," MacKay & Company, September 30, 2013.
245 Memo to Docket, "Availability of Rebuilt Engines that Comply with 2010 Emission Standards", August 2016.
-------
PACCAR commented that EPA should eliminate the small business allowance altogether beginning in
MY 2022 for gliders using pre-2010 engines. TCW opposed any relief for small businesses that
assemble gliders, and Volvo commented that EPA should eliminate the small business exemption
sooner than proposed. Consistent with Volvo's comments on the risk of a pre-buy, we are finalizing an
additional restriction for 2017. Nevertheless, while EPA may eliminate or reduce the small manufacture
provisions in a future rulemaking, such an action at this time would be inconsistent with the SBREFA
Panel's recommendations, which EPA is choosing to largely follow to afford small businesses sufficient
compliance flexibility, and to preserve opportunities for traditional uses of glider kits to provide a means
of salvaging viable engines from non-viable powertrains. During the SBREFA process, EPA concurred
with these recommendations, and without some more compelling reason, we believed it to be
appropriate to allow this flexibility. Our recent reanalysis of the environmental impacts of even this
small number of gliders suggests we may need to revisit it at some point within the Phase 2 time frame,
especially if we find that this flexibility is being misused.
Terex Corporation comment that EPA should provide an exemption for any company manufactured
fewer than 1,000 on highway vehicles annually between calendar years 2010 and 2014. However, we
believe the other flexibilities allowing the use of newer engines will largely address Terex Corporation's
concerns.
Sales Caps
EPA received comments supporting higher caps and comments supporting lower caps. Commenters
supporting higher caps did not argue that higher caps were necessary to allow for legitimate production
at or below pre-2006 levels. Instead, these commenters seemed to be concerned solely about allowing
continuation of very high sales. We see no basis for that. This would perpetuate the very conduct -
continued use of high-pollution engines in contravention of standards for new vehicles and engines -
which this action is intended to restrict. One commenter argued that the caps should be raised to
account for the likelihood that the number of small businesses assembling glider vehicles would
decrease as a result of the rule changes. However, we think the other revisions being made to allow
additional glider vehicles to be produced without a sales cap (i.e. allowing continued use of donor
engines within their useful life for either mileage or age) will offset any impacts on the availability of
gliders that might result from a reduction in the number of businesses in this market.
Combined with the other flexibilities in the final rule, this small manufacturer allowance should allow
the industry to produce glider vehicles near pre-2006 levels. While there may be disruptions for some
companies, higher caps cannot be justified by merely the potential for inconvenience to the industry or
even significant disruption for a few companies. Fitzgerald Gliders currently produces more than 300
vehicles from glider kits and is likely to be the small business that will be most impacted by this cap, but
as noted above, they have acknowledged that they could "make a profit at 300 a year."246
EPA also received comments supporting potentially lower cap levels. ICCT agreed that glider sales
should be restricted to a number that is consistent with pre-emission-regulation glider production, which
they stated should be on the order of hundreds of units per year industry wide. Navistar suggested the
cap be lowered to 200 units per year. Volvo commented that the cap is too high and that small
manufacturers should not be allowed to exceed "the peak levels in the 2010-2012 timeframe" to be
consistent with the SBREFA Panel Report. EPA is not reducing the maximum cap level or basing it on
only 2010-2012 sales at this time. As just noted, it is clear that the cap of 300 glider vehicles will allow
existing small businesses to remain profitable. Thus, as an interim policy, we believe this level
246 http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/story/2013/04/the-return-of-the-glider.aspx, accessed July 16, 2016.
-------
appropriately balances the environmental and economic impacts. See CAA section 202 (a)(3)(D)
requiring consideration of "cost of compliance" as part of the standard setting process for rebuilt
engines. Nevertheless, we recognize that this allowance will result in significant additional emissions
of NOx and PM. We will continue to monitor this market and may lower these values in the future.
Consistent with Volvo's comments, the final regulations apply the cap as a production cap rather than a
sales cap.
Definitions
Terex asked for clarification of the proposed definition 'glider kit' to mean 'any other new equipment
that is intended to become a motor vehicle with a previously used engine, include a rebuilt or
remanufactured engine.' We have added the clarifying condition that this includes only assemblies that
are "substantially similar to" complete vehicles. Volvo suggested the following definition of "glider
kit":
Glider kit means a new vehicle that is incomplete because it lacks an engine, transmission, or
drive axle. A glider kit may include previously used parts. A glider kit becomes a new motor
vehicle upon the installation of an engine, transmission, and axles, regardless of whether the
ultimate purchaser has received title or placed it into service.
EPA explained in Section 1.3.1 why we believe glider kits are new motor vehicles, albeit incomplete
motor vehicles. See also preamble section I.E.I explaining further that in any case, manufacturers of
entities assembling glider kits are "manufacturers" under the Act and can consequently can be required
to test and certify. Volvo's proposed definition would not be consistent with this. Nevertheless, we
agree with Volvo that the glider vehicle provisions should not prevent vehicle manufacturers from using
up their normal inventory of prior model year new engines when producing conventional new motor
vehicles. The definitions being adopted will not interfere with this practice.
Identical Standards
Daimler commented that EPA should define "identical standards" to avoid uncertainty. As an example,
they stated it is "unclear whether, under EPA's proposed regulations, an earlier model year engine could
be used in a glider vehicle assembled in a year when new OBD requirements are in effect." In other
contexts (such as export exemptions) EPA has previously interpreted this term strictly. This would
clearly not allow differences in something as important as OBD requirements.
Economic Impacts
Commenters opposing the proposed changes argued that they would adversely impact hundreds of jobs.
MEMA stated that the motor vehicle remanufacturing industry supports over 50,000 direct jobs in the
U.S. Other commenters noted that allowing glider vehicle sales adversely impacts those producing and
selling conventionally new vehicles, and penalizes those entities playing by the rules and producing new
vehicles which pollute far, far less. In particular, several dealers that do not sell gliders commented that
allowing gliders to circumvent newer emission controls creates an unfair competitive market. Volvo
commented that gliders have an unfair competitive advantage because the "cleanest, most fuel efficient
and safest vehicles are necessarily tens of thousands of dollars more costly to produce" than glider
vehicles.
Considered together these comments suggest that jobs in the glider industry come at the expense of
other jobs in the heavy-duty industry. Although EPA takes seriously any impacts on workers in the
-------
glider industry, they do not justify allowing the continued avoidance of emission standards which results
in millions of tons of additional pollution and substantial avoidable public health risks, especially
considering the adverse impacts glider sales have on other workers in the U.S. Clarke Power Services
commented that the "industry is currently considering MY 2010 engines as the choice for Gliders
moving forward." This suggests that any economic impacts compared to what would have happened
without regulation are short-term rather than long-term.
Other commenters stated that gliders offer many advantages for operators over used trucks, including
lower operating costs and improved safety. However, these operators could achieve these same or
greater benefits by purchasing fully compliant new vehicles. MFX noted costs associated with the
2007-era vehicles, but they are no longer relevant. As noted above, with the advent of the Phase 1
standards, and even more so under the 2017 Phase 1 standards and, later, Phase 2 standards, operators
will be able to purchase fully optimized Phase 1 or Phase 2 vehicles that will have much better fuel
efficiency and reliability than the 2007 products.
Finally, some commenters argued that EPA should consider the economic impacts on small trucking
companies that purchase glider vehicles or pay others to assemble glider vehicles from their donor
vehicles. While we understand that small trucking companies may have less capital to purchase fully
compliant new trucks than larger companies, we note that new glider vehicles are not inexpensive -
generally costing at least two-thirds as much as a fully compliant new vehicles. Thus, any impact on
these trucking companies would be marginal. Moreover, engines meeting the 2017 Phase 1 standards
are likely to be more fuel efficient than the rebuilt pre-2002 engines, so these companies would likely
recover the additional purchase costs from fuel savings.
Used Engines
One commenter suggested that EPA should prohibit the installation of used engines unless they have
been rebuilt to the original certified configuration so as to (in the opinion of the commenter) reduce PM,
NOx, and GHG emissions. However, as explained earlier, we believe the most legitimate use of glider
kits is to salvage used components from newer vehicles that have been damaged in accidents. Thus, it
would not be appropriate to ban used engines that have not been rebuilt to any particular
configuration.247
Labeling and Delegated Assembly
PACCAR commented that EPA should not require a unique label for glider vehicles that will be used in
vocational applications. However, because glider vehicles are new vehicles they must comply with the
same Phase 2 requirements as any other new motor vehicles. This includes proper labeling identifying
the standards to which the vehicle is certified.
Similarly, for all glider vehicles produced by multiple manufacturers, the manufacturers must comply
fully with the requirements of §§1037.620 through 1037.622. PACCAR's comments urging less
rigorous requirements for glider kits miss the point of these requirements, which is to ensure that the
completed vehicles are in their proper certified configuration when placed into service. It is the
manufacturer's choice to produce vehicles in this way. If they find it too difficult to ensure the
completed glider vehicles conform to the regulations, they can simply not offer glider kits similar to
247 Note again that removal of engines from donor vehicles, and installation of that engine into another vehicle
continues to fall under the engine rebuilding provisions of part 86.004-40. See 86.004-40 second sentence
(referring to "removal" which encompasses removal and installation into another vehicle).
-------
current competitors. Nevertheless, as described in Section 1.4.4 of this RTC, we have revised the
proposed delegated assembly requirements more generally, which may address some of PACCAR's
concerns.
Natural Gas
NGV America commented that the regulations should allow greater flexibility for natural gas fueled
gliders because they are cleaner than diesel gliders. Diesel 2 Gas, Inc. commented that glider kits "are
the only means by which hundreds of thousands of Class 8 Trucks can have access to natural gas as an
engine fuel." They stated that 2010 and newer engines "cannot be converted efficiently to dual fuel
mode with any known technology" because of their electronics. However, we believe that the issue of
circumvention is a concern for both natural gas and diesel gliders. We do not believe these comments
justify special provisions for natural gas. Natural gas engines may be cleaner than diesel engines of the
same vintage with respect to NOx and PM emissions, but natural gas conversions of older engines are
not inherently cleaner than today's SCR and DPF equipped diesel engines.
As noted earlier, glider vehicles are new motor vehicles, even if they reuse an engine from another
vehicle. This is even more obviously true when the engine is converted from diesel fuel to natural gas
as part of the process of producing the new glider. Such a vehicle retains even less of a connection to
any existing vehicle. Moreover, the nature of the process addressed by NGV and Diesel 2 Gas suggests
the purpose is to produce a new natural gas vehicle, rather than to salvage a newer powertrain from a
damaged chassis. Thus, an argument could be made that they deserve less (not more) accommodation.
EPA has no objection to conversion of existing vehicles to natural gas. However, natural gas gliders are
more likely competing against other new vehicles that are fully compliant with current standards for
criteria pollutants, as well as for GHGs. If Diesel 2 Gas is unable to convert newer engines, they are
free to convert the older engines that remain in the older chassis. By retaining the old chassis, they
would not be subject to the new glider kit requirements.
Consideration of Existing NHTSA Regulations
Some commenters suggested that EPA's regulations should reflect principles laid out in existing
NHTSA regulations. For example NADA/ATD urged EPA to harmonize with NHTSA's regulations
that require there to be a single "donor" vehicle from which two of three used components (engine,
transmission, and drive-axle) are incorporated into the rebuilt vehicle. NADA/ATD further commented
that "when two of these three used components are incorporated into a rebuilt vehicle, using a glider kit,
the used engine would only be required to meet emission standards applicable to its year of original
manufacture." However, those regulations were promulgated pursuant to different statutory authority.
They were also develop for different, albeit related purposes. Thus, EPA does not consider them to be
necessarily relevant to this action. More importantly, such comments ignore the severe public health
impacts of glider vehicles. These impacts are not lessened in anyway if the components come from a
single donor vehicle.
14.3 Technical Amendments - Heavy-Duty Vehicles Other than GHG
1886
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Other Provisions
Low Sulfur Labeling
-------
regulation regarding Tier 3 fuels will remove this fuel from the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1238-A1 p.36]
Response:
We amended 40 CFR 86.007-35(c) to discontinue vehicle labeling for ULSD, effective with model year
2014, on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 9101).
14.3.1 Alternate Emission Standards for Specialty Heavy-Duty Vehicles 1887
Comment - Use of non-road engines in on-road vehicles
The NPRM requests comment on the "technical and regulatory issues surrounding the use of engines
from chassis-certified vehicles in certain heavy-duty vehicles" and "on all aspects of this program to
create alternate motor-vehicle emission standards that allow certified non-road engines to be used in the
identified types of heavy-duty highway vehicles." CARB generally supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA's
desire to facilitate the certification of innovative technologies that reduce GHG emissions, recognizes
why U.S. EPA and NHTSA are considering allowing non-road engine use in hybrids, and lauds U.S.
EPA and NHTSA's seeking to encourage development of hybrid technology. In fact, CARB staff is
considering provisions in its proposed Innovative Technology Regulation that would similarly allow
limited use of non-road engines in on-road heavy-duty hybrids, but only in well-defined, limited
situations (more detail on the Innovative Technology Regulation is at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/itr/itr.htm ).39 As discussed further below, CARB staff believes that
certain safeguards must be incorporated in 40 CFR 1037.605 to ensure that the provisions for innovation
do not inadvertently allow abuse and unintended emission increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p.91-92]
From a technical perspective, the proposal to allow the use of downsized engines, including non-road
engines, in on-road hybrid vehicles is justifiable. The combustion engine that is sized for use in a
specific heavy-duty vehicle class is, in some cases, oversized, when installed in a hybrid vehicle in the
same vehicle class. This is due to the sharing of the vehicle power load requirements by the electric
motor in a hybrid system. The result is the combustion engine is occasionally being forced to operate in
non-optimal regions of its torque map, which could lead to reduced engine efficiency and increased
criteria pollutant emissions, as we have observed in a recent CARB-funded study conducted by NREL
(available on our website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msDrog/aaiD/hvbrid test.htm). We also agree that, if
properly structured, using non-road downsized engines has the potential to reduce both fuel
consumption and emissions in hybrid vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.92]
Using non-road engines in a hybrid vehicle makes the most sense in series hybrid configurations where
the primary purpose of the combustion engine is to provide power to charge the batteries that are used to
propel the vehicle. The combustion engine in a series hybrid configuration can then be operated in a
narrow region where it is most efficient and where its emissions can be more effectively controlled.
CARB staff recommends against allowing the use of non-road engines in parallel hybrid applications
due to the larger range of engine operating parameters that must be controlled in order to minimize
criteria pollutant emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.92]
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA be cognizant of the fact that non-road engines are
generally higher emitting than on-road engines, are certified to higher emission standards with less
stringent useful life and durability requirements, and often, unlike on-road engines, are certified without
a DPF. For example, the NOx and PM emission standards (40 CFR part 1039) for compression ignition
non-road engines for 56 kW (75 hp) to 560 kW (750 hp) are 0.40 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr)
-------
(~0.3 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)) and 0.02 g/kW-hr (-0.015 g/bhp-hr), respectively.
In comparison, the current NOx and PM emissions standards for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines are
0.20 g/bhp-hr and 0.01 g/bhp-hr, respectively. Contrasting the useful life requirements for on-road
heavy-duty engines of 435,000 miles or 22,000 hours with the useful life for >=37kW non-road engines
of 8,000 hours, or 5,000 hours for lower powered non-road engines (Table 4, 40 CFR 1039.101), the
large differences in the required useful life for on-road and non-road engines, and the attendant effects
on warranty provisions, could give rise to durability issues that we believe are significant. Hence, their
use should only be allowed in the narrow circumstances where an appropriate on-road engine is not
available to facilitate the use of an advanced technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.93]
CARB staff is also cognizant of the potential for abuse when flexibility provisions are worded too
broadly and hence suggests that some restrictions be added to the provision to prevent inappropriate use
of non-road engines in on-road vehicles, such as use of a non-road engine to power an on-road truck that
is also connected to a small electric assist battery. CARB staff recommends the Phase 2 regulations
include several safeguards to prevent the unintended use of non-road engines in on-road vehicles more
broadly than intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.93]
We recommend the following safeguards:
• First, the scope of applicability should be clarified in 40 CFR 1037.605(a)(1) such that the
provisions are restricted to engines in vehicles with hybrid powertrains used exclusively to
charge batteries and, by extension, not to vehicles with engines that can also directly propel the
drive train as in a parallel hybrid electric vehicle. In other words, the provisions should be
restricted to series hybrids only. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.93]
• Second, the provisions should be limited to vehicles with significant zero-emission range (for
example, 35 miles zero-emission range). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.93]
• Third, the non-road engine must meet a 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM standard and be equipped with a
DPF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.93]
• Fourth, non-road compression ignition engines with maximum engine power less than 56 kW
should not be allowed. We realize that such a prohibition has been proposed for incorporation in
40 CFR 86.007-11(g) of the criteria pollutant standard setting part for highway vehicles, but
CARB staff recommends that similar language also be explicated in 40 CFR1037.605 of the
GHG standard setting part itself, not just referenced as proposed, to avoid any confusion
regarding the provisions applicability. Accordingly, CARB staff recommends that this concern
be addressed via the inclusion of a qualifying phrase in the applicability portion of 40 CFR
1037.605, such as and the engines have maximum engine power ratings equal to or greater
than 56 kW." (see underscored text in paragraph (a) of CARB staff s revised regulatory text on
page 118 below). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.94]
With these safeguards incorporated, CARB staff would support the proposed Phase 2 provisions
allowing use of non-road engines for on-road series hybrids. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.94]
In addition, CARB strongly urges U.S. EPA and NHTSA to protect against possible criteria pollutant
increases associated with allowing non-road engines to be used in on-road heavy-duty hybrid systems.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.5]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - OBD flexibility for specialty heavy-duty vehicles
-------
CARB staff understands some manufacturers of hybrid engines and drivelines have had challenges
meeting existing certification requirements, particularly for engine, driveline, and vehicle OBD. U.S.
EPA and NHTSA's proposal would allow up to 1,000 hybrid engines and vehicles per manufacturer per
year to meet significantly reduced OBD requirements, in order to help enable these technologies to
come to market sooner. While we agree with the intent of this proposal, we are concerned it would
enable hybrid engine, driveline, and vehicle manufacturers to sell a potentially unlimited number of
vehicles with almost no diagnostic capabilities over a period of years, as long as each manufacturer's
annual volume stays below 1,000. This approach could also provide an incentive for manufacturers to
plan for low annual hybrid sales without ever having to invest in developing diagnostics capabilities.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.94]
OBD is critical to not only ensure that vehicle after-treatment and other controls are working properly
in-use, but also to address potential engine and driveline integration issues that can result in increased
NOx emissions. While CARB staff concurs that integrating a fully functional diagnostic system into a
vehicle utilizing an alternate standard engine may be challenging at first, the benefits of beginning the
process early are worthwhile. Access to real-time/real-world data can only improve compatibility and
accelerate refinements that will result in cleaner vehicles and more reliable diagnostic systems in the
near term. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.94-95]
CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA and NHTSA to set a sunset mechanism for the reduced OBD
requirements that reflects the number of vehicles or amount of time needed for the hybrid truck market
to launch. The NPRM suggests a few potential approaches to identifying an appropriate sunset
mechanism.40 CARB staff suggests U.S. EPA and NHTSA explore a sunset for the proposed hybrid
certification flexibility, potentially based on phasing in full OBD requirements once 5,000 to 10,000
unit volumes per manufacturer have been produced. U.S. EPA and NHTSA could initially require
engine manufacturers diagnostics (EMDB) systems for manufacturers wishing to sell only a small
number of engines annually and increase to full OBD requirements as a manufacturer applies to sell
more engines. While such a sunset mechanism may or may not be triggered within the Phase 2
implementation timeframe, it would send an important signal to hybrid technology manufacturers that as
the technology matures, they must plan for eventual OBD compliance. Without such a sunset
mechanism, the 1,000 annual volume limit for reduced OBD may mean hybrid manufacturers never
develop effective OBD systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.95]
As mentioned previously, California is developing a proposed Innovative Technology Regulation
intended to provide hybrid medium- and heavy-duty engines, drivelines and vehicles with more flexible
diagnostics and other certification requirements at time of market launch, ramping up to full OBD over
time. CARB staff looks forward to continued coordination with U.S. EPA and NHTSA in developing
the proposed Innovative Technology Regulation and in aligning it with the proposed federal program to
provide heavy-duty hybrids with OBD flexibility where appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
Alp.95]
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Alternate emission standards for specialty heavy-duty vehicles
The NRPM requests comments on the technical and regulatory issues of heavy-duty vehicles that use an
engine from a smaller vehicle that is already covered by chassis-based certification under 40 CFR part
86, subpart S. For these vehicles, it is proposed that alternate standards would apply to the engine
certification-based emission standards and certification requirements while all vehicle-based
-------
requirements for evaporative and greenhouse gas emissions would continue to apply as specified in the
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 107-108]
While an engine from a chassis certified vehicle may fulfill the charging demands of a series heavy-duty
hybrid, tailpipe emissions, evaporative emissions and OBD performance may be significantly
compromised when the engine is used in heavy-duty hybrid applications. In the hybrid application, the
engine would likely be commanded to operate at optimal efficiency speed-load points, which could be
conditions that do not have optimized emissions control on the chassis cycles (e.g., sustained high load
on a gasoline engine might result in enrichment for catalyst over temperature protection; it may also
result in inadequate canister purging). Further, the OBD system would be calibrated to yield good OBD
performance under duty cycles typically encountered by the chassis certified vehicles, which may be
significantly different than the duty cycle experienced in the hybrid. A likely consequence is that
diagnostics simply won't experience the conditions necessary to execute (e.g., if the monitor in the
chassis certified application is designed to detect malfunctions when the engine is idling and the engine
is not idled in the hybrid application, the malfunction won't be detected). A less likely yet plausible
concern is that monitors will make non robust decisions (i.e., the diagnostic will indicate a malfunction
is present when there isn't one). Another consequence is that the correlation between emission levels
and malfunction detection will be upset (e.g., malfunctions may likely be detected at much higher
emission levels because the engine operates at higher duty cycles on average). These examples highlight
the need to recalibrate the emission control system and OBD system to ensure good performance in the
heavy-duty hybrid application. This can be difficult to achieve by the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturer
wishing to design a heavy-duty hybrid if the vehicle manufacturer does not have the intimate knowledge
of and ability to reprogram the original engine computer with a custom calibration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 108]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Exemption from on-road engine criteria pollutant standard for engines in vehicles
with maximum speed at or below 45 mph
CARB staff recommends that the scope of the provisions be narrowed such that they do not apply
universally to all vehicles with maximum speed at or below 45mph. The need to exempt engines solely
on the basis of maximum speed is unclear and has not been thoroughly explained or justified in the
Preamble. Furthermore, the use of an engine to directly propel a vehicle on the highway, even at less
than 45mph, would necessitate the use of a highway certified engine per U.S. EPA and NHTSA's own
Preamble arguments regarding the representativeness of duty-cycle operation. CARB would not be
opposed to relief for specific applications in this category should the need for relief be justifiably
explained, but as the provision stands now it seems to have more potential to create new business
opportunities that rely on the use of less stringent engines than it does to drive innovation to reduce
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 129]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Exemption of amphibious and speed-limited vehicles
The proposed classification of amphibious and speed-limited vehicles utilizing alternate emission
standards as, "exempt from the requirements for greenhouse gases" would make it extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to enforce violations of these provisions should they occur. This would be especially
true for individual states, such as California, which would only have the emissions labels and
nationwide end-of-year production reports as the sole means of differentiating compliant vs. non-
-------
compliant vehicles within their borders. Although U.S. EPA and NHTSA propose to limit these
exempted vehicles to no more than 200 federal units per manufacturer per MY, there are no guarantees
that these engines will end up distributed evenly with respect to each of the 50 states. In fact, states with
either coastal access or numerous accessible waterways, such as California, will probably receive
disproportionately larger numbers of amphibious vehicles than will other states that lack such features.
Furthermore, trying to hold manufacturers accountable to any standard is often untenable when vehicles
and engines are considered exempt from regulation. CARB staff believes the potential for abusing this
provision is significant and recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA address the issue by requiring
manufacturers using these provisions to be granted an "abridged" form of a Certificate of Conformity
prior to the introduction of their engines into commerce. This would greatly facilitate the in-use tracking
and identifying of improper applications of the provision. As a template, U.S. EPA and NHTSA might
consider adopting an abridged Certificate of Conformity similar to the abridged Executive Order that
California grants for off-road compression-ignition engine families certified under the relief provisions
in the Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers in California (13 CCR 2423 (h)). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 129-130]
CARB staff s suggested revisions to 40 CFR1037.605 based on the comments above are indicated
below in strikeout/underline format. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 130]
§1037.605 Installing engines certified to alternate standards for specialty vehicles, (a) General
provisions. This section allows vehicle manufacturers to introduce into U.S. commerce certain
new motor vehicles if the installed engines are certified to alternate emission standards that are
equivalent to standards that apply for non-road engines under 40 CFR part 1039 that have
maximum engine power ratings equal to or greater than 56 kW or part 1048. See 40 CFR
86.007-11(g) and 40 CFR 86.008-10(g). The provisions of this section apply for the following
types of vehicles: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 130]
(1) Vehicles with a hybrid powertrain in which the engine provides energy exclusively for the
Rechargeable Energy Storage System. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 130]
(2) Amphibious vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 130]
(3) Vehicles with maximum speed at or below 15 miles per hour. If your vehicle is speed
limited to moot this specification by reducing maximum spood bolow what is otherwise
possible, this speed limitation must be programmed into the engine or vehicle's electronic
control modulo in a way that is tamper proof. If your vehicles aro not inherently limited to a
maximum speed at or below 15 miles per hour, they may qualify under this paragraph (a)(3)
only if we approve your design to limit maximum speed as being tamper proof in advance.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 130]
(b) Notification and reporting requirements. Send the Designated Compliance Officer written
notification describing your plans before using the provisions of this section. In addition, by
February 28 of each calendar year (or less often if we tell you), send the Designated
Compliance Officer a report with all the following information: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A 1 p.131]
(1) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 131]
-------
(2) List the vehicle and engine models for which you used this exemption in the previous year
and identify the total number of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.131]
(c) Production limits. You may produce up to 1,000 hybrid vehicles and up to 200 amphibious
vehicles, under this section in a given MY. This includes vehicles produced by affiliated
companies. If you exceed this limit, the exemption provision is void for the number of vehicles
that exceed the limit for the MY. For the purpose of this paragraph (c), we will include all
vehicles labeled or otherwise identified as exempt under this section. You must apply for and be
granted an "abridged" Certificate of Conformity per the instructions in $ 1037.201(c)d/o be
determinedI) to use the provisions of this section. rEPA-HQ-QAR-2014-0827-1265-Al p. 131]
(d) Vehicle standards. Hybrid vehicles using the provisions of this section remain subject to all
other requirements of this part 1037. For example, you must use GEM in conjunction with
powertrain testing to demonstrate compliance with emission standards under subpart B of this
part. Vehicles qualifying under paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section are exempt from the
requirements of this part, except as specified in this section; these vehicles must include a label
as specified in § 1037.135(a) with the information from §1037.135(c)(1) and (2) and the
following statement: "THIS [amphibious vehicle or speed-limited vehicle] IS EXEMPT FROM
GREENHOUSE GAS STANDARDS CERTIFIED UNDER THE SPECIAL ALLOWANCES
OF 40 CFR 1037.605. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 131]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc.
ALLOW FOR INNOVATION ? PROVIDE GHG BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS
Caterpillar supports the EPA's provision that allows nonroad CI and SI engines to be used in specialty
vehicles as proposed in section 1037.605. Current new technology diesel engines for on-highway and
nonroad are nearly identical in configuration and components, and thus, very similar in emissions.
However, there are differences in the engine calibration and certification test cycles. Some of these
differences potentially allow nonroad engines to be better suited in some on-highway applications. For
example, nonroad constant-speed engines are better suited than on-highway engines in hybrid
applications that rely on constant engine speed. The additional testing burden of the on-highway Federal
Test Procedures adds certification burden and is not representative of in-use performance, thereby
yielding zero environmental benefit in these applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1189-A1 p.4]
While we applaud the EPA for trying to address unnecessary burden and waste, we believe some of the
parameters of the EPA's proposed provisions may limit the benefit. First, a "hybrid powertrain" should
not be limited to systems where the engine provides energy for a Rechargeable Energy Storage System
(RESS). We recommend that, at the very least, it should apply to vehicles that have non-conventional
powertrains, but have innovative, fuel-saving technologies. An example from Caterpillar's nonroad
experience would be the D7E track-type tractor. This product utilizes a compact electric drive train,
centered on electric technology controlled by solid-state semiconductors, rather than the conventional
mechanical drivetrain that is typically used in this size track-type tractor. Furthermore, we believe such
provisions should not be limited to vehicles with a RESS, nor one where the engine must charge the
RESS. The EPA should allow for all fuel-saving, innovative vehicle technologies to utilize the
provisions of§ 1037.605. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1189-A1 p.4]
Finally, the volume limit of 1,000 units per year suggests that the EPA expects this to be a small
manufacturer exemption rather than a viable industry solution. We recommend the EPA not have a
volume limit to this provision; however, if the EPA feels that a limit is necessary to constrain the
-------
quantity of such vehicles, then we recommend the volume be set at the "small manufacturer" definition
in §86.016-1 (10,000 units per year). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1189-A1 p.4]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins opposes the use of non-road engines in hybrid powertrains [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-
A1 p.29]
A flexibility provision is proposed that allows certain specialty vehicles to use non-road engines
certified to either 40 CFR 1039 or 1048 in place of on-highway engine standards (40 CFR 86). Eligible
vehicles are amphibious vehicles, vehicles with max speed <45 mph and hybrid vehicles. As written, the
use of these non-road engines would also preclude the engine and hybrid systems from the HD on-
highway OBD requirements. Cummins opposes the use of non-road engines in hybrid vehicles,
specifically, for several reasons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.29]
First, the proposed non-road provisions (40 CFR 1039, 1048) do not currently certify engines for GHG
emissions and have differing criteria emission certification requirements (e.g., test cycles, useful life,
emission stringency). As stated in the Preamble, engine standards provide enforceable standards that
require manufacturers to optimize C02 and criteria emissions together. The lack of GHG standards for
non-road engines eliminates this linkage between criteria and GHG pollutants no longer forcing
consideration of all constituents during engine optimization, a key reason identified by the agencies for
having separate engine standards (see 80 FR 40181). Furthermore, the on-highway in-use program
would not apply to non-road engines, eliminating assurance and enforceability of NOx control in the real
world. Finally, any potential C02 environmental benefit coming from using a hybrid system may be
offset by unregulated levels of N20 and CH4 that exceed the proposed emissions cap for on-highway
engines. The ability to deliver regulatory integrity from the engine standards is called into question
through use of non-road engines in the Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.29]
Second, the certification cycles differ between non-road and on-highway certification, so there is
uncertainty in the impact on criteria emissions. The certification cycles were developed to specifically
represent either non-road or on-highway application duty cycles. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to
mix certification cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.29]
Finally, HD on-highway engines have been required to meet OBD requirements since MY 10. By the
start of the Phase 2 program, HD engines and hybrid systems would have contained OBD monitors for
more than 10 and 8 model years, respectively. To meet these requirements, manufacturers have invested
significant time and resources in developing and demonstrating OBD diagnostic capability. Since the
proposed non-road engines do not contain such stringent diagnostics, the agencies lose the assurance of
in-use compliance afforded by OBD, and an un-level playing field is created where manufacturers that
have invested in OBD may be at a cost disadvantage compared to their non-road variants. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.29]
Cummins opposes use of chassis-certified engines in specialty vehicles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1298-A1 p.33]
The agencies are requesting comment on the possibility of using engines from chassis-certified vehicles
in certain heavy-duty vehicles, such as specialty vehicles (80 FR 40523). As stated previously, these
engines are certified for specific vehicle attributes (e.g., weight, coastdown, etc.) which vary
significantly from the wide array of available specialty vehicles. Furthermore, the agencies would need
to fully study and understand if the chassis dynamometer test cycles can be appropriately applied for
-------
medium- and heavy-duty specialty vehicles. Therefore, Cummins opposes the use of chassis-certified
engines in specialty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.33-34]
Organization: Innovus Enterprise LLC
Suggested Alternatives and Comments.
Item 1: Alternate Emission Standards for Specialty Heavy-Duty Vehicles On page 40522 of the
proposed rules, under XIV A(l), it states; "Development of EPA's emission control programs is
generally focused on a consideration for the technology, characteristics and operating parameters of
conventional vehicles, and typically includes efforts to address concerns for special cases. " EPA
requests comment on all aspects of this program to create alternate motor-vehicle emission standards
that allow certified non-road engines to be used in identified types of heavy-duty highway vehicles. The
EPA recognizes that the costs of regulatory compliance and the mismatch to the specified duty cycle of
some specialized vehicles can make it cost-prohibitive for engine manufacturers to certify such an
engine under the heavy-duty highway engine program. Since the non-road duty cycles would generally
better represent the in-use operating characteristics of these vehicles, the EPA expects the non-road test
procedures to be at least as effective in achieving in-use emission control. EPA's non-road emission
standards have reached a point that involves near parity with the level of emission control represented
by the emission standards for heavy-duty highway engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.4]
Innovus Enterprise LLC Suggestion: §1037.605; In addition to the hybrid, amphibious and speed limited
vehicle, add a fourth category as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.4]
1. §1037.605 (a)(4). Specialty vehicles that are designed primarily for high mobility or off-road
use as well as to perform multi-role vocational work functions. These vehicles have specifically
engineered drive trains and chassis for austere terrain conditions and work routines which are
not typical in conventional highway vehicles. The vehicles accommodate various implements
and attachments to perform these work functions. In addition to vehicle propulsion, the vehicle
engine is used to power these implements and attachments while the vehicle is either standing
still or in motion. The typical engine-driven power systems include power takeoffs, heavy-duty
hydraulic systems and high-power electric control systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-
A1 p.4]
2. §1037.605 (c) Add provision limiting this high mobility off-road category to 200 vehicles in a
given model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.4]
3. §1037.605 (d) In the third sentence, add the words "or (a)(4)" after the words ."..under
paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3)." Also add the words "or high mobility off-road" to the last sentence
within the brackets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.4]
Rational. Our innovative technology is capability technology as described in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10
above. The vehicles we manufacture employ innovative technology not available from any other
manufacturer in America. Our environmental technology is cutting edge - already in sister
configurations meeting Euro 6 and Tier 4 standards. Our vehicle/engine technology coupled with the
unique characteristics and dynamic operating parameters mentioned above validate a special case for
special provisions. The cost of regulatory compliance and the mismatch to the specified duty cycle
indeed make it cost-prohibitive for us to certify such an engine for such a vehicle under the heavy-duty
highway engine program. Of course EPA's non-road emission standards have reached a point that is
near parity with the level of emission control represented by the emission standards for heavy-duty
highway engines. For this, we feel our situation fits very nicely into the spirit and intent of this new
provision. Additionally, since these vehicles are for a niche market, the low volume of 200
-------
vehicles/engines per year is reasonable and consistent with the amphibious and limited speed vehicle
provisions. We also concur with the EPA's suggestion for simplified diagnostic controls for 40 CFR
Part 1039. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.4-5]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Alternate Emission Standards for Specialty Heavy-Duty Vehicles - The agencies requested comment
on aspects of the program to create alternate motor-vehicle emission standards that allow certified
nonroad engines to be used in the identified types of heavy-duty highway vehicles. 80 FR 40523. We
are not certain that this alternative benefits any manufacturer, so we agree with the agencies' decision to
exclude such a provision from the vehicle-side of the regulations. That is, we agree that all vehicle-
based requirements should continue, regardless of the use of this alternative certification option. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 102]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Alternative Standards for Hybrid Systems Should Be Adopted With Changes To Account for
Hybrid Manufacturing Process
EPA has requested comment concerning a program for alternate motor vehicle standards for hybrid
vehicles, specifically to allow the use of certified non-road engines in heavy-duty hybrid vehicles.
Compression-ignition engines could be certified to alternative standards equivalent to those in 40 C.F.R.
Part 1039; spark ignition engines could be certified to Blue Sky standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 1048. EPA
proposes a limit of no more than 1,000 hybrid vehicles and no more than 200 amphibious or speed
limited vehicles per manufacturer would be allowed to be certified to these alternative limits in any MY.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 59]
Allison Transmission believes that adopting this program could provide a large benefit to the HD hybrid
landscape. Allison believes the current HD hybrid industry is fragile. At the current sales volume,
forcing additional complexity on the industry may result in engine manufacturers abandoning the
market and in innovative hybrid manufacturers avoiding the market altogether. By maintaining a
reasonable engine emissions requirement and the same vehicle level GHG requirement, EPA will ensure
environmental targets are achieved by these specialty vehicles. And by lessening the OBD requirement
of the components, EPA is allowing the technical challenge of a HD hybrid to become manageable.
Allison believes the ARB innovative technology program would benefit from this same approach, and
we are hopeful that ARB can adopt this same strategy for their program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1284-A1 p.59]
Allison has reviewed the language on this matter in the Preamble of the proposed rule and the proposed
regulatory text at 40 C.F.R. 1037.605 and submits the following comments/clarifications thereto: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.59]
(1) 40 C.F.R. 1037.605 as proposed allows vehicle manufacturers to introduce alternative standard
vehicles into commerce. From the construction of this provision, i.e., the reference to "vehicles with a
hybrid powertrain," it is assumed that all hybrid products would qualify for alternative standards,
subject to limits on the volume of such vehicles in a MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.59]
(2) 40 C.F.R. 1037.605 also indicates that it allows a "vehicle manufacturer" to introduce vehicles into
commerce that are certified to alternative emission limits. Given the structure of the hybrid market,
however, Allison recommends that EPA consider whether it has authority to allow annual volume limits
-------
to apply with respect to the hybrid manufacturer in addition to the vehicle manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.59]
Although the vehicle manufacturer would still remain responsible for the certification of the vehicle,
such a step would recognize the horizontal nature of the HD industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-
A1 p.60]
The bulk of the investment into hybrid technology development has been done and is being done at the
component supplier level, by hybrid system manufacturers, not by vehicle manufacturers. Thus, EPA
should account for the fact that a vehicle manufacturer may acquire hybrid systems from several hybrid
manufacturers and that a volume limit ~ if applied solely to the vehicle manufacturer ~ may not allow
smaller hybrid manufacturers to benefit (e.g., if their systems were purchased after a vehicle
manufacturer had reach the annual volume limit, they may not qualify for the alternative standards even
if other hybrid manufacturers did qualify by being purchased earlier in the year). EPA could implement
this recommendation through the clarification of the proposed regulatory language. Specifically, 40
C.F.R. 1037.605(c) as proposed should be revised as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.60]
"(c) Production limits.
(1)You may produce up to 1,000 hybrid vehicles under this section in a given model year. This limit
applies both to the vehicle manufacturer and its affiliated companies and separately to other
manufacturers who produce hybrid systems (i.e., hybrid system manufacturers). Hybrid system
manufacturers may produce up to 1,000 hybrid vehicles under alternative emission standards that are
equivalent to standards that apply for nonroad engines as referenced in subsection (a). A vehicle
manufacturer must verify that any hybrid system manufacturer will not produce more than 1,000 hybrid
systems in a year, including those incorporated into a vehicle receiving an alternative standard under
this section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.60]
(2)A vehicle manufacturer may additionally produce up to 200 amphibious vehicles and up to 200
speed-limited vehicles under this section in a model year. For these vehicles, the production limits apply
to vehicles produced by affiliated companies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.60]
(3)If a manufacturer exceeds any limit contained in this paragraph (c), the exemption is void for the
number of vehicles that exceed the limit for the model year. For the purpose of this paragraph (c), we
will include all vehicles labeled or otherwise identified as exempt under this section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.60]
(4) For purposes of this paragraph (c), a hybrid system manufacturer is defined as any person who
manufacturers or assembles the hybrid propulsion system of a vehicle, including the drive unit, power
inverter, system controller and energy storage features other than a conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a hybrid manufacturer to
obtain a certificate of conformity." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.60-61]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
In addition, the hybrid OBD flexibility proposed under Section XIV.A. 1 of the NPRM Preamble
presupposes that manufacturers will be capable of cost-effectively complying with an as-yet-to-be-
defined CARB certification flexibility with unknown stringency. The impact of OBD can easily be
extended to include mild hybrids or those that rely on engine~off at idle systems to reduce GHG
-------
emissions. In this example, OBD requirements which rely on threshold and in use performance
monitoring, as well as readiness can be affected by changes in operational mode during key on, engine
on/off operation. In addition prolonged engine off at idle strategies can impact the rate of heat loss from
aftertreatment which may increase fuel consumption triggered by warm up strategies once the engine
resumes operation. The trade off in engine durability also extends to turbocharger systems which rely
upon a forced lubrication system to prevent coking and premature wear due to hot engine shutdown.
The accelerated deterioration of either the aftertreatment or turbocharger system can have a significant
impact on engine efficiency, as well as fuel economy and warranty cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1199-A1 p.39-40]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
LOW VOLUME EXEMPTION FOR HYBRID MANUFACTURERS
Hybrid vehicles augment an engine with an electric motor and often utilize an engine outside of its
typical operating regime. In some cases, this may also allow for a downsized engine, with the motor
capable of providing sufficient additional power for the vehicle. Because of these operational
characteristics, hybrids may therefore provide a unique challenge for criteria emissions (NREL 2015).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.24]
Because the engine is being run under atypical conditions, significant additional calibration and testing
may be required in order to certify the powertrain. This testing can be expensive and time-consuming,
particularly for small-volume manufacturers. For this reason, the agencies have proposed a 1,000 engine
low-volume exemption for hybrid manufacturers, wherein they can certify up to 1,000 vehicles with
engines certified only to non-road engine standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.24]
This is a significant reduction in the test burden for small manufacturers and will help lower the barrier
for innovative manufacturers. However, based on the results of the NREL study, which show
substantially higher criteria emissions for certain hybrids, we find reasons for concern if there is not
some reasonable limit to the longevity of this credit. The agencies should institute either a cumulative
volume-limit or sunset date for this provision to ensure that it does not result in undue environmental
damages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2 p.24]
Response:
California ARB made several suggestions to revise the proposed approach of setting alternative
emission standards for specialty vehicles. We agree with some of these and have made appropriate
revisions to the provisions. However, we disagree with others. Specifically:
• We do believe it is not appropriate to limit the alternative standards to certain kinds of
hybrid vehicles, or to set minimum performance specifications as qualifying criteria for the
alternative standards. This is largely because there are nearly infinite possible ways for
manufacturers to configure their systems, which would make such a system review
especially difficult. More importantly, our interest is driven primarily by the desire to
ensure that vehicle manufacturers are able to get the engines they need to produce their
vehicles. If a manufacturer needs a 70 kW engine for any kind of hybrid vehicle, and there
is no such engine certified to the regular heavy-duty highway standards, we believe it is
appropriate to allow for accessing the wider range of nonroad engines that is available
through these alternative standards.
• We have revised the regulation to require manufacturers to meet a PM standard for
compression-ignition engines that is equivalent to the highway standard (0.020 g/kW-hr
-------
equates to 0.01 g/hp-hr standard when rounding is taken into account). As with the regular
PM standard, it would not be appropriate for us to require that manufacturers use any
particular type of technology.
• We are leaving other emission standards unchanged from those that apply under the
respective nonroad programs. Any small loss in stringency or durability associated with the
nonroad standards is mitigated by the low production volumes in question, and the fact that
qualifying specialty vehicles will often be used far less than conventional vehicles. We do
not expect hybrid vehicles in particular to cause a problem with increased emissions of
criteria pollutants.
• We have revised the regulation to more directly state that the alternative standards do not
apply for engines below 56 kW.
• We have revised the regulation to state that vehicle manufacturers can use an engine
meeting the alternate emission standards only if there is no suitable engine already certified
to the regular heavy-duty highway standards.
• We have revised the regulation to discontinue the provision for alternate standards for
hybrid vehicles after model year 2027. This will allow a substantial period to develop and
build the technology and market for hybrid technology. If hybrid technology reaches
widespread use before that time, the production limits associated with the alternate
standards will lead manufacturers to certify engines to the regular heavy-duty highway
standards, including OBD, before 2027. On the other hand, if we see a need to extend the
program beyond 2027, we may consider revising this sunset in a future rulemaking.
• California ARB properly recognizesWe acknowledge that our proposal to apply the
alternate standards to speed-limited vehicles may create new business opportunities.
However, we do not want vehicles to be locked out of the marketplace because they have
specific engine needs that cannot be met with available highway-certified engines. Vehicles
may be speed-limited for any number of reasons, but the unifying feature is that these
vehicles will not (may not) operate on interstate highways, which means their purposes and
operating characteristics will inherently different than conventional cars, trucks, and buses.
For example, large truck-mounted cranes, aircraft de-icing vehicles, and integrated wood-
chipping trucks may qualify as motor vehicles, but they are much more likely to have
operating characteristics of nonroad equipment. In fact, some of these vehicles are
mistakenly using nonroad engines today. This rule will allow us to constructively engage
with these vehicle manufacturers to ensure that their vehicles can get the power they need
with engines that are properly certified to EPA emission standards.
• The recommendation to require an abridged certificate of conformity to ensure compliance
for amphibious and speed-limited vehicles is odd, given that we proposed a requirement for
these engines to receive a full certificate of conformity demonstrating compliance with the
alternate heavy-duty highway emission standards, with annual reporting of production
volumes. We are also adding a requirement for engine manufacturers to have a request for
these engines from the vehicle manufacturer before shipping engines certified to the
alternate emission standards. It is true that amphibious vehicles are more likely to be used in
areas with coastal access and accessible waterways; however, it is not clear that evenly
distributing such vehicles across accessible waterways would lead to any greater proportion
of vehicles being used in California.
Cummins also raised several points:
• We have revised the regulation to require that compression-ignition engines meet the same
N20 standard that applies for other heavy-duty highway engines. Also, as noted above, we
are adopting a more stringent PM emission standard for compression-ignition engines.
-------
Other differences that might lead to a reduced level of control are mitigated by the low
production volumes in question, and the fact that many qualifying specialty vehicles will
often be used far less than conventional vehicles.
• We recognize that the nonroad duty cycles are different than those that apply for
conventional heavy-duty highway engines. However, this is part of the rationale for
adopting alternative standards. Specialty vehicles are unlikely to be used in ways that are
well represented by the heavy-duty highway duty cycles, with respect to vehicle speed or
acceleration, or with respect to engine speeds and loads. The nonroad cycles will likely
provide a more appropriate means of measuring emissions from these engines.
• We agree that a manufacturer with an engine certified to the regular heavy-duty highway
engine standards should not be overlooked by specialty vehicle manufacturers in the search
for appropriate power selection. We have therefore revised the regulation to disallow the
use of engines certified to the alternate standards if a suitable engine has been certified to
the regular heavy-duty highway standards.
• We agree that it would not be appropriate to rely on an engine from a vehicle that had been
certified to the chassis-based program as part of this program of alternate standards for
specialty vehicles. We are therefore not allowing such certificates to serve as the basis for
meeting alternate highway engine standards as described in this section.
• We agree that a manufacturer-run in-use testing program is a valuable tool for evaluating
compliance with emission standards and are accordingly considering whether to pursue
such a program for nonroad compression-ignition engines.
The provisions related to alternate standards for specialty vehicles represent a significant deviation from
the standards and program requirements that apply to other highway engines and vehicles. As such, it is
important to have clear, well-defined qualifying criteria. Hybrid engines and vehicles by their nature
involve storing energy produced by the engine for later use to propel the vehicles (or perform some
other function). We disagree with Caterpillar's assertion that some variety of innovative powertrains
should qualify for the alternate standards. This would require that we draw clear lines where the
technology does not support such a clear demarcation. Manufacturers may generate off-cycle credits for
non-hybrid powertrain innovations to reduce fuel consumption.
We set the annual cap of 1000 hybrid vehicles based on the expectation that higher production volumes
would allow engine and/or vehicle manufacturers to invest as needed to meet the OBD requirements,
emission standards, and other provisions that apply for engines and vehicles not covered by these
alternate standards. We are aware that nonroad duty cycles may be more appropriate than the highway
duty cycles for engines installed in hybrid vehicles. If production volumes for any specialty vehicles
exceed the limits imposed under § 1037.605, vehicle manufacturers would need to install engines
certified to the regular highway standards, which might include different emission measurement
protocol under 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1) or (2). Depending on the specific circumstances, this may allow
for certifying based on a different duty cycle if that better represents in-use operation, or if the engine
cannot operate over the specified procedure.
The proposal by Innovus to include certain rough-terrain vehicles fits with the intent of the proposed
alternative standards for specialty vehicles. The challenge is to describe these vehicles in a way that
focuses vehicle characteristics that properly separate qualifying vehicles from other heavy-duty highway
vehicles that may be designed for more severe duty, but that do not deserve special treatment for engine
selection. We chose to focus on axle configurations that involve a substantial additional engineering and
cost to manage rough terrain. Specifically, the final regulation defines qualifying vehicles as-
All-terrain motor vehicles with portal axles (i.e., axles that are offset from the corresponding
wheel centerline by a gear assembly) or any axle configuration involving gear reduction such
that the wheels rotate more slowly than the axle.
-------
As suggested by Innovus, these vehicles would be subject to the same production limits and other
provisions that apply for amphibious vehicles and speed-limited vehicles.
Hybrid vehicles using engines certified to alternate highway standards under 40 CFR 1037.605 must
meet all the greenhouse gas standards that apply to the vehicle, in line with Daimler's recommendation.
However, we specify that qualifying speed-limited vehicles, amphibious vehicles, and all-terrain
vehicles are exempt from the vehicle-based greenhouse gas standards. This is very similar to the
provisions adopted at 40 CFR 1037.631, except for the specified production limits. A significant reason
for the differing treatment of these vehicle types is that manufacturers would be allowed to produce
many more hybrid vehicles than the other vehicle types.
We affirm Allison's understanding that all hybrid powertrains would qualify as specialty vehicles under
40 CFR 1037.605. However, we believe it is necessary and appropriate to identify the vehicle
manufacturers' production volumes as the basis for setting production limits, largely because they are
the ones making the product that is subject to standards under 40 CFR part 1037. Any other approach
would involve requirements for manufacturers that are not subject to certification requirements, and
would inevitably involve disputes about who is responsible, or even how to count companies, in
business arrangements involving multiple manufacturers. Allowing 1000 hybrid units to use engines
meeting alternate standards under 40 CFR 1037.605 may allow for a greater number of systems than if
we would limit the number of hybrid systems from hybrid manufacturers, but we expect vehicle
manufacturers to have challenges meeting their own responsibilities with respect to sourcing engines
and integrating hybrid powertrains with their overall vehicle designs.
Cummins appropriately raises a concern about companies gaining a competitive advantage by meeting
the alternate standards, compared to other companies that have already put in the design work to meet
the full standards. This highlights the competing concerns—wanting to provide relief to expand the
availability of engines for specialty vehicles without harming those companies already offering
compliant products. We continue to believe that alternate standards are needed in many cases to allow
manufacturers of specialty vehicles to meet their unique demands for power in their unconventional
vehicles. We have adopted three provisions to address the competitiveness concern. First, the sales limit
ensures that the alternate standards are geared toward production of niche or pilot vehicle designs. If
manufacturers need more than 1000 engines annually for hybrid vehicles, for example, we expect that
there should be sufficient funds available for meeting the full set of highway standards for those
engines. Second, the alternate standards for engines installed in hybrid vehicles expire after 2027. That
transition period allows time for the incentive of increasing sales of hybrid vehicles, with the
expectation that these designs will eventually no longer need to be treated as a niche product with relief
from certification requirements. If we need to revise the regulations to accommodate unique designs or
in-use engine operating schedules, we can pursue that in a later rulemaking. Third, we have added a
provision to disallow using the alternate standards if there is an engine certified to the full set of
requirements of 40 CFR part 86 that has the appropriate physical and performance characteristics to
power the vehicle in question. This should limit the use of alternate standards to those cases, as
intended, where vehicle manufacturers are unable to get the appropriate engine for their vehicle design
without the alternate standards.
We disagree that the proposed alternate standards presupposes anything about California's policy on
hybrid vehicles. We are adopting these provisions on their own merits and expect vehicle and engine
manufacturers to pursue them as appropriate for their business and engineering interests. We expect
manufacturers to account for the real-world impacts of hybrid powertrains on engine durability.
14.3.2 Chassis Certification of Class 4 Heavy-Duty Vehicles 1900
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers
-------
6. EPA should allow the optional use of chassis based dynamometer certification for overl4.000
lbs GVWR
In the NPRM, at 80 FR 40523, EPA requests comments on the applicability of chassis-based
certification and whether it should be available for vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR. Automakers
support a change to the requirements that would make the choice of dyno for vehicles over 14,000
GVWR be optional according to the manufacturer, and that EPA perform confirmatory tests according
to the dyno selected by the manufacturer (engine dyno confirmed on engine dyno; chassis dyno
confirmed on chassis dyno). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 11]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins opposes chassis-certification of GHG emissions for Class 4-6 complete and cab-complete
vehicles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.32]
Under the current Phase 1 rule (40 CFR 1037.150(1)), HD spark-ignited vehicles above 14,000 lbs Gross
Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) can certify to chassis standards based on a 'complete sister vehicle'
concept for GHG emissions. However, such vehicles must be certified to engine dynamometer standards
for all other emissions standards. Cummins opposes any regulation that allows for a mixed (engine and
chassis dynamometer) certification of criteria and GHG emissions. The difference in chassis and engine
dynamometer procedures (e.g., operating speeds and loads) provides a potential inconsistency between
the control of GHG and criteria emissions under typical operation and undermines regulatory integrity.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.32]
Vehicles above 14,000 lbs (e.g. class 4-6 vehicles) are typically engineered and marketed to meet
vocational requirements. Many of the vehicles in this class are not sold as complete, ready to be placed
into service, vehicles. The typical sales path to the end-user is through a specialty body or utility
function builder. While the vehicle OEM can communicate parameters such as aerodynamic design
standards to which the finish builders must comply, the finished body may exceed the frontal projection
and/or may affect air flow quite differently than on a complete pickup truck or even on the bare "cab-
complete" vehicle. Hence it is not appropriate to use coastdown and test weight information of a
complete sister vehicle (in Class 2b/3) for chassis certification of vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.33]
For these reasons, we believe engine dynamometer certification for GHG, consistent with certification
for criteria emissions, should be applied to this category of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-
A1 p.33]
Cummins opposes chassis-certification of criteria and GHG emissions forHD vehicles above 14,000 lbs
GVWR [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.33]
The agencies are requesting comment (80 FR 40523) on allowing vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR to
be certified on chassis dynamometers to demonstrate compliance to criteria and GHG emissions
standards. The metrics used for chassis certification were developed and validated for vehicles with
GVWR less than 14,000 lbs, without consideration of the heavier vehicles being regulated in this
rulemaking. At a minimum, the agencies would need a detailed study to fully understand the
applicability of the chassis certification protocols and standards to HD vehicles above 14,000 lbs. Also,
as stated above, vocational vehicles are not typically sold as complete, so the final aerodynamic
characteristics of the certified vehicle are not known at the time of certification. The agencies recognize
this dynamic of the Class 4 and above market and determined the robust regulatory framework of
-------
certifying criteria and GHG emissions on engine dynamometer test cycles as appropriate for these class
of vehicles (for example, see 80 FR 40331). For these reasons, Cummins does not support chassis-
certification of HD vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.33]
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Chassis certification option
AAPC concurs that vehicles up to 16,000 lbs GWVR can be combined with Class 2b/3 heavy-duty
chassis certified products and they would follow the applicable heavy-duty chassis certified emission
regulations without seeking additional Agency approval. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.28]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Optional Chassis Certification Should Not Utilize Bright-Line Test Based on Weight
EPA and NHTSA are proposing to continue Phase 1 provisions that allow optional chassis certification
for vehicles over 14,000 lb GVWR. The agencies have posed several questions with regard to how such
provisions might be retained or changed for Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.44]
Allison believes that EPA should not treat 14,000 lb GVWR as a bright line test, but instead allow for
chassis certification above that weight in order to reduce the regulatory burdens associated with
certification of such vehicles. Allison, however, favors a provision that would limit such a certification
option to vehicles that share design characteristics with certified vehicles below 14,000 lb GVWR. As
noted in EPA's discussion of this option, this approach would be similar to that taken by the State of
California. Adopting this approach would alleviate some of the regulatory burden that might occur with
differing treatment of this compliance option. If this approach is not allowed, then vehicles that straddle
the 14,000 lb limit and share significant design characteristics would be subject to different certification
rules that would force unnecessary complication and cost for manufacturers in that weight range. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.44]
Response:
We have revised the regulation to include a limited allowance for vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR to
be certified to the chassis-based program in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. This applies equally to criteria
and greenhouse gas standards.
We agree with Cummins that the chassis-based program was developed for vehicles designed and
manufactured as complete vehicles. We are accordingly specifying that vehicles above 14,000 lbs
GVWR may be certified under the chassis-based program only if the vehicles are otherwise properly
characterized as being part of a test group for certification under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. This allows
for a family of Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles to include some number of vehicle configurations that have
features involving more robust frames and other systems to qualify for GVWR values above 14,000 lbs.
This is very similar to the approach suggested by Allison and adopted by California ARB.
14.3.3 On-Board Diagnostics for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA Alignment With CARB OBD Requirements
-------
EPA seeks comment on whether the Agency should change its OBD requirements to simply require that
manufacturers meet CARB's OBD requirements. EMA opposes any such change to EPA's OBD
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.64]
EPA's separate OBD requirements have proved beneficial and will continue to do so. For example, EPA
used its OBD flexibility provisions to delay the OBD requirements for hybrid vehicles until the 2017
model year, which prevented significant market disruptions and allowed for the continued availability of
49-state certified hybrid vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.64]
Moreover, CARB has created a regulatory paradigm where it preserves the ability to change the
technical requirements of its OBD program every two years, which, in essence, creates an improper
BACT-based approach for mobile source regulation. Because of the increasingly burdensome nature of
CARB's OBD program, manufacturers need to preserve the option of certifying a 49-state engine for
OBD purposes. Consequently, EPA should not opt-in to CARB's OBD program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.64]
Organization: Volvo Group
EPA Should Not Delegate Authority to Regulate OBD Systems to California
In the proposed rule, EPA requests comment on: (1) whether EPA should amend its OBD regulations to
require that manufacturers comply with California OBD requirements, (2) whether EPA should preserve
its own specifications for on-board diagnostics for "any special situations," and (3) "the need to make
any adjustments or allowances from the California ARB regulations to work for EPA implementation."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.70]
Volvo Group does not oppose providing manufacturers with an option for complying with federal OBD
requirements by demonstrating compliance with California OBD requirements. As EPA notes, this
approach already is in place for light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles below 14,000 lbs. GVWR.
See 40 CFR § 86.1806-17(j). For manufacturers that elect to certify products in both California and the
49 states, this flexibility can be beneficial in allowing them to adopt harmonized strategies for
compliance. The existing regulation, however, does not require manufacturers to comply with
California Air Resources Board (CARB); it merely provides that compliance with such is sufficient for
meeting EPA OBD requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.70]
Volvo Group strongly opposes, however, any proposal that would require manufacturers to comply with
CARB OBD (or other) requirements for purposes of 49-state certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.70]
At the outset, Volvo Group believes EPA's proposal would amount to an unauthorized and
inappropriate delegation of its authority and responsibility to promulgate mobile source regulations to
the state of California. No provision of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to delegate its authority to
promulgate mobile source regulations to states. Indeed, the statute expressly prohibits states from
adopting their own mobile source regulations absent a specific waiver of federal preemption by the EPA
Administrator. CAA § 209, 42 U.S.C. § 7543. Moreover, where Congress intended to allow EPA to
delegate its CAA authority to states, it expressly provided for such. See, e.g. CAA §112(1), 42 U.S.C. §
7412(1) (Providing EPA authority to delegate authority to states for implementation of stationary-source
air toxics programs). Again, Congress did not provide for this with respect to mobile source regulations
under Title II of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, Volvo Group does believe EPA has the authority to
pass this responsibility on to the state of California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.70-71]
-------
EPA's adoption of CARB OBD regulations, meanwhile, is inappropriate for a number of other reasons.
First, as EPA presumably would not have any process in place for certification of OBD systems, this
approach would force manufacturers to participate in the California certification process, regardless of
whether they intend to sell vehicles in the state of California. Subjecting manufacturers to the
jurisdiction of any particular state, even if they do not intend to transact any business in that state, for
purposes of gaining approval to sell vehicles in other states represents an improper use of EPA's
regulatory authority. If EPA intends to enforce standards applicable to vehicles, the Agency must adopt
such standards itself through a formal rulemaking process, and must have its own process in place for
granting related certificates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.71]
Second, by deferring to California OBD regulations, EPA would effectively be denying manufacturers
and other parties the ability to participate in the rulemaking process envisioned by the Clean Air Act and
the Administrative Procedure Act. Manufacturers and other parties would be required to participate in
the California rulemaking process, pursuant to California law, for purposes of challenging a federally-
imposed requirement. Likewise, they would be required to challenge federally applicable OBD
regulations in California courts under California law, and would be stripped of their ability to challenge
regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.71]
Volvo Group also has concerns with regard to the practical implications of mandating that
manufacturers comply with California OBD regulations for purposes of meeting federal requirements.
Volvo Group supports and echoes the concerns raised by EMA in this regard. Specifically, Volvo Group
is concerned EPA will eliminate important opportunities to ensure much needed flexibility is provided
for under new OBD regulations. By deferring to California's requirements, EPA will not be in a position
to provide flexibility and regulatory relief for vehicles sold in other markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.71]
Volvo Group also agrees with EMA that the increasingly burdensome nature of CARB's OBD program
necessitates that manufacturers have the option of certifying to a 49-state program if necessary. The
need for such flexibility is demonstrated by the OBD experience to date. In its response to comments on
the final rule establishing OBD requirements for 2010 and later heavy-duty engines, for instance, EPA
acknowledged that it did not share CARB's position with respect to a "step-down" in increased
stringency of OBD systems for malfunctions of aftertreatment devices in the 2013 and 2016 model
years. EPA noted: "The California Air Resources Board is willing to go forward with some uncertainty
as regards the ability of manufacturers to meet the complete set of 'stepped down' thresholds in 2013
and 2016. EPA is not so comfortable moving forward with that level of uncertainty."[EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.71-72]
Similarly, there are a number of OBD monitors that EPA has acknowledged are technically infeasible,
but CARB has required nonetheless. EPA, for instance, eliminated the OBD thresholds associated with
monitoring ofNMHC converting catalysts and feed gas in the final OBD rule. See 74 Fed. Reg. 8310,
8323 (Feb. 24, 2009). As EPA noted, the Agency "made these changes for the final rule because we
have been convinced by manufacturers that there exists no robust method of detecting loss ofNMHC
conversion at the levels required for threshold monitoring." Id. CARB, however, elected to adopt OBD
monitoring requirements for these functionalities, notwithstanding. Another example is CARB's
requirement to reduce the DPF OBD monitor threshold in 2016, which will force manufacturer's to
require a PM sensor for the first time. This is not yet a requirement for EPA certification. In addition,
there are notable differences between monitors required by CARB and EPA for DOC NMHC
conversion, DPF NMHC conversion, DOC feed gas, DPF feed gas, DPF filtration efficiency, and miss-
fire. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.72]
-------
Finally, it also bears noting that CARB has adopted questionable testing requirements related to OBD
systems that impose extremely burdensome, costly and unjustified requirements on engine and vehicle
manufacturers with little to no corresponding benefit. See 13 CCR § 1971.5 Manufacturers who do not
elect to sell vehicles in California should not be subject to these requirements, but could be if EPA
elects to adopt CARB requirements. In fact, these regulations underscore the inherent problem with
EPA's proposed approach insofar as they were challenged, and ultimately upheld by a California court
based on California law. Engine Manufacturers Ass'n. v. California Air Resources Board, 180
Cal.Rptr.3d 667 (Calif. Crt. Ap. 2014). There has never been a determination as to whether EPA would
have authority to enforce the same requirements under federal law. EPA's adoption of California OBD
requirements could raise multiple questions along these lines, prompting potentially costly litigation
over EPA's authority to impose CARB regulations with each new iteration of such regulations. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 72]
Organization: Cummins, Inc.
Cummins opposes changes to EPA OBD regulations to require manufacturers meet ARB OBD
requirements [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.28]
EPA is requesting comment on changing their OBD regulation to require manufacturers to meet ARB
OBD requirements. For reasons outlined in EMA's comments, Cummins opposes this approach. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1298-A1 p.28]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
9. OBD
GHG Phase 2 OBD - The agencies requested comments regarding OBD certification provisions in the
Phase 2 proposal. 80 FR 40524. In particular, the agencies asked about the need to preserve EPA
specifications for on-board diagnostics for any special situations and the need to make any adjustments
or allowances from the California ARB regulations to work for EPA implementation. DTNA
recommends that EPA maintain its current practice of approving OBD systems that have been approved
by ARB. However, DTNA also recommends that that EPA preserve its own OBD specifications so as to
provide flexibility that may arise in the future as ARB promulgates new requirements that may, as has
been the case for hybrid technology, become a barrier to implementation of new technologies. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.29-30]
DTNA also requests the agency look at the history of work required to meet OBD requirements and,
when setting the timing of emission change overs, consider the future work that will be required. The
efforts spent on OBD development essentially are equal to those spent on emissions development, but
on top of this the ARB layers the additional burden of improving OBD systems every year. OBD
development becomes a particular timing challenge because time consuming final development and
validation testing of OBD calibrations can only begin after near production calibrations are finalized.
Because of OBD demands it is no longer possible to finalize production calibrations close to start of
production as had been the case prior to inception of OBD. The agencies should recognize the new
realities of development needs and provide at least 5 years between each emission change. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.30]
Organization: Innovus Enterprise LLC
Item 3: 40CFR 86.010-18 On-Board Diagnostics for Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
-------
On page 40523 of the proposed rule, EPA requests comments on the need to preserve EPA
specifications for OBD and on the need to make adjustments or allowances from the CARB regulations
to work for EPA implementation. It is our position the EPA should not default to CARB for setting what
would in effect be national standards. On the contrary, we should be working towards harmonization
back to the EPA national standards. We should have standards which cross all 50 States and standards
where authentic promulgation of regulation is conducted. We will stop and leave the political discussion
as to whether there truly is efficiency and effectiveness in the CARB mobile source program for another
forum. However, the fact many large manufactures certify now to CARB standards for a 50 state
solution should not be misconstrued as being a favored option but one out of necessity. Our
suggestion: Yes, keep the EPA specifications, especially for small business such as ourselves who are
trying to work through an EPA certification plan for HDDE and OBD. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1116-A1 p.8]
1906Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - OBD for heavy-duty vehicles
The NRPM requests comment on the proposal to change U.S. EPA and NHTSA regulation to simply
require manufacturers to meet the California OBD requirements. Given that, as U.S. EPA and NHTSA
state, manufacturers in almost all cases certify based on the California regulations and procedures today,
CARB staff generally supports this proposal. However, because California OBD requirements are in
some cases more stringent than federal OBD requirements, it is important to note that some vehicles and
engines currently certified through U.S. EPA and NHTSA alone as federal certifications may not be
able to comply with California requirements without significant improvements to their OBD systems. If
a manufacturer seeks certification of previous federal only system in California, CARB staff will require
necessary improvements, which could be a significant increase in workload for the applicant and staff
and could consequently increase certification timing for all applicants, depending on the additional
volume of certifications. Additionally, staff has some questions regarding those situations in which U.S.
EPA and NHTSA would continue to reserve the right to certify vehicles or engines as "Federal Only"
certifications. Specifically, if U.S. EPA and NHTSA desire to maintain special situations it must be
made clear that the vehicle is not certified to the California OBD regulation by CARB and the OBD
compliance parameter identification (PID) from the scan tool (PID $1C in SAE Standard J1979) would
need to report that it is a federal vehicle, even if U.S. EPA and NHTSA used the California
requirements as the basis for their certification. Also, it is not clear whether U.S. EPA and NHTSA
would select separate engine families for demonstration under 40 CFR 1971.1 (i) that are independent
and addition to the families selected by CARB. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 109]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
There are still open questions around the central operator of the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) for
Heavy-Duty Onboard Diagnostics (HD OBD) systems. As Odyne is a systems provider and not an
OEM, we manage the diagnostics of our system and not the vehicle. Since OBD can be handled
differently by each OEM and is not standardized, it is difficult for Odyne to understand how we fit into
the process. EPA may seek to have every vehicle fully OBD compliant, though it will be critical to
differentiate between the conversion technology and its basic diagnostics limitations. There must be a
clear definition and understanding of the difference between full OBD and basic diagnostics. For
example, we have basic diagnostics incorporated into our system, though we are not certain if this meets
base requirements. In this case, we do not trigger the MIL since we use our own operator display. We
-------
have also run into issues relative to vehicle emissions readiness during testing. Again, since we do not
have control over the vehicle, and do not have OEM support; it is very difficult to figure out how to pre-
condition the vehicle to get the monitors ready and working. Also each OEM / vehicle may have
different strategies for operating their monitors. We can demonstrate that we do no harm and do not
create any MIL/DTC, but it is very difficult to address the monitors without support. Another issue we
experienced is that there are not common or standardized scan tools to use, so we have had to work with
several tools to cover all the vehicles we manage. Overall, we would like to urge EPA to allow for
flexibility in allowing innovative and smaller manufacturers to navigate OBD issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1239-A1 p.24-25]
EPA Must Ensure Flexibility in Implementing California OBD Requirements
Under 40 C.F.R. 1806-17, specified LDVs, medium-duty passenger vehicles and certain HD vehicles
must comply with the 2013 OBD requirements adopted for California (with certain enumerated
exceptions). EPA has requested comment on whether the agency should require that manufacturers meet
California OBD requirements in a manner similar to that contained in this provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.58]
While Allison believes that there is a benefit from aligning EPA and California OBD requirements, we
have concerns that adopting California OBD standards could limit the ability to utilize alternative
approaches, such as those outlined in the Proposed Rule at Section XIV(A)(1) with respect to the
certification of hybrid vehicles. Within the final rule, EPA must maintain the ability to address the
sometimes difficult problems that arise with regard to certification; any provision to implement this
concept should allow for the development of a common set of requirements that may be applied
nationally and contain needed flexibilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.58]
While EPA has not put forward proposed regulatory language for such a provision, Preferences 40
C.F.R. 1806-17. This specifies a particular California OBD-II requirement (California 2013 OB-II
requirements contained in 13 C.C.R. 1968.2, as enacted on July 31,2013). Any reference to California
regulations with regard to future HD OBD standards must follow a similar course. That is, EPA should
reference an existing California provision with specificity so as to remove any suggestion that updates
or revisions to the current regulation are allowable solely at the behest of the state. In addition, as
provided within 40 C.F.R. 1806-17,EPA should also allow for certain exceptions to apply and not
merely incorporate the California regulation by reference. That is, EPA should retain within the
regulation the ability to revise requirements or grant exceptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1
p.58]
Alternately, California is working on "Proposed Regulation to Provide Certification and Aftermarket
Conversion Flexibility for Innovative Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Emission
Reduction Technologies (Innovative Technology Regulation)."95 EPA should evaluate this approach in
order to develop common approach to standards in this area. Volume thresholds contained in the
California initiative, however, would need to be adjusted upwards to reflect the national scope of the
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.59]
Response:
We have decided not to act on the request for comment related to heavy-duty OBD certification. This
preserves the existing policy of allowing manufacturers to meet federal requirements by demonstrating
compliance with California ARB's OBD standards, while keeping the analogous OBD standards in
EPA's regulations. See Section 14.3.1 for responses to comments related to alternate engine standards
(including alternate diagnostic requirements) for some specialty vehicles including hybrids.
-------
14.3.4 Nonconformance Penalties (NCPs) for Heavy-Duty Vehicles 1908
Organization: Volvo Group
Revisions to Non-Conformance Penalty Provisions
EPA regulations currently establish three criteria for determining whether, as a result of adopting a new
or revised emission standard, non-conformance penalties (NCPs) allowing manufacturers to circumvent
the standards are necessary and justified. These criteria are: (1) that the emission standard in question
must become more difficult to meet; (2) that substantial work must be required to meet the standard; and
(3) that there is likely to be a manufacturer that cannot meet the standard for technical reasons (a
"technological laggard"). These criteria have served as the backbone for previous NCP rulemakings,
and further serve as important markers for manufacturers and other parties to gauge whether an NCP is
justified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.79]
In the NPRM, EPA now states in response to comments raised in the 2012 NCP rulemaking process that
the existing NCP regulations do not require the Agency to find these criteria are met for purposes of
setting an NCP. Specifically, EPA states "the actual regulatory text has never stated that EPA may
establish NCPs only if all criteria are met, but rather that EPA shall establish NCPs 'provided that EPA
finds' the criteria are met." 80 Fed. Reg. at 40525. Volvo Group disagrees with this assessment, which
appears to make a distinction without a meaningful difference. EPA must make a finding on each of the
criteria, and that finding must be subject to public review and scrutiny. This is imperative to a robust
NCP-setting process that adequately protects complying manufacturers' competitive interests. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.79-80]
The Agency then proposes language that "would explicitly state where EPA cannot determine if all of
the criteria have been met, we may presume that they have." Id. In other words, EPA wants to change
the language to allow it to set NCPs without having to prove that the criteria are met, and thus eliminate
any challenge to an NCP rule based on the criteria. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.80]
To achieve this goal, EPA proposes that it be allowed to simply presume, without more evidence and
analysis, the first two criteria have been met, and base the NCP decision solely on whether there is a
technological laggard. 80 Fed. Reg. 40556. Proposed 86.1103-2016(c)(4) states: "Where we are
uncertain whether the first and/or second criteria have been met, we may presume that they have been
met and make our decision based solely on whether or not the third criterion has been met. " There is no
valid reason for the regulations to allow such broad discretion without any required standard or review
to be met or any real opportunity for review. Under the proposal, EPA would effectively be able to issue
NCPs without giving the public any meaningful opportunity for reviewing and - where necessary -
contesting the decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.80]
As if such deference is not enough, EPA further proposes that the Agency may presume that a
manufacturer is a technological laggard: (c)(4) as proposed states: "Where we find that a manufacturer
will fail to meet a standard but are uncertain whether the failure is a technological failure, we may
presume that the manufacturer is a technological laggard. " Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1
P-80]
Thus, EPA proposes that it may assume criteria one and two have been met, and then may presume,
without more evidence and analysis, that a manufacturer is a technological laggard. Together, these two
proposed changes vitiate the criteria. If this language becomes the rule, EPA will in effect delete the
three criteria from the rule, and could simply flip a coin when it comes to deciding whether to
-------
promulgate an NCP rule. It does not provide a process under which EPA would be accountable to the
public, and would allow the Agency to establish NCPs for any reason - without any real possibility of
public review. The proposed language indicates that EPA believes it should be allowed to avoid
examining the facts against the criteria, and make a decision regarding NCPs without any public
accountability. As proposed, this language represents a significant change in how EPA would evaluate
and promulgate NCPs. Accordingly, Volvo Group opposes the proposed amendments to the NCP
provisions related to the criteria for determining whether an NCP rule is justified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.80]
Instead, we call on EPA to strengthen the regulatory requirements to ensure that the Agency
appropriately reviews the existing criteria. Further, EPA should be held accountable to the statutory
requirement to only promulgate NCPs if needed, and ensure that the penalty be set to "remove any
competitive disadvantage to manufacturers whose engines or vehicles achieve the required degree of
emission reduction ...." This process must be conducted in full view of the public; with the Agency's
cost basis and calculations an open book for public input and comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1290-A1 p.80]
Response:
EPA agrees with Volvo statement that the "criteria . . . serve as important markers for manufacturers
and other parties to gauge whether an NCP is justified." However, we disagree with Volvo that these
criteria were originally intended to create a burden of proof for EPA or to limit EPA's ability to
establish NCPs. As explained in the NPRM we believe they were established merely "to clarify that
manufacturers should not expect EPA to initiate a rulemaking to establish NCPs where these criteria
were not met."
More importantly, we believe Volvo ignores the actual language of the statute, which makes no mention
of these criteria. In §206(g)(l), the Act states:
In the case of any class or category of heavy-duty vehicles or engines to which a standard
promulgated under section 7521(a) of this title applies, except as provided in paragraph (2), a
certificate of conformity shall be issued under subsection (a) of this section and shall not be
suspended or revoked under subsection (b) of this section for such vehicles or engines
manufactured by a manufacturer notwithstanding the failure of such vehicles or engines to meet
such standard if such manufacturer pays a nonconformance penalty as provided under
regulations promulgated by the Administrator after notice and opportunity for public hearing. In
the case of motorcycles to which such a standard applies, such a certificate may be issued
notwithstanding such failure if the manufacturer pays such a penalty.
Thus, the Act seems to presume that NCPs will be available and requires EPA to allow certification in
most cases. To the extent there is a burden of proof on EPA, it would seem to be a burden to prove that
NCPs are not appropriate rather than a burden to prove that they are. The criteria were created to help
EPA show when NCPs are not appropriate. Volvo imagines a "statutory requirement to only
promulgate NCPs if needed" but offers no basis for this belief.
Volvo also overstates the discretion EPA could exercise under the proposed regulations. The text to
which Volvo objects merely explains how EPA would make its decisions when it is unclear whether the
criteria are fully met. It does not envision that EPA would make a decision contrary to the facts, but
rather that EPA may sometimes be forced to evaluate the criteria with limited information. Since the
Act seems to presume that NCPs will be available, we believe that EPA should be allowed to establish
NCPs when the extent to which the criteria have been met is unclear. Moreover, EPA would continue to
-------
solicit public comments on its assessment of the criteria, allowing the public to provide any additional
information that could change EPA's assessment.
Finally, we note that as long as any NCPs are high enough to remove any competitive disadvantage to
complying manufacturers, there is no harm to the complying manufacturers.
14.3.5 Modifying Certified Vehicles for Competition
Organization: Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)
The EPA included a proposal hidden within the rulemaking to make it illegal for certified motor
vehicles to be converted into vehicles used solely for competition. Specifically, the proposed rule
("Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles-Phase 2") would add the following language to 40 C.F.R. Part 86(40 C.F.R. § 86.1854), a
section of the regulations applicable to new and in-use vehicles, including light duty vehicles:
"Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in
their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad
vehicles or engines." 80 Fed. Reg. 40138, 40565 (July 13, 2015). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1,
p.l]
These comments are limited to that topic. Although the comments are filed after the October 1, 2015
deadline, SEMA contends the change regarding competition use only vehicles is not within the scope of
the GHG rulemaking for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and that the public was not adequately put
on notice of its inclusion. The comments will also address the merits of the issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1469-Al,p.l]
EPA Policy on Motor Vehicles Used for Competition
The proposed rule is attempting to bring vehicles used solely for competition within the purview of the
Clean Air Act's definition of "motor vehicles" required to be certified to relevant mobile source
emissions standards and remain in their certified configuration. This interpretation of the Clean Air
Act's definition of "motor vehicle" is not in line with the statutory language or legislative history.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.5]
In the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965, Congress first defined the term "motor vehicle"
for the purpose of regulating air pollution as "any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting
persons or property on a street or highway." See Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, Pub. L. No.
89-272, 79 Stat. 992 (1965) at § 208(2). The 1965 Act sought to regulate emissions from new motor
vehicles by making it illegal for "any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element of
design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under
this title prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser." Id. at § 203(a)(3) (hereinafter, the "anti-
tampering provision"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.6]
In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (hereinafter, the "1970 Clean Air Act").
Clean Air Act, Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970). The 1970 Clean Air Act created an
unprecedented scheme for regulating both stationary and mobile sources of air pollution. The 1970
Clean Air Act did not disturb the definition of "motor vehicle" put in place in 1965 (nor did any other
subsequent amendments to the law), but lawmakers did add language to regulate vehicles after first
retail sale. The lawmakers expanded the anti-tampering provision to add that no person could render the
-------
emissions controls inoperative "after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser." Id. at §7(a)(3).
Despite this intent to regulate some vehicles after first retail sale, Congress did not intend the 1970
Clean Air Act to extend the purview of the law to cover vehicles manufactured or modified for racing.
The following clarification on this point was made during the House consideration of the congressional
conference committee report on the Clean Air Act as signed into law by President Nixon (H.R. 17255):
MR. NICHOLS. I would like to ask a question of the chairman, if I may. I am sure the distinguished
chairman would recognize and agree with me, I hope, that many automobile improvements in the
efficiency and safety of motor vehicles have resulted from experience gained in operating motor
vehicles under demanding circumstances such as those circumstances encountered in motor racing. I
refer to the tracks at Talladega in my own State, to Daytona and Indianapolis, competition.
I would ask the distinguished chairman if I am correct in stating that the terms "vehicle' and "vehicle
engine" as used in the act do not include vehicles or vehicle engines manufactured for, modified for or
utilized in organized motorized racing events which, of course, are held very infrequently but which
utilize all types of vehicles and vehicle engines?
MR. STAGGERS. In response to the gentleman from Alabama, I would say to the gentleman they
would not come under the provisions of this act, because the act deals only with automobiles used on
our roads in everyday use. The act would not cover the types of racing vehicles to which the gentleman
referred, and present law does not cover them either. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.6]
House Consideration of the Report of the Conference Committee, Dec. 18, 1970 (reprinted in A
legislative history of the Clean air amendments of 1970, together with a section-by-section index, U.S.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DIVISION, Washington: U.S. Govt. Print.
Off. Serial No. 93-18, 1974, p. 117). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.7]
Neither the 1977 nor the 1990 revisions to the Clean Air Act altered this definition of "motor vehicle" as
commented upon by Representatives Nichols and Staggers. See Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,
Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685 (1977); see also Clean Air Act Amendments, Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104
Stat. 2399 (1990). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.7]
While it is clear from the legislative history that the Clean Air Act was not intended to regulate race
vehicles, that fact should have become even clearer as a result of the 1990 Amendments to the Act. The
amendments were made to provide EPA with authority to regulate non-road vehicles and the engines
used therein. See 42 U.S.C. § 7550(10)-(11) (2015). Since the term "nonroad vehicle" could easily have
been interpreted to include race vehicles, Congress used language to unequivocally exclude vehicles
used solely for competition from the definition of "nonroad vehicle." See id. ("The term 'nonroad
vehicle' means a vehicle that is powered by a nonroad engine and that is not a motor vehicle or a vehicle
used solely for competition."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.7]
The fact that Congress separated out "vehicles used solely for competition" from "motor vehicles" in
the definition of "nonroad vehicle" is also instructive, as it indicates the term "motor vehicle" was not
understood as covering a "vehicle used solely for competition." See 42 U.S.C. § 7550(10) (2015)
(defining a nonroad motor vehicle as "not a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition")
(emphasis added). It is also noteworthy that Congress referenced racecars as vehicles used solely for
competition - not vehicles built solely for competition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.7]
Based on the statutory text and the legislative history, it is clear that vehicles used solely for
competition, including a race vehicle that has been created by converting a certified vehicle to a racecar,
-------
are not within the purview of the Clean Air Act. Administrative rulemaking is not a process by which an
agency is permitted to circumvent Congress, however, it appears that the EPA is attempting to alter
current law as it relates to vehicles used solely for competition. The EPA's proposal would alter current
law by adding the following provision to the regulations: "Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle
engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified configuration even if they are
used solely for competition or if they become nonroad vehicles or engines." See Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2,
80 Fed. Reg. 40138, 40565 (July 13, 2015). This new language is in conflict with the statutory text and
legislative history and should not be inserted into the regulations unless Congress indicates an intent for
such a rule to be put in place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.7]
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, SEMA objects to the inclusion of language relating to vehicles used solely for
competition in this greenhouse gas rulemaking and requests that it be removed. Among other
problematic rhetoric unnecessarily included in the proposal, the following new language regulating all
vehicles, including light-duty vehicles, is especially out of place in a rulemaking for greenhouse gas
standards covering medium-and heavy-duty vehicles. The language is also out of sync with governing
law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, pp.8-9]
Therefore, we specifically request the EPA remove the following proposed language:
§ 86.1854-12 Prohibited acts.
(b) * * *
(5) Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must
remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they
become nonroad vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine for any reason is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3)
of this section and 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.9]
Administrative Procedure Act
Overview: The Administrative Procedure Act (hereinafter, the "APA") establishes the process by which
federal agencies develop and issue regulations. See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553
(2015). Among other considerations, the law is intended to provide adequate opportunity for the public,
and interested parties in particular, to comment on proposed rules. SEMA contends that the EPA failed
to comply with the APA when it proposed changes to the regulations to prohibit conversion of certified
motor vehicles to competition use only vehicles. SEMA's analysis below includes factors that courts
have considered when evaluating agency compliance with the APA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-
Al, p.2]
Failure to Alert Public of Rulemaking: The table of contents for the 629-page rulemaking does not alert
the public that the EPA is proposing a significant policy change on how competition use
engines/vehicles are regulated. The table of contents does not include reference to "Competition Use
Engines/Vehicles." The topic is covered along with other seemingly minor issues under the heading
"XIV. Other Proposed Regulatory Provisions." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.2]
Non-Germane: The subject rulemaking will establish the next generation GHG emissions and fuel
economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. The subject matter referenced in
the rulemaking's title and considered within the broader scope of the rulemaking does not logically
-------
encompass the modification of a certified vehicle for competition use. Further, this is not the first time
the EPA has issued GHG emission standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines/vehicles. Therefore,
inclusion of an unrelated topic within a continuing series of rulemakings is unexpected, if not
unprecedented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.2]
Rulemaking Does Not Cover Light-Duty Vehicles: By its terms, the rulemaking covers medium- and
heavy-duty engines and vehicles. It does not apply to light-duty engines and vehicles, which are
regulated under separate EPA rulemakings. Nevertheless, many certified light-duty vehicles may be
modified for competition use, and the section of the rules into which the EPA seeks to insert a
prohibition against street-to-race vehicle conversions is applicable to light-duty vehicles. The public has
not been put on notice that the rule governing medium- and heavy-duty engines/vehicles potentially
applies to certified light-duty engines/vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.2]
Change of Policy: Before the Clean Air Act was enacted and since that date, thousands if not millions of
certified vehicles have been modified to become vehicles used solely for competition. Products have
been manufactured, sold and installed on these competition vehicles throughout this time. SEMA has
been working with the EPA on ways to regulate potential dual-use products, defined as products that
could be used on both competition-use only and certified motor vehicles. However, the EPA has never
implemented a policy making it illegal for certified vehicles to become competition-use only vehicles.
Such a policy would overturn decades of understanding within the regulated community and expose that
community to unfair findings of noncompliance and civil penalties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-
Al, pp.2-3]
Arbitrary, Capricious and an Abuse of Discretion: The EPA is seeking to change policy that has been in
place for decades and it does not adequately address this change in the summary or explanatory text
published in the Federal Register. The only text that could be read as explaining the proposed addition
of the language to prohibit street-to-race vehicle conversions are the following paragraphs within the
629-page proposed rule, which do not even reference the part being changed - part 86:
The existing prohibitions and exemptions in 40 CFR part 1068 related to competition engines and
vehicles need to be amended to account for differing policies for nonroad and motor vehicle
applications. In particular, we generally consider nonroad engines and vehicles to be "used solely for
competition" based on usage characteristics. This allows EPA to set up an administrative process to
approve competition exemptions, and to create an exemption from the tampering prohibition for
products that are modified for competition purposes. There is no comparable allowance for motor
vehicles. A motor vehicle qualifies for a competition exclusion based on the physical characteristics of
the vehicle, not on its use. Also, if a motor vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity at any point,
there is no exemption from the tampering and defeat-device prohibitions that would allow for
converting the engine or vehicle for competition use. There is no prohibition against actual use of
certified motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines for competition purposes; however, it is not
permissible to remove a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine from its certified configuration
regardless of the purpose for doing so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.3]
EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(3) to clarify that the Clean Air Act does not allow any person
to disable, remove, or render inoperative (i.e., tamper with) emission controls on a certified motor
vehicle for purposes of competition. An existing provision in 40 CFR 1068.235 provides an exemption
for nonroad engines converted for competition use. This provision reflects the explicit exclusion of
engines used solely for competition from the CAA definition of "nonroad engine." The proposed
amendment clarifies that this part 1068 exemption does not apply for motor vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1469-A1, p.3]
-------
See Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles-Phase 2, 80 Fed. Reg. 40138, 40527, 40539 (July 13, 2015). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1469-A1, p.4]
SEMA contends that to change the policy now, without proper public notice, would be considered
arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion under the APA. If the EPA intends to change decades of
previously applied policy, SEMA contends such a change must take place within a separate rulemaking.
Further, as will be explained below, SEMA contends that existing law establishes a clear policy for
vehicles used solely for competition and that only Congress has the authority to make the proposed
policy change, not the EPA through a rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.4]
The EPA's proposed policy change has no basis in the evidence or analysis presented. Under the APA,
an agency has an obligation to publish a statement of reasons that will be sufficiently detailed to permit
potential judicial review. In this instance, the EPA has placed the burden on the public to provide
justification for maintaining decades of previous interpretation of marketplace activities affirming that
street vehicles can be modified to create vehicles to be used solely for competition. The EPA notes
expanded powers when it states: "This allows EPA to set up an administrative process to approve
competition exemptions, and to create an exemption from the tampering prohibition for products that
are modified for competition purposes." While threatening in potential scope, this statement is
unexplained and fails to meet a conclusion of reasonableness and rationality. For example, the term
"administrative process" could be interpreted as authorizing the EPA to establish a database of motor
vehicle registrations to confirm that none of the millions of vehicles in the national vehicle fleet have
been converted to competition use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.4]
Due Process Considerations
Constitutional due process demands agencies provide adequate notice to regulated individuals. This
notice can be made through the informal notice and comment rulemaking process using the Federal
Register, or actual notice may be provided directly to interested members of the public. As settled
Supreme Court precedent instructs: "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any
proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,
to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
objections." See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.5]
The EPA has failed to provide actual notice of their proposed changes to the regulated industry despite
ample opportunity to do so. SEMA has been in discussions with the EPA for years on the issue of street-
to-race vehicle conversions. The discussions have focused on helping the EPA find ways to prevent
racing products from finding their way onto street vehicles. In fact, EPA personnel participated in a
presentation at an industry trade show sponsored by SEMA on November 5, 2015 to speak to this very
issue and made no mention of the pending rulemaking proceeding. It does not seem unreasonable that
the EPA should make some effort to communicate to the industry a rulemaking that seeks to regulate
street-to-race vehicle conversions in light of this extensive history between the Agency and the
regulated entities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.5]
Where the Federal Register is used to provide constructive notice to interested parties, the entry should
at least be drafted in a manner reasonably calculated to inform the reader that the agency is attempting
to regulate in a particular area. In this instance, the EPA has titled its rulemaking "Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase
2," and its summary provides insufficient notice that light-duty engines and vehicles, specifically those
-------
used solely for competition, are affected by the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1,
p.5]
Other Implications and Considerations
The proposed rule would create new law without adequate notice to the regulated parties, most
importantly the motorsports industry, and upset decades of industry practice. The National Association
for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) was founded in 1948 on the premise that ordinary street cars
could be converted into racing machines. Conversely, participants in demolition derbies seek to destroy
other former street vehicles that have been modified for potential destruction. In between these two
extremes are a myriad of other types of racing events, with participants that range from professionals to
novices using vehicles that have been modified for racing use. If the EPA intends to continue its push
for a policy prohibiting conversion of street vehicles to vehicles to be used solely for competition, it
must put the motorsports industry on proper notice and explain its rationale, including the statutory
authority for such a prohibition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.8]
Response:
The proposal included a clarification related to vehicles used for competition to ensure that the Clean
Air Act requirements are followed for vehicles used on public roads. This clarification is not being
finalized. EPA supports motorsports and its contributions to the American economy and communities
all across the country. EPA's focus is not (nor has it ever been) on vehicles built or used exclusively for
racing, but on companies that violate the rules by making and selling products that disable pollution
controls on motor vehicles used on public roads. These unlawful defeat devices lead to harmful
pollution and adverse health effects. The proposed language was not intended to represent a change in
the law or in EPA's policies or practices towards dedicated competition vehicles. Since our attempt to
clarify led to confusion, we have decided to eliminate the proposed language from the final rule.
We will continue to engage with the racing industry and others in its support for racing, while
maintaining our focus where it has always been: reducing pollution from the cars and trucks that travel
along America's roadways and through our neighborhoods.
14.4 Additional Technical Amendments
14.4.1 Miscellaneous Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 85. 86 and 6001915
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Part 85 Changes - We agree with all the changes or modifications done to Part 85. Daimler also
described several provisions requiring further discussion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 121]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Support Comment
Comment - CARB Staff Supports Improved Definitions
The CARB staff supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA's proposed addition of, and clarification to, definitions
throughout the proposed language, specifically in 40 CFR 86.1803-01, the addition of definitions for a
cab-complete vehicle, an incomplete vehicle, transmission type, the addition of automated manual and
continuously variable transmissions to the list of basic transmission types (page 40573 of the NPRM).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 188]
-------
Support Comment
Comment - Miscellaneous support
The CARB staff supports the addition of DPF filters to the list of items that require a regular
maintenance interval of 50,000 miles/1500 hours (40 CFR 86.004-25 (b)(4)(i)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 189]
Response:
We are adopting the provisions as proposed and as supported by the commenters.
14.4.2 Applying 40 CFR part 1068 to Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and Vehicles
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
Emissions Defect Reporting Provisions
The Heavy-Duty GHG Proposal includes changes to the Emissions Defect Reporting for heavy-duty
vehicles and engines. Full-line manufacturers have been reporting emission defects for many years.
These manufacturers have consistent tools and processes for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles
and engines. The proposed regulatory changes to § 85.1901 would force full-line light- and heavy-duty
vehicle manufacturers to use two separate defect reporting processes, adding little value at the cost of
unwarranted complexity and opportunity for error. EPA should allow full-line manufacturers that have
robust emissions defect reporting processes to continue to use the existing emissions defect reporting
regulations for all vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.35]
Organization: Volvo Group
Defect Reporting and Recall Procedures
Manufacturers should retain the option to submit defect reports and manage recalls under the provisions
of Part 1068 or Part 85 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.68]
EPA proposes that heavy-duty engine and vehicle manufacturers submit emissions related defect reports
according to the provisions of 1068.501, effective in 2018. Currently, heavy-duty manufacturers have
the option of submitting defect reports according to the procedures detailed in §85.1901, or using the
procedures in §1068.501. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.68]
Volvo Group has invested considerable time and resources to improve the processes and systems used
to identify, track, quantify, and characterize defects so as to reliably and accurately keep EPA informed
according to the requirements of §85.1901. These improved processes and systems are now, and have
been for some years, quite robust. A number of the tracking mechanisms and information sources
contained in §1068.501 that are used to identify emissions-related defects are already integrated into
systems being used today to identify and track emissions related defects according to §85.1901. The one
that is not, in-use testing, is not believed to be a viable means for discovering systemic failures of
emissions related defects. As an integrated manufacturer, we have no external vehicle manufacturers
that could be a source for defect information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.68]
-------
Volvo Group does, in fact, have a system for reporting defects according to California warranty
reporting requirements. This system is currently adapted to the volume of engines sold in California. To
adapt that system to support nation-wide sales would potentially affect the accuracy of the report and
would be cost prohibitive with little gain because, as mentioned earlier, most of the information sources
required per Part 1068 are already integrated into existing systems used for defect reporting under Part
85. Furthermore, the thresholds defined in Part 1068 are more forgiving than those currently defined in
Part 85 as followed by Volvo Group, and therefore may be less, rather than more informative to the
Agency for purposes of controlling and addressing emissions related defects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.69]
Considering the foregoing, and considering the investment made to build a robust system for reporting
defects under the provisions of Part 85, Volvo Group proposes that EPA maintain the option to heavy-
duty highway engine and vehicle manufacturers to report under the provisions of Part 85 or Part 1068.
While 1068.501 (a)(6) already provides that "You may ask us to allow you to use alternate methods for
tracking, investigating, reporting, and correcting emission-related defects...," Volvo Group proposes that
you explicitly state the manufacturer's option to report defects and manage recalls under Part 85. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.69]
Response:
EPA is concerned that the defect-reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 85 are outdated. They rely on
manufacturers to set up their own reporting protocol, with the expected result that compliance practices
will vary widely from one manufacturer to another. It is also the case that the reporting threshold of 25
vehicles is far too low in the context of engine and vehicle models that with annual production volumes
of 50,000 units, or much more. We adopted defect-reporting provisions in 40 CFR part 1068 that
address these concerns in a way that provides realistic thresholds that are dependent on production
volumes, with an additional feature to provide an initial, higher threshold to allow for filtering out
defects that turn out to be unrelated to emissions. We intend to pursue similar changes for light-duty
vehicles in a future rulemaking, as noted in the next section. The question for this rulemaking is whether
to make changes to all light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines in one later rule, or to make progress
in this rule by migrating the defect-reporting requirements for heavy-duty engines now.
AAPC states a preference to change nothing. We believe, rather, that it is in the interest of both EPA
and manufacturers to migrate to updated defect-reporting requirements in stages, gaining experience
that will further inform later stages of rulemaking changes.
It is not clear how Volvo can have a system that already aligns closely with the new requirements, yet
claims that it would be cost-prohibitive to make the change. It is also unclear why information from in-
use testing is considered non-viable for purposes of identifying emission-related defects. The new
defect-reporting program simply requires the manufacturer to make note of information revealing that
engines have emission-related defects. If in-use testing does not reveal engine defects, it is not factored
into the assessment; conversely, if in-use testing reveals engine defects, those should be counted along
with defect information from other sources. We are aware that the new thresholds allow for a greater
number of defects that go unreported; we count that as a positive feature of the new program because, as
noted above, a defect-reporting threshold of 25 units is badly matched to production volumes of heavy-
duty highway engines.
The provision in §1068.501 allowing for an alternate defect-reporting plan says that we may approve
plans that are at least as effective as the new program. We will not approve methods based on 40 CFR
part 85 as an alternate method.
-------
14.4.3 Applying 40 CFR part 1068 to Light-Duty Vehicles. Light-Duty Trucks.
Chassis-certified Class 2B and 3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Highway
Motorcycles
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers
1. Emission defect reporting, recall and hearing provisions should be proposed in a separate rulemaking
We do not support the proposal to amend the emission defect, recall and hearing provisions for any on-
highway vehicles in this rulemaking. The emission defect and recall provisions are well established
regulatory processes with well understood inputs and outputs. Any proposal to amend them warrants
consideration via a rulemaking process that evaluates the opportunities, benefits, burdens, and costs of
any changes. Although we would be prepared to offer comment and input to such a rulemaking in the
future, we do not at this time support further action on it in this proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1271-A1 p.3-4]
While the Preamble does contain some discussion with respect to the movement of recall- and hearings-
related general compliance provision for the LD sector into Part 1068 (see 80 FR 40530), the NPRM
contains virtually no discussion of the LD proposal to require a transition to the emission defect
reporting provisions in Part 1068. There is only a cursory, one-paragraph mention of the issue (80 FR
40526), as if to suggest that changes in defect reporting requirements are a matter of little consequence.
In the context of this 629-page rulemaking, Alliance and Global Automakers members nearly missed
the issue. Given the minor mention and lack of substantive discussion, it is not clear to the industry
whether EPA's intention was simply to get an initial industry reaction to the proposal, or whether the
Agency is really intending to finalize defect reporting changes as part of this HD rulemaking. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.4]
Current regulations allow manufacturers of heavy duty on-highway engines to optionally use the defect
reporting provisions of 1068.501. This allows for manufacturers who only produce heavy duty on-
highway engines and other off-highway engines already subject to 1068.501 to use a single defect
reporting process. This also allows for manufacturers who produce both light duty and heavy duty on-
highway products to use a single harmonized defect reporting process. The proposed regulatory changes
to section 85.1901 would force full-line light and heavy duty vehicle manufacturers to use two separate
defect reporting processes, adding little value at the cost of unwarranted complexity and opportunity for
error. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.4]
If the Agency wishes to eliminate the flexibility described above, we think it should explain its reasons
for doing so. However, the NPRM offers no insight into EPA's thought process, options it considered,
projected impacts on manufacturers, or overall benefits and costs of the proposal. In the absence of this
kind of substantive analysis, we do not think the issue is adequately teed up for rulemaking. In
discussions with EPA Staff, EPA indicated that it is only seeking comments on light-duty defect
reporting issue at this time and that EPA will conduct a separate rulemaking on this issue at some future
date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271 -A 1 p.4]
In light of the above, we do not support EPA's proposal to change the defect reporting requirements at
this time. We recommend that EPA's final rule not include any provisions for changing emission defect,
recall and hearing procedures as proposed. However, the Automakers are committed to working with
EPA on issues of this kind, through meetings, workshops and other opportunities for dialogue. If EPA
continues to believe that changes to the defect reporting provisions are desirable, we would be happy to
engage in further discussions with EPA Staff. We think that further dialogue of this nature would
-------
benefit both the Agency and the industry ahead of any proposal to alter the defect reporting
requirements as part of a future rulemaking on this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.4-5]
Finally, we note there is a typographical error in 1037.250(b)(5): "Also identify the technologies that
make up the certified configuration for each vehicle your produce." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-
A1 p.15]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Defect reporting provisions for LDVs - The EPA proposes to revise defect reporting provisions
covering, among other things, light-duty vehicles. 80 Fed. Reg. 40530 and 40 CFR § 1068.501 (July 13,
2015). DTNA agrees with the position conveyed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers: while
adjusting the defect reporting provisions looks like a good idea, the information presented by EPA is too
general and imprecise for us to truly understand how the rules would impact manufacturers. The
proposal needs to be elaborated in much more detail before we can comment adequately. That said, we
are generally interested in replacing a fixed threshold of 25 defects as the basis for defect reporting with
a scaled approach that would require defect reporting only after the manufacturer finds some larger
number of actual emission-related defects. For example, investigating once possible defects exceed 5 to
10% of production, with a requirement to report defects if confirmed defects exceed a rate of 1 to 2% of
production or 25 defects, whichever is greater, may be a workable approach. Note that we think it still
important to include the 25 defect threshold so that small production runs are not inadvertently drawn
into excessive amounts of reporting. We wish to add that we recommend that California adopt a similar
system to the EPA, so that we can have one system nationwide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1
p. 136]
Applying the General Compliance Provisions of 40 CFR Part 1068 - The agencies request comment
on requiring manufacturers to follow the California defect-reporting scheme for their EPA-certified
vehicles. We have one concern with the California reporting requirements, which require reports at
numerical thresholds based on one state's worth of defects, being used for reporting on 50 states'
vehicles or engines; the impact would be to require many reports in cases where there are no
significantly repeated problems. However, there may be some benefits to a change, in particular because
we think that Part 1068 requires reporting too early in a process, when a manufacturer is not sufficiently
certain there is even a problem to report—potentially resulting in the agency getting too many
unnecessary reports. Additionally reporting per failure mode would be preferred over providing
unfiltered warranty claims, as this would allow manufactures to do deep analysis of potential defects
and report defects that are known to potentially affect emissions. Reporting of unfiltered warranty
claims would require significant resource of EPA to analyze data, and duplicate the same work done by
a manufacturer, as any one component may have several potential different failure modes, and some
may have no effect on emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 117]
Organization: Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. (MIC)
1. Proposal to Apply Part 1068 General Compliance Provisions to Highway Motorcycles.
MIC supports this proposal as a general proposition. It should provide needed harmonization with other
products, such as off-highway motorcycles and ATVs, which are also manufactured by a number of our
members and which are already subject to Part 1068. Harmonization will promote better understanding
of EPA requirements by all our members, and help promote compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1158 -A 1 p.l]
-------
2. Proposal to Apply Subpart F (Reporting Defects and Recall) of Part 1068 to Highway Motorcycles.
EPA is asking for comments in particular on its proposal to include the reporting and recall provisions
in Subpart F of Part 1068 to highway motorcycles. MIC agrees that Subpart F, including the proposed
amendments to Sees. 1068.501, 1068.505 and 1068.515, should be included and made applicable to
highway motorcycles, as part of the overall movement toward harmonization. However, MIC is strongly
opposed to the suggestion (at 80 FR 40530) of adopting the California regulations governing reporting
of defects and recall on a national basis. While the concept of uniform national provisions for reporting
and recall is an appealing one, we believe that objective should be achieved by extending EPA
regulations to California, rather than by applying California's regulations nationally. California's
reporting and recall regulations (13 CCR 2111-2121 and 2122-2135) are unnecessarily burdensome and
complex (with no less than three overlapping types of reports) and have a history of causing disputes
and even litigation. The EPA regulations appear to be much clearer and less complex, and would be the
preferred model for nationalization. We encourage EPA to work with the California Air Resources
Board on extending the EPA regulations to California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1158-A1 p. 1-2]
Response:
In the final rule we are adopting the proposed migration of hearing procedures to 40 CFR part
1068. As described in the Preamble, this change aligns with regulations adopted by EPA's Office of
Administrative Law, and provides a unified set of hearing provisions for all sectors covered by emission
standards under Title II of the Clean Air Act. The old and new hearing procedures are nearly identical,
so we expect no adverse circumstance to result from the migration.
We are retracting the proposed change to migrate recall provisions for vehicles certified to
standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. We believe this would involve only very minor changes, but
we agree with the industry that this is better accomplished in a later rulemaking with greater opportunity
for deliberation. In particular, we are currently in the process of exploring implementation of recall
provisions in a way that will likely lead to a better understanding of the practical opportunities and
limitations under the current recall regulations. We will likely be ready to propose regulatory changes in
the near future that streamline requirements, reduce unnecessarily restrictive specifications, and improve
our ability to effectively manage the overall recall experience.
We did not propose to migrate defect-reporting requirements for vehicles certified under 40
CFR part 86, subpart S, but rather requested comment on the idea in an effort to explore interest. We are
aware that the current defect-reporting protocol in 40 CFR part 85 has led to widely varying
implementation practices by different manufacturers. This may lead to a competitive advantage for
companies that take a more lenient approach. We expect to pursue this migration to 40 CFR part 1068
in a later rulemaking. We will at that point be ready to work with manufacturers, individually and
collectively, to design an updated defect-reporting program that is streamlined and effective, and
provides a level playing field for all manufacturers.
We look forward to updating the certification and compliance regulations for highway
motorcycles similar to what has been done for recreational vehicles and other sectors. While we
contemplated a head start on this migration for recall and defect-reporting, we are not finalizing those
changes in this rule. We believe it is most important to adopt updated recall and defect-reporting
procedures for highway motorcycles and light-duty vehicles at the same time. This will allow us to
consider these sectors together in determining any appropriate provisions that should apply differently
than what we have already adopted in 40 CFR part 1068. It will also allow us to update reporting
software for both as part of a single effort.
14.4.4 Amendments to General Compliance Provisions in 40 CFR part 1068
-------
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
We agree with the changes done on Part 1068. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 121]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The Preamble description of the proposed change to §1068.201 references the ability to change an
engine from one exemption to another. This clarification is welcome, but the proposed regulatory
language change in §1068.201(c) falls short of clarifying the ability to change labels when making such
an exemption change. EMA requests that the regulatory requirements as described in §1068.201(c) be
revised to clarify that labels can be changed for exemptions that are allowed, without approval by the
Agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.85]
Response: We have removed the proposed changes to §1068.201 from this rulemaking, which
will allow us to address issues related to redesignating exempt engines in a future rulemaking.
We note that current regulations at §1068.101(b)(7) describe provisions related to removing and
replacing incorrect emission labels.
The Preamble discussion of § 1068.240 describes a requirement to identify the disposition of the engine
being replaced in addition to a revision to the reporting requirements. The proposed regulatory language
includes the welcome change to the reporting requirements, but does not include any requirements
associated with the disposition of the replaced engine. EMA supports the lack of regulatory
requirements associated with the disposition of the replaced engine, and therefore requests that EPA not
implement any requirements associated with engine disposition without a subsequent notice and
comment rulemaking process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.85]
Response: The revised regulation clarifies that an engine may count as a tracked replacement
engine under § 1068.240(b) only if the manufacturer meets all applicable requirements by the
(revised) due date for the required report. It is clear that the disposition of the engine is one of
the conditions for tracking under paragraph (b), so this particular point does not need to be
called out separately. We will consider adding this to the regulation if there is any uncertainty
on that point for implementation.
EMA also supports the proposed amendment to § 1068.240(c)(3), which would change the reporting
requirement for replacement engines from March 31st to September 30th. However, EMA requests
clarification regarding the proposed regulatory language stating that "you must also include the total
number of replacement engines you produced under paragraph (b), (d), and (e) of this section."
Currently 40 CFR 1042.615(a) specifies that it applies in lieu of §1068.240(b), and includes the
reporting requirements as specified in §1042.615(a)(3). To avoid confusion and the potential for
duplicate reporting, EMA requests that § 1068.240(c)(3) be revised to state: "you must also include the
total number of replacement engines you produced under paragraph (b), (d), and (e) of this section,
including engines previously reported per 40 CFR 1042.615(a)(3)." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.85-86]
Response: We have revised §1068.240 to reference the marine engines as suggested by EMA.
The substantial revision to Subpart G providing clarification regarding the available hearing procedures
may be both necessary and desirable to address the wide diversity of products regulated per Part 1068.
However, EMA objects to the proposed regulatory provisions to the extent that they are inconsistent
with any provisions of the federal Administrative Procedures Act (including section 553 through 557 of
-------
Title 5), section 307 of the CAA, or subpart 22 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.86]
Response: We believe the hearing procedures as adopted in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, are
wholly consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. We will be ready to adopt any
amendment that may be needed to achieve this objective.
The changes proposed to section 1068.505, which relate to remedial requirements regardless of age or
extent of service, require clarification. The qualifying requirement that "a determination is made that a
substantial number of properly maintained and used engines/equipment do not conform" assumes that
the vast majority of the affected engines/equipment are still within their regulatory useful life as
prescribed by the applicable regulatory sub-part. However, the related provisions regarding the need to
contact the current owners of engines/equipment, regardless of age, are not feasible for nonregistered
engines/equipment. Accordingly, EMA recommends that the regulatory language be modified to clarify
that while engines/equipment cannot be excluded, the Agency's determination will include an
assessment of the ability of the recall to be effective given the manufacturer's ability to identify
engines/equipment that are subject to the recall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.86]
Response: We disagree that the qualifying requirement involves any assumption about the
status of in-use vehicles. This is merely establishing a principle that manufacturers may not
exclude older vehicles from a recall action on the basis of age, once a recall order is issued. It is
always understood that manufacturers will be able to perform recall repairs only to the extent that
the vehicles are available.
The proposed change to section 1068.505(c) revising the response time for manufacturers required to
submit a remedial plan from 60 days, to a designated date but no less than 45 days, provides needed
flexibility for circumstances where the 60-day mandate is not feasible. However, the "no less than 45
days" requirement results in significant concern that the 45-day minimum will become the Agency
default, regardless of the complexity of the required remedial plan. Accordingly, EMA recommends that
the language be revised to require the submission of a preliminary remedial plan allowing the Agency
and the manufacturer to determine the appropriate additional required information in accordance with
the provisions in 40 CFR 1068.510. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.86]
Response: The manufacturer's submitted plan is understood to be subject to EPA review for
completeness. If there are some things that cannot be addressed or resolved in this timely
submission, EPA will work with the manufacturer to supplement that initial submission as
needed for an effective recall. It is also understood that manufacturers will respond to EPA
input on revisions to the draft remedial plan in a timely manner. We believe the regulatory
language as proposed aligns with the suggested approach.
The proposal to change the language in section 1068.515(c) from stating "where" the repair or
inspection was completed to "the facility" is acceptable, but EMA requests that the Agency recognize
that an electronic tracking system may be a viable option for providing the detailed information, thereby
allowing the required label to be significantly less space-consuming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.86]
Response: We agree with the comment and have revised the regulation accordingly.
Organization: Volvo Group
-------
Part 1068 scope of recall and labeling provisions are unduly burdensome with little gain [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.69]
Addressing specifically the provisions of Part 1068, we have concern about the requirements in
1068.505(a) which states "You must remedy at your expense noncompliant engines/equipment that have
been properly maintained and used, as described in § 1068.510(a)(7), regardless of their age or extent of
service accumulation at the time of repair. " [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.69]
While we agree that it is correct to focus the consideration for a recall on products that are within their
useful life, we have concern that the language EPA proposes to add could be interpreted to require the
recall of all vehicles and engines still in operation, regardless of whether they have exceeded their useful
life. This is beyond the requirements of the regulation and the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the Clean Air
Act provides: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.69]
...the manufacturer of each new motor vehicle and new motor vehicle engine shall warrant to
the ultimate purchaser and each subsequent purchaser that such vehicle or engine is (A)
designed, built, and equipped so as to conform at the time of sale with applicable regulations
under section 7521 of this title, and (B) free from defects in materials and workmanship which
cause such vehicle or engine to fail to conform with applicable regulations for its useful life (as
determined under section 7521(d) of this title). 42 U.S.C. 7541(A) (Emph. added) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.69]
EPA, therefore, should either eliminate the proposed language, or clarify it to state: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p.69]
You must remedy at your expense noncompliant engines/equipment that have been properly
maintained and used and are still within their useful life, as described in § 1068.510(a)(7).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p.69]
This is important for practical as well as legal reasons. Engines and vehicles that exceed their useful life
are typically under a second or even third owner, so the opportunity to locate the owners is limited.
Further, compared to the cost, there is little value to performing repairs on engines or vehicles that are
approaching the end of their productive life. Most older vehicles are in less intensive operations, and so
their emissions contribution is limited. The scope of the recall should therefore be limited to those units
that are within their useful life. This makes the requirement similar to the NHTSA practice of limiting
the scope of the recall to engines/vehicles no more than 10 years old. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.70]
Another point we'd like to address are the provisions set forth in 1068.510 and 1068.515 requiring that a
label be installed on each engine or vehicle that has been repaired in a recall. This requirement would be
new for the industry, and is unduly burdensome because it would add unnecessary expense and
complication to the recall process without significant benefit. Achieving good adhesion of a label to a
vehicle and especially an engine surface is an engineering challenge, even in the controlled and clean
conditions of the new product manufacturing facilities. It's all the more difficult in the service bay with
engine installed in a vehicle. Finding a visible, flat, cleanable surface to apply a label that will remain
free from damage and debris is a surprisingly difficult challenge under the hood of a heavy duty vehicle.
Such a surface would also have to be clear from sources of excessive heat or engine fluids. In lieu of
such a label, a more reliable and simpler access to any recall status for an engine or vehicle is available
from dealer and manufacturer electronic records. We would propose that the labeling requirement be
removed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A 1 p.70]
-------
Response:
While the regulatory useful life defines a parameter to characterize a manufacturer's obligation to
design and produce engines, the statutory direction to execute a recall describes an obligation to remedy
nonconformities on all properly maintained and used vehicles. CAA section 207(c)(1) follows:
If the Administrator determines that a substantial number of any class or category of vehicles or
engines, although properly maintained and used, do not conform to the regulations prescribed
under section 202, when in actual use throughout their useful life (as determined under section
202(d)), he shall immediately notify the manufacturer thereof of such nonconformity, and he
shall require the manufacturer to submit a plan for remedying the nonconformity of the vehicles
or engines with respect to which such notification is given. The plan shall provide that the
nonconformity of any such vehicles or engines which are properly used and maintained will be
remedied at the expense of the manufacturer.
As noted above recall effectiveness always depends on an imperfect ability to identify and procure
subject vehicles. However, we believe the statute and therefore the regulations should not allow
manufacturers to elect not to remedy a nonconformity under a recall simply because a vehicle is no
longer within the useful life period specified it the regulation.
Recall labels are already required for motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines under 40 CFR
85.1803(c). We believe manufacturers can accomplish the engineering necessary to find a location and
apply a label with good adhesion to recalled vehicles.
19240rganization: American Automotive Policy Council
AAPC has the following concerns: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.35]
• The proposal would require defect reports to be submitted as soon as an investigation is initiated
and investigation progress reports must be submitted twice a year until the investigation closes,
which could be the full useful life of the vehicle. Thus, manufacturers could be required to file
numerous "defect reports" even if the ultimate outcome of the investigation is that there is no
defect. This increases both manufacturer and EPA workload for no apparent benefit. EPA
should only require reports when defects have been identified, per 40 CFR 1068.501(c). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.35]
• Current Emissions Defect Reporting requirements apply for five years from the end of the
model year in which such vehicles or engines were manufactured. The proposed provisions
require emissions defect reporting for the full useful life of the engine/vehicle. This will require
substantially more resources for manufacturers and Agencies to monitor and track. This is not
value added; it is highly unlikely that defects in design, materials, or workmanship will only
become evident more than five years after the end of the model year in which the vehicle was
produced. In addition, as time passes the investigation will be confounded by whether the issue
identified is normal wear and tear or a defect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.35]
• The proposal requires manufacturers to monitor warranty claims and conduct an investigation
when the warranty claims and/or other indicators exceed a specified threshold. This may
discourage manufacturers from offering any additional warranty, including extended service
plans, beyond five years or the regulated warranty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.35]
-------
For these reasons, we recommend that the Emissions Defect Reporting requirements continue to apply
for five years from the end of the model year in which such vehicles or engines were manufactured.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 8-A1 p. 36]
AAPC makes the following recommendations: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.36]
• EPA should only require reports when defects have been identified, per 40 CFR 1068.501(c).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.36]
Emissions defect reporting requirements continue to apply for five years from the end of the model year
in which such vehicles or engines were manufactured. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1238-A1 p.36]
Response:
The innovation of the defect-reporting methodology for §1068.501 is to set a relatively high threshold
for unscreened defects, which triggers the need for an "investigation." This prospective investigation
involves a greater effort to evaluate future defects to confirm whether or not they are emission-related
defects. This allows the manufacturer to apply a more focused attention after processing a relatively
large number of defects where it is not clear that the defect is emission-related. The lower threshold for
confirmed emission-related defects benefits from this screening approach, with the result that defect
reports are more likely to involve substantial nonconformity.
It is true that investigation reports are ongoing, but we note that these reports (and the corresponding
investigation) are triggered by a high enough level of observed defects that the manufacturer should be
paying more attention to determine the cause of the problem. This should align well with the
manufacturer's own interest to address defects, whether or not they are emission-related. Investigation
reports may ultimately lead to a defect report, but we find investigation reports to be of significant value
in either case.
Manufacturers are expected to monitor warranty claims and other indicators of defects. We would
expect manufacturers to never see warranty claims beyond the first five years of a vehicle's life. Other
indicators, such as orders for replacement parts do not involve greater effort to include older vehicles.
There may be more incidences of normal wear, but that can be accounted for in considering whether
there are emission-related defects. We believe it is appropriate to keep the requirement to monitor for
defects throughout the useful life.
The manufacturers' option to offer extended warranty provisions to their customers is a business and
marketing decision for the companies. This may be affected by statutory and regulatory requirements
related to emission standards, but this should not cause us to change the way we implement emission
standards and related requirements.
Organization: Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. (MIC)
As an additional amendment to Subpart F, we recommend that EPA add provisions to Sec. 1068.505
making it clear that recalls may be made applicable to engine/equipment family subgroups, and not
necessarily to full engine families, so that, where a subgroup is the principal or only source of a defect, a
targeted recall of smaller scope can be implemented. This would avoid the problem of over-broad
recalls that has been a matter of contention in the past under the California program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1158-A1 p.2]
MIC is not opposed to this amendment [to 40 CFR 1068.27], but because confirmatory testing has the
potential for causing a manufacturer undue hardship by delaying production for weeks and even months,
-------
we request that language be added to specify, where EPA performs confirmatory testing for statistical or
market coverage reasons, and not based on evidence suggesting that a vehicle or engine will likely be in
noncompliance, that EPA will in such cases issue a conditional certificate of compliance. The
conditional certificate would provide that the manufacturer must effect repairs, including recall if
necessary, to correct vehicles or engines shown by testing not be in compliance. We suggest adding a
new subsection (d) to sec. 1068.27, to read as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1158-A1 p.2]
(d) When we perform confirmatory testing and do not have any prior evidence or cause to
believe that the engines/equipment cannot comply with applicable regulations, we will issue, at
the manufacturer's request, a certificate of conformity that is conditional on test results
demonstrating compliance with all the regulations of this chapter. If our testing demonstrates
noncompliance, the manufacturer must make all repairs required to bring the engines/equipment
into compliance, including, where we order it, non-voluntary recall as specified in Subpart F of
this Part. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1158-A1 p.2]
Response:
We believe the recall provisions already allow EPA to order a recall for a subset of engines or vehicles
from a family.
Manufacturers should plan their timelines for submitting applications for certification to allow for
confirmatory testing by the Agency. Note that the regulation at 40 CFR 1068.103(c) allows
manufacturers to start production once they submit an application; however, those products may not be
shipped before the certificate is issued.
Organization: Navy
Navy requested that we expand the automatic exemption for national security to address concerns about
access to low-sulfur diesel fuel outside the United States. See Section 14.4.9.
14.4.5 Amendments to Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Program Requirements 1926
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers
2. Changes to Global Warming Potentials must be accompanied with evaluation and adjustment
of GHG standards to maintain existing stringency of the GHG standards
In the NPRM, at 80 FR 40206, EPA proposes to adopt an updated value from the IPCC Fifth
Assessment Report for the global warming potential (GWP) of methane (CH4), which would increase
the value for CH4 from 25 to a range 28-36. However, neither in the NPRM nor in the RIA is there any
discussion about the effects on the stringency of meeting existing LD GHG standards. Automakers do
not support the change to GWP of CH4 without a change to the stringency of the GHG rules. We note
that EPA, in promulgating the LD GHG rules, stated that it was committed to maintain the stringency of
GHG standards [See 77 FR 62777 (October 15, 2012); CH4 emissions make up a component of CREE
calculations used to determine compliance with the GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-
Alp.5]
Response: We are changing the methane GWP, but we are not applying this change to light-
duty vehicles in this rulemaking.
-------
3. Regulatory flexibilities being proposed for HP should be extended to LP as well
a. The ability for chassis certified HP vehicles to attest to N20 compliance using an engineering
statement (in Part 86 Subpart S 86.1819-14(e)(6)) should also be allowed for LP
In the NPRM at 80 FR 40342, EPA proposes to maintain in the HD GHG Phase 2 program the N20
compliance provisions from the Phase 1 program, and to allow attestation to the N20 standards. We
recommend that the ability for chassis-certified HD vehicles to attest to N20 compliance using an
engineering statement (in Part 86 Subpart S 86.1819-14(e)(6)) should also be allowed for LD. EPA
should allow the continued use of attestation to N20 standards, including the attestation to higher N20
caps (i.e., alternate N20 standard), for all gasoline powered EDVs and FEDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1271-A1 p.5]
The measurement of N20 is still evolving, and since it currently requires many non-automated
operations, it greatly increases resource burdens in high-volume production testing LD laboratories.
Since most vehicles will meet the N20 cap standards while still meeting the NOX or NMOG+NOX
standards, allowing attestation to the standard would still allow the agencies to test for N20 and
maintain applicability of N20 standards while reducing costs and testing burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1271-A1 p.5]
Response: Revisiting issues related to N20 measurement for the light-duty program are outside
the scope of this rulemaking. See the earlier rule for a discussion of N20 measurement.
b. Any option for smaller ETW increments/classes or to analytically adjust FE/GHG test results
for HP vehicles should also be made available for LP vehicles
In the NPRM, at 80 FR 40531, the EPA proposes to allow the use of smaller equivalent test weight
(ETW) classes for HD vehicles. We support the availability of an option for manufacturers to use
smaller ETW increments/classes or to analytically adjust FE/GHG test results for HD vehicles and
recommend that these same options be made available for LD vehicles, provided that the option is
allowed at the Test Group or Engine Family Level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.6]
At this time, the ability of manufacturers to perpetuate an ETW increment change through their
respective fleets is unknown. The Automakers are currently investigating the added test burden and
workload of developing data at more discrete ETW intervals and anticipate submitting supplemental
comments providing this information to the HD GHG NPRM docket. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-
A1 p.6]
The smaller ETW bins should be allowed at the test group level. Besides test burden and related
workload, allowing smaller ETW bins at the test group level will lead to more manufacturers using said
bins. This is primarily due to how vehicle programs are managed. Using smaller ETWs would be
difficult to implement across an entire manufacturer because program planners are often only
responsible for mass within a given platform, model, or even test group. Typically, mass reductions
must be justified as narrowly as the test group. Forcing mass reduction justifications beyond the test
group level will likely lead to manufacturers maintaining the status quo with respect to ETW. By
restricting ETW options to the test group level, manufacturers will not be able to "pick and choose" on a
sub configuration level. Test group implementation will allow manufacturers to move vehicles to the
smaller ETW bins in a stepwise manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.6]
-------
Also, expanded use of either Analytically Derived Fuel Economy (ADFE) or Analytically Derived C02
(ADC02) due to smaller ETW bins should not infringe upon the maximum allowed. This can be
justified in that new use of ADFE or ADC02 would likely only adjust data within a test group,
platform, or model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.6]
ADFE and ADC02 as a result of ETW changes should also not be subject to the same confidence level
adjustments, or penalties, as traditional analytical adjustments because adjustments due to ETW are
between vehicles that are very similar and any confidence penalties, although small, could have a
significant impact on small GHG gains due to smaller ETW bins. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1
p.6]
Response: The suggested changes for the light-duty program are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
4. Comments on EPA's proposed changes to 40 CFR 600.116-12 (80 FR 40533. 80 FR 40574) and
proposals to make minor changes to correct errors and clarify regulations: Comments to NHTSA
regarding related provisions of 49 CFR 538.5 and 538.6rEPA-HO-OAR-2014-Q827-1271-Al p.7]
In the NPRM, at 80 FR 40574, EPA proposes to add a new paragraph (c)(2) to 40 CFR 600.116-12,
pertaining to the treatment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for the purposes of Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE). Although further explanation of the intent and reasoning of the changes is
limited in the Preamble [80 FR 40533], we make the following comments based on the apparent intent
of the proposed regulatory text as currently drafted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.7]
a. Application of 49 CFR 538.5 requirements to determine appropriate method of calculation of
fuel economy performance for hybrid electric vehicles which have plug-in capability [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1271 -A 1 p.7]
In the proposed paragraph (c)(2), the agency sets forth methods to calculate the fuel economy
performance for hybrid electric vehicles which have plug-in capability, distinguishing between those
which do, and those which do not, qualify as dual fueled automobiles under 49 CFR 538.5. The
Automakers note that 49 CFR 538.5 pertains only to passenger automobiles, not to non-passenger
automobiles such as light trucks or medium-duty passenger vehicles. For example, 49 CFR 538.5(b)
reads, "The minimum driving range that a passenger automobile using electricity as an alternative fuel
must have in order to be treated as a dual fueled automobile pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) is . . ."
[emphasis added] Therefore, the agency proposed language is not clear as to how non-passenger
automobiles are to be treated. The Automakers recommend that EPA draw a distinction in calculation
method based only on the existing definition of "dual fueled automobile" found at 40 CFR 600.002,
which appropriately notes the limitation of the minimum driving range requirements to only passenger
automobiles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.7]
b. Applicability of "utility factor"-based calculations to vehicles that qualify as dual fueled
automobiles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271 -A 1 p.7]
At the proposed paragraph (c)(2)(h) (80 FR 40574), for vehicles that qualify as dual fueled automobiles,
there are two options for manufacturers: (1) determine fuel economy using utility factors, but without
the petroleum equivalence factor as described in the proposed (c)(2)(i); or (2) determine fuel economy
using the harmonic average of the fuel economy in charge sustaining mode and the miles per gallon
equivalent measured while operating on electricity, adjusted using the petroleum equivalence factor. In
the first option, the manufacturer receives potentially greater weighting of electric operation, but is
-------
prevented from applying the petroleum equivalence factor. In the second option, the petroleum
equivalence factor is permitted, but the weighting of the two values is defined as equal (50% charge-
sustaining miles per gallon, and 50% electric operation). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.7]
The proposed approach is inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 32905(e), as amended by the Carl Levin and
Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The amended
statute permits a manufacturer to apply a utility factor-based approach and the petroleum equivalence
factor in combination for 2016 and subsequent model year vehicles or, at the manufacturer's option, an
equal weighting with the petroleum equivalence factor. The Automakers recommend redrafting the text
to permit a manufacturer to choose a utility factor based approach in combination with the petroleum
equivalence factor for model years after 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.8]
Specifically, we recommend the following changes to the proposed text for the added paragraph 40 CFR
600.116-12(c)(2) (redline relative to proposed text in the NPRM): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1
p.8]
(2) Determine fuel economy values to demonstrate compliance with CAFE standards as follows: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.8]
(i) For vehicles that do not qualify as dual fueled automobiles under 49 CFR 538.5, determine fuel
economy using the utility factors described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Do not use the petroleum-
equivalence factors described in 10 CFR 474.3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.8]
(ii) For vehicles that qualify as dual fueled automobiles under ^19 CFR 538.5, determine fuel
economy based on the procedure described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or based on the
following equation, separately for city and highway driving: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.8]
MPGeCAFE = 1 / (0.5/MPGgas + 0.5/MPGelec)
Where:
MPGgas = The miles per gallon measured while operating on gasoline during charge sustaining
operation as determined using the procedures ofSAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in § 600.011).
MPGelec = The miles per gallon equivalent measured while operating on electricity. Calculate this
value by dividing the equivalent all-electric range determined from the equation in § 86.1866-
12(b)(2)(ii) by the corresponding measured Watt-hours of energy consumed; apply the appropriate
petroleum-equivalence factor from 10 CFR 474.3 to convert Watt-hours to gallons equivalent. Note that
if vehicles use no gasoline during charge-depleting operation, MPGeelec is the same as the charge-
depleting fuel economy specified in SAE J1711. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.8]
(in) Optionally, for 2016 and subsequent model year vehicles that qualify as dual fueled automobiles-
determine fuel economy based on the following equation, separately for city and highway
driving: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.9]
MPGeCAFE = 1 / (UF/MPGelec + (l-UF)/MPGgas)
Where:
-------
UF = The appropriate utility factor for city or highway driving as described in paragraph (c)( 1) of this
section. rEPA-HO-OAR-2014-Q827-1271-Al p.91
Response: EPA agrees that the proposed regulatory text lacked clarity regarding the appropriate
calculation method for non-passenger automobiles. EPA also agrees with the commenter
regarding utility factors for dual-fueled automobiles. The final rule includes the appropriate
changes to the regulatory text.
c. Interpretation of driving range in the context of 49 CFR 538.5 and 538.6
NHTSA proposes to update the authority citation for 49 CFR 538.5. [80 FR 40765] While NHTSA
considers changes to 538.5, the Automakers urge NHTSA to consult with EPA on relatively recent
developments in test procedures to measure the emissions and fuel economy of alternative fueled
vehicles which use electricity. When sections 538.5 and 538.6 were last amended, NHTSA interpreted
that the minimum driving range was to be measured operating on electricity alone, generally citing the
need for off-board electricity use to meet Congressional intent and the lack of a fuel economy test able
to measure a hybrid electric vehicle operating on a combination of electricity and petroleum fuel. [63
Fed. Reg. 66064, December 1, 1998] In the time subsequent to this rulemaking, manufacturers have
introduced plug-in hybrid models which make use of stored off-vehicle electricity and petroleum fuel in
combination (a.k.a. blended operation). To evaluate vehicles with this type of operation, the California
Air Resources Board developed test and calculation methods to determine an "equivalent all electric
range," effectively measuring how far a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle could travel on the stored off-
board electricity if only the electric portion of blended operation is considered. [E.g. see California
Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 through 2017 Model Zero-Emission
Vehicles, and Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty
Vehicle Classes] Given the wide variety of plug-in hybrid technology applications possible and the
availability of test procedure and calculation methods capable of determining the off-board electric
portion of blended operation, the Automakers recommend that NHTSA clarify its interpretation of the
minimum driving range to be based on equivalent all electric range. This could be accomplished within
the Preamble of the Final Rule which will be associated with this rulemaking and/or with minor
modifications to 49 CFR 438.6. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.9]
Response: EPA agrees with the manufacturers that the equivalent all-electric range is often the
most appropriate metric for comparing the electric driving capability - and the commensurate
reduction in petroleum fuel use - of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. In fact, EPA has already
set a precedent by using the equivalent all-electric range as qualification criteria for use of the
production multipliers applicable to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2017-2021 model
years (see 40 CFR 86.1866-12). We chose to use the equivalent all-electric range in this case to
avoid discriminating against vehicles that "blend" use of electricity with gasoline but that still
displace petroleum as much as vehicles that have a pure all-electric driving range. However,
NHTSA will evaluate the underlying statute and determine whether or not the law will allow the
interpretation requested by auto manufacturers.
8. Comments on additional issues
a. EPA should include an amendment to allow additional flexibility for the certification fuel used for
fuel economy, CAFE and greenhouse gas emissions testing [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 13]
The Tier 3 Final Rule [79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014] resulted in a change in the certification fuel used
for emissions testing but did not provide test procedure adjustments to allow the new certification fuel to
-------
be used for fuel economy-related testing, including the LD CAFE and GHG emission programs. As a
result, industry must currently conduct duplicative testing on two separate fuels, which adds additional
test burden and unnecessary, additional compliance costs. The Agency included a threshold date of
model year (MY) 2019 in part 600.117 when dual testing must cease and which might indirectly result
in the elimination of E0 test fuel for CAFE and GHG compliance testing after MY2019. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1271 -A 1 p. 13]
While the Tier 3 rulemaking promised an expeditious follow-up rulemaking to address test procedure
adjustment factors and allow the new certification fuel for CAFE and GHG testing, efforts are slow to
start, and it is not clear if they will be completed prior to MY 2019. Automakers greatly support EPA
efforts to perform the evaluations necessary to arrive at proper corrections to test with the changed fuels.
In the undesired scenario of these evaluations not being completed in time, or of the correction being
insufficient, it would be prudent for the Agency to consider extending the MY2019 threshold date.
Therefore, we recommend that EPA amend section 600.117 to extend the end date and clarify that E0
test fuel will remain the official compliance test fuel for CAFE and GHG testing until changed by a
subsequent rulemaking. We do not wish for any extension of the date past the MY 2019 end date to
reduce the urgency to complete the necessary test procedure adjustments, but such flexibility is
necessary to ensure industry planners that they will not be subject to both a change in CAFE/GHG
stringency and/or loss of the double testing flexibilities after MY2019. Automakers look forward to
continuing to work with the Agency to speedily evaluate and determine correct adjustment factors for
the changes to test fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.13]
Response: Testing in support of amendments to address these fuel effects is ongoing. We
intend to continue with the approach described in 40 CFR 600.117, including the specified
timeline. We will continue to interact with manufacturers in the effort to resolve these issues.
14.4.6 Testing with Aftertreatment Devices Involving Infrequent Regeneration
1931
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers
5. Comments to proposed changes to Part 1065
a. Infrequent regeneration procedures should be harmonized
In the NPRM at 80 FR 40533, the EPA proposes to harmonize the common elements of infrequent
regeneration factor (IRAF) procedures in 40 CFR Part 1065 for highway, locomotive, marine and land-
based non-road compression ignition engines. Automakers support this change to implement consistent
procedures to incorporate the emissions effects of infrequent regeneration for HD vehicles. This would
extend the current procedures and requirements used for LD and make them applicable for HD. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.9-10]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Comments on the Proposed Technical Amendments to Part 86
The proposed revisions to section 86.004-28(i) and 0 (and to section 1065.680) would modify the
handling of infrequent regeneration adjustment factors (IRAFs). Subparagraph (i) permits the continued
use of the current methodology through the end of model year 2020. Subparagraph (j) specifies the new
-------
methodology for handling IRAFs and points to 1065.680, a common procedural section referenced by
several standard-setting Parts. The new methodology would be used beginning in model year 2021.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.73]
The ability to continue to use the current IRAF calculation process through the end of model year 2020
is critical for lead time and product stability. Having the new requirements become effective in model
year 2021 is appropriate, as several other product changes become effective with that model year, and
the product changes needed to accommodate the revisions to the IRAF calculation procedures can be
made at the same time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.73]
Accordingly, EMA supports the proposed changes and recommends that they be finalized as proposed.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p.73]
Comments on the Proposed Technical Amendments to Part 1065
The standards for several regulatory categories (on-highway, locomotive, marine, and land-based
nonroad engines, etc.) have become more and more stringent, requiring the use of emission control
devices that often require infrequent regeneration to maintain their effectiveness and/or prolong their
life. As a result, the provisions describing the process to account for the potential emissions from these
infrequent regenerations, commonly referred to as infrequent regeneration adjustments factors or
"IRAFs" are needed in numerous CFR Parts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.85]
EPA's proposal to put the common elements relating to IRAFs in Part 1065 is a good idea and is
supported by EMA. Likewise, putting sector or category-specific elements in the sector-specific Parts is
appropriate and also supported by EMA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.85]
EMA has reviewed the proposed language of new section 1065.680 - "Adjusting emission levels to
account for infrequently regenerating Aftertreatment devices" - and generally agrees with the proposal.
EMA also agrees that it is helpful to have the cited examples in section 1065.680, which illustrate and
clarify the various embedded calculations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.85]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Part 1065 - We agree with all the proposed changes done to Part 1065 except for section 1065.680 -
adjusting emission levels to account for infrequently generating aftertreatment devices. On this section
we recommend not removing the weighting factor that EPA first published on a 2006 guidance
comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 121]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Support Comment
Comment - Adjustment factors for infrequent regeneration events
CARB staff supports the proposed use of adjustment factors for correction of C02 emission results and
fuel consumption from infrequent regeneration events from heavy-duty engines equipped with exhaust
aftertreatment. However, CARB staff has concerns regarding the continued use of the methodology for
calculation of infrequent regeneration adjustment factors (IRAFs) as specified in 40 CFR 1065.680.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 103]
-------
The primary concern stems from the application of the adjustment factors to discount both FTP and
heavy-duty SET emissions. Instead, the adjustment factors should be applied in such a way as to apply
the discounted FTP regeneration emissions to the SET regeneration emissions. In addition, staff believes
that adjustment factors should be developed separately for each engine family. Due to the concerns with
manufacturers inappropriately calculating adjustment factors, staff does not recommend allowing carry-
across of adjustment factors from one engine family to another. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 103]
Specifically regarding the application of IRAFs to FTP and SET emissions, staff understands that
heavy-duty manufacturers have been calculating adjustment factors based on a U.S. EPA guidance
document (REF CISD-06-22 HD-HWY). The concept in this document is to allow an offset in
regeneration emissions from city-type driving to highway-type driving. CARB staff believes the
example provided in this guidance document is flawed in that it applies discounted adjustment factors
for both the FTP and SET cycles. In this example, the regeneration emissions were not applied to the
SET. A true offset would seek to balance the emissions between city and highway driving. That is, if the
regeneration emissions were offset from the FTP then the balance would be added to the SET; not
subtracted, as done in the guidance document. This becomes more evident in the calculation of the new
frequency factors, F, in the RIA's example. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 103]
The FTP regeneration frequency is decreased from 0.2 to 0.06; however, the SET frequency is also
decreased from 0.05 to 0.035. This double discounting in frequency is not reasonable and does not
follow our understanding of in-use regeneration frequency. Instead, there should be a composite
frequency, F', that resides between the individual cycle frequencies (i.e., 0.05 < F' < 0.2). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 104]
CARB staff suggests that U.S. EPA and NHTSA develop a representative composite frequency that
takes into account the SET and FTP frequencies similar to the example equation below. Using the data
provided in U.S. EPA guidance document, an equation to offset emissions with in-use driving averaged
at 30 percent city (FTP-like driving) and 70 percent highway (SET-like driving) would be as follows:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 104]
F' = Fftp * offset+ F set * (1- offset)
F' = 0.20*0.3 + 0.05 * (1 - 0.3) = 0.095 Where offset = percent city driving
The new frequency, F', would be used for both FTP and SET calculations of upward adjustment factors.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 104]
[Table 16 can be found on p.104 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1]
Further, CARB staff recommends utilizing existing standardized data stream parameters or developing
new ones that characterize regeneration frequency on in-use engines (e.g., average regeneration
frequency as a function of integrated fuel consumed, integrated work, positive kinetic energy) to
complement analysis and conclusions made at the time of certification. For example, 2013 and newer
MY diesel vehicles support in-use regeneration information through scan tool output. Vehicles using the
SAE Standard J1939 protocol must support either SPN 5827 - 'Aftertreatment 1 Average Distance
Between Active DPF Regenerations', or SPN 5454 - 'Aftertreatment 1 Diesel Particulate Filter Average
Time Between Active Regenerations.' Vehicles using the SAE Standard J1979 protocol must support
PID $8B which includes both 'average time between regens' and 'average distance between regens.'
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 105]
-------
Using these in-use data, a manufacturer can calculate an in-use regeneration frequency. Also, U.S. EPA
and NHTSA can use these data for verification and compliance of the manufacturer's reported
regeneration adjustment factors. The example below shows how the in-use data might be used to
confirm reported adjustment factors: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 105]
F = distance to complete Regen/distance to complete Regen+ avg. dist. between Regens
A similar equation can be developed using a time basis:
F = time to complete Regen/time to complete Regen+ avg. time between Regens
In closing, CARB staff strongly suggests that U.S. EPA and NHTSA revise the IRAF calculation
methodology to accurately account for infrequent regeneration emissions on both FTP and SET test
cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A 1 p. 105]
Response:
EPA recognizes the engine and vehicle industry associations' affirmation of the proposed regulatory
changes. We are finalizing these provisions as proposed.
We specifically amended the regulation to move away from the weighting factors from the 2006
guidance documents. The unified approach to infrequent regeneration adopted in this rule allows for a
technically robust method of accounting for upward and downward adjustment factors that applies
broadly to the various engine sectors.
The IRAF procedure as outlined in §1065.680, does not contain any discounting as described by ARB in
their comments. Specifically ARB references specific discounting of the regeneration frequency, or F,
for both the FTP and SET. §1065.680 does not discount F, nor does it give any specific information for
the FTP. All examples given are for the RMC (or SET). It is possible that ARB has confused their
comments on §1065.680 with concerns over what is contained in the EPA IRAF guidance document
CISD-06-22 HD-HWY. §1065.680 is an attempt to move away from CISD-06-22 HD-HWY and make
improvements where applicable. Further, EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to develop a
composite regeneration frequency, F, because emissions from IRAF are accounted for on a duty-cycle
specific basis and as such, it is appropriate to utilize an F developed for each specific duty-cycle.
Use of actual in-use data is allowed, but not required for generating F. F can be generated based solely
on laboratory data. It is not clear to EPA how the use of OBD monitoring would make F any more
accurate. If you have OBD data for a given engine family from 10 different vehicles and F is not timer-
based, that does not make F more accurate. After all, the duty cycle of the 10 vehicles from which the
data was acquired is not guaranteed to represent the entire fleet of vehicles that the engine family is
installed in. Therefore, EPA will continue to allow laboratory-generated values for F.
14.4.7 Additional Test Procedure Amendments
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers
b. Comments on additional test procedure amendments to Part 1065 and Part 1066
The Automakers do not support the proposed change to 1065.15(a)(2)(h) - Allowance to report NMOG
instead of NMHC ~ as written. Rather than making this change for all fuels, we recommend that it not
-------
be applicable to diesel fuels. Applying this change to diesel fuels would necessitate significant and
costly changes to test equipment and procedures to test diesel vehicles by requiring off-line chemical lab
speciation of exhaust. Such a change is not needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 10]
Response: EPA will remove the changes proposed in the NPRM. We have replaced this with
an allowance for engine manufacturers to subtract ethane from measured hydrocarbon to
demonstrate compliance with standards, as described below.
In the NPRM, at 80 FR 40534, the EPA proposes changes to Part 1065 and Part 1066. Specifically, EPA
proposes the following changes:
• § 1066.210: Revise the dynamometer force equation to incorporate grade, consistent with the
coastdown procedures being proposed for heavy-duty vehicles. For operation at a level grade, the
additional parameters cancel out of the calculation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 10]
Response: See detailed response below.
• § 1066.605: Adding an equation to the regulations to spell out how to calculate emission rates in grams
per mile. This calculation is generally assumed, but we want to include the equation to remove any
uncertainty about calculating emission rates from mass emission measurements and driving distance.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271 -A 1 p. 10]
Response: We have added this equation to 40 CFR 1066.605.
• § 1066.815: Create an exception to the maximum value for overall residence time for PM sampling
methods that involve PM samples collected for combined bags over a duty cycle. This is needed to
accommodate the reduced sample flow rates associated with these procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1271-A1 p. 10]
Response: EPA has made changes to 40 CFR 1066.110 and 40 CFR 1066.815 that will allow a
maximum filter face velocity of 140 cm/s. For single filter per test sampling, flow weighting
would be based off of the maximum filter face velocity of 140 cm/s. EPA will note that a
maximum of 100 cm/s is recommended, but 140 cm/s is allowed to increase the filter loading to
reduce variability. The results of Phase 1 of the CRC E-99 test program, which investigated and
compared sampling at up to 150 cm/s to 100 cm/s, were the basis for EPA's decision.
We do not support the proposed change to 1066.210 - New calculation on road grade ~ since the change
would be confUsing and unnecessary for LD: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 10]
1) The Preamble states this is for HD only (Part 1037), yet this section does not differentiate
applicability and appears to apply to LD as well. This needs to be clarified and the previous equation
retained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 11]
2) In SAE J2263, if the grade is less than 0.5%, there is no grade correction required (Section 7.4).
However, if the grade is known, J2263 does provide a grade correction (Section 11.5). Regulations
should follow this technique. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 11]
3) "Gi = instantaneous road grade, in percent (increase in elevation per 100 units horizontal length)" ~
This provision requires (implies) some type of on the road measurement of elevation. It is not clear what
-------
type of equipment would be used to provide instantaneous mapping with accuracy, and whether such
equipment is widely available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 11]
Response: Equation 1066.210 describes the forces acting on the vehicle during normal driving.
This equation is a general example and the addition of the road grade element does not imply
that you need to address road grade forces unless the duty cycles in the standard-setting part
include road grade. Part 1066 is applicable to both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. Since
road grade is an element of heavy-duty testing, it needs to be added to this general equation.
EPA has revised the equation to simplify the change and has provided direction in the
description to Gi that directs you to set it equal to zero if your duty cycle does not include road
grade. The reference made to J2263 is not germane as 1066.210 does not deal with coastdowns
or grade correction.
We support the proposed changes to 1066.605 and 1066.815. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A 1
p.ll]
We recommend adding a provision in §1066.815(b), to allow a time-weighted average of PM filter face
velocity of 100 cm/s, when using single filter measurement technology as described in (b)(4)& (b)(5).
Currently, 1065.170(c)(l)(vi) has a maximum filter face velocity of 100 cm/s. However, the weighting
factors used in (b)(4) & (b)(5) reduce the loading on the filter. Allowing a time-weighted average filter
face velocity of 100 cm/s greatly improves filter loading and is similar loading of 3 or 4 filter PM
techniques. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p.ll]
Specifically, we recommend that this provision be added at the end of § 1066.815(b): "If you collect PM
using the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(4) or (b)(5) of this section, the residence time
requirements in 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(3) apply, except that you may exceed an overall residence time of
5.5 s for sample flow rates below the highest expected flow rate." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1
p.ll]
Response: EPA has made changes to 40 CFR 1066.110 and 40 CFR 1066.815 that will allow a
maximum filter face velocity of 140 cm/s. For single filter per test sampling, flow weighting
would be based off of the maximum filter face velocity of 140 cm/s. EPA will note that a
maximum of 100 cm/s is recommended, but 140 cm/s is allowed to increase the filter loading to
reduce variability. The results of Phase 1 of the CRC E-99 test program, which investigated and
compared sampling at up to 150 cm/s to 100 cm/s, were the basis for EPA's decision.
b. Flexibility for PM blank testing
We appreciate the agencies' flexibility in the current Part 1066 test procedures in running PM blank
tests, and allowing averaging of results. However 1066 implies that a separate PM blank emissions test
needs to be performed, which is very burdensome, and unwarranted. This PM blank testing could be
combined with another diagnostic: propane injections. Performing these two diagnostics together
dramatically reduces the time required, yet achieves similar results. However, Part 1066 has one clause
(below) which prevents this if an OEM injects propane in the transfer tube, which checks for leaks
throughout the entire sampling system, and is more representative of the real vehicle testing
environment. Concerns with allowing this dual diagnostic should be minimal, since these blank test
corrections are typically a small fraction of the standard, and the amount of PM correction is capped in
1066.110(b)(2)(i)(D) ("Your PM background correction may not exceed 5 |ig or 5% of the net PM mass
expected at the standard, whichever is greater."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 13-14]
-------
We therefore recommend the following change:
§1066.110 Equipment specifications for emission sampling systems. (b)(2)(i)(B) You may sample
background PM from the dilution tunnel at any time before or after an emission test using the same
sampling system used during the emission test. For this background sampling, the dilution tunnel blower
must be turned on, the vehicle must be disconnected from the laboratory exhaust tubing, and the
laboratory exhaust tubing must be capped. You may run this PM blank test in combination with propane
injection diagnostic." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 14]
Response: EPA test data shows that the propane injection has no effect on the PM tunnel blank
results when the tailpipe connection point is HEPA filtered. Our data also shows that if the
tailpipe connection point is left open to room air unfiltered, the PM background mass can be
biased 1 to 1.5 ug high. Based on these results, EPA will make a change to 1066.110 that
allows simultaneous PM background measurement and propane injections as long as the tailpipe
connection point is HEPA filtered.
c. Comments with regard to requests for additional clarification
1) Comments on clarification of records retention policies: There continues to be confusing and
conflicting language in multiple parts and subparts of the regulations. This needs further clarification
with regard to emissions test records so that OEMs have a clear understanding of what needs long-term
storage. This data is not all electronic today, nor is it in a common electronic format. Retaining large
amounts of supporting, primitive data is burdensome and of little value. The Automakers would like to
discuss whether requirements could be clarified and focused on critical data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1271-A1 p. 14]
Response: The commenter did not raise and specific concerns about confusing or conflicting
requirements, so we are unable to address that concern. Moreover, we believe the current
records retention policy is clear and adequate. We also continue to expect that paper (primitive)
records have become uncommon and will only become less common over time. We therefore
believe it is appropriate to adopt the simplified eight-year recordkeeping requirement as
proposed. The recent enforcement case regarding Volkswagen reinforces the need to keep
certification-related records for several years.
2) §1065.590 PM sampling media (e.g., filters) preconditioning and tare weighing. "0 Substitution
weighing involves measurement of a reference weight before and after each weighing of PM sampling
media (e.g., filters)." Comment: The regulatory language appears to allow multiple filter mass
measurements between pre & post reference filter mass measurements. The sentence in 0 could be
clearer by deleting "each" or modifying to "each or multiple." Doing this substitution weighing before
and after "each" filter is very burdensome and unwarranted; manufacturers should be allowed to run a
reasonable amount of multiple filters bookended by substitution mass measurements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1271-A1 p. 14]
Response: The substitution weighing procedure in 1065.5900 is optional. 1065.590(f)(2)
clearly states that you may use the procedure in (j) or develop your own procedure. EPA has no
intentions to revise the procedure in paragraph (j) as a whole. If manufacturers desire to make
changes to the procedure in (j), they are allowed to as described in (f)(2).
EPA notes that the procedure in paragraph 0 reads as though it covers a single filter medium,
with the exception of the mention of media in the introductory paragraph to (j). To avoid
-------
confusion, EPA will make the mention of media singular by changing it to medium.
Manufacturers are still free to modify the procedure in (j) via (f)(2) to allow its use over
groupings of sample media at their own discretion.
3) 1065.341(c)(3) "Select a C3H8 injection port in the CVS. Select the port location to be as close as
practical to the location where you introduce engine exhaust into the CVS. Connect the C3H8 cylinder
to the injection system." Comment: The regulatory language should be clarified that this section also
allows the option for propane injection in the transfer tube as well. This allows (1) leak checking the
entire sampling system from the point where exhaust gas is injected into the transfer tube; (2) supporting
The Automakers request to simultaneously run PM blank tests / propane injection diagnostics; and (3)
allowing propane leak checking of partial dilution systems like PM or gaseous emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1271 -A 1 p. 14-15]
Response: EPA has addressed the comment by revising 1065.341(c)(3) to read as follows:
(3) Select a C3H8 injection port in the CVS. Select the port location to be as close as practical
to the location where you introduce engine exhaust into the CVS, however you may include part
of the laboratory exhaust tubing and locate the injection port in this tubing. Connect the C3H8
cylinder to the injection system.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Additional Test Procedure Amendments - The agencies propose to allow NMOG measurements to
demonstrate compliance with NMHC standards, and the agencies request comment on whether other
forms of hydrocarbon standards (such as VOC) should be allowed for alternative fuels. This seems
reasonable. 80 FR 40534. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.30]
EPA subsequently prepared revised draft regulations to address manufacturers' concern that ethane
emissions from natural gas engines was making it hard to meet standards, even though ethane is
generally nonreactive in the atmosphere. This non-reactivity also makes it hard to reduce ethane
emissions with conventional aftertreatment technology.
California ARB objected to the suggestion that we should redefine NMHC standards to exclude ethane
without accounting for the change in the standard, arguing that this would allow manufacturers to dial in
a higher level of toxic hydrocarbon emissions while continuing to comply with the standard.
Response:
EPA's stationary program has long excluded ethane from hydrocarbon (VOC) emission standards.
California ARB's emission standards for highway and nonroad engines applies reactivity adjustments to
reduce the ethane emissions by 72 percent. In line with these programs and policies, we believe it is
appropriate to allow manufacturers to subtract ethane emissions from their measured hydrocarbon
results. This is especially the case for engines fueled by natural gas and LPG, where fuel ethane can be
substantial. Gasoline and diesel fuel contain no ethane, so there is no comparable concern for ethane to
make it through the combustion process unoxidized and be emitted into the atmosphere.
We are applying this conclusion to heavy-duty highway engines and all sectors of nonroad compression-
ignition engines that are fueled with natural gas and LPG. The one exception is for Category 3 marine
compression-ignition engines, which are subject to a hydrocarbon standard of 2 g/kW-hr. The ethane
provision is only needed where the emission standard is at a very low level. A standard of 0.19 g/kW-hr
is typical for the other types of compression-ignition engines.
-------
We believe manufacturers have no incentive to dial in a higher hydrocarbon emission level to account
for the subtracted ethane. Even if they do, the resulting increase of perhaps 0.03 g/kW-hr from the small
number of natural gas and LPG engines would be miniscule.
14.4.8 Amendments Related to Nonroad Diesel Engines in 40 CFR Part 1039 1939
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Comments on the Proposed Technical Amendments to Part 1039
The current provisions of section 1039.135(d)(1) state as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.78]
(d) You may add information to the emission control information label to identify other
emission standards that the engine meets or does not meet (such as European standards). You
may also add other information to ensure that the engine will be properly maintained and used.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.78]
EPA is proposing to amend that regulatory language in the following manner: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.78]
(d) You may add information to the emission control information label as follows: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A 1 p.78]
(1) If your emission control information label includes all the information described in
paragraphs (c)(5) through (10) of this section, you may identify other emission standards that
the engine meets or does not meet (such as international standards). You may include this
information by adding it to the statement we specify or by including a separate statement. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.78]
(2) You may add other information to ensure that the engine will be properly maintained and
used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.78]
(3) You may add appropriate features to prevent counterfeit labels. For example, you may
include the engine's unique identification number on the label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.78]
EMA believes that finding space for the items required to be on the emission control information label
has always been challenging. In that regard, adding information about which other emission standards
the engine meets, such as ." .and California" or ." .and European Union Stage XX" can be very
important to those who read the emission control information label, including Customs Inspectors.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p.78]
The information required in 1039.135 (c)(5) through (10) requires a significant amount of space on the
emission control information label and is considered to be of lesser importance. In addition, much of
that information can easily be found elsewhere, as the regulatory language quoted below indicates.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A 1 p.79]
-------
(5) State the engine's displacement (in liters); however, you may omit this from the label if all
the engines in the engine family have the same per-cyUnder displacement and total
displacement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.79]
(6) State the date of manufacture [DAY (optional), MONTH, and YEAR]; however, you may
omit this from the label if you stamp, engrave, or otherwise permanently identify it elsewhere
on the engine, in which case you must also describe in your application for certification where
you will identify the date on the engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.79]
(7) State the FELs to which the engines are certified if certification depends on the ABT
provisions of subpart H of this part. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.79]
(8) Identify the emission-control system. Use terms and abbreviations as described in 40 CFR
1068.45. You may omit this information from the label if there is not enough room for it and
you put it in the owners manual instead. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.79]
(9) For diesel-fueled engines, unless otherwise specified in §1039.104(e)(2), state: "ULTRA
LOW SULFUR FUEL ONLY'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.79]
(10) Identify any additional requirements for fuel and lubricants that do not involve fuel-sulfur
levels. You may omit this information from the label if there is not enough room for it and you
put it in the owners manual instead. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.79]
The information required by paragraph (c)(8) can take up an especially large amount of space on the
emission control information label, and provides little value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.79]
In light of the foregoing, EMA recommends deleting the opening clause of paragraph (d)(1) so that it
reads as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.79]
(1) You may identify other emission standards that the engine meets or does not meet (such as
international standards). You may include this information by adding it to the statement we
specify or by including a separate statement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.79]
If the Agency feels strongly that information about other standards that the engine meets cannot be
added unless information that was omitted based on limited availability of space on the emission control
information label is added back, then EMA recommends that only the information required in
subparagraphs (c)(5) through (c)(7) and (c)(9) through (c)(10) be required to be added back. As
mentioned above, the information required by subparagraph (c)(8) consumes a significant amount of
space and is of very limited value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.79]
The other change to this section is the addition of a provision which would allow a manufacturer to add
features to the label to prevent counterfeit labels (paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed language). EMA
agrees with that proposed change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.80]
Response: We agree with the concern and have revised the regulation to allow manufacturers
to omit the specified information "as long as this does not cause you to omit" the other
information.
-------
EPA also proposes to add a provision to 40 CFR 1039.205 that would require manufacturers to describe
their "normal practice" for importing engines. By way of example, EPA states that this description may
include identifying the names and addresses of any agents that a manufacturer authorized to import its
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.80]
This proposed provision is problematic. The vast majority of manufacturers of engines and equipment
used in construction, agricultural and industrial markets are multi-national. For a wide variety of
reasons, the nonroad engines and equipment they produce are often manufactured in only a few
locations around the world, and then shipped to end-user customers in nearly every country and region
of the world. As a consequence, a large percentage of manufacturers' nonroad engines and equipment is
shipped around the world, and many are "imported" into the United States. Describing the "normal
practice" for importing all of those engines (both loose engines and those installed in equipment) would
result in a tremendous burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.80]
In the Preamble to the NPRM, the Agency states that "where a manufacturer's engines are imported
through a wide variety of means, EPA would not require this description to be comprehensive." EPA
goes on to state that "in such cases, a short description of the predominant practices would generally be
sufficient." This additional explanation of what is required of manufacturers provides much needed
relief. Accordingly, EMA recommends that EPA include those explanatory statements in the Preamble
to the final Phase 2 Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.80]
Response: As noted, in cases where an engine manufacturer ships loose engines to equipment
manufacturers for eventual importation into the United States, we would understand that
manufacturers would not need to account for all the different ways that their engines might be
imported. The regulation requires that engine manufacturers describe their "normal practice for
importing engines," with the clarification that this may involve naming agents for importation.
For engine manufacturers that sell loose engines to a wide range of equipment manufacturers,
the manufacturer could fulfill the requirement by describing its business model and perhaps
identifying the equipment manufacturers that are expected to import the highest volume of
equipment with that engine manufacturer's engines.
EPA is proposing to make the same revisions to the opening paragraph of §1039.225 as the Agency is
proposing to make to the opening paragraph of §1033.225, as discussed above. EMA's comments and
recommendation regarding these proposed changes are largely the same. The specific wording of the
proposed revision is as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.80]
§1039.225 How do I amend my application for certification? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.80]
Before we issue you a certificate of conformity, you may amend your application to include
new or modified engine configurations, subject to the provisions of this section. After we have
issued your certificate of conformity, but before the end of the model year, you may send us an
amended application requesting that we include new or modified engine configurations within
the scope of the certificate, subject to the provisions of this section. Before the end of the model
year, vou must amend your application if any changes occur with respect to any information
that is included or should be included in your application. After the end of the model year, vou
may amend your application only to update maintenance instructions as described in § 1039.220
or to modifV an FEL as described in paragraph (f) of this section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.80]
-------
As with the proposed revisions to section 1033.225, the proposed changes to section 1039.225 are
unacceptable. In the Preamble explanation for these changes, the Agency again states that the changes at
issue are simply 'clarifications' of the existing language. The proposed changes, however, go well
beyond being 'clarifications' and represent significant modifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.80-81]
As noted above, the ability to add a new engine configuration and/or amend an existing engine
configuration is critical to engine manufacturers and the customers they serve, both during the model
year and afterwards. In some cases a change may be needed to make product improvements and/or
correct unanticipated product issues. In other cases, new ratings may be required to meet customer
needs to enable pieces of equipment powered by the subject engines to perform their intended functions.
As some of those changes may be needed to maintain emissions compliance, or to correct emissions-
related issues discovered during the course of business, it is in the Agency's best interest to continue to
allow manufacturers the opportunity to request to make such changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.81]
In that regard, it is important to note that such application changes must be submitted to the Agency, and
are subject to Agency approval. Consequently, if EPA has an issue with a requested new engine
configuration or with a requested amendment to an existing engine configuration, the Agency can
address that issue during their review process, and so does not need the proposed revision at issue.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 81 ]
Accordingly, and as with respect to the proposed revisions to section 1033.225, EMA recommends that
EPA retain the current language of the opening paragraph of section 1039.225, and not finalize the
proposed changes to this paragraph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.81]
Response: We agree that the proposed change to the regulation would conflict with EPA's
longstanding policy on field fixes. We are removing this proposed change and replacing it with a new
paragraph that translates the field-fix guidance into regulation. The expectation is that this regulation
codifies the field-fix guidance without changing current policy. The new regulation language reads as
follows:
"You may produce engines as described in your amended application for certification and
consider those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine
configuration during the model year under paragraph (d) of this section. Similarly, you may
modify in-use engines as described in your amended application for certification and consider
those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine
configuration at any time under paragraph (d) of this section. Modifying a new or in-use engine
to be in a certified configuration does not violate the tampering prohibition of 40 CFR
1068.101(b)(1)."
We are adopting this change for all heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles and for all nonroad
compression-ignition engines. We also expect to add this same paragraph for nonroad spark-ignition
engines and vehicles in due course.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Part 1039 - We accept all changes proposed by the agencies on Part 1039. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1164-A1 p.121]
-------
Amendments Related to Non-road Diesel Engines in 40 CFR Part 1039 - The EPA requested
comment on adding SCR diagnostic requirements to nonroad diesel engines. 80 FR 40534. DTNA's
Tier IV engines already comply, so we agree with the EPA's proposal. 40 CFR Part 1039. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p. 132]
Amendments Related to Non-road Diesel Engines in 40 CFR Part 1039 - The EPA requested
comment on removing regulatory provisions for Independent Commercial Importers in 40 CFR Part
1039. We think that these rules are obsolete, so we agree with removing them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1164-A1 p. 132]
Response:
We are adopting the provisions as proposed and as supported by the commenter.
Organization: Volvo Group
REVISIONS TO NONROAD EMISSIONS CONTROL PROVISIONS
Currently, an imported engine manufacturer is permitted to run Selective Enforcement Audit testing at
or near their manufacturing location, typically using their engine certification facility. Foreign
manufacturers should not be required to provide an additional SEA test site in the United States. The
phrase, "in the United States," should be removed from the proposed change to §1039.205 since it
unfairly burdens foreign engine manufacturers with maintaining expensive §1065 compliant test cell
capacity in addition to their existing Certification Test Cell capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-
A1 p.81]
Response:
It has been EPA's longstanding policy that manufacturers must perform testing at the facility identified
by EPA. This may be the manufacturer's own facility, but it may be any other test facility. The
provision requiring the manufacturer to identify a test lab in the United States is simply arranging for an
easier path to identify a mutually agreeable test facility if we would want to require testing in the United
States. The manufacturer can choose to name a reputable third-party test lab instead of developing
complete testing capability in the United States.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Recording reductant use and other diagnostic functions
CARB staff conceptually supports U.S. EPA and NHTSA's proposal requiring non-road compression
ignition engine manufacturers to incorporate OBD that monitor selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
reductant levels and quality, and alert the equipment operator when those levels and quality are out of
specification. Advanced notification of compromised or low levels of reductant will help to ensure
proper SCR operation in-use, and should help minimize occurrences of the engine entering a derated
mode of operation per existing SCR inducement strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.125]
-------
CARB staff understands that this proposal is not meant to replace SCR inducement policies, but rather
to complement them with additional detection capability in an uncomplicated manner. While we
generally prefer simple and straightforward approaches as well, diagnostics need the proper balance
between simplicity and utility. As such, CARB staff recommends that extra rigor be introduced in 40
CFR 1039.110 to enhance monitoring effectiveness and compatibility. CARB's "On-Board Diagnostic
System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines" in Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1971.1, contain reductant level/quality monitoring
provisions that could serve as guidelines for a more robust federal mechanism. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 125]
At a minimum, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA adopt standardized fault codes
(e.g., SAE Standard J1939 or controller area network (CAN) based), monitoring conditions, malfunction
criteria, and fault processing protocols to ensure reasonable and reliable diagnostic system monitoring
frequency and malfunction detection performance. Precautions such as these will help ensure that issues
related to reductant quality and replenishment are detected and addressed in a timely manner, and will
undoubtedly prove useful should matters of in-use compliance and enforcement come into question. For
example, there are no timeframes for detection specified in the proposed language; therefore, a
manufacturer could theoretically only monitor once per month (or even less frequently) rendering the
diagnostic virtually useless. Therefore, we recommend U.S. EPA and NHTSA to clearly define a
minimum performance metric such that the monitoring strategy provides detection capability several
times per tank fill of reductant, or continuously for the parts of the diagnostic that rely on electrical
continuity or out of range type checking. Standardization may also create opportunities for innovative
control approaches by third party developers who might otherwise not have access to proprietary
diagnostics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 125-126]
Additionally, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA revise the reductant quality
monitoring exemption in 40 CFR 1039.110(a) for vehicles that already possess a diagnostic NOx sensor.
The problem with the provision is that it requires a NOx sensor to be present with the capability to
monitor reductant quality, but does not necessarily require the sensor to monitor reductant quality in any
meaningful way. We recommend that a qualifying statement be appended to the language to address this
limitation (see underscored text in paragraph (a) of CARB staff s revised regulatory text below). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 126]
CARB staff also recommends the same degree of standardization and robustness mentioned above for
any emission-related diagnostic strategy employed per the provisions of 40 CFR 1039.110(b). Taking
the time to standardize diagnostic practices now will save valuable resources in the future when more
comprehensive OBD requirements are adopted for the non-road compression ignition category. For
reference, 40 CFR 1039.110(b) contains the following language: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p. 126]
"§1039.110 Recording reductant use and other diagnostic functions.
(a) Engines equipped with SCR systems using a reductant other than the engine's fuel must have
a diagnostic system that monitors reductant quality and tank levels and alert operators to the
need to refill the reductant tank before it is empty, or to replace the reductant if it does not meet
your concentration specifications. Unless we approve other alerts, use a warning lamp or an
audible alarm. You do not need to separately monitor reductant quality if you include an
exhaust NOx sensor (or other sensor) that allows you to determine inadequate reductant quality
and alert operators when the condition that is indicative of inadequate reductant quality is
-------
present. However, tank level must be monitored in all cases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-
A1 p. 126]
(b) You may equip your engine with other diagnostic features. If you do, they must be designed
to allow us to read and interpret the codes. Note that § 1039.205 requires you to provide us any
information needed to read, record, and interpret all the information broadcast by an engine's
onboard computers and electronic control units." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 127]
Response: EPA's objective for nonroad OBD systems in this rule is to adopt requirements that
can be adopted with minimal lead time. The most effective way to do this is to copy the OBD
provisions that already apply for marine diesel engines under 40 CFR part 1042. We intend to
revisit issues related to CARB's suggested enhancements to the proposed OBD protocol in a
future rulemaking. This will allow us to take a broader view of the requirements to make sure
we capture the range of concerns for designing OBD systems that are robust and effective,
without creating an unreasonable burden or failing to account for possible technical limitations.
We would expect to include marine diesel engines in that program review.
We have revised the regulatory text related to NOx sensors as an alternative to DEF
concentration monitoring since that clarification is clearly understood to be part of this
alternative compliance path. We have made the change for both land-based engines in 40 CFR
1039.110 and marine diesel engines in 1042.110.
Neutral/Provide Additional Information Comment
Comment - Allowing optional content on the emission control label for non-road compression
ignition engines
Although CARB staff recognizes that this particular provision merely allows manufacturers to
incorporate features on the label that can be used to identify counterfeit labels (which CARB staff
supports in principle), CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA include a provision
requiring the case-by-case approval of all manufacturer specific content on the label or any content not
specifically identified in the regulations, prior to issuing a Certificate of Conformity. U.S. EPA and
NHTSA should retain the right to reject any content that could have unintended consequences regardless
of whether or not that content meets the general criteria for the optional label content. In particular, staff
is concerned that too much information on the label could be a source of confusion to the end user or to
enforcement inspectors in the field. For example, a manufacturer might want to use the labelling
provisions of 40 CFR 1039.135(d)(1) to identify an ABT engine, that was originally certified to a family
emission limit (FEL) consistent with Tier 3 emission levels, as being compliant with the more stringent
Tier 4 emission levels. While this identification may not be inaccurate, it could create a situation for
California's in-use programs in which fleet owners mistakenly purchase these ABT engines believing
that they fulfill the owners' requirements for upgrading the "emissions average" of their fleets. Such a
situation could negatively impact both the effectiveness of CARB's in-use programs and the fleet
owners' costs should penalties be assessed. Other situations could be problematic, such as the inclusion
of bar codes or Quick Response® (QR) type matrix codes on the emission control label that would
redirect to a manufacturer supported webpage over which U.S. EPA and NHTSA have no control, or
which a manufacturer may decide to no longer support at a future date. CARB staff does not have a
comparable allowance for optional label content for off-road compression ignition engines, as the CAA
prohibits California from regulating farm and construction equipment under 175 hp; therefore, we must
rely on U.S. EPA and NHTSA to protect California's interests in this matter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p. 127-128]
-------
Response: EPA considers manufacturer's proposed label content as part of the review of an application
for certification. We intend to be mindful of the concern expressed by California ARB as part of that
review process.
14.4.9 Amendments Related to Marine Diesel Engines in 40 CFR part 1042 and
1043 1946
Organization: GE Transportation
As a general matter, GE supports the proposed technical changes and clarifications to 40 CFR part 1042.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.l]
Second, as discussed below, GE believes that it is critical for EPA to also apply these technical changes
and clarifications to the marine testing requirements in 40 CFR part 1042. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1297-A1 p.l]
II. APPLICATION OF TESTING CLARIFICATIONS TO MARINE AND STATIONARY
ENGINES IN 40 C.F.R. PART 1042
The same reasons that support the clarification of the proportionality verification for locomotives apply
equally to marine and stationary engines. Accordingly, EPA should apply these same clarifications and
regulatory language changes (subject to the requested changes noted above) to the testing requirements
for marine and stationary engines defined in 40 C.F.R Part 1042. The steady state discrete mode testing
procedure for marine and stationary engines contains the same technical issues relating to the
verification of proportional sampling when utilizing batch fuel rate measurements that are resolved for
locomotive testing by the proposed § 1033.501(a)(4) and (a)(5). These issues will be resolved for testing
of marine and stationary engines if provisions similar to the proposed § 1033.501(a)(4) and (a)(5) are
incorporated into Part 1042. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.3]
A. Clarifications in 40 CFR part 1042 Consistent with 40 CFR 1033.501(a)(4) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1297-A1 p.3]
The proposed Technical Amendment contains no provisions in 40 CFR part 1042, subpart F to
accommodate proportional sampling verification when using a batch fuel rate, similar to the amendment
of § 1033.501(a)(4) for steady state discrete mode testing. Use of a gravimetric measurement to
determine a batch fuel rate for steady state discrete mode testing is the standard by which EPA verifies
all other fuel flow meters as provided in § 1065.307(d)(4). It is requested that 40 CFR part 1042
incorporate similar language to § 1033.501(a)(4). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.3]
B. Inclusion in 40 CFR part 1042 consistent with 40 CFR 1033.501(a)(5) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1297-A1 p.3]
GE requests a similar allowance in 40 CFR part 1042 for verification of proportional sampling over
grouped test intervals instead of each discrete interval for testing of marine and stationary engines. This
ensures consistent test equipment, processes and verification practices between test facilities regardless
of the equipment under test (i.e., locomotives, marine engines, or stationary engines). Moreover, it
ensures the same metric and degree of proportional sampling in all engine programs irrespective of
engine application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.3]
-------
Response: EPA will make the requested changes to 40 CFR part 1042 that are similar to those made in
40 CFR part 1033 and has modified 40 CFR 1042.501(a) by adding four additional subparagraphs to
address the concerns over proportional sampling verification for steady-state discrete mode testing.
Organization: Navy
Our enclosed comments request that EPA consider a revision to the National Security Exemption (NSE)
language in its diesel engine regulations to add an exemption for engines used in tactical equipment,
vehicles, and vessels required to operate on high sulfur fuels to meet performance requirements in a
worldwide deployable environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1137-A1 p.l]
Request for Modification to National Security Exemption Language in EPA Engine Regulations
Comment - The Department of Defense (DoD) must deploy and operate weapon systems around the
world. The sulfur content in fuel supplies varies greatly at different deployment sites. Accordingly, DoD
weapon systems must be able to operate with a wide range of sulfur contents. Current and future
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compression ignition engine emission standards employ
pollution prevention technologies that are intolerant to high levels of sulfur. If operated using high
sulfur fuels, these engines suffer power degradation and engine failure. In an operational or tactical
environment, engine degradation and failure jeopardizes warfighters' lives and national security. CAA
Section 203(b) provides EPA the authority to exempt these engines for reasons of national security.
Accordingly, DoD requests that EPA grant system-specific National Security Exemptions (NSEs) and
Blanket NSEs for DoD tactical equipment required to operate on high sulfur fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1137-A1 p.3]
Discussion - EPA has approved all of the DoD's NSE requests, including Blanket NSEs, exempting all
tactical equipment from current non-road EPA emissions standards and tactical vehicles from current
motor vehicle EPA emissions standards. EPA has stated that they thoroughly understand this rationale
and plan to continue to approve all of the DoD's NSE requests for DoD tactical equipment and vehicles
to operate on high sulfur fuel. Continuing to require submittal of NSE requests to the EPA for approval
with this rationale as justification will result in additional time and expense to the taxpayer with no
benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1137-A1 p.3]
Recommendation - DoD requests EPA revise the following sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to add the requirement to operate on high sulfur fuels as a basis for an exemption
from these regulations for purposes of national security. Therefore, no exemption request or approval
will be necessary. This change will save considerable time and expense to both the EPA and DoD by
eliminating unnecessary paperwork and management of these NSEs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1137-
Alp.3]
§1042.635 National security exemption.
The standards and requirements of this part and prohibitions in § 1068.101(a)(1) do not apply to engines
exempted under this section.
(a) An engine is exempt without a request if it will be used or owned by an agency of the Federal
government responsible for national defense, where the vessel in which it is installed has armor,
permanently attached weaponry, specialized electronic warfare systems, unique stealth performance
requirements, or unique combat maneuverability requirements, and/or installed in an auxiliary vessel
that has the requirement to operate on high-sulfur fuels (greater than 15 parts per million) to meet
performance requirements in a worldwide deplovable environment. This applies to both remanufactured
and freshly manufactured marine engines. Gas turbine engines are also exempt without a request if they
-------
will be owned by an agency of the Federal government responsible for national defense. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1137-A1 p.3-4]
Response: We agree with Navy that an automatic exemption is appropriate in cases where a defense
agency would be operating (noncombat) compression-ignition engines in areas where ULSD may not be
available. We believe the suggested language could be understood to broadly apply to all engines
operated by defense agencies. We have adopted a provision tailored to the concern, as follows: "An
engine/equipment is automatically exempt if it would need sulfur-sensitive technology to comply with
emission standards, and it is intended to be used in areas outside the United States where ultra-low-
sulfur fuel is unavailable." This would not apply for compression-ignition engines that don't have
sulfur-sensitive technologies, and it would not apply for engines that can be expected to have access to
ULSD.
In addressing the Navy comment, it became clear that we should draft a single, comprehensive national
security exemption in §1068.225 rather than keeping a separate national security exemption for marine
engines. The expanded version of §1068.225 includes minor changes. First, we more carefully identify
how combat features apply in the context of equipment-based standards. Second, we are making explicit
the allowance for engine manufacturers to produce and ship engines that qualify for the exemption.
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Comments on the Proposed Technical Amendments to Part 1042
As discussed above in connection with section 1039.135(c) and (d), the information required in
1042.135 (c)(5) through (9) requires a significant amount of space on the emission control information
label and is considered to be of lesser importance. In addition, much of that information can easily be
found elsewhere, as the language below indicates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.82]
(5) State the date of manufacture [DAY (optional), MONTH, and YEAR]; however, you may
omit this from the label if you stamp, engrave, or otherwise permanently identify it elsewhere
on the engine, in which case you must also describe in your application for certification where
you will identify the date on the engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.82]
(6) Identify the application(s) for which the engine family is certified (such as constant-speed
auxiliary, variable-speed propulsion engines used with fixed-pitch propellers, etc.). If the engine
is certified as a recreational engine, state: "INSTALLING THIS RECREATIONAL ENGINE
IN A COMMERCIAL VESSEL OR USING THE VESSEL FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
MAY VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY (40 CFR 1042.601)."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.82]
(7) For engines using sulfur-sensitive technologies, state: "ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL
FUEL ONLY." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.82]
(8) State the useful life for your engine family if the applicable useful life is based on the
provisions of§ 1042.101(e)(2) or (3), or § 1042.104(d)(2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.82]
(9) Identify the emission control system. Use terms and abbreviations as described in 40 CFR
1068.45. You may omit this information from the label if there is not enough room for it and
you put it in the owners manual instead. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.82]
-------
The information required by paragraph (c)(9) can claim an especially large amount of space on the
emission control information label, and provides little value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.82]
In light of the foregoing, EMA requests that EPA not change the current language of paragraph
1042.135(d)(1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.82]
If the Agency feels strongly that information about the other standards that the engine meets cannot be
added unless the information that was omitted based on the limited availability of space on the emission
control information label is added back, then EMA recommends that only the information required in
subparagraphs (c)(5) through (c)(8) be required to be added back. As mentioned above, the information
required by subparagraph (c)(9) consumes a great deal of space and is of very limited value. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.83]
The other proposed change to this section is the addition of a provision which would allow a
manufacturer to add features to the label to prevent counterfeit labels (paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed
language). As noted above, EMA agrees with this change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.83]
Response: We agree with the comment and have revised the regulation as described in Section
14.4.8.
EPA is proposing to make the same changes to the opening paragraph of §1042.225 as the Agency is
proposing to make to the opening paragraphs of §1033.225 and §1039.225. EMA's comments and
recommendation regarding these proposed changes are essentially identical to EMA's comments
discussed above. Accordingly, for the same reasons as set forth above, EMA recommends that EPA
retain the current language of the opening paragraph of § 1042.225, and not finalize the proposed
changes to that paragraph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.83]
Response: We agree with the comment and have revised the regulation as described in Section
14.4.8.
EPA also is proposing an amendment to section 1042.515(f)(4)(iii). EPA's proposed technical
amendment to this provision would read, as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.83]
(4) You may exclude emission data based on catalytic Aftertreatment temperatures as follows:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.83]
(i) For an engine equipped with a catalytic NOx aftertreatment system, exclude NOX emission
data that is collected when the exhaust temperature at any time during the NTE event is less
than 250 °C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.84]
(ii) For an engine equipped with an oxidizing catalytic Aftertreatment system, exclude HC and
CO emission data that is collected when the exhaust temperature at any time during the NTE
event is less than 250 °C. Also exclude PM emission data if the applicable PM standard (or
family emission limit) is above 0.06 g/kW-hr. Where there are parallel paths, measure the
temperature 30 cm downstream of the last oxidizing aftertreatment device in the path with the
greatest exhaust flow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.84]
(iii) Measure exhaust temperature within 30 cm downstream of the last applicable catalytic
Aftertreatment device. Where there are parallel paths, use good engineering judgment to
-------
measure the temperature within 30 cm downstream of the last applicable catalytic aftertreatment
device in the path with the greatest exhaust flow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.84]
EMA has concerns regarding this amendment. EPA has inexplicably dropped the current language of
paragraph 1042.515(f)(4)(iii) which reads "Other parameters. You may request our approval for other
minimum or maximum ambient or engine parameter limit values at the time of certification." That
language provides important and needed potential relief and should not be deleted, especially since that
relief is only available upon request, and requires EPA approval. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1
p.84]
Another proposed change to this section is to move the specification of the temperature measurement
point as well as the instructions pertaining to how to deal with the situation of parallel exhaust streams
to a separate paragraph. However, it appears that EPA inadvertently left a portion of those instructions
in revised paragraph (4)(ii). It is redundant and unnecessary to have that instruction in both places.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p. 84]
Accordingly, EMA recommends that EPA modify section 1042.515(f)(4) to read as follows: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.84]
(4) You may exclude emission data based on catalytic Aftertreatment temperatures as follows:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.84]
(i) For an engine equipped with a catalytic NOX aftertreatment system, exclude NOX emission
data that is collected when the exhaust temperature at any time during the NTE event is less
than 250 °C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.84]
(ii) For an engine equipped with an oxidizing catalytic Aftertreatment system, exclude HC and
CO emission data that is collected when the exhaust temperature at any time during the NTE
event is less than 250 °C. Also exclude PM emission data if the applicable PM standard (or
family emission limit) is above 0.06 g/kW-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.84]
(iii) Measure exhaust temperature within 30 cm downstream of the last applicable catalytic
Aftertreatment device. Where there are parallel paths, use good engineering judgment to
measure the temperature within 30 cm downstream of the last applicable catalytic aftertreatment
device in the path with the greatest exhaust flow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.84-85]
(iv) Other parameters. You may request our approval for other minimum or maximum ambient
or engine parameter limit values at the time of certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.85]
Response: EPA has removed the redundant text in 1042.515(f)(4). EPA will not add the EMA
proposed paragraph (iv) as this section deals with aftertreatment exclusions and not exclusions related to
engine temperature. More broadly, we believe there has been enough development and learning for
current aftertreatment technologies to allow us to identify certain exclusions without leaving an
allowance for creating exclusions for additional items or types of operation that have not yet been
identified
14.4.10 Amendments Related to Locomotives in 40 CFR Part 1033
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Comments on the Proposed Technical Amendments to Part 1033
EPA is proposing to make the following amendments to the opening paragraph of section 1033.225:
-------
§1033.225 Amending applications for certification.
Before we issue you a certificate of conformity, you may amend your application to include
new or modified locomotive configurations, subject to the provisions of this section. After we
have issued your certificate of conformity, but before the end of the model year, you may send
us an amended application requesting that we include new or modified locomotive
configurations within the scope of the certificate, subject to the provisions of this section.
Before the end of the model year, vou must also amend your application if any changes occur
with respect to any information that is included or should be included in your application. For
example, you must amend your application if you determine that your actual production
variation for an adjustable parameter exceeds the tolerances specified in your application. After
the end of the model year, vou may amend your application only to update maintenance
instructions as described in § 1033.220 or to modify an FEL as described in paragraph (T) of
this section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.73-74]
As shown in the "track changes" version of the proposed amendment quoted above, EPA is seeking to
modify the existing regulatory language to differentiate the items that a manufacturer can request be
amended within the model year, one the one hand, and those items that a manufacturer can request be
amended only after the end of the model year, on the other hand. In that regard, EPA would continue to
allow manufacturers to request new or modified engine configurations (as long as they are within the
scope of the certificate and subject to the other provisions of section 1033.225) before the end of the
model year. But, after the end of the model year, EPA is proposing to limit amendments that can be
requested by a manufacturer to updated maintenance instructions as described in section 1033.220, or
FEL modifications as described in section 1033.225(f), thereby disallowing requests for amendments
that would add to or modify existing engine configurations, even those that otherwise would be within
the scope of the certificate and consistent with the other provisions of section 1033.225. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.74]
Simply stated, these proposed amendments are unacceptable. In the Preamble explanation for these
changes, the Agency states that the changes are merely "clarifications" of the existing language. That is
not correct. The proposed revisions go well beyond being "clarifications" and represent significant
modifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.74]
The ability to add a new engine configuration and/or amend an existing engine configuration is critical
to engine manufacturers and the customers they serve, both during the model year and afterwards. In
some cases a change may be needed to make product improvements and/or correct unanticipated
product issues. In other situations, new ratings may be needed to meet customer requirements to enable
pieces of equipment powered by the subject engines to perform their intended functions. As some of
those changes may be needed to maintain emissions compliance, or correct emissions-related issues
found in the course of business, it is in the Agency's best interest to continue to allow manufacturers the
opportunity to request such changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.74]
It is important to note that all of the application changes at issue must be submitted to the Agency, and
are subject to approval by the Agency. Consequently, if EPA has an issue with a requested new engine
configuration or with a requested amendment to an existing engine configuration, the Agency can
address that issue during the review process. There is, therefore, no need for this unacceptable
amendment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.74]
Accordingly, EMA recommends that EPA retain the current language of the opening paragraph of
section 1033.225, and not finalize the proposed changes to this paragraph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1269-A1 p.74]
-------
Response: We agree with the comment and have revised the regulation as described in Section
14.4.8.
In addition to the proposed technical amendments to Part 1033, EPA has requested comments on several
other provisions in Part 1033. Specifically, 40 CFR 1033.101(g)(3) provides an allowance for shorter
useful lives for non-locomotive-specific engines—that is, engines not specifically designed for use in
locomotives. For normal locomotive engines, the minimum useful life is specified in terms of MW-hrs
as the product of the rated horsepower multiplied by 7.50. However, the regulations allow
manufacturers/remanufacturers of locomotives with non-locomotive specific engines to request a shorter
useful life if the locomotives will rarely operate longer than the shorter useful life. EPA has asked for
comment regarding the need for additional guidance on applying this provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.74-75]
EMA believes that this is an important regulatory provision, allowing a shorter useful life for certain
engines used in locomotive applications. Now that the provision has been in place for several years, and
has been utilized by several EMA member companies, EMA recommends keeping the provision as it is
and not making any changes. The example default alternative minimum life, which defines a set
multiplier less than the standard 7.5 would be especially problematic, as it would remove a key aspect of
the current provision which allows engine (and duty cycle) characteristics (characteristics which vary
from engine to engine) to define the reduced useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.75]
Response: As recommended in the comment, we are not adopting a change to useful life
provisions of 40 CFR part 1033.
EPA is also seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider notch-specific engine/alternator
efficiencies to be confidential business information. Under the current"Class Determination 1-13,
Confidentiality of Business Information Submitted in Certification Applications for 2013 and subsequent
model year Vehicles, Engines and Equipment," there are three possible ways such information could be
treated: 1) as information not entitled to confidential treatment; 2) as information entitled to confidential
treatment until introduction into commerce; or 3) information entitled to confidential treatment. The
"Class Determination" document, authored by EPA's Office of General, provides guidance as to how to
determine which of these three treatment options is appropriate for various types of information. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.75][This section can also be found in section 1.4.6 of this comment
summary]
The following table, taken from the Class Determination document, lists the information that can be
entitled to confidential treatment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.75][This section can also be
found in section 1.4.6 of this comment summary]
[Table 3, 'Manufacturer Information Entitled to Confidential Treatment', can be found on p.76 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1]
In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. sections 2.204 and 2.205, information will be entitled
to confidential treatment if the manufacturer (1) asserts that the information is entitled to confidential
treatment, and (2) has not waived or withdrawn that assertion. Inherent in assertion (1) are the following
representations by the manufacturer: (a) they have maintained the information in confidence, (b) the
information cannot be readily obtained by other legitimate means, and (c) disclosure of the information
to the public both before and after model introduction would be likely to cause substantial harm to the
manufacturer's competitive position. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.76][This section can also
be found in section 1.4.6 of this comment summary]
-------
EPA provides two alternative methods to certify engines used in locomotive applications. Such engines
can be certified on an engine dynamometer or alternatively in the locomotive. In the latter case, it is
necessary to know the notch-specific engine/alternator efficiencies to ensure that the engine is tested at
the appropriate speed and load conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.76] [This section can
also be found in section 1.4.6 of this comment summary]
EMA believes that notch-specific engine/alternator efficiency clearly fits within the category "Technical
Description Information" on Table 3 above. Accordingly, EMA believes that notch-specific
engine/alternator efficiencies readily meets the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 2.204 and 2.205 and should
be treated as confidential business information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.77] [This section
can also be found in section 1.4.6 of this comment summary]
Response: We have been unable to prepare a comprehensive policy regarding CBI
determinations, so we will continue to respond to any requests for information on a case-by-
case basis.
EPA has also requested comment on extending the provisions of 40 CFR 1033.10l(i) to Tier 4
locomotives. That provision generally involves a less stringent CO standard coupled with over-
complying with the PM standard. Specifically, this option, which currently applies for Tier 2 and earlier
locomotives, requires PM emissions be at least 50 percent below the normally applicable PM standard.
The existing provisions were developed to provide a compliance path for natural gas locomotives that
reflected both the technological capabilities of natural gas locomotives and the relative environmental
benefits of their CO and PM emissions. The provision was not applied to Tier 4 locomotives, because
the applicable Tier 4 PM standard is already very low (0.03 g/hp-hr). If EPA were to apply a similar
provision corresponding to Tier 4 standards, EPA would need to select PM and CO levels that are
properly paired to manage this tradeoff. Thus, EPA has requested comment on whether it is appropriate
to pursue such alternate standards, and on the specific numerical standards for PM and CO that would
represent an equivalent level of stringency relative to the published standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.77]
Alternate CO standards are currently provided for Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 Locomotives. The pertinent
regulatory language is found in 40 CFR Part 1033.101(i), as set forth below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1269-A1 p.77]
(i) Alternate CO standards. Manufacturers/remanufacturers may certify Tier 0, Tier 1, or Tier 2
locomotives to an alternate CO emission standard of 10.0 g/bhp-hr instead of the otherwise
applicable CO standard if they also certify those locomotives to alternate PM standards less than
or equal to one-half of the otherwise applicable PM standard. For example, a manufacturer
certifying Tier 1 locomotives to a 0.11 g/bhp-hr PM standard may certify those locomotives to
the alternate CO standard of 10.0 g/bhp-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1269-A1 p.77]
EMA believes that alternative CO standards for Tier 4 locomotives would allow a compliance path for
manufacturers/remanufacturers of locomotives fueled by natural gas and other non-conventional fuels,
and EMA recommends that such alternative CO standards be provided. Further, EMA recommends that
alternative CO standards also be provided for Tier 3 remanufactured locomotives as well. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.77]
More specifically, EMA recommends the following alternative sets of standards for Tier 3 and Tier 4
locomotives. On the two tables below - one for Tier 3 remanufactured locomotive, the other for Tier 4
-------
locomotives - the current required set of standards is highlighted in bold and the recommended
alternative sets of standards are shown in italics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-A1 p.77]
[Table of Tier 3 and 4 Locomotives can be found on p.78 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1]
Response:
We are adopting alternate standards for Tier 3 and Tier 4 locomotives, consistent with the alternate
standards adopted for earlier tiers of standards. Rather than adopting the graduated approach
recommended by EMA, we believe it is appropriate to continue with the policy of establishing an
alternate CO standard of 10.0 g/hp-hr, with an increased level of PM control required for the Tier 3 and
Tier4 standards to qualify for the CO relief. Since the technologies in question generally correspond
with substantial step changes in emissions, we don't want to create graduated standards suggesting that
manufacturers need to dial in a certain level of PM control to earn a corresponding level of relief for CO
emissions. These alternate standards are most likely to be relevant for natural gas engines. We believe
manufacturers of natural engines can achieve a level of 0.01 g/hp-hr and have set that as the alternate
PM standard corresponding to the 10.0 g/hp-hr CO standard for Tier 3 and Tier 4 engines.
Organization: Association of American Railroads
The Association of American Railroads ("AAR") appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
proposed rule for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Engines and Vehicles- Phase 2. 1 AAR generally supports the changes made in the proposal that
impact railroad operation directly; however, AAR seeks clarification with regard to §1033.601, General
compliance provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1273-A2 p.l]
(f) Multi-fuel locomotives. Subpart C of this part describes how to test and certify dual-fuel and
flexible-fuel locomotives. Some multi-fuel locomotives may not fit either of those defined
terms. For such locomotives, we will determine whether it is most appropriate to treat them as
single-fuel locomotives, dual-fuel locomotives, or flexible-fuel locomotives based on the range
of possible and expected fuel mixtures. For example, a locomotive might burn natural gas but
initiate combustion with a pilot injection of diesel fuel. If the locomotive is designed to operate
with a single fueling algorithm (i.e., fueling rates are fixed at a given engine speed and load
condition), we would generally treat it as a single-fuel locomotive, In this context, the
combination of diesel fuel and natural gas would be its own fuel type. If the locomotive is
designed to also operate on diesel fuel alone, we would generally treat it as a dual-fueled
locomotive. If the locomotive is designed to operate on varying mixtures of the two fuels, we
would generally treat it as a flexible-fueled locomotive. To the extent that requirements vary for
the different fuels or fuel mixtures, we may apply the more stringent requirements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1273-A2 p.2]
In this section, it is unclear what EPA means by "flexible-fuel" and "dual-fuel" and what technology
EPA is referencing with regard to those terms. AAR requests that EPA provide a full definition of
"flexible-fuel" and "dual-fuel," as well as corresponding examples of technology for both engines. In
addition, low pressure, dynamic gas blending, and high pressure direct injection are undefined and
require explanation. There are many other combinations that need to be addressed and defined. Also, it
is unclear whether there are other fuel types besides natural gas and diesel that EPA is including in the
definition of flexible-fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1273-A2 p.2]
-------
Also, please explain what EPA means by, "[t]o the extent that requirements vary for the different fuels
or fuel mixtures, we may apply the more stringent requirements" and the reason for more stringent
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1273-A2 p.2]
Response:
The proposed rule included new definitions for flexible-fuel and dual-fuel and the draft text in
§1033.601(c) included examples of the corresponding technologies, consistent with the AAR comment.
The proposed rule did not include any of the terms AAR suggested would need more explanation. The
combination of natural gas and diesel fuel is listed as an example of an engine using two fuels, but there
is nothing to suggest that the provisions apply any differently for other fuel combinations.
Most regulatory provisions apply uniformly for different fuels, but there are some places where the
regulation describes or prescribes something different for different fuels. If an engine has two fuels, it is
subject to requirements that apply for both fuels. As such, it is not enough for the engine to meet the
requirements that apply for one fuel, but not for the other. A different way to say this is that the engine
must meet the more stringent requirements if they are different.
Organization: GE Transportation
As a general matter, GE supports the proposed technical changes and clarifications to 40 CFR part 1033.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.l]
[T]he proposed technical changes and clarifications help resolve issues related to locomotive testing.
These comments provide a few practical enhancements to the testing procedures for locomotives that
are important to effectuate the purposes of the proposed amendments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1297-A1 p.l]
GE supports the revision to 40 CFR 1033.101, which clarifies that compliance with the numerical
hydrocarbon (HC) emission standard is based on non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) for dual-fuel and
flexible-fuel locomotives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.l]
I. CLARIFICATIONS OF LOCOMOTIVE TESTING REQUIREMENTS IN 40 CFR 1033.501
A. Proportionality Verification for Certain Discrete Mode Tests (40 C.F.R. § 1033.501(a)(4)) [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.2]
Section 1033.501(a)(4) of the proposed Technical Amendment states that locomotive manufacturers
should verify proportional sampling by ."..using the mean raw exhaust molar flow rate paired with each
recorded sample flow rate." This language limits the proportionality verification options in 40 CFR
1065.545 to only § 1065.545(b). In the final rule, EPA should slightly alter the proposal such that if a
batch fuel measurement is used to determine raw exhaust flow rate, the batch modal fuel rate would be
paired with each recorded modal 1 hertz (Hz) data set. Chemical balance calculations then would be
performed at a frequency of 1Hz for the purpose of determining exhaust molar flow rate at 1Hz. These
1Hz raw exhaust flows would already be paired with each recorded sample flow rate and only be used
for proportional sampling verification purposes. This approach would include some variation in the
determination of modal raw exhaust flow associated with all other recorded data except fuel rate. Thus,
both § 1065.545(a) and § 1065.545(b) become viable means to verify proportional sampling. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.2]
-------
No changes in determining mass emissions, including drift verification, are being suggested. Those
would still be performed utilizing the steady state discrete mode method provided in § 1065.650(e).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A 1 p.2]
Response: The change that EPA proposed to 1033.501(a)(4) in the NRPM (below) is written
generically enough to allow the use of either 1065.545(a) or (b) to verify proportionality,
including the scenario proposed by GE. Therefore no change is necessary.
B. Consistent Use of "Phase" and "Interval" (40 CFR 1033.501(a)(5)) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1297-A1 p.2]
The proposed Technical Amendment replaces "phase" with "interval" throughout 40 CFR part 1033.
However, "phase" is still used in § 1033.501(a)(5). The word "phase" should be replaced with "group"
in § 1033.501(a)(5) to be consistent with respect to terminology used elsewhere in the proposed
Technical Amendment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.2]
Response: We agree with the comment and have revised the regulation accordingly.
C. Clarification on Smoke Test Invalidation (40 CFR 1033.501 0(2)) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-
A1 p.2]
Section 1033.501(j)(2) of the proposed Technical Amendment states that manufacturers must
"invalidate a smoke test if active regeneration starts to occur during the test." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1297-A1 p.2]
Currently, sections 1033.515(c)(4) and 1033.520(e)(4) require measurement of smoke and emissions
concurrently, with no allowance for measuring smoke separately from other emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1297-A1 p.2]
We recommend that EPA amend Part 1033 to provide an option to perform smoke measurements and
other regulated emissions measurements in separate test sequences, similar to the existing provision in
40 CFR 92.124(f). Section 1033.501(j)(2) of the Technical Amendment should explain the means with
which to treat smoke and emissions measurements if active regeneration of aftertreatment occurs during
either portion of the test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.2-3]
Response: EPA will make the following changes regarding smoke measurement to address the
concern expressed in the comment:
1033.515(c)(4) If applicable, begin the smoke test at the start of the test mode A. Continue
collecting smoke data until the completion of test mode 8. You may perform smoke
measurements independent of criteria pollutant measurements by rerunning the test over the
duty-cycle. If you choose this option, the minimum time-in-notch is 3.0 minutes for duty-cycles
in which only smoke is measured. Refer to §1033.101 to determine applicability of smoke
testing and §1033.525 for details on how to conduct a smoke test.
1033.520(e)(4) If applicable, begin the smoke test at the start of the first test interval of the
applicable ramped modal cycle. Continue collecting smoke data until the completion of final
test interval. You may perform smoke measurements independent of criteria pollutant
measurements by rerunning the test over the duty-cycle. If you choose this option, the
minimum time-in-notch is 3.0 minutes for duty-cycles in which only smoke is measured.
-------
III. NMHC MEASUREMENTS FOR DUAL-FUEL AND FLEXIBLE-FUEL
LOCOMOTIVES
The proposed revisions to § 103 3.101 (f)( 1 )(i) would clarify that the numerical emission standard for
hydrocarbon (HC) is based on non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) for dual-fuel and flexible-fuel
locomotives. GE supports this clarification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.4]
Regulations governing emissions from locomotives have always stated that the numerical standard for
HC shall be based on NMHC for gaseous-fueled locomotives (§92.8(a)(1) and §1033.101(f)(1)(h)). This
is appropriate because a large portion of natural gas is methane, but EPA has previously excluded
methane from the definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) under 40 CFR 51.100(s), given
methane's negligible photochemical reactivity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.4]
Dual-fuel and flexible-fuel locomotives that use a combination of diesel fuel and natural gas are likely
to be configured such that during a majority of the locomotive's operating time, they will use a mixture
of diesel and natural gas simultaneously injected into the cylinders. On average, the locomotive will
burn more natural gas than diesel; thus, it is appropriate to regulate such a locomotive on measurements
of NMHC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1297-A1 p.4]
Response: In the final rule, we specify that the hydrocarbon standard for gaseous-fueled
locomotives excludes ethane, much like we have established for methane, as describe in Section
14.4.7.
IV. AMENDMENTS TO CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS AND EPA DECISIONS
A. Amendments to Certificate [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.4]
In proposed § 1033.225, the Technical Amendment would clarify that after the end of the model year for
a given certificate of conformity, manufacturers "may amend [their] application only to update
maintenance instructions ... or to modify an FEL." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.4]
In the past, EPA has utilized the mechanism of a "field fix" in order to apply changes to prior year
certificates, as described in Field Fixes Related to Emission Control-Related Components, Advisory
Circular 2B, (Mar. 17, 1975) ("Field Fix Circular"). The Field Fix Circular defines a field fix as follows:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.4]
In the context of this Advisory Circular, a field fix is defined as: A modification, removal or
replacement of an emission-control related component by a manufacturer or dealer, or revision by a
manufacturer for implementation by dealers to specifications or maintenance practices for emission-
control related components on vehicles that have left the assembly line. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1297-A1 p.4]
It is common practice in the locomotive industry for manufacturers to develop improved emission-
control related components for incorporation into current model year locomotives, with the intent to also
incorporate such components into prior model year locomotives of similar design. For example, a
manufacturer could develop a modification to a locomotive's originally-certified fuel injector that
improves the reliability of the injector. In this example, under current practice, a field fix is used to
notify EPA of the manufacturer's intent to incorporate the improved injector into prior model year
locomotives. The proposed rule revision creates uncertainty as to whether EPA is planning a new
approach of amending prior years' certification applications or whether EPA intends to continue using
-------
the field fix approach. It is important for EPA to make clear how it intends manufacturers to proceed. In
addition, if applications are to be amended, it is unclear whether EPA would subsequently "act" on
those applications and how the certificate would be amended (or if amendment would occur
automatically). In short, to the extent EPA intends to eliminate the field fix mechanism, what will be the
mechanism for manufacturers to use in order to update prior model year applications for updates to
emission-control related components (including AECDs)? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.5]
Response: We agree with the comment and have revised the regulation as described in Section
14.4.8.
B. EPA Decisions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.5]
In proposed § 1033.255(c)(2), EPA states that it "may deny [an] application or suspend or revoke [a]
certificate if [a manufacturer does] any of the following ... Submit false or incomplete information ...
This includes doing anything after submission of [an] application to render any of the submitted
information false or incomplete." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.5]
GE is concerned that use of the phrase "doing anything" is overly broad and does not clearly indicate to
manufacturers the specific actions that EPA is trying to address with this provision. Using the example
in above paragraph IV.B, if a manufacturer develops an improved fuel injector for incorporation into
prior model year locomotives, but the revised provisions in §1033.225 preclude amending the
application to include this improved fuel injector, would that manufacturer be in violation of this
provision? The language EPA has drafted appears to be overbroad, and it needs to be clarified so that
EPA can provide adequate notice to regulated entities of the actions that could call their certificates of
conformity into question. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.5]
EPA should clarify and narrow this provision in the final rule and should explain clearly the actions that
would implicate the provision. Otherwise, the provision is impermissibly broad and vague. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.5]
Organization: GE Transportation
GE requests clarification on language in the Technical Amendment concerning amendments to
certificate applications (40 CFR 1033.225) and certain EPA decisions (40 CFR 1033.255). The
proposed regulatory language should be revised to address the specific situation that is of concern to
ensure that the provision gives adequate notice to regulated entities of the types of activities that could
jeopardize their certificates of conformity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1297-A1 p.l]
Response:
As noted in the previous section, we are not adopting the proposed change to §1033.225. Some
examples of making applications incorrect would include (1) Naming an agent for service in the
application, then deciding later to no longer rely on that agent for managing communications with EPA,
(2) changing engine designs for production engines in a way that is not covered by the application
(adjustable parameters, emission control features, etc.), and (3) Recommending a revised time to
remanufacture that is longer than the locomotive's useful life. We address the question regarding
§1033.225 in Section 14.4.8.
-------
-------
Appendix A to Section 14 - Sensitivity Analysis of Glider Impacts
EPA is restricting the number of gliders that may be produced using engines not meeting current
standards. Current standards for NOx and PM (which began in 2007 and took full effect in 2010) are at
least 90 percent lower than the most stringent previously applicable standards, so the NOx and PM
emissions of any glider vehicles using pre-2007 engines are at least ten times higher than emissions
from equivalent vehicles being produced with brand new engines.248 However, most gliders being
produced today use engines originally manufactured before 2002. Since these pre-2002 engines lack
both EGR and exhaust aftertreatment, they would have NOx and PM emissions 20-40 times higher than
current engines. If miscalibrated, emissions could be even higher. Thus, each glider vehicle using an
older engine that is purchased instead of a new vehicle with a current MY engine results in significantly
higher in-use emissions of air pollutants associated with a host of adverse human health effects,
including premature mortality (see Section VIII of the FRM Preamble).
These emission impacts have been compounded by the increasing sales of these vehicles. Estimates
provided to EPA indicate that production of glider vehicles has increased by an order of magnitude from
what it was in the 2004-2006 time frame - from a few hundred each year to thousands.249 Glider vehicle
production is not currently being reported to EPA, but we estimate that current production is close to
10,000 each year. Some commenters to the proposed rule indicated that the volume may be higher still.
Volvo provided evidence that current sales have grown to 10,000 or more per year. Even some
commenters who produce glider vehicles and opposed EPA's proposal acknowledged that glider sales
are now over 10,000 units annually. See Section XIII.B.(3) of the Preamble and Section 14.2 of this
RTC.
For the final rule, EPA has updated our analysis of the environmental impacts of gliders.250 The updated
analysis used the MOVES model, which is the same emissions modeling tool used to estimate the
emissions impacts of the rule, described in Sections VII and VIII of the FRM. EPA performed two
analyses which are described below. The first projected future fleetwide emissions for a control
scenario based on the proposal (which is similar to the final rule). The second projected per-vehicle
emissions for MY 2017 gliders. Both analyses focused on NOx and PM emissions and assumed that
these gliders emit at the level equivalent to the engines meeting the MY 1998-2001 standards, since
most glider vehicles currently being produced use remanufactured engines of this vintage. See Section
XIII.B.(3) of the Preamble and Section 14.2 of this RTC. We did not attempt to account for any
miscalibration of these engines or other factors that would cause emissions to be higher than 1998
engines. Finally, the analyses made the simplifying assumption that all gliders are tractors. Although
not entirely correct, the vast majority of glider vehicles currently being produced are tractors, so this
assumption still allows impacts to be reasonably approximated.
248 The NOx and PM standards for MY 2007 and later engines are 0.20 g/hp-hr and 0.01 g/hp-hr, respectively.
The standards for MY 2004 through 2006 engines were ten times these levels, and earlier standards were even
higher.
249 "Industry Characterization of Heavy Duty Glider Kits," MacKay & Company, September 30, 2013.
250 Memorandum to the Docket "Emissions Modeling Files for Glider Analysis" Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016.
July, 2016.
-------
Fleetwide Emission Projections
Based on public comments, EPA is estimating that approximately 10,000 gliders will be produced in
2016. Consistent with this, the modeling of gliders discussed here assumed annual glider sales of
10,000 for 2015 and later. As noted above, the modeling assumed that these gliders emit at the level
equivalent to the engines meeting the MY 1998-2001 standards without miscalibration.
Figure A-1: Glider vehicle production projected for fleetwide analysis without
new provisions
Projected Glider Production
by Model Year w/o New Provisions
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0'Hcsirn<3-Lnu3i^cocfiO'Hcsirn<3-Lnu3i^cocfiO'Hcsirn<3-Lnu3i^cocfi +
0000000000-H
-------
Table A-l: Fleetwide NOx and PM Emissions (tons) from
Glider Vehicles for Calendar Year 2025
2025
Without Controls
(US Tons per Year)
With Controls
(US Tons per Year)
Reductions
(US Tons per Year)
NOx
295,000
104,769
190,231
pm25
7,817
2,753
5,064
Table A-2: Fleetwide NOx and PM Emissions (tons) from
Glider Vehicles for Calendar Year 2040
Without Controls
(US Tons per Year)
With Controls
(US Tons per Year)
Reductions
(US Tons per Year)
NOx
371,091
52,476
318,615
pm25
9,955
1,409
8,546
The model projects that if glider vehicle production remains at 10,000 per year, there would be 128,750
glider vehicles on the road in 2025 and that they would emit 295,000 tons/year of NOx in 2025 and
7,817 tons/year of PM25. This means the average glider on the road in 2025 would emit 4,583 pounds
of NOx and 121 pounds of PM25 for that single year.251
Model Year Analysis
EPA also modeled the lifetime emissions of a single model year. The analysis estimated per-vehicle
emissions, as well as the emission reductions associated with restricting the number of glider vehicles
that could be produced in 2017 using older engines not meeting the current criteria pollutant standards.
As with the fleetwide analysis, the model year analysis assumed that these gliders emit at the level
equivalent to the engines meeting the MY 1998-2001 standards without miscalibration. Although
presented for model year 2017, similar results would be expected for later years as well. The per-
vehicle results are shown in the figures below (gray bars for glider vehicles). These figures also show
the corresponding emissions projected for conventional model year 2017 vehicles with fully compliant
engines (small blue bars).
251 This estimate is for the projected number of vehicles on the road, and does not include vehicles projected to
have been scrapped from the population.
-------
Figure A-2: Annual Per-Vehicle NOx Emissions (tons/year)
For Model Year 2017 Glider Vehicles and Other New Vehicles
Fully Compliant ¦ Glider Vehicle
Figure A-3: Annual Per-Vehicle PM Emissions (tons/year)
For Model Year 2017 Glider Vehicles and Other New Vehicles
Fully Compliant ¦ Glider Vehicle
-------
Emissions are shown normalized to the initial number of model year 2017 vehicles.252 The trends
shown in these figures largely reflect three phenomena: deterioration, scrappage, and declining use.
Emissions initially increase due to deterioration of the engines (and deterioration of aftertreatment
controls for the fully compliant engines). Then the average per-vehicle emissions decline as the
projected annual mileage accumulation rates decline and some fraction of the vehicles are removed from
service. Model year lifetime emissions are shown below per thousand glider vehicles.253
Table A-3: Lifetime NOx and PM Emissions (tons)
For Model Year 2017 Glider Vehicles and Other New Vehicles
NOx
pm25
Lifetime Tons per
Lifetime Tons per
1,000 Vehicles
1,000 Vehicles
Model Year 2017 Glider Vehicles
43,800
710
Model Year 2017 Fully Compliant Vehicles
2,300
30
Difference
41,500
680
As shown in this table, even a small number of glider vehicles has a very large emission impact. Even
without any projections of miscalibration, glider vehicles are projected to emit about 20 times as much
NOx and PM as the same number of fully compliant vehicles.254 Moreover every 1,000 glider vehicles
that are produced instead of fully compliant vehicles results in 41,500 tons of additional NOx and 680
tons additional PM emitted into the atmosphere. Although we do not have precise historical production
rates for glider vehicles, we are confident that they were less than 5,000 per year prior to 2015. Without
controls, it is reasonable to assume that glider vehicle production for 2017 would be 10,000 to 15,000.255
Thus, the restriction on 2017 production that is being adopted is projected to prevent the use of high
polluting engines in 5,000 to 10,000 glider vehicles. This would prevent the emission of 207,500-
415,000 tons of NOx and 3,400-6,800 tons of PM.
252 These numbers differ from per-vehicle estimates from the fleetwide analysis because they are normalized to the
total number of model year 2017 vehicles produced rather than those still in the fleet for a given calendar year.
253 The maximum lifetime assumed for these vehicles is 30 years; however, MOVES models most vehicles as
being removed from service after much less than 30 years. MOVES projects that nearly 80 percent of lifetime
emissions will occur within the first 15 years of a vehicle's life.
254 EPA has separately estimated that glider emissions could be as much more than twice as high as this (or
producing more than 40 times as much NOx and PM as current engines) if the engines are miscalibrated,
incompletely/improperly rebuilt, and/or were originally manufactured before 1998.
255 2016 production is projected to be approximately 10,000 glider vehicles. Given the trend of ever-increasing
sales over the last several years, combined with the likelihood of some pre-buying occurring based on the
proposed restrictions for 2018, we believe that 2017 production could have been 15,000 or more without the
production limit for 2017.
-------
Benefits of Controlling Emissions from Glider Vehicles
Reducing the number of glider vehicles produced using older engines will yield substantial
improvements in public health. For example, using incidence-per-ton estimates, the number of PM25-
related premature mortalities caused by glider vehicles can be estimated from the lifetime reductions in
both NOx (which forms nitrate PM in secondary reactions) and directly emitted PM2 5. Using benefit-
per-ton values (described in Section IX.H of the FRM Preamble), the present value of total monetized
PM2 5-related benefits associated with these lifetime emission reductions can also be calculated. These
health-related benefits are presented in the table below. Cases of premature mortality avoided are
presented as a range based on results derived from two studies (the American Cancer Society cohort
study - Krewski et al., 2009, and the Harvard Six-cities study - Lepeule et al., 2012). Monetized
benefits are presented as net present values in 2013$, assuming a 30-year vehicle lifetime and a 3% and
7% discount rate. Both premature mortalities and benefits are shown for model year 2017 glider
vehicles based on the increase in lifetime emissions over a fully compliant model year 2017 vehicle.
Note, as discussed below, there would be additional benefits that have not been quantified.
Table A-4: Lifetime NOx and PM Emissions Increases (tons)
For Model Year 2017 Glider Vehicles and Associated Benefits
Increased Lifetime NOx Emissions per 1,000 Glider Vehicles
41,500 Tons
Increased Lifetime PM2 5 Emissions per 1,000 Glider Vehicles
680 Tons
Premature Mortalities per 1,000 Glider Vehicles
70-160 Persons
Monetized PM2 5-related Benefits Associated with Reducing Glider Production
by 1,000 Vehicles
$0.3-1.1 Billion
As noted above, the restriction on 2017 production that is being adopted is projected to prevent the use
of high polluting pre 2002-engines in 5,000 to 10,000 glider vehicles, and would prevent the emission of
207,500-415,000 tons of NOx and 3,400-6,800 tons of PM over the lifetime of those vehicles and
engines. This is estimated to prevent 350 to 1,600 premature mortalities (and achieve $1.5 to 11.0
billion in monetized PM2 5-related benefits).
Several commenters argued that EPA is precluded from adopting any controls on installation of high
polluting engines in glider vehicles until MY 2021. This could mean the production of 30,000 to 40,000
additional glider vehicles using the older high polluting engines. Using the same assumptions as above,
these three additional model years of production are estimated to result in an additional 2,100 to 6,400
premature mortalities, incremental to the premature mortalities.
As described above, this sensitivity analysis uses estimates of the benefits from reducing the incidence
of PM2 5-related health impacts. These estimates, which are expressed per ton of PM2 5-related
emissions eliminated by adopting glider vehicle controls, represent the total monetized value of
quantified human health benefits (including reduction in both premature mortality and premature
morbidity) from reducing each ton of directly emitted PM2 5, or its precursors (e.g., NOx), from on-road
mobile sources. Ideally, the human health benefits would be estimated based on changes in ambient
PM2 5 as determined by full-scale air quality modeling. However, the length of time needed to prepare
the necessary emissions inventories, in addition to the processing time associated with the modeling
itself, has precluded us from performing air quality modeling for this analysis.
-------
The benefit per-ton technique has been used in previous analyses, including EPA's 2017-2025 Light-
Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule,256 the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine rules,257'258 and
the Residential Wood Heaters NSPS.259 The table below shows the quantified PM25-related benefits
captured in the per-ton estimates, as well as unquantified PM2 5 effects the per-ton estimates are unable
to capture.
Table A-5: Human Health and Welfare Effects of PM25
POLLUTANT
QUANTIFIED AND MONETIZED
UNQUANTIFIED EFFECTS
IN PRIMARY ESTIMATES
CHANGES IN:
pm25
Adult premature mortality
Cancer, mutagenicity, and
Acute bronchitis
genotoxicity effects
Hospital admissions: respiratory and
Chronic and subchronic bronchitis
cardiovascular
cases
Emergency room visits for asthma
Strokes and cerebrovascular disease
Nonfatal heart attacks (myocardial
Low birth weight
infarction)
Pulmonary function
Lower and upper respiratory illness
Chronic respiratory diseases other
Minor restricted-activity days
than chronic bronchitis
Work loss days
Non-asthma respiratory emergency
Asthma exacerbations (asthmatic
room visits
population)
Visibility
Infant mortality
Household soiling
This sensitivity analysis uses per ton benefits estimates taken from the "Technical Support Document
Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 17 Sectors," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle.260 The procedure for calculating benefit per ton coefficients follows three steps, shown
graphically in Figure A-4 below:
256 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2012/ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for
2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-12-016,
August 2012. Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420rl2016.pdf.
257 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2013). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Reconsideration of the Existing Stationary Compression Ignition (CI) Engines NESHAP, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January. EPA-452/R-13-001. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnecasl/regdata/RIAs/RICE NESHAPreconsideration Compression Ignition Engines RIA
fina!2013 EPA.pdf.
258 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2013). Regulatory Impact Analysis for Reconsideration of
Existing Stationary Spark Ignition (SI) RICE NESHAP, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. January. EPA-452/R-13-002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnecasl/regdata/RIAs/NESHAP RICE Spark Ignition RIA finalreconsideration2013 EPA,
pdf.
259 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2015). Regulatory Impact Analysis for Residential Wood
Heaters NSPS Revision. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February.
EPA-452/R-15-001. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/20150204-
residential-wood-heaters-ria.pdf.
260 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd.pdf.
-------
1. Use source apportionment photochemical modeling to predict ambient concentrations of
primary PM2.5, nitrate and sulfate attributable to each of 17 emission sectors across the
Continental U.S., including on-road mobile sources. The on-road mobile source sector
contribution to PM2 5 concentrations was estimated using the peer-reviewed model CAMx
version 5.30, which includes numerous science modules that simulate the emission, production,
decay, deposition and transport of organic and inorganic gas-phase and particle-phase pollutants
in the atmosphere (Baker and Scheff, 2007; ENVIRON, 2010; Nobel et al., 2001; Russell,
2008).261'262 ,263 '264 Particulate matter source apportionment technology (PSAT) implemented in
CAMx estimated the contribution from on-road mobile sources to primarily emitted PM2 5 and
to secondarily formed PM25 (e.g., nitrate) using reactive tracers to capture nonlinear formation
and removal processes (Baker and Foley, 2011; ENVIRON, 2010; Wagstrom et al.,
2008).265'266'267 Mobile source contributions were estimated in CAMx for domains covering the
eastern and western United States with 12 km square sized grid cells. The emissions data used
in the air quality modeling were based on EPA's 2005 v4 platform.268
2. For each sector, estimate the health impacts, and the economic value of these impacts,
associated with the attributable ambient concentrations of primary PM2 5, sulfate and nitrate
PM2 5 using the environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP
v4.0.66).269'270 BenMAP is a peer-reviewed Geographic Information System (GlS)-based tool
that takes air quality input data (i.e., the CAMx data described in step 1), overlays that with
population to estimate exposure, and uses that information to estimate changes in health effects
using "health impact functions" derived from the published epidemiology literature.
3. For each sector, divide the PM25-related health impacts attributable to each type of PM25, and
the monetary value of these impacts, by the level of associated precursor emissions. That is,
primary PM2 5 benefits are divided by direct PM2 5 emissions, and nitrate benefits are divided by
NOx emissions.
261 Baker K, Scheff P. Photochemical model performance for PM2.5 sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and precursor
species S02, HN03, and NH3 at background monitor locations in the central and eastern United States. Atmos
Environ 2007;41:6185-95. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.04.006.
262 ENVIRON. User's guide comprehensive air quality model with extensions version 5.30. www.camx.com. 2010.
263 Nobel CE, McDonald-Buller EC, Kimura Y, Allen DT. Accounting for spatial variation of ozone productivity
in NOx emission trading. Environ Sci Technol 2001;35:4397-407.
264 Russell AG. EPA supersites program-related emissions-based particulate matter modeling: initial applications
and advances. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2008;58:289-302. http://dx.doi.Org/10.3155/1047-3289.58.2.289.
265 Baker KR, Foley KM. A nonlinear regression model estimating single source concentrations of primary and
secondarily formed PM2.5. Atmos Environ 2011;45:3758-67. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.03.074.
266 ENVIRON. User's guide comprehensive air quality model with extensions version 5.30. www.camx.com. 2010.
267 Wagstrom KM, Pandis SN, Yarwood G, Wilson GM, Morris RE. Development and application of a
computationally efficient particulate matter apportionment algorithm in a three-dimensional chemical transport
model. Atmos Environ 2008;42:5650-9. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.03.012.
268 United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2005 National Emissions Inventory Data &
Documentation. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchiel/net/2005inventory.html2011.
269 https://www.epa.gov/benmap.
270 In this stage we estimate the PM2 5-related impacts associated with changes in directly emitted PM2 5 and nitrate
separately, so that we may ultimately calculate the benefit per ton reduced of the corresponding PM2 5 precursor, or
directly emitted PM2 5, in step 3. When estimating these impacts we apply effect coefficients that relate changes in
total PM2 5 mass to the risk of adverse health outcomes; we do not apply effect coefficients that are differentiated
by PM2.5 specie.
-------
Figure A-4: Conceptual Diagram Of The Analytical Process For Calculating Impact And Benefit
Per Ton Estimates.
PMj, 5 arr quaJfcy change for a
given sector
S Bcnct its anrf avoitfocf i hi parrs
7 firnpf it/ton
icfnnric railsTloTU
Human health benefits Benefit per ton calculation
The process described above yields per-ton estimates that relate emission changes to health impacts and
monetized benefits. We recommend readers refer to pp. 142-144 of Fann et al. (2012)271 for a detailed
description of the benefit-per-ton methodology.
In this sensitivity analysis, using benefit-per-ton values, EPA only estimates the economic value of the
human health benefits associated with the resulting reductions in PM2 5 exposure. For example, we do
not estimate the change in health risk associated with reductions in diesel PM based on current
limitations in methods and available data. Thus, the per-ton estimates do not reflect cancers attributable
to exposure to diesel PM exhaust, a likely human carcinogen. See Preamble Section VIII. A.6.
However, we capture other benefits related to reductions 111 diesel PM (chiefly, benefits related to
cardiovascular health endpoints) to the extent that diesel PM is included in measured PM2 s.
Furthermore, due to analytical limitations with the benefit per ton method, this analysis does not
estimate reductions in premature mortality and other benefits resulting from reductions in population
exposure to other criteria pollutants such as ozone. The air quality modeling that underlies the PM-
related benefit per ton values also produced estimates of ozone levels attributable to each sector.
However, the complex non-linear chemistry governing ozone formation prevented EPA from
developing a complementary array of ozone benefit per ton values. This limitation notwithstanding, we
anticipate that the ozone-related benefits associated with reducing emissions of NOx and VOC emitted
by glider vehicles using high polluting engines are substantial. Refer to RIA Appendix 8. A for the
ozone benefits results from the supplemental CY benefits analysis. Finally, the benefits per-ton method
does not monetize all of the potential health and welfare effects associated with reduced concentrations
of PM2 s.
271 Fann, N., Baker, K.R., and Fulcher, C.M. (2012). Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of emission
reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the KS, Environment International, 49,
241-151, Published online September 28, 2012.
http ://www. sciencedirect. com/ science/article/pii/ S0160412012001985.
-------
15 Other Comments
15.1 General Other Comments
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Modification of the minimum and maximum allowable test vehicle accumulated
mileage for BEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV)
CARB staff agrees that it would be appropriate to increase the maximum allowable test vehicle
accumulated mileage for BEVs and PHEVs. Note that this proposed modification does not appear to be
included in the NPRM or redlined regulatory language, only in the RIA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p.96]
Response:
The agencies appreciate the response to our request for comment on increasing the maximum allowable
test vehicle accumulated mileage for EVs and PHEVs. We do not plan to increase the mileage at this
time, as it is not clear what the mileage level should increase to as we were given no supporting data or
suggestions from commenters.
Organization: National Zephyr Research, NZR Conversions and Equipment Sales, Inc.
We respectfully offer our contribution to the above EPA initiative and are pleased to introduce EPA,
NHTSA to a new iteration for Semi-trailers which may assist with emission standards. The NEW
ACCORD-Semi-trailer' with '5th Wheel Compound Hitch' tractor package. This universal design will
advance the existing 53' or long configuration with improved aerodynamic characteristics and includes
the following model designations for your consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1 p. 1]
• Silver-Diamond 53' ACCORD Semi-trailer (Conversions) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1
p.l]
. Blue-Diamond 63' ACCORD Semi-trailer (OAL < 75') [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1 p. 1]
. Black-Diamond 73' ACCORD Semi-trailer (OAL > 82') [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1
p.l]
These 'Accordion' or 'Stinger' Semi-trailers have one thing in common; they are rigidly coupled to the
tractor and do not articulate at the tractor 5th wheel. A patented 5th wheel compound hitch system is
designed to restrict 5th wheel rotation and force the trailer to articulate at the stinger position approx. 20'
behind the kingpin. A patented design the ACCORD semi-trailer when used in conjunction with the
patented d-TRAIN 5th wheel compound hitch tractor package offers a new and advance on existing semi-
trailers with many advantages that may be of interest to EPA some of which are as follows: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1 p.l]
• Tractor will not articulate and will never be involved is a full jackknife [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0947-A1 p.l]
-------
• Zero 'GAP' from BOC to the trailer (approx. 6') aerodynamics saving fuel [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0947-A1 p.l]
• Length of Semi-trailer is increased min. 18% to increase productivity [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0947-A1 p.l]
• Forward lengths dimensions are reduced [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1 p. 1]
• Maneuverability is improved by 50% [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1 p. 1]
• Aerodynamics substantially improved without fairings [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1 p.l]
• Most existing Semi-trailers and tractor may be converted [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1
p.l]
• Tractors remain universal even when converted to d-TRAiN hitch system [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-0947-A1 p.l]
We are suggesting that these trailers be tested and evaluated and are confident the results will prove
significant. And new design option for OEMs willing to become a licensed. This technology is offered to
OEM and Service Shops across the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1 p.l]
However, this project needs funding to build concept OEM or conversion trailers. With EPA, DOE and
NHTSA assistance we would willingly co-operate with licensees throughout the US to confirm these
findings. Incidentally, There is ample proof of concept provided by Auto-hauler transporters presently
operating on US and Canadian roads and which have been successfully shipping cars and trucks
throughout the US and Canada for at least thirty years. To view animation of this concept and view
drawings Goto: www.nationalzephvrresearch.wordpress.com [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0947-A1 p.l]
Response:
Thank you for the information provided on these technology packages. We appreciate your innovation;
however, the agencies are not funding the development of technologies in the Phase 2 program.
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Paperwork Reduction Act - The agencies request comments on the collection of information for the
Phase 2 regulations, including the accuracy of the agencies' burden estimates and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden. 80 FR 40541. We understand that the agencies need to collect
information under the Phase 2 regulations for certification and end of year reporting purposes. But we
think that, rather than simply tally the amount of burden imposed on manufacturers, the agencies could
work with manufacturers to reduce some of the burden. In particular, the agencies require dozens of
redundant applications for certification; this redundancy could be eliminated. The agencies require
unnecessary estimates of ten vehicles' GEM scores per regulatory sub-category as a means of
characterizing the Certificates of Conformity as test-based; the agencies could use the last year's or
previous year's end-of-year report (which contains much more detailed and accurate information) as
meeting that requirement, thus eliminating some burden on manufacturers. The agencies require extensive
paperwork for off-cycle technology certifications, as we learned in Phase 1 when we had to submit
documents for upwards of a year for a technology that has proven extremely fuel-saving on the road and
on our Super Truck vehicle; this burden could be reduced. In short, we would like to work with the EPA
and NHTSA to get the agencies what they need while minimizing burden on us~as there is a long way to
go. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1164-A1 p. 132-133]
Response:
-------
The agencies have had extensive outreach with the manufacturers to understand their concerns and will
continue to work to minimize burden while maintaining a robust compliance program. The agencies have
also tailored aspects of the program to facilitate easier compliance demonstrations (e.g., use of GEM
equation for trailer compliance; design standards for non-box and non-aero trailers; modification of
proposed provisions related to delegated assembly). Concerns about the burden associated with specific
aspects of the compliance program are addressed in earlier sections of this RTC.
Organization: Driversgripe.com
Hello, I currently run www.driversgripe.com and I understand that you are mandating trucking monitor
devices in 2017 of January and want you to know this is an invasion of our privacy under the constitution
and would like to say there is no proven facts of these devices working. Look at FedEx and other trucks
that have the device and have a high rate of accidents There is nothing wrong with these devices being
installed if a driver has multiple violations and allowed to remove them once there is no further violations
but to force one to do so is not right according to the constitution and to all the good truck drivers that
have no violations or have minor fractions Remember one thing without trucks you would not have your
car, house, supply's to build highways, etc. It is not fair to publish all truck drivers to an negligence of a
few [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1758 p.l]
Response:
This rulemaking does not mandate the use of specific technologies (with the exception of design
standards for certain limited types of trailers). Rather, the standards are performance based and allow
manufacturers to choose the technology mix that most fits their customers' needs. With respect to
"trucking monitoring devices" in particular, the agencies have included no such requirement in this
rulemaking.
15.2 Comments on International Harmonization
1971
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
14. Alignment with Canada
Alignment with Canada - We applaud the agencies on working with the Environment Canada for a
unified program. 80 FR 40150. The continuation of this strategy will continue the shared set of
procedures and common model for demonstrating compliance and shared target for any vehicle category.
Our concern from GHG Phase 1 still resonates in the fact that there is a different sales mix in the different
countries, and with compliance based upon a manufacturer's sales mix, common numerical C02 or fuel
consumption targets would result in different levels of stringency in the two countries. As stated in Phase
1, the US agencies should work with Environment Canada to define achievable target penetrations of the
various technologies that are appropriate for Canada and calculate the numerical targets based on these
penetration rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p,133]As noted in the April 2015 white paper
from the International Council on Clean Transportation, "Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Simulation: A Comparison of U.S. and EU Tools," a key area for harmonization is the alignment of test
procedures to quantify a technology's performance or efficiency benefit. For example, it would be ideal to
conduct a single axle-efficiency test to create an input map for both the U.S. and EU regulatory models.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.2]
Organization: Meritor, Inc.
-------
Maintain Broad Regulatory Framework - Nationally and Internationally
Meritor supports the proposed nationwide regulatory framework as demonstrated in Phase 1 and proposed
for Phase 2. We encourage the agencies to resolve any open issues with state regulatory bodies to ensure a
unified, national regulation. As a global company, we also encourage the agencies to take a leadership
role and collaborate internationally so that the final regulation may harmonize with global actions that are
proposed or already completed. Addressing the global issue of reducing greenhouse gas on a state-by-
state or a country-by country level will contribute to proliferation which increases cost and requires that
limited resources be dedicated to compliance rather than the pursuit of technologies that will further drive
greenhouse gas reduction. Although we recognize the feasibility limitations of global regulatory
standards, we encourage the agencies to continue efforts to commonize global regulation where possible.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1254-A1 p.2]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Harmonization should be the driving goal of regulations like this - whether it is between the federal and
state entities or between the U.S. and European Union - particularly for greenhouse gas (C02) emissions,
which are a global. While global harmonization is outside the scope of this particular proposed rule,
MEMA reminds the agencies about the significant consequences resulting from multiple compliance
regimes, testing protocols, conflicting and overlapping or competing regulations. For example, it is
desirable that emerging European regulations be compatible with the testing procedures outlined in the
proposal. Given that the developing state of EU regulatory processes may benefit from regulatory models
and structure being promoted by the EPA and NHTSA, we urge the agencies to continue outreach to their
EU counterparts about the U.S. procedures development and, to the extent possible, for the U.S.
procedures to be mirrored in the European context. This would be especially important in areas like
engine fuel maps, transmission representation and axle efficiencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1
p.3]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
International context
Finally, this rulemaking is key in establishing the U.S. as a global leader on freight truck efficiency. The
governments of Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, Mexico, and others are also considering their next
policy actions to similarly ensure greater efficiency technology deployment for heavy-duty vehicles
(Sharpe, 2015b; Kodjak, 2015). Assessment of technology potential across markets, as well as alignment
opportunities for regulatory testing, modeling, and compliance and protocols are all important areas for
international collaboration (see, e.g., Langer and Khan, 2013). We recommend that the agencies make a
commitment within the rulemaking to collaborate with their counterparts around the world to ensure that
the experiences are shared and leveraged, and the potential climate and energy benefits increased, from
their respective heavy-duty vehicle rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1180-A4 p. 18]
Response:
The agencies believe that the Phase 1 program, this Phase 2 rulemaking, and the many other actions
called for in the President's 2013 Climate Action Plan are critical for supporting United States leadership
to encourage other countries to also achieve meaningful GHG reductions and fuel conservation. In the
development of the Phase 2 program, EPA and NHTSA staff also met with regulatory counterparts from
several other nations who either have already or are considering establishing fuel consumption or GHG
-------
requirements, including outreach with representatives from the governments of Canada, the European
Commission, Japan, and China.
As noted in the Preamble (Section I), on March 13, 2013, Environment and Climate Change Canada
(ECCC), which is EPA's Canadian counterpart, published its own regulations to control GHG emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles and engines, beginning with MY 2014. These regulations are closely aligned
with EPA's Phase 1 program to achieve a common set of North American standards. ECCC has
expressed its intention to amend these regulations to further limit emissions of greenhouse gases from
new on-road heavy-duty vehicles and their engines for post-2018 MYs. As with the development of the
current regulations, ECCC is committed to continuing to work closely with EPA to maintain a common
Canada-United States approach to regulating GHG emissions for post-2018 MY vehicles and engines.
This approach will build on the long history of regulatory alignment between the two countries on vehicle
emissions pursuant to the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement.1 In furtherance of this
coordination, EPA participated in a workshop hosted by ECCC on March 3, 2016 to discuss Canada's
Phase 2 program.2 The Government of Canada, including ECCC and Transport Canada, has also been of
great assistance during the development of this Phase 2 rule. In particular, the Government of Canada
supported aerodynamic testing, and conducted chassis dynamometer emissions testing.
In a joint statement from the U.S. and Canada on March 10, 2016,3 both nations committed to "work
together and with other countries to encourage robust leader-level G-20 commitments to improve the
environmental performance of heavy-duty vehicles, including through the implementation of stringent
domestic regulations on fuel efficiency and/or greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutant emissions and low-
sulfur fuels and green freight programs."
1 http://www.ijc.org/en_/Air_Quality Agreement
2 "Phase 2 of the Heavy-duty Vehicle and Engine Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations; Pre-
Consultation Session," March 3, 2016.
3 U.S.-Canada Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership. March 10,2016.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/10/us-canada-joint-statement-climate-energy-and-
arctic-leadership
15.3 NAS Recommendations 1973
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
In this regard, it should also be noted that the National Academy of Sciences Committee recommended
that EPA and NHTSA develop a separate standard for natural gas vehicles and that the agencies assemble
a best estimate of'well-to-tank GHG emissions to be used for developing future rulemakings.' The
Preamble indicates that the agencies are not developing such a standard primarily because the low market
share of such vehicles means that imposing standards will have little impact on the overall GHG
reductions from the program. The agencies take a similar position with respect to assessing the life cycle
impact of electric vehicles.41 While the agencies also cited uncertainty in methane estimates and leakage,
they did not consider this uncertainty to be of such a degree as to prevent them from moving forward.42
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1275-A1 p. 13-14]
Since materials affect the construction of all vehicles, EPA and NHTSA cannot use the same rationale for
its 'wait and see' approach to natural gas and electric vehicles. Utilizing a life cycle analysis of materials
in this rulemaking would not suffer from most of the constraints that the agencies have identified for
natural gas or zero-emission vehicles. Changes to materials would much more likely be made across
-------
many different vehicles at the same time versus through the sale of individual alternatively fueled
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-A1 p. 14]
41 EPA also is proposing to maintain a zero emissions rate for electrically charged vehicles, even though
upstream emissions will vary depending on electricity source. Id. at 40,331, 40,389. Again, however, a
main part of the rationale for not imposing lifecycle standards in this rulemaking is not methodological
but rather based on the agencies assessment of the very small market and emissions impact of these
vehicles.
42 Instead, the agencies expressed a desire to take a holistic approach for incorporating well-to-tank
emissions into future rulemakings. 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,516.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Tire testing and the need for a reference machine for calibration of truck tire
characterization equipment
The NPRM proposes to carry over tire testing provisions adopted in International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 28580 for the Phase 1 program into Phase 2. CARB staff supports this proposal.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 134]
The NPRM also requests comment on the need to develop a reference machine for calibration of truck tire
characterization equipment, and on whether tire test facilities are interested in and willing to commit to
developing a reference machine. CARB staff supports this effort to consider the need for a reference
machine to ensure accurate correlations of coefficient of rolling resistance (Crr) measurements within the
tire industry. CARB staff believes this effort is critical to ensuring reliable comparisons between tire
models and manufacturers, and is pertinent to providing rolling resistance data to assist consumers in
purchasing replacement tires with Crr levels equivalent to original equipment manufacturer (OEM) tires.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 134-135]
One of the findings in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on Technologies and
Approaches for Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two,
interim report was that tire Crr measurements need to be precise, given the relatively modest fuel savings
achieved with LRR tires. Further, while the ISO 28580 test procedure has received high grades from the
tire industry, there is not yet a robust cross-correlation for machines used in commercial tire testing.
Based on this finding, the NAS Committee recommended that NHTSA, supported by U.S. EPA,
implement a mechanism for obtaining accurate tire rolling resistance data, including establishing a tire
alignment laboratory and mandating the use of that laboratory.49 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1
p.135]
Based on public comment during Phase 1 development and to address the NAS Committee's specific
recommendation to establish a tire alignment laboratory, U.S. EPA and NHTSA evaluated test data from
U.S. EPA's Phase 1 tire test program conducted at two independent tire test labs, Standards Testing Lab
(STL) and Smithers-Rapra (Smithers), and concluded that any lab-to-lab variation between STL and
Smithers has little effect on measured rolling resistance values.50 As such, U.S. EPA and NHTSA
consider STL or Smithers as acceptable for use as the reference test laboratory in correlating results of tire
testing performed by vehicle manufacturers intended for use as GEM inputs. The Phase 2 proposal,
-------
however, does not go so far as to require vehicle manufacturers to use a reference laboratory, and instead
carries over the provisions from Phase 1 that allow vehicle manufacturers to also perform their own
testing or obtain test results from the tire manufacturer or another third party. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 135]
Given the proposal's lack of a provision mandating the use of a reference laboratory, CARB staff believes
it is important that NHTSA and U.S. EPA work with the tire test industry in developing a reference
machine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 135]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Develop rolling resistance performance standard for replacement tires
The Phase 2 proposal continues the Phase 1 requirement for GEM inputs for steer tire and drive tire
rolling resistance. As with the Phase 1 program, the Phase 2 proposal contains no mechanism to ensure
that rolling resistance of replacement tires is the same as the OEM tires simulated during GEM vehicle
certification, even though vehicle tires will likely be replaced at the discretion of the vehicle owner at
multiple points over the actual lifetime mileage of the vehicle. For example, U.S. EPA and NHTSA
estimate a tire replacement interval of about 200,000 miles for tractors (page 7-36 of the RIA). For a class
8 tractor, the regulatory useful life in regards to GHG emissions is 10 years/435,000 miles (page 40215 of
the NPRM) but this mileage value is considerably less than the actual lifetime mileage for a class 8 truck.
Without a mechanism to ensure replacement tires have Crr values equivalent to OEM tires, there is no
assurance a vehicle will maintain its allowable GHG vehicle emission levels demonstrated through GEM.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 136]
As such, CARB staff strongly supports the NAS Committee recommendation51 for NHTSA, in
coordination with U.S. EPA, to quantify the rolling resistance of new tires, especially those sold as
replacements, and to adopt a regulation establishing a LRR performance standard for all new tires
designed for tractors and trailers (if additional cost-effective fuel savings can be achieved), and
encourages NHTSA to act as expeditiously as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 136]
Oppose/Requested Change Comment
Comment - Publication of tire Crr levels and development of tire Crr database
The NPRM states that U.S. EPA and NHTSA are considering publishing Crr levels from GHG and fuel
efficiency program compliance data (which is submitted by vehicle manufacturers, not by tire
manufacturers), although the data could vary for a given tire model among vehicle manufacturer
submissions or lag when tires are redesigned. CARB staff supports this as a first step in providing buyers
information on Crr levels for the universe of tires utilized under the Phase 2 program in order to facilitate
tire replacements with equivalent Crr levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 137]
Nonetheless, U.S. EPA and NHTSA cite the data limitations described above as the rationale for not
proposing to establish a public database containing heavy-duty vehicle tire LRR information at this time.
While CARB staff acknowledges this concern, the NAS Committee recommends,52 and CARB staff
strongly encourages, that U.S. EPA and NHTSA develop a mechanism to maintain accurate information
on LRR levels in a public database (or other web-based medium). Commercial tires are not sidewall
labeled with Crr values, or another standardized metric, to assist truck owners in purchasing replacement
tires with Crr values equivalent to the OEM tires, or to assist vehicle builders with tire selection based on
their fuel savings benefits. The NPRM itself acknowledges the inability of vehicle buyers to obtain
-------
reliable information on the fuel savings, reliability, and maintenance costs of technologies that improve
fuel efficiency (page 40436 of the NPRM). For the near-term, CARB staff believes that a public database
is necessary to provide truck owners and vehicle builders with access to accurate information on tire LRR
and fuel savings benefits associated with Crr values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 137]
For the longer-term, CARB staff recommends that NHTSA coordinate with the tire industry to develop
standardized sidewall labeling parameters that include Crr values, or other standardized accepted metrics
for determining Crr values, and undertake a rulemaking to require such sidewall labeling. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p. 137-138]
49 (NAS, 2014) The National Academies of Sciences, "Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2, First Report," Washington, D.C. National
Research Council, The National Academies Press, 2014.
50 Summary of test results is described in U.S. EPA Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation Memorandum by L.
Joseph Bachman, July 18, 2011.
51 (NAS, 2014) The National Academies of Sciences, "Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2, First Report," Washington, D.C. National
Research Council, The National Academies Press, 2014.
52 (NAS, 2014) The National Academies of Sciences, "Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2, First Report," Washington, D.C. National
Research Council, The National Academies Press, 2014.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
SECTION 102 OF EISA
NADA/ATD actively supported the 2007 enactment of Section 102 of EISA, which detailed a
Congressionally-mandated national program for the first-time-ever regulation of commercial vehicle fuel
efficiency.3 As required by EISA, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed its first study on
this topic in March 2010.4 The following year, a joint NHTSA/EPA Phase 1 rule was published, some 5
months before the statute's 24 month deadline. The Phase 1 rule required manufacturers to begin
compliance with EPA's GHG mandates effective with model year (MY) 2014, but made NHTSA's
mandates "voluntary" until MY 2016. The Phase 1 mandates take foil effect with MY 2018. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.2]
NADA/ATD is fully supportive of continuous improvements in commercial truck FE/GHG performance.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.2-3]
Consistent with that support is the fact that no variable cost is more critical to truck dealership customers
than fuel, leading the overwhelming majority of customers to focus on fuel efficiency performance when
ordering new commercial vehicles. NADA/ATD questions the need for a Phase 2 rule, except perhaps as
a backstop to the mandates set out in the Phase 1 rule.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.2-3] [[This
comment can also be found in EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p.70.]]
NADA/ATD believes that improvements in commercial truck, tractor and trailer FE/GHG should be
market-based, not mandated by regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.2-3]
-------
However, in February of 2014, the President called upon NHTSA and EPA to move forward with a Phase
II rule. In April 2014, the NAS issued a second (interim) report outlining several recommendations
addressing technical and policy matters to be considered in the context of a Phase 2 FE/GHG rule for
commercial vehicles.7 The Phase 2 proposal appears to reflect the consideration of many of those
recommendations. What is less clear is the degree to which the Phase 2 proposal fully takes into account
the key constraints identified by the NAS8 and the statutory mandate that any FE/GHG rules be
"appropriate, cost-effective and technologically feasible." These critical constraints inherently reflect the
reality that federal FE/GHG mandates only apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and engines
and not to their purchase. Consequently, unless FE/GHG rules are "appropriate, cost-effective and
technologically feasible," prospective customers will avoid purchasing the new vehicles and engines they
govern, electing instead to hold onto the used vehicles they own or lease, or turn to the used vehicle
market. Either way, commercial truck dealerships lose potential new vehicle sales, with no benefit to the
environment or to energy security. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.3]
With its passage of EISA, Congress amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which contains a
clear-cut prohibition against the adoption or enforcement of state laws related to fuel economy.9 Avoiding
a patchwork of state laws in this area is critical to the for-hire carriers, private companies, public fleets,
and individuals who operate trucks and tractors in every state in the nation. The final Phase 2 rule must
acknowledge the critical importance of avoiding duplicative and non-identical state rules that could
impose untenable burdens on dealerships, on new truck and engine manufacturers, and on prospective
purchasers. Above all, the Phase 2 rule should constitute a single federal commercial vehicle FE/GHG
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.3]
3 EISA requires that:
1. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conduct and publish a study of potential commercial
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement strategies, and
2. NHTSA, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy (DOE) and EPA, examine the fuel efficiency of
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks and determine:
(A) the appropriate test procedures and methodologies for measuring the fuel efficiency of such vehicles;
(B) the appropriate metric for measuring and expressing fuel efficiency performance, taking into
consideration, among other things, the work performed by such vehicles and the types of operations in
which they are used;
(C) the range of factors, including, without limitation, design, functionality, use, duty cycle,
infrastructure, and total overall energy consumption and operating costs that affect the fuel efficiency of
such vehicles; and
(D) such other factors and conditions that could have an impact on a program to improve the fuel
efficiency of such vehicles.
3. Not later than 24 months after completion of the NAS study, NHTSA consult with DOE and EPA and
determine by rulemaking how to implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle
and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement, and adopt and implement appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy
-------
standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically
feasible for such vehicles, prescribing as appropriate separate standards for different classes of vehicles.
Such rules were to provide for not less than 4 full model years of regulatory lead-time and 3 full model
years of regulatory stability.
49 USC '32902(k).
4 Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicle, (NAS, 2010).
6 Neither EISA nor the CAA mandates a Phase 2 rule (or any commercial truck GHG/FE program
beyond Phase 1).
7 Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
Phase Two, First Report, (NAS, 2014).
8 The NAS recognized the following constraints on commercial truck fuel efficiency and GHG reduction
improvements: (a) holding life-cycle cost of technology change or technology addition to an acceptable
level; (b) holding capital cost of acquiring required new technology to an acceptable level; (c)
acknowledging the importance of employing a balance of energy resources that offers national security;
(d) avoiding near-term, precipitous regulatory changes that are disruptive to commercial planning; (e)
ensuring that the vehicles offered for sale remain suited to their intended purposes and meet user
requirements; (f) ensuring that the process used to demonstrate compliance is accurate, efficient, and not
excessively burdensome; and (g) not eroding control of criteria pollutants or unregulated species that may
have health effects. Report at p. ix.
9 49 USC '32919.
Organization: National Waste & Recycle Association
The trucks used by our industry are in the "vocational vehicle" category in both the Phase 1 rule and the
Phase 2 proposal. As they did with the Phase 1 proposal, EPA and NHTSA continue to ignore the advice
of the National Academies of Science (NAS). In its study, "Technologies and Approaches to Reducing
the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicles" (2010), NAS highlighted the wide
differences between different types of vocational vehicles. In the press release accompanying the release
of the study, NAS pointed out that "NHTSA will need to establish standards tied to the task associated
with a particular type of vehicle; garbage trucks might be held to a different standard than transit buses,
for example." The failure of the agencies to heed that advice and to instead lump all vocational vehicles
together with only minimal differences in regulatory approach, results in a proposal that fails to recognize
their differences and that will accomplish far less than an approach tailored to each different kind of
vocational vehicle. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0071-A 1 p.6] [This comment can also be found in section 6.1 of
this comment summary]
Response:
The NAS HD Phase 2 First Report contains more than 40 recommendations to the agencies. The agencies
have carefully considered all of the Committee's recommendations, and incorporated many of them in the
Phase 2 standards. In some instances, the agencies have chosen a different course (with explanation) from
the one charted by the NAS Committee's recommendations. See Section XII of the NPRM for a detailed
-------
discussion of these recommendations and the agencies' response to those recommendations (80 FR
40512).
Life Cycle Emissions for Natural Gas Vehicles
While AISI cited the NAS recommendation to estimate life cycle emissions from natural gas vehicles,
AISI did not comment as to whether or not the agencies should follow that recommendation. Rather, its
comments addressed life cycle emissions for material substitution. These were addressed in RTC Section
1.8 and also in section I.F of the Preamble to the final rule.
Reference Test Lab for Tire Rolling Resistance
CARB supported the NAS recommendation to establish a reference laboratory for tire rolling resistance.
We largely share this goal, and expect to continue working toward it with industry and other interested
stakeholders.
CARB also commented that Phase 2 "contains no mechanism to ensure that rolling resistance of
replacement tires is the same as the OEM tires" and should adopt a performance standards for
replacement tires. However, we did not propose such standards and consider them to be outside the scope
of this current rulemaking. Additionally, we believe CARB overstates this concern. The regulations do
include a regulatory prohibition against disabling emission controls including tire-related improvements.
Similarly CARB commented in support of standardized sidewall labeling for rolling resistance. However,
that is also outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Vocational Vehicle Segmentation
NWRA commented that the agencies should have more closely followed the NAS recommendations
related to vocational vehicle segmentation. They argued that the proposal "fails to recognize their
differences and that will accomplish far less than an approach tailored to each different kind of vocational
vehicle." However, this position ignores the burden it would place on manufacturers to separately track
vehicles by final application. The approach being finalized balances these competing interests by
allowing manufacturers to select from a limited range of duty-cycles. This will allow vehicles to be
evaluated similarly (although not identical) to how they are likely to be used.
15.4 Small Business Impacts 1979
Organization: American Reliance Industries, Co. (ARI)
ARI's Procedures under Phase 1
ARI has worked directly with EPA's designated compliance officer to ensure compliance with the
procedural requirements relevant to ARI under Phase 1. ARI qualified for the small business exemption
under 40 C.F.R. § 1037.150(c). ARI notified the designated compliance officer each model year prior to
introducing any heavy duty vehicles for that model year into commerce that included cab sleeper
modifications made by ARI. ARI places a permanent label on each heavy duty vehicle improved by ARI
that states: "THIS VEHICLE IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40 CFR § 1037.150(c)." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1300-A1 p.2]
-------
When qualifying for the small business exemption, ARI had to ensure that it qualified as a small business
under 13 C.F.R. § 121.201. ARI operates in a unique niche market that is not properly reflected in NAICS
Code system. There is not a NAICS Code that directly identifies ARI's line of business. ARI has been
using NAICS Code 336120, Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing, when qualifying for the small business
exemption because this is the type of vehicle that it primarily improves. ARI has always fallen far below
the threshold for qualifying as a small business under 13 C.F.R. § 121.201. ARI is also a very low volume
producer in comparison to others who are more suitably designated under NAICS Code 336120, Heavy
Duty Truck Manufacturing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.2]
Evaluation of the Phase 1 Small Business Exemption Impact by EPA and NHTSA
The following statement was made by the agencies when assessing whether to include the small business
exemption in Phase 1: "The proposed exemption from the standards established under this proposal
would have a negligible impact on the GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions otherwise due to
the standards." Draft Reg. Impact Statement, EPA NHTSA (October 2010). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1300-A1 p.2]
Alternative Options
ARI believes that two simpler alternative methods exist for providing an exemption to small businesses
that are second stage manufacturers performing cab sleeper modifications. EPA and NHTSA could select
to carry over the small business exemption from Phase 1 and finalize it as a permanent flexibility.
Alternatively, EPA and NHTSA could add a section comparable to the current 40 C.F.R. § 1037.150(c),
but limited to small businesses that are second stage manufacturers performing cab sleeper modifications.
Under either approach, ARI recognizes that EPA and NHTSA may want to have a notification
requirement and a labeling requirement. ARI encourages the agencies to make any labeling requirement
be added in addition to the original certification label. ARI also encourages the agencies to make any
required label identify that "AFTER THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATION OF THIS VEHICLE, A
SMALL BUSINESS MADE CAB SLEEPER MODIFICATIONS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED UNDER
40 C.F.R. ." ARI recognizes that under any approach, the term "cab sleeper modifications" may
need to be defined in order to ensure that it includes the possibility of adding aerodynamic technologies as
described above. ARI is interested in working with EPA and NHTSA to help develop a definition that is
acceptable to the agencies and applicable to the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.5]
ARI requests that the agencies either carry over the small business exemption from Phase 1 or make a
specific small business exemption for second stage manufacturers performing cab sleeper modifications.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1300-A1 p.7]
Response:
The agencies proposed and are finalizing provisions to include small business manufacturers in our Phase
2 program. It is not clear from the comment if ARI exclusively produces new custom sleeper tractors as a
secondary manufacturer, or if they also provide glider kits or glider vehicles for customers that wish to
use older engines in a new custom sleeper body. In either case, the agencies are adopting flexibilities for
both glider manufacturers (40 CFR 1037.150(t) and 1037.635) and custom sleeper manufacturers (40
CFR 1037.150(r) and 1037.622).
Under our interim provision in 40 CFR 1037.150(t), glider manufacturers may produce up to 300 exempt
vehicles per calendar year. Any production beyond 300 units would meet the requirements outlined in 40
-------
CFR 1037.635, including use of an engine that meets GHG and criteria pollutant standards for the engine
model year corresponding to the vehicle's date of manufacture.
We are adopting an interim provision in 40 CFR 1037.150(r) to allow small business secondary
manufacturers to convert low- and mid-roof tractors to mid or high-roof configurations without
recertification for the purpose of building a custom sleeper tractor. Also noted in 40 CFR 1037.622,
small business custom sleeper manufacturers may modify complete or incomplete vehicles certified as
tractors, as long as they do not modify the vehicle body in front of the b-pillar or increase the effective
frontal area of the certified configuration, including consideration of the frontal area of the standard
trailer. For high-roof tractors, this would generally mean the added sleeper compartment may not be
more than 102 inches wide or 162 inches high (measured from the ground), which are the dimensions of
the appropriate standard trailer under this part.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Comment on Topic Where NPRM Requests Comment
Comment - Small business impacts
The NPRM requests comment on additional provisions for small businesses. In California, small
businesses play an important role in the economic vitality of the state, representing 3.5 million businesses
and 50 percent of the private-sector labor force. CARB staff supports additional research on the impact of
the proposed rulemaking on small businesses, specifically in regards to potential impacts on employment.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 187]
Response:
The agencies evaluated the potential economic impact of this rulemaking and do not believe it will have a
significant economic impact on small businesses. We estimated the number of hours these rules will
require from the individual sectors and the heavy-duty industry as a whole, but cannot distinguish if these
additional hours would necessitate additional hiring, since it is possible that companies will assign current
staff to fulfill their needs.
Requested Clarification
Comment - Small Manufacturer Provisions
Small manufacturers were exempt from Phase 1 GHG rules, but must comply with Phase 2, under a
delayed schedule. The small manufacturer delays apply to engine manufacturers (page 40161 of the
NPRM), trailer manufacturers (page 40285 of the NPRM), and small engine converters (page 40545 of
the NPRM). Alternate fuel engines, defined as those fueled with any fuel other than gasoline, E85, or
diesel, have an additional year to comply with each new standard. CARB staff supports the inclusion of
small manufacturers into Phase 2 of the GHG regulations. CARB staff recommends clarification on
whether this alternate fuel delay noted in 40 CFR1036.150 (d) and 86.1819 - 14 0 (5) is in addition to
the small manufacturer delay (resulting in a delay of up to 2 years for an alternative fuel engine
manufactured by a small manufacturer), and whether the alternative fuel delay is available to
manufacturers who are not small manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 191]
Response:
-------
We have revised the regulation to clarify that the one-year delay applies only for small manufacturers,
and that it is not a two-year delay for the initial round of Phase 2 standards.
Organization: CALSTART
Regulatory Flexibility for Small Manufacturers
Much of the innovation in idle reduction, electric drive, hybridization and even new novel engine and
waste heat recovery systems is occurring among the supplier industry and small, innovative
manufacturers. To encourage this innovation, it is very important to both find ways to include these
innovators in the rule and to minimize the regulatory burden of involvement in the regulation. California
has been grappling with this conundrum which it recognizes is creating a barrier to innovation at the time
it most needs to encourage it. Indeed, the HD-OBD requirements, while understandable, did not provide
any flexibility for low volume, low risk technologies to proceed - they faced the same burden as fully
mature, high-volume approaches. It is certainly a key factor, among several, that stalled early hybrid
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1190-A1 p.8]
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) currently is redesigning a structure to try and better
encourage the deployment of these advanced technologies under its Innovative Technology Regulation.
The concurrent timing of the Phase 2 rules can provide an opportunity to work with CARB to harmonize
the federal and California policy approaches around new concepts to minimize the regulatory burden on
small manufacturers and provide clarity for future deployment. The California draft rule is envisioning a
phased or stair-stepped, staged approach to regulatory compliance that is tied to production volume. In
other words, it would possibly allow low volume, early stage technology to face a reduced regulatory and
compliance burden than higher volume, mature technology. As the technology ramps up in market
volume and penetration it would face increasing tiers of regulatory compliance, ending in full compliance.
We can envision a productive use of this approach for advanced technologies and some off cycle
technologies in Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.8]
Because the Phase 2 proposed regulations are forward-looking and provide significant lead-time, the rule
should be designed in a way that captures all of the potential fuel consumption reduction technologies,
including those of innovative secondary manufacturers. The Phase 1 standards allowed small, final stage
or aftermarket technology providers to participate in the regulations only as certifying manufacturers. For
many reasons, including the stringency and structure of the regulation as well as the disproportionate
burden it would place on small-volume manufacturers, this has limited participation in the current
regulations, meaning that the fuel consumption reductions currently achieved by end users of these
systems are not reflected in the Phase 1 certified fleet. It is worth noting that the stringency levels of
Phase 1 did not drive OEMs to seek such approaches or the reductions (or credits) they could provide.
Phase 2 provides an opportunity to rectify this and encourage innovation across the certified vehicle fleet.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.8]
Response:
The agencies provide a means to evaluate innovative technologies in our off-cycle provisions for Phase 2.
See responses to comments on innovative and off-cycle technologies at Section 1.4.2. We also discuss
some possible roles of secondary manufacturers in Section 1.4.4. A certificate holder should be an entity
willing and able to be responsible for compliance for all aspects of the vehicle covered by the certificate.
This is generally an engine or chassis manufacturer. Suppliers and other unregulated manufacturers are
encouraged to work with OEMs to integrate their technologies.
-------
Organization: Competitive Enterprise Institute et al.
The rule threatens the economic viability of small trucking firms, hundreds of which have gone out of
business due to increasing regulatory costs. The proposal says not one word about the plight of small
truckers or the greater relative burdens it will place on them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p. 1]
The rule threatens the economic viability of small trucking firms.
In scores of places, the rule acknowledges that regulations impose a greater relative burden on small firms
than on large. Accordingly, pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to consider "flexibility
provisions . . . specific to small businesses." However, in every instance, the entities in question are small
manufacturers, not vehicle owners and operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.2]
Specifically, the agencies propose regulatory flexibilities for manufacturers of box trailers, non-box
trailers, non-highway trailers, alternative fuel converters, emergency vehicle chassis, custom chassis, off
road vocational vehicle chassis, and gliders. Not once does the 627-page proposal mention small trucking
firms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.2]
[Table XV-2, 'Primary Small Business Categories Potentially Affected by the Regulation', can be found
on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
We recognize that the rule's requirements apply to manufacturers, not customers. Nonetheless, small
business truckers are an important category of stakeholders. As a recent Wall Street Journal article
observes, small operators "make up the vast majority of the roughly 470,000 for-hire fleets on the road
today." Indeed, companies "operating six or fewer trucks . . . make up 89% of all fleets." Although large
firms are increasing wages and hiring drivers, new regulations, "including rules capping emissions and
limiting drivers' hours on the road," are making it harder for small firms to hire workers, raise wages, or
even survive: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.3]
4 Loretta Chao, "Trucking Makes a Comeback, but Small Operators Miss Out: Their costs are rising, and
new U.S. regulations add to their expense," Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2015,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/truckingmakes-a-comeback-but-small-operators-miss-out-1443050680
Response:
Our official analysis of small business impacts through our Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) obligations is limited to small entities that would be regulated under the
proposed rulemaking (i.e., engine and vehicle manufacturers). We did not calculate the economic impact
that other related small industries, including small trucking firms, may experience and are not required to
do so. Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d 102, 129 (D.C. Cir. 2012). However,
unlike many other regulations promulgated by the agencies, the technologies that provide the basis for
these regulations will pay for themselves with use. Payback for the initial cost of technologies for these
rules are an average of four years or less. These technologies are expected to increase the up-front cost of
these regulated vehicles, which we recognize can be difficult to justify for small firms or individual
owner-operators, but these customers are also likely to own their vehicles longer than larger firms.
-------
OOIDA's example refers to owning a truck for 10 and 7 years, which would suggest that these
technologies would conservatively provide three years of direct savings to the owner.
Organization: Autocar, LLC
Autocar submits this letter and comments to the Proposed Regulations (the "Comments") and
respectfully requests that the Company not be subject to the Proposed Regulations for two reasons: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 3-A1 p.2]
First, Autocar's products are of a particular vehicle type (low-speed, frequent-stop, stationary-application
trucks) that will not produce the environmental benefits intended by the proposed technologies, beyond
the use of an emissions-compliant engine.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.2]
Second, Autocar is a small business that should be exempt from Phase 2. In 2011, the agencies
determined that its small size justified a deferral from compliance from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—
Phase 1 regulations ("Phase 1") for Autocar. The relevant facts remain the same, and Autocar's size,
volume and product lines continue to justify an exemption or different standards for its vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-123 3-A 1 p.2]
1.1 Autocar is a small business that has demonstrated leadership in the alternative fuel vocational truck
market. Autocar has 293 employees 1 located in east central Indiana in Wayne County, at one plant in
Hagerstown, Indiana (population 1,787), an area that historically has struggled during economic
downturns. Autocar annually produces approximately 2,000 refuse truck chassis and 500 other trucks and
chassis, marketed and sold under three product lines: (A) heavy heavy-duty class 8 vocational truck cab
and chassis, primarily for use as refuse trucks; (B) heavy heavy-duty class 8 terminal tractors (yard
hostlers); and (C) medium heavy-duty class 7 vocational truck chassis, primarily for use as street
sweepers and refuse trucks. Unlike most other chassis makers, who design, stamp and fabricate many of
their trucks' components, Autocar purchases parts, modules and components from its suppliers, and
assembles its cabs and chassis. Autocar does not manufacture engines nor is it affiliated with any engine
manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.6]
1.2 Autocar exemplifies the Federal Government's desire to safeguard competition in the specialty
vehicle markets. Autocar not only supports sound GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards policy,
but is also aligned with the Federal Government's efforts to promote competition in the specialty vehicle
markets. As the longest-standing continuous truck brand in the United States, Autocar was at risk of being
eliminated when its then-owner, AB Volvo, acquired another heavy-duty Class 8 low cab over engine
("LCOE") chassis manufacturer, Mack Trucks, Inc., in 2000. The United States Department of Justice
("DO J") (under Presidents Clinton and Bush), concerned with the potential effects of reduced competition
in the refuse market, and finding there was no reasonable substitute for a heavy LCOE chassis, ordered
Volvo to divest itself of one of its LCOE lines (U.S. v. AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO, et al., Competitive
Impact Statement, February 7, 2001, and Final Judgment, entered April 30, 2001). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1233-A1 p.7]
As a result, Volvo sold the assets of the Autocar division to Autocar's current owner, and Autocar built a
factory, hired employees, secured suppliers and began production in Hagerstown in 2003. Autocar would
not exist as an independent small business had the Federal Government not taken steps to preserve it, and
Autocar's existence has, in fact, generated the pro-competitive effects the Department of Justice sought.
The agencies should not now undermine the DOJ's efforts at promoting competition by implementing
requirements that would threaten Autocar's continued viability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.7]
-------
As a Small Business, Autocar Should be Exempt from the Phase 2 Regulations.
3.1 Autocar was exempt from Phase 1 as a small business, and compliance with Phase 2 would be
unsustainable. As noted above, Autocar is a small, privately owned assembler. Autocar already has a high
concentration of its employees working in product development and dedicated to continuous product
improvement in the areas of safe operation, cost and fuel economy. Allocation of resources is a delicate
balance when the Company has only 293 workers, and Autocar cannot reasonably locate, recruit, retain
and pay for additional personnel and other resources to work toward achieving the standards required
under the Proposed Regulations (Appendix A addresses development work that Autocar would need to
complete if it is not exempt). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.9]
Autocar does not build or install its own engines, but works closely with powertrain makers to find ways
to achieve fuel efficiencies and lower emissions on Autocar's vehicles. The Company's success depends
on delivering these improvements year after year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.9-10]
The agencies recognized these facts when they exempted Autocar from the Phase 1. Autocar did not use
its exemption to shirk environmental responsibility, but instead continued to drive improved emissions
through increased penetration of CNG and hybrid-powered trucks in its industry segments.6 Through
delegated assembly, all Autocar vehicles are compliant with the latest emission standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 10]
Autocar assembles trucks that move through the air slowly and perform significant functions while
stopped. If Autocar is required to apply the technologies suggested in the Proposed Regulations, the
agencies' desired environmental benefits would not be achieved on these mostly low-speed trucks, and
Autocar resources would be diverted from work on accepted, proven-effective alternative fuel vehicles
useful for Autocar's trucks' applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 10]
3.2 Autocar's vehicles are highly customized and are sold in a fixed-size market, making additional
regulatory compliance unduly burdensome on this small business. Autocar's customers require
customized products. Because each neighborhood in America demands a differently-configured truck to
collect its trash and sweep its streets, Autocar's business model is to assemble high-quality chassis with
customized specifications and components specifically suited to each truck ordered by its customers.
Autocar's customers include municipalities such as the City of Charlotte and the City of San Antonio,
private and public waste haulers, airports and construction companies, and Autocar's small size enables it
to work very closely within this narrow set of vocations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 10]
For the last 10 years, the American annual market segment size for refuse trucks and street sweepers has
consistently remained less than 6,000 units, requiring Autocar to operate leanly and efficiently. The
Company minimizes research and development costs by sourcing adaptable, off-the-shelf components
whenever possible. We integrate, rather than manufacture in the typical fashion. For these reasons, the
burden of compliance with the Proposed Regulations poses a unique threat to Autocar's ability to
continue its business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 10]
3.3 Unlike a large, diverse, vertically-integrated manufacturer, a small business such as Autocar cannot
reasonably absorb new regulatory development and compliance cost. Without continuing the small
business deferral that EPA and NHTSA provided in Phase 1, manufacturers meeting Small Business
Administration size criteria (see Note 1 above) would be forced to raise prices of their products. Small
businesses cannot adequately realize the advantages of averaging and spreading costs afforded large
manufacturers; without an exemption, the compliance burden would be disproportionately high. In fact,
even with the compliance deferral granted in Phase 1, a number of the small businesses the agencies
-------
exempted were sold, bankrupt or dissolved in the four years since. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1
p.ll]
Moreover, small businesses exempted from Phase 1 have not, and cannot, reasonably marshal the
resources necessary for compliance, including engineers experienced with GEM testing and personnel
dedicated to maintaining records and executing the processes necessary to obtain EPA and NHTSA
certification (see the chart below presented by EPA in 2012 to summarize the substantial work needed to
certify).7 Notwithstanding the burden, Autocar would be at a distinct disadvantage in attracting and
affording such talent now. Even if a small business could build such a compliance organization, it could
not reasonably match such costs with benefits, because as the agencies themselves noted, "[A]veraging is
not of practical value as a compliance flexibility" for manufacturers offering a narrow range of products,
and such manufacturers do not have "large sales volumes over which to distribute technology
development costs." 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,294. Exempting small businesses would be consistent with the
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel's recommendations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p.l 1]
[Graphic, Steps in EPA/NHTSA Certification Process, can be found on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1]
3.4 Exempting small manufacturers would support other small businesses and preserve competition that
benefits customers. In support of the agencies' examination of the effect of their regulations on small
businesses, Autocar notes that, should it be forced to comply with the Proposed Regulations, other small
businesses, including the small governmental entities the agencies specifically identified as being
potentially impacted (80 Fed. Reg. at 40,542-40,543), would similarly suffer negative downstream
effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 12]
Without the benefit of compliance flexibilities and without an exemption, Autocar and other small
manufacturers—and their customers—would face potential disruption to their businesses due to
production delays, lost sales, upfront cost increases and increased maintenance costs. Increased costs of
ownership would negatively impact customers' payback analysis, causing them to use existing vehicles
longer, and delay the purchase of new equipment, due to higher acquisition and maintenance costs. Many
of these customers are other small businesses (for example, municipalities and independent "mom-and-
pop" waste management companies) that would be negatively impacted by such additional costs and
market disruptions. And if Autocar was forced from the marketplace, customers would have fewer
companies competing for their business, which would otherwise support lower prices and improved
product features, in contravention of the DOJ's objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 12]
Additionally, many body builders that install important vocational equipment onto Autocar's cabs and
chassis are small businesses (as the agencies specifically noted at 80 Fed. Reg. 40,286) and these firms
are able to sell more of their products when they have several viable chassis makers participating in their
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233-A1 p. 12]
Autocar is a small company with small volumes in niche markets. The unsustainable and disproportionate
efforts that would be required for Autocar to achieve compliance with the Proposed Regulations would
yield only minimal impact on the reduction of GHG emissions. If given the ability to continue to pursue
other proven and accepted environmentally-friendly technologies such as CNG and hybrid drive, Autocar,
and likely other small players, have a chance to generate more than a small impact on GHG emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1233 -A 1 p. 16-17]
Autocar requests that the final rules reflect an exemption for small business manufacturers or an
exemption for low-speed and stationary or high-frequency-stop vocational vehicles. Alternatively, but
-------
with caution, Autocar supports modified standards and simplified compliance for small custom chassis
manufacturers of low-speed and stationary or high-frequency-stop vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1233-A1 p.17]
6 In its comments on the Phase 1 proposed regulations, Volvo argued that a small business exemption
would incentivize big companies to divest themselves of small truck making divisions with the hope of
creating exempt entities, and would discourage body builders from doing business with non-exempt
entities such as Volvo. See Comments of the Volvo Group on the proposed rule, Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,
74 FR 74152 (November 30, 2010) dated January 31, 2010. To Autocar's knowledge, none of Volvo's
concerns materialized as a result of the Phase 1 small business deferral - market shares were not directly
affected; body builders did not change their product mix or their business relationships with chassis
manufacturers; large manufacturers did not restructure their business units to get around the regulations
(nor could they effectively, under the SBA criteria).
7 Source: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Requirements For Vocational Vehicles: Materials For
Heavy-Duty Chassis Manufacturers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, August 2012,
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/vocational-only-presentation.pdf.
Organization: Autocar, LLC
3. Autocar is Small and will be Adversely Affected by the Compliance Scheme Proposed in the
EPA's Vocational Custom Chassis Memorandum.
3.1 Autocar was Exempt from Phase 1 Compliance. When the agencies exempted Autocar from
compliance with Phase l,12 they recognized its small size and production volume compared to its
competitors.13 As a result, Autocar was exempt from a compliance structure that would otherwise have
involved the use of full GEM and whole-vehicle certification and compliance (with LRR tires being the
only required technology). What is being considered now for Phase 2 compliance would thrust Autocar
into the realm not only of GEM, but of two levels of GEM. Compliance would require Autocar to rely on
third parties to invent and supply technologies, some of which do not currently exist, and some which will
not be effective for the industry segments in which Autocar participates. The negative impact of the
regulations on Autocar will be enormous, and the positive impact on GHG emissions, through the
regulation of Autocar's 2,500 trucks per year, will be miniscule. If the agencies adopt the compliance
scheme suggested in the Memorandum, Autocar will have approximately 18 months to source, integrate,
market and certify new technologies, through full GEM for some of its chassis applications and
Simplified GEM for its refuse chassis. To proceed as suggested by the Memorandum would force an
unanticipated, costly and unnecessary compliance pathway on Autocar. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1885-A1 p.9]
3.2 Small Manufacturers Face Multiple Threats to Survival. Small manufacturers in the United States face
daunting challenges to stay in business and are declining in number.14 In fact, many of the small
businesses exempted in Phase 1 no longer operate independently, having either filed for bankruptcy or
been absorbed by larger companies (see Figure 2 on the following page). While capitalizing on the
benefits of being small, such as agility and staying close to customers, when compared to their giant
competitors with deep resources, small businesses in the motor vehicle industries struggle more, with
employee turnover, recruiting, financing, leverage with suppliers and access to new technology. The
threat that these challenges post to the survival of small businesses is the reason the agencies are required
-------
to make accommodations for small businesses in rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.15 The
agencies have failed under SBREFA to provide adequate consideration to small business concerns,
specifically by failing to subcategorize for custom chassis makers, especially for refuse and other
specialty applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.9-10]
[Figure 2 can be found onp.10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1]
3.3 The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Specifically Recognized the Potential Impact on
Manufacturers like Autocar and Recommended an Exemption, but the agencies are Taking a Different
Approach. In its Final Report on the Proposed Regulations' impact on small businesses, the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel (the 'Panel') recommended 'proposing a low volume exemption based
on the volume of sales' for vocational custom chassis manufacturers like Autocar.16 Although the agencies
followed the Panel's recommendation in requesting comment on this topic in the Proposed Regulations,
the next official communications from the agencies were the Memorandum, which made no mention of a
small volume exemption, and the NODA, which stated that Phase 2 would build on Phase 1 by 'including
vehicles produced by small business manufacturers.'17 The agencies have neglected their obligation to
minimize the regulations' impact on small businesses. And if the agencies are not inclined to use the size
of a vehicle manufacturer's business as grounds for exemption, then a more appropriate factor in
determining the exemption is low volume, as recommended by the Panel.18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1885-A1 p.10-11]
3.4 The Impact of the Regulations Will Be Disproportionate. The compliance requirements proposed in
the Memorandum will impose burdens disproportionately high for a company such as Autocar that
assembles small volumes of customized chassis and no other product lines, limiting both the ability to
benefit from averaging, as well as the ability to spread development and compliance costs across many
vehicles. Autocar's development and compliance costs will be concentrated across its current volume of
2,500 vehicles annually, while Autocar's competitors will spread those costs across tens of thousands of
vehicles.19 Autocar's competitors have had the opportunity to build internal GEM compliance teams,
while Autocar is just now getting its first exposure to the model.20 And with vertical integration and
massive purchasing power, the competition will gain additional advantage over their Indiana rivals, as
illustrated in Figure 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p. 11]
[Figure 3 can be found onp.12 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1]
3.5 Some Small Businesses Received Greater Flexibilities. In the Memorandum, EPA exempted
manufacturers of emergency vehicles and cement mixers from compliance with Phase 2, requiring only
that they install LRR tires on their vehicles. Manufacturers of recreational vehicles also have a lesser
compliance burden than other vocational vehicle types. Neither the Memorandum nor the documents
included in the NODA explain why emergency vehicles, cement mixers and recreational vehicles should
be exempt, but not refuse vehicles. Moreover, Autocar and other small volume manufacturers assemble
custom chassis in other heavy-duty vocational applications that are not addressed in the Memorandum,
such as conventional (non-cab-over-engine) refuse trucks, concrete pumpers, street sweepers, tank trunks
and sewer cleaners. Without explanation, these similar applications have been excluded from the
proposed Simplified compliance scheme, and presumably require full GEM certification. This bifurcated
approach will further unnecessarily burden small businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-18 85-A 1
p. 12] [This comment can also be found in section 6.2 of this comment summary]
3.7 Phase 2 May Put Autocar Out of Business or Cause it to Exit Certain Product Lines. Autocar is not
equipped to handle the design, implementation, procurement, sales and marketing obligations that will be
necessary for compliance with Phase 2, and it cannot bear the increased cost of these obligations and still
-------
continue to operate its business as it does today. If certain product lines are subject to full GEM, those
product lines may have to be discontinued, stressing Autocar further. The agencies must not restrain trade
by eliminating competition through regulation. Autocar already competes with some of the largest
manufacturers in the world. Regulatory actions that favor large competitors by allowing them to average,
bank and trade credits - advantages of which Autocar cannot avail itself - and favor large competitors by
distressing their small competitors, are inappropriate and unfair. As discussed in detail in Autocar's
October 1, 2015 Comments, Autocar would not exist as an independent small business had the Federal
Government not taken steps to preserve it, and Autocar's existence has, in fact, generated the pro-
competitive effects the Department of Justice sought. The agencies should not now undermine the
Department of Justice's efforts at promoting competition by implementing requirements that would
threaten Autocar's continued viability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p. 13]
5. Conclusion
Fifteen years ago, at the request of the Department of Justice, the management and owners of Autocar
chose to hire 200 people and start a small business in Hagerstown, Indiana, in an industry where its
competitors employ hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. Frankly, we wouldn't have it any
other way. But after all the hard work put into Autocar to make it competitive, the agencies must not
inject Autocar into a regulatory scheme designed for companies that can 'average, bank and trade' and
'spread compliance cost over multiple vehicle types.' These are concepts that exclude small business by
their very nature. The agencies are required to provide flexibilities to accommodate small business, and
the only flexibility that will be effective for Phase 2, like Phase 1, is a small business or low volume
exemption. Autocar outlined the suggested parameters of these exemptions in its October 1, 2015
comments, and reiterates its request that such an exemption be included in the final Phase 2 rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1885-A1 p.13]
12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles - Phase I, 76 Fed. Reg. 51788 (Sept. 15, 2011).
13 See Figure 3 for details.
14 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics, Business Establishment Age and
Survival Data, Manufacturing, March 2015, http://www.bls.gOv/bdm/bdmage.htm#MANUFACTURING.
15 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as strengthened by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 ('SBREFA'), Pub. L. N. 114-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847, 857-74.
16 Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles: Phase 2, at 42 (Jan. 15, 2015).
17 81 Fed. Reg. at 10825
18 Any number of methods could be used to determine which manufacturers should be exempt per the
SBREFA Panel's recommendation. Autocar previously proposed and continues to support a 5,000-vehicle
limitation on the number of vehicles that a small chassis manufacturer may produce under an exemption
annually, consistent with the small-volume vehicle manufacturer exemption for NHTSA's TREAD
reporting.
-------
19 Autocar is interested in pursuing ways to offset these development costs, such as taking advantage of
any incentives or development funding that the agencies could offer, or perhaps purchasing environmental
credits from outside of the medium- and heavy-duty engine and vehicle industries if the agencies would
allow.
20 After learning of EPA's proposed approach in the Memorandum, Autocar contacted several consulting
firms as well as other vehicle manufacturers to attempt to retain a GEM consultant, to assist in
understanding and potentially implementing the GEM compliance model. Most manufacturers have had
in-house GEM experts since Phase 1 and could not provide GEM simulation services. One outside
consultant Autocar located charges $145 per hour for Phase 1 services and has yet to work with Phase 2
GEM.
Response:
Small businesses producing heavy-duty vehicles are not subject to Phase 1 heavy-duty GHG and fuel
consumption standards because of a deferral, not a permanent exemption. Before proposing regulations
that would apply to small businesses in Phase 2, we conducted an official analysis of small business
impacts under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). In response to the
recommendations of the SBREFA panel as well as public comments, the agencies are adopting provisions
that will reduce the compliance burden for small businesses. Primarily, we are including a one-year delay
in implementation for all small businesses that will allow them additional time to become familiar with
the compliance process, address staffing concerns, and evaluate technologies.
In the vocational vehicle sector, the agencies have identified nearly 40 chassis manufacturers likely to be
subject to the Phase 2 standards, where nearly half of them are small businesses based on number of
employees. In consideration of current market dynamics where many of these small businesses compete
directly with large diversified manufacturers, as well as comments stating it would be unfair to make less
stringent standards available solely on the basis of sales volume, the agencies are not finalizing a broad
sales volume threshold below which a vocational chassis manufacturer would have a different set of
requirements. See discussion in Section 6.4 of this RTC.
We are adopting a custom chassis program where eligibility is not limited to small entities.
Manufacturers will have the option to designate the following applications as custom chassis: coach
(intercity) bus, motor home, school bus, transit bus, refuse truck, cement mixer and emergency vehicle.
See Section 6.2.3 for responses to other comments on the custom chassis program. Chassis so designated
may be certified with a default engine map and other default parameters so that manufacturers choosing
this option will have fewer technologies to evaluate, and will have unique standards for each vehicle type
that reflect use of appropriate technologies. Further, the agencies are adopting a non-GEM design
standard option for motor home, cement mixer, and emergency vehicle chassis, because we have
determined these vehicles to have the least number of feasible technologies that can be applied in Phase 2.
As discussed in Section 6.4.1, we were unable to identify other custom chassis technology packages that
we believed could be applied at a 100% adoption rate; thus, averaging (and use of GEM) was deemed
necessary for other vehicles. Cement mixers have been determined by the agencies to essentially need
only apply low rolling resistance tires, certified engines, and low leakage air conditioning systems (i.e. the
final optional standard is predicated on performance of only these technologies). Where a manufacturer
of these vehicles is able to apply the same technology on all of its production without averaging, we offer
the non-GEM option as a compliance flexibility to avoid the certification burden associated with running
GEM.
-------
In response to comments, we are also revising some of the low-speed and off-road vehicle exemptions
that are carrying forward from Phase 1. See Section 6.4.2 for responses to these comments, including
some revisions in Phase 2 that may provide a pathway for a reduced certification burden for some of
commenter's other products.
In part to address the commenter's concern about large companies having a business advantage over
small, non-diversified businesses, the agencies are adopting a more restricted approach to averaging,
banking and trading (ABT) for custom chassis, allowing averaging within each subcategory, but no
banking or trading for vehicles certified to the optional standards, except that small businesses may use
traded credits to comply with the optional custom chassis standards. This recognizes that small
businesses may have fewer opportunities than large companies to over-comply with the final standards. If
a manufacturer wishes to generate tradeable credits from sales of these vehicles, one or more families
may be certified to the primary vocational vehicle standards.
Organization: Innovus Enterprise LLC
Innovus Enterprise, LLC is a certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business. We have been
working for over two years preparing to participate in a niche US truck market with new medium-heavy-
duty diesel engines in our class 6, 7 and 8 high-mobility specialized vehicles. During this time-frame, we
have made visits with the EPA diesel engine certification officials in Washington DC and in Ann Arbor,
MI. We are a registered manufacturer in the Verify database and have submitted our letter of intent to
certify this new engine family. We have had numerous conference calls with EPA officials concerning
certification and continue to converse in order to identify potential options for our small volume/small
business. Our anticipated US sales for year-1 are in a low two-digit figure and forecasted to grow at
approximately 15% year-on-year. An exceptionally high volume of sales for our business would be in a
low three-digit figure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1116-A1 p.2]
Our business operating model is strong. However, relative to industry standards and market realities, we
are without question an ultra-low volume producer. From a quantity of sales perspective, we are not
organized nor have the capability to disrupt this heavy-duty market segment; and this is not our intention.
Additionally, we understand and respect the tough mandate given to our government agencies with
respect to mobile source pollution control and fuel efficiency. We accept the challenge to be part of the
solution to help achieve our national GHG program goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.2]
We have analyzed our system, emissions and performance data. From an engineer's standpoint, we have a
very high degree of confidence, using quantitative data, our products emissions and fuel performance
characteristics will fall within allowable emissions tolerances and positively influence the GHG mandate
albeit so small and within the realm of a small business environment. That said, we now face a
tremendous hurdle; NHTSA and EPA certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.2]
The current and projected costs (technical, legal, accounting and consulting) we will burden to obtain and
hold NHTSA/EPA/CARB certificates for our products are enormous given our small scale business
model. The cost of certification is a defining moment for our business. If we are not afforded relief with
some form of certification flexibility (possibly using regulatory alternatives) we will in all probability not
be able to continue our business in this industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.2]
We find our options extremely limited as we seek to justify this certification burden or soundly amortize
it over our low volume of vehicle sales per year. Most certainly, large diesel engine and truck
manufacturers in this same industry are fortunate to spread these certification and compliance costs out
over the tens of thousands of units they sell; and they most often have dedicated staff to manage the
-------
process. From our position, it really is a disproportionate compliance burden for us. Being a small
business and understanding there are provisions for such situations, we would like to suggest some
potential regulatory alternatives. These alternatives will achieve the agency's goals while minimizing the
burden on small businesses who participate in this industry sector or who would like to enter it. Before we
begin with our suggestions and comments, we need to first talk about some of our vehicle/engine
characteristics and other defining factors that make our situation a special case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1116-Alp.2-3]
Technology, Characteristics and Operating Parameters: Our vehicles are high mobility and compact
multi-role class 6, 7 and 8 platforms which are often re-configured with a variety of heavy-duty work
implements depending on the season and required function. The vehicles are designed for extreme terrain
operations in all seasons performing a variety of highly specialized work tasks. The vehicle's MHDD
engine is equipped with the latest emissions control technology and is not only for propulsion but to
simultaneously power the various vocational attachments and implements by utilizing the unit's various
power systems (24V electrics, multi-circuit hydraulics, multi-range/multi-speed PTO's). The vehicle's
chassis and body are engineered to quickly accommodate a variety of these remove-and-replace
implements to perform various functions on a day-to-day basis depending on situation or role. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.3]
Our vehicles have special engineering and costly components for high mobility, off-road use and cross
functionality. These features add great expense to the vehicle and its flexibility but consequently render it
undesirable and impractical for general transportation use. Some of the vehicle's technological features
include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.3]
• Portal axles with hub reduction gears/planetary reduction axles: Exceptional high ground clearance;
reduced axle torque; maximum power to drive system.
• Permanent all-wheel drive/4-mode differential locks: Superior off-road traction and mobility in austere
conditions.
•Multiple crawler/working gear configurations with constant speed engine control; electronic quick
reverse; opt hydrostatic drive: Operation on difficult terrain; drive high-power implements; continual
operation under steady engine speed settings.
• Extreme high angles of approach/departure: Off-road operations with steep incline/declines as well as
obstacle avoidance.
• High break-over and tipping angles: Essential for safely navigating off-road/mountainous terrain.
• Single wheel/aggressive tread lug tires: Maximum traction as the rear wheels run in the tracks of the
front wheels.
• Central Tire Pressure Control System: Cockpit selected increase/decrease depending on surface
conditions (mud, sand, snow, gravel) and weight load.
• Fording ability: Safe design/protected components; up to 47 inches; for operations in flood waters.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.3]
Our vehicles have a multitude of functional capabilities and set up for quick interchange of implements.
Some examples: In summer, the vehicle could be configured for fighting wild fires, controlling large
-------
swaths of vegetation, or forestry work; in fall for high-pressure water/rotary brush tunnel and industrial
cleaning; in winter for extreme snow cutting/blowing, clearing a mountain pass or plowing; in spring for
agricultural tasks; flood water response or possibly a hazardous spill response in a remote location.
Customers often use our vehicles with many other attachable implements such as a heavy duty knuckle-
boom crane, PTO driven compressor or electric generator/welder, excavating or drilling equipment, road
improvement/grader, or a boom bucket for utility companies needing to reach elevated work in remote
locations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1116-A1 p.3-4]
Comment to the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. It appears the panel did not have opportunity, or
possibly did not see the need to evaluate the Proposed Amendments Related to Heavy-Duty Highway
Engines and Vehicles - Alternate Emission Standards for Specialty Heavy-Duty Vehicles, introduced on
page 40522. As a small business producing ultra-low volumes of heavy-duty diesel engines, gaining an
EPA and CARB certificate of conformity is our most challenging task. Indicative of small business, we
are always thinking of ways to do things more efficiently and effectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1116-A1 p.5]
President Obama has stated on numerous occasions that the goals and standards of the US and EU vehicle
emissions programs are near identical and that our pollution/pollutant standards are relatively the same.
He states: There is no reason we should not have mutual recognition of vehicle emission standards.
Hearing President Obama makes us think; why can't we use the ECE-EURO VI certification data, to
which we have access, to help achieve certification here in the US? We are certain we are not the only
small business trying to find ways to overcome the huge financial and logistical burden for certifying
engines and vehicle OBD systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.5]
As such, we propose to open a roundtable discussion, maybe just within the realm of your board experts
or maybe you have suggestions or contacts for us. The discussion would be; can quantitative data from
like emission systems and testing regimens be used along with engineering design to make high reliability
predictions for performance in other regimens. For example, if we have an EURO VI HDD OBD certified
system with all certification and testing parameters documented by a third party certification official, why
could we not use this to reduce the OBD testing burden for US small business trying to get EPA and
CARB certificates? Of course the systems are not mirror image and approving officials need to think
somewhat outside the box. The overall objective of the program and its goals should be at the forefront.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.5-6]
Additional Comments: On page 40295, there is a discussion about chassis manufacturers, small volume
manufacturers and small businesses and a request for comments on alternate approach and sales volume
threshold. We can say this: There is often a convolution of the terms "small volume" and "small entity."
There are cases where a large manufacturer, with resources normally far exceeding that of the small
business, is as a small volume producer, offered flexibility on compliance issues. We are of the opinion
that only small volume producers who also qualify as a small entity be the thrust for regulatory flexibility.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.7] [This comment can also be found in section 6.4 of this
comment summary]
A request for comment was posed asking for a means to determine what would constitute the correct
quantity that amounts to "small volume." We suggest using a formula based on a percentage of market
sales in that particular industry; industry being the particular one that a certificate is sought. Actually, it
seems the same question is posed every time small volume flexibility is posed - what is the correct or fair
quantity? We have developed such a formula and parameters for a program which could apply to all small
volume conditions throughout the CAA program. We can share this with the Agency and further discuss
-------
if they are interested. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p. 7] [This comment can also be found in
section 6.4 of this comment summary]
On page 40545, paragraph (x) Custom Chassis Manufacturers, a request is made for suggestions as to a
low volume exception. We are fully supportive of this exemption for small entity/small volume custom
chassis manufacturers. We feel that a volume of 200 vehicles per year could be adequate since it is
consistent with the other like categories. Additionally, we think there could also be some qualifying factor
such as: The exemption is warranted when the feasibility to employ fuel saving and emission reduction
technologies are beyond the capability of the small entity to reasonably engineer. Or, the vehicles operate
in a manner essentially making them incompatible with fuel saving and emission reduction technologies.
The recordkeeping, reporting and labeling could follow along the line of that in 1037.631. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p. 7] [This comment can also be found in section 6.4 of this comment summary]
Comment to the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel: On page 42 of your Final Report dated January
15,2015 for this proposed rule, in reference to the 9.5.3.2 Off-Road Vocational Vehicle it states: "The
Panel believes this exemption is sufficient to cover the small business chassis manufacturers who design
chassis for off-road vocational vehicles." As §1037.631 is currently proposed, our small business and our
off-road vocational vehicles would not necessarily be exempted unless our suggestion is accepted (see
suggestion above). It is very hard to imagine our purposely engineered high mobility/off road vocational
vehicles not fitting this term. Then again, maybe there is a means for our situation to fall within the
custom chassis realm. Of course we continue to advocate for remaining within the spirit and intent of the
exemption along with the flexibilities often afforded small entities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1
p.7-8]
Comment to the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel: On page 15 of your Final Report for this GHG
ruling dated January 15, 2015, you mention in reference to OBD; "Small businesses in particular, who
don't have a direct connection with the large manufacturers, will have a difficult time writing new
algorithms without access to the diagnostics from the OEM." You go on to present issues and potential
solutions. In 40 CFR 86.094-14, 86.095-14, or 86.098-14, Small-volume manufacturer's certification
procedures, there is a compilation of flexibilities and standards required for SVM certification but exclude
any mention of-17 or -18 OBD requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.8-9]
Having researched EPA's promulgation of heavy-duty OBD, there appears to be no discussion as to small
entity impact assessment or Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with the exception in the justification
statement that the rule was not going to impact small entities only large manufacturers. We know this is
not the case and therefore... Our suggestion: Move to include the -17/-18 OBD requirement to the listing
of applicable certification standards along with the other requirements in the -14. At least then maybe
there can be a proper discussion as to how small entities are impacted by this requirement and if there are
any means for flexible alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.9]
Response:
Innovus raised a variety of substantive and procedural concerns about the current rulemaking as it relates
to policy development and their ability to meet the range of requirements that apply now and in the future.
We believe we have included provisions in the final rule that effectively address all these concerns. Most
noteworthy is the provisions allowing manufacturers of specialty heavy-duty vehicles to use engines
certified to alternative highway standards that are based on nonroad certification requirements. This
applies for annual production volumes of up to 200 vehicles, including a specific allowance for applying
those provisions to the all-terrain vehicles that Innovus produces. This allows for substantially simplified
-------
OBD requirements and a much wider selection of candidate engines. The specialty vehicle provisions are
described in detail in Section 14.3.1.
The procedural concerns are secondary to the substantive items addressed above, but these points also
warrant mention:
• We have clarified the small-business provisions in § 86.094-14 to clarify that there is no blanket
exemption from OBD requirements for small manufacturers. We believe this is more
appropriately addressed based on the technology limitations of the vehicle applications than on
the type of company making the engine. Moreover, since the OBD requirements apply to engine
manufacturers, it would be impractical to create an exemption from OBD requirements for
engines installed by small vehicle manufacturers.
• The regulations include several allowances to use test data from procedures other than those we
specify (see 40 CFR 14065.10(c)). These variances are all premised on the expectation that
manufacturers may use measurement procedures that are equivalent to or better than the specified
procedures, or that they may measure emissions in a way that better represents in-use operation.
Test data measured using current European testing and certification procedures would not be
useful for demonstrating compliance with EPA standards. We believe the more effective way to
address this concern is to adopt standards and measurement procedures based on EPA's nonroad
programs. This approach allows vehicle manufacturers to get past the particularly limiting aspects
of the heavy-duty highway engine standards.
• The provisions of § 1037.605 and 1037.631 are not limited to small manufacturers, so using these
provisions does not depend on meeting some specified criteria.
• other companies as part of the rulemaking process. We believe the final rule properly balances
environmental concerns with the technical and financial limitations described in the comments.
Organization: Motiv Power Systems
One further method to encourage small, innovative manufacturers is to reduce the regulatory burden,
especially when those companies focus on zero-emission technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1184-
A1 p.2]
For small, innovative manufacturers, it is very important to minimize the regulatory burden of any
regulation. As a small company, we focus on technology first - and without clear regulations that can be
easily complied with, regulations that serve a wonderful end goal can be cumbersome. California has
been a leader in hybrid and electric vehicle deployment to-date as part of the state's commitment to a low-
carbon future—the California Air Resources Board (CARB) currently encourages the deployment of
these advanced technologies under its Innovative Technology Regulation. As a partner with the EPA and
NHTSA under the Clean Air Act, the agencies should work closely with CARB to harmonize the federal
and California policies as much as possible to minimize regulatory burden on small manufacturers and
provide clarity for future deployment. The success in California has allowed small companies such as
Motiv to bring products to market that reduce vehicle emissions, and we strongly support using this
model at a national level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1184-A1 p.2]
Response:
-------
The agencies are continuing in Phase 2 the simplified compliance strategy for manufacturers of zero-
emission vehicles that is currently in place for Phase 1. They are not required to use our GEM vehicle
simulation tool. Instead, they simply submit a report describing their technology, their sales and other
relevant information to EPA for compliance. Hybrid systems will require some additional compliance
steps (e.g., a powertrain test) to evaluate the performance. The comments related to OBD are addressed
in our responses in Section 14.3.3. Note that vehicles that qualify for our alternate engine standards for
specialty heavy-duty vehicles have alternate diagnostic requirements. California's authority under the
CAA differs from EPA, and EPA cannot always align national standards with requirements in
California.
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA)
Definition of Small Manufacturers
We request that the agencies revise the proposed definition for 'small manufacturer' to avoid
inconsistency based on engine type. The agencies define 'small manufacturer' according to the code of
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) with distinctions for manufacturers of
vehicles versus alternative fuel businesses that perform engine conversion.28 The result of the proposed
definition is separate classes of small manufacturers that are measured by different criteria.29 We ask the
agencies to apply the same definition of 'small manufacturer' that the agencies implemented in the Final
Rule for Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, which is a company with 1,000 or fewer employees.30 We believe that extension of the same
definition from light-duty through heavy-duty vehicle regulations provides consistency and clarity that
is valuable for businesses. Additionally, the same definition irrespective of the type of engine permits
businesses to diversify engine production without regulatory confusion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1272-A1 p.4]
28 Supra note 6, at 40563.
29 Id. For example, the NAICS code defines small manufacturers of gasoline engines according to the
number of employees, whereas small manufacturer businesses that convert engines are defined by
revenue. See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to
North American Industry Classification System Codes (2014), at 18; see also id. at 38.
30 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, 77 Fed. Reg. 199, at 62797 (finalized October 15, 2012) (to be codified at 40
C.F.R. 85, 86, 600, 49 C.F.R. 523, 531, 533, 536, 537).
Response:
Our industry-specific definitions of small entity are based on the definitions recommended by the Small
Business Administration (SBA), who is represented in our Small Business Advocacy Review Panel.
Production volume is not consistently proportional to the number of employees for vehicle and engine
manufacturers in the heavy-duty industry and the agencies cannot apply a universal threshold to diverse
-------
sectors. We are adopting the SBA small business thresholds updated in February 2014 for our final
small business flexibilities.272
3 Small Business Categories Potentially Affected by this Regulation
Industry Expected in
Rulemaking
NAICS
Code
NAICS
Description
SBA Size Threshold
(less than or Equal
to)
HD Pick-up Trucks
& Vans
336111
Automobile Manufacturing
1,500 employees
Vocational Chassis,
Class 7 & 8 Tractors
336120
Heavy-Duty Truck
Manufacturing
1,500 employees
Trailers
336212
Truck Trailer Manufacturing
1,000 employees
HD Spark-Ignition
Engines
336310
Motor Vehicle Gasoline
Engine & Engine Parts
1,000 employees
HD Compression-
Ignition Engines
333618
Other Engine Equipment
Manufacturing
1,500 employees
Organization: NGVAmerica
Small Manufacturer Definition
The EPA regulation of small businesses refers to 13 CFR 121.201. This is spelled out in section
1036.150 (d) of the EPA regulations. That section also provides, with respect to 13 CFR 112.201, the
following: "NAICS code 336310 for engine manufacturers with respect to gasoline-fueled engines,
333618 for engine manufacturers with respect to other engines, and 811198 with respect to fuel
conversions with engines manufactured by a different company." Unfortunately this means that very
different rules apply to gasoline engines, diesel engines and alternative fuel conversions. For gasoline
engine manufactures, a small business is a company that has 750 or fewer employees, for manufacturers
of other engines (presumably including diesel engines and new natural gas engines) it is 1,000 or fewer
employees, and for conversions of engines manufactured by a different company the cutoff is based on
revenues of $7.5 million or less. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1270-A1 p.6-7]
We do not believe that there is ample justification for establishing different treatment of businesses that
produce gasoline, diesel or natural gas engines. The rules obviously make it more difficult for
alternative fuel converters to take advantage of the small business exemption, which we do not believe
is intended or rational. We would recommend that the defining criteria for alternative fuel conversion
manufacturers be 1,000 or fewer employees and note that this is the figure used for exempting small
businesses from EPA rules for light and medium duty greenhouse gas regulations.1 For consistency,
rules for the light, medium and heavy duty conversions should use the same figure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1270-A1 p.7]
1 See http://www3 .epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/documents/420fl2056.pdf;
272 Small Business Size Standards for Manufacturing. Small Business Administration. Docket ID: SBA-2014-
0011. Available online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=SBA-2014-0011.
-------
Response:
The agencies defer to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for appropriate business sizes for small
entity classification. See 3 above reproduced in our response to the National Propane Gas Association.
The employee thresholds have been updated to reflect SBA's updated criteria as of February 2016. We
have removed reference to alternative fuel converters, because the agencies did not establish standards
for converted in-use engines in Phase 2. Instead, these businesses must meet tampering provisions
outlined by EPA and we do not provide any small business flexibilities exclusively for converters in this
rulemaking. The agencies did establish standards for CI and SI engines. Any small businesses
(according to SBA's criteria) that manufacture CI or SI engines are eligible for a 1-year delay at the
beginning of the program. Small businesses that manufacturer alternative fuel engines, including
secondary manufacturers that modify CI or SI engines to run on alternative fuels before they enter into
commerce, are eligible for an additional 1-year delay for each increase in stringency. See Section 12 for
additional information about applying GHG-related requirements for aftermarket conversions.
Organization: Newell Coach Corporation
Although we were exempt from the Phase 1 GHG requirements (because we qualified for the small
business exemption that was included in the rule), we use and will continue to use components that
reduce GHG emissions, including lower GHG-emitting engines and low rolling resistance tires. Thus,
despite being exempt, our vehicles achieve the GHG reductions mandated by the Phase I regulations.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1319-A1 p.l]
As is the case today, we will receive lower GHG-emitting engines and tires regardless of requirements
placed upon us. Thus, requiring very small companies like ours to actually 'certify' compliance using the
GEM model will yield no environmental benefit. It will only add unnecessary costs and increase the
work load on Newell's small staff and EPA's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1319-A1 p. 1-2]
Given the above, wWe respectfully request an extension of the current SBA exception for small
manufacturers. In our view, a continuation of the current exemption for small businesses, if not for all
small businesses then at least for motorhome chassis, would be the simplest solution for small
companies like ours, and for EPA. However, if the EPA should conclude that a continuation of the SBA
exemption for motorhome chassis manufacturers is not appropriate, we believe that companies who
annually manufacture 500 or fewer Class 8 - HHD motorhome chassis should be provided the
opportunity to certify their chassis to a less stringent standard (similar to that which has been proposed
for emergency vehicles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1319-A1 p.2]
Response:
Small businesses producing heavy-duty vehicles are not subject to Phase 1 heavy-duty GHG and fuel
consumption standards because of a deferral, not a permanent exemption. Before proposing regulations
that would apply to small businesses in Phase 2, we conducted an official analysis of small business
impacts under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). In response to the
recommendations of the SBREFA panel as well as public comments, the agencies are adopting
provisions that will reduce the compliance burden for small businesses. Primarily, we are including a
one-year delay in implementation for all small businesses that will allow them additional time to
become familiar with the compliance process, address staffing concerns, and evaluate technologies.
In consideration of current market dynamics where many small businesses compete directly with large
diversified manufacturers, as well as comments stating it would be unfair to make less stringent
-------
standards available solely on the basis of sales volume, the agencies are not finalizing a broad sales
volume threshold below which a vocational chassis manufacturer would have a different set of
requirements. See discussion in Section 6.4 of this RTC.
Based on public comment and extensive stakeholder outreach, the agencies have identified over a dozen
chassis manufacturers serving the U.S. vocational market who produce a narrow spectrum of vehicles
for which many technologies underlying the primary standards will either be less effective than
projected, or are infeasible. We are adopting optional custom chassis standards for these manufacturers,
including significant flexibility for motor homes. Manufacturers will have the option to designate the
following applications as custom chassis vehicles: coach (intercity) bus, motor home (the type of chassis
produced by the commenter), school bus, transit bus, refuse truck, cement mixer and emergency vehicle.
See Section 6.2.3 for responses to other comments on the custom chassis program. Chassis so
designated may be certified with a default engine map and other default parameters so that
manufacturers choosing this option will have fewer technologies to evaluate, and will have unique
standards for each vehicle type that reflect use of appropriate technologies.
Further, the agencies are adopting a non-GEM design standard option for motor homes, cement mixers,
and emergency vehicle chassis, because we have determined that these vehicles have the least number
of feasible technologies that can be applied in Phase 2. Motor homes, for example, have been
determined by the agencies to essentially need only apply low rolling resistance tires, certified engines,
low leakage air conditioning systems, and tire pressure systems. Where a manufacturer of these
vehicles is able to apply the same technology on all of its production without averaging, we offer the
non-GEM option as a compliance flexibility to avoid the certification burden associated with running
GEM. As discussed in Section 6.4.1, we were unable to identify other custom chassis technology
packages that we believed could be applied at a 100% adoption rate; thus, averaging (and use of GEM)
was deemed necessary for other vehicles.
We are not restricting the optional custom chassis program to small businesses. Because we are
allowing diversified manufacturers to certify some vehicles to the optional custom chassis standards, but
some large manufacturers may not have a system for tracking what the final build of a vehicle is, we are
adopting compliance procedures to assure that the final intended build will be one of the defined vehicle
types. This approach is intended to level the playing field by allowing large manufacturers to choose
this option where their tracking (and/or controls imposed on the vehicle) is sufficient to know at the
time of certification what the final build will be.
Organization: XL Specialized Trailers
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 205.]
As a small business entity, XL Specialized Trailers must consider the potential burden imposed on us by
the proposed regulations. Additional pre-production reporting, new compliance and equipment labeling,
government mandated warranty requirements not normally seen in this industry, user manual equipment
requirements, compliance submissions and record keeping, will create additional burdens to an already
cost sensitive industry. As the proposed regulations are presented, this burden will exist whether a
company produces a fee regulated product or many.
Response:
-------
The final trailer program significantly reduces the number of regulated trailers by limiting the non-box
trailer program to tanks, flatbeds and container chassis only, which removes more than 80 trailer
manufactures (73 that qualify as small businesses) from the program. The compliance burden on the
remaining non-box trailer manufacturers is limited to evaluating and marketing appropriate LRR tires
and tire inflation systems, installing a label to indicate that the trailers have these technologies installed,
and reporting the use of those technologies to EPA. The annual economic burden of this compliance
process is estimated to be less than $20,000 per manufacturer. We have provided a memo to the
docket outlining the compliance burden estimated for small manufacturers.
15.5 Public Participation
2000
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
In the four years since the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ("NHTSA") finalized the Phase 1 standards for model years ("MYs") 2014-2018,
Allison has met several times with both agencies concerning the development of the Proposed Rule.
Allison also collaborated on testing conducted on transmissions in preparation for the Proposed Rule
and has sought to continue a productive dialogue with both agencies on the GHG and fuel efficiency
effects of various transmission systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.l]
Since the development of the Phase 1 rule, Allison has worked cooperatively with EPA and NHTSA on
the development of a Phase 2 rulemaking for MD/HD engines and vehicles. As indicated at the
beginning of these comments, we have been pleased at the receptiveness of the agencies to consider
technical input and to undertake additional testing and evaluation of different transmission architectures
in support this rulemaking effort. Provided that both agencies act on the basis of verifiable data as well
as in accordance with their legal authority, Allison supports the goal of making additional progress in
reducing GHGs and improving the fuel efficiency of MD/HD vehicles. Such progress would inure to the
benefit of both our customers and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 64]
At the same time, EPA and NHTSA must realize that there are legal and practical constraints that
prevent the finalization of standards more stringent than Alternative 3. In addition, our comments have
pointed out several flaws in the record for this rulemaking with regard to technology penetration rates,
cost estimates, various aspects of GEM and the crediting of transmission technologies. Allison has also
offered several recommendations for GEM improvements, expansion of off-cycle programs and hybrid
vehicles. In particular, EPA and NHTSA must assure that any final rule accurately assess and account
for the GHG and fuel efficiency benefits of ATs versus other transmissions, including benefits that
accrue with respect to how the operation of the transmission, engine and vehicle is controlled. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 64]
EPA and NHTSA must work to resolve these and other concerns prior to promulgation of a final rule,
allowing for additional public input where needed. This rulemaking will serve to define how different
engines, transmissions and vehicles are assessed for compliance with new GHG and fuel efficiency
regulatory standards that extend well into the next decade. Thus, accurate information and supporting
analysis is essential and we look forward to continued engagement with the agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1284-A1 p.64]
During the public hearing the agencies held in Chicago on August 6, 2015, Allison outlined several
deficiencies in the Greenhouse Gas Emission Model ("GEM") as it existed at the time of the proposed
Phase 2 Rule. These deficiencies ranged from relatively small issues, like coding errors, to larger issues
with respect to how GEM reflected the operation of automatic transmission systems. Given the vital
-------
importance of the GEM to the final rule, we recommended that EPA and NHTSA either extend the
period for public comment, reopen the public comment period at a future date, or explore other options,
including the issuance of a Notice of Data Availability ("NODA"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1892-
Alp.l]
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council
AAPC looks forward to continuing its cooperative efforts with the agencies to develop harmonized
nationwide fuel consumption and greenhouse gas regulations for the 2019-27 model years that enable
motor vehicle manufacturers to build a single fleet of vehicles in these classes capable of complying
with all regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1898-A1 p.3]
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA)
The American Bus Association (ABA) respectfully requests an extension of the time period for filing
comments to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-and Heavy -
Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 proposed rule (GHG-2) issued jointly by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (DOT/NHTSA), [Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827 and NHTSA-2014-0132—
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles—Phase 2], ABA requests a 120-day extension to file comments, based on the following: 1).
the length and complexity of the rule proposal; 2) the limited resources the Motorcoach industry has at
its disposal to analyze the proposal; and 3) the failure of the agencies to engage with motorcoach
manufacturers or the motorcoach industry, in any meaningful way, even after an explicit request by
ABA to meet, prior to publication of the proposal in August 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1139-A1
p.l]
1. Length and Complexity of Proposal.
The GHG-2 proposal, as published in the Federal Register is over 600 pages long, not including
NHTSA's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The original public comment period provided for this
proposal was 60 days, which has since been extended for another 20 days. It involves highly technical
expertise and resources to interpret the proposal, not readily available to small industries such as the
motorcoach industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1139-A1 p.2]
In comparison, the two federal agencies involved in this proposal have employed dedicated teams,
including numerous economists, scientists, engineers and others, to work on this proposal over the span
of at least the past 6 years, including the time spent on the Phase 1 proposal from which this proposal
evolved. It is simply unreasonable for these federal agencies to expect those businesses affected by the
rule to be in a position of providing thoughtful and functional comments on an extremely complex
proposal within this short of time period, particularly if these businesses have not been involved in prior
discussions or regulated by previous regulatory proposals of the same nature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1139-A1 p.2]
Further, significant rulemaking proposals of this nature, especially involving this level of complexity
and length, and affecting such a broad swath of industries, at a minimum provide a 120-day comment
period. It is beyond reason that EPA and NHTSA would make such a complex proposal as the GHG-2,
with an initial comment period of only 60 days. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1139-A1 p.2]
-------
If not provided adequate time during the comment period, as originally proposed, agencies often receive
and grant requests for extensions as we have already seen requested in this case. This is done in
recognition and interest by the agencies, in order to ensure proper input as intended under the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and full participation of the community affected. It is reasonable
under the APA, considering the nature, length, magnitude, and scope of this rule to allow for 120 days
to enable all affected interests of this proposal to properly consider it and provide thoughtful comments.
Even if the original proposed period was only 60 days, it is not unusual or unreasonable for agencies to
grant extensions well beyond the original proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1139-A1 p.2]
2. Motorcoach Industry Resources
The motorcoach industry is a relatively small industry, in terms of the entire transportation sector
industry (can we provide a general figure on that annual income of the industry). It is not heavily
subsidized in any significant scale by the Federal Government. Of the approximately 3,400 motorcoach
companies1 currently in operation in the U.S., operating nearly 32,000 motorcoaches, over 90% are
small fleets or operating 10 vehicles or less. In addition, while there are 4 major motorcoach vehicle
manufacturers who serve the private U.S. motorcoach industry, all but one of these manufacturers are
foreign companies, who have not been eligible to participate in the previous "credit" programs provided
under Phase 1 and continued under the Phase 2 proposal. Indeed, the motorcoach industry is the "small
business" model for the transportation sector - no other transportation mode, aside from automobiles,
can compare in terms of the dollar investment for providing a transportation service. This can be both a
blessing as well as a curse, however, as demonstrated by this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1139-A1 p.3]
As previously mentioned, this lengthy rule proposal is both complex and a relatively new subject for the
motorcoach industry. It requires resources and time to properly analyze the proposal and provide any
meaningful comments to the agencies. Such resources are in limited supply to the motorcoach industry
for this this purpose, and the short comment period designated by the agencies only exacerbates this
problem. If it is truly EPA and NHTSA's goal to continue to "work collaboratively with stakeholders,"
as the GHG-2 proposal repeatedly states, then the agencies should extend the comment period to
accommodate the needs of smaller businesses and businesses who do not have the relative expertise or
familiarity with the issues addressed in the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1139-A1 p.3]
3. Stakeholder Outreach.
The Preamble of the GHG-2 proposal includes numerous statements on how EPA and NHTSA have
"worked with industry" and had "robust collaboration with stakeholders" in preparing not only this
proposal, but previous proposals to address greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency. In fact, the
Preamble references specifically: the public, heavy-duty vehicle and engine manufacturers, technology
suppliers, trucking fleets, truck drivers dealerships, environmental organizations, and state agencies.
Noticeably missing from this list are motorcoach or bus manufacturers, motorcoach or bus operators, or
motorcoach or bus drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1139-A1 p.3]
However, in anticipation of this rulemaking ABA initiated outreach to its members and specifically
requested a meeting with NHTSA on the parameters and information gathering used in the formulating
of this proposal. Our request was denied. Nonetheless, we have continued to reach out to ABA
members, in an effort to conduct some form of analysis; however, we need more time. The feedback
that we have received to date is very limited due to the length and complexity of the rule proposal.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1139-A1 p.4]
-------
The motorcoach industry has a strong record on gas emissions and fuel efficiency. In a study that
compared emissions and fuel efficiency by mode, "motorcoaches on average used the least amount of
energy and produce the lowest carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile of any of the transportation
modes analyzed."2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1139-A1 p.4]
Based on the motorcoach industry's vitality to the national transportation network and its contribution to
promoting fuel efficient and environmentally friendly transportation options, we believe the motorcoach
industry should be permitted the opportunity to provide thoughtful and meaningful input to this
rulemaking. In light of little to no "stakeholder outreach" by the EPA and/or NHTSA to the motorcoach
industry, along with the denial of ABA's request to meet prior to the publication of the rule proposal,
ABA believes an extension of the comment period is warranted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1139-A1
p.4]
Based on the three reasons outlined above, ABA respectfully requests EPA and NHTSA to extend the
comment period for the GHG-2 proposal for an additional 120 days.
1 Motorcoach Industry Census 2014, A Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in the
United States and Canada in 2013; John Dunham & Associates, 2014. Available at:
http://www.buses.0rg/f1les/F oundation/Census2013data.pdf
2 Updated Comparison of Energy Use &C02 Emissions From Different Transportation Modes; MJ
Bradley & Associates, 2014. Available at: http://www.buses.org/files/green.pdf
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) is hereby requesting a time extension of 90-days beyond
the September 17, 2015 comment period deadline on the EPA and NHTSA Proposed Rule: Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles -
Phase 2 (Phase 2). The magnitude of this rulemaking, both in terms of cost and uncertainty to trucking
fleets for decades to come, does not warrant setting artificial and expedited timelines that are neither
required by legislation nor legally mandated by the courts. While ATA supports the aims under the
Phase 2 Rule, the trucking industry wants to ensure that the final rule is affordable and technologically
practical to fleets, manufacturers, and suppliers alike. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0923-A1 p.l]
While a few select stakeholders have established teams to read and analyze the Proposed Rule and the
thousands of pages of technical support documents and complex modelling formulations, few
throughout the industry have been able to fully review and evaluate how Phase 2 will impact their
operations and business plans. This especially holds true for most trucking fleets. ATA and other
impacted stakeholders are currently dialoguing, conducting surveys, and gathering data to further assess
and develop a sound and achievable regulation that will not result in market disruptions or unattainable
goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0923-A1 p.2]
Given that fuel is one of the top operating expenses for trucking companies, ATA supports the aims of
improving fuel efficiency and reducing the industry's carbon footprint. However, ATA and its diverse
membership seeks additional time to complete its reading to fully understanding this extremely complex
and far-reaching rule which will directly impact and transform fleet operations for decades to come.
Moving ahead, ATA looks forward to continued cooperative efforts with both EPA and NHTSA in
crafting a rule that is both technologically and economically achievable. Thank you for your
consideration of this time extension request. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0923-A1 p.2]
-------
Organization: Autocar, LLC
Autocar is a small volume manufacturer, and is not subject to existing greenhouse gas standards
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1037.150(c). Under the recent proposal, small manufacturers such as Autocar
would be newly subject to greenhouse gas emissions standards. Autocar therefore needs ample time to
thoroughly review, analyze, understand and respond to the sizable and complex proposal and supporting
documents. Although Autocar has begun this process, the 60-day comment period (now extended by six
days) is simply inadequate to fully accomplish the task. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0761-A1 p.l]
Autocar respectfully requests that EPA and NHTSA extend the comment deadline for the Phase 2
proposal by a minimum of 90 days, and preferably six months. This extension will allow entities such as
Autocar that would be newly subject to the regulations the opportunity to fully consider, and provide
informed comment on, the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0761-A1 p.l]
On behalf of our client Autocar, LLC and Autocar Industries, LLC ("Autocar"), we respectfully request
that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the Department of Transportation ("DOT")
extend the comment period for the proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 ("Phase 2 rulemaking"). Autocar also
requests that the agencies formally provide an opportunity for public comment on an important
document placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1869-A1 p. 1]
On March 2, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation issued a
notice of data availability ("NODA") indicating that the agencies had made available new information
related to the proposed Phase 2 rulemaking and announced a new 30-day comment period. 81 Fed. Reg.
10,822, 10,822 (March 2, 2016). As described in Section 1 below, Autocar believes that an extension is
necessary to ensure that it and other interested stakeholders have a full and fair opportunity to review
and analyze documents included in the NODA, and thereafter provide all relevant information to the
agencies so that they may make an informed, reasoned, and defensible decision with respect to the
rulemaking. As discussed in Section 2 below, Autocar also believes that the agencies must provide for
public comment on a critical document placed in the rulemaking docket, "Vocational Vehicle
Technology Packages for Custom Chassis." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1869-A1 p. 1-2]
1. Extension of Time
Autocar seeks the current extension in order to respond to two new and material items about which the
agencies requested public comment. First, the extension could afford Autocar an opportunity to assess
the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model ("GEM") P2v2.1. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1626, NHTSA-
2014-0132-0181. Second, an extension would enable Autocar—and similarly situated stakeholders—to
provide EPA and DOT relevant information responsive to the draft report produced by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL") entitled "The Development of Vocational Vehicle Drive
Cycles and Segmentation." EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1621, NHTSA-2014-0132-0187. EPA requested
comment on both these items. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 10,825. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1869-A1 p.2]
An extension of the comment window would also enable Autocar to attempt simulations using the GEM
program and compare those findings with the conclusions of the NREL study. The extension would
ensure that Autocar and other similarly situated entities have a full and fair opportunity to respond to the
newly docketed materials and, thereafter, provide to the agencies all necessary and relevant information.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1869-A1 p.3]
3. Conclusion
-------
Autocar respectfully requests that EPA and DOT release the underlying data relevant to the NREL
report, extend the comment deadline for the information covered by the NODA by a minimum of 60
days after that data is released, and specifically open the vocational vehicle technologies memorandum
to comment. These steps will allow entities such as Autocar to fully analyze the recently developed
information and provide informed comment to the agencies. Thank you for your consideration of this
request. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1869-A1 p.4]
Organization: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
Bendix OEM customers make many of our products available as standard or optional equipment and we
respect their expertise and position on Phase 2 standards proposed by EPA and NHTSA, as they will be
responsible for implementation of technologies to meet the new standards. Their perspectives merit
strong consideration by the agencies in ensuring a responsible standard that is realistically
implementable in the timeframes under consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.l]
Bendix commends the agencies for their open and collaborative approach, and their receptiveness to
stakeholder suggestions. Collaboration between government officials and a wide variety of stakeholders
is key to the success of such a significant and complex technical regulation. We appreciate the
opportunity to present our comments and urge the agencies to consider our positions on the following
topics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1241-A1 p.l]
Organization: CALSTART
EPA and NHTSA staffs have been and remain highly collaborative with industry in developing these
important rules and we look forward to continuing to work with both staffs to finalize the regulations by
next spring/summer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.l] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 150-151.]]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Over the past two years, CARB staff has worked closely with the staff of U.S. EPA and NHTSA to
develop the technical analyses intended to inform the stringencies of the federal Phase 2 proposal. We
commend and appreciate your agencies' significant efforts to build on the success of current Phase 1
standards for the purpose of establishing a strong, national Phase 2 program, particularly one that will
support California in achieving its unique climate and petroleum reduction targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.l] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1420, p.20.]]
CARB has appreciated the opportunity to work collaboratively with both U.S. EPA and NHTSA in
developing the federal Phase 2 proposal. My hope is that U.S. EPA and NHTSA will seriously consider
our comments in the spirit they are provided: as an opportunity for our agencies to continue our
collaborative efforts to finalize a strong, national Phase 2 program that maintains this country's global
leadership role in addressing climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.5]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc., et al.
The major heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers appreciate the time the agencies have given to receive our
feedback, through face-to-face meetings and other regular exchanges, through our trade associations,
and through our various comment submittals. All stakeholders depend upon a continued good faith
-------
collaboration to see this rule to its successful conclusion, considering all aspects of the public
rulemaking process, and we remain hopeful that the agencies will, at all levels, be available to hear our
concerns and proposals. Without this open dialogue, the regulation risks being finalized in a way that
will not be effective, and will have adverse impacts on the environment and on the users of commercial
vehicles and engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.9]
This industry is committed to continuous improvement of heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency and
greenhouse gas reductions. Heavy-duty truck OEMs and other stakeholders are committing tremendous
time and resources toward a successful evolution of this important regulation, one that brings significant
reductions through assured market success with minimal unintended consequences. We will continue to
work with the agencies to secure the win-win that's available to all of us in the attainment of our shared
goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.10]
The proposal requires significant revisions to be feasible. The protocols in the draft regulation have
artificially inflated the required greenhouse gas reductions by nearly 50% in some cases, far beyond the
targeted levels reported in the agencies' overview announcements. The agencies are refining the
proposed test procedures, often in ways that differ considerably from the base proposal. While we
acknowledge that many of these adjustments are necessary and appropriate, the current level of
uncertainty around the means by which products will be assessed to determine their GHG emissions and
fuel efficiency, as well as the continued post-proposal adjustments to stringency targets, renders it
impossible for manufacturers to assess their technical and commercial capability to comply with this
rule. The expedited timeline of this regulation precludes the opportunity to address this issue in the best
way, which would be for the agencies to identify within the public process a means, such as a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, by which stakeholders could formally comment on a
more firm proposal, with the latest version of the GEM vehicle simulation tool. This opportunity being
unworkable on the current timeline makes close collaboration between the agencies and the industry up
to the point of the final rule absolutely essential. It's important in this collaborative process that the
procedural and audit provisions are firmed up in a timeframe that still leaves a window of time for the
agencies to receive our feedback on the resultant stringency implications of the rule once those issues
are settled. We believe that this follow-on process will be critical to the rule's success. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1215-A1 p.9-10]
Organization: Con-way Inc.
Con-way respectfully requests that EPA and NHTSA extend the comment deadline for the Phase 2
proposal by a minimum of 90 days, and preferably six months, to allow Con-way and other interested
parties a sufficient opportunity to comment on the proposal. The current timeline for submitting
comments does not provide adequate time for industry to review and comment on this complex and
important rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0924-A1 p.l]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group
Eaton appreciates the open and collaborative approach taken by both the US EPA and NHTSA to
engage a broad array of stakeholders for in-depth technology discussions throughout the development of
Phase 2 NPRM. It cannot be said that the agencies did not listen to the thoughts and concerns of
industry and other stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1194-A1 p.4]
Organization: FedEx Corporation
-------
Before discussing the proposal itself, we wish to express our appreciation to the EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) and the NHTSA Fuel Economy Division for the collaborative
actions undertaken with stakeholders by the agencies throughout the process. FedEx has been pleased to
be a stakeholder to help inform with regard to more fuel-efficient and lower-emitting commercial
vehicles. We have done so for the same reasons that we focus on improving our own fleet of vehicles -
because we feel there is the opportunity to obtain even more fuel efficiencies and lower greenhouse gas
emissions from vehicles - but doing so at a national level so that the nation has a comprehensive,
harmonized approach that applies to all commercial vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1302-A1 p.l-
2]
Organization: Great Dane
We at Great Dane support reductions in Greenhouse Gas emissions and improved energy efficiencies in
transportation. However, we note that trailers have not been previously regulated with regard to
Greenhouse gas emissions, so the trailer regulatory issue is new to the EPA, NHTSA, and the trucking
industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0907-A1 p.l]
The issue of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) regulations affecting semi-truck trailers is a complex matter.
Trailer designs and specifications vary widely from customer to customer and even within a given
customer's fleet based on their operational needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0907-A1 p. 1]
Great Dane requests a 90-day extension of the September 17,2015 deadline for comments. This
extension will allow Great Dane additional time to understand the NPRM and to interact with the EPA,
NHTSA and stakeholders who have valuable information requested in the NPRM. Additionally, a 90-
day extension of the formal comment period will allow stakeholders time to respond properly to the
proposed regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0907-A1 p. 1-2]
Great Dane looks forward to working with both EPA & NHTSA to help answer the questions posed in
the NPRM and to develop the best and most appropriate regulations for the industry. We appreciate
your consideration of these matters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0907-A1 p.2]
Organization: Innovus Enterprise LLC
1. We are grateful former Congressional Leaders provided the public a vehicle to voice concerns
and comments on Agency regulatory development. We also thank the EPA and the NHTSA for
following through on these mandates. As Small Business Leaders, we do not take this
opportunity for granted and feel it as our duty to contribute positively by keeping a balanced
perspective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.l]
2. We have diligently studied this proposed ruling; proceeding rulings, as well as support items in
the associated dockets. We strongly feel our comments and concerns for the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles
Phase 2 proposed rules will further the Agency's goals as well as those of our small business
community. Along with this confidence, we feel our suggestions are well within the allowances
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and those powers afforded by Congressional Act to the
NHTSA and EPA Administrators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.l]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
-------
We commend the EPA and NHTSA for their diligent work in crafting this proposal and working closely
with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). We also appreciate the agencies' willingness to
engage meaningfully with the UAW, our members, and other stakeholders on this important matter.
This is a complex industry and crafting new greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for
medium and heavy-duty engines and vehicles is an extremely difficult task. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1248-A2 p.l]
Organization: Meritor, Inc.
Meritor values the professional relationship that has been developed between members of our company
and the U.S. EPA and NHTSA as we have worked collaboratively on the content of this proposal.
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
MEMA and the motor vehicle supplier industry are committed to policies that enable the introduction of
new technologies needed to support sustainable mobility and we appreciate our engagement with the
EPA and NHTSA over the years as the agencies developed and refined their Phase 2 proposals. MEMA
commends the agencies for their open and collaborative approach, and their receptiveness to stakeholder
suggestions. Collaboration between government officials and a wide variety of stakeholders is key to the
success of such a significant and complex technical regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274-A1
p.2]
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 192.]
MEMA recognizes and respects how important it is for the agencies to meet the administration's
deadlines in promulgating this rulemaking. But we also believe it is critical to ensure that all
stakeholders have as much time as possible to digest this complex rule and to provide substantive,
useful feedback to the agencies. Any additional time the agencies can afford to add to the comment
period, even a short-term extension of one or two weeks, would be appreciated.
Organization: NAFA Fleet Management Association
NAFA respectfully requests that EPA and NHTSA extend the comment deadline for the Phase 2
proposal by 90 days. This extension will allow NAFA and our members the opportunity to fully
consider and provide informed comment on the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0916-A1 p.l]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
Earlier this year, NHTSA and EPA solicited comment on a Phase 2 proposal for medium-and heavy-
duty engine and truck fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards. 80 Fed. Reg.
40138, et seq. (July 13, 2015). At some 627 Federal Register pages in length, the proposal is more than
twice as big as that for Phase I, huge even by NHTSA and EPA standards. In addition, as of today, the
EPA docket contains 732 supporting documents totaling thousands of pages in length and the NHTSA
docket contains an additional 9 supporting documents totaling well over 1000 pages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0909-A1 p.l]
Recognizing the crucial and complex nature of the Phase 2 program and its potential impact on truck
dealerships, ATD is devoting considerable staff resources to analyze the proposal and the supporting
-------
documents and to prepare and submit hearing testimony and written comments. Moreover, ATD is
engaged in dialogue with truck, component, and equipment manufacturers to better understand the
technical issues and concerns raised by the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0909-A1 p.l]
Supportive of continuous improvements in commercial truck fuel economy and greenhouse gas
performance, ATD nonetheless is concerned about numerous issues in the proposal that could
dramatically impact vehicle cost, vehicle performance, and/or vehicle reliability. An adequate review
and analysis of the proposal's potential impact on dealership truck and tractor sales and parts and
service operations requires time. Moreover, an adequate opportunity for notice and comment is critical
to the development of technologically feasible and economically practical rules designed to achieve
public policy objectives in a timely manner.1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0909-A1 p.2]
Fortunately, NHTSA and EPA were not constrained by a statutory deadline dictating when the Phase II
proposal had to be published. In fact, as noted in NHTSA's notice to prepare an environmental impact
statement for Phase II, the stated goal was to publish a proposal by March of 2015, some four months
earlier than what eventually transpired. 79 Fed. Reg. 38842, 38844 (July 9, 2014). Fortunately too, no
statutory deadline constrains by when a final rule must be published. Consequently, NHTSA and EPA
are not statutorily constrained in their ability to provide for an adequate notice and comment
opportunity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0909-A1 p.2]
The proposal set out a comment deadline of September 11, 2015, which was extended to September 17,
2015 in a subsequent hearing notice. 80 Fed. Reg. 44863-4. (July 28, 2015). Appreciative of these six
extra days, ATD nonetheless submits that a comment period of a little over 60 days is insufficient given
the volume of documents, the complexity of issues, and the 10-year implementation period involved.
Consequently, ATD urges EPA and NHTSA to extend the comment period deadline until December 7,
2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0909-A1 p.2]
1 In addition, the due process inherent in a sufficient notice and comment opportunity is a constitutional
and statutory requirement for federal agencies engaged in rulemaking of this sort.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Adequate Notice and Comment
Agencies must provide for adequate notice and opportunity for comment when developing a rule. This
means that the public should both be notified of the content of the rule and also be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on the rule. There are several areas, covered in more depth below, where the
NPRM contains proposals that do not appear to be in final form. Navistar is concerned that the Proposed
Rule as published in the NPRM is not sufficiently definite to allow adequate opportunity to comment.
This will be explained more fully below as it pertains to specific areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1199-A1 p.4]
However, in this respect our most significant concern relates to GEM and the opportunity Navistar, and
the public in general, have been given to analyze and comment on this key aspect of the Proposed Rule.
GEM, including its source code, should be considered a rule and subject to the same notice and
comment process as the text in the Code of Federal Regulations. GEM is the sole means by which an
emission level is set for a particular vehicle. There is no alternative to the use of GEM. Nor is it, like
some modeling tools used in various compliance contexts, a tool used in the process of assessing a
facility permit, for example. Instead, this software directly functions as the rule. If there is a variation
-------
between what is said in the text of the Code of Federal Regulations and the result or process in the
software, the software essentially wins since it sets the result for a particular vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1199-A1 p.4]
The source code that underlies GEM is as much a part of the rule as the regulatory language in the Code
of Federal Regulations. For instance, executable file version 1.1 of GEM was posted to the docket on
August 19, 2015. However, that was not the end. As of this writing, EPA had reached GEM executable
file version 1.6. Since version 1.1 was posted, there have been at least five subsequent versions to GEM
that have not yet been posted to the docket. Furthermore, there is no indication in the docket that the
source code was posted at all, certainly not for versions subsequent to version 1.1. Navistar did receive a
copy of the source code for version 1.1 on August 20. A notice to the docket relating to the availability
of the source code for version 1.1 was posted as well, but that has been the last publicly released
document. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.4-5]
There is a significant difference between the source code and the executable file. With access to the
source code one can analyze the actual functions of the application in much greater detail than simply
through access to the application itself. One can also isolate the functions of particular systems within
the application and determine where changes in the emission results are impacted by those functions.
Without such access, by contrast, a result can be seen from a particular set of inputs, but there is no way
to see what specific input is driving what portion of the result. Without the source code there is also
little way to tell whether the GEM result matches the language in the NPRM or the CFR itself. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.5]
Moreover, the GEM executable file, a key element of the compliance mechanism and therefore a key
element of the rule, was issued with the NPRM. However, it has continued to evolve even during the
comment period. A number of the concerns we express below seem only capable of being addressed
through modifications to the GEM. EPA acknowledged during the comment period that there will
several additional changes. Again, GEM is the mechanism for determining a vehicle's emission level.
As such it is probably the single most important aspect of this rulemaking. Despite that, it appears not to
be fully ready and to be in the midst of development. GEM also has significant errors, which we will
discuss more fully below, including to the baseline assumptions on which the proposed emission
standards are built. Full access to the source code, from the first, with sufficient time to analyze, is what
is required for a meaningful opportunity to comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.5]
There are other examples where key elements of the Proposed Rule are not fully explained. For
example, in the vocational vehicle standards the NPRM used a "normalization" process to change would
be what the ordinary starting point, the 2017 standards by adjusting those standards according to a
presumed vehicle population by broad use category. This element of the rule is not fully explained. It
appears to Navistar to be largely arbitrary, although we cannot tell since there is no in-depth explanation
of this normalization factor.5 Other elements of the vocational rule also appear to be in a fairly
rudimentary state, as discussed more fully below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.5]
The opportunity to comment has to be meaningful. That is, it needs to be more than just a general
awareness of the areas in which the agencies propose to regulate. The Proposed Rule is of such
complexity, and carries such widespread ramifications for the industry, that we believe the burden of
adequate notice and comment is increased commensurately and that EPA has met its burden in a number
of areas in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.5]
In particular, we believe that GEM is a key portion of the Proposed Rule, and should be subject to
notice and comment to the same extent as the language in the Code of Federal Regulations since it
-------
directly sets the regulatory fuel efficiency (gallons per thousand ton-mile) level for the vehicle, which
determines whether the vehicle is compliant or not. We do not think that adequate notice and comment
procedures have been followed with regard to GEM because, among other reasons, the source code has
not been posted for public comment or provided for each version of the executable GEM file. [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0094-A1 p.3]
5 In fact, despite the notation in the NPRM, the normalization process is only briefly explained over the
course of two pages. RIA at 2-116-17 and discussion below.
Organization: Nissan North America, Inc.
The GHG and fuel efficiency programs for medium duty and heavy duty classes have been driven by
collaboration between EPA, NHTSA, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs or vehicle manufacturers). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1026-A1 p.2]
Organization: North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
While NADCA believes the Administration did not provide sufficient time for the public to provide
input given the length and scope of the proposal, the Association hereby submits these abbreviated
comments on the die casting industry's capabilities and role in improving efficiency performance.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1283-A1 p.l]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
As the representatives of our nation's small business and independent truckers and professional truck
drivers, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) greatly appreciates the outreach
which has been demonstrated leading up to the publishing of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Phase 2 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Phase 2 NPRM). The engagement from your agencies has been a significant increase from
the Phase 1 process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0738-A1 p.l]
OOIDA notes the decision by the EPA and NHTSA to extend the comment period for Phase 2 to
September 17, 2015. This is an extremely complex proposal, and a longer comment period ensures that
OOIDA and other stakeholders, as well as our membership of small business owners and professional
truck drivers, has ample opportunity to review the proposal and comment. While extending the
comment period 30 days beyond the last planned public meeting is a laudable decision, it does not
adequately provide for sufficient time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0738-A1 p. 1]
OOIDA's members are primarily small business owners and they collectively own and operate more
than 200,000 individual heavy-duty trucks. They will be greatly impacted by this proposed rule along
with the majority of truck owners. With 90 percent of carriers being comprised of six trucks or less this
concern is substantial. As such we have the responsibility to thoroughly assess the over 2,000 pages of
documents in order to produce adequate comments for the rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0738-A1 p.l]
This entails a great deal of time in order to read the proposed rule, while continuing with our additional
duties to our members. In addition we require the opportunity to compile our findings and share those
-------
with our members, as well as time to elicit feedback from our members. OOIDA members consist of
individuals who have very full schedules on a daily basis. To complete this process properly and
provide useful feedback to the EPA we require sufficient time. Despite the 6 day extension to
September 17, 2015 allotted for this proposed rule, additional time is necessary to ensure that all issues
and aspects of EPA's proposal are adequately understood. Given these concerns we respectfully request
an additional 90 days for comment submission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0738-A1 p.l]
OOIDA further understands that the agencies will be conducting two public hearings in regards to this
proposal. One will be at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel, 17 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois on
August 6,2015 and the second will be at the Westin Hotel Long Beach, 333 East Ocean Boulevard,
Long Beach, California on August 18, 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0738-A1 p.l]
We are concerned that the Chicago hearing provides limited opportunities for truck drivers to attend and
participate given the significant restrictions on truck access and parking in downtown Chicago. Even
legal and available truck parking outside the downtown core of Chicago does not provide easy access to
public transportation. This was a similar concern raised by OOIDA during the Phase I process, where
one of the three public hearings was held at a similar downtown Chicago hotel and the other two were
held in Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA. Despite the fact that they were concerning a regulation
impacting truck owners, none of these locations had nearby truck parking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0738-A1 p. 1-2]
OOIDA is hopeful that the proximity of the location for the Long Beach hearing to a convention center
will allow for adequate truck parking for attendees. That said, OOIDA is concerned that by only holding
two hearings in the downtown areas of major cities, the agencies will not have the benefit of hearing
directly from the long-haul/over-the-road segment of the trucking industry. Long-haul truckers largely
avoid traveling into downtown areas of cities due to restrictions on their vehicles, lack of parking, and a
desire to limit exposure to the added accident risk that comes with congested urban areas. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-0738-A1 p.2]
As such, we encourage the agencies to add a third public hearing at a location that is more focused on
this segment of trucking. For instance, there are several large truck stops located throughout major
freight corridors that would be able to accommodate a trucker-focused public hearing at a likely limited
cost to the agencies. Or, if the agencies would prefer to conduct its hearings in downtown areas,
conducting a hearing to coincide with the Great American Trucking Show (GATS) in Dallas, Texas
should be considered. This event, which runs from August 26-30, 2015, already accommodates
hundreds of trucks every year in downtown Dallas due to existing arrangements with the City and
parking providers. In addition to thousands of truck drivers and fleet owners, others within the
commercial vehicle industry will be in attendance. GATS is also host to the annual Commercial Vehicle
Outlook Conference, another opportunity for the agencies to gain insight for a wide group of experts.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-073 8-A1 p.2]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
PACCAR recognizes that EPA and NHTSA have had ongoing discussions with the industry on some
aspects of the proposed rule. PACCAR appreciates this opportunity to engage with the agency to
identify the most appropriate way to craft and implement the Phase 2 standards. We further request the
opportunity to comment on the record is provided for any provisions that the agencies intend to finalize
that were not anticipated at the time of publication of the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1
p.l]
-------
Organization: SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC
The Open Rulemaking Process has Produced a Smarter Rule
SABIC commends the agencies for their open and collaborative approach to public input, and their
receptivity to stakeholder suggestions. As the agencies note, more than 200 meetings took place with
manufacturers, suppliers, trucking fleets, dealerships, state air quality agencies, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholders to understand the opportunities and challenges involved
in Phase 2. SABIC was pleased to participate in this dialogue, both directly and through industry trade
associations. We believe the agencies' engagement with stakeholders has led to a proposal that better
recognizes the mileage and emission benefits of lightweighting and aerodynamic technologies, thereby
providing OEMs with cost-effective pathways to Phase 2 compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1207-A1 p.2]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
• The agencies are still revising the GEM inputs for vocational vehicles, which means that GEM still
is not suitable for assessing the Phase 2 vocational vehicle program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1891-A1 p.3]
• Only on March 25, 2016, (just one week ago), did the agencies provide access to the necessary
"baseline" vehicle data (including the baseline vehicles' GHG technology packages and "default"
fuel-efficiency percentage improvement values) that the agencies are using to model and derive the
various Phase 2 vehicle stringency standards at issue. This last-minute disclosure of key GEM
inputs has frustrated stakeholders' ability to assess either the reasonableness of GEM or any GEM-
based standards, which again raises fundamental issues under the APA and the CAA. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1891-A1 p.3]
• The agencies have indicated that they are still assessing and modifying the duty cycles and
weighting factors that will apply to the different categories of Heavy-Duty On-Highway ("HDOH")
vehicles. That continuing uncertainty regarding fundamental elements of the rulemaking package
frustrates the ability to meaningfully assess the feasibility or reasonableness of the Proposed Phase 2
Standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1891-A1 p.3]
• The 30-day comment period for the NODA is not sufficient to conduct any fair evaluation of the
revised GEM, especially when GEM is not yet suitable for use in any comprehensive assessment of
vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1891-A1 p.3]
• The assumption that manufacturers can reasonably assess the stringency and feasibility of the
Proposed Phase 2 Vehicle Standards when GEM is still undergoing development, when the
vocational vehicle subcategories and standards are still subject to ongoing baseline assessment and
"normalization," and when the aerodynamic and compliance test procedures are ill-defined, is
fundamentally unreasonable and inconsistent with administrative due process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1269-A1 p.72]
• The 30-day comment period for the NODA is not sufficient to conduct any fair evaluation of the
revised GEM, especially when GEM is not yet suitable for use in any comprehensive assessment of
vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1891-A1 p.3]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Conclusion
-------
EMA appreciates the agencies' publication of the NODA and its associated information. Nevertheless,
basic information gaps still remain that go to the core of the feasibility and cost effectiveness of the
Proposed Phase 2 Vehicle Standards. EMA urges the agencies to disclose that necessary information
promptly to facilitate a fair and proper rulemaking process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1891-A1 p.5]
Organization: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
TTMA values this opportunity to comment on the Proposal and appreciates that the EPA and NHTSA
have been consulting with us while they were initially considering this proposal. Further, we appreciate
that as the rule took shape, staffers from EPA and NHTSA took time to share with us the directions they
thought the agencies would go with this rulemaking, such as they could. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0727-A1 p.l]
However, the details, which could not be shared ahead of publication, are critical to evaluating this
proposal. This rulemaking is exceptionally involved for the truck trailer industry, which is both smaller
in total and composed of many smaller entities catering to a much higher degree of specialization and
customization than for the entities covered under Phase 1 of these regulations. The Proposal not only
seeks to bring our entire industry under new regulation, but asks us to consider alternative phase-in
periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0727-A1 p. 1-2]
The EPA & NHTSA seem to have had dedicated teams working on crafting this rule for approximately
16 months. TTMA member companies have been given only 60 days (plus the short time the rule was
released in its signed pre-publication form) to both read and comment on the proposal. While TTMA
and its member companies have placed an exceptionally high priority on comprehending this proposal
and have vigorously worked with EPA & NHTSA representatives to gain understanding, the time
provided is simply too short for us to adequately review and comment on the multitude of claims and
proposals in the docket as well as consider the full set of implications of being subject to regulation by
an agency we have never worked with before. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0727-A1 p.2]
In light of this, TTMA would like to officially request a 90 day minimum, and ideally 6 month,
extension of the September 11, 2015 deadline for comments. This extension will allow TTMA to
respond properly to the regulations that EPA & NHTSA are proposing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
0727-A1 p.2]
As always, TTMA looks forward to working with both EPA & NHTSA to help craft the best and most
appropriate regulations for the industry. Please contact TTMA with any concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-0727-A1 p.2]
The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) has petitioned EPA to extend the comment
period beyond September 11, 2015. Strick Trailers, LLC is a member of the TTMA. Strick Trailers,
LLC is in full support of the petition to request a 90 day minimum, and ideally 6 months, extension of
the September 11, 2015 deadline for comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0742 p.l]
We also had asked for a longer time to pursue a more detailed evaluation of the proposal. TTMA is an
organization of trailer manufacturing companies and we rely on voluntary participation of our member
companies. As the agencies admit, a large proportion of these member companies are small
manufacturers and as such, lack the time and resources to detail to such a long and complicated
proposal. We had asked for a 90 - 180 day extension to allow those small manufacturers to adequately
be brought up to speed and provide specifics to our commentary, but were granted only a 14 day
extension. We will continue to pursue a dialog with the agencies past the October 1st, 2015 deadline and
-------
encourage the agencies to reach out to us as they have been doing so that we can work together to craft
the best possible solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1172-A1 p.2]
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
UPS hereby requests a 90-day time extension beyond the September 17, 2015 comment period deadline
on the EPA and NHTSA Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 (Phase 2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0917-
Alp.l]
While our company fully supports the objectives of increased fuel efficiency and reduced carbon
emissions in our trucks, we also believe that this Phase II rulemaking is too important and too complex
to shortchange the time for public comment. The subject is, simply put, too important to get wrong the
first time. We have studied the thousands of pages involved in this rulemaking and conferred on the
proposed regulations with other affected stakeholders in our industry. Frankly, we are dependent on our
suppliers to understand the proposed regulations and prepare themselves to provide compliant trucks
and equipment. Nevertheless, UPS will make every effort to file on time, but we would feel much more
comfortable that we understand the issues raised in this docket, if we had more time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1262-A1 p.l]
While a few select stakeholders have established teams to read and analyze the Proposed Rule and the
thousands of pages of technical support documents and complex modelling formulations, few
throughout the industry have been able to fully review and evaluate how Phase 2 will impact their
operations and business plans. This especially holds true for most trucking fleets. ATA and other
impacted stakeholders are currently dialoguing, conducting surveys, and gathering data to further assess
and develop a sound and achievable regulation that will not result in market disruptions or unattainable
goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p.2]
Given that fuel is one of the top operating expenses for trucking companies, ATA supports the aims of
improving fuel efficiency and reducing the industry's carbon footprint. However, ATA and its diverse
membership seeks additional time to complete its reading to fully understanding this extremely complex
and far-reaching rule which will directly impact and transform fleet operations for decades to come.
Moving ahead, ATA looks forward to continued cooperative efforts with both EPA and NHTSA in
crafting a rule that is both technologically and economically achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1262-A1 p.2]
Organization: Volvo Group
We are, however, deeply concerned that the proposed rule is seriously flawed in both process and
substance. First, we note that major parts of the proposal are incomplete, undecided, or subject to on-
going changes such that it is impossible to make any reasonable assessment of the true stringency of the
proposal or the relative merits of various technology packages to meet the proposed targets. An
adequate and firm proposal is lacking for vehicle duty cycles, aerodynamic testing, engine fuel
mapping, vocational vehicle standards, vocational vehicle segmentation, powertrain testing, and the
vehicle simulation software (GEM). Individually and collectively, this undermines the agencies'
responsibility to provide appropriate notice, allowing for informed and effective comments. EPA is
required to provide, in its notice of a proposed rulemaking, information that is sufficient to allow the
public a reasonable opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. To participate meaningfully,
interested parties must have a complete and settled picture of what the Agency is proposing. In light of
the substantial elements of the proposal that remain either incomplete, unsettled or both, it simply
-------
cannot be said that Volvo Group and other interested parties have had a reasonable opportunity to
provide fully informed input into the rulemaking process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 10]
[Table, 'Protocol Impacts on Tractor Stringency', can be found on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1]
While these issues all result in underestimating the rule's true stringency, the proposed rule also
overestimates the potential penetration levels of many efficiency technologies used to set the standards.
The agencies have attempted to determine appropriate market acceptance rates (apparently without any
market studies) for the various technologies deemed as feasible up through 2027 model year. In so
doing, they have predicated the standards on some technologies that have not even been demonstrated as
feasible such as stop/start for HHD engines, aerodynamic drag reduction levels, "deep integration," and
waste heat recovery; on penetration rates that are infeasible due to legal impediments such as 6x2 axles;
or technologies that do not meet significant market requirements such as the low rolling resistance tire
targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 11]
Taken together, these substantial issues result in a proposed rule that is inadequately defined,
incomplete, and technically infeasible. As noted, the proposal does not provide adequate notice to
interested parties to allow for meaningful comment. Further, the agencies have not satisfied their
obligation to identify support for and explain the factual basis for the proposal.2 These issues must be
corrected and changes clearly communicated for additional review and comment before issuing a final
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 11]
The Agencies' Regulatory Proposal is Incomplete and Inadequate
The Volvo Group has spent many hours analyzing the content of the proposal, and worked with industry
colleagues to identify issues, present feedback, and propose corrective measures to the agencies.
Although we have undertaken considerable effort to study the NPRM, we remain concerned that, with a
regulation of this size and complexity, there may remain many potential problems that we have not
identified; some of which may only surface upon full implementation. Because of the strong financial
impact of fuel efficiency on commercial fleet operations, the actual results of efficiency regulation will
be closely measured and monitored by fleet owners. If the required technologies do not deliver expected
fuel savings at affordable total cost, or result in excessive maintenance and down-time, fleets will not
purchase vehicles. Instead, they will repair and rebuild their existing vehicles as they have increasingly
done, due to costs and operational problems from recent emissions technologies. Thus, it is important
that the regulation deliver the expected in-use performance. Given the complexity and potential for
unintended consequences, it is essential that this rule is carefully considered and reviewed by industry
and other experts, and that this detailed feedback be incorporated into the rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1290-A1 p. 12-13]
Although the agencies sought stakeholder inputs and provided some preliminary information prior to the
issuance of the NPRM, these discussions have primarily focused on technology and efficiencies.
Manufacturers have only gained visibility to many fundamental processes and test procedures,
certification and audit protocols, and many more details since the release of the NPRM. Far too many of
these details remain unclear, are still under development, or are even being reconsidered for totally new
approaches barely mentioned in the NPRM. These include: the segmentation, duty cycles, and targets
for vocational vehicles; duty cycle grades for tractors; method of engine efficiency mapping; the
functionality of the GEM simulation model; the process for aerodynamic testing and analysis; and many
more. With respect to these components of the rule, it is simply not possible for Volvo Group to conduct
-------
the analysis necessary to provide meaningful input into the rulemaking process, which it is entitled to
do. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1290-A1 p. 13]
With major parts of the proposal still in flux and the overwhelming complexity of the rule itself, it is
impossible to do a thorough evaluation, and likewise impossible to perform a thorough assessment of
the underlying stringency. In addition, we assert that insufficient notice is provided when significant
parts of the NPRM are modified through obscure and unclear memos to the docket4 (currently populated
with more than 700 documents designated as "supportive," many of which are not clearly delineated in
the proposal). Given this, it is appropriate and necessary for the agencies to consider the comments
submitted to the NPRM, improve the certification protocols accordingly, and by some formal
mechanism, make the modified regulatory text, revised GEM simulation, and associated stringency
proposals available for review by stakeholders. Stakeholders must be given opportunity to comment on
these revisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.13]
Volvo Group and its subsidiary companies in the U.S. appreciate the opportunity to comment on this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2. Recognizing the need for
sustainability of commercial transportation systems, we share a common goal to mitigate petroleum
demand and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have been working proactively with EPA and
NHTSA to develop these regulations, and we will continue to do so as the agencies work to finalize this
important regulation. While we have attempted to conduct a thorough evaluation, the size and
complexity of the proposal and supporting documentation virtually ensures that new issues will continue
to surface. We will continue to work with the agencies to resolve the existing issues and any new issues.
Given the cost and impact of this regulation, the agencies should take the time necessary to
appropriately resolve these issues, rather than conform to an arbitrary time schedule. The Volvo Group
remains committed to expend the resources necessary to ensure that the Phase 2 regulation drives
significant real world efficiency gains and dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in support
of shared national goals to advance energy independence and stem the tide of climate change. It is our
sincere hope to be able to support the final rule, but we can only do so if the significant issues that we
have raised are addressed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.81]
2 See Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. etal, 463 U.S.29,
43 (1983) (citation omitted). (Agencies are obligated to "examine the relevant data and articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the
choice made."')
Given the broad scope of issues Volvo and other stakeholders raised in comments to the NPRM, we find
the NoDA to be disappointingly limited in scope. The Agency action to issue a NoDA should have been
used to rectify and clarify far more of the provisions set forth in the NPRM, so as to enable
manufacturers to evaluate their ability to comply with the regulation. Without this needed clarity,
manufacturers are still working with incomplete, unclear or undefined processes in many areas, and with
unknown stringency targets. This is further complicated by not having a clear view of how the agencies
will accommodate the additional stringency imposed by protocol and common certification and
enforcement practices such as Selective Enforcement Audits that fundamentally force manufacturers to
over-comply with the stated efficiency targets. (We recognize that a significant measure of this effect
will be reduced by the modifications foreseen in the Final Rule). This continued uncertainty not only
frustrates our ability to put into place the proper technology development and product planning to meet
the requirements of the rule with any level of confidence, but more urgently precludes any opportunity
to give timely feedback to the agencies as to our ability to comply, or any needed re-balancing of
-------
stringency demands among product segments before the rule is finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1928-A1 p.2]
Since that time, we have understood that the agencies have worked to address many of the issues Volvo
noted; however, there are several important issues that remain unresolved. More importantly, very few
of the concerns raised by Volvo and other stakeholders were addressed within the NoDA release. The
agencies should have used this opportunity to publically communicate many more significant revisions
to the NPRM, so as to provide stakeholders the opportunity to review and submit comments, consistent
with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Failing this, the following items from the
Volvo Group's NPRM comments are still of concern (listed by page number for the Volvo Group's
comments to the NPRM). We will continue submitting data, information, and recommendations to EPA
and NHTSA, to the best of our ability, to support the goal that the agencies finalize a rule that meets the
aforementioned prerequisites, providing real-world emissions reductions with substantive cost of
ownership reductions for vehicle owners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1928-A1 p.6]
Organization: Waste Management (WM)
Before discussing our views on particular aspects of the proposal, we want to commend the
management and staff of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) and the NHTSA Fuel
Economy Division for the very collaborative process they used to develop this proposal.
Organization: Werner Enterprises
Werner respectfully requests the EPA and NHTSA to extend the comment period by providing an
additional 60 days for public review and input. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.l]
However, Werner respectfully requests the EPA and NHTSA to extend the comment period by
providing an additional 60 days for public review and input, as we need more time to evaluate how
Phase 2 will impact our operations and business plans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.2]
This rule will have a significant effect on Werner's business operations, our employees, and our
professional drivers, and must be evaluated carefully. Werner urges the agencies to extend the comment
period, as it does not currently provide an adequate amount of time to review and respond to the
complexity of the proposed rule. By extending the rulemaking process a minimum of 60 days it will
allow Werner additional time to review the significant effect the rule will have on our company and
evaluate the difficult decisions to be made to ensure compliance with the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1236-A1 p.3]
Organization: XL Specialized Trailers
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 202-203.]
XL Specialized Trailers is officially requesting a 90-day minimum, ideally six-month extension to the
now September 17th, 2015 deadline for comments period. TTMA has petitioned EPA to extend the
comment period beyond that original date of September 11th, 2015, and as a member, XL Specialized
Trailers is in full support of this petition.
-------
Response:
Many commenters thanked the agencies for their continued efforts to collaborate with and collect
feedback from stakeholders and the public. We appreciate these comments, as the agencies have been
committed to meaningful collaboration throughout the rulemaking process. During the development of
this Phase 2 program, the agencies held over 400 meetings to gather input, data and views from heavy-
duty vehicle and engine manufacturers, technology suppliers, trucking fleets, truck drivers, dealerships,
environmental organizations, and state agencies (as documented in the extensive Stakeholder Meeting
Log and in specific meeting memos found in the rulemaking dockets: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827;
NHTSA-2014-0132). The NPRM was posted on the agencies' websites on June 19, 2015. Following
publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register on July 13, 2015, the agencies held two public
hearings, one in Chicago, IL on August 6, 2015 and one in Long Beach, CA on August 18, 2015. The
comment period for the proposed rules was to end on September 17, 2015. The DEIS was published to a
NHTSA Docket on June 19, 2015, and the comment period for that document was to end on August 31,
2015. In response to comments above calling for an extension of the public comment period, the
agencies extended the original comment period for both the NPRM and the DEIS to October 1, 2015.
Some commenters requested an additional extension of the comment period, citing reasons such as the
length and complexity of the rule. However, we find that with the early notice of the Phase 2 proposal
by posting it on the agencies' websites upon signature, the two public hearings, the granted extension of
the comment period, our considerable stakeholder outreach effort (documented in the Stakeholder
Meeting Log and specific meeting memos, see above), and our consideration of late comments (see the
Introduction to this RTC document), stakeholders and the public have indeed had notice and comment
of all issues and have had adequate amount of time to review and provide meaningful comment on the
proposal; further, the agencies have gone beyond the procedural steps required by law to promote
transparency and public participation. Finally, in the spirit of our commitment to meaningful
collaboration with stakeholders and the public, we are also addressing comments received after the
comment periods were closed to the extent that they were received in time to include in this document.
With respect to the comments raising claims of inadequate notice, the agencies have met all legal notice
and comment requirements through Federal Register notices for the NPRM and DEIS, a Notice of Data
Availability (NODA) pointing to information in the public docket obtained after the proposal, and
through specific outreach to affected stakeholders as documented in the Heavy-Duty Stakeholder
Meeting Log and specific meeting memos in the rulemaking dockets (Dockets: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827, NHTSA-2014-0132; examples of specific memos: "Record of Webinar on Vocational Custom
Chassis" (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1944), "Summary of Meetings and Conference Calls with the
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association to Discuss the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG Rulemaking,"
"Summary of Meetings and Conference Calls with Allison Transmission to Discuss the Phase 2 Heavy -
Duty GHG Rulemaking"). We disagree with comments, such as those from Volvo, that suggest the
proposed rules were incomplete and therefore inadequate. At the time of the proposal, the agencies
clearly laid out a comprehensive program that allowed stakeholders and the public to provide
meaningful comment. The agencies' requests for comment on specific aspects of the program should
not be confused with uncertainty about the program or about standard stringencies; rather, these requests
were made to encourage stakeholder feedback (especially in areas where they had not communicated
their concerns to us previously). The Heavy-Duty Stakeholder Meeting Log and memos recording
specific stakeholder meetings (e.g., Record of Webinar on Vocational Custom Chassis" (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1944), "Summary of Meetings and Conference Calls with the Truck and Engine
Manufacturers Association to Discuss the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG Rulemaking," "Summary of
Meetings and Conference Calls with Allison Transmission to Discuss the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG
Rulemaking") demonstrate that the development of the Phase 2 was an iterative process, with the
agencies considering stakeholder and public concerns well beyond the public comment period for the
proposal, through meetings, phone calls, and an additional public comment period on information in the
-------
public docket obtained after the proposal (the NODA). The meeting log and stakeholder meeting
memos can be found in the rulemaking dockets (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827; NHTSA-2014-0132).
Where commenters have pointed to notice and comment issues about detailed aspects of the program or
the GEM vehicle simulation model, we respond to those comments in earlier sections of this RTC (e.g.,
see Section 6.2.3 for comments on the custom chassis part of the vocational vehicle program, and
Section 2 for comments on GEM), and as a whole below.
Engines in GEM Changes
Some commenters maintain that they did not receive sufficient notice to provide informed comment on
the GEM. The agencies disagree. As described in the Section II. C of the Preamble, the agencies have
provided numerous opportunities for comment on GEM, and its iterative development.
Shortly after the Phase 2 proposal's publication in July 2015 (and before the end of the public comment
period), the agencies received comments on GEM. Based on these early comments, the agencies made
minor revisions to fix a few bugs in GEM software and in August 2015 released an updated version of
GEM to the public for additional comment, which also included new information on GEM road grade
profiles. The agencies also extended the public comment period on the proposal, which provided at
least 30 days for public comment on this slightly updated version of GEM.273 Then, in response to
comments submitted at the close of the comment period, in early January 2016 the agencies released a
"debugging" version of GEM to a wide range of expert reviewers.274 The agencies provided one month
for expert reviewers to provide informal feedback for debugging purposes.275 Because the changes for
this debugging version mostly added new features to make GEM easier to use for certifying via optional
test procedures, like the powertrain test, there were only minor changes to the way that GEM performed.
In the March 2016 NODA, the agencies included another developmental version of GEM276 for public
comment and provided 30 days for public comment. Based on the NREL report, which was also
released as part of the NODA for public comment, the NODA version of GEM contained updated
weighting factors of the duty cycles and idle cycles.277 Therefore, the outputs of GEM for a given
vehicle configuration changed because these duty cycle weighting factors changed, but there were only
minor updates to how the individual technologies were simulated in GEM. Based on comments
received on the NODA, the agencies made minor changes to GEM and released another debugging
version in May 2016 to manufacturers, NGOs, suppliers, and CARB staff. 278 The most significant
change to GEM for the May 2016 version was that 0.5 miles of flat road was added to the beginning and
end of the 55 mph and 65 mph drive cycles in response to concerns raised by manufacturers.279 This
273 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GEM new release (GEM P2vl .1) and known issues and workarounds
for GEM P2vl .0), Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, August 19,2015.
274 See EPA's web site at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/gem.htm for the Phase 1 GEM revision dated May
2013, made to accommodate a revision to 49 CFR 535.6(b)(3).
275 See EPA's web site at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/gem.htm for the Phase 1 GEM revision dated May
2013, made to accommodate a revision to 49 CFR 535.6(b)(3).
276 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GEM new release (GEM P2vl .1) and known issues and workarounds
for GEM P2vl .0), Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, August 19,2015.
277 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1621 and NHTSA-2014-0132-0187.
278 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GEM Power User Release for Debugging, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827, January 27, 2016.
279 Memo to Docket, "Summary of Meetings and Conference Calls with the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association to Discuss the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG Rulemaking," August 2016.
-------
change did not change the way that GEM worked, but it did change GEM results because of the change
in the duty cycles. This change was made to better align GEM simulation with real-world engine
operation. The agencies provided the expert reviewers with at least a 3-week period in which to review
GEM and provide feedback. Details on the history of the comments the agencies received and the
history of the agencies responses leading to these multiple releases of GEM can be found in Section
II.C.(l). The following list summarizes the changes in GEM in response to those comments and data
submitted to the agencies in response to the Phase 2 proposal, NODA and other GEM releases:
• Revised road grade profiles for 55- and 65-mph cruise cycles, only minor changes since August
2015.
• Revised idle cycles for vocational vehicles with new vocational cycle weightings, weightings
released for public comment in NODA.
• Made changes to the input file structures. Examples includes additions of columns for axle
configuration ("6x2," "6x4," "6x4D," "4x2"), and additions of a few more technology
improvement inputs, such as "Neutral Idle," "Start/Stop," and "Automatic Engine Shutdown."
These were minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Made changes to the output file structures. Examples include an option to allow the user to
select an output of detailed results on average speed, average work at the input and output of the
transmission, and the numbers of shifts for each cycle (e.g., 55 mph cycle, 65 mph cycle and the
ARB Transient cycle). These were minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added an input file for optional axle power losses (function of axle output speed and torque)
and replaced a single axle efficiency value with lookup table of power loss. These were minor
changes to streamline the use of GEM, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Modified engine torque response to be more realistic, with a fast response region scaled by
engine displacement, and a slower torque response in the turbo-charger's highly boosted region.
These were minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added least-squares regression models to interpret cycle-average fuel maps for all cycles.
These were minor changes to streamline the use of GEM, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added different fuel properties according to 40 CFR 1036.530. This was a fix to align GEM
with regulations.
• Improved shift strategy based on testing data and comments received. These were minor
changes, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added scaling factors for transmission loss and inertia, per regulatory subcategory. These were
minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added optional input table for transmission power loss data. These were minor changes to
streamline the use of GEM, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added minimum torque converter lock-up gear user input for automatic transmissions. This
was a minor change to streamline the use of GEM, this change was in the NODA version of
GEM.
• Revised the default transmission power loss tables, based on test data. This was a minor change
to streamline the use of GEM, this change was in the NODA version of GEM.
• Added neutral idle and start/stop effects idle portions of the ARB Transient cycle. These were
minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM
• Adjusted shift and torque converter lockup strategy. This was a minor change to streamline the
use of GEM, this change was in the NODA version of GEM.
Notwithstanding these numerous opportunities for public comment (as well as many informal
opportunities via individual meetings), some commenters maintained that they still had not received
-------
sufficient notice to provide informed comment because each proposal represented too much of a
"moving target. "280'281'282 The agencies disagree. Even at proposal, Phase 2 GEM provided nearly all of
the essential features of the version we are promulgating in final form. These include: (1) the
reconfiguration of the engine, transmission, and axle sub-models to reflect additional designs and to
receive manufacturer inputs; and (2) the addition of road grade and idle cycles for vocational vehicles,
along with revised weighting factors. Moreover, the changes the agencies have made to GEM in
response to public comment indicates that those comments were highly informed by the proposal. The
agencies thus do not accept the contention that commenters were not afforded sufficient information to
provide meaningful comment on GEM.
Custom Chassis Vocational Vehicles
In their comments on the scope of the NODA, Volvo and Autocar specifically express concerns about
the opportunity for notice and comment with respect to the vocational vehicle program. We disagree
with these commenters that adequate notice and comment was not given. Besides the proposal and other
notices published in the Federal Register, the agencies conducted timely outreach to affected
stakeholders during the deliberative phase of this rulemaking, to share interim information about
program revisions being considered in response to the initial round of public comments, conducting a
web conference on March 22, 2016 for chassis manufacturers (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1944) and
many face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences as documented in the Heavy-Duty Stakeholder
Meeting Log in the rulemaking dockets (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827; NHTSA-2014-0132). Please see
Section 6 of this RTC for further discussion of comments received expressing specific concerns with the
custom chassis program (which, among other things, indicate the adequacy of notice provided, given the
detailed and pertinent range of the comments in response).
Selective Enforcement Audits and Confirmatory Testing
As part of the NODA, EPA placed into the docket a memorandum providing additional discussion of
SEAs and confirmatory testing with respect to aerodynamic testing for both tractors and trailers.283 This
memorandum discussed key principles behind such testing and included draft regulatory text detailing a
potential SEA structure for tractors. EPA made this available to the public in response to comments
asking for more detail about how SEAs for aerodynamics would be conducted. NODA comments
supported both the general principles and the specific regulatory text. EPA has finalized changes
consistent with both this memorandum and these comments.
In response to comments from engine and vehicle manufacturers, EPA is also making changes to the
regulations for SEAs and confirmatory testing with respect to engine fuel maps and other GEM inputs.
These were discussed with manufacturers during meetings between EPA and the manufacturers to
discuss compliance issues after the NPRM.284
Other Comments in this Section
280 Memo to Docket, "Summary of Meetings and Conference Calls with the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association to Discuss the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG Rulemaking," August 2016.
281 Memo to Docket, "Summary of Meetings and Conference Calls with Allison Transmission to Discuss the Phase
2 Heavy-Duty GHG Rulemaking," August 2016.
282 "Heavy-Duty Phase 2 Stakeholder Meeting Log," August 2016.
283 "Additional Discussion of Selective Enforcement Audit and Confirmatory Testing for Aerodynamic Parameters
for Combination Tractors and for Trailers," February 19, 2016, Docket ID:EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1625.
284 Memo to Docket, "Summary of Meetings and Conference Calls with the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association to Discuss the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG Rulemaking," August 2016.
-------
We disagree with the EMA comment that it is "fundamentally unreasonable and inconsistent with
administrative due process" to expect manufacturers to "reasonably assess the stringency and feasibility
of the Proposed Phase 2 Vehicle Standards" when parts of the rule are still being revised. First, it is a
legal commonplace that an agency may issue a final rule that does not coincide with a proposed rule as
long as the final rule is a "logical outgrowth" of the proposed rule. Otherwise, a comment period would
become a perpetual exercise, with every change occasioning a new comment period. See, e.g. Small
Ref. Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F. 2d 506, 546-47 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Fertilizer Inst. v.
EPA, 935 F. 2d 1303, 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Conn. Light and Power Co. v. NRC, 673 F. 2d 535, 533
(D.C. Cir. 1982). Second, notice and comment obligations are fully satisfied when a commenter has
actual notice. Small Ref. Lead-Phase Down, 705 F. 2d at 548, 549. Under section 307 (d) of the Clean
Air Act (and section 553 (c) of the APA), the purpose of the public comment period is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or
arguments and to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their
objections to a rule. See, e.g. Small Ref. Lead Phase-Down, 705 F. 2d at 547. All stakeholders had
such an opportunity, and could reasonably anticipate not only the issues at stake, but also the contents of
the final rule. See, e.g., Anne Arundel County v. EPA, 963 F. 2d 412, 418 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Am. Med.
Ass 'n v. United States, 887 F. 2d 760, 768 (7th Cir. 1989). Indeed, the agencies did not limit the
manufacturers' input to that provided within the two formal public comment periods. The agencies held
numerous meetings and conference calls with the manufacturers until very late in the process. Clearly,
throughout this rulemaking, manufacturers had ample opportunity to provide written data, views, and
arguments on each area of the rulemaking.
We received comments from the motorcoach industry claiming that the agencies did not "engage with
motorcoach manufacturers or the motorcoach industry, in any meaningful way." This comment was
made during the public comment period, when the agencies were in fact collecting feedback from all
stakeholders. We note also that the list of stakeholder outreach we mention in the Preamble to the
rulemaking is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather is as an example of all the types of
stakeholders included. The complete list of stakeholders and our documented outreach can be found in
the Stakeholder Meeting Log in the rulemaking dockets (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827; NHTSA-2014-
0132). Documented as part of the list are numerous meetings, phone calls, and conversations that the
agencies have had with representatives of the motorcoach industry.285 As detailed in Section 6 of this
RTC document, we have carefully considered the motorcoach industry's comments and in response to
their concerns we are adopting optional standards for seven applications of vocational vehicles,
including motorcoaches, that we are calling custom chassis.
We received several comments with respect to the scope of the agencies' release of a NODA, which
called for public comment on information in the public docket obtained after the proposal. Some
commenters felt that the scope was too limited. The purpose of a NODA is to provide an opportunity
for stakeholders and the public to comment on new information being made available by the EPA and
by NHTSA; it did not serve as means to make policy changes to the proposal. In fact, what the
commenters are requesting by broadening the scope of the NODA would be a Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, which is not needed because the agencies have provided ample notice and
comment on all aspects of the rules and, after considering stakeholder feedback and public comments,
have made changes that are logical outgrowths of the proposal and, in many instances, reflect
determinations of which stakeholders had direct notice. We discuss how we have met our notice and
comment obligations as part of this response above, and with respect to specific aspects of the program
285 Se emails with ABC Companies and CH Bus Sales/Temsa between September 2015 and April 2016; See also
phone log for August 2015 call with MCI.
-------
throughout this RTC. On the issue of the NODA, Autocar comments include a request for extension of
the NODA comment period. We find the 30 days given as sufficient time for stakeholders and the public
to review and provide meaningful comment, as we requested comment on only the following 10 items:
powertrain data; additional aerodynamic test data; supplemental data relating to drive cycles for
vocational vehicles; cycle average mapping data; certain revised test reports; a revised version of GEM;
default gasoline engine fuel maps for GEM; a memorandum addressing potential requirements for
selective enforcement audits and confirmatory testing related to greenhouse gas emissions; a
memorandum addressing the applicability of emission standards and certification responsibilities for
trailers, glider vehicles, and glider kits; and a late comment related to light-duty motor vehicles used for
racing. Many other commenters provided detailed, exacting comments addressing these items.
Moreover, the agencies further engaged with Autocar on the concerns expressed in their NODA
comments, including multiple meetings and telephone calls as documented in the Stakeholder Meeting
Log in the rulemaking docket, and the final program addresses their detailed issues as described further
in Section 6 of this RTC.286
In their comments, OOIDA encouraged the agencies to add a third public hearing at a location more
focused on their representative segment of trucking, or to conduct a hearing to coincide with the Great
American Trucking Show (GATS) in Dallas, Texas. The agencies accommodated this request by
sending a representative to the GATS event to hear specifically from truck drivers and fleet owners;
however, few of these stakeholders attended the meeting.
15.6 Mid-term Review
2024
Organization: American Iron and Steel Institute
An additional or alternative option would be for EPA and NHTSA to incorporate a 'mid-term evaluation'
provision such as that incorporated in the MY 2017-2025 LDV rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1275-
A1 p.19]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
A Contingent Mid-Course Review Should be Incorporated into the Final Rule
Regulating heavy-duty vehicles is far more complex than that of light-duty vehicles. As such, it is
imperative upon the agencies to ensure the multiple fuel efficiency milestones set out for trailers,
engines, and vehicles under Phase 2 proceed in an achievable and orderly manner. ATA therefore
strongly urges the agencies to undertake a mid-course review during the implementation process if
warranted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.26]
Mid-course reviews are not unfamiliar to the agencies. EPA and NHTSA endorsed a mid-course review
process under the Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards for MY 2017-2025. Such a review can determine whether the multiple standards
remain appropriate in light of technological and other changes that may have occurred since the time of
proposal. A mid-course evaluation, if necessary, would include consideration of the state of technology
development, technology and fuel costs, market penetration rates, national harmonization of standards,
the state of the national economy and the trucking industry, safety considerations, impacts of
superseding regulatory or legislative activities, other factors considered by the agencies in setting the
286 See Emails between EPA and Autocar from August 2015 to June 2016.
-------
standards, and the expected impact of those factors on the OEMs ability to comply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1243-A1 p.26]
Of critical importance are the event or events that would trigger such a review. One such trigger would
be finalizing any new state and/or federal NOx or PM emission standards for medium and heavy-duty
engines and vehicles during the implementation period under Phase 2. Additional standards triggering
an evaluation would include state-specific deviations from Phase 2; widespread OEM non-compliance
due to impossibility (including agency miscalculations in technology market penetration rates,
equipment cost estimates, economic factors, and other matters resulting in the agencies not achieving
their respective GHG and fuel efficiency goals and objectives as set out under the final rule). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.26-27]
If triggered, a mid-course review should be pursued as expeditiously as possible while ensuring any
modifications to the standards enacted by the final rule are consistent with the lead time and stability
requirements of the Clean Air Act (42 USC §7521(a)(3)(C)). Using the Light-Duty Rule as a guide,
EPA and NHTSA should prepare and publish a draft Technical Assessment Report that should be peer-
reviewed and made available for public comment. The agencies should also solicit comments on
whether the standards and specific targets are being achieved. If the agencies conclude that the standards
are not being achieved or likely will not be achieved due to some triggering effect, the agencies will
initiate a rulemaking to revise the original standards, as appropriate under Section 202(a), and issue a
joint rulemaking at least 18 months prior to the beginning of the next full model years of regulated
equipment [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.27]
A mid-course review is more than just appropriate; it is a critical component of this rulemaking package
if these standards are to be successful. Phase 2 will govern vehicle production 12 years from now and
beyond, a particularly long time period when predicting the state of technology development, equipment
costs and durability, maintenance issues, driver satisfaction, fuel pricing and consumption levels,
consumer behaviors, the state of the economy and the trucking industry, other state and federal
regulatory and legislative requirements, and future equipment build rates. As we are just beginning
implementation under Phase 1, the trucking industry is now tasked with assessing potential impacts and
feasibility under Phase 2, along with the real possibility of a Phase 2 conflict that will likely occur as a
result of CARBs upcoming revisions to its truck GHG efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1
p.27]
The Phase 2 effort and expense will further our country's energy and environmental goals, but only if
fleets choose to purchase these fuel-efficient, climate-friendly vehicle technologies. Any mid-course
evaluation will allow the agencies to determine whether the standards are in fact achievable and make
appropriate changes to ensure that progress in reducing GHGs and saving fuel will proceed based upon
the multitude of factors that can impact the original targets established in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1 p.27]
Organization: Great Dane
We believe that careful consideration and review of the impact of the proposed regulations and further
interaction with stakeholders is necessary to properly weigh the effects on our industry and to reduce the
probability of unintended consequences. Thus we feel that an arbitrary schedule to impose a regulation
is inappropriate and that an aggressive schedule introduces additional risks. Thus we suggest that the
agencies consider the potential benefits of incorporation of a review and adjustment process at the mid-
point of the proposed regulatory period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1219-A1 p.4-5]
-------
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
NADA/ATD specifically suggests that a mid-term "reality check" review be used to reassess the
appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, and technologically feasibility of the Phase 2 program and whether
changes are warranted. Ideally, the review should be conducted in calendar year 2021 and would cover
key variables and assumptions applicable to MY 2024 and beyond. If a determination is made that the
standards for those years require modification, they should be adjusted expeditiously. A "reality check"
should not be used to strengthen the stringency or significantly revise the structure of the Phase II
program, but rather only to account for new or previously unexpected information critical to program
achievability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p.ll]
Organization: United Parcel Service (UPS)
Need for Mid-Course Progress Review
UPS believes that the time horizon for this rule is so distant and the technology availability and
affordability is so uncertain, that a mid-course review is needed as a safeguard to ensure the program is
viable. We believe that the decision on a review should come at a time when at least a year of data is in
hand. We suggest that a midcourse review be triggered when a significant proportion of the engine or
truck manufacturer capacity, as determined by the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of
Transportation, is in danger of future non-compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1262-A1 p. 14]
Organization: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
Any Rule that the Agencies adopt should be reevaluated within a few years to account for
uncertainties and changes, as well as availability of proven devices to comply with the Rule.
The Proposed Rule will establish regulations for the next dozen years and beyond. It is difficult, to say
the least, to anticipate with any accuracy what the transportation, environmental, or regulatory landscape
will look like at that time or what complying devices will be available. Rather than set guidelines now
for those out years, Utility Trailer urges the agencies to limit its adoption to proposals for the first 6
years - through 2021, with the understanding that the agencies will revisit the topics as those deadlines
approach to determine how the Regulations should be modified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1
p.22]
For example, even if it used all the currently available existing efficiency-improving devices set forth in
the EPA tables in 100% of trailer production (automatic tire inflation systems, level 2 low-rolling-
resistance tires, combination of skirts and trailer tales and a roughly 950 pound weight reduction in
refrigerated trailers), Utility Trailer would not be able to qualify its long-box dry-van trailer for the
years 2024 and beyond, and it would not be able to qualify its long-box refrigerated trailer for the years
2027 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1183-A1 p.22]
Organization: Walsh, Michael and Charlton, Stephen
3. If the agencies determine there is a need to manage risk associated with new technologies, they could
consider a biennial review - as defined and implemented for the 2010 criteria pollutant program, Final
Rule section III.H [19], At each review, EPA collected and analyzed information from engine
manufacturers, catalyst manufacturers, internal testing, and other sources as a mechanism for
monitoring and evaluating technological progress. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0102-A1 p. 10]
-------
19 "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements," EPA 40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86, Federal Register
/Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001.
Response:
We believe that it is inappropriate to schedule a formal mid-term review within the Phase 2
program because the agencies have confidence that the Phase 2 standards are feasible and cost-effective;
especially considering the long lead time and the variety of compliant technology paths we project to be
available to manufacturers and users of heavy-duty vehicles and engines (see also our response in
Section 1.5 of this document on lead time). While the agencies are not finalizing a formal process for
such a review, we note that we expect to carefully monitor program as we work with the regulated
industries to implement this program. In addition, manufacturers and other stakeholders retain the
ability to formally petition us for a reconsideration of some or all of the Phase 2 program based on new
information.
15.7 Comments Related to Competition Vehicles 2027
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ("Auto Alliance") and the Association of Global
Automakers ("Global Automakers") respectfully submit these comments to the Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA" or "Agency") in response to its Notice of Data Availability (NODA) to re-
open the comment period for certain aspects of the Proposed Rule for comments on the impact the
proposed language would have on off-road racing/competition vehicles [81 Fed. Reg. 10822, March 2,
2016].'1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.2]
INTRODUCTION
In the proposed rule Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2, 80 Fed. Reg. 40,138 (July 13, 2015) (Proposed Rule), in addition
to proposing new greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, EPA included
proposed language to insert in 40 C.F.R. § 86.1854-12 pertaining to new and in-use light-duty vehicles,
that would make the modification of certified production or street vehicles for off-road
racing/competition2 a prohibited act if such vehicles did not remain in their emissions-certified status.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.2]
While EPA staff have claimed that the proposal is merely a clarification of the Agency's position with
regard to competition vehicles, the proposed amendment to Part 86 represents a significant departure
from EPA's longstanding approach with respect to the emissions certification of these types of vehicles.
The proposal also could create conflicts with the longstanding regulatory approach the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and EPA apply to aftermarket parts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1
p.2]
This issue was brought to our attention by the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), whose
December 28, 2015 comments we support. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.2
To the extent that EPA intends the proposed amendment to Part 86 to reduce tampering of certified
vehicles driven on the U.S. roadways, we provide a recommendation that would accomplish this while
-------
preserving the exclusion of off-road racing/competition vehicles from Clean Air Act (CAA) regulation
and preserving the aftermarket programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.2]
We hereby submit these comments pursuant to the NODA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.2]
A. OVERVIEW OF EPA'S PROPOSAL
The Proposed Rule seeks to amend 40 C.F.R. § 86.1854-12, which is the section of EPA's light-duty
vehicle regulations on prohibited acts, by adding the following subsection: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1884-A1 p.2]
(a) (5) Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must
remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become
nonroad vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for
any reason is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section
and 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1884-A1 p.2-3]
80 Fed. Reg. at 40,565. This section of the federal regulations includes the general compliance
provisions for controlling air pollution emissions from new and in-use light-duty vehicles, light-duty
trucks, and heavy-duty trucks, and new and in-use engines. Thus, the Proposed Rule's change for off-
road racing/competition vehicles would have a wide-reaching effect on a variety of vehicles. In essence,
this proposed amendment would prohibit the conversion of any production or "street" vehicles for off-
road racing/competition use by the installation of performance-enhancing parts or making other
alterations that take the vehicle out of its certified configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1
p.3]
The proposed changes to Part 86 are accompanied by the following Preamble discussion:
The existing prohibitions and exemptions in 40 CFR part 1068 related to competition engines and
vehicles need to be amended to account for differing policies for nonroad and motor vehicle
applications. In particular, we generally consider nonroad engines and vehicles to be "used solely for
competition" based on usage characteristics. This allows EPA to set up an administrative process to
approve competition exemptions, and to create an exemption from the tampering prohibition for
products that are modified for competition purposes. There is no comparable allowance for motor
vehicles. A motor vehicle qualifies for a competition exclusion based on the physical characteristics of
the vehicle, not on its use. Also, if a motor vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity at any point,
there is no exemption from the tampering and defeat-device prohibitions that would allow for
converting the engine or vehicle for competition use. There is no prohibition against actual use of
certified motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines for competition purposes; however, it is not
permissible to remove a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine from its certified configuration
regardless of the purpose for doing so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.3]
80 Fed. Reg. at 40527. EPA appears to be signaling that it will no longer recognize an exclusion for
vehicles that have been modified to be used solely for competition purposes. As SEMA's comments
explain, such action would be contrary to both the statutory text and the legislative history of the CAA.3
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.3]
EPA'S PRESS RELEASE ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGE TO PART 86
-------
In response to SEMA's comments and its public media efforts on this issue, EPA's Deputy Press
Secretary, Laura Allen, released the following public statements, which merely restate the Agency's
position on the prohibition against modifying certified vehicles for competition articulated in the
Proposed Rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.4]
People may use EPA-certified motor vehicles for competition, but to protect public health from air
pollution, the Clean Air Act has - since its inception - specifically prohibited tampering with or
defeating the emission control systems on those vehicles. The proposed regulation that SEMA has
commented on does not change this long-standing law, or approach. Instead, the proposed language in
the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas rulemaking simply clarifies the distinction between motor vehicles and
nonroad vehicles such as dirt bikes and snowmobiles. Unlike motor vehicles - which include cars, light
trucks, and highway motorcycles - nonroad vehicles may, under certain circumstances, be modified for
use in competitive events in ways that would otherwise be prohibited by the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.4
This clarification does not affect EPA's enforcement authority. It is still illegal to tamper with or defeat
the emission control systems of motor vehicles. In the course of selecting cases for enforcement, the
EPA has and will continue to consider whether the tampered vehicle is used exclusively for competition.
The EPA remains primarily concerned with cases where the tampered vehicle is used on public roads,
and more specifically with aftermarket manufacturers who sell devices that defeat emission control
systems on vehicles used on public roads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.4-5
Both statements are a departure from what has been understood to be EPA's approach to street vehicles
used for off-road racing/competition. The second statement at least makes the distinction between
modified vehicles used on the street or highway versus those used for competition and notes that EPA's
enforcement office focuses on former. However, in our view, the CAA's definition of "motor vehicle"4
does not include vehicles that have been modified for use solely for competition purposes, nor for use
solely for off-roading purposes, and EPA therefore has no enforcement authority with respect to such
vehicles in the first place. At the very least, it affords EPA with the discretion to categorically exempt
such vehicles from its regulations concerning vehicle modifications—a position which we understand
that EPA has long held. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.5]
B. CAA PROVISIONS AND EPA REGULATIONS ADDRESSING MOTOR VEHICLES USED FOR
OFF-ROAD RACING/COMPETITION
EPA's proposed regulatory revision to Part 86 in the Proposed Rule would be a departure from how
EPA has historically treated the conversion of street vehicles to off-road use, including for racing or
competition. To date, the Agency has not attempted to regulate such conversions and thereby prohibit
individual vehicle purchasers from engaging in lawful uses of their property. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1884-A1 p.5]
The CAA defines "motor vehicle" in Section 216(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 216(2)) as "any
self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway."5 Since off-
road racing/competition vehicles ought not and generally are not driven on streets or highways, they
have long been considered to fall outside of the CAA anti-tampering provisions. Additionally, 40 C.F.R.
§ 85.1703 provides the criteria for determining the applicability of § 216(2) of the CAA: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.5]
(a) For the purpose of determining the applicability of section 216(2), a vehicle which is self-propelled
and capable of transporting a person or persons or any material or any permanently or temporarily
-------
affixed apparatus shall be deemed a motor vehicle, unless any one or more of the criteria set forth below
are met, in which case the vehicle shall be deemed not a motor vehicle: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1884-A1 p.5]
(1) The vehicle cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour over level, paved surfaces; or
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.5-6]
(2) The vehicle lacks features customarily associated with safe and practical street or highway use, such
features including, but not being limited to, a reverse gear (except in the case of motorcycles), a
differential, or safety features required by state and/or federal law; or [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-
A1 p.6]
(3) The vehicle exhibits features which render its use on a street or highway unsafe, impractical, or
highly unlikely, such features including, but not being limited to, tracked road contact means, an
inordinate size, or features ordinarily associated with military combat or tactical vehicles such as armor
and/or weaponry.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.6]
Vehicles that have been modified for off-road racing/competition have traditionally been held to fall
under the second criterion. Modified competition vehicles have features that are not associated with
"safe and practical street or highway use" and indeed, are meant to be used on racetracks and closed
circuits. Some competition vehicles may also fall under the third criterion, depending on how they are
equipped. Similarly, modified off-roading vehicles virtually always fall under the second or third
criterion, generally because components or features are added to the vehicle to enhance the off-roading
experience, not that components are removed to enhance racing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1
p.6]
Addressing solely competition vehicles, EPA has teamed up with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
since 2006 to develop and implement a Green Racing Program, which according to the agencies'
website, is an initiative to encourage "the racing industry to embrace innovation and enhance existing
vehicle technologies to maximize efficiency."7 The Green Racing program developed protocols that
establish guidelines for motorsport competitors to utilize and develop technologies and fuels that
support emissions reductions. If EPA meant to prohibit the modification of certified motor vehicles for
racing/competition, establishing voluntary standards for those vehicles is contrary to EPA's proposed
"clarification" to Part 86. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.6]
As noted above, it has been a long accepted understanding that the CAA does not prohibit the
modification of certain vehicles and/or engines if those vehicles and/or engines are used "solely for
competition" on race tracks and closed circuits, or used for exclusive use at off-road rally events. This
understanding has been based, in large part on the CAA definition of "motor vehicle" and EPA's
regulations, as well as EPA's practice in not pursuing enforcement actions against individuals and
manufacturers who modify vehicles and/or engines for off-road racing/competition purposes. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.6]
Finally, when considered in the broader context of permissible modifications to certified motor vehicles
that occur in the aftermarket parts context, EPA's proposed change to Part 86 to prohibit the
modification of certified vehicles would conflict with California law which specifically exempts
competition and racing vehicles that are not used on highways. See, California Health and Safety Code
§§ 43001(a) and 39048. With regard to other aftermarket performance components that are used in on-
highway vehicles, CARB has had a long standing program for approving aftermarket parts for certified
vehicles through the Executive Order process. The proposed revision also conflicts with the Agency's
-------
own longstanding guidance with regard to aftermarket parts in EPA's Enforcement Memorandum 1A
(June 25, 1974), which recognizes express representation by a state agency that a reasonable basis exists
that an aftermarket part (which would modify a certified vehicle) does not adversely affect emissions
performance, and therefore, can be lawfully installed on a certified vehicle and is not considered
tampering under the Act. EPA's enforcement guidance also permits emissions testing to serve as a
reasonable basis. EPA's Proposed Rule could be interpreted as completely eliminating the ability to rely
on this longstanding guidance for on-highway vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.6-7]
C. REGULATORY TREATMENT OF OTHER COMPETITION VEHICLES
Attached is a matrix of the various regulatory provisions addressing competition vehicles in other
vehicle segments as well as the general provision on prohibited acts and the exemption for equipment
and engines used solely for competition. Included at the beginning of the matrix are the definitions and
prohibited act provisions pertaining to light-duty "motor vehicles" for comparison purposes. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.7] [Attachment can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1884-A2]
When reviewing the competition provisions for marine engines, recreational vehicles, and other types of
nonroad engines and equipment, it is clear that manufacturers producing competition vehicles, in most
cases, must affirmatively request an exemption from EPA, demonstrate that particular criteria are met,
and must label the vehicle accordingly. See §§ 1042.620, 1045.620, 1048.630 (incorporating by
reference § 1054.620), 1051.620, and 1054.620. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.7]
With regard to modifying certified vehicles for competition, the general provisions in Part 1068 allow
these vehicles to be modified without request so long as they are used solely for competition and the
original emission labels are destroyed. Specifically, this provision states: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1884-A1 p.7]
(b) If you modify any nonroad engines/equipment after they have been placed into service in the United
States so they will be used solely for competition, they are exempt without request. This exemption
applies only to the prohibition in § 1068.101(b)(1) [tampering] and is valid only as long as the
engine/equipment is used solely for competition.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.7]
All the vehicle segments referenced above incorporate the general compliance provisions in Part 1068
by reference; thus, § 1068.235 applies to all the nonroad vehicle segments. In summary, there are two
different pathways for vehicles in these other nonroad segments to become competition vehicles - they
can be either manufactured specifically for that purpose and exempted through the specific provision in
the relevant part applicable to those engines/vehicles, or they can be in-use vehicles/engines that are
modified for that purpose according to Part 1068. Both pathways are lawful, provided that the
regulations are followed and similar consideration should be applicable to light-duty vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.7-8]
While the approaches outlined above are appropriate for nonroad vehicles, it is far easier to address light
duty vehicles used for competition and off-roading. There are self-policing mechanisms that make it far
easier to determine if a light-duty vehicle is used for competition purposes. These vehicles either will
not be registered in a state or were formerly registered but modified and driven on non-highway terrain,
insurance is typically unavailable, and in any instance, if the modifications are such the vehicle would
fail state safety inspections if an owner attempted to drive this on public roads, that mechanism will
serve as enforcement. For these reasons, a system such as contained in Part 1068 for nonroad vehicles
need not be utilized for light duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.8]
-------
D. PROCEDURAL CONCERNS
SEMA's comments raise a number of valid Administrative Procedure Act (APA) issues with regard to
the lack of public notice, germaneness, and the arbitrary and capricious nature of the proposed revision
to Part 86. Specifically, SEMA points to the fact that EPA's statement regarding the prohibition against
modification of certified motor vehicles even if used for competition is buried in the 629-page proposal
for greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and that the Preamble discussion
does not clearly identify the proposed regulatory revision to Part 86. While EPA has made it a practice
over the years of including a number of different regulatory changes in a rule package, it was not clear,
or even intuitive that the Proposed Rule for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles would include changes to
the light-duty vehicle regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.8]
EPA has received 769 comments on the Proposed Rule. Of the organizations submitting comments that
we were able to briefly review, those comments have not focused on the competition or off-roading
issue discussed herein. Rather, they have focused mainly on fuel efficiency, the proposed emission
standards, and greenhouse gas credits for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, the obvious
and overtly intended purpose of the Proposed Rule itself. In addition to these comments, there were 49
anonymous comments filed since February 16 objecting to EPA's proposed prohibition against
modifying certified vehicles due to the negative effects on racing. It is very likely that these individuals
commented as a result of SEMA's press efforts on this issue. The lack of comments on the proposed
Part 86 revision submitted during the comment period, followed by these late comments, demonstrates
that EPA did not give adequate public notice of its proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.8]
E. POSITION OF ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS AND GLOBAL
AUTOMAKERS
As discussed above, EPA's proposal to prohibit the conversion of certified on-road vehicles to
competition vehicles is a major departure from the Agency's approach to this issue throughout the 40+-
year history of the Clean Air Act. Moreover, the proposal would have the effect of depriving consumers
of property rights by prohibiting legitimate uses of motor vehicles and depriving vehicle and engine
manufactures, aftermarket component manufacturing and sellers, and dealers and retail establishments
from their trade and commercial rights. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.8]
We begin by acknowledging that EPA has the authority and the obligation, under the CAA, to prohibit
tampering with certified motor vehicles. Individuals and entities who remove emissions control
equipment from certified vehicles, or otherwise put such vehicles into an uncertified configuration, and
then drive them on public roads, commit tampering under the Act. Likewise, outfits that sell "power
chips" and other devices under false pretenses (often promising consumers that the devices do not affect
their emissions or their warranty) tend to induce or encourage tampering, likely committing fraud or
other violations of law in the process. We support EPA's efforts to put an end to such practices. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.8-9]
In cracking down on tampering, however, EPA must not go so far as to outlaw legitimate activities and
businesses. If an individual purchases an emissions-certified production sports car, adds aftermarket
components or removes production parts to convert it to a non-emissions-certified competition vehicle,
and uses it only for competition, that individual has not engaged in tampering or otherwise violated the
Clean Air Act. If an individual purchases an emissions-certified production sport utility vehicle, adds
aftermarket components or removes production parts to convert it to a non-emissions-certified off-
roading vehicle, and uses it only off-road, say, driving it over terrain an unmodified production vehicle
could not, that individual similarly has not committed tampering or otherwise violated the Clean Air
-------
Act. Thousands of vehicles sold annually are legitimately converted to competition or off-roading
vehicles. EPA's proposed rule would, with the stroke of a pen, prohibit these legitimate activities and
suddenly deprive all vehicle owners of their right to convert an emissions-certified vehicle into a
legitimate non-emissions-certified vehicle, and will suddenly deprive manufacturers and sellers the right
to sell those owners the components they need for such vehicle uses. While such a broad-brush rule
would undoubtedly make life easier for EPA, the deprivation of property rights inherent in the Proposed
Rule it is neither consistent with, nor authorized by, the CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.9]
Like EPA, the Alliance and Global Automakers oppose vehicle tampering. We support more education
and outreach to inform consumers about the CAA prohibition on tampering, and to explain the rules
with respect to the conversion of emissions-certified vehicles to non-emissions-certified competition or
off-roading vehicles. We also support government efforts to enforce the tampering prohibition against
individuals and entities when warranted by the facts. We cannot, however, support an EPA initiative to
enact a total ban on vehicle conversions, including legitimate activities that have been taking place since
the inception of the CAA and before. Rather than "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" by
banning legal activities as well as illegal ones, we recommend that EPA take a different approach as
outlined below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.9].]]
While the approaches outlined above are appropriate for nonroad vehicles, it is far easier to address light
duty vehicles used for competition. There are self-policing mechanisms that make it far easier to
determine if a light-duty vehicle is used for competition purposes. These vehicles will not be registered
in a state, insurance is typically unavailable, and in any instance the modifications made make it almost
certain that such a vehicle would fail state safety inspections if an owner attempted to drive this on
public roads. For these reasons, a system such as contained in Part 1068 for nonroad vehicles need not
be utilized for light duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.9]
F. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
In response to EPA's NODA and request for comment on SEMA's December 28, 2015 comments on
how the proposal would impact off-road racing/competition, we recommend that EPA amend §
86.1854-12 as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p.9]
(a)(5) Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines that are designed to be operated on a street or
highway and their emission control devices must remain in their emissions-certified configuration
unless good engineering judgment or emissions testing provides a reasonable basis for knowing that a
modification will not affect emissions performance. Anyone modifying such a certified motor vehicle or
motor vehicle engine that renders such motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine non-compliant with its
certificate of conformity and who drives such motor vehicle on a U.S. street or highway is subject to the
tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p. 10]
In conjunction with the change noted above, EPA also needs to include a new criterion excluding
competition and off-roading vehicles from the definition of "motor vehicle" in § 85.1703. Specifically,
EPA should add a new § 85.1703(a)(4) that would state: "The vehicle is used solely for competition or
off-roading use." This new criterion would reflect the concept in the statutory definition of "motor
vehicle" in CAA § 216(2) that such vehicles are used for transporting persons or property on a street or
highway and codify EPA's longstanding treatment of these vehicles. This twofold approach would
create a regulatory prohibition on modifying certified vehicles operated on U.S. roadways that would
retain EPA's, as well as CARB's, regulatory programs for aftermarket parts and modifications, as well
-------
as preserve the longstanding enforcement policy of EPA with regard to off-road racing/competition
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1884-A1 p. 10]
1 Auto Alliance members include BMW, FCA U.S, Ford, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda,
Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo. See www.autoalliance.org
for further information. Global Automakers' members include Aston Martin, Ferrari, Honda, Hyundai,
Isuzu, Kia, Maserati, McLaren, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, and Toyota. Please visit
www.globalautomakers.org for further information.
2 In these comments, the term "off-road racing/competition" is intended to include exclusive off road
use at rallies and similar events as long as the vehicle is not used on public roads or streets.
3 In addition to the proposed change to Part 86, the Agency is proposing to modify or add new
regulatory definitions and provisions to several other sections of the C.F.R. that may impact vehicles
modified for competition purposes. First, the Proposed Rule would amend the definition of "motor
vehicle" in Part 85. Specifically, EPA is proposing to add a new § 85.1703(b) that would state:
Note that, in applying the criterion in paragraph (a)(2) [state and/or federal safety features] of this
section, vehicles that are clearly intended for operation on highways are motor vehicles. Absence of a
particular safety feature is relevant only when absence of that feature would prevent operation on
highways.
Proposed Rule at 40,552.
As discussed in greater detail in the following section of these comments, the lack of safety features is
one way that competition vehicles are distinguished from motor vehicles. While EPA explains that this
regulatory language is intended to ensure that glider kits and glider vehicles are regulated as motor
vehicles, the proposed language seems to narrow the kinds of competition vehicles that could be
excluded from the definition of motor vehicle. When discussing this proposed change in the Preamble,
EPA states that the Agency "is also considering whether to simply eliminate the clause 'or safety
features required by state and/or federal law' from the regulatory definition." 3 This is particularly
troubling given that the lack of safety features is often relied on when distinguishing a competition
vehicle from a motor vehicle used on streets and highways.
Second, the Proposed Rule would add new sections 40 C.F.R. §§ 1036.601(a)(2) and 1037.601(a)(3),
which govern the control of emissions from new and in-use heavy-duty highway engines and heavy-
duty motor vehicles. These proposed changes state that the § 1068.235 exemption for vehicles used
solely for competition does not apply to heavy-duty vehicles or heavy-duty engines. Third, the Proposed
Rule would add a new definition to 40 C.F.R. §1068.30 - a section of EPA's regulations that govern the
general compliance provisions for highway, stationary, and nonroad programs. Finally, the Proposed
Rule would add anew provision at 40 C.F.R. § 1068.101(b)(4)(ii), which deals with prohibited acts
under the Agency's general compliance provisions for highway, stationary, and nonroad programs. This
proposed provision reiterates the same language proposed for Part 86 that will require certified motor
vehicles and engines to remain in their certified condition, regardless of whether they are used solely for
competition.
4 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2).
-------
5 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2) (emphasis added).
6 40 C.F.R. § 85.1703 (emphasis added).
7 https://www4.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/greenracingcup/what-is.
8 40 C.F.R. §1068.235 (see attachment for entire provision).
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) et al.
EPA's Clean Air Act Authority
Protecting Against Defeat Devices
Comments submitted in response to the Notice of Data Availability and raised in the media have
expressed concern about EPA's authority to regulate aftermarket modification of vehicles. Our
organizations strongly support EPA's long-standing authority to prevent tampering with emissions
control systems, including the installation of defeat devices, on vehicles used on public roads. Many
such technologies that alter or bypass emissions control systems are sold under the guise of competitive
racing, but marketed for use on vehicles that are used on public roads. Such defeat devices lead to
increased emissions of a range of pollutants which threaten public health. Going forward, EPA should
continue to ensure that aftermarket defeat devices do not lead to increased emissions of health-
threatening pollution from on-road vehicles. We note that EPA's record of enforcement has focused on
technologies that are being sold to defeat emission control devices in vehicles that are being used on
public roads, not competitive racecars used off public roads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1896-A1 p. 7]
Organization: American Motorcyclist Association et al.
In support of the Specialty Equipment Market Association's (SEMA) statement of December 28, 2015
to the EPA in opposition to that portion of the rule banning conversion of street vehicles into racecars
and competition motorcycles, the following comments question the merits of the EPA's proposal and
the procedures taken by the EPA in pursuing it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p. 1]
The undersigned entities represent businesses encompassing all sectors of the racing industry. This
includes companies that produce converted race vehicles, manufacturers of products for both converted
and purpose-built race vehicles and race-sanctioning organizations. The issue has broad economic
impact for millions of people employed in the racing sector in manufacturing, distribution, retailing,
installation, marketing, publishing and entertainment, as well as millions of racing enthusiasts and
spectators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.l]
In its July 13, 2015, proposed regulation the EPA included a provision to clarify that it has always been
illegal to modify a motor vehicle into a race vehicle used solely for competition if the vehicle no longer
remains in its certified configuration. The undersigned companies and organizations strongly disagree
and respectfully request that the EPA withdraw its clarification. Congress did not intend for the EPA to
regulate race vehicles, including production vehicles that have been converted into race vehicles and
products used solely for racing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.l]
EPA's Proposed Racing Vehicle Conversion Prohibition
-------
On pages 429 and 584 of the 629-page proposed rule addressing greenhouse gases for trucks and buses,
the EPA inserted the following proposed regulatory text on racecar and competition motorcycle
conversions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.2]
PART 86-CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
Subpart S~General Compliance Provisions for Control of Air Pollution From New and In-Use
Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
67. Section 86.1854-12 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
§ 86.1854-12 Prohibited acts.
(b) * * *
(5) Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain
in their certified configuration even if thev are used solely for competition or if thev become nonroad
vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason
is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 42
U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.2]
Part 1068 - Subpart B—Prohibited Actions and Related Requirements
236. Section 1068.101 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (h)
introductory text to read as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.2]
[40 CFR 1068.10l(b)(4)(ii)]
Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in
their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad
vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason
is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of 40 CFR 1068.101(b) and 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.2]
The EPA's proposed regulation would affect any racing vehicle that started its life as a street car or
motorcycle. It would cover all motor vehicles produced since 1968 (1978 for motorcycles), the first year
federal emissions standards took effect, which are used solely for racing and no longer remain in their
certified configuration with respect to emissions-related equipment. The EPA provided little guidance
on its goal beyond an intent to prohibit modifications affecting any emissions-related component.
"Emissions-related" is broadly construed to include any change to a vehicle's engine, engine control
module, intake, exhaust system or other related part, even if the vehicle is converted into a dedicated
track car and never again used on the streets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.2
Clean Air Act Racing Vehicle Exclusion
Enacted more than 45 years ago, the Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits the EPA from regulating "vehicles
used solely for competition" (more commonly known as racecars and competition motorcycles). In the
ensuing years, the regulated industry is unaware of a single instance in which the EPA previously took
-------
the position that the CAA applies to vehicles converted for race-use-only purposes. At a March 15, 2016
hearing before the House Science, Space, and Technology's Oversight Subcommittee, Brent Yacobucci
with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) testified that the CRS was unable to identify any EPA
document before this current rulemaking that stated motor vehicles converted for racing were ineligible
for the CAA exclusion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1929-A1 p.2-3]
Industry, the public and lawmakers have a clear understanding that these vehicles are excluded from the
CAA. Today, there are more than 1,300 race tracks in the United States and the vast majority are not
dedicated to purpose-built race vehicles. Tens of thousands of enthusiasts race converted street vehicles
that are trailered to their local tracks. Most of these vehicles are sold through auto dealerships across the
nation both as new and used vehicles to be converted into race cars. Furthermore, many dealerships,
dealership organizations, and dealership employees are involved in sponsoring race teams, building out
race cars, and even sitting behind the wheel on race day. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.3]
Legislative History
The CAA prohibits modifications to motor vehicles used on public roads that would take the vehicle out
of compliance. Under the law, the term "motor vehicle"[l] is limited to a vehicle designed for transport
"on a street or highway." When Congress authorized the EPA to regulate nonroad vehicles, it explicitly
made clear that the term "nonroad vehicle"[2] did not include a "motor vehicle" or a "vehicle used
solely for competition." When enacting the CAA in 1970, Congress even confirmed in conference
committee deliberations that the term "motor vehicle" does not extend to vehicles manufactured or
modified for racing.[3][EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-Al p.3]
Flawed Regulatory Process
Further, this proposed racing conversion prohibition raises significant fairness and due process
concerns. The proposed prohibition was buried within a wholly unrelated 629-page greenhouse gas rule
for trucks and buses. There was not even a subject heading alerting the public to its insertion. Rather, it
was addressed along with other miscellaneous issues under the generic heading "XIV. Other Proposed
Regulatory Provisions." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.3]
As a consequence, the EPA failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and Clean Air Act
requirements requiring that the public be notified and given an opportunity to comment on a proposed
rule. Constitutional due process also demands agencies provide adequate notice to regulated individuals.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.3-4]
Further, the EPA failed to conduct an economic analysis, regulatory-flexibility analysis or small
business analysis on the race vehicle provisions, as required by law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-
A1 p.4]
When it published the March 2nd Notice of Data Availability, the EPA had an opportunity to
acknowledge the inclusion of the unrelated prohibition of modified race vehicles and rescind that
portion of its proposal. Instead, the EPA simply asked the public to comment on SEMA's comments.
The EPA did not defend its position and once again failed to provide an economic analysis, regulatory-
flexibility analysis and small business analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.4]
Conclusion
-------
The EPA has threatened to make illegal activities that have taken place for decades and accounted for
billions of dollars of economic activity, and would account for billions more moving forward. This
unannounced and unilateral action is being taken without regard to the decades-long understanding of
the application of the law to street vehicles modified for exclusive use at the track or as much as a single
economic analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.4]
The EPA's proposed prohibition would be devastating to many types of racing, especially at the amateur
level where the racers are not in a position to purchase purpose-built race vehicles. As previously noted,
it would also threaten jobs and economic well-being for the entire racing industry, from companies that
manufacture and market racing products to media outlets that cover amateur racing and communities
that support the tracks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1929-A1 p.4]
Despite the seeming clarity of the Clean Air Act statute and legislative history, the EPA is ignoring
Congressional intent and previous application of the law, which has allowed street vehicles to be
converted into racecars and competition motorcycles used solely for competition. The undersigned
respectfully request that the EPA withdraw its clarification. Congress did not intend for the EPA to
regulate racecars and competition motorcycles, including vehicles converted into race vehicles and
products used solely for racing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1929-A1 p.4]
[1] 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2).
[2] 42 U.S.C. § 7550(11).
[3] See House Consideration of the Report of the Conference Committee, Dec. 18, 1970 (reprinted in A
legislative history of the Clean air amendments of 1970, together with a section-by-section index, U.S.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DIVISION, Washington: U.S. Govt. Print.
Off. Serial No. 93-18, 1974, p. 117) (Representative Nichols: "I would ask the distinguished chairman if
I am correct in stating that the terms "vehicle' and "vehicle engine" as used in the act do not include
vehicles or vehicle engines manufactured for, modified for or utilized in organized motorized racing
events which, of course, are held very infrequently but which utilize all types of vehicles and vehicle
engines?"; Representative Staggers: "In response to the gentleman from Alabama, I would say to the
gentleman they would not come under the provisions of this act, because the act deals only with
automobiles used on our roads in everyday use. The act would not cover the types of racing vehicles to
which the gentleman referred, and present law does not cover them either.").
Organization: BorgWarner
As one of the top 30 automotive suppliers, employing over 6,900 people in the U.S., BorgWarner's
mission is to deliver innovative powertrain solutions that improve fuel economy, emissions and
performance. We support regulations that help to create a clean, energy-efficient world. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1883-A1 p.l]
As a key industry stakeholder, BorgWarner offers the following comments in response to the Notice of
Data Availability issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the proposed Phase 2 Heavy-Duty National Program to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and fuel consumption for new on-road heavy-duty vehicles
and engines. We oppose the provision that emission control devices must remain in their certified
-------
configuration, even if converting street vehicles into dedicated racecars. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1883-A1 p.l]
The Phase 2 provision on dedicated racecar conversions has the potential consequence of regulating the
market and sport of competition racing out of existence. This provision will result in negative economic
impact on jobs and revenue at our manufacturing facility in Asheville, North Carolina. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1883-A1 p.l]
Further, due to the competitive aspects of their business, motorsport customers are early adopters of
advanced technologies. Their activities help companies, like BorgWarner, gather test data, performance
data and determine manufacturing methods for volume production of advanced technologies. Product
enhancements that improve fuel economy, emissions and performance can and do transition from
competitive racing to production vehicle applications. An example of this technology transfer is
BorgWarner's Engineered for Racing (EFR) turbochargers, which include non-standard features such as
Gamma-Ti turbine wheels, a dual-row ceramic ball bearing system and an all-aluminum water cooled
bearing housing. These features, which are being considered for production applications, reduce the
rotational inertia and weight resulting in better fuel economy and performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1883-A1 p. 1-2]
Consequently, BorgWarner fully supports the comments of The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association (MEMA) and Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) in their opposition to the
EPA's proposed provision on converting street vehicles into dedicated racecars: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1883-A1 p.2]
• This provision is not appropriate to be addressed in the Phase 2 proposed rule, as it is not related to
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1883-A1 p.2]
• Congress did not intend for dedicated racecars to be within the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1883-A1 p.2]
• The 1970 CAA Amendments included an exemption for anti-tampering provisions for the emission
control devices of manufactured or modified racing vehicles, and the 1990 CAA Amendments clarified
that EPA did not have authority to regulate "vehicles used solely for competition." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1883-A1 p.2]
• The proposed racing conversion prohibition raises significant fairness and due process concerns.
EPA's process did not properly alert stakeholders of this significant policy change to an exemption that
has been in place for decades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1883-A1 p.2]
We strongly urge EPA and NHTSA to remove this provision from the Phase 2 proposed rule. We
believe that policy change in this area should be studied further based on the economic and innovative
impact of this market in the United States so that the complex issues raised by the key stakeholders may
be carefully evaluated. The racecar conversion market plays an important role for BorgWarner in
implementing advanced technologies for improving fuel economy, emissions and performance. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1883-A1 p.2]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
-------
In this rulemaking, some organizations have questioned EPA's authority to regulate aftermarket
modifications of emission control systems on certified vehicles used for on-road use. We strongly
support EPA's authority to protect the health and welfare of all citizens by ensuring that the appropriate
emission control devices are used on all vehicles driven on our nation's roads. As we saw from the
Volkswagen scandal, even a relatively small number of defeat devices can have an outsized impact on
health-threatening pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1925-A1 p.2]
Organization: Diaz, Miguel
Regarding the light duty motor vehicles used for racing, I don't think it should be a concern at this very
moment. It would be counterproductive to address such topic in a world that can't actually control the
emissions of larger pollutants. Racing cars produce a relative small amount of emissions compared to
the commercial trucks that are used every day. If you do a life cycle analysis of any aliment or product,
you will notice that most of the time the most pollutant element is transportation by trailer. Besides,
many of the racing cars are used sporadically while most of the trucks, trailers, buses and so are used
daily. Addressing this topic should be the priority, while concerning whether the racing cars should be
included or not, could create a great impact on the sport's economy, a huge American tradition. This
could cause many complaints from the people and loss of faith on the job EPA is currently doing. I'm
not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm just saying that is not the right moment to do it. You have to throw
the big rock first before throwing the little ones and we are still struggling with the bigger emissions.
We need to lower them down before trying to address every problem in the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1848-A1 p.2]
Organization: Harley-Davidson Motor Company
Among other things, the EPA and NHTSA are soliciting feedback from interested parties on the
Specialty Equipment Market Association's (SEMA) additional comments on issues discussed in a late
comment related to motor vehicles used for competition. We will also take this opportunity to comment
on the July 13, 2015 EPA Proposed Rule itself because the agency failed to appropriately notify the
public of the rule or solicit feedback from affected parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.l]
Harley-Davidson, Inc. is the parent company of Harley-Davidson Motor Company and Harley-
Davidson Financial Services. Since 1903, Harley-Davidson Motor Company has fulfilled dreams of
personal freedom with custom, cruiser and touring motorcycles, riding experiences and events and a
complete line of Harley-Davidson motorcycle parts, accessories, general merchandise, riding gear and
apparel. Harley-Davidson maintains an active interest in continuing an earnest dialogue with the agency
to address greenhouse gas emissions. The Company, however, does not condone the EPA's actions in its
Proposed Rule, which would unilaterally and without congressionally mandated authority materially
change provisions within the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.l]
On pages 429 and 584 of the 629 page rule addressing greenhouse gases for medium and heavy duty
vehicles, the EPA inserted the following proposed regulatory text on race car and competition
motorcycle conversions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A 1 p.2
PART 86-CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROMNEWAND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
Subpart S~General Compliance Provisions for Control of Air Pollution From New and In-Use
Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
-------
67. Section 86.1854-12 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
§ 86.1854-12 Prohibited acts.
(b) * * *
(5) Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain
in their certified configuration even if thev are used solely for competition or if thev become nonroad
vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason
is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 42
U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.2]
Part 1068 - Subpart B—Prohibited Actions and Related Requirements
236. Section 1068.101 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (h)
introductory text to read as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.2]
[40 CFR 1068.10l(b)(4)(ii)]
Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in
their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad
vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason
is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of 40 CFR 1068.101(b) and 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.2]
Broadly, Harley-Davidson supports the comments submitted in the docket by SEMA on December 28,
20151. Explicitly, the Motor Company asserts that the agency's proposal would make inappropriate and
unnecessary changes to current law and practice, the agency does not have the authority to make the
changes it proposes, adequate notice was not given for the proposed changes, and the agency did not
follow government mandated protocols for evaluating economic impacts to small businesses and others
according to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act as they relate specifically to the race car
and competition motorcycle conversion section above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.2]
Vehicles used solely for competition of all kinds, including racing vehicles created by converting
certified vehicles into racing motorcycles, are not within the purview of the Clean Air Act. As drafted,
the proposal would allow the EPA to broadly enforce this new provision against anyone making such
changes including the owner, service provider, seller and manufacturer of competition vehicles and
parts used for such conversions. Administrative rulemaking is not a process by which an agency is
permitted to circumvent Congress. Only Congress is empowered to change the Clean Air Act. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.2
The EPA did not adequately notify the public in its original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
encourage dialogue with affected parties. The EPA included the disputed language within a 629 page
rulemaking entitled Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-
Duty Engines and Vehicles Part 2. The agency did not call out motorcycles in the title, nor did it note
the proposed change in the table of contents. However, the results of such a change would dramatically
and negatively impact motorcycle competition, those who service those vehicles, and the supporting
industry of vendors who make their livelihoods in the related industries of motorsports. The proposed
-------
rule, if finalized, would effectively eviscerate an industry that has been around for decades. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.3]
Currently, all motorcycles manufactured in or before 2005 are not required to meet EPA certification.
The EPA allows certified motorcycles made from 2006 to be used exclusively for competition purposes
if they meet certain criteria. According to an excerpt from the agency's own Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) document issued in 2002 entitled "Emission Exemption for Racing Motorcycles and
Other Competition Vehicles"2, a motorcycle certified by the EPA is allowed to be used for competition
under the following conditions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.3
[Table, 'Restrictions on Use and Maintenance', can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1893-A1]
SBREFA requires agencies to take steps to collect input from small entities on regulations and to
determine whether a rule is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. No such analysis of the effects of the proposed prohibited acts appears to have been
completed by the agency prior to the proposed rule being issued. Proposing such a significant and far-
reaching change to the existing rule and practice will require additional due diligence by the agency to
prove that there are no negative consequences to affected small businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1893-A1 p.3-4]
The APA is intended to provide protections to the public to ensure that interested parties are given
sufficient opportunity to comment on proposed rules. H-D contends that EPA did not provide sufficient
opportunity to provide comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.4]
We reject the EPA's assertion that this is simply a clarification of the existing rules. The proposed
prohibition of modifications to engines, exhaust, engine control modules and intakes of competition
vehicles stands in stark contrast to 40 years of practice by the agency and directly contradicts the
agency's own guidance in the 2002 FAQ. This action would effectively kill the vast majority of
motorsports that rely heavily on OEM vehicles as the primary source of competition vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.4
A modification to a certified motor vehicle for purposes of competition does not constitute "tampering"
if that vehicle is then used solely for competition purposes. Indeed, in response to the now public
proposed rule changes, Congress acted swiftly to address the overreach by the agency, introducing
bipartisan legislation in March in the House and Senate, HR 4715 (114th Cong. 2nd Session) and S
2659 (114th Cong. 2nd Session), to more expressly codify the existing practice of allowing competition
vehicles to be used outside the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.4]
In light of the fact that the EPA failed to adequately notice the public, attempted to hide the proposed
changes in a non-germane rulemaking, did not conduct a Regflex assessment, SBREFA analysis, or
small business economic impact analysis, and attempted to significantly alter a rule and practice that has
been in effect for 40 years without the approval of Congress, we respectfully request that the EPA
withdraw its "clarification." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1893-A1 p.4]
1 Specialty Equipment Market Association, December 28, 2015, EPA-HQ_OAR-2014-0827;
Comments: Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and
heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2: Vehicles Used Solely in Competition
-------
2 Emissions Exemption for Motorcycles and Other Competition Vehicles, FAQ, EPA420-F-02-045,
Sept. 2002
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Protection against defeat devices. Commenters in the rulemaking and NODA docket have raised a
concern about the issue of modifying vehicles emission control equipment. It is important that EPA
affirms its long-standing authority and continues to refine the specific regulatory language to prevent the
proliferation of defeat devices for vehicles that are driven on public roads. Enforcement cases such as
the one with Casper's Electronics' 44,000 defeat devices (see US EPA, 2015) highlight the importance
of monitoring and enforcing which companies are developing the devices, and especially ensuring the
devices are not being used on public roads. As such, we believe it is important that EPA continue to
recognize that there is a legitimate concern about illegal aftermarket devices being used on public roads,
and the EPA act to prevent their use (e.g., see US EPA, 2015). Such actions include ensuring that defeat
devices are not sold under the guise of competitive race cars while being used on public roads. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1876-A1 p.2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2015). Casper's Electronics Inc. Clean Air Act.
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/caspers-electronics-inc-clean-air-act
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
The Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) is pleased to provide comments in
response to the U.S. EPA's request for public comments on their Notice of Data Availability covering
the prohibition against tampering or disabling of emission controls on motor vehicles used for
competition (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1). MECA supports the agencies
position that the Clean Air Act expressly prohibits the tampering with the emission controls on certified
motor vehicles that may be used for racing but may also find their way to occasional use on public
roads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1868-A1 p.l]
MECA is a non-profit association of the world's leading manufacturers of emission control technology
for motor vehicles. Our members have over 40 years of experience and a proven track record in
developing and manufacturing emission control technology for the entire spectrum of internal
combustion engines and mobile sources for gasoline, diesel, and alternative-fueled engines. A number
of our members have extensive experience in the development, manufacture, and application of
aftermarket emission control technologies for existing gasoline and heavy-duty engines to insure that
emission controls originally certified on motor vehicles continue to operate beyond the vehicles
emission warranty period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1868-A1 p.l]
To protect public health, as intended by the Clean Air Act, it is imperative that the emission control
systems that were originally certified on motor vehicles remain on these vehicles over their full
operating life even once the OEM emissions warranty expires. Some MECA members develop and
manufacture aftermarket converters that are legal to replace a damaged OEM converter on a vehicle
outside of the OEM emissions warranty. Over the past 40 years, catalytic converter technology has
advanced significantly to where the exhaust exiting the tailpipe is 99% cleaner than that coming out of
the engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1868-A1 p.l]
-------
Many states have implemented inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs to periodically inspect the
emissions from passenger cars to insure that the emission controls continue to operate properly. There
are many areas of the country that do not require I/M inspection and once a vehicle is sold, it may never
be checked. The air quality is not confined to any particular area and pollution travels downwind to
other parts of the country that may not benefit from up-wind clean air. Without I/M programs, emission
controls may be tampered on a motor vehicle under the guise that the vehicle is used for racing. Such
activity may be limited to weekends and the vehicle continues to operate on public roads during the
week. Furthermore, there are manufacturers that offer exhaust modification kits for competition
vehicles. Without an active I/M program there is no way to insure that these devices are not being
misapplied to vehicles that may occasionally operate on public roads. Many of these purchases occur
over the internet so there is no way to insure that the vehicle that is being tampered is used solely for the
purpose of racing competition and never driven on public roads. The California Air Resources Board
requires aftermarket parts manufacturers to inform the installer of the legal and proper installation of
their parts and to retain records of the owner and vehicle where the parts have been installed. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1868-A1 p. 1-2]
MECA members are avid car enthusiasts and many enjoy racing, however, our members believe that
emission standards need to be enforced and emission controls should not be defeated. We support the
EPA's long standing policy against tampering or disabling emission control systems on roadworthy
passenger cars from their originally certified configuration. We also believe that the sale of devices that
defeat emission control systems should be banned on competition racing vehicles that may be
periodically operated on public roads. Thank you for consideration of our comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1868-A1 p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 2 (web) - (369)
I must speak up and protest the EPA's proposed rule 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Phase 2', specifically the following
sections: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1513 p.l]
I propose that these rules be struck out of the 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Phase 2' or that the entire Proposed Rule be
eliminated altogether if these sections regarding converting on-highway vehicles to non-highway
vehicles cannot be modified or eliminated from the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1513
p.2]
»Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in
their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad
vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason
is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of 40 CFR 1068.101(b) and 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1513 p.l]
This means that EPA is proposing that we as enthusiasts would potentially violate emissions equipment
laws intended for vehicles to be used upon a highway for vehicles that have been declared to never to be
used upon said highway. Even if a vehicle was once an on-highway vehicle, a non-highway vehicle is
no longer legal to operate on-highway and no longer subject to on-highway vehicle emissions standards.
These vehicles are driven less and are transported by trailer to and from closed courses, thus never
polluting as an on-highway vehicle would. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1513 p. 1-2]
-------
»Note that a new vehicle that will be used solely for competition may be excluded from the
requirements of this part based on a determination that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle under 40 CFR
85.1703. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1513 p.2]
This means that only body-in-white vehicles would be the only form of legal racecar available to
enthusiasts. A body-in-white car is a vehicle that has no VIN number and is intended as a non-highway
vehicle. However, most enthusiasts are not able to afford such a vehicle as they can cost as low as
$300,000 (US), a number most entry level enthusiasts cannot afford and is why we convert on-highway
vehicles into non-highway vehicles for the sole purpose of racing on closed courses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1513 p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 2 (web) - (369)
»Competition engines/equipment, (i) For uncertified engines/equipment that are excluded or exempted
as new engines/equipment from any requirements of this chapter because they are to be used solely for
competition, you may not use any of them in a manner that is inconsistent with use solely for
competition. Anyone violating this paragraph (b)(4)(i) is deemed to be a manufacturer in violation of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. We may assess a civil penalty up to $37,500 for each engine or piece of
equipment in violation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1513 p.2]
If these rules are enacted, the enthusiast who has converted their once on-highway vehicle to a non-
highway vehicle will be subjected to a fine that is out of touch with reality in both the rule and the
amount. These converted non-highway vehicles are transported by trailer, only started and ran on a
closed course, never seeing an on-highway mile. Non-highway vehicles should not be subject to on-
highway laws, no matter if they are originally non-highway vehicles or on-highway vehicles converted
to non-highway use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1513 p.2]
What you are doing is punishing thousands of United States Citizens and Taxpayers by creating a rule
that limits them to buying a purpose built vehicle that is out of their reach. You are punishing
enthusiasts who are doing the right thing and using their non-highway converted vehicles as they are
intended; to be used off the highway. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1513 p.2]
Organization: Mazda North American Operations
In addition to proposing new greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, EPA
included proposed language to insert in 40 C.F.R. § 86.1854-12 pertaining to new and in-use light-duty
vehicles, that would make the modification of certified production or street vehicles for off-road
racing/competition a prohibited act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1924-A1 p.2]
MNAO is headquartered in Irvine, CA and oversees the sales, marketing, parts and customer service
support of Mazda vehicles in the United States and Mexico through nearly 700 dealers. The EPA noted
in its most recent Light Duty Fuel Economy Trends report that Mazda is the most fuel-efficient auto
manufacturer in the U.S for the third year in a row. Mazda's unique SKYACTIV Technology has made
this level of efficiency possible. SKYACTIV is a suite of component and engineering technologies
intended to cut vehicle weight and improve engine efficiency for outstanding environmental and safety
performance, without sacrificing the brand's renowned driving pleasure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1924-A1 p.2]
-------
Mazda Motorsports is part of MNAO and provides a support program for anyone racing or building a
Mazda car for racing. The Mazda Motorsports Competition Parts program serves 9,000 registered
grassroots racers across the United States. These racers compete in up to 25,000 races and events each
year across the country. Mazda has 58% market share in the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA)
grassroots club racing program as of 2015 participation data. The cars that Mazda racers use in
competition range from legally registered street going vehicles to full-on "race track only" vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1924-A1 p.2]
Mazda Motorsports members can purchase competition and stock parts directly from Mazda. This is a
Membership only program and competition parts are not for sale to the general public. The parts
available are all non-emissions affecting parts. Racers register with Mazda Motorsports through
www.mazdamotorsports.com and provide proof images of the car they compete with. These racers have
the opportunity to purchase racing or "competition only" parts, as well as, stock and production parts
directly from Mazda through this motorsports program. The customer has to accept and acknowledge
the terms and conditions agreement prior to purchasing parts. The disclaimer specifically states that the
competition only parts being purchased are not for on-road use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1924-A1
p.2]
The Mazda MX-5 Miata is the best-selling two seat sports car in the world, according to the Guinness
Book of World Records. The car has also become the most road raced car in the world. Established in
2001, Spec Miata (as it is named), is "stock" car racing in the truest sense. The 2.0-liter four-cylinder
engine is sealed to prevent any internal tampering/modifications and the race exhaust runs through a
catalytic converter. This allows Mazda to make production changes to the road-going Miata when it
uncovers issues on the track that may warrant changes to production components. Mazda has sold nearly
3,000 kits to turn a road-going Miata into a race car. Spec Miata also grew into the Mazda MX-5 Cup
professional series which started in 2006. As of 2015, Mazda now sells a Global MX-5 Miata Cup car.
This is a ready-to-race Miata based on the vehicle sold in dealerships nationwide. The U.S.-spec MX-5
Cup Car allows racers to bypass conversion kits for a conventional Miata and buy a pre-assembled
racecar through a third-party supplier (Long Road Racing in Statesville, North Carolina). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1924-A 1 p.2]
Through Mazda's involvement in the American Le Mans series Prototype racing category (2005-2013),
Mazda worked closely with the Green Racing Work Group, the EPA, the SAE, and the DOE to bring
several alternative technologies and fuels to the race track. From 2005-2006, Mazda competed with a 3-
rotor Mazda engine in the LMP2 category. This efficient engine technology is one of the cornerstones of
the Mazda brand philosophy. From 2007-2013, Mazda competed with a 2.0L 4-cylinder single turbo
engine. This engine was the smallest capacity/displacement engine in the series and competed with
IMS A 100 fuel initially. In 2008, Mazda was given the opportunity to bring Isobutanol Fuel to the series
to showcase this next generation fuel and Mazda earned the 2011 Michelin Green Racing Challenge
Award after earning several race victories and the season long Championship. Finally, in 2013-2015,
Mazda brought Clean Diesel technology and renewable synthetic diesel fuel to Grand-Am and the
United Sports Car Championship. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1924-A 1 p.2-3]
Mazda Motorsports also launched the Racing Accelerates Creative Education (R.A.C.E.) outreach
program. RACE is a national touring program from Mazda Motorsports that uses the science,
technology and math of auto racing to inspire students to consider the many career options in the STEM
disciplines. The program has positively impacted more than 10,000 middle and high school students
across the country. Our Motorsports program also supports Project Yellow Light, a national
organization dedicated to eliminating distracted driving by high school and college age drivers. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1924-A 1 p.3]
-------
Mazda is a leading player in all aspects of sports car racing with an emphasis on endurance road racing.
Mazda is the number-one brand for road-racers across North America among both club racers and
professionals. Mazda Motorsports traces its origin to an independent racing team in 1967. Mazda
remains the only Asian car company to score an overall win at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1991. Mazda
is proud of our grass-roots racing heritage and view motorsports as an integral part of our brand identity.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1924-A1 p. 3]
MNAO supports the position of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global
Automakers on the EPA's proposal to prohibit the conversion of certified on-road vehicles to
competition vehicles. Individuals and entities who remove emissions control equipment from certified
vehicles, or otherwise put such vehicles into an uncertified configuration, and then drive them on public
roads, commit tampering under the Clean Air Act. MNAO opposes illegal tampering of road use
vehicles. However, the EPA must not go so far as to outlaw legitimate activities and businesses. MNAO
believes converting a certified on-road vehicle into an uncertified competition vehicle, and using that
vehicle only for competition, does not constitute tampering or otherwise violate the Clean Air Act.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1924-A 1 p. 3]
Organization: Mead, Nathan
I am submitting comments below with respect to: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1 p.l]
40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 1036, 1037, 1065, 1066, and 1068
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827; NHTSA-2014- 0132; FRL-9942-94-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS16; RIN 2127-AL52
In particular I find the following paragraphs troublesome: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1 p.l]
§ 86.1854-12 Prohibited acts.
(b) * * *
(5) Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain
in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad
vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason
is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 42
U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1 p.l
Here is my problem(s) with the above language.
-------
So let's say a guy decided to starry racing his late model car he makes a few street legal modifications
but eventually wants get more serious and use the vehicle for racing only and escalates his program
incrementally. By my interpretation of the above language he will either have to find an older vehicle
which of course there is a limited supply or step up to a built for racing only engine and chassis which
for any is cost prohibitive. And all for what? To make sure that racers burn their negligible amount of
fuel in exactly the way the manufacturer intended. Rules like this will have virtually no impact on
improving the environment but a huge impact on individuals right to enjoy the sport of their choice and
kill yet more domestic jobs held by those who manufacture and sell parts for modifying late model
engines for off highway use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1 p.l]
For sake of perspective I did a brief analysis: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1 p.2
According espn.go.com over 17.3 million people attended pro football games in 2015 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1864-A1 p.2]
Let's discount 10% that walked, biked or took public transportation although they all left a carbon
footprint (we exhale more C02 when exercising). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1 p.2]
That brings us to 15.57M
If we take the following averages: 3 people per car and a round trip of 50 miles in a vehicles that gets 20
mpg we get 12,975,000 gallons of fuel consumed just to see pro football games. Although my numbers
except for attendance are arbitrary I think any reasonable person would agree they are reasonable. At
en.rn.wikipedia.org it states that NASCAR consumes 216,000 gallons at the 36 cup points races
combined. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1 p.2]
It goes without saying there is much more fuel consumed by race cars in the aggregate, and of course a
vastly larger amount by several orders of magnitude in fact consumed by fans traveling to pro and
college and other amateur sporting events, cross country skiing, fishing, golfing and other sports that in
and of themselves don't necessarily involve burning fuel, directly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1
p.2]
So what's next? No more attending live games or concerts the coverage is better on TV anyway with
instant replay, and the album is generally as good or in many times better than a live concert? [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1 p.2]
Really if you want to take away our freedom to modify and race our cars. Then you should only allow
people to travel within a certain radius to enjoy hiking or cross country skiing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1864-A1 p.2]
These rules have unpleasant consequences for everyone by infringing on individual freedom to pursue
the hobby of choice by the precedent they set. All for a minuscule reduction in greenhouse gases. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1864-A1 p.2]
These rules ring insincere to me and damage the credibility of the EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1864-A1 p.2]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
-------
MEMA supports comments submitted by the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) in
opposition to the EPA's proposed provision that emission control devices must remain in their certified
configuration even if converting street vehicles into race vehicles.2 MEMA respectfully request that
EPA withdraw this proposed provision. Our comments will address only this issue. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0229-A1 p.l]
In October 2015, MEMA submitted comments to the Phase 2 regulations that were generally supportive
of the EPA's endeavor while addressing some specific issue areas of concern to medium- and heavy-
duty suppliers.4 MEMA and the motor vehicle supplier industry are committed to policies that enable
the introduction of new technologies needed to support sustainable mobility. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0229-
Alp.l
Within the 629-page Phase 2 proposed rule to establish regulations for GHG emissions and fuel
consumption for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, EPA included a policy revision that would make it
illegal for certified motor vehicles to be converted into vehicles used solely for competition by
reconfiguring emission control devices. MEMA supports the comments submitted by SEMA and
objects to EPA's tactic to revise current policy by including a provision in the context of the Phase 2
proposed rule on medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. Furthermore, MEMA agrees with
SEMA that Congress did not intend racecars to be within the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0229-A1 p.2]
MEMA shares SEMA's concerns regarding EPA's process. First, EPA did not alert impacted
stakeholders that the agency was proposing a significant policy change. The current exemption, which is
on vehicles used solely for competition, has been in place for decades. Second, the proposed provision
on the modification of a certified vehicle for competition use is not germane to the Phase 2 proposed
rulemaking on GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and
engines. Third, EPA failed to provide any economic analysis with this revision to a long-standing
policy. EPA lifting this established CAA exemption on vehicles used solely for competition would
impact the aftermarket industry's performance sector and put an end to most forms of amateur racing
and car shows, adversely impacting the sport with minimal gains on GHG emissions. [NHTSA-2014-
0132-0229-A 1 p.2]
Most importantly, according to statutory text and legislative history of the CAA, it is clear that vehicles
used solely for competition are not within the jurisdiction of the CAA. The 1970 CAA Amendments
included an exemption for anti-tampering provisions for the emission control devices of manufactured
or modified racing vehicles, and the 1990 CAA Amendments clarified that EPA did not have authority
to regulate "vehicles used solely for competition." Further, at the March 15, 2016 House Science
Oversight Subcommittee hearing, Brent Yacobucci with the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
testified that the CRS could not identify any EPA document prior to the July 2015 proposed rule that
stated converted racecars were ineligible for the CAA exclusion. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0229-A1 p.2]
For all these reasons, MEMA respectfully requests that EPA withdraw the proposed provision that
would make it illegal for certified motor vehicles to be converted into vehicles used solely for
competition by reconfiguring emission control devices. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0229-A1 p.2]
2 Submitted on December 28, 2015 to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469.
4 Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1274
-------
Organization: Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. (MIC)
In its July 13, 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA stated: 'The existing prohibitions and
exemptions in 40 CFR part 1068 related to competition engines and vehicles need to be amended to
account for differing policies for nonroad and motor vehicle applications.' This was proposed to be
accomplished by adding a new subsection 40 CFR 86.1854-12(b)(5) stating that 'Certified motor
vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified
configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad vehicles or
engines'. Similar language appears in proposed section 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(4)(h). In conjunction with a
proposed section 40 CFR 1068.1(a)(3) subjecting highway motorcycles to part 1068, the language of 40
CFR 1068.101(b)(4)(h) would extend the tampering prohibition to highway motorcycles used for
competition. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.l]
In comments dated December 28, 2015, the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)
explained why it believes the proposed addition to 40 CFR 86.1854-12(b)(5) should be rescinded. The
Motorcycle Industry Council agrees with SEMA's comments and also recommends that 40 CFR
1068.10l(b)(4)(ii) be amended by striking the following text: [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.l]
Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in
their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad
vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason
is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of 40 CFR 1068.101(b) and 42 U.S.C,
7522(a)(3). [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.l]
In support, MIC submits the following comments.
A Tampering Prohibition for Racing Vehicles is Inappropriate
MIC acknowledges that highway motorcycles and other on-road motor vehicles are subject to the anti-
tampering provisions of section 203 of the Clean Air Act. We also acknowledge that there is no
exception in Sec. 203 for racing vehicles or racing conversions. If a literal, facial reading of Sec. 203 is
controlling, any conversion that falls under its prohibitions (e.g., a conversion that removes or modifies
a catalytic exhaust system or involves reprogramming of the fuel injection system) would not be legal,
even if the conversion were done solely for racing purposes. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p. 1-2]
However, we do not believe such a literal reading is controlling and that there is an alternative reading
of the applicability of Sec. 203 to racing conversions that is more consistent with Congressional intent
and established EPA policy with regard to modification of vehicles for racing. EPA has both the
authority and the obligation to exempt vehicles being used for racing for a number of reasons: [NHTSA-
2014-0132-0219-A1 p.2]
• Congressional Intent is Clear
Congress did not intend for the anti-tampering provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 to
apply to vehicles converted to competition use. In the Conference Report, after Mr. Nichols asked for
confirmation that vehicles affected '...do not include vehicles or vehicle engines manufactured for,
modified for or utilized in organized motorized racing events,' Mr. Staggers (Chairman of the House
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and floor manager of the bill) confirmed that
understanding1. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.2]
-------
Consistent with the Congressional intent, Section 202(b)(3)(B) of the 1970 Clean Air Act clearly gave
EPA the authority to exempt subcategories of 'light duty vehicles' by stating that: 'The term 'light duty
vehicles and engines' means new light duty motor vehicles and new light duty motor vehicle engines, as
determined under regulations of the Administrator.' This language was not only broad enough to allow
EPA to exempt vehicles used for competition, it allowed EPA to initially exempt motorcycles from
emission standards altogether. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.2]
• Avoiding Disparate Results
If the absence of an explicit exemption for racing conversions from the anti-tampering provisions is
construed as an immutable statement that racing conversions are prohibited, the result would be an
irrational and economically unfair non-uniform treatment of onroad motorcycles vis-a-vis nonroad
motorcycles, where conversions are not allowed for the former but (as explained below) allowed for the
latter. It is an established rule of construction that implying an intent to Congress that causes such
disruptive, disparate results should be avoided. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.2]
• EPA's Adoption Of An Anti-tampering Regulation For Nonroad Motorcycles
When Congress added current Sec. 213 to the CAA in 1990 requiring EPA to study and regulate
nonroad vehicle and engine emissions, it did not extend the anti-tampering provisions in Sec. 203 to the
nonroad sector. As noted above, Sec. 203 by its very terms is limited to vehicles used on a street or
highway. But Congress did expressly exempt nonroad vehicles and engines used solely for competition
from the definitions of nonroad vehicle and nonroad engine (CAA Sec. 216 subsecs. (10) and (11)).
System or involves reprogramming of the fuel injection system) would not be legal, even if the
conversion were done solely for racing purposes. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.2]
So, with respect to nonroad motorcycles converted for racing, in 1990 EPA was faced with the obverse
of the CAA treatment of onroad motorcycles converted for racing, i.e., no tampering prohibition and a
racing exemption for the nonroad sector, and a tampering prohibition but no racing exemption for the
onroad sector. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.3]
Under those circumstances, EPA decided that it had the authority to fill the gap created by the
Congressional silence on tampering for the nonroad sector by adopting a tampering prohibition in its
nonroad regulations. Specifically, when EPA first adopted its general compliance regulations governing
nonroad vehicles (67 FR 68242 et seq, Nov. 8, 2002), in its discretion it included anti-tampering
provisions at 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(l)-(3). EPA did not explain why it took this action and its decision in
this regard was not questioned or challenged during the regulatory adoption process (see 66 FR 51098 et
seq., Oct. 5, 2001 (proposed rulemaking), and 67FR 68242 et seq., Nov. 8, 2002 (final rulemaking)).
[NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.3]
discretion to adopt, or otherwise enforce, a racing vehicle exemption from the anti-tampering provisions
for onroad vehicles in Sec. 203. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A 1 p.3]
• Prior Recognition of a Racing Exemption by EPA
There are several indications in prior EPA regulatory and policy actions confirming that Congress's
failure to mention a racing exception from the CAA anti-tampering provisions applicable to onroad
vehicles, is merely a policy oversight or omission that can be addressed by EPA and is not an implied
ban. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.3]
-------
For example, EPA has created a regulatory process for exclusion of racing vehicles from the restriction
against the import of uncertified vehicles in Sec. 203(a)(1) of the CAA, even though Congress did not
mention a racing exclusion or exemption in that section. (See 40 CFR Sec. 85.1511 establishing a racing
exclusion and 40 CFR Sec. 85.1703 defining what constitutes a racing vehicle. Also See. 2.3.3 of EPA's
'Procedures for Importing Vehicles and Engines in the United States.') [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1
p.3]
Likewise, in EPA's Document No. EPA420-R-03-016, dated December 2003, entitled 'Summary and
Analysis of Comments: Control of Emissions from Highway Motorcycles', EPA states (at p.7) that
while school buses and police vehicles must meet CAA emission standards, '...the Clean Air Act
specifically exempts from emission regulation vehicles that are used solely for competition.' On p. 7,
EPA goes on to state that NASCAR race vehicles, which were and are converted onroad vehicles,'... are
not required to comply with emission regulations, and we do not have the authority to regulate them.'
EPA states further (at p. 107) in the specific context of discussing whether motorcycle customization and
modification is allowed under the CAA anti-tampering prohibition, that 'Selling a 'competition only'
version is allowed, but EPA expects aftermarket dealers and retailers to use reasonable prudence so that
abuse of this provision does not result in an act of tampering by consumers.' [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-
Alp.3]
Additional evidence of prior recognition of a racing exemption was noted in SEMA's comment: 'EPA
personnel participated in a presentation at an industry trade show sponsored by SEMA on November 5,
2015 to speak to this very issue and made no mention of the pending rulemaking proceeding.' Indeed,
EPA personnel routinely participated in SEMA trade shows at least as far back as the mid-1990s2 at
which hundreds of products were on display that were designed for competition use only and not
emissions compliant. EPA never informed SEMA that the sale of such products was inconsistent with
EPA policy. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1 p.4]
For the reasons outlined above, EPA has both the authority and the obligation to exempt motor vehicles
being used for competition without any statutory or regulatory changes. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0219-A1
p.4]
1 House Consideration of the Report of the Conference Committee, Dec. 18, 1970, page 117 (see
attached). http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077941642;view-lup;seq-120
2 Personal communication with Edward Gardetto, former EPA employee.
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
3. December 28, 2015 comments from SEMA related to light-duty motor vehicles used for competition
racing
NACAA is troubled by the December 28, 2015 comments submitted by SEMA to the Phase 2docket,
which we believe misconstrue EPA's intent, existing rules and policy and the Clean Air Act. In its
comments, SEMA takes issue with language in the proposed Phase 2 rule where EPA seeks to clarify
that certain regulatory provisions related to nonroad vehicles do not, and cannot under the Clean Air
Act, apply to onroad vehicles. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has discretion to allow certified nonroad
vehicles to be modified and used for competition. The statute does not provide EPA discretion for
certified onroad vehicles. Certified onroad vehicles that are outfitted with aftermarket parts such as
-------
those that defeat or delete emission controls are illegal under the Clean Air Act, even if the intention is
to use such converted vehicles only for the purposes of competition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1890-
A1 p.2]
The proposed language in the Phase 2 rule is intended to clarify this distinction; it does not, in any way,
change any existing rule or policy. In explaining this provision, EPA is clear that it does not apply to
dedicated racecar vehicles - such as NASCAR and Indy vehicles - originally manufactured for the
purpose of competition (and, therefore, never certified for onroad use). EPA has also been clear that the
Clean Air Act plainly prohibits tampering and the agency has always had the authority to enforce
against individual vehicles/owners that violate this law. EPA has never pursued an enforcement case
against an individual, as SEMA implies the agency will in the future. Instead, EPA's primary concern is
the proliferation and increasing sales and installation of aftermarket parts that defeat or delete emission
controls on cars and trucks used on the road in every state across the nation. These parts are readily
available for sale online to anyone who wishes to purchase them for any purpose. (Though some of
these conversions are intended for creating vehicles that will be used only for competition, many others
are done on vehicles intended for continued use on the road. In either case, though, they are not allowed
under the Clean Air Act). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1890-A1 p.3]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
II. LIGHT-DUTY RACE VEHICLES
In its October 1, comments, NADA/ATD did not address a proposal to regulate as tampering the
conversion of light-duty "street" vehicle to dedicated race cars.2 At the time, NADA/ATD focused
exclusively on the commercial truck standards set out in the proposal. A review of the NODA has
caused NADA/ATD to take a position on the issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1932-A1 p.2]
Light-duty vehicle dealerships sell new and used vehicles that customers sometimes convert into race
cars. Moreover and just as importantly, many dealerships and their employees are involved in
sponsoring race teams, building out race cars, and driving or supporting cars and teams on race day.
These time-honored activities have occurred throughout the 100 + years dealers have sold cars and are
sometimes elegantly summarized by the phrase "race on Sunday, sell on Monday." At the same time,
dealers are aware of the Clean Air Act's anti-tampering provisions, they recognize the importance of
emissions tampering issues, and they endeavor to ensure that emissions systems are not tampered with
when servicing or selling vehicles for road use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1932-A1 p.2]
NADA concurs with positions taken by the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association (SEMA) on
the race car tampering proposal. In fact, NADA has signed onto a set of joint industry comments on the
issue. Note that by objecting to this provision, NADA is in no way arguing in support of clear-cut
emissions tampering activities involving the improper modification of, or instillation of defeat devices
into, vehicles used on public roads. Moreover, NADA fully supports EPA's efforts to appropriately
regulate companies that manufacture, import, market, or sell devices designed to "defeat" emissions
performance under the guise of doing so only for the dedicated race vehicle marketplace to the extent
that such is not the case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1932-A1 p.2]
With respect to tampering, commercial truck dealerships have seen a surge in the number of tampered
vehicles entering their service bays and used truck lots since at least 2007. Apparently, certain truck
owners and operators have elected to tamper with emission systems as a means of avoiding the cost and
burden of properly maintaining those systems or in an attempt to improve vehicle performance or
reduce operating costs.3 In lieu of creating an unnecessary and inappropriate constraint on race vehicles,
-------
NADA/ATD urges EPA to focus some of its limited but valuable tampering enforcement resources on
this area of concern. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1932-A1 p.2]
2 40 CFR § 86.1854-12(b)(5) was proposed to be amended to include the following:
Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in
their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad
vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason
is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 42
U.S.C. 7522(a)(3).
3 See e.g., http://www.successfuldealer.com/dealing-with-emission-tampering/
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)1 submits these comments in
response to the joint Notice of Data Availability (NODA) issued by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) on March 2, 2016 associated with the proposed rule - Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2
(81 Fed. Reg. 10822). NESCAUM's comments are limited to issues raised in a December 28, 2015
comment on the Phase 2 rule from the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) related to the
use of certified light-duty motor vehicles for competition racing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1871-A1
p.l]
At issue is proposed new text in 40 C.F.R. §§ 86.1854-122 intended by EPA to clarify the existing
statutory and regulatory distinction between nonroad vehicles and certified motor vehicles as it relates to
disabling or tampering with air pollution control devices: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1871-A1 p. 1]
Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in
their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad
vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason is
subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions^] 80 Fed. Reg. 40565 (July 13, 2015). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1871-A1 p. 1-2]
In its comments, SEMA asserts that the proposed regulatory text represents a significant EPA policy
change and, insofar as it would ban the conversion of motor vehicles originally designed and certified
for onroad use into race cars, is contrary to congressional intent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1871-A1
p.2]
NESCAUM supports the proposed amendments, which are consistent with the Clean Air Act and do not
change any existing EPA requirements or enforcement policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1871-A1
p.2]
SEMA suggests that the proposed regulatory amendments will expose owners of modified motor
vehicles converted solely for nonroad competition to enforcement actions and civil penalties. This
suggestion is at odds with EPA's track record. EPA can and has consistently exercised its enforcement
-------
discretion by targeting manufacturers of defeat devices that sell their illegal products to vehicle owners
who continue to drive their cars on public roads.3 The agency has not indicated any intention of
expanding its enforcement effort to competition car owners or hobbyists. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1871-A1 p.2]
In areas of the Northeast, as well as elsewhere in the nation, air quality does not meet national health-
based air quality standards. Sales of aftermarket parts that defeat emission controls to owners of
certified motor vehicles still operating on public roads further degrade air quality. Under present
circumstances, EPA's enforcement approach to tampering with pollution control devices is a practical
and straightforward application of the rule of law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1871-A1 p.2]
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Data Availability. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1871-A1 p.2]
1 NESCAUM is an association of the state air quality agencies in the six New England States, New
Jersey, and New York. This letter reflects the majority views of NESCAUM as a state membership
organization. Individual NESCAUM member states may hold views different from the NESCAUM
states' majority consensus.
2 EPA has proposed a corresponding amendment applicable to certified heavy-duty engines and
vehicles in 40 CFR § 1037.601(a)(3), 80 Fed. Reg. 40650.
3 See, e.g., United States of America v. Edge Products, LLC,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/edgeproducts-cd.pdf; United States of America
v. Casper Electronics, Inc., https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/casper-
cd.pdf.
Organization: Ohio Attorney General's Office
I am writing to express my deep concerns about a conflict with the federal Clean Air Act buried within
the provisions of the 629-page rule referenced above, which states: "Certified motor vehicles and motor
vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified configuration even if
they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad vehicles or engines." As written, this
proposed addition attempts to expand the EPA's statutory jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act to cover
vehicles modified for racing or hobbyist competition. Such an approach would contravene the law and
reverse decades of EPA practice.
I am writing to express my deep concerns about a conflict with the federal Clean Air Act buried within
the provisions of the 629-page rule referenced above, which states: "Certified motor vehicles and motor
vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified configuration even if
they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad vehicles or engines." As written, this
proposed addition attempts to expand the EPA's statutory jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act to cover
vehicles modified for racing or hobbyist competition. Such an approach would contravene the law and
reverse decades of EPA practice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1799-A1 p.l]
-------
This unnecessary expansion conflicts with the expressed intent of Congress, and I urge you to remedy
this problem in the final rule by deleting the provision quoted above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1799-
Alp.l]
The specialty automotive industry is an important part of our economy. In 2014, consumers spent $36
billion on automotive specialty equipment parts and accessories. Ohio is home to Summit Racing
Equipment and JEGS High Performance, America's two largest retailers selling high performance
automotive equipment. These companies, as well as many equipment manufacturers and racing venues
in Ohio, employ thousands of Ohioans and are responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in
economic activity. This proposed rule would damage Ohio's economy by making many of the products
sold and installed by Ohio businesses illegal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1799-A1 p.l]
While the federal Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to everyday motor vehicles used on
public roads, statutory language and the EPA's historic practice have made it clear that vehicles built or
modified for racing purposes, and not used on public streets, are not regulated under the Clean Air Act.
For example, 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2) limits the definition of a covered "motor vehicle" to a vehicle
designed for transport "on a street or highway" as opposed to operation on a racetrack. Correspondingly,
42 U.S.C. § 7550(10) limits the term "nonroad engine" to an engine "that is not used in a motor vehicle
or a vehicle used solely for competition," while 42 U.S.C. § 7550(11) makes clear that the term
"nonroad vehicle" also does not apply to "a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1799-A1 p. 1]
Congress did not make these choices by happenstance. It intended to differentiate between a vehicle
covered by this sort of rule and "a vehicle used solely for competition." In fact, the U.S. House
Committee on Foreign and Interstate Commerce identified and discussed this issue before passing the
Clean Air Act in 1970: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1799-A1 p.l]
MR. NICHOLS. I would like to ask a question of the chairman, if I may.
I am sure the distinguished chairman would recognize and agree with me, I hope, that many automobile
improvements in the efficiency and safety of motor vehicles have resulted from experience gained in
operating motor vehicles under demanding circumstances such as those circumstances encountered in
motor racing. I refer to the tracks as Talladega in my own State, to Daytona and Indianapolis,
competition. I would ask the distinguished chairman if I am correct in stating that the terms "vehicle"
and "vehicle engine" as used in the act do not include vehicles or vehicle engines manufactured for,
modified for or utilized in organized motorized racing events which, of course, are held very
infrequently but which utilize all types of vehicles and vehicle engines? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1799-A 1 p.l]
MR. STAGGERS. In response to the gentleman from Alabama, I would say to the gentleman they
would not come under the provisions of this act, because the act deals only with automobiles used on
our roads in everyday use. The act would not cover the types of racing vehicles to which the gentleman
referred, and present law does not cover them either1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1799-A1 p. 1]
Statutory language and legislative history clearly show that vehicles used solely for competition,
including a race vehicle that has been converted from a certified highway vehicle, are not regulated
under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is authorized to create regulations that interpret laws that Congress
passes. However, the Agency cannot rewrite statutory definitions and ~ as the U.S. Supreme Court has
made clear ~ "must always give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."2 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1799-A1 p.l]
-------
I strongly urge the EPA to remove the language referencing vehicles "used solely for competition" from
the final rule. Not only is this language inconsistent with the federal Clean Air Act, but any measurable
benefit from this change would pale in comparison to the economic harm from lost jobs and reduced tax
revenues in Ohio. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1799-A1 p.l]
1 House Consideration of the Report of the Conference Committee, Dec. 18, 1970 (reprinted in A
legislative history of the Clean air amendments of 1970, together with a section-by-section index, U.S.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DIVISION, Washington: U.S. Govt. Print.
Off. Serial No. 93-18, 1974, p. 117).
2 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency 573 U. S. (2014), quoting
National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U. S. 644, 665.
Organization: Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)
The EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on July 13, 2015 for the primary
purpose of proposing a second round of greenhouse gas emission standards for medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles. Within the NPRM, the EPA included changes to existing regulations to put in place a policy
that would prohibit any person from decertifying a motor vehicle to transform it into a vehicle to be
used solely for competition (i.e., a racing vehicle). This new regulatory framework for racing vehicles
represents a departure from previous EPA policy and was included in the NPRM without adequate
notice or consideration of the impact on affected parties. Further, the changes are not in accord with the
Clean Air Act, the statute under which they have been proposed. Lastly, the proposal is unnecessary and
unreasonable in relation to the EPA's stated purpose to enforce against the sale of illegal emissions
defeat devices used on street vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p.l]
When the NPRM was originally released in the summer of 2015, industry stakeholders were unaware
that changes to prohibit the conversion of mass-produced street vehicles into track-only racing vehicles
had been included within the 629-page proposed rule on greenhouse gas standards for medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles. SEMA did not discover the changes until late in 2015, after the comment period
had closed, and submitted comments to the docket on December 28, 2015.4 Prior to SEMA's
submission, not a single comment out of the thousands that were submitted to the docket made any
mention of the racing vehicle issue. SEMA issued a press release to alert the public of the proposed
changes on February 9, 2016.5 Within 24 hours, a petition to the White House requesting the EPA
withdraw the proposal had received more than 100,000 signatures.6 When the NODA was published on
March 2, 2016, SEMA was disappointed to find that the EPA had not provided any explanation or
analysis on the proposal relative to racing, and instead requested comments on issues raised in SEMA's
comments.7 While the rulemaking has been reopened for public comment, there is no supplemental
information to fulfill EPA's obligations to provide meaningful notice that would allow the public, small
businesses, the Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to have a full understanding
of the changes, the costs versus the benefits of the proposal, the impact it would have on small entities
or the economic impact to the economy at large. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p.2]
New and Unreasonable Policy
The EPA's proposal to prohibit racing vehicle conversions and the effective ban on use of parts in
converted racing vehicles hinges on the EPA's interpretation of the term "motor vehicle" in the Clean
Air Act. A motor vehicle is defined in the Clean Air Act as "any self-propelled vehicle designed for
-------
transporting persons or property on a street or highway" (emphasis added).8 In 1974, the EPA issued its
first regulations interpreting the term "motor vehicle" in Part 85, Subpart R - "Exclusion and Exemption
of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines."9 The definition of "motor vehicle" that the agency
ultimately adopted excludes vehicles based on certain characteristics, such as whether the vehicle "lacks
features customarily associated with safe and practical street or highway use" or "exhibits features
which render its use on a street or highway unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely."10 These criteria are
used to assess whether a vehicle is used on-road, and is thus a "motor vehicle," or has undergone
significant modifications such that it will no longer be used on-road, which would naturally exclude
vehicles substantially modified for racing or combat operations.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1
p.2]
The EPA is now proposing a change to the definition of "motor vehicle" that could significantly limit
the exclusion of racing vehicles.12 The change modifies the criteria used to determine whether a vehicle
is excluded from the term "motor vehicle" by adding the following language as a new subparagraph (b):
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931 -A 1 p. 3]
Note that, in applying the criterion in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, vehicles that are clearly intended
for operation on highways are motor vehicles. Absence of a particular safety feature is relevant only
when absence of that feature would prevent operation on highways.13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-
Alp.3]
This limiting language is so severe that absence of a particular feature must prevent the vehicle from
being operated on the highways in order to qualify for exclusion.14 This would present a stark departure
from current regulatory guidance on the import of modified racing vehicles, which relies on the
definition of "motor vehicle" to determine whether a modified racing vehicle qualifies for an
exclusion.15 The agency has failed to explain how the change would affect the continued importation
and conversion of racing vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p. 3]
In addition to overhauling the definition of motor vehicle that has been in place since 1974, language
was inserted into various sections of the proposed rule to expressly prohibit the conversion of a motor
vehicle into a nonroad vehicle or vehicle to be used solely for competition.16 The EPA claims in its
explanation of the changes that it is changing the language to reflect longstanding policies, such as a
policy that "if a motor vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity at any point, there is no
exemption from the tampering and defeat-device prohibitions that would allow for converting the
engine or vehicle for competition use."17 Essentially, the EPA is saying "once a motor vehicle, always a
motor vehicle."18 However, this contradicts long-standing agency policy, which has for decades
recognized that vehicles that are used solely for competition are excluded from the EPA's regulations
under the Clean Air Act because they no longer meet the definition of "motor vehicle."19 In spite of the
EPA's claims in comments to the media,20 the policy prohibiting street-to-race conversions is indeed a
new one. In testifying before a March 15, 2016 congressional hearing on this issue, a Congressional
Research Service (CRS) section manager confirmed that "CRS was unable to find a document from
EPA from before 2015 that explicitly stated that conversions of motor vehicles for racing were not
eligible for an exemption."21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p.3-4]
Within the NPRM, significant changes have also been made to Part 1068 to make it generally applicable
to all light-duty vehicles and highway motorcycles. The current Part 1068 expressly excludes light-duty
vehicles and highway motorcycles, so this change is notable. The implications of the change are not
adequately addressed in light of its significance. Along with applying Part 1068 to all light-duty vehicles
and highway motorcycles, the EPA has amended the investigatory procedures under Part 1068 to
remove provisions dealing with EPA investigators securing warrants or court orders before entering a
-------
facility. In the current Part 1068, a facility owner may deny entry to investigators who do not present a
warrant or court order.22 The EPA is deleting this provision such that a court order or warrant will no
longer be required under the agency's rules.23 These proposed changes may well serve the EPA's
enforcement strategy, but legitimate businesses in good standing in their communities deserve further
guidance from the agency before investigators show up unannounced and without documentation.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931 -A 1 p.4]
Proposal Contradicts Other State and Federal Policies
The EPA's proposal would subject the industry to two contradictory stances on competition use only
products, since they would become illegal at the federal level but permitted by the State of California.24
Under section 43001 of the California Health and Safety Code, the vehicular air pollution control
provisions contain the following exclusion: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p.4]
The provisions of this part shall not apply to:
(a) Racing vehicles.25
For purposes of this exclusion, '"racing vehicle' means a competition vehicle not used on public
highways."26 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) routinely reinforces this exclusion in
settlement agreements by requiring companies to appropriately label racing products with disclaimers to
inform consumers that the part is legal only for racing and can never be used on a street or highway.27
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931 -A 1 p. 5]
Regulations governing the import of racing vehicles also allow for street vehicles to be converted into
racing vehicles in other countries and imported into the U.S. under the racing vehicle exclusion.28 To
maintain this policy for imported racing vehicles that have been converted from street vehicles, but
remove the ability to conduct the same activity in the U.S., would create an inconsistent and arbitrary
policy. It could also lead to the absurd result of U.S. residents having to export a vehicle to be used in
racing to another country to have it converted and brought back in as a racing vehicle under the EPA's
import guidance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p.5]
Incorrect Interpretation of Clean Air Act in Light of Legislative History
The EPA's interpretation of the term "motor vehicle" and the anti-tampering provision is not supported
by the language, congressional intent or legislative history of the Clean Air Act.
The seminal case on deference to an agency's interpretations of statutory language is Chevron v.
NRDC.29 Chevron instructs that when Congress has left a particular issue unresolved, an agency may
interpret the statute through rulemaking and courts generally give the agency's interpretations
"controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute."30
However, this deference is only available where a court is unable to determine Congress' intent on a
particular issue.31 Where congressional intent contradicts the agency's interpretation, a court will not
defer to the agency.32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p.5]
In contrast to the ambiguous term "source" in Chevron, Congress has spoken to the meaning of "motor
vehicle" as it relates to racing vehicles. Congress first addressed this issue in the Motor Vehicle Air
Pollution Control Act of 1965, when it defined "motor vehicle" as "any self-propelled vehicle designed
for transporting persons or property on a street or highway."33 When the Clean Air Act Amendments
were enacted in 1970, Congress made clear in conference committee deliberations that the term "motor
-------
vehicle" does not extend to vehicles manufactured or modified for racing.34 In 1990, Congress provided
the EPA with the authority to regulate nonroad vehicles/engines. Since the term "nonroad vehicle"
could easily have been interpreted to include racing vehicles, Congress added language to unequivocally
exclude vehicles used solely for competition from the definition of "nonroad vehicle."35 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1931 -A 1 p.5-6]
Unnecessary to Accomplish EPA's Stated Goals
Statements from the EPA suggest that the agency has proposed the changes relative to racing vehicles
because it needs further enforcement authority to go after emissions defeat devices used on street
vehicles.36 However, the EPA already has authority to enforce against anyone who offers, sells or
installs products that knowingly take a regulated motor vehicle out of compliance with emissions
standards.37 In fact, the EPA has successfully pursued these cases in the past. In 2007, the EPA
successfully brought an enforcement action against Casper Electronics for selling defeat devices used in
'"on road' or 'on highway' vehicles."38 The EPA explained that the defeat devices were marketed for
"off road" use, and explained that "there is no general 'off road' use exemption from the pollution
control requirements of the Clean Air Act."39 SEMA recognizes that there is no exemption for "off
road" use because the EPA is authorized by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 to regulate
emissions from nonroad vehicles.40 However, the agency is not authorized to regulate emissions from
"vehicles used solely for competition."41 The EPA again exercised its enforcement authority to regulate
products for on-road use when it brought enforcement actions against Edge Products, LLC in 2013 and
H&S Performance, LLC in 2015.42 It is unclear why the EPA believes it is no longer able to
successfully pursue these cases. By making all non-certified emissions-related parts that could be used
on mass-produced vehicles illegal, the EPA would indeed make it much easier for the agency to bring
cases against sellers of these parts. However, such an overbroad approach is the equivalent of killing a
fly with a howitzer: it is not only completely unnecessary, it causes a great deal of collateral damage to
sellers of legitimate racing products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p.6-7]
Failure to Engage in Reasoned Decision Making
Despite all of the significant changes contained within the NPRM, the regulated community was not
provided adequate notice prior to the close of the initial comment period and the EPA has still not
provided a detailed statement of basis and purpose for the changes, all of which are required under the
Administrative Procedures Act43 and the Clean Air Act.44 The rationale behind the changes relative to
racing vehicles was inexplicably absent from the NPRM and no explanation was included in the NODA,
which merely requested the public comment on issues raised in SEMA's comments.45 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1931-A1 p.7]
While the EPA does not disclose the specific statutory authority for the changes relative to racing
vehicles, the Clean Air Act is cited as the overarching statutory authority. Certain rulemakings
undertaken by the EPA under the Clean Air Act are subject to the procedures at section 307(d) of the
Act.46 Section 307(d) states that proposed rules "shall be accompanied by a statement of its basis and
purpose... "47 There are minimum requirements for the statement of basis and purpose, such as "the
major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed rule."48 Adequate notice
to interested parties is required under both the procedural provisions of the Clean Air Act and the
Administrative Procedure Act, which governs rulemakings conducted by federal agencies more
generally.49 Agencies "must provide sufficient factual detail and rationale for the rule to permit
interested parties to comment meaningfully."50 In reviewing the agency's conduct, a court determines
whether the agency's process was conducted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, including looking to
whether the "agency set forth the reasons for its actions."51 Constitutional due process also demands
-------
"notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency
of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections."52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1931-A1 p.7-8]
In attempting to regulate converted racing vehicles and parts used thereon, the EPA has failed to fulfill
the basic procedural requirements found in the Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act. The
NPRM contains no basis for the changes or the EPA's purpose in proposing them, only that
"clarification" is needed - but clarification never comes.53 Instead of offering legal interpretations and
policy considerations, the EPA flatly states that, unlike the exemptions available for nonroad vehicles
used for competition, "[t]here is no comparable allowance for motor vehicles."54 This bald statement
does not equate to a useful explanation of the changes or the extensive impact they have on the
regulated industry. In explaining its position to the public, the EPA issued statements muddying the
issue further by stating that it is merely explaining the difference between "nonroad vehicles" and
"motor vehicles" and indicating that it does not plan on pursuing enforcement against individual
racers.55 The public's confusion is indicative of a failure on the part of the agency to adequately explain
the implications of the proposed changes. SEMA would also like to take this opportunity to note that the
EPA's frequent reference to nonroad vehicles used solely for competition is an oxymoron and confusing
in itself, as the statutory definition of "nonroad vehicle" explicitly excludes any "vehicle used solely for
competition."56 When Congress sought to regulate nonroad vehicles, it added the exclusionary language
for racing vehicles because it had not directed these vehicles to be regulated as "motor vehicles" and
had no intention of having them regulated under the nonroad provisions either. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1931-A1 p.8]
Congress has put in place additional requirements to maintain the proper checks and balances on agency
action, including the Regulatory-Flexibility Act ("Reg-Flex Act"), the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act and the Congressional Review Act.57 The Reg-Flex Act instructs federal
agencies that they must "consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities, [] analyze
alternatives that minimize impacts on small entities, and [] make the agencies' analyses available for
public comment."58 The Congressional Review Act requires an agency to submit reports explaining how
it has complied with the Reg-Flex Act and any applicable Executive Orders, as well as any cost-benefit
analyses, to Congress and the GAO.59 Rules that are considered "major" are subject to greater scrutiny,
with a "major rule" defined as a rule that would "likely have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more... increase costs or prices for consumers, industries, or state and local governments...
or have significant adverse effects on the economy."60 Given the overwhelming impact that this
proposal would have on the specialty equipment aftermarket, which generates approximately $36 billion
a year and employs Americans across all 50 states, this rule certainly qualifies for enhanced scrutiny
under the Congressional Review Act.61 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p.8-9]
The EPA has failed to conduct an analysis of how small businesses would be impacted or any cost-
benefit analysis on the race vehicle provisions as required under the Reg-Flex Act and the
Congressional Review Act. For example, the EPA's rule would prohibit the sale of racing products for
vehicles that started life as street vehicles but which have been converted into racing vehicles. If this
change remains in the final rule, thousands of businesses selling products for use on converted racing
vehicles would be considered to be operating outside the law overnight.62 Many of these businesses are
small entities, and the EPA has made no attempt to explain how the benefits of the proposed changes
outweigh the substantial costs and disruption to the economy. Racers that use converted street vehicles
for their sport and the shops that undertake the modifications are also put out of business. Motorsports
as an industry generates billions of dollars of economic activity across the nation. Many states see
motorsports-related industry as a driving force of their economies, such as Indiana, which has an
estimated 23,000 Indiana residents employed by motorsports companies with average salaries of
-------
$63,000.63 In Ohio, Summit Motorsports Park sponsored by aftermarket parts supplier Summit Racing
has a $99.5 million economic impact on the surrounding community.64 That translates into jobs lost as
well as denying Americans the ability to enjoy the sport of racing, and an indirect hit to all the local
businesses catering to the participants and spectators. The EPA has not made any attempt to explain the
potential impact on motorsports, motorsport facilities, the industries that have developed around
motorsports or the Americans whose livelihood depends on motorsports. Foreclosing this degree of
economic activity without explaining the logic and rationale for the changes falls short of the procedural
statutes and judicial precedent.65 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p.9-10]
Reliance Interests
Many individuals and businesses have also relied on previous EPA guidance issued in 2002 that
provided for modifications for the purpose of converting certified vehicles into racing vehicles.66 The
EPA's 2002 guidance document presents the question: "May I modify a vehicle for competition?"67 The
EPA answers the question by explaining that modifications to vehicles not subject to EPA standards are
fine and followed with: "You may also modify EPA-certified vehicles if you will use them only for
competition."68 While the EPA may assert it meant this guidance solely for certified dirt bikes and
snowmobiles, the language is certainly susceptible to the interpretation on which many in the industry
have come to rely. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1931-A1 p. 10]
For the forgoing reasons, SEMA respectfully requests the EPA withdraw the proposed regulations
prohibiting the conversion of motor vehicles into vehicles to be used solely for competition. SEMA also
requests the EPA more adequately explain the other proposed regulatory changes that will impact small
businesses and give further guidance to businesses on compliance with existing policies [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1931 -A 1 p. 10]
Other Implications and Considerations
At least one other regulatory hurdle must be addressed if the EPA continues to pursue this new policy.
Motor vehicles are regulated by both the EPA and NHTSA. Similar to the Clean Air Act's tampering
prohibition, under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act it is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or
motor vehicle repair business to knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design
installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard. See 49 U.S.C. § 30122(b) (2015). The Motor Vehicle Safety Act's "make
inoperative" prohibition does not apply to a certified motor vehicle that has been modified into a vehicle
used solely for competition, placing it in conflict with the EPA's proposed interpretation of the Clean
Air Act's tampering prohibition. The EPA must explain how its proposed application of the Clean Air
Act would harmonize with NHTSA's application of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1469-A1, p.8]
4 Public Comment from the Specialty Equipment Market Association, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-
A1 (Dec. 28, 2015).
5 Press Release, Specialty Equipment Market Association, EPA Seeks to Prohibit Conversion of
Vehicles into Racecars (Feb. 8, 2016) (on file with author).
6 See EPA Petition: Keep the Momentum Going! SEMA (Feb. 11, 2016), https://www.sema.org/sema-
enews/2016/06/epa-petition-keep-the-momentum-going.
-------
7 NOD A, supra note 1.
8 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2) (2016).
9 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines: Exclusion and
Exemption of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, 39 Fed. Reg. 32,609 (Sept. 10, 1974) (to be
codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 85).
10 40 C.F.R. § 85.1703(a)(2)-(3) (2016).
11 See Anne Wick & Jacqueline Robles-Werner, SEMA Show 2010 Presentation by EPA at slide 10
(on file with author) ("Racing vehicle: A vehicle which, in general, has been extensively modified for
racing, and is incapable of safe and practical street or highway use because it lacks features associated
with safe and practical street or highway use. Such features include, but are not limited to, a reverse gear
(except in the case of motorcycles), a differential, or other safety features required by state and/or
Federal law."); see also 40 C.F.R. § 85.1511(e) (2016) ("Racing vehicles may be imported by any
person provided the vehicles meet one or more of the exclusion criteria specified in § 85.1703."); U.S.
ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA-420-B-11-015, OVERVIEW OF EPA IMPORT REQUIREMENTS
FOR VEHICLES AND ENGINES 14 (2011) (explaining the documentation that must be presented to
qualify for the racing vehicle exclusion to include: "A list of racing features (features that make the
vehicle a racing vehicle)... A list of street features that are lacking (features that have been moved or
have never been installed that would permit safe driving on streets or highways)... and Other proof that
the vehicle cannot be used on streets and highways, such as a letter from a state's Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) that explains the vehicle cannot be licensed for use on public roads, and explains why
it cannot be licensed.").
12 See NPRM, supra note 3, at 40,552.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 See 40 C.F.R. § 85.1511(e), supra note 11; see also OVERVIEW OF EPA IMPORT
REQUIREMENTS, supra note 11.
16 See NPRM, supra note 3, at 40,552, 40,565, 40,596, 40,650, 40,720, 40,724-25.
17 Id. at 40,527.
18 See NPRM, supra note 3, at 40,527 ("if a motor vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity at
any point, there is no exemption from the tampering and defeat device prohibitions"; "it is not
permissible to remove a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine from its certified configuration
regardless of the purpose for doing so.").
19 See SEMA Show 2010 Presentation by EPA, supra note 11; see also Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v.
EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444 (2014) (explaining that particular scrutiny should be paid to agency actions
when "an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a
significant portion of the American economy.").
-------
20 See Jeremy Korzeniewski, Update: EPA says your racecar is probably already illegal, Autoblog, Feb.
9, 2016, 4:01 PM, http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/09/epa-racecar-emissions-illegal-update-official/;
see also Ryan Beene, EPA, SEMA at odds over proposed racecar rule, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, Feb. 9,
2016, 5:10 PM), http://www.autonews.eom/article/20160209/OEM10/160209811/epa-sema-at-odds-
over-proposed-racecar-rule ("An EPA spokeswoman says the new language merely clarifies a
prohibition that has long been agency policy.").
21 Racing to Regulate: EPA's Latest Overreach on Amateur Drivers Hearing Before the H. Comm. on
Sci., Space, and Tech., Subcomm. on Oversight, 114th Cong. 3 (2016) (testimony of Brent D.
Yacobucci, Section Research Manager for the Congressional Research Service), available at
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science. house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY21-
W State-B Y acobucci-20160315 .pdf.
22 40 C.F.R. § 1068.20(b) (2016) ("May EPA enter my facilities for inspections? If we come to inspect,
we may or may not have a warrant or court order. If we do not have a warrant or court order, you may
deny us entry. If we have a warrant or court order, you must allow us to enter the facility and carry out
the activities it describes").
23 See NPRM, supra note 3, at 40,715 ("227. Section 1068.20 is amended by removing paragraphs (b)
and (c) and redesignating paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs (b) through (d), respectively.").
24 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 43001 (2016).
25 Id.
26 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39048 (2016).
27 E.g., Settlement Agreement and Release, ARB and LeMans Corporation at 6 (Jan. 16, 2016),
available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/casesett/sa/lemans_corp_sa.pdf ("To the extent LEMANS
advertises non-exempt parts in California, it shall use one of the following disclaimers:.. C. 'LEGAL IN
CALIFORNIA ONLY FOR RACING VEHICLES WHICH MAY NEVER BE USED, OR
REGISTERED OR LICENSED FOR USE, UPON A HIGHWAY,' or D. 'FOR CLOSED COURSE
COMPETITION USE ONLY. NOT INTENDED FOR STREET USE,'...").
28 See 40 C.F.R. § 85.1511(e), supra note 11; see also OVERVIEW OF EPA IMPORT
REQUIREMENTS, supra note 11.
29 See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
30 See Id. at 843-844.
31 See Id. at 862 (Court unable to ascertain what Congress meant by "source" in the Clean Air Act
because legislative history was ambiguous on this point); see also Util. Air Regulatory Grp., supra note
19 at 2442 ("Under Chevron, we presume that when an agency-administered statute is ambiguous with
respect to what it prescribes, Congress has empowered the agency to resolve the ambiguity. The
question for a reviewing court is whether in doing so the agency has acted reasonably and thus has
'stayed within the bounds of its statutory authority.'") (quoting Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1868
(2013)).
-------
32 Id. at 843 n.9 ("The judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject
administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent.").
33 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, Pub. L. No. 89-272, 79 Stat. 993 (1965).
34 See House Consideration of the Report of the Conference Committee, Dec. 18, 1970 (reprinted in A
legislative history of the Clean air amendments of 1970, together with a section-by-section index, U.S.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DIVISION, Washington: U.S. Govt. Print.
Off. Serial No. 93-18, 1974, p. 117) (Representative Nichols: "I would ask the distinguished chairman if
I am correct in stating that the terms "vehicle' and "vehicle engine" as used in the act do not include
vehicles or vehicle engines manufactured for, modified for or utilized in organized motorized racing
events which, of course, are held very infrequently but which utilize all types of vehicles and vehicle
engines?"; Representative Staggers: "In response to the gentleman from Alabama, I would say to the
gentleman they would not come under the provisions of this act, because the act deals only with
automobiles used on our roads in everyday use. The act would not cover the types of racing vehicles to
which the gentleman referred, and present law does not cover them either.").
35 See 42 U.S.C. § 7550(10) (2016) ("The term 'nonroad vehicle' means a vehicle that is powered by a
nonroad engine and that is not a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition.").
36 See Ryan Beene, EPA: Race car proposal targets 'defeat devices,' not racers, AUTOMOTIVE
NEWS, Feb. 15, 2016, 12:01 AM),
http://www.autonews.eom/article/20160215/OEMll/302159901/epa-target-is-defeat-devices-not-racers
(quoting EPA deputy press secretary as stating: "The EPA remains primarily concerned with cases
where the tampered vehicle is used on public roads, and more specifically with aftermarket
manufacturers who sell devices that defeat emission-control systems on vehicles used on public
roads.").
37 See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B) (2016); see also 40 C.F.R. § 86.1854-12(a)(3)(ii) (2016); 40 C.F.R. §
1068.101(b)(2) (2016).
38 See Casper's Electronics Inc. Clean Air Act, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/caspers-
electronics-inc-clean-air-act (last visited April 1, 2016); see also United States v. Casper's Electronics,
Inc., Civil Action No. l:06-cv-03542 (N.D. 111. 2007) (Consent Decree), available at
https://www.epa. gov/sites/production/files/2013 -09/documents/casper-cd.pdf.
39 See Id.
40 See Clean Air Act Amendments, Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990).
41 See 42 U.S.C. § 7550(10)-(11) (2016) (defining "nonroad engine" as any "internal combustion
engine... that is not used in a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition" and "nonroad
vehicle" as any "vehicle that is powered by a nonroad engine and that is not a motor vehicle or a vehicle
used solely for competition").
42 See United States v. Edge Products, L.L.C., (N.D. Utah 2013) (Consent Decree), available
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/edgeproducts-cd.pdf; see also H&S
Performance, LLC, Docket No. CAA-HQ-2015-8248 (EAB 2015) (Consent Agreement), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/hscafo.pdf.
-------
43 See 5 U.S.C. § 553 (2016).
44 See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d) (2016).
45 See NODA, supra note 1 ("EPA is soliciting additional comments on issues discussed in a late
comment related to light-duty motor vehicles used for racing").
46 See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d), supra note 44.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 See 5 U.S.C. § 553, supra note 43; see also Theodore L. Garrett and Sonya D. Winner,
Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review, 22 ENVTL. L. J. 10313 (1992) ("the procedures
established under § 307(d) in most respects parallel the APA").
50 See National Elec. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1170, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Florida Power
& Light Co. v. United States, 846 F.2d 765, 771 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert, denied, 490 U.S. 1045 (1989)).
51 See Northeast Md. Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 949 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("A rationale
buried in a document published in 1989 simply does not 'accompany' a rule proposed and promulgated
more than a decade later. Nor can such a reference satisfy the fundamental requirement of non-arbitrary
administrative decision-making: that an agency set forth the reasons for its actions.").
52 Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
53 See NPRM, supra note 3, at 40,526 ("EPA is proposing to add a clarification that the exemption from
the tampering prohibition for competition purposes does not apply to heavy-duty highway vehicles. This
aligns with the statutory provisions for the racing exemption").
54 See NPRM, supra note 3, at 40,527.
55 See Bob Sorokanich, No, the EPA Didn't Just Outlaw Your Race Car, ROAD AND TRACK, Feb. 9,
2016, http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a28135/heres-what-the-epas-track-car-proposal-
actually-means/ (admitting that it "isn't clear is how the EPA's newly clarified language will affect
hobby racers going forward" and quoting EPA deputy press secretary as stating: "the proposed language
in the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas rulemaking simply clarifies the distinction between motor vehicles
and nonroad vehicles such as dirt bikes and snowmobiles"); see also Korzeniewski, supra note 20 ("In
an attempt to clarify its position on the modification of vehicles to be used solely for competition
purposes, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a statement to Autoblog. While we
appreciate the effort to clear the air (sorry... pun intended), in reality, we're left with just as many
questions as we started with.").
56 42 U.S.C. § 7550 (11) (2016).
57 See Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612 (2016) (hereinafter the "Reg-Flex Act"); Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (codified as amended
-------
in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.); Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 801-808
(2016).
58 RONALD E. MEISBURG ET AL., THE NEW VOCABULARY OF NLRB RULEMAKING,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW 5 (2012),
available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2012/02/
committee_on_practice_procedure_under_the_nlra_midwinter_meeting/mw2012pp_meisburg.authcliec
kdam.pdf.
59 See MAEVE P. CAREY, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL32240, THE FEDERAL RULEMAKING
PROCESS: AN OVERVIEW 15 (2013).
60 Meisburg, supra note 58, at 7-8.
61 2015 SEMA MARKET REPORT, SEMA 2 (2015).
62 Racing products alone account for an estimated $1.4 billion in retail sales. 2015 SEMA Market
Report.
63 See Rich Van Wyk, Study Shows Motorsports Impact on Indiana Economy, WTHR (Dec. 6, 2012),
available at http://www.wthr.com/story/20281896/study-shows-motorsports-impact-on-indiana-
economy; see also Drew Klacik, Estimating the Annual Economic Contributions of Indianapolis Motor
Speedway, INDIANA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE 3 (2013), available at
http://www.imsprojectl00.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Report_Update.pdf (explaining that the
Indianapolis Motor Speedway alone contributes over $510 million of economic activity annually in
Indiana).
64 Economic impact study released: Race track generates $99.5 million a year for other local
businesses, Summit News (Feb. 28, 2013), available at
http://www.summitmotorsportspark.com/news/81-news/217-economic-impact-study-released.
65 See Michigan v. EPA, 135 S.Ct. 2699, 2706 (2015) (quoting Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc.
v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359, 374 (1998)) ("Not only must an agency's decreed result be within the scope of
its lawful authority, but the process by which it reaches that result must be logical and rational.").
66 The EPA now contends this guidance is limited to "nonroad vehicles," but has not taken steps over
the years to correct the public's misunderstanding.
67 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA420-F-02-045, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
EMISSION EXEMPTION FOR RACING MOTORCYCLES AND OTHER COMPETITION
VEHICLES 3-4 (2002).
Organization: State Attorneys General
As the chief legal officers of our states, we write to express our concerns about a conflict with the
federal Clean Air Act found within the provisions of the 629-page rule referenced above, which states:
"Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in
their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad
vehicles or engines." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1897-A1 p.l]
-------
As proposed, this rule attempts to expand the USEPA's statutory jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act to
cover vehicles modified solely for racing or competition. This approach is contrary to the law and would
reverse decades of practice by the USEPA. This unnecessary regulation conflicts with the expressed
intent of Congress, and we urge you to remedy this problem in the final rule by deleting the provision
quoted above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1897-A1 p.l
Throughout the United States, modifying and racing cars is one of our nation's pastimes. It is also a
large part of our country's economy. In 2014, consumers spent $36 billion on automotive specialty
equipment parts and accessories. All over the U.S., manufacturers, retailers, and technicians represent
tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. This proposed rule would purport to make many of the
products made, sold, and installed by those businesses illegal, dealing a heavy blow to our economy.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1897-A1 p.l]
While the federal Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to everyday motor vehicles used on
public roads, statutory language and the USEPA's historic practice have made it clear that vehicles built
or modified for racing purposes, and not used on public streets, are not regulated under the Clean Air
Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1897-A1 p.l]
For example, 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2) limits the definition of a covered "motor vehicle" to a vehicle
designed for transport "on a street or highway" as opposed to operation on a racetrack. Correspondingly,
42 U.S.C. § 7550(10) limits the term "nonroad engine" to an engine "that is not used in a motor vehicle
or a vehicle used solely for competition," while 42 U.S.C. § 7550(11) makes clear that the term
"nonroad vehicle" also does not apply to "a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1897-A1 p.]2
Congress did not make these choices at random. It intended to differentiate between a vehicle covered
by this sort of rule and "a vehicle used solely for competition." In fact, the House Committee on Foreign
and Interstate Commerce identified and discussed this issue before passing the Clean Air Act in 1970:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1897-A 1 p.2]
MR. NICHOLS. I would like to ask a question of the chairman, if I may. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1897-A1 p.2]
I am sure the distinguished chairman would recognize and agree with me, I hope, that many automobile
improvements in the efficiency and safety of motor vehicles have resulted from experience gained in
operating motor vehicles under demanding circumstances such as those circumstances encountered in
motor racing. I refer to the tracks as Talladega in my own State, to Daytona and Indianapolis,
competition. I would ask the distinguished chairman if I am correct in stating that the terms "vehicle"
and "vehicle engine" as used in the act do not include vehicles or vehicle engines manufactured for,
modified for or utilized in organized motorized racing events which, of course, are held very
infrequently but which utilize all types of vehicles and vehicle engines? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1897-A1 p.2]
MR. STAGGERS. In response to the gentleman from Alabama, I would say to the gentleman they
would not come under the provisions of this act, because the act deals only with automobiles used on
our roads in everyday use. The act would not cover the types of racing vehicles to which the gentleman
referred, and present law does not cover them either1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1897-A 1 p.2]
Statutory language and legislative history clearly show that vehicles used solely for competition,
including a race vehicle that has been converted from a certified highway vehicle, are not regulated
-------
under the Clean Air Act. While the USEPA is authorized to create regulations that interpret laws passed
by Congress, the agency cannot rewrite statutory definitions and—as the United States Supreme Court
has made clear—"must always give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."2 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1897-A1 p.2]
On behalf of the undersigned states, we strongly urge the USEPA to remove the aforementioned
language referencing vehicles "used solely for competition" from the final rule. Not only is this
language inconsistent with the federal Clean Air Act, but any purported benefit from this change would
pale in comparison to the economic damage caused by this regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1897-A1 p.3]
1 House Consideration of the Report of the Conference Committee, Dec. 18, 1970 (reprinted in A
legislative history of the Clean air amendments of 1970, together with a section-by-section index, U.S.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DIVISION, Washington: U.S. Govt. Print.
Off. Serial No. 93-18, 1974, p. 117).
2 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency 573 U. S. (2014), quoting
National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U. S. 644, 665.
Organization: Thomas Abbe of Englewood LLC
I may not know the full meaning of the new regulations proposed but I am in strong opposition to any
conditions which intentionally of otherwise may stifle development and innovation of motor vehicles by
anyone engaged in improving performance of motor vehicles. Racing and other related fields are a
proving ground of inestimable value to the progress of technology. Be very careful about the
consequences of the proposed rule as it affects our industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1735 p. 1]
Organization: Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Reg-Flex Analysis: The proposed rule has the possibility of causing harm to a number of small
businesses. Many companies, including small businesses, would be dramatically affected by this new
rule. These companies sell hundreds of street vehicles for conversion to race vehicles, undertake the
conversions, sell products for use on these vehicles and use the converted race vehicles to participate in
the sport of automobile racing. The EPA has failed to conduct an analysis of how these companies
would be potentially impacted, as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. See 5U.S.C. §§ 601-612 (2015).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, p.4]
The EPA has actually recognized the important role of these businesses and supported racing in a
program titled "Green Racing: From the Raceway to Your Driveway." See Green Racing: Frequently
Asked Questions, GREEN RACING 2011 PRESS KIT, http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/ld-hwy/green-
racing/PDF/FAQ.pdf, and Green Racing Factsheet, http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/ld-hwy/green-
racing/PDF/Quick_Facts.pdf (both attached). [See Docket Numbers EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-
A3 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A4 for documents.] Working in collaboration with the
American Le Mans Series (ALMS), the Green Racing program promoted innovation in racing that could
-------
be transitioned into use in on-road vehicles. The EPA recognized that this transition would be possible
because "[a]ll of the race cars have direct links to production vehicles," with some cars in the series
described as "more production-based but are highly modified for racing." See Program Announcement:
Green Racing Initiative, EPA420-F-10-058 (November 2010), http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/ld-
hwy/420f10058.pdf (attached). [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1469-A2 for
document.] Given this understanding on the part of the EPA, it is unclear how and when the current
conflicting position was formulated, and the rulemaking materials provide no clarification. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1469-A1, pp.4-5]
Other Implications and Considerations
Beyond statutory differences, the issue has significant economic and safety implications. Competition
use vehicles are modified in shops across the nation and the vehicles are outfitted with safety equipment
such as five-point seat belts, roll bars, cages and safety netting. These sales and services would cease as
a result of the EPA's proposed policy. The EPA's unilateral action would threaten auto sector jobs and
stifle the production of new and innovative safety equipment due to decreased product sales. Since
many of the companies associated with these products and services are small businesses, the EPA's
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis must take this issue into consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1469-A1, p.8]
Response:
The language in the proposal regarding vehicles used for competition was intended to clarify how the
Clean Air Act requirements apply for vehicles used on public roads. EPA's focus is not (nor has it ever
been) on vehicles built or used exclusively for racing, but on companies that violate the rules by making
and selling products that disable pollution controls on motor vehicles used on public roads. These
unlawful defeat devices lead to harmful pollution and adverse health effects. The proposed language
was not intended to represent a change in the law or in EPA's policies or practices towards dedicated
competition vehicles. Since our attempt to clarify led to confusion, EPA has decided to eliminate the
proposed language from the final rule.
With respect to the detailed comments we received on this issue, EPA will continue to consider them
before making any additional attempts to clarify this issue. EPA will also continue to engage with the
racing industry and others regarding the concerns raised in the comments, while maintaining the
Agency's focus where it has always been: reducing pollution from the cars and trucks that travel along
America's roadways and through our neighborhoods.
15.8 Comments Related to Criteria Pollutants
15.8.1 Comments on Engine Efficiency and NOx Tradeoff
Organization: Advanced Engine System Institute (AESI)
Our members have been working with the Department of Energy's Super Truck program to demonstrate
the magnitude of carbon dioxide reductions that engine and vehicle technologies can deliver while
improving criteria pollution control systems. From this advanced research and development program as
well as the independent investment our companies are making with EPA and the California Air
Resources Board at the Southwest Research Institute, we are increasingly confident that there is a fuel
economy/greenhouse gas optimization 'bonus' to be realized from integrating rapidly emerging and cost-
effective NOx control strategies into heavy-duty manufacturers' engines and powertrain designs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1 p.2][This comment can also be found in section 3.3 of this comment
-------
summary] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420,
p.291.]]
There no longer needs to be the once evident tradeoff between engine efficiency and tailpipe NOx
emissions. The presentation attached (attachment 1) illustrates many of the newest NOx and GHG
reducing technologies and the continually declining NOx emissions rates of the more recent and more
efficient engine certifications. Basically, as engine manufacturers have been, with the able assistance of
AESI companies, certifying their engines to tighter criteria pollutant standards and simultaneously
integrating carbon emissions reduction as a design priority, both categories of pollution have been
dropping. However, without the appropriate policy signal, the newest and most promising NOx control
technologies may not manifest on the right timescale to comport with the Phase 2 proposal and thus
could leave significant fuel economy gains until a future time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1
p.2] [This comment can also be found in section 3.3 of this comment summary]
Because California, as well as other states, continues and will continue to have very serious ozone
nonattainment problems due mainly to NOx pollution from vehicles, that state is seriously considering
an additional 90% reduction in NOx emissions beyond the 2010 standards for medium and heavy duty
vehicles. Should that state, states in the Ozone Transport Commission region or the Northeast, or EPA,
choose to formally adopt that standard, AESI members will work very hard with our customers to
ensure that that standard can be achieved and to realize the optimization 'bonus' that would make fuel
economy/greenhouse gas targets easier to achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-A1 p.2-3][This
comment can also be found in section 3.3 of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.291-292.]]
Organization: Caterpillar Inc., et al.
The regulation must recognize trade-off of NOx and C02 reduction targets
There is a well-established inverse relationship between carbon dioxide (C02) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) emissions from an engine. If engine C02 emissions and fuel consumption are to decrease, as is
the intent of Phase 2 regulations, the engine-out NOx level must increase. This means that
aftertreatment systems must be designed or redesigned to reduce the net tailpipe-out NOx emissions in
order for the engine to remain compliant with the criteria pollutant regulation. EPA is encouraged to
consider the relationship between C02 and NOx emissions when issuing final GHG and fuel
consumption standards. Based on testimony to the Agencies, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) believes they need to revise the California criteria pollutant regulation to implement an ultra-
low NOx standard to mitigate ozone issues in some parts of the state. An extremely ambitious NOx
reduction target in the timeframe of the Phase 2 rule, even if applicable only in some portions of the
U.S., would make compliance with stringent GHG standards even more challenging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1215-A1 p.8-9]
It is understood that the proposed Phase 2 regulations from EPA and NHTSA do not include a NOx
reduction requirement. Nonetheless, the setting of the engine technology stringency for Phase 2 will
influence the size of the effort and the ability to attain any future lower NOx standard. Therefore, it is
important to consider the relationship between C02 and NOx in the GHG and fuel consumption
rulemaking process. It should be noted that in-use NOx emissions will be inherently reduced by
technologies that reduce drag or decrease rolling resistance, thanks to reduced engine work demand. A
Phase 2 rule that provides flexibility to deploy vehicle technologies over engine technologies allows
manufacturers to maximize this effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1215-A1 p.9]
-------
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
California Clean Diesel Adoption and Benefits
With one of the largest medium and heavy duty fleets in the country, California stands to benefit the
most from these proposed Phase 2 rules. Already, model year 2010 and newer engines that are found in
Class 3-8 vehicles in the state have eliminated 120,000 tons of NOx and 580,000 tons of carbon
dioxide and saved 1.4 billion barrels of crude oil between 2010 and 2014, according to our most recent
research. According to the Air Resources Board, the further adoption of new and newer diesel engines
in heavy-duty applications in California is expected to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen by fifty
percent between 2012 and 2020. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.5][This comment can also be
found in section 3.4 of this comment summary]
We believe these are also important considerations for EPA in developing a final Phase 2 rules, as
follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.5][This comment can also be found in section 3.4 of
this comment summary]
The program must consider the longstanding trade-off between NOx and C02. The rule should
avoid driving technologies that realize gains in fuel efficiency at the expense of NOx, reversing the huge
achievements of clean diesel technology in recent years and limiting the potential for further reductions
in the future. As we have stated previously, technologies developed to meet the current emission
standard established for model year 2010 maximize reductions in NOx and C02. The maximization of
this trade-off may become jeopardized if pushed too far. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.6] [This
comment can also be found in section 3.4 of this comment summary]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
The Relationship between NOx and C02 Emissions from the Engine
The calibration of internal combustion engines is a delicate balance that has to deal with trade-offs to
optimize performance and emissions. For example, there is an inverse relationship between PM and
NOx emissions that engine manufacturers applied to meet emission standards up through the 2006
heavy-duty highway regulations. In 2007, the requirement to reduce both PM and NOx emissions
caused OEMs to install particulate filters on diesel vehicles which allowed engine calibrators to
optimize the combustion in the engine to meet lower NOx emissions while relying on the DPF to
remediate the resulting higher PM emissions. This example of effective emission regulations provided a
technology solution to overcome the traditional barriers of engine calibration. In 2010, another game
changing technology was installed on most trucks in response to a further tightening of NOx limits.
Selective catalytic reduction or SCR allowed calibrators to not only reduce the soot load on filters and
soot regeneration as a way of improving fuel efficiency but also to take advantage of another well-
known trade-off in combustion thermodynamics between fuel consumption, C02 and NOx emissions
out of the engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.4]
Since 2010 the predominant technology to reduce NOx from diesel engines has been SCR and every
generation of SCR systems has led to improvements in catalyst conversion efficiency (a detailed
discussion of SCR technology is provided below). The SCR system is just one technology option that
has allowed engine and vehicle manufacturers to meet the first phase of heavy-duty GHG standards
while still achieving NOx reduction targets from the engine. The portfolio of technology options that are
available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty trucks and engines is continually
-------
growing in response to tighter regulations set by U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board. In
fact, a review of heavy-duty engine certifications from 2002 to 2015 shows that once emission and
efficiency technologies were required on engines, the relationship between C02 and NOx emissions at
the tailpipe went from a trade-off to a benefit (see Figure 1 below). By setting stringent emission targets
for both C02 and NOx through realistic regulations and expanding the calibrator's tool box from the
engine to the powertrain allowed engineers to achieve both reduced NOx levels and engine
efficiency improvements simultaneously. Figure 1 plots the certification level for NOx and C02 from
heavy-duty engines over the last 14 years and several generations of emissions technology. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.4-5]
[Figure 1, 'Heavy-Duty Engine Certification Levels for NOx and C02', can be found on p.5 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3]
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Catalysts for Diesel Engines
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR), catalysts have been used to significantly reduce NOx emissions
from lean combustion engines for decades. The SCR system uses a chemical reductant, usually a
urea/water solution, or other ammonia sources (e.g., solid urea or metal chloride amines), to convert
nitrogen oxides to molecular nitrogen and oxygen-rich exhaust streams across a suitable catalyst. Upon
thermal hydrolysis and decomposition in the exhaust, urea forms C02, water and ammonia which serves
as the reductant for NOx over the catalyst. As exhaust and reductant pass over the SCR catalyst,
chemical reactions occur that reduce NOx emissions to nitrogen and water. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1210-A3 p.5]
SCR catalyst can achieve over 98% NOx conversion in hot operation and over 70% during the cold-start
portion of the heavy-duty transient test cycle. SCR catalysts are used on medium and heavy-duty
engines around the world to achieve low NOx emission regulations. Applying SCR to diesel-powered
engines provides simultaneous reductions of NOx, PM, and HC emissions. In addition to reductions in
criteria pollutants, SCR applications on heavy-duty trucks allow engine manufacturers to further
optimize and reduce fuel consumption of these engines through calibration optimization, in-turn
providing important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.5-
6]
SCR applications on new highway, heavy-duty trucks in both Europe and the U.S. have already been
shown to allow engine manufacturers the possibilities of calibrating engines for lower fuel consumption
(and lower greenhouse gas emissions), while still meeting applicable NOx emission standards. Engine
manufacturers that employed SCR technologies on 2010-compliant heavy-duty, highway engines in the
U.S. claimed up to 5% improvements in fuel efficiency vs. engines that did not employ SCR
technology. These fuel efficiency improvements are most evident at highway speeds, however in the
future, employing thermal management strategies can shorten the warm-up portion of the cold start and
facilitate urea injection earlier in the test cycle and thus expand the calibration optimization window to
further reduce C02 emissions. The high NOx conversion efficiencies associated with SCR catalysts
enable engines to be operated at conditions that yield lower fuel consumption. Engine manufacturers are
expected to continue to further optimize engine fuel consumption characteristics and SCR system
designs to assist in achieving the reductions proposed by EPA under this regulation. One example of
future improvements in SCR catalyst system designs on heavy-duty engines is the direct application of
SCR catalysts to diesel particulate filter substrates to provide a single catalyst module that provides
reductions to all four criteria pollutants: hydrocarbons, CO, NOx, and PM. By deploying the SCR
catalyst onto the filter moves the catalyst closer to the engine for faster warm-up, thus allowing earlier
urea dosing. These SCR coated filters are already commercialized on several light-duty diesel passenger
-------
car models and are expected on heavy-duty highway and off-road engines in the near future. Beyond
SCR, a number of other technology advances will facilitate significant criteria emission reductions,
efficiency gains and reductions of short lived climate pollutants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3
p.6] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.213-
214.]]
One such technology that has evolved specifically to address NOx emitted at low exhaust temperatures,
includes a family of new materials referred to as passive NOx adsorbers (PNA). This catalyst
technology is used upstream of the traditional exhaust control system, in combination with the DOC, to
trap and store NOx at temperatures below 200°C before urea can be dosed into the hot exhaust. Once
the exhaust temperature is sufficient for SCR catalysts to convert NOx to nitrogen, and to allow the urea
dosing system to be activated, the NOx stored on the PNA begins to desorb so it can be converted by the
ammonia reductant over the SCR catalyst. This emerging technology will be one of the strategies
available to engine and vehicle manufacturers to achieve lower cold-start tailpipe NOx levels. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.6]
The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES) Phase 2 report published in 2012 showed that
modern heavy-duty engines are achieving PM and NOx levels well below the federal standards.
Recognizing the capability of technologies to deliver complimentary reductions of NOx and GHGs,
California has adopted voluntary low NOx standards to incentivize development of state-of-the-art
engines and emission controls to achieve NOx levels as low as 0.02 g/bhp-hr which is equivalent to a
90% reduction from EPA's 2010 highway, heavy-duty engine standards. Certification of cleaner engines
ahead of proposing mandatory standards opens up opportunities for the state to direct incentive funds
toward the development of cleaner engines. To support their regulatory efforts, ARB is funding a
technology demonstration test program at Southwest Research Institute to demonstrate the feasibility to
further reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty engines. Advanced emission technologies like SCR
coated filters and passive NOx adsorbers are included in this demonstration test program. EPA is
monitoring this important test program as a member of the program's advisory committee. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.6-7] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.214.]]
The engine certification levels for criteria pollutants and C02 since 2010 demonstrate that these fuel-
efficient powertrain designs, combined with appropriate emission controls and efficiency technologies,
can be optimized to improve overall C02 emissions of the vehicle while also achieving ultra-low NOx
and other criteria pollutant emissions. This optimization extends beyond carbon dioxide emissions to
include other significant greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1210-A3 p. 14]
Organization: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
The NAM also encourages the EPA and NHTSA to carefully examine the interaction between fuel
efficiency and nitrogen oxides (NOx) reductions. This week, the EPA finalized new standards for
ground-level ozone, for which compliance will require reductions in NOx across multiple sectors,
including medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. NOx reducing technologies have typically reduced fuel
efficiency. With new federal and perhaps even state NOx emissions standards on the immediate horizon,
the EPA and NHTSA should carefully examine the interaction between reducing NOx from medium-
and heavy-duty vehicles and improving fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1323-A2 p.2]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
-------
It is well known that a trade-off exists for heavy duty diesel engines between NOx and C02. For
example, certain technologies for NOx control involve lower in-cylinder temperature which controls
NOx but can lower the efficiency of the engine. In addition, other technologies, such as SCR catalysts,
require higher exhaust temperatures to reduce NOx and may use fuel to increase the catalyst
temperature. In both cases, NOx is reduced while C02 is increased due to either increased fuel use or
decreased engine efficiency. In this regard, we fully agree with EMA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1199-A1 p. 10]
Navistar strongly believes that the feasibility of this Proposed Rule, assuming all other issues discussed
are corrected, is very heavily dependent on NOx emissions levels for new engines remaining at their
present levels. In addition, the costs of attempting to lower NOx while also lowering GHG emissions
would be substantially higher than the costs of lowering GHG emissions alone while keeping NOx at its
present levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p. 10]
The agencies must consider the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Rule. We again have to stress that
the feasibility of the Proposed Rule is dependent, among other things, on other emissions, particularly
NOx, remaining at the same levels. Similarly, the adoption of the emission standards proposed would
have a significant impact on the feasibility of future NOx regulation. Navistar strongly believes that this
Proposed Rule and the technologies that will be necessary to meet it will impact the feasibility of any
future regulation for NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.20-21]
A little background is appropriate here. The upcoming MY2017 standard from Phase 1 is technology-
forcing for the tractor engine, as opposed to other elements of Phase 1. The second step of the Phase 1
regulations for the tractor engines is currently driving a significant improvement in engines and
represents a 3.3% improvement from MY2014, a magnitude which was expected to and has proven to
be technology forcing (primarily for air systems and fuel systems). As proposed, the Phase 2 standard
for tractor represents yet another technology-forcing step in emissions in the 2024MY phase which
requires a 3.5% improvement over the 2017MY engines (see Table 1 in the Attachment A). This
appears at face value to include relatively long lead time. However, when the C02 emission standard is
considered with other portions of the proposed Phase 2 regulation the C02 standard is actually more
stringent and occurs earlier. This is due to the N20 proposal and the fuel map margins, which
effectively add stringency earlier to the engine standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.21]
These cumulative impacts, if they are not corrected, would render the C02 standard infeasible if they
are not corrected. Either the emission standard should be revised, or each of these issues must be
corrected. Otherwise, the C02 standard will not be achievable in the time frame allowed. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.21]
The major concerns with the technology projections and penetrations for both vocational and tractor
engine standards include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.21]
• For combustion improvements, the primary mechanism is increased injection pressure, a set of
technologies that can put upward pressure on engine-out NOx
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Relationship between NOx and C02 emissions
Complying with more stringent NOx standards would require significant investment in engine and
aftertreatment technologies and would not be conducive to improving fuel consumption and lowering
-------
C02. As is documented and known, there is a trade-off between fuel consumption and engine-out NOx
for a current certified Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) diesel engine. The negative impact on fuel
consumption from reduced engine-out NOx levels is clearly understood. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1204-A1 p.5]
As part of an ongoing feasibility study of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx tailpipe compliance, Southwest Research
Institute is exploring a variety of measures aimed at reducing engine-out NOx. The results from an
August 20, 2015 report-out suggest a 12% fuel consumption penalty for a 6-fold reduction in engine-out
NOx. The proposed tailpipe levels would likely require still more aggressive reductions in engine-out
NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.5]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Potential NOx and N20 Reductions
Several stakeholders are pressuring EPA to adopt lower NOx emission limits for heavy-duty vehicles.
That pressure is likely to increase in light of the Agencies' adoption of a lower NAAQS for ozone.
Regardless, this rulemaking is not the regulatory vehicle for the consideration of any potential additional
low-NOx standards. In fact, given the inherent emissions trade-off between GHG emissions and NOx
emissions (which, unlike GHG emissions, favor lower combustion temperature regimes), any additional
NOx reductions will require extremely careful and thorough analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.64]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
However, TRALA has several concerns about the Proposed Standards, which we have set forth below:
(4) the trade-off between NOx emissions and engine efficiency could lead to impaired air quality [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.2]
The Trade Off Between NOx Emissions and Engine Efficiency Could Lead to Negative Air
Quality Impacts
The agencies have not fully taken into consideration the trade-off between NOx emissions and engine
efficiency. Technology that reduces the engine work, such as improved aerodynamics or reduced rolling
resistance, inherently results in a proportionate reduction in total NOx output. However, this is not the
case with engine efficiency improvement, where there is a well-documented trade-off between NOx
reduction and engine efficiency (and thus GHG emissions, as well). Excessive demands for stand-alone
engine efficiency would limit the potential for NOx reduction, especially in urban duty cycles where
NOx emissions reductions are most critical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.6]
Organization: Volvo Group
Fortunately, technologies aimed at reducing vehicle power demand, such as improving aerodynamics
and reducing rolling resistance, result in less total work needed from the engine to complete the mission
of moving cargo from point A to point B, and therefore proportionately less total NOx is emitted. This is
not the case, however, when it comes to technologies focused on improving engine efficiency. Here, the
NOx/efficiency trade-off typically results in precisely the opposite effect. The most logical thing EPA
and NHTSA could do to avoid forcing this trade-off is to eliminate the separate engine standards in the
proposal. At minimum, they should maintain the proposed engine stringency levels to mitigate undue
-------
risk of unintended consequences. This would permit manufacturers to focus their development efforts
on efficiency technologies that capitalize on synergistic GHG-NOx reduction opportunities, rather than
those engine technologies that complicate and frustrate future NOx reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.60][This comment can also be found in section 3.3 of this comment summary]
That unique opportunity aside, EPA and NHTSA should give greater consideration to NOx implications
of technologies when setting efficiency targets. EPA should calculate the NOx impact of individual
engine technologies they propose. For example, hybrid technology can yield overall net increases in
NOx if the engine aftertreatment temperature is compromised due to intermittent engine operation. Is
the projected 23 to 25% efficiency gain of "strong hybrid" compromised by a more NOx-conscious
control scheme? The stringency assessments that manufacturers are attempting to make in the review of
the Phase 2 rule, especially in the extended timeframe of this rule, are meaningless if new NOx
requirements are required in the same timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.60
The NOx reduction challenge to decrease ambient ozone levels will soon be upon us; the technical
interplay with GHG emissions is far too great to ignore. It is appropriate and necessary that EPA and
NHTSA structure a rule that that allows manufacturers to achieve GHG-NOx
synergies whenever possible, and that does not impede the ability to achieve further NOx reductions
required in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.60]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Onboard Diagnostic Requirements and NOx Testing of Hybrids Must Not Impede Adoption of
Hybrid Technology
Higher NOx Emissions Are Not Attributable to Any Inherent Deficiency In Hybrid Technology
As part of the Phase 1 regulations, EPA adopted provisions to delay onboard diagnostics ("OBD")
requirements for heavy-duty powertrains. As the Agency properly determined, for multiple reasons,
imposing full OBD requirements for hybrids in order to meet criteria pollution limits would create a
substantial impediment for the adoption of such systems. Within this rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA are
requesting comment on a letter received from the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") requesting
consideration of supplemental NOx testing of hybrids. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p. 54]
Allison does not believe that higher NOx production is caused by any inherent deficiency in hybrid
systems. Instead, Allison believes that this phenomenon has occurred because hybrid systems tend to
run the diesel engine at lower engine speeds than the equivalent conventional non-hybrid powertrain. In
the case of an Allison hybrid, the engine may run the majority of its time in the 1200-1500 rpm speed
range. That same engine in a conventional powertrain may run the majority of its time in the 1800-2600
rpm speed range. Since selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") systems are configured to be most
efficient in the conventional powertrain speed range, different emission profiles can occur. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.54]
If the engine were optimized for emissions in the hybrid speed range, Allison believes that NOx
production would be on par with the conventional systems. This optimization would likely require
sizing of the SCR catalyst for the lower exhaust gas flow rate experienced with the hybrid system.
Additionally, however, test duty cycles for hybrids must create adequate opportunity for the SCR
catalyst to reach proper operating temperatures that are necessary to effectively convert the NOx passing
through the catalyst. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.54]
-------
Allison believes that testing to certify NOx levels should be performed on a cycle that would be
representative of the speed ranges that the hybrid system will command. We believe that there is a risk
that requiring special testing and potentially special after-treatment devices may result in dramatically
increased costs for the engine supplier. This, in turn, could affect decisions by manufacturers whether to
invest in this specialty vehicle segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1284-A1 p.54]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB previously submitted to U.S. EPA comments requesting a supplemental NOx check to safeguard
against NOx increases from improperly designed heavy-duty hybrid systems; the current proposal does
not address this issue or incorporate CARB's recommendations. At a minimum, CARB recommends
that the proposal specify the consequences for NOx emission increases identified during powertrain
testing of hybrid systems, such as prohibiting manufacturers from counting high-NOx hybrid vehicles
towards Phase 2 fleet averages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.4]
Comment - Hybrid powertrain test/potential hybrid NOx increases
The NPRM is proposing to allow a single powertrain test for hybrid vehicles. Instead of A to B testing
as required for hybrids in Phase 1, manufacturers would be required to conduct powertrain testing solely
on the hybrid system and the test results would be used as inputs for GEM for simulation. CARB staff
has significant concerns on the possible NOx increases of improperly designed heavy-duty hybrid
systems, especially in light of U.S. EPA and NHTSA's current proposed provisions allowing the use of
downsized engines and non-road engines in on-road heavy-duty hybrid vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1265-A1 p.88]
The NPRM requests comment on CARB's letter recommending that U.S. EPA consider including
supplemental NOx testing of hybrids. The published version of the Phase 2 proposal does not contain
the supplemental check for NOx emissions as recommended in the aforementioned CARB letter.
Literature data point to possible increases in NOx emissions from heavy-duty hybrid vehicles if the
hybrid system wasn't properly designed and integrated and/or if the hybrid vehicles were placed in
vocations with mismatched duty cycles. As an example, a recent NREL study of hybrid trucks (funded
by CARB) shows the average NOx emissions level from a hybrid class 5 parcel delivery step van was
111 percent higher than the NOx emissions from a similar conventional step van when tested on a
chassis dynamometer.38 CARB staff continues to believe that this is an important issue for heavy-duty
hybrid vehicles and should not be ignored, and continues to support requiring supplemental NOx testing
of hybrids. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.88-89]
Although the Phase 2 proposal requires hybrid powertrain testing to record NOx emissions from the
hybrid system, there are no provisions for addressing situations where the results show elevated NOx
emissions levels. Since no penalties are specified for such a situation, manufacturers may have incentive
to exploit a C02/N0x trade-off and optimize the hybrid system for fuel economy at the detriment of
NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.89]
At a minimum, if the recommended supplemental check for NOx emissions is not required for every
hybrid, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA specify in the Phase 2 standards the
consequence for elevated NOx detected during the required hybrid powertrain testing. Possible
consequences could include not allowing hybrid systems with elevated NOx to be certified under Phase
2 and/or requiring follow-up supplemental A to B testing if powertrain testing indicates elevated NOx
emissions. CARB staff would be happy to work with U.S. EPA to develop the appropriate NOx
-------
emissions thresholds for hybrid powertrain testing to identify elevated NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1265-A1 p.89]
If U.S. EPA and NHTSA ultimately decline to include the recommended supplemental check for NOx
emissions (as described above) in the final Phase 2 rulemaking, CARB staff recommends an alternative
approach. As an option, U.S. EPA and NHTSA could offer advanced technology credits to encourage
manufacturers to perform the supplemental check for NOx emissions. Such credits could be offered to
manufacturers who submit data showing hybrid NOx levels the same or lower than a conventional
vehicle using supplemental A to B testing. CARB staff believes that these extra credits would provide
incentives for hybrid manufacturers to produce hybrids without elevated NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.89]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Hybrids and the ARB's request to increase testing burden on hybrids by requiring NOx testing
with GHG testing - The agencies note that the ARB has created an impediment to the adoption of
hybrid systems in that hybrid OBD certification is very difficult. 80 FR 40298. The agencies note,
however, that the ARB requests a further increase to certification burden through the additional
requirement of NOx testing in certification of hybrid GHG benefits. We recommend against any
increased certification burden. Hybrid certification costs (i.e., the cost of testing on a chassis
dynamometer and of certifying hybrid OBD systems) are already so high and sales volumes so low that
any increased certification burden just worsens hybrids' cost-benefit position. We understand that ARB's
concern about hybrids' NOx emissions, but we think that the agencies cannot both seek to increase
hybrid penetrations into the market and increase regulatory obstacles to their deployment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1164-A1 p.95-96]
Response:
Commenters on this topic tended to fall into two groups: one group that believes there to be an inherent
tradeoff between NOx and fuel consumption, and another group that believes the tradeoff no longer
exists. However, both groups over-simplify this issue by neglecting differences in technologies. For
some technologies, there is little or no tradeoff. For example, technologies that reduce brake-specific
fuel consumption by increasing the amount of usable work from the engine (such as friction reduction or
waste heat recovery) can also reduce brake-specific criteria pollutants. On the other hand, technologies
that reduce fuel consumption by increasing peak cylinder pressure would generally increase engine-out
NOx emissions. Interactions with SCR further complicates the potential tradeoffs.
EPA has considered these potential effects in developing the engine standards, and agrees they would
also need to be considered in any effort to develop lower NOx standards. However, we also see viable
pathways to reduce NOx emissions with aftertreatment improvements or better off-cycle controls.
With respect to NOx emissions from hybrids, EPA believes this would more appropriately be addressed
in a separate rulemaking focused on NOx emissions.
15.8.2 Comments on Future HP NOx Standards
Organization: American Lung Association
-------
The American Lung Association offers the following recommendations to strengthen the stringency and
timing of the proposal and address several key elements of California's commitment to protecting public
health and air quality. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.143-144.]]
Second, the American Lung Association urges the US EPA to immediately begin a national rulemaking
to set standards requiring lower emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from these engines and vehicles.
EPA should begin work on a concurrent low-NOx standard to ensure that all trucks working in
California are held to the standards we need to protect our citizens from near-road exposures of NOx
and from ozone pollution. California's clean air progress must be protected against ongoing inter-state
truck traffic with higher emissions. Under a stronger ozone standard, a national low-NOx standard of
0.02 grams per brake horsepower hour will help all regions with attainment, but this is especially true
for Southern California. [NHTSA-2014-0132-0087-A1 p.2] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.144-145.]]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Further Evaluation and Demonstration is Needed Before Committing to a Low-NOx Engine
Standard
Having gone through three rounds of reducing tailpipe NOx emissions in 2004, 2007, and again in 2010,
the lessons learned from these prior regulatory actions remain fresh in the minds of the industry. Fuel
economy penalties, increases in greenhouse gas emissions, reliability issues, and vehicle pre-buys and
low-buys were among the significant unintended consequences. Another major factor was the cost of
compliance. The cumulative vehicle surcharge for all three rounds was in excess of $21,000, more than
four times EPA's projected cost of compliance.17 Given EPA expects fleets to pay an additional $14,000
for a new tractor-trailer combination meeting the Phase 2 standards, the agencies must be sensitive to
the cost impacts additional regulatory pursuits will have on the trucking industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1243-A1 p.20]
Although CARB recently certified an 8.9 liter natural gas engine to an optional NOx standard of 0.02
g/bhp-hr, the ability to transfer this technology into the Class 8 truck sector remains unproven.18 The
prospect of a commercially viable diesel engine meeting a NOx standard that is as much as 90% below
the current standard should not be a foregone conclusion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.20]
If system designers push the NH3 to NOx ratio higher to try and achieve the maximum possible NOx
reduction, it could increase N20 emissions. If EPA were to adopt a very low NOx standard (e.g., 0.02
g/bhp-hr) over existing test cycles, some reductions would be needed throughout the hot portion of the
cycle (although most of the reductions would have to come from the cold start portion of the test
cycle).... An increase in NH3 to NOx ratio could also further reduce NOx emissions: however this
would also adversely affect NH3 slip andN20 formation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.21]
ATA is aware of the CARB-led research taking place at Southwest Research Institute to investigate the
feasibility of achieving lower NOx emissions.20 While this evaluation is scheduled to be completed in
late 2016, additional time will be needed to further develop and demonstrate any resulting technologies.
In addition to the need to demonstrate the technical feasibility of meeting lower NOx emissions in the
Class 8 sector, while at the same time achieving increasingly stringent GHG emission limits, the in-use
performance of such an engine must be carefully evaluated to ensure it meets the reliability,
performance and cost criteria of the purchaser. Otherwise, this pursuit will result in buyer avoidance and
an increase in the overall age of the fleet. ATA recommends that EPA carefully evaluate the cost,
-------
timing, and market readiness of emerging low-NOx technologies when considering requests for a low-
NOx engine standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1243-A1 p.21]
17 Calpin, Patrick & Esteban Plaza-Jennings, A Look Back at EPA's Cost and Other Impact Projections
for MY 2004-2010 Heavy-Duty Truck Emissions Standards, American Truck Dealers (February 2012).
18 CARB Webpage: Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, including Urban Buses, and Engines Used in
Diesel or Incomplete Medium-Duty Vehicles of 8501-14000 Pound GVWR Executive Orders - 2016,
http://www.arb.ca. gov/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2016/2016.php
20 CARB webpage: Evaluating Technologies and Methods to Lower Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from
Heavy-Duty Vehicles, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/veh-emissions/low-nox/low-nox.htm.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
5. Commit to future NOx control
California needs dramatic further reductions in NOx emissions beyond what our current programs will
achieve by 2031 to attain health-based standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. Reaching these
attainment levels in California's South Coast Air Basin will require an approximate 70 percent reduction
in NOx from today's levels by 2023, and an overall 80 percent reduction in NOx by 2031. CARB
expected the proposal to include a commitment from U.S. EPA to begin efforts to develop lower,
mandatory NOx standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles. Federal action is especially needed for
the largest heavy-duty trucks that frequently cross state lines and therefore cannot be effectively
regulated by California alone. CARB will begin development of lower, mandatory NOx engine
standards in 2017, and will also petition U.S. EPA to establish lower, federal NOx engine standards. If
U.S. EPA fails to initiate a timely rulemaking, CARB will continue with its efforts to establish a
California-only standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.4] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.25.]]
Comment - NOx reductions from heavy-duty vehicles are crucial to California's air quality goals
In the NPRM, U.S. EPA and NHTSA rightly noted California's unique challenge to attain the ozone and
PM NAAQS in many regions of the state. In particular, California's South Coast Air Basin and San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin, the nation's only two "Extreme" ozone non-attainment areas, require
significant reductions in NOX and volatile organic gases to reach state air quality goals. Since heavy-
duty vehicles currently emit approximately one-third of the state's NOX emissions, measures to reduce
emissions from such vehicles are crucial for California. California needs dramatic further reductions in
NOx emissions beyond what our current programs will achieve by 2031 to attain health-based standards
for ozone and fine PM. Reaching these attainment levels in California's South Coast Air Basin will
require an approximate 70 percent reduction in NOx from today's levels by 2023, and an overall 80
percent reduction in NOx by 2031. To make matters more challenging, U.S. EPA and NHTSA are
revising the NAAQSs (due to be finalized by December, 2015). These new NAAQSs, which are more
stringent than existing ones, will require even greater NOX emission reductions. This means that heavy-
duty NOX emission reduction strategies must begin now and in parallel with GHG emission reduction
strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.174]
California's compelling need for emission reductions necessitates further actions now, despite the past
significant achievements of U.S. EPA and CARB efforts to reduce heavy-duty vehicle emissions.
-------
CARB's Sustainable Freight Pathways to Zero and Near-Zero Discussion Document (Discussion
Document)69 describes actions to identify and prioritize potential immediate and near-term measures
and strategies to reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from all vehicle/equipment sectors that
move freight in California to assist in meeting both the State's air quality attainment and climate needs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265 -A 1 p. 174-175]
For the trucking sector, these strategies and measures include expanded enforcement efforts and
financial incentive opportunities, reduced opacity limits for filter-equipped trucks, enhanced
certification and warranty requirements to ensure low in-use emissions, increased flexibility for
manufacturers in certifying advanced innovative truck engine and vehicle systems, and California Phase
2 GHG requirements, which may be more stringent than federal Phase 2 requirements, depending on the
stringency of the final federal rule. The Discussion Document also calls for CARB to petition U.S. EPA
to develop mandatory, NOx standards (which is discussed in more detail later in this comment). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 175]
The CAA gives California independent authority to adopt its own heavy-duty vehicle and engine
standards, which it has utilized on numerous occasions to achieve additional emission reductions as
compared to the federal standards. However, the regulated industry has consistently preferred a single,
national program, rather than a more stringent California-only standard. California recognizes this, and
is committed to working with U.S. EPA and NHTSA to address heavy-duty truck NOx emissions. This
is especially important for out of state trucks; of the one million heavy-duty vehicles that operate in
California, approximately 60 percent of trucks operating in California were originally purchased in
states outside of California. CARB is prepared to utilize its authority to develop California-only
mandatory, lower NOx standards if U.S. EPA fails to take timely action in developing federal standards.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 17.5]
Although the NPRM claims some reductions in NOx emissions are expected due to the Phase 2 program
(due to use of APUs instead of idling),70 CARB staff believes these emission reductions are overstated.
Because nearly all of today's engines already meet clean idle requirements which limit NOx at idle to
30 grams/hour, switching to APU use is not expected to appreciably reduce NOx emissions and hence
Phase 2 is not expected to significantly reduce tailpipe NOx emissions. Instead, because the NPRM does
not incorporate CARB's recommendation for a supplemental NOx check for heavy-duty hybrids71 and
proposes overly broad use of dirtier off-road engines in on-road vehicles, CARB staff instead is
concerned that Phase 2 may result in overall NOx emissions to increase; recent work at NREL funded
by CARB shows that heavy-duty hybrids can have NOx emissions more than three times those of
comparable diesel vehicles.72 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 175-176]
As CARB staff has worked with U.S. EPA and NHTSA over the past several years on the Phase 2
program, we have repeatedly requested that U.S. EPA and NHTSA consider opportunities in the Phase 2
rulemaking to encourage further NOx emission reductions, prevent inadvertent NOx increases, and lay
the groundwork for swift federal action to reduce NOx from heavy-duty trucks. However, these requests
have not been addressed in the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.176]
CARB staff was anticipating the inclusion in the NPRM of a discussion on the need for federal action
on future NOx control and a commitment from U.S. EPA and NHTSA to begin development on lower,
mandatory NOx standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles. Unfortunately, the proposal included no
such commitment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1265-A1 p.176]
In parallel with completion of the Phase 2 rulemaking, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and
NHTSA pursue a joint rulemaking effort to reduce the NOx emission standard for heavy-duty engine
-------
certification. The current emission standards for heavy-duty engines, the 2010 emission standards, were
promulgated in 2001, which was 14 years ago. Since that time, engine manufacturers have made
significant progress in improving the conversion efficiency of NOX aftertreatment technologies and in
reducing emissions from engines. The next phase of NOX emission standards may be achieved with
advanced engine controls and advanced aftertreatment technologies, leading to a significantly lower
NOx emission standard than the 2010 standards.73 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 176]
CARB staff will begin development of lower, mandatory NOx engine standards in 2017, and also plans
to petition U.S. EPA to establish lower, federal NOx engine standards. If U.S. EPA fails to initiate its
rulemaking by 2017, CARB will continue with its efforts to establish a California-only standard. A
lower NOx standard that reduces emissions from all trucks operating in California is critical to meeting
2031 air quality goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p.176]
CARB staff has already begun work to lay the technical foundation for a lower NOx emission standard
for new heavy-duty engines. CARB has funded SwRI for a $1.6 million project to investigate advanced
technologies to reduce NOx emissions by 90 percent from today's U.S. EPA and CARB heavy-duty
engine standards. The engine technology package must continue to meet all applicable standards for
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and PM, including, and GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1265-A1 p. 177]
In this research contract, SwRI is evaluating enhanced aftertreatment technology choices, aftertreatment
configurations, catalyst optimizations, urea dosing strategies, engine tuning, and engine management
practices for two heavy-duty engines: one natural gas engine with a three-way catalyst; and one diesel
engine with a DPF and SCR. The target NOx emission rate for this project over the heavy-duty FTP is
0.02 g/bhp-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 177]
SwRI will characterize the emission performance of the two stock engines using procedures following
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1065, determine stock engine characteristics for cold starts,
hot starts, normal operation, and low-load-low-temperature operation, and will determine possible
engine control strategies. Based on the engine performance and possible engine control strategies, SwRI
will select candidate aftertreatment technologies and engine control strategies for screening. The
candidate emission reduction strategies will be screened using low-cost exhaust emission sources and
test benches. The best performing technology packages and strategies will be identified and their
performance will be measured on engine dynamometer over the heavy-duty FTP, World Harmonized
Transient Cycle, ramped mode cycle, extended Idle, and three low-load-low-temperature cycles derived
from the Orange County Transit Authority bus cycle, New York bus cycle, and CARB Creep cycle.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 177]
The screening process is currently progressing and it is showing promising results towards achieving the
0.02 g/bhp-hour NOx for both natural gas and diesel engines.74 This research contract is expected to be
completed by the end of 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 177]
To further reduce NOX emissions, CARB also adopted optional low-NOX standards in late 2013 that
are 50 percent, 75 percent, and 90 percent lower than the current NOX standard of 0.20 g/bhp-hr. The
optional low-NOX standards were developed to encourage engine manufacturers to develop new
technologies and also to provide them have been updated to include incentives to encourage the
development and certification of lower NOX heavy-duty engines. In response to these actions,
Cummins Westport Inc. (CWI) announced in May 2015 that it achieved a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOX emission
level on its 8.9 liter ISL G spark-ignited natural gas engine, and was starting field testing in California.
In September 2015, CARB issued Executive Orders for the 8.9 liter ISL engine certified to the 0.02
-------
g/bhp-hr optional NOx standard for use in medium heavy-duty and urban bus applications. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 P. 177-178]
As discussed previously on California's need for GHG reductions, another consideration for the
adoption of lower NOx emission standards is its simultaneous implementation with the proposed Phase
2 GHG standards. The proposed Phase 2 Alternative 3 does not become fully implemented until the
2027 MY. A more stringent Alternative 4 would be fully implemented by the 2024 MY, which would
allow earlier action on NOx, without the need for manufacturers to implement both rulemakings
simultaneously. As a result, the need for timely NOx reductions lends additional support for U.S. EPA
andNHTSA to choose Alternative 4 over Alternative 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 P. 178]
In light of California's and certain other states' pressing needs for NOX emission reductions to achieve
the proposed more stringent NAAQS standards, CARB staff urges U.S. EPA andNHTSA to thoroughly
describe the need for lower federal NOX emission standards for new heavy-duty engines in the Phase 2
rulemaking package and to initiate a parallel effort to adopt such standards as quickly as possible. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 P. 178]
69 (CARB, 2015b) California Air Resources Board, "Sustainable Freight - Pathway to Zero and Near-
Zero Emissions," April 2015. .
70 Table VIII-20 in the Phase 2 Proposed Rule estimates 426,610 tons/yr downstream NOx reductions
nationwide in 2050 due to Phase 2.
71 See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HO-OAR-2Q 14-0827-0036 for our
comment regarding the need for a supplemental NOx check for hybrids.
72 (NREL, 2015b) National Renewable Energy Laboratory, "Data Collection, Testing, and Analysis of
Hybrid Electric Trucks and Buses Operating in California Fleets - Final Report," June 2015,
.
73 (CARB, 2015e) California Air Resources Board, "Draft Technology Assessment: Lower NOx Heavy -
Duty Diesel Engines," September 2015, .
74 See Attachment 8 for Southwest Research Institute, ARB Low NOx Program Advisory Group
Update, August 2015; and see http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/veh-emissions/low-nox/low-nox.htm for
more information of this study.
[Attachment 8 can be found on p.40 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1268-A1]
Organization: California Interfaith Power and Light
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 104.]
-------
We also support other organizations, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District, in their
call for a tightening of the NOx standards.
Organization: Clean Energy
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 249-250.]
We understand that some stakeholders will be asking that the EPA and NHTSA consider establishing a
low-NOx standard for engines within the final rulemaking, much like the one being proposed by the
California Air Resources Board.
While Clean Energy does not currently have a formal position on this proposed addition to the rule, we
are very proud of our industry's tradition in delivering optional low-NOx performance well in advance
of competing combustion technologies. Specifically, Cummins Westport has recently announced its
plans to deliver a nine-liter engine available to the market that meets a .02-gram per brake horsepower
hour limit as early as quarter 1 of 2016. Further, Cummins Westport believes that it would deliver
similar missions performance for its 12 and 6.7-liter product line as early as Q2 2017 if they receive
onboard diagnostic flexibility from the Air Resources Board and additional R&D funding from local
and state agencies.
Organization: Coalition for Clean Air/California Cleaner Freight Coalition
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 217-218.]
We cannot reach attainment of federal standards in Los Angeles region or the San Joaquin Valley
without a .02 brake horsepower hour NOx heavy-duty standard.
And it should also initiate a separate rulemaking to lower the NOx standards.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
EPA should commit to strengthen NOx standards for heavy-duty trucks
Ozone pollution continues to threaten the health of millions Americans - 4 in 10 people live in areas
with unhealthful levels of ozone.221 Reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic
compound (VOC) - the precursors to ozone - is critical to providing cleaner air for communities and
families across the nation. NOx emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles were last issued in 2001
and implementation was completed in 2010. Those standards achieved significant reductions in NOx
and particulate emissions through innovative technology and ingenuity by manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.53]
It has been nearly 15 years since the last standards were promulgated, and technology has continued to
advance. It is also clear that additional reductions in ozone forming NOx are needed from the heavy-
duty sector. In places like California - where much of the state is hard hit by ozone pollution - heavy-
duty trucks still make up 33% of statewide NOx emissions.222 Developing technologies, together with
the improvement of existing emissions controls can provide additional cost-effective, meaningful NOx
reductions from the nation's heavy-duty fleet.223 California has already begun research on the
-------
technologies needed to reduce NOx by another 90 percent.224 EPA should collaborate with ARB to
investigate the pathways to making NOx reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.53]
We urge EPA, in the final rulemaking, to commit to strengthen NOx standards for heavy-duty trucks as
soon as possible. By initiating a NOx rulemaking immediately, manufacturers will be able to integrate
the planning and the technology for C02 and NOx reductions, helping to ensure that one benefit is not
traded for the other. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1312-A1 p.53]
211 Preamble at 40332.
221 American Lung Association, State of the Air 2015, Key Findings, available at
http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/key-findings/ (last accessed September 14, 2015).
222 CARB presentation at Board Hearing, "Update on the Proposed Federal Phase 2
GHG and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles," Sacramento, (July 23,
2015), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/books/2015/072315/15-6-6pres.pdf.
223 CARB, upcoming "Draft Technology Assessment: Lower NOx Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines."
224 Southwest Research Institute, "ARB Low NOx Program Advisory Group Update," (August 2015),
available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/veh-emissions/low-nox/low-nox.htm.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES) Phase 2 report published in 2012 showed that
modern heavy-duty engines are achieving PM and NOx levels well below the federal standards.
Recognizing the capability of technologies to deliver complimentary reductions of NOx and GHGs,
California has adopted voluntary low NOx standards to incentivize development of state-of-the-art
engines and emission controls to achieve NOx levels as low as 0.02 g/bhp-hr which is equivalent to a
90% reduction from EPA's 2010 highway, heavy-duty engine standards. Certification of cleaner engines
ahead of proposing mandatory standards opens up opportunities for the state to direct incentive funds
toward the development of cleaner engines. To support their regulatory efforts, ARB is funding a
technology demonstration test program at Southwest Research Institute to demonstrate the feasibility to
further reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty engines. Advanced emission technologies like SCR
coated filters and passive NOx adsorbers are included in this demonstration test program. EPA is
monitoring this important test program as a member of the program's advisory committee. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.6-7] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.214.]]
To estimate the achievable level of NOx inventory reduction through the deployment of technologies
capable of achieving a 90% NOx reduction below 2010 levels in the lower 47 states (excluding
California), MECA funded an independent emission inventory forecast study, at ENVIRON. This
analysis relied on EPA's MOVES2014 emissions inventory model for on-road vehicle emissions to
estimate the future NOx reduction potential of a 0.02 g/bhp-hr heavy-duty NOx standard under a federal
program. By-model-year emissions were determined for on-road vehicles to develop emissions
estimates with and without new potential future emission standards. The model was run to generate
-------
emission inventories of NOx, VOC, CO and PM for on-road heavy-duty sources for calendar years
2025, 2030, 2040, and 2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.7] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.214.]]
When fully implemented, the achievable reductions from tighter NOx regulations on the heavy-duty on-
road sector are estimated to be 266,000 tons per year or 730 tons per day in 2050 across the 47
contiguous United States and D.C., excluding California. We believe that these heavy-duty control
measures represent the largest opportunity for achieving NOx reductions from the mobile sector going
forward. We estimated the incremental cost of the types of additional emission controls that would be
necessary to achieve the target reductions from heavy-duty trucks, beyond the exhaust controls already
being used to meet current 2010 heavy-duty on-road standards at approximately $500 per vehicle
averaged over the medium and heavy-duty highway fleet. Based on the results of our analysis, we
estimate that heavy-duty trucks can deliver NOx reductions at a cost of approximately $3,000-$4,000
per ton. The very cost-effective NOx reductions available from the heavy-duty highway sector reflect
the continued evolution of diesel exhaust emission controls. It has been more than 15 years since EPA
closely examined diesel emission technologies as part of finalizing their 2007-2010 heavy-duty highway
engine standards. Manufacturers of these technologies have and continue to improve the base
technologies used to control NOx and PM from diesel engines. Significant experience has been
provided by commercial roll-out of heavy-duty engines equipped with DPFs and SCR catalyst systems
in this sector since 2007. These evolutionary improvements provide the pathway to achieving additional
significant, cost-effective NOx reductions from this sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.7]
[[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.214-215.]]
MECA believes that further reductions in NOx emissions from new heavy-duty on-road and off-road
diesel engines beyond the 2010 on-road and Tier 4 off-road requirements will be possible through the
combinations of more advanced diesel engines with advanced diesel exhaust emission control
technologies. Much of the system development necessary to meet lower NOx emissions will be focused
on the initial cold-start portion of the heavy-duty transient FTP test cycle representing approximately
70% of the total NOx emissions over the entire cycle. The types of future evolutionary technologies
deployed, to achieve a future lower NOx standard, will likely include advanced substrates, improved
SCR catalysts, more efficient SCR reductant delivery technologies and algorithms, and/or passive NOx
adsorber catalysts. Substrate mounting matt materials have also evolved through newer technology
generations including innovative, insulating intumescent canning materials that retain heat in the
catalyst during periods of engine shutdown. The emission reduction benefits achieved through the
deployment of cold start technologies such as advanced thermal management strategies, close-coupled
catalysts, low thermal mass materials, improved ammonia dosing strategies among others will extend to
increased conversion during low temperature duty-cycle operations. Already in several commercial
light-duty diesel applications, higher porosity within the ceramic filter walls has allowed SCR catalyst
to be deposited directly onto the DPF and thereby effectively moving the SCR closer to the turbocharger
outlet in a more close-coupled position. Faster heat-up of the SCR catalyst has allowed earlier ammonia
injection and NOx reduction. The sooner the SCR catalyst is activated in the test cycle, engine
calibrators can optimize combustion for reduced C02 emissions. Furthermore, these cold-start
technologies will allow vehicle manufacturers to deploy hybrid systems, stop-start technologies and
waste heat recovery to improve vehicle efficiency while still meeting tighter NOx limits. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.7-8] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp.213-214.]]
MECA believes the time is right for EPA to begin a rulemaking effort aimed at further significant
reductions in NOx emissions from heavy-duty highway engines. Improved NOx reduction technologies
are available today to deliver ultra-low NOx emissions from these engines. Existing and future ozone
-------
non-attainment regions will need these cost-effective NOx reductions to support attainment plans.
Engine manufacturers can combine these advanced NOx emission controls with other efficiency
technologies to optimize future truck performance to deliver both lower NOx emissions and improved
fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.8]
Ground level ozone also has a strong linkage to climate change. EPA needs to continue its efforts to
review and adjust criteria pollutant programs for all mobile sources going forward to not only provide
needed health benefits from technology-forcing emission standards but also the co-benefits these
emission standards have on climate change. In particular for heavy-duty highway engines, MECA urges
EPA to begin a rulemaking effort as soon as possible aimed at further NOx reductions from heavy-duty
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 14] [[These comments can also be found in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.215.]]
Organization: Moving Forward Network
EPA and NHSTA need an advanced NOx standard - Many of our communities live in areas with high
levels of ozone pollution. It is vital that this regulation create requirements to reduce the amount of
harmful NOx pollution coming from these trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1130-A2 p.2]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Our March 18, 2015 letter also included a recommendation that EPA articulate in the proposal the need
for significantly lower national heavy-duty NOx standards beyond the current 2010 onroad heavy-duty
NOx exhaust emission standards and nonroad heavy-duty engine exhaust emission standards. We are
very disappointed that EPA has not included such a discussion in this proposal. Although there is the
potential for ancillary NOx reductions from the Phase 2 rule, the achievement of these reductions is not
certain (we note that predicted ancillary benefits of Phase 1 did not occur). Moreover, even if ancillary
NOx benefits do accrue under the Phase 2 rule, they will not be nearly sufficient given the challenges
state and local agencies face in attaining and maintaining current and upcoming ozone and fine PM
standards and protecting against visibility impairment and eutrophication of water bodies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.4] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1420, p.54.]]
In addition to early climate benefits, federal action on our recommendation to adopt Alternative 4 (full
implementation by 2024) would also provide manufacturers the ability to incorporate technologies to
significantly reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in a more timely manner. While already
crucial for a number of areas, NOx reductions from the heavy-duty sector will become increasingly
important to additional areas under strengthened National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone,
which are expected imminently. We urge that EPA include in the final Phase 2 rule a clear and
comprehensive discussion of the need for very substantial additional NOx reductions from heavy-duty
vehicles and engines and, even more critically, an explicit commitment to begin immediately a separate
rulemaking initiative to capture those reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1157-A1 p.4][This
comment can also be found in section 1.5 of this comment summary] [[These comments can also be
found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p.54.]]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
NADA/ATD is categorically opposed to the imposition of any new NOx standards during the duration
of the Phase 2 program. The prospect of significantly lower NOx standards is just now the subject of
-------
cutting edge research and it will be many years before the technology sufficient to meet any such
standards can be developed and demonstrated to the demanding performance, reliability, and cost
requirements of new commercial vehicle customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1309-A1 p. 10]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar strongly believes that this Proposed Rule and the technologies that will be necessary to meet it
will impact the feasibility of any future regulation for NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1199-A1 p.20-
21]]
Organization: North American Repower
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 308.]
You have asked very specifically about .2 versus .02 grams per horsepower hour NOx. There are
disclosures in place that I can't say exactly who we are working with. We have the technology. We have
already shown it in the test cell, to our satisfaction. We can get to .02 NOx with natural gas engines with
our technology. Do I push for that? No. Why? Because we have seen where we have pushed too quickly
with new technologies and it has adversely affected the population.
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
In addition, our states remain concerned about emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from this sector, and
urge EPA to begin rulemaking to require further reductions in NOx from heavy-duty trucks at the
earliest possible date. Below we discuss several specific areas in which the rule can and should be
strengthened. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p. 1-2] [[These comments can also be found in
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 136.]]
EPA should address the potential for further NOx reductions at the earliest possible date.
Heavy-duty trucks represent the second largest source of NOx emissions in the NESCAUM region, and
our states remain very concerned about the need to further control NOx emissions from this sector. We
thank the agencies for acknowledging the challenge that states continue to face in this regard, and we
urge EPA to begin a rulemaking without delay to ensure that the next generation of trucks is not only
more fuel efficient but also much less of a contributor to states' air quality and public health problems.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.3] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, pp. 137-138.]]
The NESCAUM region, home to over 42 million people, is subject to episodes of poor air quality
resulting from ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution. During severe events, the scale of the
problem can extend beyond NESCAUM's borders and include over 200,000 square miles across the
eastern United States. Local and regional sources as well as air pollution transported hundreds of miles
from distant sources outside the region contribute to elevated ozone and fine particle concentrations in
the region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.3]
NOx emissions contribute to a number of adverse public health and environmental outcomes. NOx is
the most important contributor to nitrogen dioxide and ground-level ozone pollution, and an important
precursor to fine particulate matter formation. These pollutants are responsible for tens of thousands of
-------
premature deaths, hospital admissions, and lost work and school days in the U.S. annually. NOx is also
a key factor in a number of environmental problems that affect the Northeast. Table 1 summarizes the
major adverse impacts ofNOx emissions in the NESCAUM region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-
A1 p.4]
[Table 1 can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1]
Additional NOx reductions would benefit air quality and public health in the Northeast by: (1) lowering
the "ozone reservoir" that forms in the eastern U.S., and (2) reducing the amount of low-level NOx
emissions and pollutants derived from NOx that are transported into the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221 -A 1 p.4]
Ozone
Ozone remains a persistent pollution problem in parts of the NESCAUM region during warm weather
months. The evolution of severe ozone episodes often begins with the passage of a large high pressure
area from the Midwest to the middle or southern Atlantic states. Three primary pollution transport
pathways affect air quality in the region: long-range, mid-level, and near-surface. During severe ozone
episodes associated with high-pressure systems, these pathways converge on the Mid-Atlantic area,
where sea and bay breezes act as a barrier and funnel ozone and other air pollutants up the Northeast
Corridor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.4-5]]
Collectively, NOx emissions and ambient ozone concentrations in the region have dropped significantly
since 1997, along with the frequency and magnitude of exceedances of the health-based ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).5 Despite this demonstrated progress, some of the most populous
areas of the region continue to violate the 2008 0.075 ppm ozone NAAQS. Attaining the standard in
these areas will require significant additional NOx reductions within the Northeast and in upwind areas.
Looking toward the future, additional NOx reductions will be critical to ozone attainment in order to
meet the recently revised 0.070 ppm ozone NAAQS, which EPA projects will continue to be exceeded
in our region in 2025. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.5]
Particulate Matter
Scientific evidence has established a solid link between cardiac and respiratory health risks and transient
exposure to ambient fine particle pollution that is capable of penetrating deep into the lungs.6
Exceedances of the fine particle NAAQS can occur at any time of the year, with some of the highest
levels often reached in the winter. There are important differences in the chemical species responsible
for high fine particle levels during summer and winter in the Northeast. Regional fine particle formation
in the eastern United States is primarily due to S02, but NOx is also important because of its influence
on the chemical equilibrium between sulfate and nitrate particles during winter when nitrates can be a
relatively greater contributor to urban PM2.5 levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.5]
The agencies, however, should strengthen certain provisions to maximize the benefits from this
important program. In addition, EPA should ensure that emissions of other pollutants do not increase as
a result of the rule, and should commence rulemaking to reduce NOx from heavy-duty vehicles at the
earliest possible date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1221-A1 p.7]
-------
5 NESCAUM. 2010. The Nature of the Ozone Air Quality Problem in the Ozone Transport Region: A
Conceptual Description, prepared for the Ozone Transport Commission by NESCAUM, Boston, MA
(August 2010). Available at:
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/2010_o3_conceptual_model_final_revised_20100810.pdf.
6 U.S. EPA. 2005. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, USEPA OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-452/R-05-005a
(December 2005).
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Air quality in our region does not meet the current ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and is not expected to meet the proposed 2015 NAAQS without substantial not yet on the
books decreases in Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emissions. Mobile sources, particularly heavy-duty
vehicles, are a significant contributor of NOx emissions in the region. USEPA has the authority and
responsibility to provide these remission reductions. The OTC calls on the USEPA to evaluate and
deliver additional NOx reductions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in a time frame to assist the
attainment of the 2008 and expected 2015 Ozone NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.l]
Background on Ozone
Ground-level ozone is a significant health threat. It is known to cause respiratory illnesses, exacerbate or
trigger asthma related episodes, increase respiratory-related emergency room and hospital admissions,
and compromise the immune system leading to increased incidents of other respiratory illnesses,
including pneumonia and bronchitis, and to cause premature death. Ozone is formed when Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) and NOx mix and interact with sunlight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1211-A2 p.l]
Research has shown that ozone formation in the OTR is predominately driven by regional NOx
emissions from mobile sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.2]
Importance of Diesel Trucks in Formation of Ground Level Ozone
Recent modeling and inventory analyses OTC completed to plan for meeting both the 2008 and
expected 2015 Ozone NAAQS, has shown that diesel trucks are a large contributor of NOx emissions
which lead to ground level ozone pollution. National runs of the USEPA MOVES model show that
heavy-duty diesel trucks alone make up greater than 60% of the onroad mobile NOx emissions in the
mid 2020's and when applied to our preliminary predictions of the anthropogenic NOx emissions
inventory, make up 10% of the overall emissions. NOx emissions from diesel truck emissions need to be
reduced substantially in order for the states in the OTR to meet the 2015 ozone NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.2]
Technologies and CARB
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has a voluntary program for heavy-duty diesel
manufacturers to certify that their vehicles meet lower NOx standards. Testing is also underway by
CARB and members of industry to further demonstrate the technologies necessary to meet lower NOx
standards for diesel vehicles. Some examples of the technologies available to meet lower NOx standards
are: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.2]
-------
Thermal management [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.2]
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) positioning improvements [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2
p.2]
Advanced high porosity substrates [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.2]
Low temperature catalyst activity [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.2]
Passive NOx adsorber catalysts [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.3]
Improved urea dosing strategies [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.3]
These technologies allow diesel trucks to meet lower NOx standards and need to be implemented
relatively quickly in order for the states in the OTR to attain the 2008 and expected 2015 Ozone
NAAQS. Early action is needed given that the heavy-duty diesel fleet sector turnover is significantly
slower than that seen in light-duty vehicle turnover. If standards began by 2020, OTC's analysis found
that a 10% reduction in NOx could be achieved by the mid 2020s. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2
p.3]
Implications of a Lower 2015 Ozone NAAQS on the OTR
USEPA is under a court order to revise the Ozone NAAQS in October of 2015. USEPA has proposed a
revision to the Ozone NAAQS in the range of 65 — 70 ppb and as low 60 ppb, whereas the current
NAAQS is set to 75 ppb. Several states in the OTR do not meet the 75 ppb standard and if currently
complete ambient air quality data is examined, all but two states in the OTR would be in at least
marginal nonattainment for a 70 ppb NAAQS, and all but one state in the OTR would be in at least
marginal nonattainment for a 65 ppb NAAQS. Furthermore, at the 65 ppb level, over half of the
jurisdictions in the region are facing moderate nonattainment. The timeline legislated in the Clean Air
Act would require states to begin achieving the ozone NAAQS in 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1211-A2 p.3]
In the RIA, USEPA also found that 23% and 43% of the NOx controls needed in the OTR to meet the
70 ppb and 65 ppb NAAQS respectively were 'unknown.' These controls will need to come from mobile
sources and need to be on the way by 2023 and is further evidence supporting the need for greater NOx
reductions from heavy-duty diesel trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.3]
Implications of 2018 Regional Haze Planning
States are required to submit regional haze SIPs demonstrating improvement in regional haze by 2028.
The latest science and analyses of emission trends show an increasing impact of nitrates and secondary
organic aerosols on regional haze, both of which are impacted by NOx emissions. Reducing NOx
emissions from heavy-duty diesel emissions through lower emission standards would assist states in
meeting the Clean Air Act required regional haze goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1211-A2 p.3]
Work with Manufacturers
USEPA needs to send signals now to the manufacturers that additional NOx emission reductions will be
required. Such an action would allow manufactures to holistically develop engine and emission control
-------
systems. This early signal to manufacturers could help reduce the costs of such systems and avoid the
need for incremental designs, where manufacturers first implement technologies to meet the lower
greenhouse gas standards and then, several years down to road, needing to address reduced NOx
emission standards. USEPA needs to take a multi-pollutant approach with mobile source standards and
finalize a rule that deals with all of the pollution that needs to be reduced from diesel trucks.
Furthermore, if this does not occur, it is highly likely that additional NOx reductions needed from the
sector will not occur in a timeframe necessary for the OTC states to meet their ozone nonattainment
obligations and upwind states to meet their good neighbor contributions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1211-A2 p.3-4]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
EPA Should Not Adopt Significantly More Stringent NOx Requirements that Would Complicate
Compliance with the GHG Standards, Nor Should EPA Approve any such California
Requirements
PACCAR also urges EPA to consider the relationship between carbon dioxide (C02) and nitrogen oxide
(NOx) emissions when issuing final standards. PACCAR is committed to working with EPA and the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) to achieve significant NOx reductions over time. However, an
accelerated and extremely ambitious NOx reduction target, even in only some portions of the U.S.,
would make compliance with more stringent GHG standards even more challenging. A patchwork
regulatory scheme would undermine EPA's GHG program, pose enormous compliance challenges, and
could make the movement of goods more expensive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.5]
Relationship between NOx and C02 emissions
Complying with more stringent NOx standards would require significant investment in engine and
aftertreatment technologies and would not be conducive to improving fuel consumption and lowering
C02. As is documented and known, there is a trade-off between fuel consumption and engine-out NOx
for a current certified Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) diesel engine. The negative impact on fuel
consumption from reduced engine-out NOx levels is clearly understood. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1204-A1 p.5]
As part of an ongoing feasibility study of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx tailpipe compliance, Southwest Research
Institute is exploring a variety of measures aimed at reducing engine-out NOx. The results from an
August 20, 2015 report-out suggest a 12% fuel consumption penalty for a 6-fold reduction in engine-out
NOx. The proposed tailpipe levels would likely require still more aggressive reductions in engine-out
NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1204-A1 p.5]
Permitting California to Set More Stringent NOx Standards Would Adversely Affect the
Movement of Goods Throughout the U.S.
PACCAR strongly believes that a 50-state, nationwide regulation for Phase 2 is imperative to the
success of this next step in GHG and fuel consumption reductions. GHG emission reduction is being
driven by global climate change, not local impacts. As such, there is no benefit to an individual state to
have a GHG reduction regulation that is not the same as that of EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-
Alp.5]
The State of California has indicated that it will develop its own Phase 2 GHG emissions rule in late
2016 or 2017, after a final federal rule is promulgated. Under Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act
-------
(CAA), California has the unique authority to seek a waiver of CAA preemption to enforce its own
vehicle and engine standards that are at least as protective as comparable federal rules. California was
granted a 209(d) waiver for its own Phase 1 program in 2014 but ultimately harmonized these standards
with the federal rule. While the state has been working with EPA and NHTSA in the development of the
federal Phase 2 standards, ARB has recently indicated that the state may pursue more stringent Phase 2
GHG and NOx controls to ensure that California meets federal air quality targets and its long-term
climate goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.5-6]
The CAA permits states to adopt and enforce standards that are identical to California's standards in lieu
of the national standard. Five states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Georgia—
have done so for heavy duty vehicles and engines. The remaining states require the sale of federally-
certified vehicles. If California adopts separate standards and seeks and is granted a waiver for its own
Phase 2 standards, other states with air quality problems may adopt identical requirements, undermining
a single national standard for heavy duty trucks and raising cross-border regulatory issues not seen in
Phase 1 of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.6]
As EPA is aware, vehicles certified to federal standards may not be sold in states that require California-
certified vehicles, and vehicles only certified for sale in California may not be sold in states that have
not adopted California standards or are not contiguous to such states. However, "50-State Vehicles"
conforming to U.S. EPA regulations and California regulations may be sold in any state, and EPA's
Cross-Border Sales Policy permits the sale of California-certified vehicles or engines in states bordering
a state that has adopted the California standards. This complicated regulatory landscape will make it
extremely difficult for Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to comply with both the national
EPA standards and with more stringent California standards, or will require manufacturers to certify all
vehicles and engines to the California program at a higher cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1
p.6]
PACCAR and other OEMs would be faced with the choice of not selling trucks and engines into
California, which would dramatically affect our business and undermine our commitment to our dealers
and shareholders. The other, also unappealing, option would be to certify the majority of our vehicles to
the more stringent "50-State" standards to avoid the compliance issues associated with different
standards in place in different states. This option would come with substantial costs and effort to
develop, test, and certify products that meet more stringent standards. This would effectively turn the
California standards into national standards, without the program undergoing evaluation and assessment
by EPA, NHTSA, the Small Business Administration (SBA), regulated parties and customers for these
engines and vehicles. EPA should not allow California to force the heavy-duty truck and engine industry
to comply with that state's more stringent requirements across the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1204-A1 p.6]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Given the challenges facing the South Coast Air Basin and other regions that are in nonattainment of the
national ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter, the proposed Phase 2
standards have the potential to not only further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from medium- and
heavy-duty engines and vehicles, but more critically and urgently needed reduction in oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) emissions that significantly contribute to the ozone and fine particulate air quality in the South
Coast Air Basin. As you are aware, the South Coast Air Basin is designated as an "extreme"
nonattainment area for the 1997 and 2008 federal 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard and must
attain the standards by 2024 and 2032. In order to meet these air quality standards, around 50 to 65
percent reduction in NOx emissions must be achieved by the applicable dates. As acknowledged in the
-------
notice of proposed rulemaking, California has adopted tighter on-road heavy-duty engine emission
standards to reduce NOx and greenhouse gas emissions (80FR40149). However, given the significant
NOx emission reductions needed to attain federal ambient air quality standards (80FR40149), it is
critical that every opportunity to reduce NOx emissions be afforded to the region. As such, we strongly
urge U.S. EPA to adopt new on-road heavy-duty engine NOx emission standards that ultimately
achieve a 90percent cleaner emissions level compared to the current 2010 on-road heavy-duty engine
standard. This action will enhance the production of such vehicles nationwide since a significant
number of heavy-duty vehicles are purchased outside of the California market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1181 -A 1 p. 1-2]
Need for New National Low-NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions Standard The South
Coast Air Basin and many other areas that are in nonattainment of the federal ozone ambient air quality
standards will face significant challenges in meeting the standards without assistance from the U.S.
EPA. This will be especially true when U.S. EPA promulgates another more stringent ozone standard in
the near future. While U.S. EPA believes that many of these areas will meet current and future ozone air
quality standards within the applicable deadlines, many areas must assess the need to reduce emissions
from stationary and industrial sources to meet these standards. In addition to meeting existing and future
air quality standards, regions designated nonattainment for ozone air quality standards that have been
revoked must continue to show progress in meeting those standards. Such is the case with the 1990
national ambient air quality standard for the 1-hour ozone, which the South Coast Air Basin must
achieve by 2022. Clearly, without new federal regulations to establish tighter emissions standards from
not only on-road heavy-duty engines, but also non-road engines including locomotives, marine vessels,
and aircraft, mobile source emissions will increase due to increased activity and economic growth.
Establishing new criteria pollutant exhaust emission standards will provide assurance that cleaner
combustion engines will be commercially available to help meet not only existing federal ambient air
quality standards, but also tighter future air quality standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181-A1 p.3]
The South Coast Air Basin not only has to attain the national ambient air quality standard for ozone, but
must also attain new fine particulate ambient air quality standards in the early 2020 timeframe. As the
SCAQMD and CARB develop the 2016 State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the various national
ambient air quality standards, we find that the predominant contributors to the ozone and fine particulate
air quality are from on-road and non-road mobile sources as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the NOx
emissions historically in 2012 and projected NOx emissions in 2023 and 2031 assuming full
implementation of current regulations. The primary path to meeting both ozone and fine particulate air
quality standards requires significant reductions in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1181 -A 1 p.3]
[Figure 1 can be found on p.4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181 -A 1 ]
Figure 2 shows the top NOx emissions sources in the South Coast Air Basin for 2023 and 2031, the two
years required to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 and 2008 ozone air quality standards. As shown in
Figure 2, mobile sources are among the largest emission sources with on-road heavy-duty trucks as the
number one contributor to the region's air quality problem. As the SCAQMD continues to implement
controls on stationary sources, the mobile source emission contributions are the largest contributors to
the NOx emissions in the region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181 -A 1 p.4]
[Figure 2 can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181 -A 1 ]
In preparing the 2016 SIP, the SCAQMD and CARB are projecting that the region must further reduce
NOx emissions by around 50 and 65 percent to meet the federal 8-hour ozone air quality standards by
-------
2024 and 2032, respectively. Figure 3 illustrates the NOx reductions needed to achieve the two air
quality standards with the emission sources from Figure 2 rearranged by mobile and stationary sources.
As shown in Figure 3, if there were no stationary sources contributing to the NOx emissions in 2023,
mobile source emission contributions alone will result in ozone levels greater than the targeted 50 and
65 percent NOx reduction needed for attainment. Thus, it is vitally important that mobile sources reduce
their NOx emissions as early as possible. Many of these sources are the primary responsibility of the
U.S. EPA and/or international regulations. The region cannot attain mandated federal air quality
standards without critical actions from the U.S. EPA and international organizations governing these
sources. As such, we urge the U.S. EPA to begin immediate actions to adopt new low-NOx heavy-duty
engine emissions standard at 0.02 g/bhp-hr. These actions do not necessarily need to be part of the
current proposed greenhouse gas emissions rulemaking. However, a combined rulemaking would
allow engine manufacturers to develop control technologies that will reduce both NOx and
greenhouse gas emissions. Regardless, such rulemaking must begin immediately to help the region
attain air quality standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181-A1 p.6]
[Figure 3 can be found on p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181 -A 1 ]
Relative to timing for the need for a new low-NOx emissions standard, CARB has conducted an
analysis on the need for a national on-road heavy-duty engine NOx emissions standard compared to a
California only standard. Figure 4 shows the difference in having a California only standard compared
to a national standard. Since on-road trucks are mostly purchased out-of-state, there will be significantly
more NOx emission reductions with a national standard. In addition, based on CARB's analysis, it will
take almost 15 years for fleets to turnover to the new low-NOx engines. The SCAQMD staff and CARB
recognize the need to incentivize the accelerated deployment of such engines as early as possible. As
such, immediate action by U.S. EPA will provide certainty for the commercialization of such engines
and enable the region and the state to develop programs to accelerate the deployment of such engines.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181 -A 1 p. 7]
[Figure 4 can be found on p.7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181 -A 1 ]
The SCAQMD and CARB have initiated efforts to conduct research and demonstration of on-road
heavy-duty engines to meet NOx emissions levels at 0.02 g/bhp-hr as early as possible. Relative to the
SCAQMD efforts, the SCAQMD along with the California Energy Commission, and the Southern
California Gas Company, are co-sponsoring the development of on-road heavy-duty natural gas engines
that are at 0.02 g/bhp-hr with the goal of having these engines commercially available within the next
few years. Cummins Westport, Inc. is one of the manufacturers participating in this effort. Cummins
Westport recently received a California certification of its 8.9 liter natural gas engine at the 0.02 g/bhp-
hr level. The CARB Executive Order for this engine is provided in Attachment 2. As you are aware, this
engine can be used in several classes of on-road heavy-duty vehicles, primarily in transit buses and solid
waste collection vehicles. In addition, we are encouraging the use of biomethane as the primary source
of fuel rather than fossil based natural gas to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Cummins
Westport has indicated its intent to expand commercialization of two additional natural gas engines at
the 0.02 g/bhp-hr level, the 11.9 liter and 6.7 liter engines. The 11.9 liter engine is a preference by many
operators of over-the-road Class 7 and 8 trucks, while the 6.7 liter engines are used in medium-duty and
light-heavy duty vehicles in the Class 4 through 7 range. We strongly believe that the initiative taken by
Cummins Westport will spur other engine manufacturers to begin the development of the next
generation of on-road heavy-duty engines meeting the 0.02 g/bhp-hr. However, commercialization of
such engines requires setting a national emissions standard to provide a benchmark for all engine
manufacturers to meet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181-A1 p.7-8]
-------
[Attachment 2 can be found on p. 15 of this docket]
More importantly, in order for the South Coast Air Basin and other areas in nonattainment of national
ambient air quality standards, U.S. EPA must act immediately to adopt new, tighter engine exhaust
standards to further reduce NOx and fine particulate emissions. As discussed above, such rulemaking
need not be part of the proposed Phase 2 rulemaking. However, work must begin in parallel to finalizing
the Phase 2 rulemaking with the goal of adopting the low-NOx engine emission standards by the end of
2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1181-A1 p.8]
Organization: Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Potential NOx and N20 Reductions
Several stakeholders are pressuring EPA to adopt lower NOx emission limits for heavy-duty vehicles.
That pressure is likely to increase in light of the Agencies' adoption of a lower NAAQS for ozone.
Regardless, this rulemaking is not the regulatory vehicle for the consideration of any potential additional
low-NOx standards. In fact, given the inherent emissions trade-off between GHG emissions and NOx
emissions (which, unlike GHG emissions, favor lower combustion temperature regimes), any additional
NOx reductions will require extremely careful and thorough analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1269-
A1 p.64]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
For example, we appreciate that the agencies have discussed the need for national uniformity of relevant
standards with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). It will be imperative for the EPA in
particular to work with CARB going forward to ensure that California regulators do not stray from this
approach by, for example, targeting additional NOx reductions that would upset the earful balances
struck in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1140-A1 p.2]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN NOX EMISSIONS
Advances in criteria pollution emission controls, driven by tailpipe emissions standards set by EPA and
California, have led to major reductions pollution from heavy-duty trucks and reduced health risks
(Propper et al. 2015). However, contributions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from heavy-duty trucks and
other diesel sources continue to be a major source of air pollution and contribute to regional challenges
in meet health-based federal air quality standards. Analysis by California air regulators shows a need to
dramatically reduce levels of NOx emissions, on the order of 90 percent, to meet the existing 75 part per
billion ozone standard by 2032 (CARB 2015). NOx emissions from heavy-duty trucks are also of a
concern in states outside of CA, particularly in meeting lower ambient ozone standards necessary to
protect public health and soon to be finalized by EPA (NESCAUM 2015). Moving forward with fuel
economy and greenhouse gas emissions, as proposed in this rulemaking, and making further reductions
in NOx emissions in a future rulemaking is critical for meeting air quality standards as well as meeting
climate and oil savings goals. Improvements in emissions control technologies and engine combustion,
application of vehicle technologies, and deployment of advanced technologies including plug-in and
fuel cell technologies in the heavy-duty sector will allow continued advances in lowering both NOx and
global warming emissions (Figure 3).
-------
[Figure 3, 'Reducing criteria pollution and global warming emissions from diesel engines', can be found
on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1329-A2]
Propper, R., P. Wong, S. Bui, J. Austin, W. Vance, A. Alvarado, B. Croes, and D. Luo. Ambient and
emission trends of toxic air contaminants in California. Environmental Science and Technology,
September 4. Online at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02766.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2015. Draft heavy-duty technology and fuels assessment:
Overview. Online at
http://www.arb.ca. gov/msprog/tech/techreport/ta_overview_v_4_3_2015_final_pdfpdf.
NESCAUM (Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management). 2015. Comments on greenhouse
gas emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and
vehicles—Phase 2. Submitted to docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAK-2014-0827.
Organization: US Hybrid Corporation
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 304-306.]
I believe they missed the major goal of achieving a stringent NOx reduction required to meet our future
environmental target. These rules will not drive the NOx level down low enough to improve the health
of residents in nonattainment areas.
As has been published and as stated by engine manufacturers, the NOx reduction and fuel
economy improvement contradicts the engine controller strategy.
Organization: Volvo Group
Future NOx and CARB GHG Regulation
The timeframe of this rule, as proposed, stretches 15 years into the future. EPA and NHTSA are thereby
shaping the technology development and deployment plans of medium and heavy-duty manufacturers
according to these aggressive efficiency standards for many years to come. In the meantime, there is
considerable discussion in California and elsewhere concerning persistent elevated ozone levels in urban
areas and the associated health risks. Many states include large cities that are not currently expected to
meet federal ambient ozone limits according to their regulated deadlines, the most extreme example
being broad areas of California, not only due to the many square miles of heavily populated urban areas,
but also due to difficult geographical and topological circumstances. So challenging is the problem in
California that the Air Resources Board is currently on a path to promulgating NOx emissions standards
more stringent than the federal standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.59]
On top of these challenges, EPA is expected to soon announce a reduction in the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Ozone. This is expected to significantly increase the number of counties in non-
attainment status, which will increase the pressure to impose tighter limits on NOx emissions sources
nationally, including heavy-duty trucks. Signals are emerging that EPA will initiate a rulemaking to
further reduce HD NOx emissions after the Phase 2 regulation is finalized. For various reasons, CARB
would prefer to see new standards set at the national level, and is expected to petition EPA to
-------
promulgate lower NOx standards. Nonetheless, whether considering GHG or NOx emissions, CARB
has been quite clear that they are motivated to pass stricter standards than those set by EPA if they feel
it's necessary to meet the State of California's goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.59]
Despite this backdrop of growing pressure to further regulate NOx emissions from medium and heavy-
duty vehicles, there has been little consideration given to this anticipated demand in the Phase 2 notice.
This is a considerable oversight, given not only the well documented inverse relationship between NOx
and C02 emission for internal combustion engines10, but also considering the impact to manufacturers'
resource demands if they must develop an even broader array of technologies to simultaneously reduce
NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.59]
The development necessary to meet the proposed GHG standards should not be taken lightly. In many
ways, we're embarking into a new era. The development work to meet the NOx and PM reduction
challenges required by EPA's 2004/2007/2010 standards was based on widespread deployment of
mostly singular technologies - first Exhaust Gas Recirculation, then Diesel Particulate Filters, and
finally Selective Catalytic Reduction. In this Phase 2 GHG regulation, however, EPA and NHTSA are
counting on manufacturers to develop a series of technologies, each targeting a subset of applications.
Manufacturers lack the development capacity to meet the multiple, parallel development demands for
Phase 2. Waste-heat recovery, stop-start, hybrids in widely different vocational applications,
engine/transmission control integration, etc. - all of these are major engineering challenges. On top of
this is the strong possibility that this will be complicated by, and supplemented with, additional
development to address NOx reductions is not even considered in the NPRM. There are limitations to
the capabilities of manufacturers to deliver on all fronts. Overstressed delivery demands lead to product
launches with poor reliability and delayed purchases, which undermine all stakeholders' goals. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.59-60
Response:
Because EPA did not propose to establish new NOx standards beyond the existing 2010 standards in
this rulemaking, these comments are somewhat out of scope. Nevertheless, we understand why
commenters supporting more stringent NOx standards included such comments. EPA has added a
section to the FRM Preamble describing our current position with respect to future NOx standards for
heavy-duty engines. Please see Preamble Section I.F.
15.9 Comments on the NHTSA DEIS
Organization: Michelin North America, Inc.
The DOT draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) states '...the literature review did not identify
HD vehicle LCA studies that examined impacts from other stages of the tire life cycle, including
manufacturing, retreading, and end-of-life management specific to LRR and WBS tires...'. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1 p.4]
In terms of a life cycle analysis (LCA), see the attached summary chart from the Quantis 2013 Truck
Tires Life Cycle Analysis Project and attributes summary chart. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1286-A1
p.4]
[Graphs, 'Tire system comparison at endpoint' and 'NGWBS Summary of Attributes', can be found on
p.6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1286-A1]
-------
Response:
NHTSA received many written and oral comments to the NPRM and the DEIS. NHTSA reviewed,
analyzed, and considered all relevant comments it received during the public comment period. The
agency then updated and revised the DEIS to prepare the FEIS, which is being released concurrently
with this final rule and ROD. For a more detailed discussion of the comments NHTSA received,
including the agency's responses to those comments, see Chapter 9 of the FEIS.
Organization: National Biodiesel Board
5) Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.l 1]
Although the agencies do not focus on lifecycle GHG emissions, NHTSA does address lifecycle
emissions of biodiesel in the Phase 2 Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles Draft EIS (DEIS) (NHTSA-2014-0074-0034 at 6-15 to 6-16). NHTSA appropriately
recognizes that "[w]hen used as a fuel in on-road vehicles, biodiesel offers significant GHG emission
advantages over conventional petroleum diesel." DEIS at 6-15. It also references a more recent study
showing lifecycle emissions can be decreased by up to 52 percent when using biodiesel as a replacement
for petroleum diesel, which is based on soybean oil. The DEIS also references, however, the potential
for land use changes. NBB continues to dispute the inclusion of land use impacts in the analysis as there
is still no real-world evidence that the increased production of biodiesel has resulted in significant land
use changes and the modeling that has been used remains inappropriate for measuring actual emissions.
Moreover, the U.S. remains a sink for GHG emissions regarding the land use sector. While NHTSA
references an analysis by Searchinger, as NHTSA also recognizes, the Searchinger article was disputed
by the Department of Energy and should not be considered as a valid scientific analysis. Indeed, there
are numerous factors that influence decisions regarding land use, and it would be too speculative to
attempt to identify what emissions can be attributed to biofuel production. Further, as noted above, the
industry has increased use of waste feedstocks, which has greater GHG emissions reductions. In any
event, even considering such impacts, EPA still found lifecycle GHG emission reductions compared to
petroleum to be above 50 percent (and as high as 86 percent). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1
p.11-12]
NBB also requests that NHTSA make certain corrections to the discussion on use of biodiesel blends in
diesel equipment in the DEIS at 6-15. NBB agrees that vehicles on the road today are compatible with
higher blends of biodiesel. No detrimental effects have been seen with blends up to B20. NBB
disagrees, however, with the notion that engines are only "warrantied" (or not warrantied) for certain
fuels. OEMs generally identify the fuels they recommend for use in the owner's manuals, but we believe
this is unrelated to any warranties provided on the engines themselves. OEMs generally do not warranty
fuel at all, no matter if that fuel is biodiesel, diesel, gasoline or otherwise. Rather, the OEMs only
warrant the actual parts and workmanship of the vehicle or engine that they themselves produce, and
they simply provide recommendations for the types of fuel, lubricants, etc. that are suggested for use in
those vehicles.14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p. 12]
In addition, NHTSA states that "[b]iodiesel performance improves in cold temperatures as the blend is
reduced." DEIS at 6-15. But, additional measures taken by the industry such as cold-flow additives,
blending with #1 diesel fuel, and heated tanks/lines have demonstrated the ability to use blends up to
B20 even in the coldest months and regions of the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p. 12]
15.10 Comments Unrelated to the Proposed Rule
15.10.1 General Comments 2100
-------
Organization: Avista Oil AG et al.
As companies engaged in the collection, processing, refining and sale of used motor oil, we recommend
allowing the manufacturers of MHDD vehicles to obtain credit for the significant greenhouse gas
benefits associated with re-refined engine oil when it is supplied and used as initial factory fill in the
engines of new vehicles subject to the rule and/or when re-refined oil is sold by these manufactures to
be used by vehicle owners in service or preventative maintenance fill. Both methods of use could be
easily tracked and verified, and the GHG emission reduction benefits could be credited toward the
proposed target reductions and OEMs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.l]
Overview: Re-refining used engine oil generates significant environmental and energy benefits, and has
been deemed by federal agencies and national research laboratories as the highest and best use of this
valuable commodity.1 Among these benefits is a significant overall life cycle reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions when compared to incinerating used oil for energy and replacing it with lubricants made
from virgin crude oil. Re-refined oil meets American Petroleum Institute performance classifications;
has been deemed suitable for use by major manufactures of gas and diesel engines; and is used
successfully by government, commercial and local transit fleets, among others.2 In addition, re-refined
oil is comparably priced to oil made from virgin crude and widely available in the U.S., particularly for
large fleets and OEMs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.l]
Premise: Allowing Greenhouse Gas Emission reduction credits as part of the Phase 2 Rule, when re-
refined engine oil is utilized in medium- and heavy-duty engines, as opposed to engine oil made from
virgin crude oil, will significantly reduce the amount of GHG emissions over the lifespan of the engines,
while encouraging the expansion of used motor oil recycling in the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1266-A2p.2]
Key Metrics on the Management of Used Motor Oil in the United States: Used Motor Oil (UMO) can be
redefined almost limitlessly into API-Certified Lubricant stocks, thereby reducing GHG emissions,
compared to oil made from virgin crude. If OEMs are allowed to use re-refined oil to obtain GHG
emissions credits, it would increase demand and production of this oil technology that reduces GHG
emissions. The most recent EPA data (1995) indicates that the U.S. generates approximately 1.4 billion
gallons per year (B usg/yr) of UMO. Of that, we "recycled" about 945M usg/yr. In this context,
recycling included re-refining into base oil which is then manufactured into finished lubricants. In 1995,
this was estimated to be 200M usg/yr. but is likely closer to 300M usg/yr. today. Burning for energy
recovery was and still is treated by regulation as recycling and, in 1995, included about 745M usg/yr.
While burning for energy recovery does reclaim the energy value, it results in destruction of a valuable
resource which could otherwise be reused indefinitely. Also, within the category of used oil burned for
energy recovery, an estimated 113M usg/yr was used oil burned in space heaters approved for use in
garages, greenhouses and other locations. These heaters are often in small workplaces proximate to
workers, and have no emission controls for the harmful pollutants in the used oil that can include
arsenic, chromium, cadmium, lead, and even PCBs. Significantly, the data from 1995 indicated that the
remaining 45 5M usg/yr was being indiscriminately disposed into the environment - either by discarding
into landfills or, worse yet, simply draining into sewers and spilling on the ground. To put this into
perspective, this volume of UMO being improperly discarded annually in 1995 was 39 times the
quantity of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez oil spill and about double the amount of crude oil spilled as a
result of the Deepwater Horizon spill. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.2]
Today, we estimate that more oil is being responsibly recycled than in 1995 but the amount of oil being
responsibly reused is still far less than other developed and some developing countries. The 2006 DOE
study (which relied on 1995 data) indicated that countries like France and Germany had much higher
-------
collection rates (78% and 94%, respectively) and also that they favored re-refining over other reuse
options, resulting in re-refining rates that are three to four times higher than the 1995 data indicated for
the U.S. (12% in the U.S. versus 42% in France and 41% in Germany. The EU continues to favor re-
refining over other uses and continues to promote re-refining using a variety of governmental policies.
More current data for Germany suggests that re-refining rates have essentially doubled and that in 2012-
2013, Germany re-refined 82% of the used oil available for re-refining. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1266-A2 p.2]
Existing Legislation and Executive Orders about Re-refined Oil: There are some policies in place at the
Federal and state level that encourage recycling of used oil and also the use of re-refined oil by the
Federal government. For example, section 2 of the Federal Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
463) declares that it is "in the national interest to recycle used oil in a manner which does not constitute
a threat to public health and environment and which conserves energy and materials." This legislation is
generally codified at 43 USC 3014 and requires that EPA set recycling and performance standards for
used oil to protect public health and the environment. The Act authorizes the Administrator of the EPA
to make grants to States with approved or proposed solid waste plans which: (1) encourages the use of
recycled oil; (2) discourages uses hazardous to the protection of the public health and environment; (3)
calls for informing the public of the uses of recycled oil; and (4) establishes a program for the collection
and disposal of oil in a safe manner. Also, the Act authorizes the Administrator to provide technical
assistance to States in removing impediments to the recycling of used oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1266-A2 p.2-3]
Further, Executive Order (EO) 13101 approved by President Clinton on September 14, 1998, "Greening
the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition," strengthened and
expanded the Federal government's commitment to recycling, waste prevention, and buying recycled
content and environmentally preferable products and services, including lubricants made from re-refined
oils. A key objective of this EO is to implement green procurement initiatives to foster development of
markets for recovered materials through modifications to Federal purchasing rules, regulations and
guidelines. As a result of EO 13101, the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies instituted
new guidelines fostering use of re-refined engine oil in Federal vehicles including heavy equipment fleet
such as HUMVEES used in battle. This program has proven to be highly successful and continues to
provide the "Greening of the Government through Waste Prevention and Re-cycling" as the major
market for re-refined lubricants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.3]
Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis: Re-refined oil is comparable in cost to oil from virgin crude for
initial factory fill or maintenance. Both are API certified and of comparable quality. According to peer
reviewed life cycle analyses by the State of California3 and Safety-Kleen4, re-refining used motor oil
reduces up to 80% of GHGs, when end of life emissions are included, compared to manufacturing
lubricants from virgin crude. This means that use of re-refined engine oil reduces GHG emissions by
.003363 MT of C02e for each gallon of re-refined oil used, based on a typical ratio of 85% re-refined
base oil and 15% additives. While this GHG emissions reduction may appear small when compared to
total fuel burned by the MHDD fleet, it is truly significant in the aggregate. Further, re-refined oil is
available in adequate supply to cover demand, at a cost comparable to that for oil made from virgin
crude. For example, the GHG savings from 50M gallons of re-refined oil is approximately 168,000
metric tons of C02e. The GHGs reduced are equivalent to the emissions from 15M/usg of #2 fuel oil.
These benefits are significant enough to warrant providing some incentive for the use of re-refined oil as
part of the Phase 2 rulemaking. Allowing some GHG emissions offset credit will incentivize the re-use
of a precious natural resource, while encouraging more collection and re-refining of used motor oil that
escapes into the environment through mismanagement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.3]
-------
More on Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions: Attached is a summary of the methodology and results
of the GHG benefits of re-refining provided by Environ International, Inc., one of the leading and most
respected environmental consulting firms in the world. Their analysis, based on a comprehensive peer
reviewed life cycle analysis done in 2009, but updated for these comments, indicate that production of
re-refined engine oil generates approximately 70% fewer GHG emissions than production of oil from
virgin stock, and up to 80%, when end of life emissions are considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1266-A2 p.3-4]
When GHG emissions tied only to production and transport are calculated and ancillary carbon impacts
are included, the total GHG benefits are slightly reduced because of the higher transportation emissions
associated with collection and transport to re-refining facilities. However, even with those ancillary
benefits included, the total life cycle benefits show a total reduction of 56 percent over production from
virgin crude for the production of lubricating oil of equal or better quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1266-A2 p.4]
Further, re-refining means the used oil is not released into the environment through illegal dumping or
burned in unregulated incinerators without emission controls as a cheap, high carbon source of energy,
thereby resulting in further GHG reductions even when a substitute energy source (natural gas) is
factored in. While these additional carbon reduction benefits can be significant (as much as an 80
percent total reduction of GHG in some cases), they depend on the substitute fuel used; therefore, we
are not including those benefits in this analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.4]
Suggested Addition to Phase 2 Standards that Will Further Reduce GHG Emissions: The proposed
standard should be expanded to allow for an opportunity to encourage the use of re-refined oil as a way
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while ensuring the use of methodologies and technologies that have
a solid basis to reduce emissions and can be easily and accurately tracked and verified. Specifically, we
recommend expanding the Phase 2 standards to allow OEMs of vehicles under the rules to obtain "Early
Action Credits" beginning with Model Year (MY) 2017 and recurring GHG credits throughout the life
of the Phase 2 rules, when OEMs use re-refined engine oil for factory or preventative maintenance
service fills, instead of engine oil derived from virgin crude used. Re-refined engine oil should be
defined as a gallon of engine oil that contains 100% base oil. That's equal to about 85% of the blended
gallon of engine oil, as about 15% of the volume is the additive package. The GHG emissions examples
and calculations provided in this document are based on this same ratio. At this ratio, a gallon of re-
refined engine oil reduces GHG emissions by .003363 MT of C02e/usg of re-refined oil used. Every 3
gallons of re-re fined oil used results in avoidance of the emissions equivalent of burning a gallon of
diesel fuel. The projected GHG emissions reduced by using re-refined engine oil across the projected
sales of Class2b-8 Phase 2 vehicles is estimated as follows, including estimates of gallon volumes and
adoption rates in the chart and footnotes on the next page. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.4]
[Table can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1266-A2]
These GHG emissions credits could be held by the OEMs, until EPA/NHSTA determines that it is
practical to trade them under the ABT provisions of the Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1266-A2 p.5]
Initially, we recommend only providing GHG credits for the re-refined oil gallons used or sold by
OEMs for factory or service fill, as it could be more complicated to track and verify use through other
distribution channels and sources. However, if a reliable process to report and verify use by other
sources could be devised, we hope the Agencies would be open to expanding the use of credits for
-------
service fills performed by other vendors provided adequate documentation and verifications systems are
in place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.5]
It would be rather simple and reliable to track and verify use of re-refined oil for initial factory fill or
preventative maintenance service fills as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.5]
[Chart can be found on p.5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2]
Vehicle and engine OEMs that wish to obtain GHG credits for use of re-refined engine oil would submit
information on gallons used and the agreed upon calculation for GHG reduction (C02e/usg). The rule
would indicate how the Agencies require OEMs to stipulate projected and actual usage, along with
documents needed to verify amount of use. It could be validated using copies of invoices and
documentation from the re-refined oil manufacture that stipulates the amount of re-refined oil content.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.5]
In our discussions with OEMs, we have come to believe that they are interested in this tool and have
said they could easily implement it if given some "credit" by EPA. In the beginning of a model year, the
OEM could submit a projection of the gallons of engine oil to be used for initial factory and service fill,
along with value of GHG emissions reduction at .003363 MT of C02e/usg of re-refined oil multiplied
by the anticipated gallons used. The OEM could later submit the actual gallons used or sold in their end
of year report to the agencies and adjust the credits received. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.6]
Allowing GHG emissions credit for use of re-refined motor oil will increase demand and production of
re-refined engine oil. It will not just be a shifting of re-refined oil gallons that would otherwise be sold
in other channels. This can be verified by the growth in total production capacity and sales of rerefined
oil. This would be incremental volume sold to these OEMs. Thus, it would increase demand for and use
of re-refined oil and reduce total emissions of GHGs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.6]
It will also provide these other benefits: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.6]
• continue to foster environmental stewardship;
• reinforce congressional and Executive Office mandates to recycle used motor oil into its highest
and best use;
• allow engine lubricants to be continuously recovered and re-refined becoming a truly
"renewable" and sustainable resource; and,
• reduce GHG emissions, at no additional cost to the regulated community. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1266-A2 p.6]
Other Considerations to Further Reduce GHG Emissions: While not relevant to these Phase 2
standards for MHDD vehicles, we want to point out that re-refined engine oil and industrial lubricants
can be used to reduce GHG emissions in the following additional applications. We believe that the
EPA'S objective to reduce GHG emissions from multiple sources would be significantly furthered by a
discussion of expanded use of re-refined oil in other policies and standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1266-A2 p.6]
• Railroad Diesel Engine Oil (RREO) - A re-refined product can be produced that could reduce
GHGs. Already a re-refined product is available and used by some railroads because the quality
and cost is comparable to oil made from virgin crude. However, the lack of policies or standards
does not encourage railroads to prefer it. The railroad industry consumes over 15M usg/yr of
-------
RREO in the U.S. If 15M usg/yr were converted to re-re fined RREO it would reduce GHG
emission by 50,452MT (C02e) per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1266-A2 p.6]
• Passenger Car Lubricants - According to some estimates, OEMs buy over 125M usg/yr for
factory and service fill under their brands. If 125M usg/yr were converted to re-refined oil, it
could reduce GHG emission by 420,431MT (C02e) per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-
A2 p.6]
• Industrial Lubricants - Similarly, re-refined oils are available for the broad array of products
in manufacturing that include hydraulic oil, way oil, spindle oil and other industrial lubricant
that can be made from re-refined oil. Over 200M usg/yr is consumed in the U.S. If 200M usg/yr
were converted to re-refined products, it could reduce GHG emission by more than 672,690MT
C02e per year. The re-refining industry would need to increase blending capacity to make this
much industrial oil, instead of selling it as just base oil. But, it would also drive toward
consuming some of the 600M+ usg/yr that is burned or indiscriminately disposed into the
environment. Already re-refined industrial lubricants are available and used by many
manufacturers, including the big three automakers in their plants in the U.S., but, more could be
done, if policies and standards were created to encourage usage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1266-A2 p.6-7]
In summation, for all the reasons enumerated above, we further believe that the EPA's consideration of
this proposal is consistent with a more global strategic approach to dealing with the interconnected
components of internal combustion engines that contribute to the emission of GHGs. This is an
opportunity to treat that engine system holistically without the need, cost and complication of adding a
new gadget, and thereby achieve a coherent and cohesive regulatory regimen that synergistically
produces even greater environmental and energy benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1266-A2 p.7]
1 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report "Improving Used Oil Recycling in California"
(2008) p. 1; Department of Energy report "Used Oil Rerefining Study to Address Energy Policy Act of
2005 Section 1838" (2006) p. 15.
2 Defense Logistics Agency Program Manual
3 "Life Cycle Assessment of Used Oil Management in California." CA Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), (2014)
4 "Life Cycle Footprint of Re-refined versus Base Oil that is Not Re-refined," ACS Sustainable
Chemistry & Engineering, (2013) See PDF provided. Or a link here to publication's website.
Response:
We find this comment to be outside the scope of this rulemaking, but we thank you for the information
on re-refined engine oil.
Organization: CALSTART
Development and Demonstration Funding Tied to Goals
While we realize it is outside the scope and provision of this rule making, we strongly encourage the
Agencies' to actively work with other segments in the federal government, including other agencies in
-------
the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Commerce, and others, to align federal development, incentive and deployment funds
around supporting and commercializing technologies to achieve Phase 2 and later success. The
breakthroughs highlighted from the Supertruck program make clear what the value can be of a
consistent, long-term and aligned public funding program linked with private industry investment. The
heavy-duty industry can achieve the fuel economy and carbon goals of the program, but a joint effort
with the public sector around common goals will better leverage and focus industry capabilities and
resources, and better prime the pump for the additional solutions needed beyond this rule timeline. We
have seen the growing success of this strategy in California, which is directing significant funding from
cap and trade revenues back into low carbon transportation development with industry. We would
encourage a comparable funding target at the federal level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1190-A1 p.9]
Response:
We agree that this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking, but we thank you for the
suggestion.
Organization: Climate 911
In addition, because diesel trucks last for up to 30 years, fleet turnover will be slow. It is important that,
in addition to setting standards for new vehicles, EPA mandate retrofits of existing ones. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1179-A1 p.l]
Response:
We find this comment to be outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Organization: Innovus Enterprise LLC
Additionally, it does not go unnoticed that whenever CARB comes forward with a new waiver request,
as was the case when they were issued a waiver for OBD, EPA treats these waivers as so-called 'waiver
decisions' and not 'rules' thereby avoiding review by the Office of Management and Budget; avoiding
the Regulatory Flexibility Act mandates; and avoiding the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act. Let it be known; we are emphatically opposed to how the EPA sees this as an honest
administrative procedure with the public at large. We ask the EPA to review this waiver process and
reaffirm to the public how they truly feel they are meeting the spirit and intent of these Congressional
Acts, especially for making 'decisions' which do in fact have major impact on large numbers of small
businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1116-A1 p.8]
Response:
We find this comment to be outside the scope of this rulemaking. As a general matter, EPA evaluates
waiver requests consistent with Clean Air Act section 209.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
Likewise, PACCAR requests EPA's support to limit any actions by ARB regarding new onboard
diagnostic (OBD) requirements, which will allow manufacturers to focus on the technology
development and implementation of these GHG and fuel consumption reducing technologies. The
-------
imposition of additional OBD requirements while manufacturers are focusing on Phase 2
implementation will stretch PACCAR's and other OEM's engineering and development resources and
significantly risk Phase 2 compliance achievement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1204-A1 p.6-7]
Response:
We find this comment to be outside the scope of this rulemaking.
15.10.2 Comments on Other Means of Reducing GHGs
Organization: Center for Neighborhood Technology
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 125-128.]
One reason is the fact that heavy duty trucks are now the leading ~ the most rapidly growing source of
mobile emissions in the country. We've seen a pattern since the recession in which car driving
automobile VMT has been declining. It's flattened out in the last few years. It's now going into a slight
decline. At the same time, truck use has been increasing more or less in proportion to the rise in GNP.
So as this pattern continues, what we can expect to see is a greater need to regulate the amount of
emissions that's being generated by heavy trucks.
The other reason that we think is significant is for lowering the emissions of heavy trucks is the impact
that it has on other forms of economic development, particularly mode shift to rail, and the development
of businesses, industrial and logistics businesses, distribution businesses, around intermodal freight
terminals. If we had the best possible methods of reducing emissions from trucks, we would still find it
desirable to have a major mode shift in freight movement between ~ from truck to rail. We're all
familiar with the data for that, which indicates that depending on three to seven times more efficient per
ton mile movement of freight when moving the freight by rail.
And intermodal freight had made significant gains in reducing and generating savings through mode
shift. The amount of volume of containers that's moving by intermodal has risen from a little than six
million to over 13 million just over the last 20-year period. And as this has happened, intermodal
terminals have been built in 64 different regions and created thousands of jobs that have the basic
advantage of lowering transportation costs for the manufacturing and distribution companies that are
locating there.
Today new technologies are making it possible to reduce the pollution that occurs from terminal
operations and from rail operations. And we can talk about potential for zero emission ports, zero
emission intermodal terminals despite the fact that the railroads still have a long way to go to improve
their operations.
But the major impediment to the development ~ further development of businesses co-located with
intermodal freight terminals is the amount of truck traffic that's associated with those kinds of facilities.
Because of the environmental risk involved in having several hundred, several thousand trucks a day
coming to one location, this is serious impediment to locating these kinds of facilities in place where
there's already an existing industrial base, places where workers can get to.
-------
And consequently, these facilities are often relocated in exurban locations, which creates a whole
cascade of other problems, long interregional truck trays, problems with people getting to work, longer
commutes for workers.
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
Expand Efficiency Consideration Beyond New Engine and Vehicle Standards:
There are also significant opportunities for efficiency improvements through adoption of other policies
that impact vehicle operations and in turn fuel use and emissions, and these should be an increasing part
of policy consideration. For example, heavy-duty trucks and passenger vehicles are estimated to have
wasted 2.9 billion gallons of fuel due to traffic congestion. Efforts to better maintain and modernize
freight-related transportation infrastructure will also contribute to fuel savings alongside the latest truck
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.4-5]
Organization: FedEx Corporation
Adopt Complimentary Policies: Other governmental policies must promote research, development and
deployment of efficient technologies in the heavy duty and vocational vehicle space. Financial and other
incentives - including investment tax credits; accelerated depreciation of new capital investment;
increased highway infrastructure spending - can accelerate the deployment of new, more fuel efficient
trucks and assist in rapid fleet turnover. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.3]
Organization: Green Transportation Solutions
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 234-236.]
So beyond the costly vehicle upgrades and modifications that are being discussed here today, it is rather
difficult for some of these drivers to purchase some of these things. We usually actually recommend
three simple and inexpensive ways to reduce petroleum consumption, and, thus, greenhouse gas
emissions with our clients.
So the second is to promote and enforce an idle reduction policy.
It does get zero miles per gallon, such as the hybrid vehicles. They're somewhat more expensive, and
they do have payback, but you can reduce your idle time without a hybrid through management. So that
would just come down to enforcing really because there is an idling law in Illinois already, and if you
walk around the city it's not necessarily followed all the time or enforced for a variety of reasons. So if
there could be stronger enforcement near communities, particularly schools and parks, as the parts per
million for particulate matter go way up for young children with smaller lungs.
Organization: Midwest Truckers Association
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 266.]
-------
May we suggest, though, also that other measures should be considered in the big picture, especially
here in the Chicago area. There are other ways to make transportation more efficient for trucks, and
thereby reduce congestion, unnecessary emissions due to idling and traffic jams, and what have you.
Here in the Chicago area, we're working with transportation specialists at the University of Illinois-
Chicago to encourage off peak delivery schedules for trucks. In these types of situations, trucks could
run more efficiently and reduce traffic on the highways right now if we would encourage more
nighttime and weekend deliveries.
This would require the cooperation of shippers, trucker, and government bodies that would encourage
off peak deliveries and maybe encourage a reduction in tolls on the tollway, maybe a change in the
hours of service regulations to encourage truckers to operate at night. And also it would improve truck
access.
Organization: PepsiCo
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 43-44.]
As in the past, PepsiCo believes that it is important to complement these standards with financial
incentives to help organizations implement new technologies and alternate fuel strategies.
For example, previous incentives help our Frito Lay North America division build one of the largest
private electric fleets in the United States. We believe that additional financial incentives will spur
future opportunities and increase implementation and innovation of fuel-saving technologies.
Organization: Volvo Group
Environmental care is one of Volvo Group's core values, together with product safety and quality. We
share a strong concern about the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the global climate and
the unsustainability of continued reliance by commercial transportation on petroleum-based fuel. While
continued vehicle efficiency improvements are critical to addressing these concerns, we also note that
there are many cost-effective opportunities for improving freight efficiency that are beyond the reach of
individual vehicle technology, including: platooning, routing, and trip planning enabled by vehicle to
vehicle communications; congestion mitigation; smart highway systems; permitting longer and heavier
combination vehicles; improved shipping logistics; and packaging. Such infrastructure improvements
and market incentives to enhance shipping efficiency should be considered in addition to vehicle
regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1290-A1 p.2]
Response:
The agencies agree that today's standards are but one part of a broader effort to address fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We are supportive of a wide range of complementary
measures to further these goals. The SmartWav Transportation program and the Diesel Emission
Reduction Act (DERA) programs are but two examples of incentive programs that complement the
standards we are adopting today. We appreciate the commenters' concerns and suggestions with respect
to infrastructure improvements, intermodal freight transport, and other policies that could lead to GHG
reductions. However, we find these comments to be outside of the regulatory framework of this HD
Phase 2 program. The agencies thank the commenters for the information provided.
-------
However, we find these comments to be beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
15.10.3 Fuel-Related Comments
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
Advanced renewable biofuels offer significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
While this proposed rule focuses on vehicle and engine standards, in the context of efficiency and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we believe that it is important to also note the benefits from
changes to fuels. The diesel platform is most unique in its ability to operate on a wide range of
renewable low-carbon biofuels. Today, most heavy-duty diesel engines are approved to operate on
blends of biodiesel up to twenty percent. Renewable diesel fuels made from renewable bio-feedstocks
are now also commercially available. These "drop-in" replacement fuels couple even greater carbon
reduction with further emission reduction. Studies by the California Air Resources Board indicate that
such fuels can reduce by 70 percent the greenhouse gas emissions over conventional diesel fuel. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.4] [[These comments can also be found in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 112.]]
Recently, the City of San Francisco announced that renewable diesel fuel will power all city owned
diesel vehicles and equipment by years' end.2 Still yet, UPS, the world's largest package delivery
service, recently announced that it plans to consume 46 million gallons of renewable diesel fuel over the
next three years.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1171-A2 p.4]
Organization: Green Transportation Solutions
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August
6, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1372, p. 234-236.]
So beyond the costly vehicle upgrades and modifications that are being discussed here today, it is rather
difficult for some of these drivers to purchase some of these things. We usually actually recommend
three simple and inexpensive ways to reduce petroleum consumption, and, thus, greenhouse gas
emissions with our clients.
The first is to increase the use and availability of biodiesel fuels in trucks. Most trucks only use a blend
of five percent when they're capable of using upwards towards 20 percent. So that comes down to the
availability and their choice at the pump. Often enough they don't have that choice, and if they did more
often they would choose it.
As most people know, increasing biodiesel blends will automatically reduce petroleum consumption
because you're using five percent, 10 percent, or 20 percent less petroleum, and also providing rural
economic benefits domestically, plus a significant reduction in greenhouse gases by ~ at the molecular
structure having an oxygen piece component to that.
Organization: National Biodiesel Board
The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) is the trade association for the U.S. biodiesel industry. Made from
a diverse mix of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean oil and animal fats, biodiesel is a
renewable, clean-burning diesel replacement, and is the first and only commercial-scale fuel produced
-------
across the United States to meet EPA's definition of an Advanced Biofuel. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide these comments on the proposed rule entitled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2." The
proposed rule seeks to reduce greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions from medium- and heavy-duty engines
and vehicles. Also important, however, is the goal of promoting this country's energy security—a key
purpose of the Administration's Climate Action Plan1—by reducing this country's reliance on foreign
011 and by diversifying the mix of energy sources. We believe biodiesel is a viable part of the solution,
and its use must be promoted to meet these goals. NBB submits these comments, because it does not
believe that the proposal provides any real incentives to ensure increased use of biodiesel in diesel
engines and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.1-2]
NBB believes the proposal should encourage use of fuels from renewable sources, not just continue
down the path of using alternative forms of fossil fuels. The following comments propose an option to
include credits under the new Phase 2 GHG emissions reduction and fuel economy standards for those
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) who have chosen to support and employ the use of B20 or
higher biodiesel blends in their diesel vehicles and engines as one of the technological pathways they
are pursuing to meet these standards and improve their environmental profile. We believe increased use
of biodiesel presents a cost effective means for achieving emissions reductions from the transportation
sector, particularly as the use of diesel fuel is estimated to continue to increase to meet the demands of
the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.2]
1) Increasing Biodiesel Use is Key to Meeting the Administration's Climate Change Objectives. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.2]
The Obama Administration has made climate change a top priority, outlining a Climate Action Plan to
address U.S. GHG emissions. See White House, Climate Change and President Obama's Action Plan,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/climatechange (last visited Oct. 1, 2015). The transportation sector is
estimated to be the second largest contributor (28 percent) to U.S. GHG emissions behind electricity (32
percent). Id. As part of the Action Plan, the Administration committed to "support the Renewable Fuel
Standard and invest in research and development to help bring next generation biofuels on line." Id.
"Heavy-duty vehicles (commercial trucks, vans, and buses) are currently the second largest source of
greenhouse gas pollution within the transportation sector." Id. The Phase 2 program for medium- and
heavy duty engines and vehicles is intended to be in response to the Action Plan, seeking to reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions. See EPA Fact Sheet, Cutting Carbon Pollution, Improving Fuel
Efficiency, Saving Money, and Supporting Innovation for Trucks, EPA-420-F-15-900 (June 2015),
available at www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420fl5900.pdf. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-
A1 p.2]
Diesel fuel is a growing part of the transportation fuel sector. "Distillates continue to be seen as the
predominant growth category" for long-term oil demand to 2040. Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries, 2014 World Oil Outlook, at 217, 218 (2014), available at
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/WOO_2014.pdf.
"Commercial transportation needs will continue to grow despite efficiency gains, and will drive up U.S.
demand for diesel and jet fuel." ExxonMobil, The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040, U.S. Edition, at
12 (2015), available at http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/outlook-for-energy/2015/2015-
outlook-for-energy-us-version.pdf; see also Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy
Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040, at 19 (Apr. 2015), available at
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf (noting anticipated increase in diesel fuel
production). "Reducing GHGs and fuel consumption from [the heavy-duty] sector will be vital toward
addressing climate change and energy security." Karl Simon, EPA, Moving to a More Efficient Future,
-------
HTUF Meeting, Sept. 23, 2014, slide 20, available at
http ://www.calstart. org/Libraries/HTUF_2014_N ational_Meeting_Documents/
KSimon_Keynote_9_23_14.sflb.ashx; see also id. at slide 6 (noting heavy-duty vehicle energy demand
is estimated to grow by 65% over next 30 years and to constitute 40% of all transportation energy).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.2-3]
The United States has seen substantial growth in the availability of diesel vehicle options, which can
also operate on biodiesel blends. With 47 new clean diesel car, truck and SUV models available in the
2015 model year, automotive industry experts have predicted that consumers will have more than 62
diesel vehicle models to choose from in North America by 2017. Add to that the more than 27 other
automotive brands supplying numerous diesel engines and over 115 different diesel models for the
medium- and heavy-duty truck, bus and RV markets, and there is tremendous potential for biodiesel
blends to make a positive impact in reducing GHG emissions on the roadways. Industry experts predict
that diesel vehicles will make up to 10 to 15 percent of the U.S. market by the year 2025, up from just
over 3 percent in 2014. Because diesel-fueled vehicles deliver up to 40 percent better real-world fuel
economy than their gasoline counterparts do, more and more automakers have turned to diesel vehicle
platforms to help them meet the aggressive new U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards, which mandate a fleet average of 54.5 MPGby 2025. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1
p.3]
While providing improved efficiency compared to gasoline, diesel fuel also has greater carbon
emissions. The EIA estimates that diesel fuel and heating oil emit 22.4 pounds of carbon dioxide (C02)
per gallon compared to 19.6 pounds for gasoline. EIA, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients, (Feb.
14, 2013), http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm. EIA also has reported
increasing C02 emissions from energy consumption associated with distillate fuel oil since 2012. EIA,
Table 12.5 Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Consumption: Transportation Sector (Sept. 2015),
available at www.eia.gov/totalenergy/ data/monthly/pdf/sec 12_8.pdf. Moreover, upstream GHG
emissions from diesel are increasing as more diesel is refined from heavier crude oils or marginal
sources, such as tar sands. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.3]
Biodiesel offers "considerable greenhouse gas emissions benefits over conventional gasoline and diesel
fuel." Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Alternative Fuels Data
Center - Biodiesel Vehicle Emissions, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/ vehicles/diesels_emissions.html
(last updated Jan. 15, 2015). EIA estimates that B20 reduces the C02 emissions from burning one
gallon of diesel fuel from 22.38 pounds of C02 to 17.90 pounds. EIA, Frequently Asked Questions:
How much carbon dioxide is produced by burning gasoline and diesel fuel?,
www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id-307&t=l 1 (last updated July 7, 2015).2 The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized that "B20 has been shown to reduce . . . carbon
dioxide emissions by 15 percent" compared with petroleum diesel. See NHTSA, Review and Analysis
of Potential Safety Impacts of and Regulatory Barriers to Fuel Efficiency Technologies and Alternative
Fuels in Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, DOT HS 812159, at 34 (June2015), available at
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/ rulemaking/pdf/cafe/812159-
RevSafetyImpactsRegulatoryFuelEfficiencyTechMDHD.pdf (herein after "NHTSA Safety Study").
NHTSA identified no regulatory impediments to use of biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1
p.3-4]
In addition to the GHG benefits, biodiesel is "nontoxic and contains no hazardous materials." NHTSA
Safety Study at 35. Biodiesel has lower carbon content than petroleum diesel and higher oxygen
content, which allows it to burn more completely. Most volumes of biodiesel also have lower sulfur
content than even ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD). As such, use of biodiesel also provides for reduced
-------
non-GHG emissions, including hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO),
and air toxics.3 See id. at 34. These "reductions increase as the amount of biodiesel blended into diesel
fuel increases." Id. A recent study of bus fleets found that use of B20 reduces PM emissions from buses
by 17 percent compared to ULSD. See Mineta National Transit Research Consortium, Combustion
Chemistry of Biodiesel for Use in Urban Transport Buses: Experiment and Modeling (Oct. 2014),
available at http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1146-biodiesel-bus-fuel-combustion-chemistry.pdf.
This study also confirmed that lower emissions of CO and C02 are related to lower ratios of carbon to
oxygen in biodiesel fuels compared to ULSD. Id. at 53. The improved lubricity with using biodiesel
may also mean less wear on engine parts and less maintenance. Moreover, the substantial emissions
reductions and other benefits associated with increased use of biodiesel are achieved cost-effectively.
The overall total cost of ownership for operating a diesel vehicle on biodiesel blends is less than
promoting new vehicles and fueling infrastructure to accommodate other alternative fuels such as
natural gas—a fossil fuel—and electric power—largely generated by fossil fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1240-A1 p.4-5]
2) Congress has Recognized the Importance of Biodiesel for Energy Independence [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1240-A1 p.5]
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) sought to move this country toward greater
energy independence and security and "to increase the production of clean renewable fuels." Pub. L.
No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (2007). EISA included the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which, among
other things, required a fuel economy standard for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles and work trucks and extended the flexible fuel credit program to include vehicles using B20.
Pub. L. No. 110-140, Title I, Subtitle A, §§ 102(b), 103(a)(4), 109(b), 121 Stat. 1500-1501, 1506. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.5]
EISA also expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. When first enacted, Congress
provided for "appropriate amount of credits for biodiesel" under the RFS program. Pub. L. No. 109-58,
§ 1501(a), 119 Stat. 1071 (2005). Congress then established "advanced biofuel" and "biomass-based
diesel" categories, which include biodiesel. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1
p.5]
Through EISA, therefore, Congress sought to promote the use of biodiesel, including increasing the
amount present in blends to at least B20. The RFS program indicates that Congress intended these
amounts to be even higher. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.5]
In fact, the biodiesel industry has epitomized the benefits envisioned by Congress in seeking to promote
use of biodiesel under these various programs. The growth and expansion of the U.S. biodiesel industry
in recent years represents a tremendous success story for fleets and individual consumers all across the
United States. Today, nearly 2 billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable diesel displace an equivalent
amount of petroleum diesel, helping to protect our domestic energy security while creating millions of
dollars in economic impact here in the United States. Biodiesel is produced in nearly every state in the
country and is supporting more than 62,000 American jobs. Using EPA's own estimates regarding GHG
emissions, biodiesel has cut carbon pollution by 75.5 million metric tons with nearly 8.2 billion gallons
used from 2005 to 2014—the same impact as removing more than 15.9 million passenger vehicles from
America's roadways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.5]
3) EPA's and NHTSA's Rules Should Support Increased Use of Biodiesel in Vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1240-A1 p.6]
-------
In the Phase 1 rule for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, which the agencies propose to continue under
the Phase 2 program, 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,158, the agencies purport to have implemented a uniform
approach to fuels, despite recognizing that "this uniform approach to fuels may not take advantage of
potential additional energy and national security benefits of increasing fleet percentages of alternative-
fueled vehicles." 77 Fed. Reg. 51,499, 51,502 (Aug. 24, 2012). "More alternative-fueled vehicles on the
road would arguably displace petroleum-fueled vehicles, and thereby increase both U.S. energy and
national security by reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil." Id.; see also 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106,
57,124-57,125 (Sept. 15, 2011). While treating fuel consumption and GHG emissions on a one-to-one
basis, the agencies also noted that they would consider proposing standards that would more fully
consider the reduction in use of petroleum-based fuels. 76 Fed. Reg. at 57,125. Indeed, EPA's credits
appear to incentivize continued fossil fuel use over renewable resources, focusing on natural gas and
electricity, which may be from coal-based power plants. Assuming a uniform approach may have made
sense for Phase 1, it no longer continues to make sense. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.6]
a) Biodiesel is a drop-in alternative fuel from renewable sources, and is technically and economically
feasible to use to reduce GHG emissions and increase energy security. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1240-A1 p.6]
Biodiesel is essentially a drop-in fuel to current technologies for diesel fuel. Blends up to B5 are
considered fungible with diesel fuel and do not require additional labeling. NHTSA has noted that
"[b]lends up to B20 can be used in existing equipment without modification." NHTSA Safety Study at
33. NHTSA further noted that "most engines made after 1994 have been constructed with gaskets and
seals that are generally biodiesel resistant." Id. at 36. NHTSA concluded: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1240-A1 p.6]
Biodiesel is a drop-in alternative fuel that can support MD/HDV progress toward GHG and criteria
pollutant reductions without major capital investment or infrastructure barriers. There is a minor
decrease in fuel efficiency due to the 8 percent lower energy density of biodiesel versus petroleum
diesel, but the magnitude of the emissions decrease is substantially larger. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1240-A1 p.6]
As for any bi-fueled vehicles, the potential for refueling with petroleum diesel reduces potential safety
risks associated with vehicle stranding due to fuel supply shortage or refueling infrastructure limitations.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.6]
In conclusion, the literature reviewed and DOE/AFDC resources indicate that biodiesel, as a viable
drop-in alternative fuel, has both safety and environmental benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-
A1 p.7]
Id. at 36 (emphasis added). While EPA and NHTSA contend that the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
and engine program provides sufficient incentive to use alternative fuels, it does not adequately explain
how the proposal promotes biodiesel use, which, as noted above, was contemplated by EISA and
provides feasible and economic GHG emission reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.7]
In 2011, the agencies contended that the fuel consumption measurements under the medium- and heavy-
duty vehicle and engine rule provide incentives for alternative fuels. 76 Fed. Reg. at 57,124. The
agencies assert this method shows a benefit of approximately 1 to 3 percent for biodiesel and ethanol
blends. Id.; see also EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles: EPA Response to Comments Document for Joint
Rulemaking, EPA-420-R-11-004, at 16-148 (Aug. 2011) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-3635)
-------
("Furthermore, the agencies believe that the fuel consumption benefits that FFVs will obtain in engine
test cycles accurately reflects their energy benefits and thus provides sufficient incentives for these
vehicles.")-4 While NBB agrees that biodiesel use provides greater GHG emissions reductions from the
tailpipe, this ignores the distinction between C02 emissions from renewable resources compared to
fossil fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1240-A1 p.7]
The regulations also appear to focus on natural gas, electricity, and E85 as alternative fuels, not vehicles
that are approved to use B20 or higher blends. Cf. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1036.801 (defining "alcohol-fueled
engine"), 1037.801 (defining "alcohol-fueled vehicle"). EPA's regulations also note that "[t]here can be
multiple grades within a single fuel type," referencing gasoline and E10. 40 C.F.R. § 1036.801; see also
40 C.F.R. § 1037.801. EPA recognizes that "[o]nly where the vehicle or engine technology inherently
demands a certain type of fuel do the standards account for that fuel use, by specifying the calculation
procedure used to determine tailpipe emissions." 77 Fed. Reg. at 51,705. Moreover, unlike the light-
duty rule, EPA does not require that the fuel actually be used, limiting the usefulness of the incentives
purportedly provided under the rule.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.7]
The agencies also indicated that they would not provide additional incentives similar to the light-duty
rule because "the HD sector does not have the incentives mandated in EISA for light-duty FFVs, and so
has not relied on the existence of such credits in devising compliance strategies for the early model
years of this program." 76 Fed. Reg. at 57,123. Again, the agencies focused on E85 and natural gas in
this discussion. Id. But, the agencies have ignored the reliance the biodiesel industry has made on
Congress' and this Administration's promises. The U.S. biodiesel industry has worked to address fuel
quality concerns, and has moved to increase production and diversify feedstocks. They continue to
innovate by reducing their energy consumption, while expanding their production capacity. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.7-8]
In addition, the vast majority of OEMs of medium- and heavy-duty engines have found that blends up to
B20 are compatible with their engines. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. manufacturers support B20 or higher
blends in at least some of their equipment, and nearly 90 percent of medium-duty and heavy-duty truck
models support B20. See NBB, Biodiesel Industry Overview & Technical Update, Slide 34 (Sept.
2015), available at http://biodiesel.org/docs/default-source/ffs-basics/biodiesel-industry-and-technical-
overview.pdf?sfvrsn=14; see also NBB, OEM Support (Jan. 2015), available at
http://biodiesel.org/docs/default-source/ffs-engine_manufacturers/oem-support-
summary.pdf?sfvrsn=16. But, without adequate incentives, these OEMs may limit the vehicles that are
approved for B20, despite the clear benefits as noted above. Moreover, there is little incentive to ensure
their future vehicles and engines will continue to be compatible with higher biodiesel blends.6 Indeed,
certain OEMs have been reluctant to list B20 as an approved fuel for use or have declined to consider
higher biodiesel blends as part of their engine and vehicle designs.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-
Alp.8]
EISA defined B20 as an alternative fuel eligible for flexible fuel vehicle credits under the CAFE
program. Vehicles approved to utilize B20 should receive credit, incentivizing the entire new fleet to be
approved for at least B20. Approval for higher biodiesel blends above B20 can receive increased credits.
Indeed, EISA requires thatNHTSA establish a program "designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement." 49 U.S.C. § 32902(k). Diesel engines also are increasingly being used in the light-duty
sector, and the agencies should consider similar means to further incentivize alternative fuel use in
passenger vehicles.8 To ensure the benefits of using biodiesel are realized, the agencies also can include
a requirement that biodiesel actually be used in the U.S. marketplace, as indicated by annual U.S.
biodiesel consumption figures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.8]
-------
b) Credits could include a multiplier that reflects the biodiesel blend content approved for use by the
OEM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827- 1240-A1 p.9]
We propose that credits for OEMs supporting the use of B20 or higher biodiesel blends should apply to
four of the five regulatory categories being guided by the proposed standards, namely: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1240-A1 p.9]
1. Combination Tractors;
2. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans;
3. Vocational Vehicles which include all other heavy-duty vehicles such as buses, refuse trucks, and
concrete mixers; and
4. Engines that power combination tractors and vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-
A1 p.9]
There is no perceived involvement for biodiesel credits in regards to the fifth category of regulated
vehicles under the proposed Phase 2 rule—Trailers Pulled by Combination Tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1240-A1 p.9]
Biodiesel is defined as meeting the ASTM International Standard D6751. Biodiesel blends up to B5 are
essentially ubiquitous with diesel fuel in the market today. B20 is an optimal level for biodiesel blend
acceptance by OEMs today as it provides a balance between vehicle performance, maintenance and
emissions reductions, and proven industry specifications. Providing additional credits for higher
biodiesel blends recognizes current use in niche market applications as well as helping to promote future
technological developments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.9]
These credits could be provided to OEMs which support the use of B20 or higher biodiesel blends as
publicly stated in their Owners Manuals or other official documentation. A multiplier such as the
MY2012-2015 light-duty incentive for dedicated alternative fueled vehicles and dual-fueled vehicles
could be applied, but based on the level of biodiesel blend approved for use.9 For example, for vehicles
that the OEM has indicated can be run on B20, one gallon of fuel would be treated as 0.80 gallon to
account for the 20 percent biodiesel.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.9]
c) EPA cannot rely on the RFS program to contend no additional incentives are necessary. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p. 10]
Although the agencies previously declined to provide certain credits for alternative fuels, they should
reassess this position. EPA limited the incentives for alternative fuels in the light-duty rule stating "[t]he
RFS is a standalone program designed to increase the use of renewable fuels and to achieve GHG
emission reductions primarily through upstream emission reductions." 77 Fed. Reg. at 62,823. In the
Phase 1 medium- and heavy-duty rule, EPA stated that "[f]or the fuels covered by the Renewable Fuels
Standard additional incentives are not needed in this regulation given the large volume increases
required under the Renewable Fuel Standard." 76 Fed. Reg. at 57,124. Since then, however, EPA has
proposed to reduce the statutory volumes and, moreover, to limit its proposed increases for biomass-
based diesel. See generally Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and
Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017, 80 Fed. Reg. 33,100 (June 10, 2015). In short, EPA is not fully
implementing the RFS program. NBB has opposed this proposal and requested EPA reassess the
advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel volumes.11 Even if EPA revises these volumes, however,
-------
these programs can and should work in conjunction with one another. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-
Alp.10]
Rather, EPA has cited to limitations on getting the fuel to consumers as rationale for reducing the
statutory volumes under the RFS program.12 See generally 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,101. EPA's proposal
focused on the so-called "E10 blendwall," noting that there were insufficient numbers of FFVs and "an
even smaller number of FFVs that have ready access to an E85 retail outlet." Id. at 33,114. Unlike
ethanol, any blend of biodiesel is authorized for use in motor vehicles. Nonetheless, EPA also references
B2/B5 blends in its RFS proposal, noting the "efforts" underway to continue to expand product
offerings. Id. at 33,116. To avoid similar purported "constraints" or "limitations" in the future, EPA
should reward those in the industry that are moving forward with respect to higher biodiesel blends as
intended by Congress, rather than resort to its limited authority under the RFS waiver provisions as it is
attempting to do with ethanol today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p. 10]
Although the CAFE program had a special provision for light-duty vehicles, the agencies have indicated
that this does not limit their authority. See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. at 62,831. NBB agrees. Thus, EPA and
NHTSA should consider additional means of supporting those OEMs that have approved B20 and
providing incentives for use of higher blends. As noted above, one possible alternative is to give OEMs
approving B20 or higher blends some credit for the benefits associated with the reduced GHG emissions
and greater energy security benefits. To the extent EPA continues to believe, notwithstanding its current
proposal for the 2014-2016 RFS and 2017 biomass-based diesel volume, the RFS provides adequate
incentives, EPA can include requirements to establish that the fuel is being used (similar to its approach
for MY2016 and later light-duty vehicles) and adjust the required volumes (and thereby available
credits) to apply only to those above the minimum amounts required by the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1240-A1 p. 10-11]
NBB appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. We believe that EISA and this
Administration's policy requires promotion of increased use of biodiesel to help meet the goals of the
GHG and Fuel Efficiency Standards, and we look forward to working with both EPA and NHTSA on
this important issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1240-A1 p.12]
Organization: Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems
Although the two agencies have approved POP Diesel's retrofitting of select diesel engines to run on
100 percent jatropha plant oil based on POP Diesel's evidence that such engines and renewable fuel do
not produce higher criteria emissions than baseline petroleum diesel, the Truck Rule 2 automatically
disqualifies a new diesel engine that is equipped to run on 100 percent plant oil from ever winning
certification compliance running on such fuel, a requisite for sale of such a new engine to the U.S.
market. The reason is two-fold. First, the two agencies measure both fuel consumption (as an incorrect
proxy for fuel efficiency) and GHG emissions by tailpipe carbon emissions. Second, the presence of
oxygen atoms in the plant hydrocarbon molecule, as depicted in the vegetable oil molecule in Exhibit 2
[exhibit 2 can be found on p. 18 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1], that are absent
from petroleum hydrocarbon oil give plant oil lower energy content than petroleum diesel and therefore
cause a compression ignition (diesel) engine running on ordinary plant oil to consume more of this fuel
by mass or volume and produce more carbon emissions from the tailpipe than if the engine were
running on baseline petroleum diesel fuel. However, as set forth in the attached declaration of Dr. Paul
T. Henderson, a diesel engine will consume the same amount of energy per unit of work performed,
whether running on 100 percent plant oil or petroleum diesel fuel. Exhibit 3 [exhibit 3 can be found on
p.20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A 1 ]. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.5]
-------
In addition, plant oil fuel running in such an engine has net, life cycle greenhouse gas emissions that are
far lower than baseline petroleum and such alternative fuels processed from plant oil as biodiesel and
so-called 'renewable diesel' (hydro-processed esters and fatty acids, or HEFA's). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1125-A1 p.5]
In the alternative that the agencies do not adopt the remedy proposed in section 3 above, POP Diesel
seeks a waiver or 15 percent variance from the measurements of fuel consumption and tailpipe GHG
emissions under the proposed Standards for a new, plant oil-enabled compression ignition engine for the
time period of any test protocol under which the engine is operating on plant oil fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1125-A1 p.5-6]
D. A Waiver or 15% Variance Is Required If Plant Oil Powered Truck Engines Are to Win
Certification, If the Proposed Truck Rule 2 Remains Unchanged
If the two agencies do not revamp the Truck Rule 2 according to the foregoing comments, then POP
Diesel appeals to them to adopt a waiver from emissions testing for an engine equipped with a dual tank
fuel system and running on 100% jatropha plant oil, or a permissible variance of 15% for the portion of
any certification test protocol on which an engine equipped with a dual tank fuel system operates on
100% jatropha plant oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 13]
There is sufficient evidence submitted with these comments, based on the arguments presented herein,
for the two agencies to issue a rule granting a simple waiver from the GHG Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for an engine specially equipped to run on 100% jatropha plant oil to run on such
fuel. The engine would still have to pass these Standards and be certified to run on No. 2 petroleum-
based diesel fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 13]
In the alternative, a variance of 15% from the fuel consumption emissions levels permitted under the
GHG Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards is warranted for that time portion of a certification test
protocol that a new engine specially equipped to run on 100% jatropha plant oil runs on such fuel.8 A
variance of 15% is justified on the following grounds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p. 13]
As is set forth in Exhibit 11 [exhibit 11 can be found on p. 106 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1125-A1], which is a Final Report from West Virginia University's Center for Alternative Fuels,
Engines & Emissions comparing stationary point dynamometer emissions testing of a diesel engine
running on 100% No. 2 diesel and 100% jatropha plant oil, the overall conclusion, reported in the Final
Report in Table 22 on page 395, was that across five of six modes of engine operation, as measured by
the Tailpipe Rule, fuel consumption of 100 percent plant oil was a total of around 18 percent more than
of petroleum diesel while the engine was performing the same amount of work. Similarly, as reported in
the Draft Final Report, Exhibit 12 [exhibit 12 can be found on p. 108 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1125-A1], the comparison of carbon dioxide (C02) readings from baseline testing on
petroleum diesel, appearing on page 294 of the Draft Final Report, are significantly lower than the C02
results for the same engine with POP Diesel's Fuel System activated and running on 100 percent
jatropha plant oil, appearing on the very next page, page 295 of the Draft Final Report, for each and
every of the six engine modes of operation (engine speed and torque settings) tested. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1125-A1 p.13-14]
POP Diesel believes that, if the two agencies adopt a variance for its engines as proposed above, the
variance should be on the order of 15%. As stated above, stationary point testing showed that fuel
consumption was around 18% higher for the engine running on 100% jatropha plant oil as when it was
running on No. 2 diesel. Jatropha plant hydrocarbon oil requires an engine to consume more fuel per
-------
unit of work performed because it has 10% lower energy content than petroleum diesel (due, as stated
above, to the presence of oxygen atoms that are absent from petroleum hydrocarbon). Evidence for this
10% difference in energy content appears on the face of the very last page of the Final Emissions
Report, Exhibit 11, stating that the BTU content for 100% jatropha plant oil is 116,613 BTU's per
gallon. This compares with energy content of petroleum diesel, on average, of 10% more, 129,240
BTU's per gallon (the point at which most diesel engines equipped to run on No. 2 petroleum-based
diesel are calibrated), as stated in course materials from ASTM International's Petroleum Products
Committee, which are Exhibit 13 [exhibit 13 can be found on p. 14 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1125-A1], The presence ion jatropha plant oil of oxygen atoms lending lower energy
content, compelling the diesel engine to command more fuel consumption, and producing greater
tailpipe carbon emissions will produce variable results in fuel consumed and carbon emitted from the
tailpipe, according to engine load and torque and other operating conditions. Therefore, since POP
Diesel is proposing that this variance only apply to the portion of the test protocol on which the engine
is supplied by 100% jatropha plant oil, some leeway is required. POP Diesel proposes that a 15%
variance should be sufficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1 p.14]
[The following comments are from a supplemental comment with a correction to the original comments
in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1125-A1]
I write on behalf of the above-named corporation, which goes by the short name POP Diesel, to make
one correction and amplify one point for your consideration in addition to the comments submitted on
September 11, 2015 ("Comments"). These supplemental and amended comments give details on and
concern matters that your two agencies have not heretofore considered. Because of the novelty and
profundity of its Comments, POP Diesel had been unable to formulate these details by the deadline of
its September 11 submission. Therefore, I respectfully request that the agencies give this statement full
consideration at this time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1467-A2 p.l]
The correction is to the amount stated in Part III, Section (D) of the Comments as the variance that POP
Diesel requests as an alternative solution to your two agencies' either (i) revising the Standards to
accord fully with measuring fuel efficiency by the amount of energy input to the engine per unit of work
performed and greenhouse gas emissions by net life cycle emissions or (ii) adopting a waiver from these
Standards for truck engines equipped to run on 100 percent jatropha plant oil while they are running on
this fuel. The Comments, at page 13, suggested that a variance from the Standards "on the order of' 15
percent would suffice. However, POP Diesel's call for a 15 percent variance was in error. POP Diesel
hereby amends its Comments to request a 20 percent variance, for the following reason. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1467-A2 p. 1-2]
The data submitted in Exhibits 11 and 12 to the Comments are that a diesel engine running on 100
percent jatropha plant oil generates approximately 18 percent more fuel consumption and tailpipe
carbon emissions, versus when the engine operates on petroleum diesel fuel. Other than POP Diesel's
mistaken request for a 15 percent variance, there is no reason for the two agencies to hold a POP Diesel-
equipped engine to a variance of 15 percent that, from the start, establishes odds against this engine's
being certified, which is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence submitted. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1467-A2 p.2]
Therefore, POP Diesel requests a variance, if the agencies' consideration of its Comments lead them to
adopt a variance, of at least 20 percent. The 18 percent variation evident in Exhibits 11 and 12 is an
approximate average. Tailpipe plant oil carbon emissions results involving some models of diesel
engine may be much higher than the 18 percent average. Therefore, a 20 percent variance is reasonable,
and anything less than 18 percent is unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1467-A2 p.2]
-------
SA POP Diesel-equipped engine starts and shuts down on No. 2 petroleum-based diesel fuel, but runs on
100% jatropha plant oil in the interim. The portion of a test protocol on which the engine operates on
No. 2 petroleum-diesel versus 100% jatropha plant oil will depend on the test protocol and the fuel
mapping programmed into the engine's power control module.
Organization: Volvo Group
No Provision for Lower Carbon Fuels
Although EPA is charged with administering the federal Renewable Fuels Program, this NPRM makes
no provision to provide credits for vehicles that are developed to run on lower carbon alternative fuels.
While it is not clear what fuels may become available during the next 15 years, it is clear that the
proposal creates a disincentive to develop vehicles to utilize such fuels unless they provide lower
tailpipe GHG emissions, regardless of the well-to-wheel life cycle emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1290-A1 p.32]
Response:
We provide credit for renewable fuels under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) programWe thank the
commenters for the information provided on the use of renewable biofoels in heavy-duty vehicles;
however, these comments are germane to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) program, which
appropriately addresses renewable fuels. Biofuels that are demonstrated to meet specified GHG
emission reductions on a lifecycle basis, and which meet all other requirements including the definition
of renewable biomass, have an opportunity to generate RINs under the RFS program after approval by
EPA. With respect to comments from POP Diesel, manufacturers can request certification of an
alternative fuel vehicle running on POP Diesel under 40 CFR 1065.701(c).
15.10.4 Comments Related to the 2007/2010 Criteria Pollutant Standards
Organization: Corwin, Michael
I currently work for a small trucking company that has 26 trucks running the US & Canada. We
currently have 3 of our trucks down due to major DPF issues, and this has been pretty constant for the
last 1.5-2 yrs, so what worries me is we are contemplating more regulations before we even figure out
what is wrong with the currently mandated technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0730-A1 p.l]
Organization: Competitive Enterprise Institute et al.
Small and midsize trucking companies are finding they are ill-equipped to adapt [to the new
regulations]. Hundreds of these firms, with an average fleet size of about a dozen vehicles, have gone
out of business in the past two years, according to Avondale Partners LLC. Others have sold out to
larger competitors, which are more likely to have cash reserves or access to financing to weather
changes in the industry.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.3]
A chart from the article shows how the cost of new trucks has increased since 2009: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0827-1251-A2 p.3]
[Chart can be found on p.3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
-------
A study prepared for American Truck Dealers (a division of the National Automobile Dealers
Association) finds that EPA emission standards adopted in 1997, 2000, and 2001, which phased in
between 2004 and 2010, increased the inflation-adjusted cost of new semis by more than $21,000. For
each phase of the regulations, the study compares the actual costs with the costs projected in EPA's
regulatory impact analyses. Cumulative actual costs were more than four times bigger than EPA's
estimate.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.4]
[Figure 7, 'Cumulative Surcharges for Heavy Heavy-Duty Trucks', can be found on p.4 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2]
From January 2000 to January 2015, the CPI increased by roughly 38% while small owner-operator net
income increased by 11%. The typical independent owner-operator incurred a loss of $11,260 in
purchasing power.6 Thus, small truckers have been losing ground under existing regulatory burdens.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.4]
We urge the agencies to proceed with special consideration for the rule's impacts on small trucking
companies. The agencies claim the rule's fuel savings will more than offset the higher cost of compliant
vehicles. However, even if realized, the projected fuel savings will be of no benefit to firms that go out
of business because they can't afford to buy compliant trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.4]
The agencies also show no awareness of the comparatively greater risks small truckers incur from
regulation-induced maintenance problems. A large firm with hundreds of vehicles will not lose business
when a mandated new technology malfunctions and one or more trucks must be sent to the shop for
repairs. But in small firms, such unanticipated downtime can cut weekly income and damage
reputations. Consider the experience of owner-operator Tilden Curl, who testified at an EPA/NHTSA
listening session in Olympia, Washington: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.4-5]
Curl detailed his truck ownership and fuel economy starting with a 1995 Peterbilt he bought for
$65,000. After 10 years with the truck, Curl had invested just less than $95,000 in maintenance and
repairs, including a rebuild and transmission. The last year he owned the truck he averaged 6.58 mpg.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.5]
In October 2008, Curl purchased a new aerodynamic, emission-compliant 2009 Kenworth for $140,000.
In seven years of ownership, Curl drove the truck more than 752,000 miles and had $105,000 in
maintenance and repairs. He suffered significant downtime that hurt his income and reputation as a
reliable carrier, he told the panel. And, in the end, the truck was only able to achieve 6.15 mpg. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.5]
Finally giving up on the '09 truck, Curl bit the bullet and bought a 2016 Kenworth earlier this year for
$167,000. He had originally planned to pay off the 2009 Kenworth and sock away what was the truck
payment toward his retirement, he told the panel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.5]
"As I see it, these regulations, and a rush to push technology beyond tested capabilities, have cost me
my retirement. There is no mechanism in place to compensate small-business truckers for the costs of
these mandates," he said. "We cannot afford for this to happen again."7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-
1251-A2 p.5]
Nowhere in the proposal do the agencies acknowledge EPA's penchant for low-balling regulatory costs,
the precarious economics of small-business trucking, and the existential risks small truckers face when
technology mandates impair vehicle reliability. We have been told that EPA consulted OOIDA to
-------
address small trucker concerns. However, to all appearances, the rule is a bull in a china shop. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.5]
The proposed rule is silent about the potential impacts of new GHG and fuel economy standards on
small trucking firms. History suggests the standards will increase equipment costs, operating expenses,
and engine malfunctions by more than the agencies anticipate. The rule evinces no awareness that small
firms already struggle to cope with existing regulations, and that additional regulatory burdens may
drive many small owner-operators out of business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1251-A2 p.24]
5 Patrick Calpin and Esteban Plaza-Jennings, A Look Back at EPA's Cost and Other Impact Projections
for MY 2004-2010 Heavy Duty Truck Emission Standards, American Truck Dealers, February 2012, p.
12, http://www.nadafrontpage.com/upload/wysiwyg/NADA-
ATDA%20Look%20Back%20at%20EPA%E2%80%99s%20Cost%20and%20other%20Impact%20Proj
ections%20for%20MY%202004-2010%20Heavy-Duty%20Truck%20Emissions%20Standards.pdf
(hereafter Calpin and Plaza-Jennings)
6 Personal communication from OOIDA regulatory affairs director Scott Grenerth to Mario Lewis,
September 28, 2015
7 Jami Jones, "OOIDA members deliver dose of reality to EPA, NHTSA," Land Line, August 18, 2015,
http://m.landlinemag. com/Story. aspx?StoryID=29618# .VgqwVItOVZR
Organization: Curl, Tilden
[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Long Beach, California public hearing on
August 18,2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1420, p. 186.]
Small business truckers that purchase this equipment to start up will be challenged to exist if this
regulation proceeds without a reality check. The agencies are seemingly using facts they prefer, with
little regard for the actual burdens it places on small business operations.
Organization: Schneider National Inc.
In the past, the costs of compliance have been underestimated and the benefits overstated. By way of
illustration, since 2002, tractor cost increases directly attributed to emission regulations have increased
the cost of a semi-tractor by 30% while increasing fuel consumption by 5% from 2003-2010. EPA
estimates did not recognize the fuel consumption increase and the cost estimates were a small fraction of
the actual costs incurred. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1201-A1 p.3]
Response:
These comments appear to be with respect to EPA's 2004/2007/2010 criteria pollutant standards and
therefore are not germane to this rulemaking. We strongly disagree with claims that the rule does not
consider the potential impacts of new GHG and fuel economy standards on small business, and we refer
the commenter to Chapter 12 of the RIA which includes the agencies' analysis of the impacts of the
standards on small entities and to Section 15.4 of this RTC.
The agencies have also devoted considerable attention to the issue of technology reliability. See, e.g.
RIA chapter 2.3.9. Indeed, this is a primary reason the agencies are not adopting standards reflecting
-------
Alternative 4. For each standard, the agencies have explained why there is adequate lead time not only
to develop and deploy control technology, but also to assure its reliability.
15.10.5 Trailer Clearance/Identification Lamps 2123
Organization: STEMCO
• STEMCO requests a written confirmation from NHTSA allowing the placement of rear
identification and clearance lamps on the lower frame rail of long van trailers. This facilitates an
additional 0.14 delta CdA aerodynamic improvement from boat tails at no additional cost or
complexity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.2]
NHTSA written support of optimized boat tails in relation to "49 CFR 393.11 Lamps and reflective
devices"
As part of the final regulation, STEMCO requests that NHTSA include a clear written guidance
confirming that trailer manufacturers may locate both the rear identification and clearance lamps on the
lower frame rail for all box trailers, such that the entire rear lighting package may be located at the
lower regulatory location (see Figure 1 in the Appendix for illustration). These lower clearance and
identification lamp locations will pave the way for both higher-efficiency boat tails for swing door box
trailers and the 2016 commercial launch of boat tails for roll door box trailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0827-1259-A1 p.3]
To date, STEMCO has sold TrailerTails® into both the new trailer and retrofit markets without requiring
that any modifications be made to the trailer design itself. This has forced the top panels of
TrailerTails® to be inset 2-3" below the roof of the trailer (Figure 2) to satisfy the DOT visibility
requirements of the rear identification and clearance lamps installed along the rear header of the trailer
[23 CFR 658.16(b) (4)]. This inset creates an un-aerodynamic gap as airflow transitions from the trailer
roof onto the TrailerTail® panels and has prevented TrailerTails® from delivering maximum
environmental benefit. Wind tunnel flow visualization1 highlights the contrast in airflow between flush
and inset panels and our own internal testing estimates an additional 0.14 delta CDA (measured drag
area) gain2 can be achieved simply by installing a TrailerTail® flush with the trailer roof. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.4]
We believe that no modification is needed to 49 CFR 393.11 because these lower mounting locations
for rear identification and clearance lamps already satisfy the "as high as practicable" definition.
Additionally, flat bed and container chassis trailers currently use these lower mounting locations as their
standard (see Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix). However, a written confirmation letter from NHTSA to
all trailer manufacturers would eliminate any confusion due to the subjective "as high as practicable"
verbiage. This NHTSA confirmation letter would also eliminate uncertainty for highway patrol officers
during trailer inspections in the same way that FHWA's 2008 letter to ATDynamics (now STEMCO)
regarding the TrailerTail's® length exclusion was used by early adopting TrailerTail® fleets as a
valuable education tool at weigh stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1259-A1 p.4]
1 Kehs, J., Visser, K., Grossmann, J., Niemiec, J. et al., "A Comparison of Full Scale Aft Cavity Drag
Reduction Concepts With Equivalent Wind Tunnel Test Results," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 6(2):2013,
doi: 10.4271/2013-01-2429.
-------
2 Assumptions & Calculations:
1) Current TrailerTail® (with top panel inset) is verified as 5% fuel savings device by EPA SmartWay
2) Table IV-9 correlates 5% fuel savings to 0.7 delta CDA
3) Internal STEMCO aerodynamic testing has shown that a TrailerTail® mounted flush to the trailer
roof achieves 20% higher aerodynamic gains than a TrailerTail® that is inset below the identification
and clearance lamps on the rear header
4) 0.7 delta CDA X 20% = 0.14 delta CDA additional gain when a TrailerTail® is mounted flush to the
trailer roof
Response:
This comment is out of the scope of this rulemaking. However, this commenter and others who are
interested in reading or seeking interpretations of NHTSA regulations are encouraged to visit
http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/. On that website, users will find instructions on how to search for
interpretations, how to use letters of interpretation, and how to submit requests for interpretation.
15.10.6 Nonroad Engine Credits
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On a separate but related topic, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA and NHTSA adopt provisions
to set a reasonable timeframe for the compulsory expiration of Tier 4 non-road compression ignition
emission credits, and codify the terms for expiration in 40 CFR 1039.740. California is a participant in
the federal ABT program and is therefore dependent on U.S. EPA and NHTSA for action regarding this
request. Our concern is the delay in the full implementation of engines in California equipped with
advanced exhaust aftertreatment controls for both PM and NOx. More manufacturers than anticipated
are certifying off-road compression ignition engine families in California to Tier 4 final standards
without simultaneously employing both PM and NOx aftertreatment devices, and this is due in part, we
believe, to manufacturers' use of banked emission credits. We recognize that other factors may
contribute to this situation as well, but addressing the expiration of emission credits would help
California to more quickly achieve its much needed PM and NOx emission reduction goals. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0827-1265-A1 p. 128]
Response:
EPA did not propose such restrictions and considers them to be outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
However, we are willing to work with CARB and other interested stakeholders in this area.
15.10.7 Black Carbon Emissions
Organization: Advanced Engine System Institute (AESI)
Finally, though the agencies' proposal does not seek to place limits on black carbon emissions from
medium- or heavy-duty vehicles or engines, it is worth noting that the global warming potential of this
pollutant is very significant, particularly in the short term. According to EPA's 2012 report to Congress
-------
on black carbon, the pollutant's 20-year global warming potential could be around 4,470 times that of
carbon dioxide. While existing EPA vehicle regulations are on track over the next two decades to
gradually reduce particulate matter pollution, a sizable fraction of which is black carbon, EPA could
shrink heavy-duty vehicles' and engines' carbon footprint almost immediately and very cost effectively
by application of high-efficiency diesel particulate filters that eliminate 99.9% of black carbon
emissions. The Agency may want to consider incentives in the final rule for the rapid installation of
such filters on vehicles/engines not already required to have them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1152-
Alp.3]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Control of Black Carbon with Particulate Filters
Black carbon is a major component of particulate matter emissions from mobile sources and is believed
to have a significant net atmospheric warming effect by enhancing the absorption of sunlight. Black
carbon is a mix of elemental and organic carbon, in the form of soot, emitted by fossil fuel combustion,
bio-mass burning, and bio-fuel cooking. Black carbon is a dominant absorber of visible solar radiation
in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon are transported over long distances and are
most concentrated in the tropics where solar irradiance is highest. Because of the combination of high
absorption, a regional distribution roughly aligned with solar irradiance, and the capacity to form
widespread atmospheric brown clouds in a mixture with other aerosols, emissions of black carbon are
thought to be the second strongest contribution to current climate change, after C02 emissions. The
glacier retreat has accelerated since the 1970s and several scientists have speculated that solar heating
by soot in atmospheric brown clouds and deposition of dark soot over bright snow surfaces may be an
important contributing factor for the acceleration of glacier retreat. A study published in a 2009 issue
of Nature Geoscience (vol. 2, 2009) by researchers from the NASA Goddard Institute and Columbia
University found that black carbon is responsible for 50% of the total Arctic warming observed from
1890 to 2007 (most of the observed Arctic warming over this timeframe occurred from 1976 to 2007).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 10]
It is estimated that 70% of the black carbon emissions from mobile sources are from diesel-fueled
vehicles, with the assumption that 40% of gasoline PM is black carbon and 60% of diesel PM is black
carbon. The black carbon concentration and its global heating will decrease almost immediately after
reduction of its emission. Black carbon from diesel vehicles can be significantly reduced through
emission control technology that has been required on every U.S. heavy-duty diesel truck manufactured
since 2007. The basis for the design of wall-flow particulate filters is a ceramic honeycomb structure
with alternate channels plugged at opposite ends. As the gases pass into the open end of a channel, the
plug at the opposite end forces the gases through the porous wall of the honeycomb channel and out
through the neighboring channel. The porous wall and the filter cake of particulate matter that forms
within and on the surface of the wall serve as the filter media for particulates. Since the filter can fill up
over time by developing a layer of retained particles on the inside surface of the porous wall, the
accumulated particles must be burned off or removed to regenerate the filter. This regeneration process
can be accomplished with a variety of methods including both active strategies that rely on generating
external sources of heat (e.g., fuel burners, fuel dosing strategies that utilize fuel combustion over a
catalyst, electrical elements, intake air throttling) and passive strategies that utilize catalysts that are
displayed directly on the filter element or upstream of the filter. During the regeneration of DPFs,
captured carbon is oxidized to C02 but this filter regeneration still results in a net climate change
benefit since the global warming potential of black carbon has been estimated to be as high as 2,200
times higher than that of C02 on a per gram of emission basis. It is estimated that the installation of
DPFs has reduced PM emissions from U.S. heavy-duty diesel vehicles by 110,000 tons per year. The
-------
ACES Phase 2 study that evaluated the PM emissions from 2010 technology heavy-duty engines
showed that DPF equipped engines emit PM at one to two orders of magnitude below the current
standard of 0.01 g/bhp-hr and deliver over 99% PM capture efficiency over their lifetime. MECA
encourages EPA to develop policies and/or incentives that reward vehicle and engine manufacturers for
employing technologies such as particulate filters that provide significant reductions in mobile source
black carbon emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p.10-11]
Diesel particulate filters are extremely effective at removing black carbon emissions from diesel
engines. Effective climate change policies should include programs and incentives aimed at reducing
black carbon emissions from unfiltered new off-road engines and existing diesel engines through
effective retrofit programs that implement filters on the full range of in-use diesel engines operating in
the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1210-A3 p. 14]
Response:
In this rulemaking, the agencies are addressing reduction of GHG emissions from new heavy-duty
vehicles starting in the MY 2021 time frame. These vehicles utilize engines that are already regulated to
very low particulate matter levels, of which black carbon is a component. The agencies appreciate the
comment on retrofit initiatives to further reduce black carbon and particulate matter from the existing
(pre-2007) fleet, however we do not intend to address retrofitting of diesel particulate filters to these
engines in this rulemaking, as fleet changeover already has, and will continue to remove non-DPF
equipped vehicles from the in-use fleet.
The agencies appreciate the comment on reduction of black carbon and particulate matter from nonroad
fleet by further reducing standards to a level that would force the use of diesel particulate filters,
however we are not addressing GHG, black carbon, or particulate matter emissions from these nonroad
engines in this rulemaking action. It is worth noting, however, that we are finalizing provisions that will
achieve reductions in PM emissions from tractor APUs and from glider vehicles.
15.10.8 Defeat Devices
Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
The Center requests that the EPA address the potential for "defeat devices" to be used during engine
testing, such as those recently discovered connection with several models of Volkswagen passenger
vehicles.31 Software algorithms appear to have been used to engage certain NOx controls only during
testing conditions, not during normal driving. The Center requests that EPA delineate what preventative
measures will be implemented to strengthen its testing protocol and detect any defeat devices. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1460-A1 p.8]
31 US EPA, Notice of Violation to Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and Volkswagen Group of
America, http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf.
Organization: Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)
The final rule should stress the importance of operator compliance and deter the disabling of vehicle
pollution controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1142-A2 p.l]
-------
Response:
EPA is requiring that NOx emission be measured for all testing to measure GHG emissions to verify
that NOx and GHGs are both being controlled. In addition, we plan to continue our efforts to find
appropriate ways to enhance our compliance program and will likely consider such enhancements in any
future NOx rules.
Organization: FedEx Corporation
In addition to the provisions of the proposal referenced above, FedEx is also advocating for new
efficiencies in Less-than-Truckload (LTL) freight movement by extending the length of twin 28-foot
trailers to 33 feet. This would enable approximately 18 percent more freight to be hauled on the same
trip, improving road safety and reducing emissions by significantly reducing the number of trucks on the
road. Just five more feet in for these twin trailers would: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.4]
• Prevent 912 accidents per year [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.4]
• Reduce congestion by 6.6 million truck trips per year [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.5]
• Reduce truck traffic by 1.3 billion miles per year [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1 p.5]
• Reduce carbon emissions by 4.4 billion pounds per year [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1302-A1
p.5]
Response:
This issue is not within the scope of this rulemaking.
-------